The mathematical representation of the universe consists of sequences of symbols, rules and operators containing Gödel's undecidable propositions: information and its manipulation, also with Turing Machines. Classical information theory and mathematics, ideally independent from the medium used, can be interpreted realistically and objectively from their correspondence with quantum information, which is physical. Each representation of the universe and its evolution are, in any case, physical subsets of the universe, structured sets of observers and their complements in the universe made with spacetime events generated by local quantum measurements. Their description becomes a semantically closed structure without a global object-environment loss of decoherence as a von Neumann's universal constructor with a semantical abstract whose structure cannot be decided deterministically a priori from an internal observer. In a semantically closed structure, the realization of a specific event that writes the semantical abstract of the constructor is a problem of finding "which way" for the evolution of the universe as a choice of the constructor's state in a metastructure, like the many-world Everett scenario, from a specific result of any quantum measurement, corresponding to a Gödel undecidable proposition for an internal observer.
The mathematical representation of the universe consists of sequences of symbols, rules and operators containing Gödel's undecidable propositions: information and its manipulation, also with Turing Machines. Classical information theory and mathematics, ideally independent from the medium used, can be interpreted realistically and objectively from their correspondence with quantum information, which is physical. Each representation of the universe and its evolution are, in any case, physical subsets of the universe, structured sets of observers and their complements in the universe made with spacetime events generated by local quantum measurements. Their description becomes a semantically closed structure without a global object-environment loss of decoherence as a von Neumann's universal constructor with a semantical abstract whose structure cannot be decided deterministically a priori from an internal observer. In a semantically closed structure, the realization of a specific event that writes the semantical abstract of the constructor is a problem of finding "which way" for the evolution of the universe as a choice of the constructor's state in a metastructure, like the many-world Everett scenario, from a specific result of any quantum measurement, corresponding to a Gödel undecidable proposition for an internal observer.
Few, if any, issues in physics have engendered as much discussion as the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. It is generally agreed that the `normal' dynamical evolution of the state vector in quantum mechanics is given by a unitary map. The linearity of this map implies that the state vector will, in general, be found in a superposition of eigenstates of a given observable (or, similarly, that the density matrix describing a subsystem will not correspond to a definite value of this observable). However, when we make a measurement of an observable, we always obtain a define value—although it is impossible to predict with certainty which value will be obtained. The traditional response to this issue is to postulate that when a measurement is made, the wavefunction `collapses' to an eigenstate of the observable being measured, perhaps due to the inherent classicality of the measuring apparatus (Bohr), or to the consciousness of the observer (Wigner), or possibly to some modification of quantum dynamics that occurs even when observations are not being made. The main motivation for the Everett (`many worlds') interpretation is to avoid introducing any such collapse postulate. This volume commemorates the 50th anniversary of the publication of Everett's paper in 1957 and contains 20 original articles as well as the transcripts of several discussions that took place at meetings devoted to the Everett interpretation at Oxford University and the Perimeter Institute. The attractiveness of the Everett interpretation is very succinctly summarized by a sentence from Vaidman's contribution (p 582): `The collapse, with its randomness, non-locality and the lack of a well-defined moment of occurrence, is such an ugly scar on quantum theory, that I, along with many others, am ready to follow Everett and deny its existence.' But the main drawback of the interpretation is then equally succinctly stated in the next sentence: `The price is the many worlds interpretation, i.e., the existence of numerous parallel worlds.' In other words, if the state vector evolves to have a non-zero amplitude for two different values of an observable that I `measure' (i.e., interact with in an appropriate way), each of these alternatives remains equally `real', i.e., there is a `branch' of the wavefunction in which the observable takes the first value and I believe that it has this first value and a branch of the wavefunction where it takes the second value and I believe that it has this second value. Each of these `me's' sees a definite value for the observable, thus nicely accounting for what I believe I experience without invoking collapse. But then, it seems that I have to believe that there are many other `me's' around—even if they are very difficult for this particular me to access—and no way I can predict which `me' I will be in the future. Indeed, Saunders writes on p 192, `If Alice is a person (of course she is) then we must say, even prior to branching at tj that there are many Alices present, atom for atom duplicates...Alice should be uncertain after all— each Alice should be uncertain—for each as of tj does not (and as a matter of principle, cannot) know which of these branching persons she is.' Thus, if taken seriously, the Everett viewpoint leads directly to questions like `What determines which ``me'' I am now and/or will feel that I am in the future?' The response `You are all of them' somehow doesn't seem satisfying, and further pursuit of these issues would seem to lead to questions as fruitless as questions like `Why am I ``me'' and not ``you''?' I believe that this accounts for why the Everett interpretation does not have universal appeal. But enough of `me' for now (more later); let's discuss the book. Unlike many edited volumes and conference proceedings in physics—which often consist of hastily slapped-together re-hashes of previous papers—this volume meets very high standards in the choice of topics and authors and in the quality of the writing. Although each of the articles is closely tied in with the Everett interpretation, there are many articles of considerable value and interest in their own right, such as the discussion of quasiclassical realms by Hartle and and the discussion of the de Broglie–Bohm interpretation by Valentini. There is also an excellent introduction by Saunders to the quantum measurement problem and the main issues that arise in the Everett interpretation. A central issue in the Everett interpretation is the status of the `Born rule', which asserts that, for state ψ, the probability of obtaining a particular outcome of a measurement is ||Pψ||2, where P is the projection operator onto the eigensubspace associated with the measurement outcome. In traditional interpretations, the Born rule is simply postulated as part of the collapse hypothesis. In the Everett interpretation, it is far from obvious that the Born rule even has any meaning—if all outcomes occur, how can one talk about the probability of a particular outcome? Given the importance of this issue, it is highly appropriate that four chapters of the book (by Saunders, Papineau, Wallace, and Greaves and Myrvold) are devoted to addressing probability and the Born rule from the Everett viewpoint, and three chapters (by Kent, Albert, and Price) are devoted to criticising these views. As indicated by the above quote from Saunders' article, uncertainty and probability can enter the Everett interpretation via each Alice being uncertain as to which Alice she is or will be. However, in view of the difficulties to which this kind of argumentation will lead, it is perhaps not surprising that in the 123 pages of combined discussion by Saunders, Papineau, Wallace, and Greaves and Myrvold, there are only fleeting references to the use of probability along these lines. Rather, the approach taken is reminiscent of that of adept politicians: if you can't answer a question, then answer a different question, and answer it with conviction and detail. Instead of considering probabilities of outcomes—a highly problematical notion when all of the possible outcomes actually occur—consider only decision theory issues. In particular, Wallace gives a precise and detailed mathematical proof that, under certain hypotheses, the only rational strategy that a quantum observer can follow in making decisions is to weight the possible outcomes by Born rule probabilities. To illustrate this more graphically, suppose tomorrow's weather were determined by some quantum mechanical, Stern–Gerlach-like process. I would like to know whether it is likely to rain tomorrow. However, when I ask an Everett follower (who knows the state vector and has done the Born rule calculation), all she will tell me in direct response to my question is that `it will rain and it won't rain.' Nevertheless, she is willing tell me whether or not it is rational for me to take an umbrella. I suppose that if she tells me that it would be highly irrational for me to take an umbrella, I can take the hint and deduce that it is very unlikely to rain. However, there does seem something wrong with the fact that she is not allowed to say this directly. In any case, if the conclusion of a mathematically correct argument is that rational decision strategies require the Born rule, then there must be quite a bit lying in the assumptions. The articles by Kent, Albert, and Price do a good job of fleshing out these assumptions and pointing out the weaknesses and flaws in the probability and decision theory discussions within the Everett framework. I hope it is clear from what I have written above that this is an outstanding volume, which should be of great interest to anyone interested in the foundations of quantum theory. Indeed, I feel quite fortunate to be the particular `me' that happens to exist in the same branch of the wavefunction of the universe in which this book was published.
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum entanglement experiments is at best incomplete, since the intermediate state induced by collapse of the wave function apparently depends upon the inertial rest frame in which the experiment is observed. While the Many Worlds Interpretation of Everett, MWI, avoids the issue of wave function collapse, it, too, is a casualty of the special theory of relativity. This requires all events in the universe, past, present and future, to be unique, as in the block universe picture, which rules out Everett style branching. The benefits of MWI may be retained, however, by postulating a multiverse of discrete, parallel, block universes which are identical to each other up to certain points in the MWI trunk before they diverge according to the MWI branching. The quantum probability of an event then emerges from the number of parallel universes in which the event happens divided by the total number of universes. This means that the total number of such universes is finite. Such a picture is more easily envisaged by thinking of it as a purely mathematical structure, as in the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis proposed by Tegmark. However, while Tegmark wished to avoid contamination from Goedelian self referential knots, not only does such contamination appear to be inevitable, it brings an unexpected benefit. The mathematical hierarchy required by the enigmatic footnote 48a in the paper by Goedel leads to an explanation for a unitary evolution of deterministic quantum rules across the multiverse while accounting for quantum uncertainty within an individual universe. Other aspects of this structure, called here the Plexus, are discussed, including awareness of existence and other questions raised by the hypothesis.
A Unified Algebraic-Informational Ontology of the Universe Substrate Independence, Distance Geometry, and the Crossed Product Resolution of von Neumann Algebras Driven by Dean A. Kulik September 2026 Introduction to the Relational Universe The enduring pursuit of theoretical physics has been to reconcile the continuous, geometric scaffolding of general relativity with the discrete, probabilistic, and algebraic nature of quantum mechanics. Historically, this reconciliation has faltered because both paradigms impose an a priori ontological framework upon the universe: classical mechanics assumes a pre-existing continuous spacetime manifold, while quantum mechanics presupposes a globally defined Hilbert space. However, a profound synthesis of modern algebraic quantum field theory (AQFT), constructor theory, Euclidean distance geometry, and discrete operator logic suggests that neither space nor continuous state vectors are fundamental. Instead, the universe functions as a closed transformation domain of purely relational, substrate-independent distinctions. In this unified paradigm, information is the foundational bedrock of physical reality. Constructor theory asserts that the laws of physics are not strictly predictive equations of motion, but rather exact specifications of which transformations of physical systems are possible and which are impossible. Because these transformations govern the flow of information independently of the underlying micro-physical medium, reality itself is substrate-independent. A quantum bit, or any physical correlate of information, can be abstractly modeled as a set of allowable operations—such as continuous reversibility and the prohibition of simultaneous encoding—without reference to whether the system is implemented via trapped ions, superconducting circuits, or the vacuum of spacetime. When these allowable physical transformations are formally mapped, they generate a stringent "Operator Grammar". This grammar constitutes the absolute minimum set of constraints dictating how elemental distinctions are addressed, separated, preserved, and subsequently re-read. Crucially, the physical manifestation of spatial geometry does not exist as a prior stage for these operations. Rather, geometry emerges algebraically as a constraint-satisfaction rendering of purely relational distances between distinctions, governed mathematically by the Cayley-Menger determinant. As the system scales to the continuum limit, the localized regions of these transformations map precisely to the local observable algebras of quantum field theory. These algebras are intrinsically pathological von Neumann factors of Type III, which lack well-defined traces or density matrices due to infinite boundary entanglement across localized causal diamonds. The resolution to this algebraic pathology—and the exact mathematical mechanism by which measurable reality, finite thermodynamic entropy, and macroscopic observers emerge—is found in the crossed product of the Type III algebra with its modular automorphism group. This operation yields a well-behaved Type II algebra, effectively restoring the observer to the physical system. This report provides an exhaustive, multi-disciplinary synthesis of this unified paradigm, demonstrating that the universe functions as an infinitely extendable field of non-destructive transformations where spacetime geometry is merely the "read head" interface, and the macroscopic observer is mathematically isomorphic to the modular flow that regularizes quantum entanglement. Substrate Independence and the Operator Grammar To construct a universe from the bottom up, without smuggling in assumptions of space, time, or mass, one must begin with the absolute primitives of logic and transformation. This requires identifying the fundamental constraints—the laws—that govern any distinguishable state. In a purely informational ontology, the universe is governed by an Operator Grammar consisting of fourteen irreducible physical constraints (identified sequentially as C0 through C13), which collectively establish the mechanisms by which a state space can evolve. The absolute floor of this reality is the principle of distinction, defined as C0. For anything to exist, there must be at least two states that are not identical (). Without this primary distinction, there is no substrate to transform, select, bound, relate, or render. Building upon this, C1 dictates the law of continuation: every admissible state must admit a successor distinct from itself, explicitly excluding absolute terminals and self-loops. Mathematically, for every distinction , there must exist a transformation such that . Consequently, the object itself is not the fundamental entity; rather, the object is merely a temporarily stable rendering of a continuous transformation process. These distinctions are governed by the law of independent continuation (C1a). If two distinctions are genuinely independent, the transformation of one cannot secretly consume the other's capacity to continue. In the language of quantum mechanics and operator algebras, this independence requires that the operators commute, such that . If this commutator fails to vanish, the operations are coupled, meaning they share a reference point and cannot be treated as separate informational channels. The Conservation of Reachability and Non-Subtraction Classical physics generally allows for the destruction or annihilation of states (e.g., inelastic collisions, dissipative friction), but in a substrate-independent informational universe, true destruction violates the continuity of the state space. The grammar enforces this through C2, the preservation of reachable history. A lawful transformation cannot annihilate a distinction; it can only alter, detach, bound, merge, or re-address the accessibility of that distinction. The history of the state is conserved within the topological arrangement of the system. This leads directly to C3, the law stipulating that no transformation is a subtraction. In this framework, all change is equal in its obligation to preserve information. A cut or division of a continuous object does not reduce the total payload (); rather, every cut is the birth of two distinct entities, producing a relation . If material is lifted from an active field, it transitions to a "bench" state (), where represents the detached continuation state. The lifted distinction loses its active location but fundamentally retains its existence and relational history. Consequently, C3 is not an arbitrary law but is mathematically derivable as C2 applied specifically to the lift operator. Orthogonal Waves: Selection and Boundary Any physical operation necessitates two orthogonal waves of action: one that dictates what part of the field is acted upon (Decay/Selection), and one that dictates what reality becomes after the action occurs (Boundary). These two waves cannot be collapsed into a single mechanism without freezing the state space entirely. The first wave, Selection (C4), establishes an address into the admissible transformation space, denoted as . The selector does not create the distinction; the distinction was already an admissible potential within the substrate . Selection merely instantiates which specific continuation path is taken. The second wave, Boundary (C5), changes the topology of continuity. A boundary creates a new condition of continuation without requiring new physical payload. For example, if a symbol is lifted from a sequence, the resulting gap can either close (collapsing the prior address and establishing new adjacency) or persist (creating two bounded regions). According to the Wall Theorem, a distinction is physically "alive" if and only if at least one of these two channels (value/selection or relation/boundary) remains unfrozen. Collapsing Decay into Boundary freezes both channels in a single event, resulting in a strictly forbidden configuration. When boundaries are introduced, they possess the unique capacity to create new origins (C6). A continuous sequence evaluated as a whole produces a single macroscopic magnitude. However, if that sequence is sectioned into multiple bounded segments, those segments become independent origins for new computations, despite remaining entangled by their shared substrate history. This sectioning is the primary mechanism for non-linear computational growth in the universe. The Rendering Interface and Constraint Satisfaction The final layer of the Operator Grammar separates the underlying relational data from its macroscopic observation. According to C7, results are rendered rather than merely read. The final observed state is a complex function of the substrate , the geometry of the interaction , the selection criteria , and the boundary topology . It is not the simple linear accumulation of hidden objects. Crucially, Geometry is defined as the "Read Head" (C8). The substrate itself does not inherently possess a Euclidean or curved shape. Geometry controls how the transformation encounters the distinctions. A linear read head defines a one-dimensional adjacency, while a circular, grid, or cyclical step-pattern defines entirely different neighborhood relations. Therefore, physical bases (such as positional notation or coordinate systems) are simultaneously available representations (C9). The selected base does not create the underlying substance; it merely acts as a coordinate system for rendering the preexisting relations. This culminates in the Value-to-Shape constraint satisfaction law (C10). The numbers or data points in the universe do not need to physically resemble a shape. If a relation among rendered values satisfies the constraints of a specific geometry—for example, if they satisfy —then those values instantiate a right-triangle relation. Shape exists purely as a potential admissible structure before it is instantiated, and measurement tests this constrain
In order to describe my findings/conclusions systematically, a new semantic system (i.e., a new language) has to be intentionally defined by the present article. Humans are limited in what they know by the technical limitation of their cortical language network. The conventionally-called “physical/objective reality” around my conventionally-called “physical/objective body” is actually a geometric mathematical model (being generated/mathematically-modeled by my brain) – it's actually a subset/component/part/element of my brain’s mind/consciousness. A reality is a situation model (SM). Our universe is an autonomous objective parallel computing automaton (aka state machine) which evolves by itself automatically/unintentionally – wave-particle duality and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle can be explained under this SM of my brain. Each elementary particle (as a building block of our universe) is an autonomous mathematical entity itself (i.e., a thing in itself). Our universe has the same nature as a Game of Life system – both are autonomous objective parallel-computing automata. If we are happy to accept randomness, then it is obviously possible that all other worlds in the many-worlds interpretation do not exist objectively. The conventionally-called “space” does not exist objectively. “Time” and “matter” are not physical. Consciousness is the subjective-form (aka quale) of the mathematical models (of the objective universe) which are intracorporeally/subjectively used by the control logic of a Turing machine’s program directly-fatedly. A Turing machine’s consciousness or deliberate decisions/choices should not be able to actually/objectively change/control/drive the (autonomous or directly-fated) worldline of any elementary particle within this world. Besides the Schrodinger equation (or another mathematical equation/function which is yet to be discovered) which is a valid/correct/factual causality of our universe, every other causality (of our universe) is either invalid/incorrect/counterfactual or can be proved by deductive inference based on the Schrodinger equation (or the aforementioned yet-to-be-discovered mathematical equation/function) only. Consciousness plays no causal role (“epiphenomenalism”), or in other words, any cognitive/behavioural activity can in principle be carried out without consciousness (“conscious inessentialism”). If the “loop quantum gravity” theory is correct, then time/space does not actually/objectively exist in the objective-evolution of the objective universe, or in other words, we should not use the subjective/mental concept of “time”, “state” or “space” to describe/imagine the objective-evolution of our universe.
In order to describe my findings/conclusions systematically, a new semantic system (i.e., a new language) has to be intentionally defined by the present article. Humans are limited in what they know by the technical limitation of their cortical language network. The conventionally-called “physical/objective reality” around my conventionally-called “physical/objective body” is actually a geometric mathematical model (being generated/mathematically-modeled by my brain) – it's actually a subset/component/part/element of my brain’s mind/consciousness. A reality is a situation model (SM). Our universe is an autonomous objective parallel computing automaton (aka state machine) which evolves by itself automatically/unintentionally – wave-particle duality and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle can be explained under this SM of my brain. Each elementary particle (as a building block of our universe) is an autonomous mathematical entity itself (i.e., a thing in itself). Our universe has the same nature as a Game of Life system – both are autonomous objective parallel-computing automata. If we are happy to accept randomness, then it is obviously possible that all other worlds in the many-worlds interpretation do not exist objectively. The conventionally-called “space” does not exist objectively. “Time” and “matter” are not physical. Consciousness is the subjective-form (aka quale) of the mathematical models (of the objective universe) which are intracorporeally/subjectively used by the control logic of a Turing machine’s program directly-fatedly. A Turing machine’s consciousness or deliberate decisions/choices should not be able to actually/objectively change/control/drive the (autonomous or directly-fated) worldline of any elementary particle within this world. Besides the Schrodinger equation (or another mathematical equation/function which is yet to be discovered) which is a valid/correct/factual causality of our universe, every other causality (of our universe) is either invalid/incorrect/counterfactual or can be proved by deductive inference based on the Schrodinger equation (or the aforementioned yet-to-be-discovered mathematical equation/function) only. Consciousness plays no causal role (“epiphenomenalism”), or in other words, any cognitive/behavioural activity can in principle be carried out without consciousness (“conscious inessentialism”). If the “loop quantum gravity” theory is correct, then time/space does not actually/objectively exist in the objective-evolution of the objective universe, or in other words, we should not use the subjective/mental concept of “time”, “state” or “space” to describe/imagine the objective-evolution of our universe.
Abstract The quantum measurement problem is resolved through the Everett interpretation, with de-coherence explaining the subjective appearance of collapse. However, a fundamental tensionremains: how can a physically localized observer, confined to a single decoherent branch,have knowledge of the global, unitarily evolving universal wavefunction? This paper presentsa formal theorem—the K3 Theorem—demonstrating that an observer modeled as a compu-tational subsystem (a Universal Turing Machine) can, through axiomatic derivation alone,infer the complete structure of the multiverse. We prove that by strictly adhering to the prin-ciple of unitarity, such an observer can construct an internal mathematical model isomorphicto the universal state vector |ΨU i. This model enables the ”measurement” of properties inother, physically inaccessible branches via calculation, not physical interaction. This resultunifies the physics of decoherence, the ontology of many-worlds, and a computational theoryof mind, establishing that while experience is branch-local, understanding can be multiverse-global. Keywords: Quantum Foundations, Many-Worlds Interpretation, Decoherence, Quantum Mea-surement Problem, Mathematical Logic, Universal Turing Machine, Unitarity, Consciousness,K3 Theorem.