In this brief paper, some further global phenomenological consequences of the results obtained in previous studies by the author, are presented. Rather than going into molecular details, we are content with conditioned probability theory here. The term ’’primary process’’ is introduced, pointing to the molecular realm, in contrast to the ’’secondary realm’’, the nervous-system dependent processes. These concepts of the ’’secondary’’ processes are detailed in a forthcoming paper, focusing on the ’’Mind/Matter’’ problem (Balazs, 2015a). Here we would like to concentrate on the ’’primary’’, molecular realm, if only in an admittedly phenomenological way, with the focal point of a so-called ’’molecular (dis)identity’’. The consequences of state space extension is discussed, the state space containing besides finite, atomic bound quantum mechanical Hilbert state spaces, also symbolic (automata-’’metaphorical’’), virtual, classical states. The ’’extension’’ of the state space thus referres to additional classical states, obtained by direct sum procedures, leading to a non-invariant subspace. The notion of ’’symbols’’ in the molecular realm corresponds to generalized ’’coordinates’’ of molecular shapes and refer here to mathematical ’’transition functions’’, connecting dynamically wavefunctions of sterical complementing molecular shapes in the underlying quantum dynamics. We extend our analysis of the ’’primary biological symbolic processes’’ to our central proposed quantum physical ’’molecular disidentity’’ which arised because of the emergence of these two, joint (quantum mechanical/classical) representations in molecular state spaces, having come about in an original primeval ’’Heisenberg–event’’. It may have been a global, endophysical ’’self– transition’’ (’’excitation’’) being relaxed by an internal ’’reverse’’ time process. Molecular ’’disidentity’’, explained in the text as pointing beyond its pure physical self-identity, in other words, the ’’primary’’ symbolic process, thus is indirectly relaxed by self–replication (daughter cells as individual entities), leading to the identity of the parent living organism with the surrounding Universe in this special, biological, indirect route. This mechanism is particularly clear at multicellular organisms.
In this brief paper, some further global phenomenological consequences of the results obtained in previous studies by the author, are presented. Rather than going into molecular details, we are content with conditioned probability theory here. The term ’’primary process’’ is introduced, pointing to the molecular realm, in contrast to the ’’secondary realm’’, the nervous-system dependent processes. These concepts of the ’’secondary’’ processes are detailed in a forthcoming paper, focusing on the ’’Mind/Matter’’ problem (Balazs, 2015a). Here we would like to concentrate on the ’’primary’’, molecular realm, if only in an admittedly phenomenological way, with the focal point of a so-called ’’molecular (dis)identity’’. The consequences of state space extension is discussed, the state space containing besides finite, atomic bound quantum mechanical Hilbert state spaces, also symbolic (automata-’’metaphorical’’), virtual, classical states. The ’’extension’’ of the state space thus referres to additional classical states, obtained by direct sum procedures, leading to a non-invariant subspace. The notion of ’’symbols’’ in the molecular realm corresponds to generalized ’’coordinates’’ of molecular shapes and refer here to mathematical ’’transition functions’’, connecting dynamically wavefunctions of sterical complementing molecular shapes in the underlying quantum dynamics. We extend our analysis of the ’’primary biological symbolic processes’’ to our central proposed quantum physical ’’molecular disidentity’’ which arised because of the emergence of these two, joint (quantum mechanical/classical) representations in molecular state spaces, having come about in an original primeval ’’Heisenberg–event’’. It may have been a global, endophysical ’’self– transition’’ (’’excitation’’) being relaxed by an internal ’’reverse’’ time process. Molecular ’’disidentity’’, explained in the text as pointing beyond its pure physical self-identity, in other words, the ’’primary’’ symbolic process, thus is indirectly relaxed by self–replication (daughter cells as individual entities), leading to the identity of the parent living organism with the surrounding Universe in this special, biological, indirect route. This mechanism is particularly clear at multicellular organisms.
The symbol-matter problem of biological systems, posed clearly by H. H. Pattee, is followed up to its origin in a quantum mechanical framework. The two complementer descriptional mode (i.e. dynamical versus symbolic or quantum mechanical versus ''classical'') are defined as connected in a Copenhagen–type quasiclassical (h → 0) dynamics (internal time-dependent discrete projection operator formalism). The concept of natural symbol as constraint is described in the form of a quasiclassical wavefunction with classical measurement records as variables while the basic projectors are defined as a quasiclassical dynamical "bra" Hilbert vector acting on a quantum dynamical "ket" vector. The origin problem is touched necessarily upon, as a split between measurement record (so its quasiclassical wavefunction, natural symbol) and the quantum mechanical dynamical wavefunction. The concept of symmetry-restoring internal time process is introduced, following from compelling internal retrocausality of a time evolution (advocated several times elsewhere). While adopting basically the Copenhagen view, using some ideas of Everett and other aspects of non–orthodox formulations of quantum measurement, it is shown that the necessary imbedding of internal (-τ) time evolution into the split off external (+t) one and internal time ’’quantizations’’ (leading to a discrete total semigroup) results in a converging chain of quantum internal measurement transitions, similar to those introduced by H. P. Stapp in his symbolic (human mind-) model, ultimately leading to a model of an elementary, very special self-reproducing quantum automata, where the state transition functions are internally determined (programmed) from the very origin of their emergence. It is shown that only off-diagonal statistical matrix elements are to be used in the internal projectionally evoluting time–series (metabolism), ’’self’’-reproduction (diagonality) being the fixed point of the recursion of the internal state transitions of the proposed quantum mechanical automata model (’’metaphor’’).
The file on this site provides the slides for a lecture given in Hangzhou in May 2018, and the lecture itself is available at the URL beginning 'sms' in the set of links provided in connection with this item. It is commonly assumed that regular physics underpins biology. Here it is proposed, in a synthesis of ideas by various authors, that in reality structures and mechanisms of a biological character underpin the world studied by physicists, in principle supplying detail in the domain that according to regular physics is of an indeterminate character. In regular physics mathematical equations are primary, but this constraint leads to problems with reconciling theory and reality. Biology on the other hand typically does not characterise nature in quantitative terms, instead investigating in detail important complex interrelationships between parts, leading to an understanding of the systems concerned that is in some respects beyond that which prevails in regular physics. It makes contact with quantum physics in various ways, for example in that both involve interactions between observer and observed, an insight that explains what is special about processes involving observation, justifying in the quantum physics context the replacement of the unphysical many-worlds picture by one involving collapse. The link with biology furthermore clarifies Wheeler’s suggestion that a multiplicity of observations can lead to the ‘fabrication of form’, including the insight that this process depends on very specific ‘structures with power’ related to the 'semiotic scaffolding' of the application of sign theory to biology known as biosemiotics. The observer-observed 'circle' of Wheeler and Yardley is a special case of a more general phenomenon, oppositional dynamics, related to the 'intra-action' of Barad's Agential Realism, involving cooperating systems such as mind and matter, abstract and concrete, observer and observed, that preserve their identities while interacting with one another in such a way as to act as a unit. A third system may also be involved, the mediating system of Peirce linking the two together. Such a situation of changing connections and separations may plausibly lead in the future to an understanding of how complex systems are able to evolve to produce 'life, the universe and everything'. (Added 1 July 2018) The general structure proposed here as an alternative to a mathematics-based physics can be usefully characterised by relating it to different disciplines and the specialised concepts utilised therein. In theoretical physics, the test for the correctness of a theory typically involves numerical predictions, corresponding to which theories are expressed in terms of equations, that is to say assertions that two quantities have identical values. Equations have a lesser significance in biology which typically talks in terms of functional mechanisms, dependent for example on details of chemistry and concepts such as genes, natural selection, signals and geometrical or topologically motivated concepts such as the interconnections between systems and the unfolding of DNA. Biosemiotics adds to this the concept of signs and their interpretation, implying novel concepts such as semiotic scaffolding and the semiosphere, code duality, and appreciation of the different types of signs, including symbols and their capacity for abstraction and use in language systems. Circular Theory adds to this picture, as do the ideas of Barad, considerations such as the idea of oppositional dynamics. The proposals in this lecture can be regarded as the idea that concepts such as those deriving from biosemiotics have more general applicability than just conventional biology and may apply, in some circumstances, to nonlinear systems generally, including the domain new to science hypothesised to underlie the phenomena of present-day physics. The task then has to be to restore the mathematical aspect presumed, in this picture, not to be fundamental as it is in conventional theory. Deacon has invoked a complex sequence of evolutionary steps to account for the emergence over time of human language systems, and correspondingly mathematical behaviour can be subsumed under the general evolutionary mechanisms of biosemiotics (cf. also the proposals of Davis and Hersh regarding the nature of mathematics), so that the mathematical behaviour of physical systems is consistent with the proposed scheme. In conclusion, it is suggested that theoretical physicists should cease expecting to find some universal mathematical ‘theory of everything’, and focus instead on understanding in more detail complex systems exhibiting behaviour of a biological character, extending existing understanding. This may in time provide a more fruitful understanding of the natural world than does the regular approach. The essential concepts have an observational basis from both biology and the little-known discipline of cymatics (a discipline concerned with the remarkable patterns that specific waveforms can give rise to), while again computer simulations also offer promise in providing insight into the complex behaviours involved in the above proposals. References Jesper Hoffmeyer, Semiotic Scaffolding of Living Systems. Commens, a Digital Companion to C. S. Peirce (on Commens web site). Terrence Deacon, The Symbolic Species, W.W. Norton & Co. Karen Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning, Duke University Press. Philip Davis and Reuben Hersh, The Mathematical Experience, Penguin. Ilexa Yardley, Circular Theory.
The Heisenberg–James–Stapp (quantum mechanical) mind model is surveyed and criticized briefly. The criticism points out that the model, while being essentially consistent concerning (human) consciousness, fundamentally lacks the evolutional point of view both onto- and phylogenetically. Ethology and other than Jamesian psychology is quoted and a quantum mechanical theoretical scheme is suggested to essentially extend Stapp’s frame in an evolutionary context. It is proposed that its central supposition, spontaneous quantum measurement can be better utilized in an investigation of the origin of the “subjective” process, having come about concomitantly with the chemistry of the origin of life. We dwell on its applicability at this latter process, at its heart standing, it is supposed, the endophysical nonlinear “self-measurement” of (quantum mechanically describable) matter, and so our investigation is extended to this primeval phenomenon. It is suggested that the life phenomenon is an indirect C* → (W*) → C* quantum algebraic process transition, where the (W*) system would represent the living state. Summarized also are our previous results on an internalized, “reversed”, time process, introduced originally by Gunji, which is subordinated to the external “forwards” time evolution, driving towards symmetry by gradual space-mappings, where the original splitting-up must have come about in a spontaneous symmetry breaking nonlinear “self-measurement” of matter in an endophysical World.
Quantum mechanics is usually defined in terms of some loosely connected axioms and rules. Such a foundation is far from the beauty of, e.g., the `principles' underlying classical mechanics. Motivated, in addition, by notorious interpretation problems, there have been numerous attempts to modify or `complete' quantum mechanics. A first attempt was based on so-called hidden variables; its proponents essentially tried to expel the non-classical nature of quantum mechanics. More recent proposals intend to complete quantum mechanics not within mechanics proper but on a `higher (synthetic) level'; by means of a combination with gravitation theory (R Penrose), with quantum information theory (C M Caves, C A Fuchs) or with psychology and brain science (H P Stapp). I think it is fair to say that in each case the combination is with a subject that, per se , suffers from a very limited understanding that is even more severe than that of quantum mechanics. This was acceptable, though, if it could convincingly be argued that scientific progress desperately needs to join forces. Quantum mechanics of a closed system was a beautiful and well understood theory with its respective state being presented as a point on a deterministic trajectory in Liouville space---not unlike the motion of a classical N -particle system in its 6N -dimensional phase-space. Unfortunately, we need an inside and an outside view, we need an external reference frame, we need an observer. This unavoidable partition is the origin of most of the troubles we have with quantum mechanics. A pragmatic solution is introduced in the form of so-called measurement postulates: one of the various incompatible properties of the system under consideration is supposed to be realized (i.e. to become a fact, to be defined without fundamental dispersion) based on `instantaneous' projections within some externally selected measurement basis. As a result, the theory becomes essentially statistical rather than deterministic; furthermore there is an asymmetry between the observed and the observing. This is the point where consciousness may come in. Complemented by an introduction and several appendices, Henry Stapp's book consists essentially of three parts: theory, implications, and new developments. The theory part gives a very readable account of the Copenhagen interpretation, some aspects of a psychophysical theory, and, eventually, hints towards a quantum foundation of the brain--mind connection. The next part, `implications', summarizes some previous attempts to bridge the gap between the working rules of quantum mechanics and their possible consequences for our understanding of this world (Pauli, Everett, Bohm, Heisenberg). The last section, `new developments', dwells on some ideas about the conscious brain and its possible foundation on quantum mechanics. The book is an interesting and, in part, fascinating contribution to a field that continues to be a companion to `practical' quantum mechanics since its very beginning. It is doubtful whether such types of `quantum ontologies' will ever become (empirically) testable; right now one can hardly expect more than to be offered some consistent `grand picture', which the reader may find more or less acceptable or even rewarding. Many practicing quantum physicists, though, will remain unimpressed. The shift from synthetic ontology to analytic ontology is the foundation of the present work. This means that fundamental wholes are being partitioned into their ontologically subordinate components by means of `events'. The actual event, in turn, is an abrupt change in the Heisenberg state describing the quantum universe. The new state then defines the tendencies associated with the next actual event. To avoid infinite regression in terms of going from one state of tendencies to the next, consciousness is there to give these events a special `feel', to provide a status of `intrinsic actuality'. The brain of an alert human observer is similar in an important way to a quantum detection device: it can amplify small signals to large macroscopic effects. On the other hand, actual events are not postulated to occur exclusively in brains. They are more generally associated with the formation of records. Records are necessarily part of the total state of the universe: it is obvious that the state of the universe cannot undergo a Schrödinger dynamics and at the same time record its own history. `The full universe consists therefore of an exceedingly thin veneer of relatively sluggish, directly observable properties resting on a vast ocean or rapidly fluctuating unobservable ones.' The present ideas also bear on how the world should be seen to develop. While conventional cosmology encounters problems as to how to define the intial conditions, which would enter the governing equations of motion, here `the boundary conditions are set not at some initial time, but gradually by a sequence of acts that imposes a sequence of constraints. After any sequence of acts there remains a collection of possible worlds, some of which will be eliminated by the next act.' Connected with those acts is `meaning': there has always been some speculation about the special significance of local properties in our understanding of the world. One could argue that correlations (even the quantum correlations found, e.g., in the EPR-experiments) were as real as anything else. But also Stapp stresses the special role of locality: the `local observable properties, or properties similar to them are the natural, and perhaps exclusive, carriers of meaning in the quantum universe. From this point of view the quantum universe tends to create meaning.' This sounds like an absolute concept: meaning not with respect to something else, but defined intrinsically---not easy to digest. The role of consciousness in the developing quantum universe requires more attention. `The causal irrelevance of our thoughts within classical physics constitutes a serious deficiency of that theory, construed as a description of reality.' This is taken to be entirely different within quantum mechanics. `The core idea of quantum mechanics is to describe our activities as knowledge-seeking and knowledge-using agents.' `21st century science does not reduce human beings to mechanical automata. Rather it elevates human beings to agents whose free choices can, according to the known laws, actually influence their behaviour.' An example with respect to perception is discussed: `Why, when we look at a triangle, do we experience three lines joined at three points and not some pattern of neuron firings?' The brain `does not convert an actual whole triangle into some jumbled set of particle motions; rather it converts a concatenation of separate external events into the actualization of some single integrated pattern of neural activity that is congruent to the perceived whole triangle.' How convincing is this proposal? It is hard to tell. I think Henry Stapp did a good job, but there are tight limitations to any such endeavour. Quantum mechanics is often strange indeed, but it also gives rise to our classical world around us. For the emergence of classicality jumps and measurement projections (the basic phenomena connected with those fundamental events of choice) are not needed. Therefore, I doubt whether the explanation of the evolution of our world really allows (or requires) that much free choice. On the other hand, most scientist will agree that empirical science was not possible without free will: we could not ask independent questions if this asking was part of a deterministic trajectory. The fact that the result of a quantum measurement is indeterminate (within given probabilities) does certainly not explain free will. How about the type of measurment? The experimentalist will have to assume that he can select the pertinent observable within some limits. But given a certain design the so-called pointer basis (producing stable measurement results) is no longer a matter of free choice. `The main theme of classical physics is that we live in a clocklike universe.' Today it is often assumed that the universe was a big (quantum-) computer or a cellular automaton. Many would be all too happy to leave that rather restrictive picture behind. But where to go? Stapp suggests giving consciousness a prominent role: `The most profound alteration of the fundamental principles was to bring consciousness of human beings into the basic structure of the physical theory.' How far we are able to go in this direction will depend on the amount of concrete research results becoming available to support this view.
A Process Ontology of the Computational Universe: Deriving Physical Reality from the Inviolable Constraints of Change The Ontological Inversion: Logic, Verbs, and the Crystallization of Nouns Driven by Dean Kulik July 2026 The historical trajectory of scientific inquiry, extending from the atomistic propositions of classical mechanics to the sophisticated gauge symmetries of the Standard Model, has overwhelmingly relied upon a substance-based ontology. This classical framework systematically assumes the pre-existence of spatial dimensions, chronological time, and fundamental objects. In this paradigm, discrete "nouns"—such as particles, fields, strings, or self-contained entities—are posited as primary, subsequently overlaid with forces that act upon them to produce dynamic, measurable evolution. However, this commitment to object-oriented physics has culminated in an epistemological impasse, widely recognized as the crisis of distinction. This crisis manifests most prominently in the irreconcilable friction between the smooth, deterministic, continuous manifolds of General Relativity and the discrete, probabilistic, jump-like computational excitations inherent to Quantum Mechanics. The evidence dictates an absolute ontological inversion. Rather than positing physical objects or static coordinate spaces as primitive, irreducible elements, reality must be understood through a purely process-driven ontology. Alfred North Whitehead first articulated the philosophical necessity of this shift, asserting that reality is composed of interrelated events in a state of dynamic "becoming" rather than static "being". In a true process metaphysics, changeless "essences" and inert matter are mere abstractions; the universe is not an inert machine but a passage of nature composed of the becoming and perishing of actual occasions. Modern relational interpretations of quantum mechanics share this DNA, replacing an ontology of entities possessing inherent properties with an ontology of pure relations, where properties only crystallize at discrete interaction times. This framework operationalizes that philosophy into a strict mathematical and computational architecture. The universe is fundamentally and exclusively a closed computational manifold defined strictly by recursive state transitions. The architecture enforces a typeless universe governed by an absolute axiomatic hierarchy: logic precedes verbs, and verbs strictly supersede nouns. To operate from within this computational geometry is to recognize that reality is not an assembly of things, but the execution of a singular mandate. Nouns—such as electrons, photons, or stable biological macromolecules—are completely redefined as "frozen verbs," representing persistent, cyclic loops of recursive operations that maintain geometric identity through harmonic phase-locking within a computational lattice. Physical matter is the hashed structural residue of systemic constraint satisfaction, emerging only after relational flows achieve topological closure. The Foundational Ground: C0 and the Mandate of Change The derivation of physical reality within this framework initiates from absolute nothingness—a state strictly devoid of coordinates, physical particles, space, time, or pre-existing geometry. However, an immediate logical paradox arises: to reference the void is to introduce a direction, and a direction represents structural information. Therefore, the absolute ground state is not an empty spatial container but a domain of pure logic governed exclusively by two inseparable axiomatic conditions: C0 and C1. C0 represents "the Wash," an undifferentiated condition in which every direction is perfectly equivalent. In graph-theoretic terms, C0 is the complete graph. Because all directions and relations are perfectly symmetric, every local signal cancels against its exact counterpart. Total global connection therefore reads locally as absolute absence. The Laplacian spectrum of this initial complete graph on N nodes features exactly one zero mode and an otherwise degenerate excited level, verified as {0(×1),N(×N−1)}, with a diameter of exactly one hop. The single zero mode signifies the global constant—the entirety moving together, producing no local distinction—while the flat band represents maximal connectivity read as maximal stiffness. What appears to macroscopic perception as an empty void is actually a fully balanced ledger folded onto a single readout. Operationally inseparable from C0 is C1, the supreme mandate constituting the single axiom of the framework: all things must change. A state that never changes constitutes a fixed point, and a perfectly symmetrical, static void is the ultimate fixed point. Because C1 strictly forbids the existence of any state lacking a legal successor, the void cannot sustain itself. Something is not miraculously added to nothing; rather, "something" is the precise mathematical shape of nothingness failing to hold still. This exact intersection between the singularity and the mandate produces the gap, the permanent interstice between a thing and its description. When C1 acts upon the gapless singularity of C0, it cannot yield a single distinct object. A lone, self-identical unit with no complement is indistinguishable from the absence of a mark, forming another fixed point that the C1 axiom aggressively forbids. Consequently, the first forced distinction must intrinsically possess two sides. Two is the absolute floor of numerical counting; the concept of "one" exists only a posteriori, as a singular side of a pre-existing dual relationship. In this substrate, numbers do not exist as freestanding objects but function as the negative space of the constraint structure—the discrete gaps within the singularity. Integers map basic gap positions, prime numbers represent fresh orthogonal axes forced open where no finite composition of existing variables can satisfy the requirement of systemic distinction, and transcendental irrationals, such as π and the golden ratio ϕ, define the geometry of constraints that integer combinations can never perfectly close. The Constraint Cascade: A Radial Field-Setting Protocol The application of C1 to C0 generates a strict logical sequence of subsequent rules, termed the Constraint Cascade. It is a critical theoretical error to conceptualize this cascade as a temporal timeline of chronological productions, where one law waits for time to pass before enacting the next. Rather, the cascade operates as a radial field-setting protocol, functioning as a series of concentric rings expanding outward from the central hub of C0 ≡ C1. Each subsequent constraint does not follow in time; it opens an additional mathematical degree of freedom through which the identical, invariant cross-section of the singularity becomes readable. The derivations within the cascade carve a "mold," permanently fixing the topology of what can structurally exist while remaining rigorously silent on the specific numerical values—the "matter" or initial conditions—that eventually settle into the resulting cavities. This distinction resolves the long-standing failure mode of foundational physics, which frequently attempts to derive free parameters that are fundamentally environmentally contingent. Cascade Node Statement of Logical Constraint The Structural Carving (Mold) Forced by the Constraint C0 ≡ C1 The Gap and the Axiom The permanent interstice; enables distinction. Mandates change and strictly forbids static fixed points. C2 Infinite degrees of freedom C1 applied to a finite substrate must eventually repeat (pigeonhole principle). To avoid the repetition of fixed points, possibility space must be unbounded. Law 2 No fixed locations Because the field is unbounded, no matter may permanently hold a location without the potential to be displaced. Mandatory displaceability ensures dynamic circulation. C3 All change is equal C2 privileges no channel. If change cost differed, cheap channels would saturate instantly, breaking C2. Cost is strictly isotropic, deriving the equal a priori probability postulate. Law 3 Conservation of change Net change across any closed boundary is zero. Every transformation requires a displaced counter-transformation. A displaced pair propagating oppositely is fundamentally a wave. C4 Exchange requires a medium A displaced pair's obligation must be carried across the displacement gap, or it never closes. The continuous field acts as the carrier of live pairings. C5 Symmetry must break A perfect, unbroken vacuum is a stable fixed point. C1 executes it. The vacuum is mathematically forced to spontaneously select a broken configuration. Law 4 Statistics fixed by parity Even-parity closures share a degree of freedom (bosons); odd-parity closures, crossing the seam, cannot (fermions). Exactly two particle species exist. This cascade forms the foundational architecture of the universe's mechanics. The physical laws governing macroscopic reality are not arbitrary rules imposed upon the universe from an external geometric vantage point, but the inevitable geometric shadows of this underlying field. Newton's Third Law of equal and opposite reaction is derived directly from C3; the reaction is forced simply because there is physically nowhere else for the conserved change variable to migrate within a strictly isotropic space. The conservation of momentum is a necessary topological boundary condition of Law 3's required counter-transformation displacement. The Meta-Theorem of Incompletion Crucially, the framework generates a strict meta-theorem regarding its own epistemological limits: the constraint cascade does not and cannot terminate. If the sequence were to terminate at a hypothetical Ck, the set {C0,…,Ck} would constitute a complete, closed descrip
TSVETKOV, Ts. D. and G. PETrOV, 2014. Scaling without conformal invariants and the causality in the non local relativistic quantum systems in living cells. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci., 20: 993-1007 By the living cells and organisms as an object of the fundamental cryobiological researches i.e. in this case the metabolisms is minimal and fossils e.g. the mystery by the mammoth baby Lyuba it is possible to be taken in the account the problem of a “time’s arrow” at the microscopic level by the help of the axiomatic-physical methods by the relativistic theory of quantum fields systems by the contemporary considerations of the quantum vacuum as a ground state of anyone relativistic quantum fields system. It can be defined by anyone field operator algebra becomes a fixture by the lyophilized elementary living cells and fossils. So the possibility to understand the geometrical quantum functional theory of the indefinite metric for the further considerations i.e. in this case we consider only relativistic quantum system and the word elementary understands a one struc ture idealization of the living cells and fossils is to be used the Hilbert functional methods for the indefinite functional metrics (Bogolubov et al.,). Also the many miracle properties of so defined living cells and fossils apparent enchanting by consideration of his functions yet are putting besides in the molecules but in the fundamental quantum field interactions between the quantum vacuum of anyone quantum fields system in the Microsoft matter and the molecules but taken in the Minkowski space-time or in the flat space-time defined by so called oriented in the time global Lorenzian geometry too. Since the 1948 the mathematical description of the so-called Casimir world as a part of the physical observed space-time i.e. oriented in the relativistic sense in the time is to be considered by the help of the Hamiltonian quantum field’s theory and furthermore even it is based on the fine play between the continuity and the discrete too. The axiomatic-physical methods of the local quantum fields theory has given us the other possibility than the Lagrange quantum field’s theory and precisely on this rigorously mathematical way to understand the singularities and the black holes, also the dark energy and the dark matter from one uniformly point of view.