The article proposes a non-dual informational ontology to dissolve the “hard problem” of consciousness. It argues that modern physics (quantum field theory, holography, and emergent gravity) undermines classical materialism, showing that reality is not made of local substances with intrinsic properties but of relational and informational structures. Within this framework, essential operators generate integrated trajectories whose intrinsic aspect is phenomenality (consciousness) and whose extrinsic aspect, under holographic projection, appears as physical dynamics. Thus, mind and matter are not separate substances or universal properties but two aspects of the same informational process. The model avoids reductionism, dualism, and panpsychism, while offering falsifiability criteria: it would be refuted if fundamental information loss, restored locality, or primitive materialism were demonstrated. This approach presents a coherent, scientifically compatible alternative for unifying consciousness and physics.
The article proposes a non-dual informational ontology to dissolve the “hard problem” of consciousness. It argues that modern physics (quantum field theory, holography, and emergent gravity) undermines classical materialism, showing that reality is not made of local substances with intrinsic properties but of relational and informational structures. Within this framework, essential operators generate integrated trajectories whose intrinsic aspect is phenomenality (consciousness) and whose extrinsic aspect, under holographic projection, appears as physical dynamics. Thus, mind and matter are not separate substances or universal properties but two aspects of the same informational process. The model avoids reductionism, dualism, and panpsychism, while offering falsifiability criteria: it would be refuted if fundamental information loss, restored locality, or primitive materialism were demonstrated. This approach presents a coherent, scientifically compatible alternative for unifying consciousness and physics.
This paper presents Relational Quantum Dynamics (RQD), a paradigm that re-envisions quantum theory and its interplay with spacetime, observers, and consciousness. Abandoning the notion of a preexisting universe or fixed manifold, RQD posits that observers, observed systems, and geometric structures emerge together as stable relational patterns in an underlying quantum substrate. Spacetime is thus recast as an effective, large-scale feature of entanglement and information flows rather than a fundamental stage. By eliminating pre-given observers and absolute properties, RQD unifies relational quantum mechanics, insights from holography and tensor networks, and non-dual philosophical traditions into a single idealist framework. Here, universal awareness is not an added element but the ontological ground, ensuring that subjective experience and physical reality co-derive from the same relational field. This approach not only demystifies the "hard problem" of consciousness, making it intrinsic rather than emergent but also resolves longstanding quantum puzzles, such as Wigner's friend and Frauchiger-Renner scenarios, by showing that no absolute vantage point or objective collapse is required. In harmonizing quantum theory, emergent geometry, and a fundamental awareness-based ontology, RQD reveals that quantum mechanics, gravity, and consciousness are facets of a single, integrated reality.
Physics Within Nondual Consciousness Amit Goswami Introduction A basic problem of philosophy is to establish monism underlying all the apparent dualisms that exist around and about us. Some of these dualisms are consciousness/matter transcendent/immanent conscious/unconscious subject/object life/nonlife mind/brain exteriority/inferiority subject/person The straightforward approach, of course, is to consider all these as real dualities—this is the philosophy of dualism. However, the philosophy of dualism is not considered tenable if we take a scientific, explanatory, and verifiable approach. Take the dualism of consciousness and matter, for example. If consciousness and matter are truly dualistic, that is, made of two entirely different substances, then how do they interact? Their interaction requires a mediator. The obvious absence of a mediator speaks in favor of a monism. According to many physicists, scientists, and philosophers, physics must be carried out on the basis of the philosophy of material or scientific realism—the philosophy that only matter is real; all else, including consciousness, is an epiphenomenon of matter. It is assumed that such an approach serves to establish monism, based on material supremacy, over dualism. But material monism is a pseudomonism. In truth, material-realistic models of consciousness are unable to explain the hard questions of consciousness such as the subject/object split nature of experience (Chalmers 1995). Similarly, there are holistic approaches within the basic materialist ontology (Capra 1996) that try to resolve the consciousness/matter and transcendent/immanent dualisms by regarding consciousness as a holistic aspect of matter (the whole is greater than the parts), but this completely ignores the transcendent aspect of consciousness (Wilber 1996). The philosopher Daniel Dennet (1991) agrees that materialist cognitive-science models of consciousness in the brain do succumb to an underlying dualism, the implicit idea that a homunculus is looking at the computer output that the brain [End Page 535] generates. Dennet's own answer is operationalism (also called logical positivism). Consciousness is a purely operational concept; there is no substance to it and no causal efficacy, and thus no explanation is needed for the hard questions of consciousness. Operationalism does not work because consciousness does have causal efficacy as exhibited in such phenomena as creativity, ethics, and spirituality. But how does one include a causally potent consciousness in material-realist science, in which there is only upward causation—cause rising upwards in the hierarchical structures of matter? Elementary particles and their interactions cause all phenomena of the atoms; atoms and their interactions cause all phenomena of the molecules; molecules and their interactions cause all phenomena of the neurons; neurons are responsible for all phenomena of the brain; and the brain is the causal basis for consciousness. The physicist Henry Stapp (1995) has shown that in classical physics there are only two ways that consciousness can be treated: epiphenomenalism and dualism. But quantum physics has opened a way to introduce a causally efficacious consciousness in physics, and thus in all science (Goswami 1993; Herbert 1993; Stapp 1993; Eccles 1994). In particular, I have shown (Goswami 1989, 1990, 1993) that if quantum physics is interpreted on the basis of the primacy of consciousness as according to the philosophy of monistic idealism, then all the well-known paradoxes of quantum physics can be resolved satisfactorily. Like material realism, the philosophy of monistic idealism is also very old. The oldest known version is probably the Indian Vedānta, but the esoteric traditions behind all great religions are based on this philosophy. In the Western academy, Plato is perhaps the most easily identified monistic idealist. In monistic idealism, consciousness is the ground of all being and is transcendent. What we see as the immanent reality lies transcendent within consciousness until consciousness creates it by a power that Easterners call maya and that Plato identified as projection. The transcendent and the immanent are complementary aspects of one and the same thing; nama (name) and rupa (form) in Vedānta, yang and yin in Taoism, heaven and earth in Christianity, and the archetypes and the shadow show in the allegory of Plato's cave (Plato 1980) are some examples of such complementary pairs. This pair, along with consciousness (which transcends them both), makes up the trinity...
ABSTRACT Contemporary physics and philosophy rely on multiple dualisms: matter vs energy, body vs consciousness, quantum vs classical, information vs field. Each dualism creates contradictions and requires artificial bridges between incompatible ontologies.This work proposes a unified model in which everything is Information, existing in two inseparable states: active (dynamic) and passive (concentrated as a Model).A Model is passive Information; the environment is active Information.Model + active Information = Reality. This framework explains quantum non separability, phantom limb phenomena, CERN observations, natural vs artificial division of systems, evolution, de evolution, and the coexistence of multiple realities that cannot perceive one another due to incompatible informational interfaces.The model is more coherent than existing physical or philosophical theories because it eliminates dualisms, requires no external entities, and derives all observed phenomena from a single principle. Author: Waldemar Superson (This is Part of the Super Son of the Net Initiative) DESCRIPTION This article introduces a unified informational ontology in which all existence is described as Information in two inseparable states: active (dynamic, environmental) and passive (concentrated as a Model).The proposed structure — Model + active Information = Reality — provides a coherent explanation for quantum non locality, natural vs artificial system division, phantom limb persistence, and CERN observations.It further demonstrates that multiple realities can coexist without perceiving one another due to incompatible informational configurations.The work argues that this monistic framework is more internally consistent than contemporary physical or philosophical theories, which rely on dualisms and require additional assumptions or ontological bridges.The article positions this model as a new paradigm for understanding existence, structure, evolution, and the nature of reality itself. Author: Waldemar Superson (This is Part of the Super Son of the Net Initiative)
Herein we are not interested in merely using dynamical systems theory, graph theory, information theory, etc., to model the relationship between brain dynamics and networks, and various states and degrees of conscious processes. We are interested in the question of how phenomenal conscious experience and fundamental physics are most deeply related. Any attempt to mathematically and formally model conscious experience and its relationship to physics must begin with some metaphysical assumption in mind about the nature of conscious experience, the nature of matter and the nature of the relationship between them. These days the most prominent metaphysical fixed points are strong emergence or some variant of panpsychism. In this paper we will detail another distinct metaphysical starting point known as neutral monism. In particular, we will focus on a variant of the neutral monism of William James and Bertrand Russell. Rather than starting with physics as fundamental, as both strong emergence and panpsychism do in their own way, our goal is to suggest how one might derive fundamental physics from neutral monism. Thus, starting with two axioms grounded in our characterization of neutral monism, we will sketch out a derivation of and explanation for some key features of relativity and quantum mechanics that suggest a unity between those two theories that is generally unappreciated. Our mode of explanation throughout will be of the principle as opposed to constructive variety in something like Einstein's sense of those terms. We will argue throughout that a bias towards property dualism and a bias toward reductive dynamical and constructive explanation lead to the hard problem and the explanatory gap in consciousness studies, and lead to serious unresolved problems in fundamental physics, such as the measurement problem and the mystery of entanglement in quantum mechanics and lack of progress in producing an empirically well-grounded theory of quantum gravity. We hope to show that given our take on neutral monism and all that follows from it, the aforementioned problems can be satisfactorily resolved leaving us with a far more intuitive and commonsense model of the relationship between conscious experience and physics.
This preprint develops Dual-Aspect Quantum Theory (DAQT), a framework that interprets the two fundamental dynamical modes of quantum mechanics, unitary evolution and collapse, as possessing intrinsic subjective aspects. The theory is motivated by the attempt to place phenomenology, evolutionary constraints, and physical processes within a single coherent ontology. Beginning from the conditional hypothesis that consciousness is real and not wholly epiphenomenal, the paper argues that consciousness has a dual functional structure: qualia modulate probabilistic tendencies, while agency resolves open alternatives into actual behavior. DAQT then proposes that quantum theory provides the clearest known structural match for this architecture. On that basis, it advances a dual-aspect interpretation in which unitary evolution has a qualitative interior and collapse an agential interior. Within this framework, several major problems in the philosophy of mind, including the Hard Problem, the conceivability of philosophical zombies, and the Combination Problem, are not treated as isolated puzzles but are reformulated as internal consequences of the same psychophysical structure. The paper also explores the mathematical characterization of qualia, the role of entanglement in unified consciousness, and the possibility of a biologically plausible mechanism capable of exploiting these dynamics. Rather than claiming a deductive proof or a completed empirical model, DAQT is presented as a coherent explanatory program for the functional role, physical locus, and ontological status of consciousness.
A Two‑State Ontological Model of Reality introduces the conceptual foundation underlying the Actualization Dynamics research program. This paper develops a unified ontological framework in which reality emerges from a primordial informational substrate that exists in two operational modes: Pre‑actualized Reality, a maximally symmetric, zero‑entropy information manifold containing all possible configurations, and Actualized Reality, a finite, stable holographic code space selected by informational coherence.The transition between these modes is formalized through a stationary‑phase condition applied to an Informational Action defined on the Fisher‑metric information manifold. By integrating ideas from information geometry, holographic entanglement entropy, quantum error‑correcting codes, and an ontological path integral, the paper argues that Actualized Reality is the unique, self‑consistent solution that preserves reconstructibility and error‑correctability.Key contributions include:• A formal definition of Pre‑actualized and Actualized Reality• The role of the Cleaning Lemma as an ontological selection rule• The derivation of an Informational Planck Constant from the Bekenstein–Hawking entropy bound• A stationary‑phase interpretation of the universe as an informational interference pattern• A structural resolution of the measurement problem• A falsifiable prediction of oscillatory non‑Gaussianities in the CMB arising from holographic interferenceThis document serves as the conceptual and philosophical foundation for the technical results presented in Actualization Dynamics I, II, III, and the Unified Informational Field Theory. It is intended as the “Chapter 0” of the series, providing the ontological motivation and interpretive framework for the mathematical formalism developed in subsequent papers.