DOI: 10.14704/nq.2017.15.2.1037

Can ‘Theory of Everything’ Be Global Theory of Consciousness? Ontology and Psychodynamics of I-observer.

Sergey B. Yurchenko


The ‘theory of everything’ (TOE) is conceived to embrace all natural sciences Today the TOE is discussed mostly in physics. From Copenhagen interpretation to date, another discussion is widely unfolded on the role of consciousness in quantum experience and physical descriptions in general. The paper combines both the discussions and argues for a global theory of consciousness (GTC). It will be proven that the naturalistic postulate on the world’s independent existence is not quite correct but requires independence of any privileged anthropic I-observer with regard to relational observer-dependent scenario. The stream I(t) of consciousness is introduced by analogy with causal set modeling in quantum cosmology as a Markov chain (or a Turing machine) taken to be a set of the instant I-World states. In dynamics, the cogito emerges to be an unclosed loop on I(t) related directly to ψ-ontology. Further, it can be naturally extended to the perpetum cogito mechanism that entangles the triple ‘past-present-future’. In fact, it is a noncommutative algebra for physics on a boundary. I-observer moves in superposition through every current present and in ‘back-position’ towards the arrow of time.


theory of everything; stream of consciousness; perpetum cogito; ψ-ontology; arrow of time; nonlocality

Full Text:

Full Text PDF


Aaronson S, Bouland A, Chua L, Lowther G. ψ-epistemic theories: The role of symmetry. Phys. Rev. A 2013; arXiv:1303.2834

Albert D, Loewer B. Interpreting the Many Worlds Interpretation. Synthese 1988; 77, 195-213

Anderson E. The Problem of Time in Quantum Gravity. arXiv: 1009.2157v2 [gr-qc] (2011)

Anderson PW. More Is Different. Science 1972; 177 (4047): 393-396

Barrow JD. Anthropic Definitions. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 1997; 24: 146–53.

Barbour J. The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Physics, Oxford University Press, 2000

Bell J S. Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics. Cambridge University Press, 1987

Bohm D. Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Routledge and Kegan, London, 1980

Buonomano DV, Bramen J, Khodadadifar M. Influence of the interstimulus interval on temporal processing and learning: testing the state-dependent network model. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2009; 364: 1865–1873

Castaneda HN. He: A study in the Logic of Self-reference. Ratio 1966; 8, 130-157.

Coecke B. Edwards B. and Spekkens RW. Phase groups and the origin of non-locality for qubits. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 2011., 270(2):15–36

Conway JH, Kochen S. The Strong Free Will Theorem. Notices of the American Mathematical Society 2009; 56, 226–232. arXiv:0807.3286 [quant-ph]

DeWitt BS, Graham RN. The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973.

Everett H. Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics. Reviews of Mod. Phys. 1957; 29:454–462.

Fuchs CA. Qbism, the perimeter of quantum bayesianism. arXiv:1003.5209 (2010).

Hardy, L. Are quantum states real? International Journal of Modern Physics B 2013; arXiv:1205.1439

Heisenberg W. The representation of nature in contemporary physics. Daedalus 1958; 87, 95-108

Leifer MS. Is the quantum state real? An extended review of ψ-ontology theorems. Quanta 2014; 3(1): 67–155

Lockwood M. Many Minds Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 1996; 47, 159-88

Nagel, T. Mind and cosmos: why the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false. Oxford University Press, 2012

Perry J. The Problem of the Essential Indexical and Other Essays. Expanded Edition Oxford University Press, Inc. New York, 1993

Prior A. Past, Present, Future. Oxford Univ. Press, 1967

Pusey MF, Barrett, J, Rudolph, T. On the reality of the quantum state. Nat. Phys. 2012; 8(6): 475–478

Rovelli C. Relational Quantum Mechanics. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 1996; 35:1637-1678. arXiv: quant-ph/9609002

Searle J. The Mystery of Consciousness. Granta Books, 1997

Smolin L The Trouble with Physics. UK: Penguin, 2006

Smolin L. Temporal naturalism. arXiv:1310.8539 (2013)

Spekkens RW. Evidence for the epistemic view of quantum states: A toy theory. Physical Review A 2007; 75(3):03-21

Tegmark M. The Mathematical Universe. Found. Phys. 2007; arXiv: 0704.0646v2 [gr-qc]

’t Hooft G. The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. arXiv: 1405.1548v3 [quant-ph] (2015)

’t Hooft G. On the Free Will Postulate in Quantum mechanics. arXiv: quant-ph/0701097 (2007)

Weinberg S. Dreams of a Final Theory. Pantheon, New York, 1992

Wheeler JA. Genesis and Observership. In Butts, R.E. and Hintikka, K..J. (eds) Foundational Problems in the Special Sciences. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1977

Wigner E. The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. Communications in Pure and Applied Mathematics 1960; 13(1).

Yurchenko SB. Self, Time, and Reality in Quantum Stream of Consciousness. NeuroQuantology 2016; 14(3): 484-500

Supporting Agencies

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

| NeuroScience + QuantumPhysics> NeuroQuantology :: Copyright 2001-2019