Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Experience may be described in probabilistic terms when it is unconscious OR A theory that explains reality in terms of a virtual reality

Amotz Perlman

Published Jan 15, 2026• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

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.

Related papers

WITHDRAWN

Amotz Perlman

Virtual reality serves as a metaphor for understanding reality, due to surprising similarities in three key aspects:1.In virtual reality, an image of an object located in a particular location is created only upon observation.Similarly, in reality, probabilities for parameter values (such as the position of a particle) can be predicted, but they do not have a defined value prior to measurement.2. The parameter values of two entangled particles are determined instantly and definitively upon measuring one of them.This phenomenon occurs even when the particles are far apart in terms of spatial location.3. In virtual reality, it is not possible to measure or experience a unit smaller than a minimal value.Similarly, in reality, as with pixels in virtual reality, units smaller than a certain value cannot be measured or experienced.

•May 25, 2025•0 citations

The mathematical nature of the universe and consciousness: the universe is a collection of self-driven mathematical entities; consciousness is the use of mathematical models by a Turing machine

Xiaoyang Yu

Humans are limited in what they know by the technical limitation of their cortical language network. A reality is a situation model. The universe is a collection of self-driven mathematical entities. If we are happy to accept randomness, it’s obviously possible that all other so-called “worlds” in the many-worlds interpretation don’t exist objectively. The so-called “physical interaction” (aka objective interaction) among any number of elementary particles is consistent with the so-called “physical law”. From the viewpoint of an imagined external observer (who is located somewhere outside of all worlds), in all worlds, every self-driven elementary particle is changing its state to match its fated state, together form a single fated self-driven state machine; the so-called “subjective reality” (aka the so-called “subjective conscious experience”) is actually the use of a mathematical model (MM) by a Turing machine (TM). The so-called “subjective reality” shouldn’t be able to alter/impact the fated world line of any elementary particle within this world. Except one objective MM which is a fitted MM of the objective reality, every other causality is not an objective MM but a Granger causality, and is an under-fitted MM of the objective reality.

•Feb 3, 2021•0 citations

The mathematical nature of the universe and consciousness: the universe is a collection of self-driven mathematical entities; consciousness is a Turing machine’s subjective mathematical model of the objective universe

Xiaoyang Yu

Humans are limited in what they know by the technical limitation of their cortical language network. A reality is a situation model. The universe is a collection of self-driven mathematical entities. If we are happy to accept randomness, it’s obviously possible that all other so-called “worlds” in the many-worlds interpretation don’t exist objectively. From the viewpoint of an imagined external observer (who is located somewhere outside of all worlds), in all worlds, every self-driven elementary particle is changing its state to match its fated state, together form a single fated self-driven state machine; the so-called “subjective reality” (aka the so-called “subjective conscious experience”) is actually the use of a mathematical model (MM) by a Turing machine (TM). The so-called “subjective reality” shouldn’t be able to alter/impact the fated world line of any elementary particle within this world. Except one objective MM which is a fitted MM of the objective reality, every other causality is not an objective MM but a Granger causality, and is an under-fitted MM of the objective reality.

•Mar 6, 2021•0 citations

Probabilities Don't Matter

Don Nelson Page

It is suggested that probabilities need not apply at all to matter in the physical world, which may be entirely described by the amplitudes given by the quantum mechanical state. Instead, probabilities may apply only to conscious perceptions in the mental world. Such perceptions may not form unique sequences that one could call individual minds.

arXiv:gr-qc/9411004•magr•Nov 1, 1994•12 citations

Reality in quantum mechanics, Extended Everett Concept, and consciousness

Michael B. Mensky

Conceptual problems in quantum mechanics result from the specific quantum concept of reality and require, for their solution, including the observer’s consciousness into the quantum theory of measurements. Most naturally, this is achieved in the framework of Everett’s “many-world interpretation” of quantum mechanics. According to this interpretation, various classical alternatives are perceived by consciousness separately from each other. In the Extended Everett Concept (EEC) proposed by the present author, the separation of the alternatives is identified with the phenomenon of consciousness. This explains the classical character of the alternatives and unusual manifestations of consciousness arising “at the edge of consciousness” (i.e., in sleep or trance) when its access to “other alternative classical realities” (other Everett’s worlds) becomes feasible. Because of reversibility of quantum evolution in EEC, all time moments in the quantum world are equivalent, while the impression of flow of time appears only in consciousness. If it is assumed that consciousness may influence the probabilities of alternatives (which is consistent in case of infinitely many Everett’s worlds), EEC explains free will, “probabilistic miracles” (observing low-probability events), and decreasing entropy in the sphere of life.

arXiv:physics/0608309•Optics and Spectroscopy•Sep 1, 2007•15 citations

Quantum Magic and Quantum Mystery

Roger Penrose, Martin R. Gardner

In classical physics there is, in accordance with common sense, an objective world ‘out there’. That world evolves in a clear and deterministic way, being governed by precisely formulated mathematical equations. This is as true for the theories of Maxwell and Einstein as it is for the original Newtonian scheme. Physical reality is taken to exist independently of ourselves; and exactly how the classical world ‘is’ is not affected by how we might choose to look at it. Moreover, our bodies and our brains are themselves to be part of that world. They, also, are viewed as evolving according to the same precise and deterministic classical equations. All our actions are to be fixed by these equations - no matter how we might feel that our conscious wills may be influencing how we behave. Such a picture appears to lie at the background of most serious 1 philosophical arguments concerned with the nature of reality, of our conscious perceptions, and of our apparent free will. Some people might have an uncomfortable feeling that there should also be a role for quantum theory - that fundamental but disturbing scheme of things which, in the first quarter of this century, arose out of observations of subtle discrepancies between the actual behaviour of the world and the descriptions of classical physics. To many, the term ‘quantum theory’ evokes merely some vague concept of an ‘uncertainty principle’, which, at the level of particles, atoms or molecules, forbids precision in our descriptions and yields merely probabilistic behaviour. Actually, quantum descriptions are very precise, as we shall see, although radically different from the familiar classical ones. Moreover, we shall find, despite a common view to the contrary, that probabilities do not arise at the minute quantum level of particles, atoms, or molecules - those evolve deterministically - but, seemingly, via some mysterious larger-scale action connected with the emergence of a classical world that we can consciously perceive. We must try to understand this, and how quantum theory forces us to change our view of physical reality.

Oxford University Press eBooks•Oct 5, 1989•14 citations
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.
Virtual reality serves as a metaphor for understanding reality, due to surprising similarities in three key aspects:1.In virtual reality, an image of an object located in a particular location is created only upon observation.Similarly, in reality, probabilities for parameter values (such as the position of a particle) can be predicted, but they do not have a defined value prior to measurement.2. The parameter values of two entangled particles are determined instantly and definitively upon measuring one of them.This phenomenon occurs even when the particles are far apart in terms of spatial location.3. In virtual reality, it is not possible to measure or experience a unit smaller than a minimal value.Similarly, in reality, as with pixels in virtual reality, units smaller than a certain value cannot be measured or experienced.
Humans are limited in what they know by the technical limitation of their cortical language network. A reality is a situation model. The universe is a collection of self-driven mathematical entities. If we are happy to accept randomness, it’s obviously possible that all other so-called “worlds” in the many-worlds interpretation don’t exist objectively. The so-called “physical interaction” (aka objective interaction) among any number of elementary particles is consistent with the so-called “physical law”. From the viewpoint of an imagined external observer (who is located somewhere outside of all worlds), in all worlds, every self-driven elementary particle is changing its state to match its fated state, together form a single fated self-driven state machine; the so-called “subjective reality” (aka the so-called “subjective conscious experience”) is actually the use of a mathematical model (MM) by a Turing machine (TM). The so-called “subjective reality” shouldn’t be able to alter/impact the fated world line of any elementary particle within this world. Except one objective MM which is a fitted MM of the objective reality, every other causality is not an objective MM but a Granger causality, and is an under-fitted MM of the objective reality.
Humans are limited in what they know by the technical limitation of their cortical language network. A reality is a situation model. The universe is a collection of self-driven mathematical entities. If we are happy to accept randomness, it’s obviously possible that all other so-called “worlds” in the many-worlds interpretation don’t exist objectively. From the viewpoint of an imagined external observer (who is located somewhere outside of all worlds), in all worlds, every self-driven elementary particle is changing its state to match its fated state, together form a single fated self-driven state machine; the so-called “subjective reality” (aka the so-called “subjective conscious experience”) is actually the use of a mathematical model (MM) by a Turing machine (TM). The so-called “subjective reality” shouldn’t be able to alter/impact the fated world line of any elementary particle within this world. Except one objective MM which is a fitted MM of the objective reality, every other causality is not an objective MM but a Granger causality, and is an under-fitted MM of the objective reality.
Conceptual problems in quantum mechanics result from the specific quantum concept of reality and require, for their solution, including the observer’s consciousness into the quantum theory of measurements. Most naturally, this is achieved in the framework of Everett’s “many-world interpretation” of quantum mechanics. According to this interpretation, various classical alternatives are perceived by consciousness separately from each other. In the Extended Everett Concept (EEC) proposed by the present author, the separation of the alternatives is identified with the phenomenon of consciousness. This explains the classical character of the alternatives and unusual manifestations of consciousness arising “at the edge of consciousness” (i.e., in sleep or trance) when its access to “other alternative classical realities” (other Everett’s worlds) becomes feasible. Because of reversibility of quantum evolution in EEC, all time moments in the quantum world are equivalent, while the impression of flow of time appears only in consciousness. If it is assumed that consciousness may influence the probabilities of alternatives (which is consistent in case of infinitely many Everett’s worlds), EEC explains free will, “probabilistic miracles” (observing low-probability events), and decreasing entropy in the sphere of life.
In classical physics there is, in accordance with common sense, an objective world ‘out there’. That world evolves in a clear and deterministic way, being governed by precisely formulated mathematical equations. This is as true for the theories of Maxwell and Einstein as it is for the original Newtonian scheme. Physical reality is taken to exist independently of ourselves; and exactly how the classical world ‘is’ is not affected by how we might choose to look at it. Moreover, our bodies and our brains are themselves to be part of that world. They, also, are viewed as evolving according to the same precise and deterministic classical equations. All our actions are to be fixed by these equations - no matter how we might feel that our conscious wills may be influencing how we behave. Such a picture appears to lie at the background of most serious 1 philosophical arguments concerned with the nature of reality, of our conscious perceptions, and of our apparent free will. Some people might have an uncomfortable feeling that there should also be a role for quantum theory - that fundamental but disturbing scheme of things which, in the first quarter of this century, arose out of observations of subtle discrepancies between the actual behaviour of the world and the descriptions of classical physics. To many, the term ‘quantum theory’ evokes merely some vague concept of an ‘uncertainty principle’, which, at the level of particles, atoms or molecules, forbids precision in our descriptions and yields merely probabilistic behaviour. Actually, quantum descriptions are very precise, as we shall see, although radically different from the familiar classical ones. Moreover, we shall find, despite a common view to the contrary, that probabilities do not arise at the minute quantum level of particles, atoms, or molecules - those evolve deterministically - but, seemingly, via some mysterious larger-scale action connected with the emergence of a classical world that we can consciously perceive. We must try to understand this, and how quantum theory forces us to change our view of physical reality.