A Universal Wavefunction and Quantum Emergence Approach to Reality and Consciousness

The question of what consciousness is remains one of the oldest to plague thinkers throughout human history. In this paper, I propose not only a solution to the hard problem of consciousness, but to the very existence of our universe as well. While we like to think of these as two separate problems, a true, all-encompassing theory of consciousness must connect to and satisfy the broader question of why anything should exist. Let us first begin at the subatomic level. What is an atom? an atom is a particle made up of a nucleus, consisting of protons and neutrons, around which an electron cloud can be found, where a number of electrons in superposition can be found. Beyond the level of the proton and neutron, there are the up and down quarks which compose the protons and neutrons, and the gluons which bind these together. Of special interest here is the electron cloud. Before going any further, I should inform the reader that the standard Copenhagen interpretation will not be followed in favor of the Everettian interpretation of quantum mechanics. This part is critical to the theory laid out in the following paragraphs.

The core theory of Everettian quantum mechanics is that every time a particle undergoes a measurement of some kind, this causes the wave function describing that particle to split, creating two different universes (in effect), where each outcome is satisfied. We can go so far as to assume that the wave function is universal, that there is a universal wavefunction, and that every interaction between different particles in our universe represents different parts of this wave function interacting with itself. Imagine for a moment that the current universe that we know it is only one out of an unimaginable number of different possible configurations, or snapshots, of this universal wavefunction- that the reason that all of this exists is that it so happens that we live in the state of particles described by the wavefunction that entails our current reality.

The implications of this possibility are far-reaching- essentially, this would mean that there are in fact an infinite or at the very least a very large number of different universes out there comprised of different "formations", or values, of this universal wave function. And, as you define more parts of this wavefunction, the other parts slowly iron themselves out. Let us say that there is a finite set S of particles in our universe. Now, let us say that none of the particles are entangled- this means that we can look at only one particle at a time- in effect, we are limited to a one-particle reality. But entangle a pair of particles, and now you have a two particle reality. This means that you can look at the entire frame of reality in terms of this singular pair of particles. If we keep adding particles, our reality keeps growing, as we in effect define the values of more and more of these particles- our reality emerges from chaos. And because each of these particles comes from the same wave function, each particle does have an effect on every other, and so as we add particles to our reality, this does influence and limit the possibility of what we will get from another particle. This is why we must freeze particles in order to perform quantum mechanical experiments on them- because they too readily interact with the environment, and we must isolate them in order to experience their spooky effects. But for particles in close proximity to one another that experience constant interaction, they do and they must interact in a way that can be seen as effectively building an emergent reality, slowly reducing any ambiguity and giving rise to discreteness.

In essence, our reality is only one possible configuration out of many of the universal wave functions (it is mind-bending to consider that the wave function itself might have its own wave function). But what does this have to do with consciousness? Well, it assumes that reality exists because every atom (here we do not mean this in the chemical sense but the philosophical sense) of our reality exists in a certain way relative to all the other atoms of existence. Think about this for a minute- if we assume that I am saying here is true, then instead of looking at the universe from the point of view of a bunch of well defined particles, we can look at it as a bunch of continuous spots on the universal wavefunction that have chosen a particular configuration, one that exists because these particles exist relative to one another in a certain way. In truth, the only explanation that makes sense is that reality exists intrinsic to itself (this should be obvious, after all, what can exist outside of reality?)

But I think this hints at a deeper, more fundamental truth of our universe, and that is that everything that exists does so only because it exists relative to another; everything is about the delta, the basis vectors aren't defined but their coefficients are. After all, what is an electron? a ball of electromagnetic energy? what is energy? no, what is it really? and when you get down to this level of thought, you realize that energy exists only because it is relative to other things such as mass and no energy- that is, electromagnetic energy exists only because there are other fields such as the gravitational one and there are properties such as mass and less fundamental ones such as velocity that arise because of this so called energy. There is no reason as to why an electron or an electric field should be any one thing or another, but there is reason as to why it should behave relative to other things and why it should carry information. When you get down to it, everything is information, and information itself is only relative; past this, there is nothingness, the void. Thus nothing and everything exists at the same time, for it is nothingness that creates the opportunity for somethingness to exist.

Now we take this argument and apply it to the brain. Inside the brain, obviously there are countless neurons, each consisting of a cell body, an axon, and a number of dentrites. At synapses between different neurons, chemical signals in the form of neurotransmitters deliver energy in the form of electrons from one synapse to another. We must also account for the electrical impulse that travels down the body of the axon when a neuron fires.

This transfer of information is almost surely what creates the essence of consciousness, but how it does so has been the debate of many scientists and philosophers.

Right now, the most promising theory of consciousness, in my opinion, is integrated information theory; Basically, IIT posits that information is the source of consciousness, and that it exists intrinsically, relative to the brain, through feedback loops that integrate previous outputs from neurons back into themselves, allowing for different conscious states brought on by different electrical states in the brain to communicate with one another, and thus create a flow of information and experience that we know as consciousness (in other words, IIT is causal). I am not an expert on IIT, but from what I have read about it it does seem to align well with my own theories- that information exists only within the brain, that some conscious systems are more conscious than others, that consciousness does appear to be structured. But I think that IIT is most likely a simplification of something deeper.

Let us take this neural argument by first starting with the color blue. What makes blue blue? well, it is doubtful that blue would be very special if the only thing a conscious being could experience were the color blue. You need to differentiate, else there is nothing to differ blue from say, red. And thus, blue exists relative to red. If you think about it, there is no reason that blue shouldn't appear as red and red shouldn't appear as blue, other than that the two have either a direct or indirect neural relationship that defines them relative to each other and in some way to their absences. The more dimensions we add, the more potential for experience, the more colors, the more qualia, and they all exist relative to one another.

But what is a quale? There is no scientific explanation for how a certain arangement of neurons inside of your brain somehow codes for the color blue, and I think that this discredits the entire theory of qualia. We assume that blue is a real thing, but what does it mean for something to be real? as I explained above, our reality must exist intrinsically, and so it makes the most sense that blue only exists within our brain. Okay, but then why do I experience blue as I do? why don't I experience blue as something like a sound?

To start, there are some functional differences between the two- colors tend to have a much higher definition (our sense of sight arguably brings us far more information than our other senses), they are highly dependent spacially, and those are the functional differences that I can think of right now.

But what if we are making an assumption that isn't necessary- the prevailing thought seems to be that qualia such as colors and sounds are different from the patterns of electrical impulses within our brains that supposedly "encode" them. But what if they aren't? What if the nature of blue is the pattern of action potentials occuring within a specific region of the brain, relative to all the other regions? what if blue simply is the fluctations of the electromagnetic field that guide the function of our neurons?

It is hard to imagine in absolute terms why this should be the case, but in relative terms I find it makes quite a bit of sense. When blue exists relative to red, and both blue and red exist to say our sense of sound, then they gain definition not through an absolute description of their nature but through a relative one. The more dimensions of experience (or "qualia", if we can call them that), the more well defined our current ones become.

But wait- surely there must be some errors in this argument. After all, if we take someone who is blind, if we could somehow "un-blind" them, surely that wouldn't change their perception of sound? Yes, this is true, and it means that part of my above argument must be flawed. So, let us take a different approach;

Let's call the pattern of electrical impulses that cause a particular set of "qualia" \(S\). In this particular set we have different subsets, such as \(C\) for color and \(A\) for auditory stimuli. Now, lets say that the function \(D_{s_1}(s_2)\) represents the informational relationship of some subset \(s_2\) to another subset \(s_1\) of the overall set of "qualia". A concert A note exists relative to the color red a certain way, and vice versa, and this in essence defines their nature.

But wait- if we were to remove a certain "subset of qualia", such as sound, does this mean that someone loses their entire basis for experiencing qualia, and their entire reality appears to flip? Of course not. Plenty of people have gone blind or deaf, and if you were to ask them, you would be hard pressed to find someone who said that their entire experience of sound or color was completely different than it was before. This is, again, because of the relationship between the information in the brain- The key here is that sound is not only relative to color, and vice versa- they are relative to the entire brain as well. The key piece here is if you remove a subset of qualia- say, \(s_1\)- then yes, \(D_{s_1}(s_2)\) does in fact change, and thus a dimensionality of experience is lost, and \(s_2\) does become less defined (we are assuming here that by a loss of qualia, the corresponding neural structure is removed/deactivated). But this also affects \(S\)- and since the nature of \(s_{2}\) is not only relative to \(s_{1}\) but to \(S\) overall, what we are interested in is how the overall relationship between \(s_2\) and \(S\) changes. We can represent the relationship of \(s_{2}\) relative to \(S\) after \(s_{1}\) is removed as \(D_{S\setminus {s_{1}}}(s_{2}) \), where the previous relationship was \(D_{S}(s_{2})\).

At this point, we have to recognize that the relationship between two different kinds of qualia is very much dependent on neural structure. We have been looking at things from a phenomenological perspective, but the entire theme of this essay is to look at things from a physical perspective, so let us use that to revise our thinking now. It is clear that, while the brain does integrate both vision and auditory stimuli heavily in generating its understanding of the world, the direct interaction between the two is actually rather low- they are processed in two separate areas of the brain, and interact with each other at a relatively higher level. This is in contrast to separate colors or sounds, which are far more dependent on each other than they are with other qualia. If someone with monochromacy were to be introduced to red, the qualia representing black and white would clearly be far more implicated than if they were introduced to the "qualia" of a concert A.

But we shouldn't look at things on a singular, "quale by quale" basis- we need to look at them in reference to the system as a whole. If we continue along the line of thought that I started in the paragraph before the last one, by removing a qualia \(D_{S}(s_{2})\) goes to \(D_{S\setminus s_{1}}(s_{2})\).
We can then take this argument that all neural, conscious systems consist of systems of information inside which different experiences exist chiefly relatively with one another, and this is the source of their nature, and recognize its origin with the previously mentioned postulate about quantum mechanics and reality, to come to a complete understanding of reality where things only exist because they do so relative to one another, and this is the very nature of their existence, and they exist withing a great context of possibilities through which our rich realities come to life.

A “Focus Matrix” Approach to Different Layers of Emergence.

In the previous section, we deal with the potential of a strictly emergent universe, where the fundamental particles and laws governing these particles are nothing more than the product of a few base rules that may or may not be fundamental to a vast multiverse of possibilities that emerge from a universal wavefunction without any specific configuration. Out of this sea of possibilities emerge different realities, such as our own, each of these with both differing physical properties and potentially structural and axiomatic differences. Whether the fundamental particles or their masses exist in different universes is an excellent question, and determining the relationship of traditional branches in Many Worlds Theory to the idea of separate universes that exist independent is an interesting area of research; However, we theorize that the idea of the branching of a wavefunction and the existence of other universes and realities with different parameters, particles, and rules isn't fundamentally different, and relies on the same basic principle of an emergent reality.

In an emergent universe, we may theorize that there is a hierarchy to reality. Obviously, on the quantum level, there is an inherent fuzziness and lack of definition, an extreme chaos, whereas on the macroscopic scale of planets, stars, and galaxies, the level of emergence is astonishingly high- the probability of two stars quantum tunneling through one another is astronomically smaller than the probability two molecules do the same.

This emergence may be both physical- i.e. relating to the physical locations, spins, and other properties of particles, as well as relating to the existence and mass of different particles. Obviously, the parameters such as mass do not seem to change!

Why is this? Why can't we modify charge or mass? Perhaps it is because, when we place particles in a state of superposition, what we are really doing is unentangling them from the rest of the our universal wavefunction. Of course, in order to interact with them, they still must abide by our rules. And so, while we may mediate properties such as spin or polarization, which are free to change anyhow, but to change the mass would remove that particle entirely from our reality.

This brings us to our next theory: particle properties such as mass, and even charge, or possible spin-states, and even dimensions themselves, aren't deadset. They exist within our metauniversal wavefunction that defines all other wavefunctions. Except, all worlds with half dimensions or different mass particles don't lead to our reality, and our reality is one through which existence and consciousness is possible- it is not that these weird universes are impossible or contradictory to any fundamental axioms of reality, but rather that in order for us to exist and ponder these subjects we are required to live in a reality that has 3 spatial dimensions, one time dimension, and the specific masses of the proton and neutron that we see in order for life to emerge.

A potential implication of these ideas is that gravity itself is not the result of some fancy geometry as Einstein assumed, but rather an emergent property of the relationships between particles themselves, and the theory of General Relativity forms an accurate emergent description of spacetime. Perhaps space and time are like sticky rice, built of individual particles, but acting like one big mooshy manifold (let's call this the Sticky Rice Theory).

The anthropic principle brings us back to consciousness. A thought experiment- Why am I me, and why are you you? After all, you exist as much as I do, as the reader.

Perhaps we need to look at consciousness as a local minimum- in all the chaos in the universe, consciousness is when information forms an information system that is capable of reaching a sort of “information singularity”, where it is organized enough to make sense of itself and reach consciousness. Integrated Information Theory forms the basis of this theory, except I propose a fuzzier, quantum focused interpretation.

According to Integrated Information Theory, consciousness arises from discrete processes that handle information, composed of the electrical signals in the brain. Consciousness isn't innate to the physical electrons governing these impulses, but rather emerges from what they represent. IIT also postulates that the intrinsic causal ability of a mind to direct its future is inextricably linked with consciousness, although I do challenge this notion by arguing that the idea of causality exists only because we can adopt the perspective that a system has causal power- in terms of an eternalist perspective, the rivers of time have already been written, but a in single gradient directed down this river causality emerges only because of the relative position of the observer along this gradient. Here, a gradient refers to the transitions of an information state between states along the axis of “time”, which we theorize is an emergent phenomenon that is directed down the direction of maximum entropy. Time, like space, is dependent on the emergence and definition of a system, which is the topic of this next section.

Let us imagine we are Laplace's demon, except we have the ability to inspect the universe at different levels. We begin at the lowest level possible, the quantum level. If we assume a state of maximum emergence, everything is well defined, yet it has no discernible meaning or order. All is chaos and static.

But what if we introduce the concept of a focus tensor? What the dimensions of this tensor would be, we cannot say, but the idea is this: we define some matrix/tensor that describes the order to which we “obscure” the individual bits of information, AKA particles, in effect a convolutional layer. This “convolutional layer” allows us to pick up the patterns that arise from the chaos even when we take a look at a single configuration of the metaversal wavefunction or universal wavefunction. For example, the human mind: on the quantum level, our mind is nothing but a bunch of indiscernible particle interactions. But upon taking a step back, the more macroscopic interactions of these particles forms its own information system, through which an intelligent and conscious being may be manifested.

By applying a focus layer, we can identify and manifest reality through local minimums that don't exist on other information levels. Human beings are very likely global minimums, given the sheer order and depth of our existence, and thus it is very likely that the anthropic principle is correct. However, among the stars and galaxies, it is entirely likely that there are other local minima, albeit lacking the complexity and innate causal and computational ability of the mind, it is information itself that forms consciousness, so the core experience that is innate to information does exist in unconscious systems, and surely can allow for some level of experience, although not self aware. It is unclear to what extent gravity can mediate these effects, given the dominant role of electromagnetism in human experience.

Finally, as to the passage of time and influence of gravity, it is altogether likely that given the scale of human consciousness and the information through which emerges the human mind, the scale upon we experience reality exists relative to all the other possible scales. If we take a focus tensor of a highest level and look at reality through the lens of information of the scale of galaxies, to achieve the same information complexity one would need billions or trillions of years, assuming it is indeed raw complexity and not order that dictates the passage of time. Likely though, it is order that plays a crucial role, and so the question becomes one of the emergence of a Boltzmann brain.

Perhaps the Boltzmann brain is real. Perhaps God is real. It would make much sense if this were the case. But what if we are Boltzmann brains? What if our minds are the products of these theoretical behemoths? What if it isn't so absurd after all? I don't see what a difference it makes. If the axioms of the information that govern our reality aren't axiomatic but exist upon a great neural superstructure, a great conscious god composed of its own emergent universe and its own axioms of reality, I see no difference. At the end of the day, we have our local axioms of reality, we have our rules, we have our sea of possibilities, and the very fact it is possible for us to exist separately through our own realities is proof that different realities emerge from what can best be described as a quantum mystery soup of reality.