We modify the simulation hypothesis to a self–simulation hypothesis, where the physical universe, as a strange loop, is a mental self–simulation that might exist as one of a broad class of possible code theoretic quantum gravity models of reality obeying the principle of efficient language axiom. This leads to ontological interpretations about quantum mechanics. We also discuss some implications of the self–simulation hypothesis such as an informational arrow of time.

### About Klee Irwin

**Klee Irwin is an author, researcher and entrepreneur who now dedicates the majority of his time to Quantum Gravity Research (QGR), a non-profit research institute that he founded in 2009. The mission of the organization is to discover the geometric first-principles unification of space, time, matter, energy, information, and consciousness. **

**As the Director of QGR, Klee manages a dedicated team of mathematicians and physicists in developing emergence theory to replace the current disparate and conflicting physics theories. Since 2009, the team has published numerous papers and journal articles analyzing the fundamentals of physics. **

**Klee is also the founder and owner of Irwin Naturals, an award-winning global natural supplement company providing alternative health and healing products sold in thousands of retailers across the globe including Whole Foods, Vitamin Shoppe, Costco, RiteAid, WalMart, CVS, GNC and many others. Irwin Naturals is a long time supporter of Vitamin Angels, which aims to provide lifesaving vitamins to mothers and children at risk of malnutrition thereby reducing preventable illness, blindness, and death and creating healthier communities.**

**Outside of his work in physics, Klee is active in supporting students, scientists, educators, and founders in their aim toward discovering solutions to activate positive change in the world. He has supported and invested in a wide range of people, causes and companies including Change.org, Upworthy, Donors Choose, Moon Express, Mayasil, the X PRIZE Foundation, and Singularity University where he is an Associate Founder.**

Article

The Self-Simulation Hypothesis Interpretation of

Quantum Mechanics

Klee Irwin *

, Marcelo Amaral

and David Chester

Quantum Gravity Research, Los Angeles, CA 90290, USA; marcelo@quantumgravityresearch.org (M.A.);

davidc@quantumgravityresearch.org (D.C.)

* Correspondence: Klee@QuantumGravityResearch.com

Received: 11 January 2020; Accepted: 17 February 2020; Published: 21 February 2020

Abstract: We modify the simulation hypothesis to a self-simulation hypothesis, where the physical

universe, as a strange loop, is a mental self-simulation that might exist as one of a broad class of

possible code theoretic quantum gravity models of reality obeying the principle of efficient language

axiom. This leads to ontological interpretations about quantum mechanics. We also discuss some

implications of the self-simulation hypothesis such as an informational arrow of time.

Keywords: simulation hypothesis; philosophy of mind; quantum mechanics

1. Introduction and Background

The simulation hypothesis [1] is a materialistic view, which argues that our universe is most likely

a simulation in a physical universe. In Are you living in a computer simulation?, Nick Bostrom discusses

how sufficient evolution of future technology leads to lifeforms capable of producing a large quantity

of high fidelity simulations, called ancestor simulations. These simulations express an evolutionary

process leading to humans and on up through higher levels of biological and technological evolution.

The simulation hypothesis explains where the information that is our reality comes from. However, it

does not offer an explanation for where the physical stuff of the real universe comes from. Because

there would be more simulations than the one real universe, the deduction is that it is more likely that

we are in one of the simulations than the real universe.

We discuss a non-materialist view called the self-simulation hypothesis, wherein everything

is information, which we define as thought. The universe self-actualizes itself into existence via

self-simulation using a mathematical code and a simulation game rule called the principle of efficient

language. The salient idea is “timeless emergentism”, wherein the total simulation run can be viewed as

one grand thought. Herein, the presumption of time does not exist, and, instead, a nested hierarchical

order in the total self-simulation thought as an ordered set exists. Emergentism in this context is where

the self-simulation grand thought has various sub-thoughts in a nested hierarchy that synergistically

composite to higher-order sub-thoughts and eventually composite to become the grand thought of

the self-simulation run itself. An early sub-thought in the ordered set is the base mathematics of the

self-simulation code. Another important early sub-thought is the principle of efficient language, which

is the idea of economizing sub-thoughts, called code-steps or actions, for the purpose of economically

expressing the meaning that emergent sub-thoughts, such as humans, choose to experience, such

as a measurement. One important sub-thought early in the ordering of the nested hierarchy is a

fundamental particle.

Materialism is an axiom that says matter and other physical things, such as light and spacetime, are

the fundamental substances of reality. In this view, the terms “abstract” and “physical” are juxtaposed,

where abstract, i.e., not real, information merely describes the real physical things. The axiom offers no

explanation for where the physical stuff comes from. It just is.

Entropy 2020, 22, 247; doi:10.3390/e22020247

www.mdpi.com/journal/entropy

Entropy 2020, 22, 247

2 of 26

Digital physics [2–11] is a non-materialistic view, which says there is no physicality but only

abstract information as the fundamental building blocks of emergent informational structures of reality,

such as atoms. One advocate was John Wheeler, who discussed how entities capable of observing and

thinking influence how physical information behaves. The digital physics view is non-dualistic in

that it does not juxtapose the terms “abstract” and “physical”, since everything real is information

and therefore abstract. However, just as the materialist view does not explain where the physical stuff

comes from, the digital physics view does not offer an explanation for where the information comes

from. It just is.

Idealistic holistic panpsychism [12] (herein, panpsychism) is related to ontological idealism [13].

It says that everything is thought or consciousness. Panpsychism philosophy does not explain how the

panpsychic substrate comes to exist. It just is. We propose a panpsychic self-simulation model, which

attempts to describe the origin of the panconsciousness.

In Reference [14,15], one of the authors discussed the idea of the self–simulation. (After release of

our preprint, Christopher Langan contacted us to point out that some of our independently derived

ideas are similar to some of his. Upon review of his work [16–18], we acknowledge some similarities,

such as the use of the term “self–simulation” [17]. Where “simulation” is defined as something

representing something else, a self-simulation is a case where something simulates, i.e., represents or

creates itself. The universe creating itself is a rather ancient idea. To our knowledge, the modern idea

of reality as a code–in–action was first introduced in 1969 by Finkelstein in The Space–Time Code [19].

In essence, the work of both Langan and ourselves is a synthesis of three general ideas: (1) reality is

made of information in the form of code/language [2,3,19–23], (2) reality is a transtemporal system,

where things from one time can influence things in other times [24–26] and (3), the substrate of this

information is panconsciousness [12] that emerges from itself, as the creator or simulator of itself.

Differences in our synthesis include our connection to self-referential vs non-self-referential symbols,

strange loops, a finite possibility space for physical information, a unified free energy principle,

quasicrystalline codes and details on the nature of retrocausality, to name a few). In 2017, he put forth

the idea that a digital physics–based quantum gravity theory can be based on simplex–integers or

shape as number [27]. A unification of the numerical aspect of the digital physics view and geometric

aspect of the materialistic view was proposed, where the shapes that form reality are equivalent to

numbers. In Reference [15], he discussed how these shape–numbers as physical information can act as

the elements of a quasicrystalline mathematical code. This view provides an origin for the panpsychic

substrate of reality, where nothing “just is” and where there is a logically self–consistent origin story

for the panpsychic substrate as a self–simulation strange loop. The logic is based on evidence that

consciousness can evolve to increase in magnitude, as it has done here on Earth from early lifeforms to

humans. Human minds can run primitive simulations, such as dreams. Sufficiently large minds can be

networks of smaller minds and can, in principle, evolve to enormous levels in the future to run fully

realistic universal self–simulations. A panpsychic self–simulation unifies notions from emergentism

and panpsychism by showing that panconsciousness can emerge from or self–simulate itself.

One of the goals of this paper is to stimulate debate by providing critical thinking options for those

interested in comparing the simulation hypothesis to the self-simulation hypothesis. We have evidence

today that computers are getting more powerful, along with the resolution of the physical systems

they can simulate. We also have evidence that self-simulations, i.e., dreams of one’s physical form,

have gotten extremely powerful as consciousness has evolved here on Earth. If it were a competition

for resolution and detail, human dreams are today more realistic than computer simulations. Some

have had lucid dreams, wherein one realizes they are dreaming. What is most remarkable is the

ultra-high-fidelity resolution of these mind-based simulations and the accuracy of the physics therein.

Upon investigating the quality of these simulations, it is typical for lucid dreamers to report that these

mind-based simulations are generally indistinguishable from ordinary reality. In fact, most people who

dream are usually not aware they are dreaming because the simulation is so realistic that one tends not

to question it. The reader might take their experience now, as they read these words, and notice that

Entropy 2020, 22, 247

3 of 26

they have not suspected they are in a dream at this moment. Why would they? The experience has a

very high resolution—but so does a dream. The physics of dreams can be impeccable insofar as how

light triangulates off glasses of water, how gravity behaves, etc. More powerful minds can simulate

more fine-grained physics, perhaps down to the Planck scale, as the self-simulation hypothesis predicts.

We are not saying that human dreams are a physical reality, however, since the physical reality is the

dream of the panconsciousness, not a human.

In the simulation hypothesis, as opposed to the self-simulation hypothesis, the first consciousness

emerges out of a physical realm. This then leads to those consciousnesses creating technology that

leads to ancestor simulations, where more consciousness emerges from the pure information of the

simulation. If we presume that the probability of our reality being an ancestor simulation is likely,

this same logic implies that each ancestor simulation is likely to be inside another ancestor simulation.

While the self-simulation hypothesis can have mental simulations within mental simulations, all

simulations are made of the same stuff—thought. Specifically, one might question, in a simulation

hypothesis ontology, if they are physical, i.e., real, or if they are merely information in one of the

nested simulations within simulations. However, because the self-simulation hypothesis is based on

panpsychism, where everything is thought, it does not require a physical universe with computers to

run the mental self-simulation. The difference here is that physical information can emerge out of a

conscious realm rather than just physical information emerging from a physical realm. Accordingly,

the question “Which is the real universe?” is resolved because all information that is thought of is real

and there is nothing outside of thought or consciousness. In the simulation hypothesis, the simulations

are a fake reality. In the self-simulation hypothesis, they are real.

As mentioned, panpsychism does not explain the origin of the fundamental thing—the

panconsciousness itself. It just is. Materialism does not explain the origin of the fundamental thing—the

physical stuff itself. It just is. Digital physics does not explain the origin of the fundamental thing—the

information itself. It also just is. Similarly, the simulation hypothesis is based on materialism. Thus, it

does not explain the material stuff. It just is.

The self-simulation hypothesis explains the origin of

the fundamental

thing—the

panconsciousness—and does not say, “It just is”. The universal mind self-actualizes itself into existence

via the strange loop of self-simulation. As mentioned, this requires the assumption that reality, i.e.,

the panconsciousness, is outside of time. Notions of quantum gravity, such as the Wheeler–de Witt

equation and Rovelli’s insights, suggest that time is not real [28,29]. Furthermore, as opposed to the

ontology of digital physics, the self-simulation view offers an explanation for where the information

that is reality comes from, including the information of the panpsychic computational substrate itself.

The computational mental substrate emerges from its own self-simulation as thought. The idea is

that the physical simulation of spacetime and particles is mathematical thought, which emerges from

the evolution of mind in the simulation in a logically consistent loop or whole. Loops or circles do

not necessarily mean that an argument is faulty circular reasoning. The self-simulation hypothesis is

a strange loop, a term introduced by Hofstadter, who claimed that the self is an inherently circular

structure with no grounding [30,31]. Strange loops that describe creation are paradoxical if one assumes

linear time. We can ask: “How did the panconsciousness come to exist?” The creationist who thinks

panconsciousness is fundamental with no origin story, i.e., “Panconsciousness just is”, will say that

is a false question. The self-simulation hypothesis ontology would answer, “The panconsciousness

self-actualizes itself in a strange loop via self-simulation.”

The only price to pay is that one must reject the false question: “Which came first, the chicken

or the egg?” or “what came first in time, the simple math of the self-simulation code or the complex

emergent panconscious substrate that thinks of the simple math?” We move away from classical

ideas of time and causality. This suggests that the universal mind self-actualized itself through a

grand thought of a complex system (a thought that is itself the universal mind) that has evolutionary

hierarchical nested complexity that provides explanation for each level in the hierarchy as emerging

logically from all the others.

Entropy 2020, 22, 247

4 of 26

We claim above that materialism, panpsychism, and information theoretic ontologies do not

explain the origin of the fundamental stuff and that the self-simulation hypothesis does. Those three

ontologies do not try to explain the origin of the fundamental things. Similar to most religions, all

three are creationist insofar as saying there is one fundamental thing that creates all others but which

itself has no creator. The self-simulation hypothesis recognizes that: (1) thoughts called choices of

what to think; and (2) thoughts called the experience of those chosen thoughts are fundamental and

that one explains the other via the self-simulation creative process of self-actualization. Materialism

does not say that fundamental physical stuff created itself. Digital physics does not say fundamental

information created itself. Panpsychism typically does not say that the universal consciousness created

itself. They say that fundamental things “just are” with no explanation. In this paper, we build a logical

thesis that does not contradict the parts of these other three ontologies that claim the fundamentality

of “physical = materialism”, “information = digital physics”, and “consciousness = panpsychism”.

For us, all three things, physicality, information, and consciousness, are fundamental. We show how

they are equivalent and discuss a categorization and origin scheme that simply goes further into the

process of relating and explaining than those more limited ontologies that stop at “it just is”. Instead,

using code theory, we provide theoretical structure suggesting how reality self-simulates. We provide

various forms of evidence-based rationale.

As discussed, panpsychism is the idea that all of reality exists within a mental substrate, where

everything is thought. Physicists, such as Roger Penrose, discuss versions of panpsychism in relation

to quantum mechanics [32]. Shan Gao [33,34] discusses how conscious beings can distinguish

definite perceptions and their quantum superpositions, while systems without consciousness cannot

distinguish such non-orthogonal quantum states.

Interpreting quantum mechanics (QM) places one at the nexus where the philosophy of what is

real (ontology), experimental physics and mathematics converge. More physicists subscribe to the

Copenhagen interpretation than any other, which requires entities capable of observation to collapse

wavefunctions. While some interpret Copenhagen to not refer to consciousness, this obscures the role

of consciousness in measurement, since it is typical to recognize that observers must be conscious or

are defined with consciousness. Derivative off-shoots, such as Wigner and Stapp’s consciousness causes

collapse interpretation [35,36] and Qbism [37,38], also postulate that consciousness is the fundamental

quantum operator or actualizer of reality. If we assume that we possess consciousness and freewill and

follow the many-worlds interpretation, it is conceivable to imagine that freewill leads to decoherence,

similar to outcomes of measurement. Consider an electron that is spin up in the z-direction. We flip a

coin; heads leads to a spin measurement in the y-direction, while tails leads to a spin measurement in

the x-direction. This would lead to four universes of equal probability: spin up y, spin down y, spin up

x, and spin down x. The random coin flip can be replaced with a conscious choice, suggesting that all

freewill choices could be combined as a mixed state within the many-worlds interpretation, such that

a conscious choice is a type of decoherence (One objection may be that it is simpler to create an infinite

ensemble of coin flips, rather than an infinite ensemble of conscious freewill choices, but we do not

look to model probabilities associated with freewill). Not all interpretations of many-worlds must lead

to this, but this is one possibility. For clarity, we interpret freewill choices as a form of wavefunction

collapse, but note that a self-consistent many-worlds interpretation may also be valid.

Practically minded physicists often minimize the scientific importance of dealing with the

philosophical meanings of what QM is trying to tell us. If they are not trying to push the bounds of

fundamental physics, such as developing a quantum gravity theory, then it is true they can, in the

words of David Mermin, “Shut up and calculate!” [39]. However, for those of us looking to understand

nature more deeply or working on quantum gravity theories, we cannot shut up. We must critically

think about consciousness and certain aspects of philosophy that are uncomfortable subjects to some

scientists. When physicists trivialize those working on such crucial issues, it helps limit the probability

of advancements in fundamental physics. Accordingly, we share a few encouraging remarks from

titans of modern physics about the importance of this study.

Entropy 2020, 22, 247

5 of 26

Erwin Schrödinger: Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is

absolutely fundamental [40].

Arthur Eddington: The stuff of the world is mind stuff [41].

J. B. S. Haldane: We do not find obvious evidence of life or mind in so-called inert matter...; but if

the scientific point of view is correct, we shall ultimately find them, at least in rudimentary form, all

through the universe [42].

Julian Huxley: Mind or something of the nature as mind must exist throughout the entire universe.

This is, I believe, the truth [43].

Freeman Dyson: [M]ind is already inherent in every electron, and the processes of human

consciousness differ only in degree and not in kind from the processes of choice between quantum

states which we call “chance” when they are made by electrons [44].

David Bohm: It is implied that, in some sense, a rudimentary consciousness is present even at the

level of particle physics [45].

Werner Heisenberg: Was [is] it utterly absurd to seek behind the ordering structures of this world

a “consciousness” whose “intentions” were these very structures [46]?

Andrei Linde: Will it not turn out, with the further development of science, that the study of the

universe and the study of consciousness will be inseparably linked, and that ultimate progress in the

one will be impossible without progress in the other [47]?

John Bell: What is much more likely is that the new way of seeing things will involve an imaginative

leap that will astonish us [48].

Frank Wilczek: The relevant literature [on the meaning of quantum theory] is famously contentious

and obscure. I believe it will remain so until someone constructs, within the formalism of quantum

mechanics, an “observer”; that is, a model entity whose states correspond to a recognizable caricature

of conscious awareness [49].

Other notable authors interpreting that physical reality requires consciousness to choose to do

measurements in order to actualize states of reality include von Neumann [50], London and Bauer [51],

Wigner [52], Stapp [53,54], and Penrose and Hameroff [55–59].

Definitions

Because discussions of consciousness are philosophical, it is necessary to establish the following

definitions for key terms used in this document.

Strange Loop: A hierarchical structure that is wrapped back upon itself, where the simplest object

is embedded in the whole or the most complex emergent part and where all parts depend upon all

others and where the emergent whole is dependant upon the synergy of parts.

Thought: The process and result of choosing or creating meaning, where “meaning” is always

a relationship.

Meaning: A relationship between two or more objects recognized or created by an entity capable

of doing so. For example, if we think of the compound self-referential symbol of a square, we may

recognize the relationship between two vertices as a meaning. However, if we think of the symbol of a

heart, we may create, via relationship, the symbolic meaning of love, as opposed to recognizing some

inherent self-referential meaning implied in the symbol of the heart. An entity capable of deciding that

this is like that or this is like this is an entity capable of generating meaning, i.e., thought. Meaning can

be recognition of inherent relationships or the creation or assignment of arbitrary ones.

Entropy 2020, 22, 247

6 of 26

Object/Symbol: Defined as in set theory, an object is anything that can be thought of. All objects

are symbols because all thoughts are symbolic, i.e., have meaning.

Symbolism: A case where an entity capable of perceiving meaning relates or equates one object

with another object—a relationship within thought, where X = anything; either itself or something else.

Self-referential Symbolism: A special case of symbolism, where an object represents or relates

to itself; “this means this” or X = X. For example, one can use a square to self-referentially symbolize

a square or its body diagonal to represent the number

√

2 or the quantity of vertices of a square to

represent the quantity 4.

Non-self-referential Symbolism: A special case of symbolism, where an object represents or

relates to something other than itself; “this means that” or X = anything other than X.

Mind/Conscious Entity/Consciousness: A system capable of choosing to perceive and create

meaning. For example, if one were to feed all thoughts or meaning into your mind, at the expense of

you being able to choose your own thoughts, you would be a clone or mirror of their consciousness.

According to our definition, the discretion to choose what to be aware of or what to think cannot be

disassociated from the term consciousness.

Information: Symbolic meaning, which implies thought. Put differently, all thoughts can be

reduced to symbolism in the mind of an entity capable of actualizing information. While this is a

different notion than quantum information, our mathematical program (beyond the scope of this

paper) is to find code theoretic simulations that lead to the emergence of quantum information.

Emergent Physical Thought (EP): Information as self-referential symbolic thought (number and

shape) that forms the basis of physical reality; spacetime and particles.

Emergent Consciousness Thought (EC): Information as non-self-referential symbolic thought,

such as freewill decision to observe, the sense of self, humor, etc. that forms the basis of consciousness

reality emergent from physical reality in the strange loop.

Code/Language: A finite set of symbols with relational or ordering rules that include syntactical

freedom. Codes may be used by entities capable of strategically exercising syntactical choices for the

purpose of expressing meaning.

Freewill/Choice: A non-random and non-deterministic action or state that ontologically exists

and that is a member of a set containing at least one other such possibility that does not ontologically

exist because it has not been actioned, recognized, observed, thought, chosen, or any other suitable

term that separates the subset from the super-set. Freewill or choice may be significantly influenced

by other things/thoughts but not fully controlled. In order for the choice to be non-random and

non-deterministic, there must be reason, strategy, whim, theory, or some other process of thought. Put

differently, if the action occurs due to thoughts, it is by definition non-random and non-deterministic.

It is sometimes suggested that freewill is an illusion and that everything is deterministic or that

everything is a combination of determinism or randomness. While possible, it is far-fetched when

one considers, for example, the idea that an Emily Dickson poem was a result of such a deterministic

process combined with randomness, an accidental process. While reductio ad absurdum proofs are

not strong, they can be instructive for choosing the lesser of evils when no good proof is available.

Measure/Observe: The choosing of symbolic meaning. For example, you observe an experiment

and creatively generate, i.e., choose, meaning in your mind about the experience, which includes

influence or interaction. The choice may be conscious or subconscious.

Interestingly, all 14 of the above terms are forms of “thought” in our ontology, wherein everything

is thought.

2. the Self-Simulation Hypothesis

2.1. Axioms and Principle of Efficient Language

The self-simulation hypothesis (SSH) allows for an application of the principle of efficient language

(PEL) [15]. The SSH is built upon the following axioms:

Entropy 2020, 22, 247

7 of 26

1. Reality, as a strange loop, is a code-based self-simulation in the mind of a panpsychic universal

consciousness that emerges from itself via the information of code-based mathematical thought

or self-referential symbolism plus emergent non-self-referential thought. Accordingly, reality is

made of information called thought.

2. Non-local spacetime and particles are secondary or emergent from this code, which is itself a

pre-spacetime thought within a self-emergent mind.

3. The panconsciousness has freewill to choose the code and make syntactical choices. Emergent

lower levels of consciousness also make choices through observation that influence the code

syntax choices of the panconsciousness.

4. The desire or decision of the panconscious reality is to generate as much meaning or information

as possible for a minimal number of primitive thoughts, i.e., syntactical choices, which are

mathematical operations at the pre-spacetime code level.

These four axioms can be briefly summarized by the notions of (1) the strange loop of the emergent

self-simulation that includes (2) emergent spacetime, (3) emergent freewill sub-entities and (4) the

PEL. The last axiom leads to an energetic model, where the behavioral statistics of the code are

based on a least computational principle and where those statistics can change over the evolution

of the self-simulation—depending upon what choosers decide what information/meaning the PEL

should economized for. Due to this economy principle, the code used will be a member of the set of

maximally economical codes capable of generating the physical reality we observe, such as a universe

with particles possessing the spin and charge values shown in experiments. Here, “economy” is

defined as the amount of consciousness-based resource used for the fundamental mathematical actions

(thoughts) in the code for the purpose of expressing some chosen meaning, such as a particle’s pattern

of propagation through space and internal time. Accordingly, the SSH, which subsumes the PEL, is

applicable to any code-theoretic quantum gravity theory that is a member of the most economical set

of codes simulating reality.

The SSH is non-deterministic and yet posits that there are hidden variables or a sub-quantum

mechanics that also define a quantum gravity theory, where spacetime and particles are

patterns therein.

To work in an efficient manner, the panconsciousness breaks down all freewill choices into

a binary decision tree, as this is the most efficient way to to express possibilities. This leads to a

trivalent graph network. Quantum gravity as an effective quantum field theory has been riddled

with infinity problems due to infinite graviton vertex diagrams. However, recent advances in

scattering amplitude computations find that trivalent (cubic) graph representations lead to more

efficient computations [60–62]. Similarly, Wolfram conjectures that reality is a cellular automata built

upon an ideal trivalent graph code [9]. The quasicrystalline spin network [63–66], used in our program

at Quantum Gravity Research, is a trivalent graph. A corollary of the PEL is, therefore, that the

panconsciousness chooses a trivalent graph network because it is maximally economical for simulating

quantum spacetime.

2.2. Information

Before elucidating the SSH, some pre-discussion about information, i.e., symbolism, is called for.

The Copenhagen-like interpretations divide things into two ontological categories—unreal information

and real physical “stuff”—which is an epistemological view. For example, the probability distribution

of the wavefunction is considered unreal because it is merely information, while a measurement

updates the wavefunction to a state more closely resembling the post-measurement physical reality

and also actualizes some physical reality into existence—that part correlated to an observation. In

other words, it defines realism as physical stuff and something unreal as information or abstractness.

However, another popular view, digital physics, is that all of reality is made of information or

abstractness, which Wheeler described as “it from bit”. Since reality is real, they say information is

real. Materialism is monism. Copenhagen is, in some sense, dualist because, unlike materialism, it

Entropy 2020, 22, 247

8 of 26

places abstract information at a fundamental status in the form of the wavefunction, and thus it has

the dualism of information and physical stuff playing two juxtaposed fundamental roles.

The SSH is monistic in that it views reality as information defined as thought. If the SSH were to

suppose reality uses a wavefunction, it would say that both it and physicality are made of the same

stuff—thought. It relies on the PEL, which posits that there are two fundamental forms of thought or

symbolic information:

1. Self-referential symbolism that is part of a mathematical spacetime and particle code based on

the thought of number and geometric symbols or pixels of spacetime information (the case of

X = X)

2. Non-self-referential symbolism (X = anything other than X, such as the thought of humor, love

or a decision of purpose to observe/measure a physical system)

Unlike the Copenhagen interpretation and other ontologies assuming physical stuff to be the

opposite of information or thought, the code theoretic ontology of the SSH traffics only in information

or thought. Ontology is the study of what is real and what is not, so it is binary. The binary ontology

of the materialism-based Copenhagen view is to say that information is unreal and physicality is real.

We invert part of this. We set up our binary ontological system to be (See also [67]):

1. The unreal potential information as thought that could exist.

2. The information actualized by thought (by observers including the panconsciousness substrate)

selected from the possibility space of nonexistent potential information.

For example, imagine thinking a thought that is so strange and complex you can assure yourself no

thinker in the universe previously thought it. Before you thought of it, it was not actualized information.

However, it was information that could have existed if you thought of it earlier. Accordingly, we have

potential self-referential information that could exist if thought of. Furthermore, we have physical

states that could exist as physical thought made of self-referential symbolism along with states that

have been thought of by the universe through our observations and so do exist because thought of.

We also have thoughts as a form of information that can influence measurements (e.g., decisions to

measure) and, in so doing, influence the physical information via wavefunction collapse or something

akin to it.

As discussed in [15,27] and following our definitions, symbols are objects of thought that represent

themselves or something else. As mentioned, any symbol use fits into one of these two categories:

X = X and X = anything other than X. The X = X category is that of self-referential symbolism.

This symbolic meaning is special because it possesses non-arbitrary or non-subjective truth. For

example, via mathematical first principles, the numerical properties of a triangle, such as its area,

may be deduced non-subjectively from the symbol itself. One may use an equilateral triangle to

represent the meaning of itself—an equilateral triangle. In this case, the meaning of the symbol is

not subjective. Alternatively, subjective meaning can be chosen for the triangle, such as the notion

of change symbolized in physics by the triangular delta symbol. Quasicrystals can be created by

projectively transforming self-referential symbols called Lie algebraic root lattices. Some of these

lattices encode gauge symmetry physics via their associated Lie algebras. Our program of code

theoretic based physics, derived from quasicrystalline root lattice transformations, is the X = X case,

i.e., self-referential symbolism. Unlike lattices or crystals, quasicrystals are self-referential symbolic

codes, where their syntax rules are non-invented, i.e., are implied by mathematical first principles.

Languages, i.e., codes, are systems that have an irreducible class of symbol types called “letters”

and syntactical rules. Users can steer the syntax degrees of freedom in choices of how to order of

the symbols to create semantic form, i.e., meaning, that can exist in nested hierarchies of emergent

symbolic meaning, including spatiotemporal or geometric meaning. Letters can be combined to form

the emergent meaning of “words”. Words can be combined to form the meaning of “sentences” and so

on. One can recognize this as synergistic meaning, where the emergent meaning is greater than the

Entropy 2020, 22, 247

9 of 26

sum of the irreducible symbols or letters and where no additional base symbols are needed for the

extra synergistic meaning—only the strategic ordering of the symbols.

Our approach is to build a physical ontology based on a finite set of self-referential geometric

symbols that map to formal algebras. We call this level of thought or information i, where the lower

case represents the idea that it is base or letter-level information. Because it is a discrete spacetime code,

our pixels of self-referential symbolism are shapes such as quasicrystalline prototiles or, alternatively,

entire quasicrystal inflation [63,68] states. These geometric objects map to various isomorphisms and

bijections in the form of mathematics that are not geometric. For a finite quasicrystal possibility space,

there is a finite set of N different inflations that can be performed. This results in a superset of N!

possible ordered sets or dynamic patterns that can be generated from N. Quasicrystals are proper codes,

which require freewill choices of syntactical degrees of freedom or code action to form meaningful

expressions. Codes or languages do not organize themselves. They require action—the decision of a

syntactical chooser—for the addition of each new symbol in a sequence. This is in contrast to crystals,

which are not codes and where the positioning of one tile determines all others. With quasicrystals,

“fundamental” particles may emerge as phason quasiparticles that can be created as ordered sets of

inflations, wherein the order may be chosen by the panconsciousness as it gets “instructions” from its

sub-part consciousnesses, e.g., humans, called observations/measurements.

How would such “instructions” from a human observer to the panconsciousness syntactical

chooser occur? Clearly, we are suggesting mathematical actions that the panconsciousness operates

that relate to the Planck scale, but humans are at the meter scale. We are not sure of the mechanism. On

the one hand, we may presume that since the panconsciousness is a great mind and we are subminds

of it, it knows our thoughts of observation as its own sub-thoughts. This should be true. However,

perhaps it is also true that there is a deep mathematical connection between the panconsciousness

substrate and our EC thoughts to measure and think other things. After all, our thoughts emerge from

Planck scale EP information and up through higher-order spatiotemporal EP physical symbolism,

such as DNA and biological structure in a fully connected continuum. Penrose theorizes that there is

an ideal Platonic substrate at the Planck quantum gravity scale that interacts through structures in

our body called microtubules. He believes that there is a panconsciousness at the Planck scale that

interacts with us through these structures in our body near the angstrom scale, according to he and

Hammeroff’s orchestrated objective reduction (Orch-OR) theory [55]. This is related to our quantum

gravity program because of two similarities. The first is that our quasicrystalline mathematical

substrate is built of 3D tiles based on the five Platonic solids, which we derive via rigorous means

from the transformation of certain Lie algebraic root lattices. These structures include Fibonacci

sequence numbers and various rational and irrational numbers useful for gauge symmetry physics.

Accordingly, our mathematical formalism is built upon an ideal Platonic substrate. The second

similarity is that microtubule structures encode Fibonacci numbers and are better described technically

as quasicrystalline, not crystalline atomic motifs. Quasicrystalline mathematics, materials quasicrystal

science, and the very term quasicrystal are arcane with fewer than 100 physicists and mathematicians

funded to work full time in these areas. Microtubules behave as a binary code as implied by sequences

of coherent patterns of charge sign value changes to their dimer substructures.

Paola Zizzi extended the Orch-OR framework into cosmology, using a quantum computational

paradigm, showing how the universe became conscious at the end of the inflationary period [69]. Her

view is different from ours in terms of how we use evolutionary biology, where we see evidence that

consciousness has emerged in at least humans. We take this forward and assume that, just as simple

lifeforms, as cells, self-organize collectively to exhibit emergent human consciousness, lifeforms such

as humans can self-organize to exhibit collective emergent super-consciousness that is far greater than

the sum of the parts. One can think of a human mind–body system as a percentage of spacetime and

energy in the universe that self-organized to exhibit emergent consciousness. In principle, all spacetime

and energy in the universe can self-organize to form an uber emergent consciousness. Accordingly,

it seems that our process of explanation through evolutionary hierarchical processes may be able

Entropy 2020, 22, 247

10 of 26

to converge mathematically with aspects of Penrose and Zizzi’s views insofar as all of spacetime

becoming a quantum net capable of thought. As opposed to our view, where, from our vantage point,

panconsciousness emerges forward of us in the hierarchy we call “time”, Zizzi’s view is related to a

universal consciousness emergence event in our “past” at the end of the inflationary period driven by

“dark energy”.

We believe that, until a predictive quantum gravity theory is discovered, it is premature to

speculate on the nature of dark energy and matter. What we appreciate about Zizzi’s idea is that

reality itself can be a quantum net capable of quantum computation. In general, neither Penrose

and Hammeroff nor Zizzi focus on topological quantum computation but instead on standard

quantum computation. At low temperature, atomic quasicrystals are topological phases of matter.

Mathematically, our Planck scale based quantum gravity program is based on topological quantum

computing. Criticisms by Tegmark and others about Penrose’s Orch-OR mathematics are often

centered on the contention that microtubules in the human body cannot quantum compute to describe

consciousness because the body is not at a low enough temperature. The high temperature leads, in

these objections, to decoherence times that are too short for the Orch-OR model to make sense. Penrose

and Hameroff have certain arguments to rebut this. However, one way to resolve it is to switch from

the notion of quantum computing to topological quantum computing, which allows local thermally

induced decoherence events without the destruction of the global quantum superposition state—the

global qubit.

With respect to the collection of all ordered sets within the superset N! mentioned above, it is a

statistical possibility space with probabilities governed by an energetic scheme we use based on a least

computation principle built into the PEL. As mentioned, our interpretation of QM is general and can

be applied to other spacetime codes or code theoretic quantum gravity models. However, we use this

quasicrystalline interpretation of reality as an illustrative example of the PEL, since our interpretation

of QM is related to a class of quantum gravity models and axioms such as ours.

Computer simulations endowed with a random number generator to represent the

non-determined choices to measure can implement a form of a game of life. A random number generator

may select actions from a deterministic unitary evolution that weighs the selection probabilities

of different orderings, i.e., phason quasiparticle random walks, via their computational economy

for expressing paths of extremal action. The fundamental particles, as patterns emerging from

self-referential geometric symbols, such as 3-simplices, are themselves emergent self-referential

spatiotemporal symbols built of simpler symbols that reduce to on/off states of 0-simplices (points)

in the possibility pointset that we build our graph actions on. This discrete point set and the internal

structure of the quasiparticles are made of such geometric self-referential symbolism, which encode

both fundamental and emergent numerical values. Similarly, higher-order emergent spatiotemporal

patterns emerging from these, such as “atoms” and “molecules”, are also self-referential symbols or

what we call emergent physical symbols, but where our physicalism is information/thought-theoretic.

Because the possibility space is discrete, the degrees of freedom are finite, i.e., the random walks such

quasiparticles can take are of a finite quantity of possibilities. These emergent strata of higher-order

physical symbolism above the level of i are ranked in terms of compound complexity.

Tononi et al. have a similar idea for a ranked complexity measure, where, at some critical

magnitude, the complexity can be defined as consciousness or thinking. His approach is called

integrated information theory (IIT) [70–72]. IIT posits that many physical systems intrinsically possess

consciousness, which, in this context, is defined as a measure of a subsystem’s ability to affect the

rest of the system, i.e., causal reality [72]. His notion of consciousness and freewill is comparable to

ours in the sense that a highly conscious entity would be able to make more freewill choices, which

increases its ability to influence the syntactical degrees of freedom in the code. In this sense, the

emergent consciousness of the universe—the simulation substrate—would be the most conscious

entity. However, subsystems of this conscious mind may emerge within the self-simulation and possess

consciousness once such subsystems become complex enough to create meaning, i.e., observe or think.

Entropy 2020, 22, 247

11 of 26

Such perceived meaning of a subsystem is also a perceived meaning of the panconscious substrate and

so is a form of distributed workload of choice actions to think, i.e., generate meaning/information. This

connectivity of our consciousness to the substrate instructs the panconsciousness to make fine grained

mathematical code choices that comport with our more coarse-grained thoughts called observations.

In other words, there are a large number of different choices of mathematical action at the quantum

gravity level that the panconsciousness can choose from in order to map to a given approximate

experience of an observation that a human or other thinking entity does, thus we provide: (1) the

instructions for when the panconsciousness does a mathematical choice/thought/action; and (2) a

coarse-grained constraint on what those choices can be in order to equate with the meaning we thought

of in the form of the observation itself.

Our approach is different from IIT insofar as using language theory, where we see a nested

hierarchy of code-theoretic information referred to as EP1, EP2, EP3, . . . , EPN , with EP standing for

emergent physical information. Since EP or physical information is geometric and numeric, and therefore

non-subjective, all forms of higher-order EP are emerging from base-level self-referential symbols.

However, not all self-referential symbols need to be EP, since we can think in our minds of EP objects

such as triangles without it existing as physical information. The different levels represent different

strata of complexity emerging from simpler strata in the same sense that a molecule is emerging from

atoms, which are emerging from fundamental particles, which may be emerging from self-referential

geometric symbolic Planck units of spacetime information/thought. To account for all information,

we must sum the total amount of i, which, in our case, is the quantity of on/off state selections in

the quasicrystal inflation possibility point space, with the sum of total information in the emergent

hierarchy of EPN . Physicists are generally trained to think only in terms of base or EP1 information,

such as spin states. Accordingly, an analogy would be helpful to emphasize the informational power

of higher-order or emergent information.

Consider a book with N letters and randomize them. If we have a value of 1 unit for the meaning

or information of each letter, the magnitude of i = N units. We notate the total information of the

system as I. In this case of random ordering of i, we have that i = I. However, if we allow the letters to

be organized into words, we have more information than N. It is not easy to agree on the magnitudes

of the emergent information. However, at the same time, it cannot be ignored because the emergent

information in a complex physical system is statistically causal on all parts of the system in a force-like

manner, as with the notion of entropic force [73] or Tononi’s notion of complex system information

influencing the behavior of the system. For example, we may randomize the letters in a string of DNA

code, which leaves only the information of the sum of the molecular letters. However, if we allow them

to be ordered in a meaningful way, they encode a protein folding algorithm, which is an immense

statistically causal package of information influencing lower entropy systems that surround it that

must be credited with some unknown value of causal information that is over and above the sum of

the letters. Accordingly, we have

I = i + EP1 + EP2 + · · ·+ EPN .

(1)

In this notation, EPj+1 denotes the additional emergent information in relation to the synergistic

meaning created from combining multiple elements of EPj.

At some point in the nested EP hierarchy of this emergent physical information, something

enigmatic occurs that may be related to something very similar to the Orch-OR model. Consciousness

emerges from the regime of EP to form a new system of information that is itself unbounded in

possibilities over a finite set of EP based i. Let us call this regime EC for emergent consciousness-based

information, i.e., non-self-referential thought. As mentioned, all non-self-referential symbols are forms

of EC, but EC may also include non-physical self-referential symbols, such as the thought of a square.

We propose that EC also exists in a nested stratification of EC1, EC2, EC3, . . . , ECM, each built upon

previous strata in the hierarchical stack. This regime is capable of generating additional information

over and above the emergent physical EP information. We argue that the potential of its possibilities

Entropy 2020, 22, 247

12 of 26

is infinite, as it is the universe of all things which can be thought of. Since all forms of emergent

information must fit in one of these meta-categories, EP or EC, we have that

I = i + EP1 + EP2 + · · ·+ EPN + EC1 + EC2 + · · ·+ ECM,

(2)

for the total system information I. Again, the EP physical information is self-referential geometric and

numerical symbolism, such as spacetime quanta with quasiparticle patterns representing fundamental

particles with their quantum numbers, spacetime quanta geometric numerical values, and the statistical

numerical values relating to the economy rule of the PEL.

To appreciate the scientific importance of the EC enigma, we reference some unresolved problems

and some experiments. First, there is no consensus on the definition of “consciousness”. Thus,

herein, we mean the definition we provided in the definitions section, which reduces down to thought

or meaning. One might think issues of consciousness are solely the purview of psychologists and

philosophers, as opposed to physicists. A second problem is the measurement problem, which relates

to the difficulty of reconciling the completeness of the wavefunction, linear evolution, and the Born

rule with respect to measurements. If consciousness relates to measurement, then consciousness is

relevant for quantum mechanics. The third problem is the question of how consciousness emerges

from things that are not conscious. This is called the hard problem of consciousness [74,75]. The SSH starts

with the notion that consciousness is fundamental and self-emerges as a strange loop in a cosmological

holism ontology that requires abandoning the idea that time is fundamental or even real.

The SSH is novel in how we use the EP information of numerical and geometric mathematical

thought to create high-order compound EP physical thought that evolves to EC thought eventually

capable of self-actualizing itself in one grand thought that is itself the strange loop i→ EP→ EC →

i → EP → EC → . . . , where i, EP, and EC are part of the overall self-simulation thought. However,

unlike other attempts to resolve the last two problems above by saying panconsciousness is the ground

of reality without explaining how it emerges or why consciousness would influence physical things,

such as collapsing wavefunctions, our approach goes further by providing an origin explanation for

panconsciousness that, similar to humans, can think in both the EP and EC regimes.

The empirical evidence is that physical systems change when conscious minds choose to observe

them. This is reminiscent of how a video game player with a VR headset has a relationship with the

code processing computer, where she instructs the CPU and GPU to compute and render simulation

landscapes according to what she observes. For the most part, it is the physical evidence for and

the inexplicability of observers changing physical reality which leads to all of the interpretations

of QM, such as the Copenhagen version. These interpretations, whether they call it “observer” or

“consciousness”, often place measurement in the role of collapsing wavefunctions (or decoherence), as

evidenced, for example, by the change to the interference pattern in a double slit experiment. Simply

having knowledge of which slit a photon goes through dramatically changes the physical system.

At early stages of 20th century physics, there was more debate about whether it was the conscious

knowledge of the observer or some physical interaction within the experimental apparatus, such as in

the detector, that caused the physical changes in the interference pattern. However, as experimental

physics and discussion advanced, it became more widely agreed that it is consciousness, i.e., knowledge

or thought about the measurement that generates the physical change and not a physical interaction

between an artificial or biological detector and system being observed. Our model implies that, if a

consciousness were to somehow be able to have awareness of a physical system without using ordinary

means, such as photons or sound, that it would collapse wavefunctions without need of any form of

physical detector. Radin et al. reported evidence of this, showing a 4.4 sigma deviation above the null

effect. [76–78]. Tremblay independently analyzed the results to confirm the statistical significance but

also identified lesser magnitude statistical anomalies in the control data [79]. The implication of our

model would caution that even the control data might be contaminated by EC-thought based human

influence. This is because the entire experiment should be permeated by opinions and thought about

Entropy 2020, 22, 247

13 of 26

the meaning of the endeavor, even the control aspect but with a less focused or less potent degree of

statistical modulation from the baseline statistics of QM.

Semantic confusion can enter these discussions. For example, we used certain words above

emphasizing the term “consciousness”. Other authors use terms such as “measure” and “observe”.

However, these terms are inextricably linked with words such as “awareness”, “knowledge”,

“consciousness”, and “thought”. For some Copenhagen-like interpretations of quantum mechanics, at

some point of demarcation in a self-organizing system, such as a human, consciousness emerges, which

is capable of collapsing the quantum wavefunction and changing physical systems via awareness or

knowledge from and about observations [53,80]. This seemingly mystical phase transition is often

referred to as the Heisenberg cut. For us, the thinking needs to be able to create EC information, which

requires an emergent mind capable of abstraction. We believe the most sophisticated and plausible

mechanism to date for the Heisenberg cut is the Penrose and Hameroff view.

In conclusion of this section, the hierarchical stratification of our EP and EC information does

not allow for a limit on the magnitude of total I that a system can have because the EC information

possibility space is unbounded. The SSH resolves the measurement problem by showing that codes

use choosers of syntactical freedom. Choices themselves are thoughts, thus there are choices being

made by emergent entities, such as humans, that generate EP and EC. Stephen Hawking asked: “What

is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” The SSH posits

that it is observers that animate the syntax expressions of the code, which then map to the statistical

equations of a post-quantum mechanical quantum gravity formalism that includes a set of gauge

symmetry equations. In this sense, the foundational thought is the observation choice thought/action,

which maps to mathematical choices corresponding to quantum gravity code syntax choices, that is the

irreducible building-block thoughtform of the universe. When such choices are made to observe and

think about physical systems, this generated thought informs the panconsciousness of the meaning

created by observation, which defines the degrees of freedom for mathematical choices it can make at

the spacetime code level.

The SSH resolves the hard problem more weakly than the Orch-OR model by recognizing that

consciousness, i.e., information or thought, is the only thing that exists but without disagreeing with

the basic premise of Orch-OR. However, it does this in a very different manner than typical idealist

panconsciousness approaches, which say “Consciousness just is”. The SSH offers an explanation

for how consciousness comes to exist via self-emergence through the logical strange loop of the

i → EP → EC → i → EP → EC → . . . simulation, where we do not need to say that consciousness

“just is”. There is an origin story. The panconsciousness requires the thought of physical mathematical

symbolism to self-emerge from. This is because only through simple-to-complex information or

language theoretic structure can the free bonus information or synergy of emergent information exist,

where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. In the universe of all thoughts, mathematical

information may be the simplest of all. For example, an object is a thought, and the simplest object

is either the empty set or dimensionless point, depending upon how one argues it. Thus, the grand

self-simulation thought is a nested hierarchy of thoughts, mostly of the synergistic emergent form,

starting with the dimensionless point, in a state of on, off, or undecided, and ending with the thought

of the entire self-simulation thought, which is equal to the panconsciousness substrate itself.

2.3. Nonlocality of the Self-Simulation

At its deepest level, we interpret the measurement problem as being related to questions of how

consciousness can perform measurements. It should be noted that decoherence is not the same as

wavefunction collapse. Quantum systems in nature can decohere without measurement because

non-measurement based decoherences exist in the unitary evolution of off equilibrium systems that are

not perfectly isolated. In some systems near a tipping point of decoherence, a measurement can change

the physical system enough to cause it to decohere. It is difficult to imagine having a completely

satisfying explanation for the measurement problem without a consensus definition of consciousness.

Entropy 2020, 22, 247

14 of 26

We know that consciousness is thought and awareness and the other terms in the definition section

that are equivalent to thought. However, we still cannot deeply explain consciousness other than our

experience of it and recognition of its synonyms.

The simulation hypothesis proposes that reality could be a computer simulation, which implies it

is made of code [1]. Physicists Beane, Davoudi, and Savage propose this can be experimentally

constrained [81].

Simulations typically run with a finite number of resources. This may be

accomplished by discretization of spacetime, as in several quantum gravity theories, such as ours

(emergence theory). One of the proposed experimental signatures to look for would be an anisotropy

in the distribution of cosmic rays that is consistent with the simulation hypothesis. Campbell et al. have

proposed experimental tests for the simulation hypothesis [82]. These same tests could be applied to

the SSH if it turns out these experiments suggest that we are in a simulation.

Again, the simulation hypothesis is based on the dualistic idea that there is a physical reality and

various non-physical or information theoretic simulated realities. The SSH rejects this dualism and

suggests that it is more probable that we are in a mental self-simulated universe, which may be less

far-fetched than the idea that we are in a simulation living in a different physical universe. One reason

is Occam’s razor and another is evidence. Specifically, in [14,15,27], one of the authors discusses a

cosmology that allows for a code-theoretic universe to self-simulate or self-actualize itself into existence

from the “future”. A similar cosmology was discussed by [17]. Consciousness that emerges at late

stages of the self-simulation eventually evolves to a magnitude sufficient to hold, abstractly in pure

informational thought space, the quantum gravity code necessary for its own self-simulation run or

self-evolution starting at the big bang. This strange loop is similar to a mind running a simulation

from an initial condition and where that simulation becomes the mind itself after a long run-time. Of

course, the self-simulation idea requires time to be an emergent illusion, as discussed by Rovelli [29]

and in different terms by Susskind and Maldacena [83].

Advanced waves have been interpreted as being related to consciousness or measurement in

multiple QM interpretations. Aharonov was inspired by Feynman to create an independent advanced

wavefunction, leading to the two-state vector formalism [84,85]. This is also compatible with the

transactional, many worlds and Bohmian interpretations. Sutherland has generalized Bohmian

mechanics, which leads to a notion of post-quantum mechanics and introduces new nonlocal dynamics

[86,87]. The evidence for non-locality is sufficient enough to presume spacetime, whether fundamental

or not, is non-local [88–91].

Accordingly, we may adopt a physical logic: A influences B influences C influences A influences

B, and so on. That is, an emergent mind-like substrate of the universe in the future can self-actualize

itself by creating the code and initial conditions to run its own simulation—all within the abstraction

of pure self-simulated information in the form of choice, observation or awareness as a strange loop

with hierarchical order but not time. We may think of this with time and presume it to be non-local

or presume time to be illusionary, emergent or non-fundamental. The substrate, then, is made of

information called thought or consciousness. Its evolutionary self-simulation run is also made of the

same abstract information, i.e., meaning within thought or mind-stuff [12,32–34,36,92–94]. Sarfatti’s

interpretation of Sutherland’s extension of Bohmian mechanics [95] suggests that the wavefunction

is itself a property of consciousness, while the particle is the domain of material reality. In this

dualistic view, dividing reality between physical stuff and consciousness, advanced waves allow

for consciousness to have new retrocausal dynamics on the physical stuff. From this perspective,

consciousness of the future can influence the past so long as freewill is not violated.

Our view is similar to Sarfatti’s interpretation, except that we do not take a Bohmian approach

and divide things into physical stuff and consciousness. It is all information in the self-actualized

strange loop of panconsciousness, where the physical information is EP thought and the non-physical

information is EC thought. Our approach is also different in that we subscribe to a discretized

spacetime view. Bohmian mechanics does not.

Entropy 2020, 22, 247

15 of 26

It is noteworthy that if the large scale causal structure of the universe is a strange loop, instead of

having some beginning for which we have no explanation, then perhaps there would be empirical

implications, which may ultimately be observed.

With this ontological background in place, let us discuss the regime of EC information. When

we think of the idea of love or politics, is this self-referential symbolism? Is it information? Of course,

these are not cases of self-referential symbolism. However, they are indeed two networks of compound

information. These packages are not physical information, such as the self-referential geometric

information of the base-code elements in the simulation that can be organized into emergent levels of

self-referential EP, e.g. a biosphere or solar system. However, EC is equally as real and causal as EP

information and so must be considered part of the universe’s total information along with i and the

regime of EP. Each conserved stratum of EP information is built upon the conserved strata under it.

To be more precise, the choices of EP configuration are conserved over a finite simulation run time

because the degrees of freedom in a discrete possibility space-based code, such as ours, are finite.

There are a finite number of possible animations or ordered sets of on/off state selections on the finite

quasicrystal possibility space. The quantum states therefore exist in a finite-dimensional space.

This is not the case for the possibility space of EC information that can be created over a finite

simulation run. The EC category is the regime of non-self-referential symbolism, where we can say

X = anything other than X, and where both X and anything other than X are members of the set anything

which can be thought of. Put simply, we may think about anything from an infinite set of things to create in

our mind. Again, in an information only universe, this form of EC information—thoughts—is equally

as real and influential as the self-referential physical information that the universal consciousness

self-simulation substrate can hold. Thus, the regime of EP possibilities is a set of selections or

relationships in a finite possibility space. It is discrete and may lead to a quantum gravity formalism

with a discretized probability density distribution. The regime of EC possibilities is the infinite set of all

possible symbolic relationships and combinations thereof, i.e., meaning that one can choose to think of

from the infinite universe of possible thoughts. Unlike the EP space, the EC possibility space is smooth

and continuous—infinite. Sequential choices in the regime of thought or consciousness of what and

when to measure create reality by coding a concatenation network of wavefunction collapses—forming

a completely different universe than the highest probability path(s) through the unitary evolution

if no measurements had occurred. It creates a network of short-lived unitary evolutions between

measurements defined by the freewill choices of conscious entities to strategically order sequences

of measurements. A measurement itself is a thought in the mind of the observer, which prematurely

kills off or terminates the deterministic unitary evolution that existed prior to the measurement and

after the last measurement by creating a new function that will live until the next observation and

thought about it. All functions exist in the possibilities of the Hilbert space. The choices of when,

where, and what to measure are EC thoughts that can be chosen to change the unitary evolution of the

EP information.

As shown in Figure 1, conscious humans are part physical information (made of the numerical and

geometric spatiotemporal information/thought in the EP regime) and part abstract non-self-referential

symbolic thought from the EC regime. The commonalities between the EP and EC regimes include

the following:

1. They are both mutually dependent upon one another for their origin and existence. They each

interact with one another.

2. They are both made of pure symbolic information in a language-theoretic informational

paradigm, where relationships between two or more symbols of meaning at one stratum

form synergistic meaning, and therefore higher-order symbols of meaning that form a new

higher-order symbolic stratum.

In order for the SSH to be causally consistent, EC must emerge to be complex enough to allow

for a self-simulation. This is what allows for the completion of the causal circle or emergent whole.

If EC were to never emerge, the system would never gain any consciousness, and the SSH would

Entropy 2020, 22, 247

16 of 26

be illogical. Relativistic time as we know it is irrelevant in relation to the panconsciousness because

the self-simulation strange loop is created as a whole or grand thought, which, from a wavefunction

perspective, includes advanced and retarded waves. Since the self-simulation requires emergent

consciousness to run in the first place, this makes the likelihood of emergent life to be inevitable. Driven

by the PEL, the panconsciousness can send advanced waves that encourage emergent structures, such

that additional observers can emerge.

Figure 1. Self-Simulated Universe: Humans are near the point of demarcation, where EC or thinking

matter emerges into the choice-sphere of the infinite set of possibilities of thought, EC∞. Beyond the

human level, physics allows for larger and more powerful networks that are also conscious. At some

stage of the simulation run, a conscious EC system emerges that is capable of acting as the substrate for

the primitive spacetime code, its initial conditions, as mathematical thought, and simulation run, as

a thought, to self-actualize itself. Linear time would not permit this logic, but non-linear time does.

Furthermore, rejecting the conjecture of time and seeing it as an illusionary aspect of our perception

permits it. This model may be more scientifically satisfying than the materialist statement, “Mass,

energy and spacetime just are without explanation”. Here, we may ask: “Where does the mind-like

universal substrate of self-simulation thought come from?” We get a scientifically satisfying answer or

at least a logically consistent one. It emerges, just as human consciousness did from simpler thoughts.

Even without knowing exactly how, we need not accept that it just magically appeared. We can ask:

“Where did the Planck scale information theoretic EP building blocks come from and where do they

live?” In our view, they are information in a simulation run in the mind of the emergent panconscious

universe—the self-emergent substrate as a strange loop.

Of course, there are systems in the EP1 regime of fundamental particles, such as a rock, that

do not contain meaningful EC information. There can also be emergent consciousnesses in the EC

regime that, unlike humans, are not partially in EP and EC. For example, coherent patterns of pure

EC information can allow the emergence of higher-order collective consciousnesses that is not at

the level of the panconsciousness but that is, in some sense, a higher level than human animal-level

consciousness. Furthermore, there can be coherent patterns of mathematical information, such as

topological information, at the quantum gravity regime that can be understood as consciousness but

which is not made of fundamental particles. There may be topological consciousnesses that can emerge

that are trans-temporal in nature, which, of course, would be an entirely different form of thought than

we are familiar with. However, the EP and EC regimes cannot be disassociated, since the hierarchical

stack of information based symbolic systems is interactive, non-locally connected and self-embedded.

As mentioned, this model posits that our consciousness instructs the panconsciousness to

project the wavefunction to a new state upon measurement. Our thesis does not imply that the

Entropy 2020, 22, 247

17 of 26

panconsciousness must always follow what we currently label as the laws of physics or QM. If this

were true , it would be something that can be tested for using humans who envision things that violate

physics or influence the statistics of QM [76–78]. Because emergent conscious entities, such as us,

instruct the panconsciousness substrate to perform mathematical operations in the EP regime that

comport with our EC thoughts about our surroundings or things non-local to us, such violations of

canonical physical theories appear to be allowed.

Other than the consciousness activated collapse of the wavefunction, there is another way

to recognize how EC or consciousness is physically causal. The following thought experiment is

instructive. Consider a system of particles that is organized as a conscious human at the bottom of a

deep energy well, such as the base of a mountain. The human may create an abstract story in her mind

that climbing out of the energy well every day is a good and strategic thing to do. Only because of

that abstract belief and choice, living in pure EC, the probability for all the particles of her body to do

this each day will be close to 100%. Quantum statistics would never predict this because it is not the

statistics of the behavior of conscious systems. Consciousness, via observation, is what kills off the

deterministic unitary evolution of the wavefunction in a manner not described by the Schrodinger

equation. QM merely describes statistical fluctuations that lead to emergent classical conservation

laws. QM discusses statistical dynamics between measurements. Consciousness determines a process

of sequential measurements via self-reflection and external observation.

On the other hand, we can imagine a woman at the bottom of the hill being devoid of

consciousness, such as with a brain-dead state but with all the particles in her body in the same

states as when she was not brain-dead. In this case, devoid of consciousness, the probability of her

climbing a macroscopic hill approaches zero and reproduces the statistics of classical mechanics, as she

does not have enough consciousness to influence causal reality via free will to expel energy. That is, the

evolution of her system would follow the unitary evolution of a wavefunction, where the probability

to go up the hill would comport with QM and be very close to zero.

It is trivially true that freewill or the conscious ability to choose to go against the statistics

of classical and quantum physics is a fact relating to some unknown foundation beyond QM.

Consciousness causes a deviation from the statistics as a type of non-ergodic causal entropic force.

For example, the desire for a human to experience novelty may affect the statistics to prefer a less

likely path and motivate her to climb a mountain. This claim is also supported by the fact that the

canonical interpretations of QM hold a special place for consciousness insofar as it uniquely being

capable of actualizing reality into existence from a non-real space of quantum possibilities into the

space of physical realism.

3. Informational Arrow of Time Based on Measurement

One can think, at time-1, of the idea of a person leaving their home. At time-2, they can think

of the person moving from there to a store. These are two thoughts. However, if one did not accept

the idea of time, they can think of a single thought as an ordered set of elements in pure information

or thought space. The total information of the ordered set is a single thought or object without need

for time but relying on order or pattern to express the information formerly labeled as “time”. For

convenience of language, we use terms such as “first”, “then”, “before”, “after”, and so on. Here,

those terms mean the notion of “order within a set”, where the set is the self-simulation thought of the

universe. For example, one can watch a movie and have the laser reading head of their DVD player

relate to each bit on the disc one moment at a time in an ordered set. Conversely, one may look at all

the bits in one moment with no notion of a flow of time. In either case, there is order in the set of bits.

Keeping in mind how we use “first” above in the thought of the person leaving their home,

the SSH stipulates that the “first” measurement, i.e., thought, is by the emergent panconsciousness

substrate. It chooses the thought of the mathematical code, quasiparticle construction, a function

corresponding to the initial variables, and other mathematical thought necessary for the total thought

Entropy 2020, 22, 247

18 of 26

of the self-simulation “before” the measuring sub-thinkers such as us take the load of choice actions in

a form of distributed computing or distributed thinking.

To simplify, let us focus on the idea of a function. By way of metaphor, consider the Mandelbrot

set fractal and a quadratic map that could create it with enough computational resources. The fractal

and the quadratic map are different objects. The second object, as a primitive algorithm, is a much

simpler thought than the first. That is, more symbolism and mathematical operations are necessary to

create the first object than the second. One possesses more information and takes more thought than

the other. There is a class of functions that describe objects such as series. Some of these functions allow

one to access the nth element of a series without knowing the n− 1 preceding elements. One example

is the Binet formula f b(n) that allows one to know the nth Fibonacci number without knowing any of

the earlier ones,

f b(n) =

(1 +

√

5)n − (1−

√

5)n

2n

√

5

.

(3)

The unitary evolution of the wavefunction gives, for example, the probabilities for measuring a

particle’s position at time-2, time-3, and so on. We may take the position coordinates for each time and

order them by probability magnitude in a column. We can do the same for time-2, time-3, and so on to

create a table. Each row of the table would be a series of complex values. The key here is that, according

to QM, the series has order and is not random. For example, it is known that the spectral lines of

the hydrogen atom have quasiperiodic order. Our emergence theory quantum gravity formalism

has probability tables such as this. However, the statistics emerge from the Fibonacci number-based

underlying mathematics that we derive via the transformation of Lie algebraic root lattices. We are

currently exploring functions and algorithms that will allow us to “dial in”to one column in the table

without having to calculate all the other columns. Herein, let us call this function Fn.

Let us return to the idea of the initial thought about the starting mathematics of the simulation.

Let us call this Fn, where the function is not the same object as the table or information of the unitary

evolution. It is exceedingly simpler thought/information. Based on the initial conditions as variables

to the function that define it as being Fn and not Fm, we have at some evolution of the non-computed

function a high probability for a measuring or computing entity to emerge, just as we have in the

ordinary quantum formalism with a single universal wavefunction expressing a deterministic unitary

evolution from the big bang to the first computing or measuring entity.

Early in the series corresponding to this function, the quality of order in the unreal possibility space

described a universe too hot for life to form. That is, the probabilities for a measuring/computing

entity—a thinker—were very low. Somewhere in the unitary evolution, the first measuring life

statistically appeared at the Nth column of the aforementioned table with a high probability for existing.

The first measurement occurred; the first moment of conscious awareness in the super-thought of

self-simulation as a strange loop. However, we must be careful here to think about what this means

with our EP and EC labeling scheme. What was created, EP or EC, or both? What was the nature of the

EP information? Measuring entities create coarse grained EP and more fine-grained EC information.

For example, when we do a position measurement, we are creating numbers and geometry. We

elaborate. First let us return to the previous idea of self-referential symbolism. We used examples in

geometry, such as a triangle representing a triangle. However, numbers are also an example. There is

self-referential non-subjective truth in the idea of a square’s body diagonal being

√

2 of its edge length.

There is also non-subjective truth in the number 5 being prime or the factorial set combinatorics of the

number 120. As mentioned, our previous work elaborated on the notion of self-referential numerical

symbols called simplex-integers.

Again, when we do a position measurement, we are doing very coarse-grained measurements of

numbers and geometry. Presuming Planck time and volume pixelization of spacetime, our position

measurement creates some of the EP information in the form of number and geometry that is a spread

of positions in a geometric coordinate space, since we do not have the ability at this stage to do position

measurements with Planck scale resolution. We are also spreading this over the geometry of ordered

Entropy 2020, 22, 247

19 of 26

sets of spatial selections that we call “time” because we do not have time based resolution finer than

the attosecond level. This same measurement “blur” we create as real geometric EP information is

associated with pure numerical EP numbers, as probabilities, attached to each of the various geometric

coordinate values in the blur that we call a position measurement. Put differently, our notion of a

position measurement is really a statistical spread in a region of spacetime that is far smaller than our

assumptions of where the particle might be prior to the second measurement based upon the prior

measurement that we extrapolate from. In addition to the EP information, the observer may generate

some non-self-referential information or story about the experience of measurement, such as “beauty”

or an idea related to some physical theory the observer holds in their mind.

When we consider the aforementioned table of rows and columns, we can understand that a

column correlates to a “random walk” for a particle, where the column itself is not in a single Planck

moment. It is a short animation that we can call the random walk and the column has the probabilities

for all such random walk animations at that coarse-grained level of time we are measuring at. Each

box on the column is a brief animation or ordered set that describes a given minimal random walk

and its statistical probabilities, which map to how many computational actions are needed for that

minimal walk. A walk of distance X may take more or less computational actions than another walk of

distance X. Let us say that the quantity of boxes on the column prior to the measurement is N. Next,

we have the measurement. As explained, the EP level measurement information that is created is not

precise down to the Planck level. Accordingly, it is smeared out in a blur of uncertainty. However, it is

not as smeared out as the probability distribution prior to the measurement. The measurement can

be interpreted in this framework as lensing or concentrating the probabilities into a much smaller set

of squares in the column, such that most of the previous squares now have zero probability values

and where the remaining squares have much higher probabilities than if no measurement occurred to

define the approximate time and space resolution of information created by the observer.

According to the PEL, the panconsciousness substrate would have to have a reason for computing

or simulating a precise position and time value down to the Planck level. The SSH view is that the

panconsciousness, as an emergent consciousness, leaves the heavy lifting of new thoughts to the

conscious measuring entities within it. That is, its emergent consciousness grows on the substrate of

the network of all conscious thoughts of EP and EC within it. However, after this first course grained

measuring entity does this very first measurement, additional measuring entities emerge. Today, we

have 7.7 billion human measuring entities on Earth and it should be true that many other living things

on this planet, at least, can also measure to create EP information, even if they are not generating as

much EC information as humans are. We can see now that we have an informational “arrow of time”

or pattern in the ordered set. More measuring entities create more total information. In addition, the

quality of measurement can increase. A human has a conscious moment of awareness about once

every 1041 Planck moments. However, in principle, this frequency can greatly increase with evolution,

especially with artificial evolution via technologies such as CRISPR gene editing. We can see here a

picture in our table, where the density of contracted or probability lensed columns is increasing, as the

quantity of measuring entities increases. We can also see that the resolution toward the Planck scale of

space and time can improve, which increases the degree to which a column is probability lensed. The

limit of contraction for a given column is measurement at the Planck scale of time and space that lenses

the probabilities onto a single box, leaving the other boxes with zeros. The evolutionary nature of the

SSH implies that the magnitude of EP and EC information increases exponentially as one goes deeper

into the ordered set of the self-simulation super-thought of the universe. It has appeared enigmatic to

some as to why there seems to be a sense of directionality or flow to the experience we call “time”,

considering the equations of canonical physics are generally time reversible. This evolutionary view of

increasing information is certainly one aspect of empirical observation. We see a universe starting with

a quark gluon plasma with low degrees of complex information in the EP regime to a more complex

universe of hydrogen atoms to a universe with over 100 elements to solar systems, biospheres, DNA,

and up through massive amounts of EC information being generated by mankind at this stage. This

Entropy 2020, 22, 247

20 of 26

observed directionality of complexity is the informational arrow of time, where the term information

is not restricted to quantum information, i.e., EP1.

One form of this complexity is measuring entities. Some readers may wonder what happens in

this self-simulation picture when measuring entities become so numerous and can measure at the

Planck scale, such that all columns are collapsed to single boxes. Would the simulation end because

no further choices can be made via measurement? Would that imply a “game reset” reset for another

simulation run? Of course, if the answer is “yes” to both, the SSH would imply a cyclic cosmology

model. For now, we would answer this question with the response, “Perhaps”. Our model is at

a mid-level stage of development, and our focus at this time is on reproducing quantum statistics

from first principles and deriving gauge symmetry equations for a new quantum gravity and particle

physics model.

A Free Energy Principle from the PEL

The emergence of biological life and its ability to preserve nonequilibrium states has puzzled many.

Schrodinger introduced a term called negative entropy [96], which was later shortened to negentropy.

Later, Schrodinger explained how he was actually referring to free energy. Entropy maximization

corresponds to free energy minimization. While there is a notion of thermodynamic entropy and

thermodynamic free energy, it has been realized for roughly a century that the total entropy includes

information entropy, suggesting the same holds true for free energy. Friston introduced a free energy

principle in the field of neuroscience as a mechanism to have complex biological systems preserve

a nonequilibrium thermodynamical state [97]. Friston’s free energy principle includes a free energy

function of the internal state of a biological system that makes decisions of belief about its environment.

It essentially states that life attempts to model reality and minimize the difference between its mental

model and reality.

Considering our notion of EP and EC, it is plausible that the thermodynamic free energy principle

and Friston’s free energy principle can be combined into a single free energy principle based on I.

The emergence of intelligent life can be thought of as an equilibration of consciousness. Initially in

the timeless strange loop, the panconsciousness is highly conscious, yet the emergent information

is not very conscious. In other words, the panconsciousness is modeling itself by spreading its

consciousness and free will nonlocally in a manner reminiscent of distributed computing or decision

making. The emergence of EC and more intelligent life may allow for physical information to stay in

non-equilibrium states because the emergence of additional consciousness is also part of the equation.

There are a few self-consistencies in assuming that EC relates to Friston’s free energy principle.

EC has been related to the measurement problem. In order to talk about Friston’s principle, a

complex biological system must model reality, which is a type of quantum measurement. Friston’s

principle seems to implicitly motivate the evolution of consciousness, as more highly conscious

entities and greater quantities of such entities would be able to more accurately model reality at

ever finer resolutions relative to the pixelation at the Planck scale. Friston’s free energy principle has

been connected to consciousness [98], although they do not adopt our nuanced panpsychic view.

Connecting EC to Friston’s free energy principle may be helpful for the development of a mathematical

formulation of consciousness in terms of variational Bayesian methods.

From the perspective of the panconsciousness as the largest source of EC, it would prefer to model

itself with increasing accuracy. To do this efficiently, it helps to provide EP, which is more grounded

and universal as a self-referential language. Rather than modeling the abstract realm of EC, it can learn

more about itself by creating some primitive notion of EP. This process continues until EP emerges to a

regime of complexity where it can form thoughts and model aspects of its reality. It may be conceivable

to envision emergent EC via EP as an efficient code running on multiple parallel processors. Rather

than the panconsciousness completely modeling itself, it can let the emergent information model

reality and create fundamentally new interactions of physical information, which leads to a deeper

understanding of the panconsciousness as a whole.

Entropy 2020, 22, 247

21 of 26

4. Unification of Emergentism and Panpsychism

It is widely believed that panpsychism is incompatible with emergentism [99]. We have defined

panpsychism above. Emergentism is the belief in emergence, particularly as it involves consciousness

and the philosophy of mind. Its antithesis is reductionism, because emergentism is the property

where the emergent whole is greater than the sum of the properties of the system’s parts. Theories

of consciousness generally fall under one of these two categories: Consciousness is present at a

fundamental level of reality (non-self-simulation-based panpsychism) and has no explanation or

origin or it emerges from simple physical processes that exist primordially with no explanation

(non-self-simulation-based emergentism). As articulated, the transtemporal interactive nature of

the SSH requires emergentism to explain the existence of the panpsychic computational thinking

substrate of reality to run its own self-simulation. Accordingly the SSH resolves the conflict between

emergentism and panpsychism—unifies the two views.

Emergentism typically subscribes to the philosophy of materialism. While our panpsychic view is

opposite from materialism, our model nevertheless has the notion of emergent consciousness (EC) from

emergent physicality (EP), both of which are forms of thought in the strange loop of the self-simulation.

In this sense, our view is philosophically different than emergentism, yet effectively accomplishes the

same goals, as a type of consciousness emerges from physical information, which emerges from the

panconsciousness, and so forth.

5. Spiritualism

Whether one appreciates the term “spiritualism” or not, aspects of the SSH and our emergence

theory program include aspects of spiritualism if we follow these definitional excerpts from Encyclopedia

Britannica.

Spiritualism, in philosophy, a characteristic of any system of thought that affirms the existence

of immaterial reality imperceptible to the senses. So defined, spiritualism embraces a vast

array of highly diversified philosophical views.

Furthermore:

Less obviously, it includes belief in such ideas as finite cosmic forces or a universal mind,

provided that they transcend the limits of gross Materialistic interpretation. Spiritualism as

such says nothing about matter, the nature of a supreme being or a universal force, or the

precise nature of spiritual reality itself.

The ideas laid out in this document as a whole cannot be defined as spiritualism because, as the

above definition states, spiritualism says nothing about matter, the nature of the supreme being or

a universal force, or the precise nature of spiritual reality itself. Our thesis does indeed say several

things about those ideas, as we focus on issues such as mathematical physics, symbolism, and the

finite but evolving nature of the supreme being and its origin story, i.e., the emergent panconsciousness

substrate as a strange loop. We have not used the term “God” in place of panconsciousness in this

document because that is an ambiguous and confusing term. It has many meanings. Two of the most

general meanings associated with that word are ideas anathema to this thesis. The first is that God

is infinite. This is not the case in the SSH model. Our panpsychic substrate evolves. The second

is the popular idea in many religions that God creates everything. Our panpsychic self-simulation

is everything and is collectively created by everything within it. It is unitary and interdependent,

where the panconsciousness cannot exist without evolving through us and everything else that can

make decisions.

Creationist ideas are non-unitary and non-interdependent. That is, the thing that creates

everything is not itself created by those things. This is not just an idea of religion. It is general,

as the idea that there is one thing fundamental, such as God or spacetime and energy or information.

Furthermore, the one underlying fundamental thing does not require other things to exist or other

Entropy 2020, 22, 247

22 of 26

things to create it. Those things may only emerge from or be created by the fundamental thing. Modern

materialism is one such view, where spacetime and energy just are, and they evolve according to eternal

primordial physical laws to create us and the rest of reality. All interpretations of QM mentioned above

are creationist views in this same sense. Panpsychism and digital physics are also creationist views.

The SSH is not a creationist view. It is the philosophy of holism, which is the idea that properties

of a system are synergistic and can only be explained by the emergent whole and where the whole

influences and creates the parts and vice versa—mutual co-creation of all.

When such a philosophy can fit within a logical or mathematical model of reality that makes

predictions and explains things with reasoning, a scientifically minded person may choose to ask

questions that are not “allowed” by today’s status quo scientific views. For example, one can ask

whether or not such a new physics would support the possibility that a consciousness can exist across

time and without having to be dependant on systems of atoms, as with biology. The SSH allows

this. One might ask whether thoughts can interact in a manner that comports with ideas such as

“communicating with a higher form of consciousness including one’s future evolution or even the

panconsciousness substrate” or “communicating with another consciousness non-locally without

requiring propagating signals in spacetime”. For both questions, the non-fundamental nature of time

in the SSH allows this possibility.

6. Conclusion

We introduce the self-simulation hypothesis as a modification of the simulation hypothesis. We

consider the assumption of mental simulations to be more plausible than computer simulations because,

as with lucid dreams, they are currently more precise. Furthermore, humanity’s recent hacking of

evolutionary biology, via CRISPR gene editing, is likely to allow rapid evolution of consciousness

in the future—designer consciousness—that can make mind-simulations even more powerful. Future

non-local quantum gravity theories and deeper understanding of what consciousness is may allow

new forms of mind to emerge from networks of biological consciousnesses or that do not require

matter in the first place. The upper limit of energy in the universe that can self-organize into conscious

systems and networked systems of conscious systems is 100% of the energy.

As an overall takeaway message throughout the document, we also state that mental simulations

are a better fit for what quantum mechanics and the measurement problem seem to be implying. Our

overall theme that bridges ideas ordinarily at odds has been the notion of code theory or hierarchical

inter-nested symbolic systems in a strange loop and how we recognize thought and the universe itself

as such.

We contrast our holism viewpoint with the “it just is” viewpoints of panpsychism, materialism

and digital physics and point out that it is more true to the scientific spirit of demanding origin stories

for everything, even those things that are supposedly fundamental. We speak in limited terms of the

program worked on at Quantum Gravity Research, called emergence theory. We also discuss various

interpretational aspects of QM. We end with some controversial but hopefully stimulating ideas about

spiritualism and the possible importance of humanity’s role.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, K.I.; methodology, K.I.; validation, K.I., M.A., and D.C.; investigation,

K.I., M.A., and D.C.; resources, K.I.; writing—original draft preparation, K.I.; writing—review and editing, K.I.,

M.A., and D.C.; visualization, K.I.; supervision, K.I.; project administration, K.I.; and funding acquisition, K.I. All

authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This research was funded entirely by Quantum Gravity Research, a nonprofit organization.

Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Richard Clawson, Ray Aschheim and Fang Fang for their generous

feedback in editing discussions.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

Entropy 2020, 22, 247

23 of 26

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

QM

Quantum Mechanics

EP

Emergent Physical Thought

EC

Emergent Consciousness Thought

SSH

Self-Simulation Hypothesis

PEL

Principle of Efficient Language

Orch-OR Orchestrated Objective Reduction

IIT

Integrated Information Theory

CRISPR

Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats

Referencerences

1.

Bostrom, N.

Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?

Philos.

Q. 2003, 53, 243–255.

doi:10.1111/1467-9213.00309.

2.

Wheeler, J.A. Hermann Weyl and the Unity of Knowledge: In the linkage of four mysteries—the “how come”

of existence, time, the mathematical continuum, and the discontinuous yes-or-no of quantum physics—may

lie the key to deep new insight. Am. Sci. 1986, 74, 366–375.

3.

Wheeler, J.A. Information, physics, quantum: The search for links. In Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of

Information; Addison-Wesley: Boston, MA, USA, 1990.

4.

Tegmark, M. Is “the Theory of Everything” Merely the Ultimate Ensemble Theory? Ann. Phys. 1998, 270,

1–51. doi:https://doi.org/10.1006/Aphy.1998.5855.

5.

Tegmark, M.

The Mathematical Universe.

Found.

Phys.

2008, 38, 101–150, [0704.0646].

doi:10.1007/S10701-007-9186-9.

6.

Miller, D.B.; Fredkin, E. Two-state, Reversible, Universal Cellular Automata in Three Dimensions. Available

online: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/nlin/0501022 (accessed on 18 November 2019).

7.

Fredkin, E. Digital Mechanics: An Informational Process Based on Reversible Universal Cellular Automata.

Phys. D 1990, 45, 254–270. doi:10.1016/0167-2789(90)90186-S.

8.

Fredkin, E.

An Introduction to Digital Philosophy.

Int.

J. Theor.

Phys.

2003, 42, 189–247.

doi:1010.1023/A:1024443232206.

9.

Wolfram, S. A New Kind of Science; Wolfram Media: Champaign, IL, USA, 2002.

10. Aschheim, R. Hacking reality code. FQXI Essay Contest 2011, category: Is Reality Digital or Analog? Essay

Contest (2010-2011), number 929. Available online: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/929 (accessed

on 19 December 2019).

11.

Irwin, K.; Amaral, M.M.; Aschleim, R.; Fang, F. Quantum walk on spin network and the golden ratio as

the fundamental constant of nature. In Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on the Nature and

Ontology of Spacetime, Varna, Bulgaria, 30 May–2 June 2016; pp. 117–160.

12. Brüntrup, G.; Jaskolla, L. Panpsychism: Contemporary Perspectives; Philosophy of mind series; Oxford

University Press: Oxford, UK, 2017.

13. Guyer, P.; Horstmann, R.P. Idealism. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2019 ed.; Zalta, E.N.,

Ed.; Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University: Stanford, CA, USA, 2019.

14.

Irwin, K. A New Approach to the Hard Problem of Consciousness: A Quasicrystalline Language of "

Primitive Units of Consciousness " in Quantized Spacetime. J. Conscious Explor. Res. 2014, 5.

15.

Irwin, K. The Code-Theoretic Axiom: The Third Ontology. Rep. Adv. Phys. Sci. 2019, 3, 1950002.

doi:10.1142/S2424942419500026.

16. Langan, C.M. The Resolution of Newcomb’s Paradox. Noesis 1989, 1.

17. Langan, C.M. The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: A New Kind of Reality Theory. Prog. Complex.,

Inf. Des. 2002.

18. Langan, C.M. Introduction to Quantum Metamechanics (QMM). Cosm. Hist. 2019, 15.

19. Finkelstein, D. Space-time code. Phys. Rev. 1969, 184, 1261–1279. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.184.1261.

20. Peirce, C.S. The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vol. V: Pragmatism and Pragmaticism; Harvard

University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1934.

21. Goertzel, B. Chaotic Logic: Language, Thought, and Reality from the Perspective of Complex Systems Science;

Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1994.

Entropy 2020, 22, 247

24 of 26

22. Cahill, R.T. Process Physics: From Information Theory To Quantum Space And Matter; Nova Science Publishers,

Inc, 2012.

23. Kean, M.E. The Emergent Method: A Modern Science Approach to the Phenomenology and Ethics of Emergentism,

3rd ed.; Kean, M.E., Ed.; Lulu Press: Morrisville, NC, USA, 2019.

24. Watanabe, S. Symmetry of Physical Laws. Part III. Prediction and Retrodiction. Rev. Mod. Phys. 1955,

27, 179–186. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.27.179.

25. Aharonov, Y.; Bergmann, P.G.; Lebowitz, J.L. Time Symmetry in the Quantum Process of Measurement. Phys.

Rev. 1964, 134, B1410–B1416. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.134.B1410.

26. Dummett, A.E.; Flew, A. Symposium: “Can An Effect Precede Its Cause?”. Aristot. Soc. Suppl. Vol. 2015,

28, 27–62, doi:10.1093/aristoteliansupp/28.1.27.

27.

Irwin, K. Toward the Unification of Physics and Number Theory. Rep. Adv. of Phys. Sci. 2019, 3, 1950003.

doi:10.1142/S2424942419500038.

28. DeWitt, B.S. Quantum Theory of Gravity. I. The Canonical Theory. Phys. Rev. 1967, 160, 1113–1148.

doi:10.1103/PhysRev.160.1113.

29. Rovelli, C. The Order of Time; Penguin Books Limited: London, UK, 2018.

30. Hofstadter, D.R. Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid; Penguin books, Basic Books: New York, NY,

USA, 1979.

31. Hofstadter, D. I Am a Strange Loop; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 2007.

32. Penrose, R. The Emperor’s New Mind; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1990.

33. Gao, S. A Quantum Theory of Consciousness. Minds Mach. 2008, 18, 39–52. doi:10.1007/s11023-007-9084-0.

34. Gao, S. A quantum physical argument for panpsychism. J. Conscious. Stud. 2011, 20, 59–70.

35. Esfeld, M. Essay Review: Wigner’s View of Physical Reality. Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys. 1999, 30B, 145–154.

36. Stapp, H. Mindful Universe; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011.

37. Fuchs, C.A. QBism, the Perimeter of Quantum Bayesianism.

arXiv e-prints 2010, arXiv:1003.5209.

[arXiv:quant-ph/1003.5209].

38. Mermin, N.

Physics: QBism puts the scientist back into science.

Nature 2014, 507, 421–423.

doi:10.1038/507421a.

39. Mermin, N.D. Could Feynman Have Said This? Phys. Today 2004, 57, 10.

40. Moore, W.J. A Life of Erwin Schrödinger; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1994; p. 181.

41. Eddington, A. The Nature of the Physical World - Scholar’s Choice Edition; Scholar’s Choice: Calgary, AB,

Canada, 2015.

42. Haldane, J.B.S. Inequality of Man; Chatto & Windus: London, UK, 1932; p. 113.

43. Huxley, J. The Biologist Looks at Man. Fortune 1942, 26, 141.

44. Dyson, F. Disturbing the Universe; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1979.

45. Bohm, D. A new theory of the relationship of mind and matter. Philos. Psychol. 1990, 3, 271–286.

doi:10.1080/09515089008573004.

46. Heisenberg, W. Physics and Beyond: Encounters and Conversations; Harper and Row, Publishers, Inc: New York,

NY, USA, 1971.

47. Linde, A. Universe, Life, Consciousness, 1998. Available online: http://web.stanford.edu/~alinde/

SpirQuest.doc (accessed on 18 November 2019).

48. Bell, J.; Bell, J.; Aspect, A. Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum

Philosophy; Collected papers on quantum philosophy, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2004.

49. Wilczek, F.; Devine, B. Fantastic Realities: 49 Mind Journeys and a Trip to Stockholm; World Scientific: Singapore,

2006.

50. von Neumann, J. Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. (German) [Mathematical Foundations of

Quantum Mechanics]; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1932; p. 464. Reprinted: Dover Publications

(1943); Presses Universitaires de France (1947); Madrid, Institute de Matematicas “Jorge Juan” (1949).

Translated from German by Robert T. Beyer, Princeton University Press (1955).

51. London, F.; Bauer, E. La théorie de l’observation en mécanique quantique; Actual. Scient. Ind., Hermann: Paris,

France, 1939.

52. Wigner, E.P., Remarks on the Mind-Body Question. In Philosophical Referenceections and Syntheses; Springer

Berlin Heidelberg: Berlin, Heidelberg, 1995; pp. 247–260. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-78374-6_20.

Entropy 2020, 22, 247

25 of 26

53. Stapp, H.P. Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics; Springer Verlag: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1982; Vol. 12,

pp. 363–399. doi:10.1007/BF00726783.

54. Stapp, H.P. Mindful Universe: Quantum Mechanics and the Participating Observer; The Frontiers Collection,

Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-72414-8.

55. Penrose, S.H.R. Orchestrated reduction of quantum coherence in brain microtubules: A model for

consciousness. Math. Comput. Simul. 1996, 40, 453–480. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4754(96)80476-9.

56. Hameroff, S.R.; Penrose, R. Conscious events as orchestrated space-time selections. J. Conscious. Stud. 1996,

3, 36–53.

57. Hameroff, S.; Marcer, P. Quantum Computation in Brain Microtubules? The Penrose–Hameroff ’Orch OR’

Model of Consciousness [and Discussion]. Philos. Trans. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 1998, 356, 1869.

58. Hameroff, S. How quantum brain biology can rescue conscious free will. Front. Integr. Neurosci. 2012, 6, 93.

doi:10.3389/fnint.2012.00093.

59. Hameroff, S.; Penrose, R. Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory. Phys. Life Rev.

2014, 11, 39–78. doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Plrev.2013.08.002.

60. Bern, Z.; Carrasco, J.J.M.; Johansson, H. Perturbative Quantum Gravity as a Double Copy of Gauge Theory.

Phys. Rev. Lett. 2010, 105, 061602. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.061602.

61. Cheung, C.; Remmen, G.N. Twofold Symmetries of the Pure Gravity Action. J. High Energy Phys. 2017, 2017,

104, [1612.03927]. doi:10.1007/Jhep01(2017)104.

62. Cheung, C.; Remmen, G.N. Hidden Simplicity of the Gravity Action. J. High Energy Phys. 2017, 2017, 002.

[1705.00626]. doi:10.1007/Jhep09(2017)002.

63. Fang, F.; Irwin, K. An Icosahedral Quasicrystal as a Golden Modification of the Icosagrid and its Connection

to the E8 Lattice. arXiv e-prints 2015, arXiv:1511.07786. [arXiv:math.MG/1511.07786].

64.

Irwin, K.; Fang, F.; Aschheim, R. The Quasicrystalline Spin-Network - A Chiral Icosahedral Quasicrystal

Derived from E8. arXiv preprint 2015, arXiv:1511.07786.

65. Amaral, M.; Aschheim, R.; Irwin, K. Quantum Gravity at the Fifth Root of Unity. arXiv e-prints 2019,

arXiv:1903.10851. [arXiv:hep-th/1903.10851].

66. Aschheim, R.; Irwin, K. Constructing numbers in quantum gravity: Infinions. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019, 1194,

012008. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1194/1/012008.

67. Deleuze, G.; Guattari, G. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia; University of Minnesota Press:

Minneapolis, MN, USA, 1987.

68. Baake, M.; Grimm, U. Aperiodic Order; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2013.

69. Zizzi, P.A. Emergent consciousness: From the early universe to our mind. NeuroQuantology 2003, 1, 295–311.

[arXiv:gr-qc/gr-qc/0007006].

70. Tononi, G. Integrated information theory of consciousness: An updated account. Arch. Ital. De Biol. 2012,

150, 56–90. doi:10.4449/aib.v149i5.1388.

71. Oizumi, M.; Albantakis, L.; Tononi, G. From the Phenomenology to the Mechanisms of Consciousness:

Integrated Information Theory 3.0. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2014, 10, 1–25. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003588.

72. Tononi, G.; Boly, M.; Massimini, M.; Koch, C. Integrated information theory: From consciousness to its

physical substrate. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2016, 17, 450–461. doi:10.1038/nrn.2016.44.

73. Wissner-Gross, A.D.; Freer, C.E. Causal Entropic Forces.

Phys. Rev.

Lett. 2013, 110, 168702.

doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.168702.

74. Chalmers, D.J. Facing up to the problem of consciousness. J. Conscious. Stud. 1995, 2, 200–219.

75. Chalmers, D. The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory; Oxford University Press, Inc.: New York,

NY, USA, 1996.

76. Radin, D. Psychophysical interactions with a single-photon double-slit optical system. Quantum Biosyst.

2015, 6, 82–98.

77. Radin, D. Psychophysical modulation of fringe visibility in a distant double-slit optical system. Phys. Essays

2016, 29, 14–22. doi:doi:10.4006/0836-1398-29.1.014.

78. Nelson, R.; Bancel, P. Effects of Mass Consciousness: Changes in Random Data during Global Events. Explore

2011, 7, 373–383. doi:Https://Doi.Org/10.1016/J.Explore.2011.08.003.

79. Tremblay, N. Independent re-analysis of alleged mind-matter interaction in double-slit experimental data.

PLoS ONE 2019, 14, 1–20. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0211511.

Entropy 2020, 22, 247

26 of 26

80. Stapp, H. Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics; The Frontiers Collection, Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg,

Germany, 2009.

81. Beane, S.R.; Davoudi, Z.; Savage, M.J. Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation. Eur. Phys. J.

2014, 50, 148. [1210.1847]. doi:10.1140/Epja/I2014-14148-0.

82. Campbell, T.; Owhadi, H.; Sauvageau, J.; Watkinson, D. On testing the simulation theory. arXiv e-prints 2017,

arXiv:1703.00058, [arXiv:quant-ph/1703.00058].

83. Maldacena, J.; Susskind, L. Cool horizons for entangled black holes. Fortsch. Phys. 2013, 61, 781–811,

[1306.0533]. doi:10.1002/Prop.201300020.

84. Aharonov, Y.; Bergmann, P.G.; Lebowitz, J.L. Time Symmetry in the Quantum Process of Measurement. Phys.

Rev. 1964, 134, B1410–B1416. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.134.B1410.

85. Aharonov, Y.; Vaidman, L. The Two-State Vector Formalism of Qauntum Mechanics. arXiv e-prints 2001,

quant–ph/0105101, [arXiv:quant-ph/quant-ph/0105101].

86. Sutherland, R. Lagrangian Description for Particle Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics: Single-Particle

Case. Found. Phys. 2015, 45, 1454–1464, [1411.3762]. doi:10.1007/S10701-015-9918-1.

87. Sutherland, R.I. Lagrangian Description for Particle Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics: Entangled

Many-Particle Case. Found. Phys. 2017, 47, 174–207, [1509.02442]. doi:10.1007/S10701-016-0043-6.

88. Popescu, S. Nonlocality beyond quantum mechanics. Nat. Phys. 2014, 10, 264–270. doi:10.1038/nphys2916.

89. Oppenheim, J.; Wehner, S. The Uncertainty Principle Determines the Nonlocality of Quantum Mechanics.

Science 2010, 330, 1072, [arXiv:quant-ph/1004.2507]. doi:10.1126/science.1192065.

90. Modesto, L.; Rachwał, L. Nonlocal quantum gravity: A review.

Int. J. Mod. Phys. 2017, 26, 1730020.

doi:10.1142/S0218271817300208.

91. Belenchia, A.; Benincasa, D.M.T.; Marin, F.; Marino, F.; Ortolan, A.; Paternostro, M.; Liberati, S. Tests of

Quantum Gravity-Induced Non-Locality: Hamiltonian formulation of a non-local harmonic oscillator. Class.

Quant. Grav. 2019, 36, 155006, [1901.05819]. doi:10.1088/1361-6382/Ab2c0a.

92. Hardy, C. Nonlocal Processes & Entanglement as a Signature of a Cosmic Hyperdimension of Consciousness.

J. Conscious. Explor. Res. 2015, 6.

93. Treurniet, W. A cosmology based on panpsychism. WISE J. 2017, 6, 124–131.

94. Kauffman, S. Cosmic Mind? Theol. Sci. 2016, 14, 36–47. doi:10.1080/14746700.2015.1122324.

95. Passman, M.; Fellman, P.V.; Vos Post, J.; Passman, A.; Sarfatti,

J.

Ontological Determinism,

non-locality, quantum equilibrium and post-quantum mechanics. arXiv e-prints 2018, arXiv:1807.09599.

[arXiv:physics.gen-ph/1807.09599].

96. Schrödinger, E. What is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,

UK, 1944.

97. Friston, K.J.; Kilner, J.; Harrison, L.M. A free energy principle for the brain. J. Physiol. -Paris 2006, 100, 70–87.

98. Solms, M. The Hard Problem of Consciousness and the Free Energy Principle. Front. Psychol. 2019, 9, 2714.

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02714.

99. Skrbina, D. Panpsychism. In The Routledge Handbook of Panpsychism; Routledge Publishing: New York, NY,

USA, 2019.

c© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access

article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution

(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).