It is not solid physical structures and interactions that lie in the basis of objective reality, but merely probabilities and superposition among them. The solid structures of our sensorial and practical experience are an outcome of the collapse of probability functions as a result of physical measurement and even – sensory observation. While in causal processes energy is applied to alter the existing spatial structures, information processes employ energy for the conversion of the probability distributions of the systems’ dynamical states. There are equivalences and mutual conversion of mass, energy and information. Mass, energy and information are just three appearances under which probability communicates with us. From the above ontological frame of reference, we will consider and offer a hypothetical answer to the questions: What is probability? What is and what does the processes viewpoint on information disclose? What is the cognitive (the mental) image? What are the equivalences and mutual conversions of mass, energy, and information? How do our thoughts bring about our actions?
It is not solid physical structures and interactions that lie in the basis of objective reality, but merely probabilities and superposition among them. The solid structures of our sensorial and practical experience are an outcome of the collapse of probability functions as a result of physical measurement and even – sensory observation. While in causal processes energy is applied to alter the existing spatial structures, information processes employ energy for the conversion of the probability distributions of the systems’ dynamical states. There are equivalences and mutual conversion of mass, energy and information. Mass, energy and information are just three appearances under which probability communicates with us. From the above ontological frame of reference, we will consider and offer a hypothetical answer to the questions: What is probability? What is and what does the processes viewpoint on information disclose? What is the cognitive (the mental) image? What are the equivalences and mutual conversions of mass, energy, and information? How do our thoughts bring about our actions?
“I refute it thus!” Samuel Johnson famously dismissed Bishop George Berkeley's argument for the unreality of matter by kicking a large stone (Boswell, 1823). In the light of modern physics, however, Johnson's simple reasoning evaporates. Apparently solid matter is revealed, on closer inspection, to be almost all empty space, and the particles of which matter is composed are themselves ghostly patterns of quantum energy, mere excitations of invisible quantum fields, or possibly vibrating loops of string living in a ten-dimensional space–time (Greene, 1999). The history of physics is one of successive abstractions from daily experience and common sense, into a counterintuitive realm of mathematical forms and relationships, with a link to the stark sense data of human observation that is long and often tortuous. Yet at the end of the day, science is empirical, and our finest theories must be grounded, somehow, “in reality.” But where is reality? Is it in acts of observation of the world made by human and possibly non-human observers? In records stored in computer or laboratory notebooks? In some objective world “out there”? Or in a more abstract location? The ground of reality When a physicist performs an experiment, he or she interrogates nature and receives a response that, ultimately, is in the form of discrete bits of information (think of “yes” or “no” binary answers to specific questions), the discreteness implied by the underlying quantum nature of the universe (Zeilinger, 2004). Does reality then lie in the string of bits that come back from the set of all observations and experiments – a dry sequence of ones and zeros? Do these observations merely transfer really-existing bits of information from an external world reality to the minds of observers, or are the bits of information created by the very act of observation/experiment? And – the question to which this entire discussion is directed – are bits of “classical” information the only sort of information that count in the reality game, or does an altogether different form of information underpin reality? In short, where is the ontological ground on which our impression of a really-existing universe rests?
Abstract The quantum measurement problem remains a foundational challenge due to the lack of an operable physical definition of the "observer." This paper addresses this gap by modeling the observer as a discrete dynamical system with a quantifiable causal structure, characterized by three hierarchical dimensions: Differentiation Degree, Interaction Degree, and Global Integration Degree. From these, we define the Effective Integrated Information Degree (Φ) as a single metric for the system’s information-processing capability. Based on the unitary evolution of quantum mechanics, we derive a testable core relationship: the uncertainty probability P of a measurement outcome decays exponentially with \Phi , i.e., P \propto e^{-\alpha \Phi} . This provides a mechanistic explanation for wave function collapse rooted in the internal dynamics of the observer system. We further establish a universal Mass-Energy-Information Equivalence framework by integrating Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence with Landauer’s principle, proving a rigid conversion between \Phi and the equivalent mass of the system. This work represents a paradigm shift: it transforms the "observer" from a philosophical concept into a calculable, verifiable physical system, and opens an empirically tractable path toward unifying quantum mechanics with fundamental physics. Regardless of experimental outcomes, the model provides a rigorous foundation for resolving the quantum measurement problem and advancing our understanding of the universe’s fundamental laws.
There are several links between information theory — between »information as such« whatever that might mean — and the foundations of nature, i e, basic physics. Well, since physics a science still evolving (despite propositions that »the end of science« now in sight), some of the links between information and physics are hypothetical. One linkage fairly obvious — thermodynamics depends upon entropy or some measure of order or disorder, and that clearly has something to do with information. The other possible relationship might be between the uncertainty that a key characteristic of quantum mechanics. We can never know everything on the quantum scale; the Heisenberg uncertainty principle tells that the more information we gain in one direction the less we know in another. If we, on that scale, obtain certainty as to one factor, then another will stay entirely undecided — try to affix a position to a quantum particle, and the momentum will be out of bounds entirely. (This the established dogma currently, though there are some deviating ideas.1) Then the question arises: who does the actual measuring, with what — what particles, at what level, are involved in this act of, as it pronounced, forcing the wave function to collapse? This wave function is the indeterminate particle: the various statistics describing the probabilities that the particle (which simultaneously takes on aspects of a wave) may be in one state or another. We will now attempt to discuss these different — or are they really different? — interdependencies, starting with black holes.
An experience may be described in terms of an accumulation of memory exemplars when it is unconscious. The conscious experience is the memory of one of these exemplars. Alternatively, an experience may be described in probabilistic terms when it is unconscious. According to this theory, memory simultaneously encompasses multiple memories—or none at all—and is represented in probabilistic terms. A conscious experience, however, corresponds to a single memory and is no longer described in probabilistic terms. The basis of this approach is a theory that explains reality in terms of a virtual reality model. Just as in virtual reality the parameters (of a perceived object) are determined only at the moment of observation or measurement, so too in actual reality, parameters are determined only at the moment of observation or measurement. Until that moment, the parameters can be described probabilistically. Similarly, just as in virtual reality there are minimal values for each parameter, in actual reality it is impossible to measure values smaller than a minimal threshold. And just as in virtual reality a change in one parameter may affect another parameter (belonging to a perceived object located elsewhere), so too in reality, a change in one parameter can influence another parameter perceived as spatially distant.
The Mechanism of Consciousness and Reality Formation: Understanding Consciousness, Observation, and the Process of Manifestation Author: Yeshayahu Ben-Yehudah Affiliation: THE BEN-YEHUDAH INSTITUTE Original Publication Date: June 25, 2026 This interdisciplinary scientific and theoretical research paper examines the proposed mechanisms through which consciousness, observation, information, energy, and biological transduction interact in the formation of experienced reality. Building upon the Ben-Yehudah Framework, the research advances the proposition that consciousness may constitute a primary field underlying observable existence rather than merely emerging as a secondary product of biological matter. Central to the investigation is a proposed hierarchical architecture of reality: Source / Ultimate Reality → Consciousness → Information → Energy → Biological Transduction → Matter / Manifested Reality The framework explores how consciousness may interact with probabilistic systems through observation, information exchange, energetic interaction, and biological transduction. It distinguishes passive measurement from active observation, proposing that the observer participates in the transition from potential states to experienced reality. A central component of the research examines the human brain as a biological transducer rather than solely as a generator of consciousness. Within this theoretical model, biological systems receive, process, stabilize, and translate nonlocal conscious awareness into localized sensory, cognitive, and experiential states. The paper also examines the relationship between Cognitive Coherence (ζ) and Transducer Efficiency (η), expressed through the proposed mathematical relationship: η = kζ Where η represents Transducer Efficiency, ζ represents Cognitive Coherence, and k represents the Biological Transduction Constant. This formulation proposes that greater cognitive coherence may correspond to increased transducer efficiency, while internal fragmentation, psychological distortion, and reduced coherence may diminish the proposed efficiency of conscious interaction. The research further develops a structured model of manifestation: Consciousness → Observation → Information Exchange → Energetic Interaction → Biological Transduction → Manifested Experience Within this framework, manifestation is conceptualized not as passive intention or unrestricted conscious control over physical events, but as a proposed process of interaction between consciousness and probabilistic systems. The paper additionally investigates how stillness, awareness, internal alignment, ego, fear, attachment, and cognitive fragmentation may influence the quality of observation and the observer's interaction with experienced reality. By integrating consciousness studies, quantum foundations, theoretical physics, neuroscience, ontology, and philosophy of mind, this research extends the Ben-Yehudah Framework toward a systematic account of consciousness and reality formation. The proposed mechanisms remain theoretical and require independent empirical investigation. The paper does not establish that conscious observation causes quantum state collapse or that biological transduction governs physical manifestation. Central Research Question: How does consciousness interact with reality to produce experienced existence?
Measurement in quantum mechanics is commonly treated as a passive observational process that reveals properties of an underlying physical system. However, both theoretical analysis and experimental practice suggest that measurement interactions are physical events that irreversibly alter system states and their subsequent evolution. This work advances the hypothesis that measurement events function as generative interactions that actively produce realized states, rather than merely disclosing pre-existing conditions.Focusing on non-equilibrium dynamics, we examine the role of discrete interaction events in the transition from potential configurations to actualized states. Measurement interactions are characterized as localized, irreversible processes that introduce stable correlations and constrain future system evolution. From this perspective, state realization is associated with event-based commitments rather than continuous revelation, aligning naturally with thermodynamic irreversibility and entropy production.Preliminary conceptual analysis indicates that this generative role of measurement events is consistent with established formulations of quantum theory, including unitary evolution prior to measurement and the statistical structure of observed outcomes. The proposed viewpoint does not modify existing formalism or introduce new dynamical laws, but instead reframes the ontological role of measurement within standard theory.1Analogous event-driven state transitions appear across a range ofnon-equilibrium systems, including thermodynamic processes, information processing, chemical reactions, and distributed computational protocols. These analogies are noted to highlight structural commonalities in state actualization, rather than to assert cross-domain phys-ical equivalence.The present work introduces this hypothesis as a foundational perspective on the role of discrete interaction events in state formation. Broader structural implications and potential extensions of this framework are reserved for future investigation. Keywords: measurement theory, non-equilibrium dynamics, quantum observation, state formation, irreversibility