------WebKitFormBoundaryAqsU9rJ03LP+OSd9
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\cocoartf1038\cocoasubrtf250
{\fonttbl\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Tahoma;\f1\fnil\fcharset0 LucidaGrande;}
{\colortbl;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue255;\red51\green48\blue45;}
{\*\listtable{\list\listtemplateid1\listhybrid{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace360\levelindent0{\*\levelmarker \{lower-alpha\}.}{\leveltext\leveltemplateid1\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li720\lin720 }{\listname ;}\listid1}
{\list\listtemplateid2\listhybrid{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat2\levelspace360\levelindent0{\*\levelmarker \{lower-alpha\}.}{\leveltext\leveltemplateid101\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li720\lin720 }{\listname ;}\listid2}
{\list\listtemplateid3\listhybrid{\listlevel\levelnfc23\levelnfcn23\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat2\levelspace360\levelindent0{\*\levelmarker \{disc\}}{\leveltext\leveltemplateid201\'01\uc0\u8226 ;}{\levelnumbers;}\fi-360\li720\lin720 }{\listname ;}\listid3}
{\list\listtemplateid4\listhybrid{\listlevel\levelnfc23\levelnfcn23\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat2\levelspace360\levelindent0{\*\levelmarker \{disc\}}{\leveltext\leveltemplateid301\'01\uc0\u8226 ;}{\levelnumbers;}\fi-360\li720\lin720 }{\listname ;}\listid4}}
{\*\listoverridetable{\listoverride\listid1\listoverridecount0\ls1}{\listoverride\listid2\listoverridecount0\ls2}{\listoverride\listid3\listoverridecount0\ls3}{\listoverride\listid4\listoverridecount0\ls4}}
{\info
{\author R O}}\paperw11900\paperh16840\margt851\vieww11900\viewh16840\viewkind1\viewscale150
\deftab720
\pard\pardeftab720\ri0
\f0\fs24 \cf0 \
\
Abstract\
\
\
\
Gravity remains the most elusive field. Its relationship with the electromagnetic field is poorly understood. Relativity and quantum mechanics describe the aforementioned fields, respectively. Bosons and fermions are often credited with responsibility for the interactions of force and matter. It is shown here that fermions factually determine the gravitational structure of the universe, while bosons are responsible for the three established and described forces. Underlying the relationships of the gravitational and electromagnetic fields is a symmetrical probability distribution of fermions and bosons. Werner Heisenberg's assertion that the Schr\'f6dinger wave function and Heisenberg matrices do not describe one thing is confirmed. It is asserted that the conscious observation of Schr\'f6dinger's wave function never causes its collapse, but invariably produces the classical space described by the Heisenberg picture. As a result, the Heisenberg picture can be explained and substantiated only in terms of conscious observation of the Schr\'f6dinger wave function. Schr\'f6dinger\'92s picture is defined as information space, while Heisenberg\'92s picture is defined as classical space. B-theory postulates that although the Schr\'f6dinger picture and the Heisenberg picture are mathematically connected, the former is eternal while the latter is discrete, existing only as the sequence of discrete conscious moments. Inferences related to information-based congruence between physical and mental phenomena have long been discussed in the literature. Moreover, John Wheeler suggested that information is fundamental to the physics of the universe. However, there is a great deal of uncertainty about how the physical and the mental complement each other. Bishop Berkeley and Ernst Mach, to name two who have addressed the subject, simply reject the concept of the material world altogether. Professor Hardy defined physical reality as 'dubious and elusive'. It is proposed in this paper that physical reality, or physical instantiation in the classical space as described by Heisenberg picture is one thing with the consciousness.\
\
\
\
\
\
Author \'96 Bakytzhan Oralbekov (Robert) \
Email: {\field{\*\fldinst{HYPERLINK "mailto:robertoralbekov@me.com"}}{\fldrslt \cf2 \ul \ulc2 robertoralbekov@me.com}}\
Tel. +1-604-961-9628\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
Summary\
\
\
Werner Heisenberg\'92s assertion that the Schr\'f6dinger wave function and Heisenberg matrices do not describe one thing is confirmed.\
It is asserted that the conscious observation of the Schr\'f6dinger wave function never causes its collapse, but invariably produces the classical space described by the Heisenberg picture. As a result, the Heisenberg picture can be explained and substantiated only in terms of conscious observation of the Schr\'f6dinger wave function. Consciousness is defined as the sequence of Schr\'f6dinger wave function observations, or \'91photographs\'92, which result in a formation of time-distinguishable classical space described by the Heisenberg picture.\
The Schr\'f6dinger picture is defined as information space, while the Heisenberg picture is defined as classical space. B-theory postulates that though the Schr\'f6dinger picture and the Heisenberg picture can be mathematically connected, the former is eternal while the latter is discrete, and exists only as the sequence of discrete conscious moments. Accordingly, the Heisenberg picture is a \'91photograph\'92 of the Schr\'f6dinger wave function, made by a conscious observation. Inferences about information-based congruence between physical and mental phenomena have long been discussed in the literature. Moreover, John Wheeler suggested that information is fundamental to the physics of the universe. However, there is a great deal of uncertainty on how the physical and the mental complement each other. Bishop Berkeley and Ernst Mach simply reject the concept of the material world altogether. Professor Hardy defined physical reality as \'91dubious and elusive\'92. It is proposed in this paper that physical reality, or physical instantiation, or the Heisenberg picture, is one thing with the consciousness. Conscious activity constitutes physical reality, and is described by Heisenberg matrices. Physical reality is a sequence of Heisenberg pictures made by a \'91photographer\'92 \'97 the conscious observation. The pixels are the bosons and fermions, computed in a process described by Sir R. Penrose et al (Orch OR process).\
Gravity and electromagnetism are explained in terms of symmetrical probability distribution of fermions and bosons, respectively.\
B-theory and the concept of information space, where a quantum bit (qubit) domain is described by the Schr\'f6dinger wave function, are introduced hereby. \
The constituents of information space are information, computational systems and computing processes, all defined in a specific sense. It is argued that in information space, physical reality does not exist externally, but is being reflectively\'a0represented out of information to form a classical space. \
Classical space, produced by the consciousness (conscious observation of Schr\'f6dinger\'92s wave function), is described by Heisenberg matrix mechanics and classical physics. That\'92s why time appears in a classical space, as opposed to the eternally quantum computing (constantly coherent) information space in Schr\'f6dinger\'92s picture. Conscious observation of any process in the Schr\'f6dinger picture results in formation of the same process in Heisenberg\'92s picture, or classical space. Classical space\'92s constituents are fermions and bosons, which are strictly bivalent in terms of angular momentum. The bivalent nature of fermions and bosons is explained in terms of bivalent Boolean logical gates setting within our neurological quantum computer. To put it simply, the angular momentum difference between fermions and bosons is not due to their \'91nature\'92, as it is currently understood, but rather due to the bivalent structure of neurological quantum computing that sets such bivalent behaviorism of computed quanta \'97 in our case, fermions and bosons. \
Paul Dirac has established a single mathematical formalism for the information-Schr\'f6dinger and classical-Heisenberg bits, and their mathematical equivalence. It proves that real (information space) and \'91translated\'92 (classical space) values are not one thing, but that the latter exists as the interpretation of the former.\
The Orch OR mechanism, proposed by Sir Roger Penrose, Dr. Stuart Hameroff and Scott Hagan, is discussed as the explanation of quantum computing activity in the brain. Information representation in Heisenberg matrices, or physical representation, is viewed as the evolution-selected way for data processing of the complex computational systems that have evolved due to the pressure of self-organization in a closed system. \
Self-organization pressure, realized in terms of evolution and survival strategy from a biological perspective, ironed out the computational efficiency principle. It states that the better informational interactions were processed by DNA-defined machinery; such was the evolutionary advantage over less sophisticated information systems. \
Such data representation is named externalization, because it involves, for example, visualization of information as the \'91outside\'92 physical reality, which is described by Heisenberg matrices. In B-theory, visualization is quantum computing-based. What we see through our eyes, or hear through our ears, or feel through any other sense \'97 is quantum-computed externalization. Moreover, it is further elaborated that the computational system at a certain level of sophistication starts to recognize itself from the surrounding informational environment, thus forming an internalized, or \'91subjective\'92, environment. Based on this assumption, consciousness is defined as the modus operandi of an information processing system sophisticated enough that it is able and set to distinguish itself from the surrounding environment. It is argued that the evolutionary development of the human brain supports the idea that the self-recognition function was central to the development of consciousness. Finally, the recent discovery that most repetitive and urgent recognition tasks are localized in specific regions of the brain is found to be consistent with the notion that reduction of the computing burden for the sake of greater computational efficiency leads to a survival advantage. \
\
\
\
\
Introduction\
\
Quantum mechanics and consciousness are intertwined in several key aspects, including observation and measurement ones. The attempts to depart from Copenhagen interpretation to construct a self-consistent objective theory that would include consciousness as the part of dynamics of objective theory have failed. Rene Descartes mind-body problem has become now a hard problem: that of defining phenomenal consciousness in terms of its neurological basis. We also have the notion that the importance of the theory of consciousness may be such as to materially influence our understanding of the universe and of ourselves.\
\
The inner workings of consciousness may reveal the nature to which we belong. In addition, the understanding of our intrinsic logic is pre-requisite to the design of artificial intelligence systems and, considering the measurement problem, to quantum computing and to quantum mechanics in general. It is currently understood that perceptual space can be distinguished from physical space. The first is found in personal experience, while the second is defined independently of perception. The relationship between the two is a hot topic.\
\
The science of consciousness is an integral part of the holistic picture, and it is natural to explain consciousness by incorporating it into a more general framework. A broader view is needed to understand why consciousness as a phenomenon has come into being. One of the routes to explaining consciousness is through usage of John Wheeler\'92s \'91The it from a bit\'92 idea. Information-based concepts are gaining increasing attention. Physics is already digitized, either in terms of Boolean space for classical physics, or in terms of Hilbert spaces for quantum mechanics. If we follow John Wheeler\'92s notion, and think of the quantum as an information carrier, then quantum mechanics, as is self-evident from its name, is about investigating the behavior of the bit and its relations. Classical physics and relativity are about putting together the larger bit structures, composed of quanta. In the sense just described, we know enough about the letters and sentences of the text in which the universe is written. However, the meaning cannot be inferred from reading the strengths of forces or from analyses of the quantum peculiarities. Moreover, consciousness cannot be explained in terms of symbols that depend on its functioning. To mediate this problem, the concept of information space is introduced below.\
\
\
\
B-theory\
\
\
In B-theory, informational space is defined in the specific terms of information, computational system and computing.\
\
Information is defined as the change in state of a system undergoing self-organization processes. \
A discrete bit is a qubit; its behavior is described by Schr\'f6dinger\'92s equation. \
Computational system is defined as the system that configuration is adapting to the self-organization processes. The process of self-organization of the computational system being considered is defined as the computing process.\
Self-organization of the complex quantum systems was established by Ilya Prigogin at the Center of complex quantum systems studies in Texas, USA.\
\
\
\
Information and its representation\
\
\
\
\
For practical and general purposes, we will use the term \'93information processing system\'94, or \'93computational system\'94, in defining consciousness. \
It is worth noting that Shannon\'92s understanding of information as the pattern of bits may be used here, but does not reflect the meaning that is ascribed to information in B-theory, which is more general and subordinated to causality. The ontological basis of information remains to be fully understood. For example, can information exist without a computational system in place to process it? Apparently, it cannot.\
Information co-exists with a computational system in a single \'91eco-system\'92. \
Information, computational system and computing are integral parts of this eco-system, or space, where the observer and his universe are united and interrelated, as one gives birth to the other. For example, if we insert the DNA code necessary to enable the light-sensing cells to distinguish between red and green colors, then the primate, or the observer, perceives the same universe differently. Logically, then, that same universe is ultimately his universe, because it is his DNA that underlies the observer\'92s universe appearance, or quantum-computed image in terms of B-theory. A yet more striking experiment with Parkinson\'92s Disease DNA-based treatment extends the unification of the observer and his universe into behavioral aspects. The important inference here is that when we use physical instantiation, for example, brain or DNA molecule, we effectively represent the information prepared by the internal logic of the observer. Therefore, physical instantiation is used in this article for representational purposes only. \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
One of many universes\
\
Simple systems, especially quantum systems in closed energy contours, lead to the formation of logically highly advanced systems, which would invariably produce self-organization patterns as suggested by Ilya Prigogine. In the relatively closed or contained systems, the self-organization processes would be notably more sophisticated than they are in the open ones, such as in the intergalactic spaces. After Earth was formed and its atmosphere had stabilized, various primitive systems started to evolve as the result of self-organization processes. Overall, it is a complex process governed by simple rules. Ervin Schr\'f6dinger suggested that the carrier of hereditary information has to be both small in size and permanent in time, contradicting the naive physicist's expectation. This contradiction cannot be resolved in classical space. The atmosphere was enriched in oxygen as a result of the highly organized and self-governed colonies of bacteria\'92s activity, driven by DNA.\
It is now a well-accepted concept that DNA itself is an information substance, responsible for archiving and unpacking the information, and for recording the results of interactions of the computational system involved. These self-organization processes have created the increasingly sophisticated DNA systems. The DNA appearance has increased its population\'92s organizational stability and viability. The DNA-based population had probably prevailed over non-DNA based systems, which might have been present at the time of the early biological life. The rise in complexity of DNA-based computational systems we may generalize, or translate, to the biological construct of the survival strategy. The survival strategy, or adaptive mechanism in biological terminology, has led some systems to become sensitive enough to distinguish certain repetitive patterns within a larger computational system, for example, day and night changes in the physical instantiation. After billions of years of sophistication and \'91error-saving\'92-based progress as postulated by DNA theory, primitive informational systems would end up reflectively producing externalization patterns. Externalization, or quantum computing of the physical reality in terms of Heisenberg matrices, is a sort of compressed description of what\'92s going on around; it increases the computational efficiency of the system. This efficiency might have been a determinant factor in the evolutionary process. For instance, the development of color vision should have gained its bearers an advantage over the bearers of monochromatic vision. \
All five senses, and especially the appearance of written language, increased our computational efficiency. Externalization via visualization, or what we call \'93seeing\'94, is a very powerful way to compress and represent interactions data.\
This method is especially effective and sophisticated when we consider that \
it is done reflectively \'97 our major processing power is free to cope with other tasks while the surrounding picture is being formed and conveniently represented to us. \
This way, evolution develops and carefully orchestrates a setup of virtual quantum-computed home. Biologically, the simplest \'97 and, in evolution, the earliest \'97 cortical visual area in our brain is highly specialized for processing information about static and moving objects. This fact is consistent with the idea that sophisticated representation of the surrounding environment starts with primitive patterns.\
The formation of the self-recognition function of the computational system possibly corresponds to reticular formation, because the latter is the oldest phylogenetical part of the brain. \
Now, the magic of consciousness has a place to be born: \
within this setting, the informational system starts to recognize details\
of reflectively generated, or condensed-out-of-data, space made of externalized patterns. If there is no ability to generate the presence of a virtual home, then there is no medium for consciousness placement. Consciousness begins with the ability of the information processing system to distinguish itself from the surrounding environment. For this magic to occur, a computational system capable of creating a stable virtual environment is formed under relentless DNA instructions. As we now know, our primary visual cortex area is responsible for spatial perception, and for identification of static and moving objects. At the same time, self-recognition is the earliest biologically developed higher-level task.\
The driving force behind these breath-taking procedures is survival instinct strategy. In information space, survival is a matter of the sophistication of computational systems, and can be viewed as the generalization of self-organization processes. \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
Evolution of the logic\
\
\
\
It is argued in this paper that the operation of formal logic involves our internal one. Such a finding is the logical implication of the design of formalized systems, including that of formal logic.\
Godel has shown the deficiency of such a formal approach in mathematics. The incompleteness theorem sets the theoretical limit for formalized systems, because formal logic is tied up with the need for agreement on the values n, with n=2 for Boolean logic. These values are the product of our internal logic. Formalized systems could not describe the consciousness in terms of formal logic simply because the internal logic, intrinsic to the observer, is part of the very consciousness that the formal logic is supposed to describe.\
\
George Boole digitized Aristotle\'92s classical logic, which is the arbitrary causation calculus represented in the form of \'93if \'85 then \'85\'94. Boolean logic depends on interaction with the observer that has to agree with the correct value out of two possible Boolean values. Boolean bivalent logic is an outstanding example of the genuine work of the self-made scientist and the gentleman. His work will possibly play a central role in the future quantum computer algorithms.\
If we ask why his rules are so simple to use, the answer is that the simple rules are the result of the implied cognition and evaluation activity of the observer. Boolean logic needs multi-valued human internal logic to operate its own. Moreover, it is based on the assumption that all observers possess the internal logic that allows them to agree correctly with either of the two Boolean values (usually described as false or true), or between many in polyvalent logic. George Boole could not foresee that modern science would part with certainty for good. In other words, classical logic is factually observer-dependent. Godel, Pauli, Einstein, Dirac and others were unhappy about this cul-de-sac. It was erected by the inherent involvement of the internal logic in the functioning of formalized systems. In quantum mechanics, where measurement is complete upon its validation within the consciousness, as postulated by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, this cul-de-sac has conditioned the appearance of the uncertainty principle.\
Internal logic, which is intrinsic to the observer, is very powerful machinery.\
It is composed of the highly sophisticated, genetically programmed fixed patterns, and of the acquired inferences or guesses about external reality.\
Its genetic component is not basically understood yet. The human body is a system that is highly synchronized with the environment, so the environment itself has played a major role in evolutionary syntheses of the internal logic. Moreover, as we progress in technological development, the appearance of the Internet and information devices has brought yet another layer onto the fabrics of internal logic. If, for example, we change a tiny piece of the genetic software, the externalized information may be visualized very differently, even leading to a shift in the behavioral or recognition patterns. \
For example, if we insert the DNA code necessary to enable the light-sensing cells to distinguish between the colors red and green, then the primate perceives the same universe differently in classical logic. In B-theory, the interpretation is different \'97 the primate computed the external space according to the change in software, so the observer factually visualizes his own computation, while external-to-the-observer reality does not exist. That\'92s why it was not easy to describe consciousness, or internal logic, in terms of its neurological basis, or formal logic: they are interrelated. One gives birth to the other. In order to mediate them, the logic of the essential relations is proposed here. The relations are essential when being calculated by information space. This logic of essential relations is quantum logic, and the result of its calculation is event. \
\
\
\
\
\
Evolution of the brain and appearance of self-recognition\
\
\
\
If we look at how our brain was formed, the first evolutionary \
area to develop was the so-called brain stem part, in the very core of which the reticular activation system is found. This part enables self-recognition and, related to it, the defense instinct. It is obvious, then, that development of consciousness of the type we observe in mammals and primates is preceded by self-recognition. Therefore, it is natural to analyze the role played by self-recognition in the formation of consciousness.\
B-theory postulates that the self-recognition function actually triggers the development of conscious activity. The rationale is that the richness of emotional life derives from, and is at least initially based on, \'93I\'94 \'96 not the \'93I\'94 modality of behavior conduct. Almost all emotions are inherently linked to self-recognition situations, and are centered on the relations created by self-recognition. This rudimentary consciousness needs more sophistication and computing capabilities to create internalized, or subjective, reality, and the externalized, or objective, world that we enjoy now.\
An interesting discovery suggests that the processing of such basic and urgent tasks as recognition of face, body parts and surrounding place structure are localized within specific regions of the brain. Thus, we may assume that in order to increase the computational efficiency of the brain, most important and repetitive informational tasks were immobilized in specific regions. This greatly reduces the computing burden for the sake of better navigation within the surrounding environment. \
It is currently understood that the brain functioning produces the internal picture, as opposed to the external objective world. According to B-theory, there is no external reality at all.\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
Nature of consciousness in B-theory\
\
\
\
Currently proposed solutions to the problem of consciousness invariably involve its supposed relations with the external-to-it environment. The type of environment and the level of its integration with consciousness may vary.\
A somewhat unusual approach is being developed in B-theory, according to which a relatively sophisticated computational system interprets, or computes, the Schr\'f6dinger wave function dynamics into classical space as the \'91outside\'92 world. The result of this proposition is that what had been created by our consciousness is already a final reality, in the sense that nothing physical or external to it exists. The idea is that a wide array of both internalized (\'91subjective\'92) and externalized (\'91objective\'92) phenomena are produced by quantum processing (DNA- enabled) machinery. This movie-like production, snapshot-by-snapshot in a conscious mode, can best be viewed as the sophisticated interpretation of information interactions. Externalization can be explained in terms of DNA-defined computational patterns, common to all perceiving beings and described by the Orch OR mechanism proposed by Sir Roger Penrose et al. The internalization process is many times more complex than externalization, as it involves the latter as the \'91observable\'92 element in a much more delicate manipulation.\
It is an interesting question whether internalizations factually form the universes through the mechanism proposed by Hugh Everett, though limited in number to factual experiences, or computations. Frontiers between internalization and externalization spaces should be transparent and mobile, because one educates and heavily influences another. Emotional constituency matures with learning \'93I-not-I\'94 modality. Self-recognition spurs creativity too, because self-recognition stimulates generation of a large number of various internalizations. In a sense, consciousness is creative by definition, as it builds up the surrounding environment literally from scratch. \
An important question is its indoctrination: what values does it rank as important? Depending on the ranking algorithm, certain leads and situations would seem desirable and worth pursuing, while others would not. These tasks are performed using a planning and attention mechanism that directs the processing power to dynamically changing priorities. Some priorities are the so-called fixed patterns, which were pre-determined by DNA, while others were acquired. Creativity and abstract thinking are the result of the suppression of the value-ranking activity, and possibly are the continuous quantum states.\
The fact that we share a common computing and cognitive basement explains why personally computed externalized processes look roughly the same. Externalization processes were evolution-linked to survival instinct, and therefore precede the formation of mature consciousness, which needed the luxury of free time and language for development. Language was important for both internalized and externalized environments as the tool to self-educate and to influence other computational systems. The thought is the reflection of our brain\'92s activity. When activated, a certain self-organization process is probably started, generating the various thoughts. \
In a way, it is a computational task.\
The proposed externalization process is everything we have in terms of having any foreign-to-internal reality. In this respect, any internalized reality \'97 be it a dream or any other state of illusionary immersion \'97 is as valid as the commonly accepted and shared externalization. What is correct today for many is not good for some, and both views may become a subject for reconsideration at any time. The aforementioned modality of consciousness operation is not chaos, but a built-in freedom to choose and pursue any of the available and permissible routes to express the richness of individuality. Individuality is born as the matter of certain informational tricks when a sufficiently sophisticated information processing system identifies itself as \'91in error\'92, that is, partly pre-programmed by tireless DNA machinery and then nurtured culturally. Development of consciousness is a multi-stage process linked to inception and formation of cognitive, learning and neural bases. \
The importance of the observer and of his consciousness had been minimized in science for centuries, from Bishop Berkeley to Hugh Everett \'96 just because we did not have any abstract logical space with which to accommodate the mental stuff. \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
Definition\
\
\
\
\
\
Based on the assumption that the human neurological basis acts as an information processing system, consciousness is defined as the modus operandi of an information processing system sufficiently sophisticated that it is capable and set to distinguish itself from the surrounding environment. \
\
\pard\pardeftab720\ri0\sb2\sa2
\cf0 To function continuously, such a system must be able to maintain the aforementioned recognition during its life cycle. The human neurological basis allows for the creation and preservation of the self-recognition\'a0function for the sake of survival. Survival itself is a generalization of the self-organization processes. \
\pard\pardeftab720\ri0
\cf0 \
Information space (Schr\'f6dinger picture), classical space (Heisenberg picture) and the presence of self-recognition \'91error\'92 are central to the proposed mechanics of consciousness origination and of its nature. Fundamentally, consciousness is the matrix mechanics, forming and describing the classical space. Consciousness is enabled by, and coupled with, the self-recognition function of the computational system being considered. The appearance of the self-recognition function possibly corresponds to the reticular formation in classical space. \
It plays the triggering role in fortifying the externalized world centered on the self-figure. In B-theory, the phenomenon of self, or ego, or I, belongs to a line of logically necessary mistakes created for the sake of sophistication, or the survival of an information system involved. Such \'91mistaken\'92 mode of operation is DNA pre-wired in our cognitive mechanism. We don\'92t have to undertake any effort, or to incur additional computing burden, to view ourselves as separate living creatures in the external (to our consciousness) world. \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
Compassion\
\
\
\
\
If consciousness results from the sophistication of the computational system involved, then the compassion pattern is imminent for the computational systems. Why? Because emotions generally serve the purpose of expressing and communicating the state of the system being considered. Emotion is a very fast way to communicate the data, and any sophisticated computational system would end up reproducing the emotion of the other system in order to understand its state. It is the evolution-developed method of communication. It is then apparent that positive emotions would strengthen the observing computational system, while negative ones would have a destructive role.\
Therefore, regardless of value-ranking rules employed by a particular computational system, it is in its long-term interest to develop compassion.\
It is like gravitation \'97 we may agree or disagree with its existence or the formulation, but we are subject to its effect. Compassion is the result of the self-organization processes, and its importance for human society is paramount.\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
Artificial intelligence\
\
\
\
\
\'93Every brain system grows logically from the tube\'94 (H. Chandler Elliott, 1969).\
\
The AI hard problem is what is called a common-sense informational situation, and the easy problem then is the informational situation. A successful AI system is likely to operate in the same way as ours. To achieve this goal, a conceptually new foundation should be laid out, including better truth maintenance systems, externalized and internalized spaces, and a self-recognition function with value-ranking rules. The major part of the newer foundation would be the defining and the implementation of the essential logic calculus.\
The technical realization of such a calculus became possible after Shannon famously concluded that \'91semantics are irrelevant to engineering problems\'92 in his information theory. Charles Bennett concluded that deep logic depth systems design needs a more thoughtful approach than simply investing efforts into making the deep logical depth device at once. AI would require a significant level of logical depth to be viable, so it is rather easier to grow the AI, than to try to assemble it from irrelevant parts. Quantum computing will play the central role in the design and implementation of AI.\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
Logic and calculus in the information space\
\
\
According to the mathematician Leibniz, no event may ever occur without its cause; underlying his statement is a causation calculus assertion. \
Information space calculates events. Classical space is a sequence of events.\
Shannon described the technical way that such a calculus could have been realized, and probably was not aware of the full consequences of his statement \'91semantics are irrelevant to the engineering problems.\'92 Now, it turns out that the semantics set the matter that is used to realize \'91engineering problems\'92.\
\
\
The quantum logic that provides the semantics from the text of the universe \'97 in conjunction with its syntax, causation calculus \'97 is defined as the logic of essential relations, or essential logic. Essential relations are being calculated in information space, which is a self-governed, coherent-quanta domain. Calculus that calculates essential relations is defined as the causation calculus. Heisenberg matrices and classical physics describe the letters and abstracts of the text in classical space, respectively.\
\
The reading of the text, or computing of the universe, is done by our consciousness via quantum computing simulation. The meaning, or events in Leibniz terminology, is being computed in information space. The causation calculus conveys its results through fermions, which set the gravitational landscape, and therefore is responsible for events\'92 occurrence. \
\
The logic of essential relations does not depend on any input from the observer. Moreover, the information space describes the observer and his internal logic as part of its information dynamics. The logic is called essential when its calculus is not dependent on the internal logic of its elements. Proportionately to its depth (which varies under circumstances), internal logic may invoke the causation calculus, for example, when the attention mechanism receives conflicting signals from a motivational component of the value-ranking tree. Causation calculus calculates essential relations, and the functioning of such a calculus is what we call intelligence.\
\
In the model of the information universe, there is present a sophisticated reality and no matter. However, for ease of reference, the physical instantiation would be employed here to set the familiar context. This context explains the essence of information space processes. Physical instantiation is always about how our brain represents, or calculates, the stuff, while the information is about what the stuff is, in information space. \
In the same way, we consider all systems as being fundamentally quantum mechanical, yet we use classical physical instantiation in the contextual meaning. Both are two parts of the same reality, but Heisenberg matrices and Schrodinger wave function do not describe one thing, as concluded by Werner Heisenberg.\
\
\
\
\
\
Quantum mechanics and consciousness mechanics\
\
\
\
B-theory explains the dilemma that Werner Heisenberg has formulated: \'91Both matter and radiation possess a remarkable duality of character, as they sometimes exhibit the properties of waves, at other times those of particles. Now it is obvious that a thing cannot be a form of wave motion and composed of particles at the same time \'97 the two concepts are too different\'92. (Werner Heisenberg, on Quantum Theory, 1930).\
B-theory postulates that though the Schr\'f6dinger picture and the Heisenberg picture can be mathematically connected , the former is eternal and the latter is discrete, and exists only as the observer\'92s interpretation of the former.\
I suggest that Schr\'f6dinger\'92s wave function describes the quantum-computing domain in information space, while Heisenberg matrices describe the conscious experience or interpretation of information space processes, thus forming a classical space, or a physical reality. \
\
With the rise of logical depth of computational systems as described in the sections above, the magic of consciousness became possible due to a self-recognition \'91mistake\'92 appearance in DNA evolution, as described in the first part of this paper. The self-recognition evolvement gradually has formed a classical space, where the computational system may differentiate itself and the time, leading to the birth of consciousness. If true, that is exactly why in the Schr\'f6dinger picture the state of a system evolves with {\field{\*\fldinst{HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time"}}{\fldrslt time}}, and the evolution for a closed quantum system is brought about by a unitary operator called the {\field{\*\fldinst{HYPERLINK "%22http:"}}{\fldrslt time-evolution operator}}. This means that time does not exist in information space, because it is holistic and no observer time-reference frame can be originated in the constantly coherent quantum domain of information space. \
\pard\pardeftab720\li440\ri0
\cf0 \
\
\pard\pardeftab720\ri0
\cf0 \
\pard\pardeftab720\li440\ri0
\cf0 \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\pard\pardeftab720\ri0
\cf0 \
\pard\pardeftab720\li440\ri0
\cf0 \
\
\
\
\
The computing power of information space\
\
\
\pard\pardeftab720\ri0
\cf0 If information space is the never-born quantum computing of a self-governed domain, then all possible variations were realized, or computed, by it. Our universe is just one of them. In the sense just described, it is no longer relevant to enquire how the universe could have come to existence. Anything that might have been computed was computed; it took no time for the constantly quanta-coherent, or quantum computing, domain.\
Holistic property is the result of a never ending entanglement of all totality of quanta present in information space. It is senseless to discuss how much quanta are there, or how long ago the quantum domain appeared, or how fast its computing capability is. Our logic is not valid here, and any answer misleads.\
\
\
\
The conditions for the appearance of the observer\
\
\
For the observer to appear, as is shown below in the sections Consciousness mechanics, Nature of consciousness in B-theory and Evolution of the brain, an environment would be needed where certain discrimination, or differentiation, is possible to enable the appearance of self-recognition. Simply speaking, time is a pre-requisite for the self-recognition function to appear, because self-recognition phenomena can be based in the time-distinguishable environment only. One might ask what was earlier \'97 the consciousness, which produced a classical space and a time, or a time, which produced a consciousness. Consciousness is based on a quantum computing, and there are a lot of quanta out there. They may and do form all types of stuff, which may suddenly find itself setting the universe and Milky Way.\
\pard\pardeftab720\li440\ri0
\cf0 \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
Time \
\pard\pardeftab720\ri0
\cf0 \
There is no time in information space, as it is a holistic domain. \
This differs from the Heisenberg picture, where the states are constant while the observables evolve in time.\
\
\
\
\
Observables\
\
\
Observables in quantum mechanics are defined, in my dilettante interpretation, as the things, or values, that can be measured by physical experiment, or a set of physical experiments. According to B-theory, any \'91observable\'92 indicates the involvementof the observer and the classical space.\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
Quantum computing \'96 in the brain and outside of it\
\
\
The universes that we compute are extremely diverse and sophisticated. As mentioned earlier, fermions and bosons are univocal witnesses of quantum manipulations with the reality, where these bivalent inhabitants are found.\
It is safe to say that what we know for sure about our universe is that \
its constituents are bivalent structures. It is currently understood that these structures constitute the very environment that we exist within. In B-theory, physical reality is computed by the observer\'92s machinery.\
Sir Roger Penrose, Dr. Stuart Hameroff and Scott Hagan have proposed that our brain is effectively a quantum computer. In it, the measurement is completed by a certain gravity mechanism, or causally mediated event as it could be represented in B-theory. It is possible to imagine the aforementioned quantum computer as the quantum system, where repeated interactions between particles create quantum correlations, or {\field{\*\fldinst{HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement"}}{\fldrslt entanglement}}. As a consequence, the {\field{\*\fldinst{HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function"}}{\fldrslt wave function}} of such a system is a complicated object holding a large amount of {\field{\*\fldinst{HYPERLINK "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information"}}{\fldrslt information}}, which is why our visualized reality is so splendid.\
The quantum computing outside the brain will be done in a similar-to-Nature fashion \'97 by achieving the required logic depth level and mimicking the mechanism described by Sir Penrose et al, and by incorporating the AI design as described earlier.\
\
\
\
\
Fermions and bosons\
\
\
\
\
Fermions and bosons are bivalent in terms of Boolean logic gates. They appear in our computed externalized universe, or classical space in B-theory, paired in terms of spin states, because the conscious observation, in accordance with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, effects the measurement of bits in the Schr\'f6dinger picture, though its wave function never collapses. To put it differently, we live in information space ultimately, but our conscious activity simulates the classical space described by Heisenberg matrices, classical physics, formal logic, and physical instantiation. The above classical space might be viewed as the interpretation of the information space processes, which are described by the Schr\'f6dinger equation. The conscious act of measurement creates the physical reality. Fermions\'92 and bosons\'92 spins indicate the involvement of Boolean logic gates within our neurological quantum computer setting. The possibility and viability of such a quantum neurocomputer was predicted and substantiated by Sir Roger Penrose et al.\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
Spaces\
\
\
\
We discussed earlier how Boolean and Hilbert spaces provide convenient ways of describing the physical processes, but stop short of explaining what was before the Big Bang, and do not include the consciousness in their pictures. These are extreme points of our current state of knowledge, its theoretical perimeter. In order to go beyond these limits, B-theory adds information space where consciousness is explained in terms of this space, which consists of information, computational systems and computing processes. Information space explains and takes into account biological life and consciousness, but excludes evolution reversibility. It is not observer-dependent; it is a logical space, or a useful tool that helps us to understand why we see things as we perceive them, and what is behind our thinking processes. In a sense, the matter/energy universe describes the world as we see it, while information space unites the observer and his universe.\
Heisenberg matrices describe classical space, while information space is described by the Schr\'f6dinger wave function.\
\
\
\
Quantum mechanics explained\
\
\
\
The puzzle of entanglement in quantum mechanics can be\
explained in terms of classical versus information space differences.\
For example, information space is fundamentally a pure quantum state, where everything is correlated and by definition constitutes a single totality of events. The relations amongst these events are realized via the Schr\'f6dinger equation and are known as the Schr\'f6dinger picture. In classical space, formed by the consciousness of the observer, and described by Heisenberg matrices, we may prepare a certain quantum system, which will be correlated until after being measured by the observer. However, in reality (in information space perspective), we measure the two (or any number) tiny pieces of information space, which is changing as one inseparable entity. Thus, in classical space, we observe how two particles, separated to our perception, behave as one. Indeed, they never were separated, and always were and will remain the parts of holistic information space. Information space behaves as one single entity, even if we slice it in classical space (e.g., in our mind simulation) into 2 or any number of pieces, or particles. The whole idea of quantum computing is based on exploitation of the holistic nature of information space. We are trying to be as close as possible to this space. Another important inference from the entanglement phenomena is the causal structure of the universe.\
It is self-evident that a chaotic mode of quantum computing processes is unrealistic due to the constitutional entanglement requirement. Entanglement may only exist in a space governed by causal relations, and where the causality structure is non-local by its nature. \
\
\
\
\
\
The Schr\'f6dinger cat.\
\
The cat is the observer.\
\
\
\
\
\
\
The Uncertainty Principle\
\
Indeed, the quantum world is not that uncertain at all. Since information space is dynamic and continuous by its nature (Schr\'f6dinger wave function), and classical space is discrete by definition (Heisenberg matrices with their quantum jumps set the intervals between the conscious moments of activity), the gap does condition the appearance of the uncertainty principle. When the observer in a classical space tries to measure something closely relevant to the quantum dynamics of the information space, the quantum jump-based intervals in the conscious activity become a factor.\
The less the speed of the dynamics, the more certainty there is. It is exactly why the uncertainty principle is practically irrelevant to classical physics.\
Classical physics does not describe trains moving with the speed of light; still,\
a useful parallel can be drawn here for didactical purposes. If you are awaiting a very fast train to appear within your sight for a moment, and you blink unexpectedly, the train is gone. Considering that you blink once in awhile, there is always uncertainty in determining the train\'92s speed and position at the same time. The train becomes less well-defined because we have to blink. You just don\'92t know where the train was, or how fast it was moving, when the blinking occurred. You may guess about it with a good probability that its velocity or position was such and such, but you never know for sure \'97 this is the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics. The faster the train and the blinking are, the greater is the uncertainty in determining the velocity and the position of the train in one moment of time, as postulated by Werner Heisenberg.\
\
\
Double slit experiment.\
\
\
Waves appear when observation is absent, in accordance with B-theory.\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
The theory of everything\
\
The theory of everything in information space is reduced to the theory of seen, as the easy part of the dilemma, and to the theory of information space, as the hard part of the dilemma. The easy part can be solved using two strategies, best described as unite-and-connect solutions.\
\
Four known forces should be united, and two theories must be connected.\
\
\pard\tx916\tx1832\tx2748\tx3664\tx4580\tx5496\tx6412\tx7328\tx8244\tx9160\tx10076\tx10992\tx11908\tx12824\tx13740\tx14656\pardeftab720\ri0
\cf3 Four forces can be united if we assume that bosons represent three forces as described in a Standard model. According to a Standard model, the fourth force, namely a gravity, is represented by a yet unknown boson named graviton. \
B-theory postulates that gravity is being reinforced via fermions, so this particle is a true carrier of gravitational force. As a result, the time-space curvature can be explained only in terms of the probability distribution symmetry of bosons and fermions. Fermions\'92 probability distribution and bosons\'92 probability distribution symmetry underlie the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force relationship, respectively.\
In fact, the fermions\'92 probability distribution excludes the possibility of two fermions occupying a single quantum state. It is the basement for the appearance of chemistry and matter.\
That\'92s why matter, or things, look solid in ordinary life \'97 because two fermions cannot overlap in a single quantum state, and therefore we experience physical stuff as something real.\
\pard\pardeftab720\ri0
\cf0 In addition, four forces can be united if we consider that c, h and 10-13 are the constants, which we can relate, or reduce, to our computational constants of the constituents. We must explain why c, h and 10-13 were picked up during evolution, and establish whether we had any other choice at all for constants setting.\
As discussed earlier in the Abstract, physical reality in B-theory evolves, or appears, simultaneously with the consciousness. As a result, classical physics and relativity describe the functioning of our consciousness, and therefore represent the technical foundations of the science of consciousness. Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein would have been surprised, I suppose, but noble Bishop Berkeley would probably not.\
\
Ervin Schr\'f6dinger and Werner Heisenberg described the behavior of a bit in information and classical spaces, respectively. There is no time in information space, as everything changes simultaneously, which is why the unitarity operator is part of this space.\
Heisenberg matrices, in turn, describe the behavior of the bit in classical space, produced by the conscious activity of the self-made observer. However, the observer invariably finds himself in a classical space by measuring the Schr\'f6dinger wave function, and therefore the observer constantly feels as if he lives in the classical space, where things (states, in the Heisenberg picture) are constant, while observables are evolving in time.\
\
The whole of classical physics and indeed natural science is based on predictable models of quantum behavior. The quantum behavior is not so weird at all when we understand its origin and the context of its appearance. Werner Heisenberg, Niels Bohr, Ervin Schr\'f6dinger, Paul Dirac, Wolfgang Pauli and a few others have described the quantum world by experimenting with it and recording the mathematical interpretation of the experiments. Richard Feynman even advised not to bother with physical meaning or instantiation of the mathematical equations in quantum mechanics, and to just continue to search for the essence of it.\
Now, quantum mechanics is understandable to us and is beautiful.\
Its major characteristic is not entanglement or probabilistic nature in classical space, but the strictly causal and meaningful order of behaviorism. \
The consequences are far too numerous to start counting them here.\
\
\
\
Gravity\
One might note that gravity is now being associated with determining the causal structure of the universe, as concluded by Prof. Hawking et al. The relationship indeed exists, but the other way around \'97 the causal mode of information space processes sets the gravitational landscape of the universe. Likewise, the quanta forming a picture in a digital television set never behave voluntarily, but rather in an orderly fashion and causally, in a strictly predictable way. Such behaviorism of the quanta leads to the possibility of perfectly simulating the external reality to form the classical space. Classical physics and Heisenberg matrices describe the behaviorism of larger structures of quanta as they appear in a classical space. The symmetry in probability distribution of fermions underlies the space-time curvature. In a Standard model, the graviton was wrongly associated with bosons because we thought that gravity is a force just like other forces. It is not. \'91For the antisymmetric wave function, the particles are most likely to be found far away from each other\'92. This explains why two fermions can never be found in the same quantum state \'97 this probability is actually 0. That\'92s also why gravitational force is described by Newton\'92s equation so precisely. Fermions are pre-determined to be found far away from each other, and bosons\'92 probability distribution is \'91dramatically\'92 different, resembling the electromagnetic field relationship with the gravitational field. Therefore, the inverse-square law applicability for both the gravitational and electromagnetic fields is substantiated in B-theory. Other forces were already linked to each other, but a better investigation into prior findings is warranted.\
\pard\pardeftab720\li29\ri0
\cf0 \
As a result, the time-space curvature can be explained in terms of the probability distribution of bosons and fermions. Fermions\'92 probability distribution and bosons\'92 probability distribution underlie the relationship between the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force.\
In fact, the fermions\'92 probability distribution excludes the possibility for two fermions to occupy a single quantum state. It is the basement for the appearance of chemistry and matter.\
That\'92s why matter, or things, look solid in ordinary life \'97 because two fermions cannot overlap in a single quantum state, and therefore we experience physical stuff as something real.\
According to B-theory, there are no gravitons or gravitational waves at all, because fermions set the gravitational structure in quantum computing processes, which most likely do not consume any energy. Richard Feynman in concluded in 1981 that quantum computing may be done energy-free.\
\pard\pardeftab720\ri0
\f1 \cf0 \uc0\u8232
\f0 \
\
\
\
\pard\pardeftab720\li29\ri0
\f1 \cf0 \uc0\u8232 \u8232
\f0 The Schr\'f6dinger equation
\f1 \uc0\u8232 \u8232 \u8232
\f0 The Schr\'f6dinger equation does not specify which electron goes where, but says that bits are interchangeable and identical to the extent that there is no sense in trying to identify the specific electron. In other words, the electron cannot be individually marked when described by the Schr\'f6dinger equation. This peculiarity has far-reaching consequences, even allowing for the unification of quantum mechanics and relativity, as you will see below. Bits are inter-exchangeable in information space.\
\
In Shannon\'92s theory, the semantics, or the content of the message, is \'91irrelevant to engineering problems\'92. Thus, the electrons in the Schr\'f6dinger equation can carry any semantic value assigned by the causation calculus of quantum logic, because they can be processed computationally. Fermions allow the events to occur in a classical space because they execute the calculations made in information space. Thus, causally computed fermions set the gravitational structure of the universe. This understanding is different from the one described by Prof. Hawking et al \'93\'85 gravity sets the causal structure of the universe\'85\'94. The design properties of information space\
are such that it is very challenging to accept them, but no other theory can relate fermions and bosons, gravity and electromagnetism, quantum mechanics and relativity in such a beautiful way.
\f1 \uc0\u8232 \u8232 \u8232
\f0 The Heisenberg picture
\f1 \uc0\u8232 \u8232
\f0 The Heisenberg picture operates with bosons that enable electromagnetic force. The probability distribution of bosons and fermions has a symmetry that evolved due to the indistinguishability of the particles. This symmetry was described both in details and graphically by Michael Fowler of the University of Virginia. B-theory postulates that since fermions are responsible for gravitation as the causal relations carriers, and bosons make up the other three forces, including electromagnetic force, then the relationship between gravity and electromagnetic fields equations becomes understandable. If you review Fowler\'92s probability distribution for fermions and bosons, and forget what the Standard model says about gravitons, you will have the complete explanation of why electromagnetism and gravity are related. Fermions (which set the gravity) and bosons (which set the electromagnetic force), and their respective probability distributions, directly reflect the relationship of gravity and electromagnetic fields equations. Now, all four forces are united and the two theories are connected \'97 quantum mechanics and relativity. Both are explained in terms of the interactions of bosons and fermions. As a result, using only bosons and fermions, we were able to unite all four known forces and to connect two theories \'97 quantum mechanics and relativity (gravitational component in a classical space).
\f1 \uc0\u8232 \u8232
\f0 Thus, we have united the gravity and electromagnetic forces via bosons, which set the electromagnetism, and via fermions, which set the gravity.
\f1 \uc0\u8232
\f0 I don't see room for the Higgs boson, because the gravity is now being explained
\f1 \uc0\u8232
\f0 and there is no need for a mass carrier too. Fermions\'92 probability distribution versus bosons\'92 probability distribution does underlie the relationship between two fields, as described by the respective equations. Dark matter and dark energy do not exist in B-theory, any more than ordinary matter. The LHC experiment should confirm these findings. Gravitational waves will not be discovered, either, because fermions do not have any mass and set the gravitational structure computationally, or causally. Infinite precision of quantum-computed events created the illusion of a certain universal force that Isaac Newton discovered and represented to the Royal Society as "The Principia". Newton did not have a clue about the nature of this experimentally-conceived equation, and at the time Robert Hooke claimed that Newton had obtained the inverse square law from him. Whoever discovered the inverse square law, it\'92s now about time now to explain its nature and the details of its enforcement. The law itself is the consequence of:\
\
\pard\tx0\pardeftab720\li29\fi-360\ri0
\ls1\ilvl0\cf0 a) The computational character of the universe enabled by the indistinguishability of particles.\
\pard\pardeftab720\li29\ri0
\cf0 \
\sub \nosupersub \
\
The particles that cannot be distinguished can be used as bits, and are\
\pard\pardeftab720\ri0
\cf0 both fermions and bosons; fermions set the physical structure of the universe by creating the gravitational field in the form of fermions\'92 probability distribution, where fermions are more likely to be found the farther they are from each other (inverse square law).\
\pard\pardeftab720\li29\ri0
\cf0 \
\pard\tx0\pardeftab720\li29\fi-360\ri0
\ls2\ilvl0\cf0 b) The probability distribution difference between fermions and bosons that is caused by symmetric and anti-symmetric wave functions, respectively. This difference explains the inverse law relationship between the gravitational and the electromagnetic fields. \
\pard\pardeftab720\li29\ri0
\cf0 \
Energy unites both fields, as shown below: \
\
\
\'91It follows that the symmetric function\
\pard\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\pardeftab720\li29\ri0\qc
\cf0 \
\pard\pardeftab720\li29\ri0
\cf0 \
and the antisymmetric function\
\
\pard\pardeftab720\li29\ri0\qc
\cf0 \
\
\pard\pardeftab720\li29\ri0
\cf0 are both solutions to Schr\'f6dinger\'92s equation for the energy E, and both satisfy the requirement necessary for identical particles \'85\'92\
\pard\pardeftab720\ri0
\cf0 \
\
\
\
\
\
Causality\
\
\
The environment that can be described as non-local and causal is a holistic space. \
The causal computing processes in a holistic information space do result \
in a fundamental change of the whole quanta-coherent domain, as described\
by Schr\'f6dinger\'92s wave function. This constitutes entanglement phenomena in a classical space, as described in the section \'93Quantum Mechanics Explained\'94. In the early age of the Internet, a user would connect to a large mainframe machine, which would compute hundreds of users simultaneously. However, a user would think that his request was being treated personally because he would not notice any time delays during his work.\
If we think of information space as a mainframe, and of ourselves as users, the parallel is incomplete, because we are a part of information space too, and indeed our universe helps to compute itself and the other places too. The fundamental effect of gravity is always being calculated in information space and represented to us by our own consciousness in such a way that we think gravity is something outside the domain of consciousness. It is not. \
It is a tricky question, which has a history of thousands of years of disputes. The most famous one involved the educated Buddhist monk in China visiting the temple and replying to the question \'96 \'94What are the stones in front of you?\'94 The monk answered \'96 \'94It is my mind\'94. The comment followed \'96 \'93How difficult it must be for you to carry such heavy stuff\'94. Now, we might say that the computing of fermions and bosons constructs the gravitational and electromagnetic fields, respectively.\
\
\
\
Causality in a classical space\
\
\
\
In information space, any interaction at any level fundamentally is changing the holistic quanta-coherent domain in a certain orderly fashion. We might say that information space in no time calculates the response, or the change. \
The response is made in no time and in orderly fashion because it is being calculated, or computed, as opposed to chaotic reaction, within the ever-lasting quantum-coherent domain. \
The direct outcome of this behaviorism is the appearance of causality in a classical space. \
Since the classical space is being computed in a quantum neurocomputer utilizing information space \'91resources\'92, via entanglement, the result of this computing \'97 the physical reality in a classical space \'97 is always causal.\
Heisenberg matrices are causal.\
Therefore, the quantum computing in information space sets the gravitational matter and structure (bosons and fermions and their relations) of the universe, in a classical space. The quantum-computed bit structures, or physical reality, acquire meaning and or sense in quantum computing because they become causally related anytime they construct the \'91physical reality\'92. \
\
Fodor in 1987 indicated that \'91Computers are a solution to the problem of mediating between the causal properties of symbols and their semantic properties. So if the mind is a sort of computer, we begin to see how you can have a theory of mental processes.\'92 Moreover, the idea that gravity, or the bits in the information space, are somehow related to causality, was recognized most recently by Stephen W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis \'97 in the 1973 book, The large scale structure of space-time: \'91... gravity determines the causal structure of the universe\'85\'92. Now, it\'92s time to say that it is vice-versa. \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
Conclusion\
\
The mind-body problem does not have a self-consistent solution if formal logic is used. The problem is that the attempt to describe the mind, or the consciousness, in terms of its neural basis or substrate, faces a logical cul-de-sac. The neural basis or substrate is determined in terms of logic that is dependent on the observer (value input and or measurement). This scheme is incomplete, as it requires interaction with the internal logic of the observer to be functional. In other words, the attempt to describe the neural basis of consciousness using classical or other known-to-date logics invariably involved the participation of the internal logic of consciousness, the very nature of which was the subject of the initial enquiry. Formal logic might have been used to accumulate substantial behavioral data of the mind, and quite possibly this gradual progress may lead to the eventual discovery of its true nature. The Orch OR mechanism, discovered and substantiated by Sir Roger Penrose et al correctly and in great detail, describes the computing of snapshots, or consciousness occasions, which make up the stream of consciousness. The underlying mechanism behind the collapse of the wave function in Orch OR theory is somewhat different from the one described in B-theory, where the Copenhagen interpretation (conscious observation) is invoked to construct the model of the information-consciousness-physical- reality realm. However, this little nuance cannot diminish the astonishing foresight of Sir Roger Penrose in developing the wonderful Orch OR process, which exemplifies how quantum computing can be done within a neurological setting. Fundamentally, Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr, the luminaries and the authors of the Copenhagen interpretation, were right in defining the principles of quantum mechanics in 1927.\
The proposed logic of the essential relations of a quantum field is used to explain the consciousness in terms of the self-recognition function of the computational system in information space. As a result, the internal logic becomes integrated into information space governed by the logic of the content, or the logic of essential relations. The logic is essential when its semantics are irrelevant to engineering problems, as described by Shannon, albeit in a different context. \
\
\
The author thanks Scott Hagan of the British Columbia Institute of Technology for providing advice and discussing the article, and Anthony Earnshaw from beautiful British Columbia for editing the text. \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
The following invented dialogs may help to imagine the peculiarities of information space and classical space.\
\
\
\
\
The beautiful minds of Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg met in Denmark to discuss the strange behavior of the quantum world.\
Their conversation, known as the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, was stopped by politics.\
\
B-theory respects the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is why it became a part of B-theory. Quantum computing is based on what the luminaries of quantum mechanics have discovered. It took enormous effort to develop the basics of information theory, formalized by Shannon in Bell Laboratories. Shannon has built the ship to travel over the unchartered waters of quantum computing, and she is waiting for her crew to cross the ocean.\
\pard\tx5670\pardeftab720\ri0
\cf0 We can imagine the conversation of Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr, exiting the time-ship in information space upon arrival. \
\pard\pardeftab720\ri0
\cf0 \
\pard\pardeftab720\li720\fi-360\ri0
\ls3\ilvl0\cf0 - Schr\'f6dinger was right. \'96 Werner Heisenberg\
- Why did Isaac and Albert not want to join us? \'96 Niels Bohr\
- There is no matter. \'96 Werner Heisenberg\
- No energy, no gravity. \'96 Niels Bohr \
- We can go back with the help of Albert and Stephen Hawking. \'96 Werner Heisenberg\
- We shall stay. \'96 Niels Bohr\
\pard\pardeftab720\ri0
\cf0 \
\
The next discussion:\
\
\pard\pardeftab720\li720\fi-360\ri0
\ls4\ilvl0\cf0 - We cannot see what we are made of. \'96 observer in information space\
- We detect all interactions. \'96 observer in classical space\
- You detect your own mind. \'96 observer in information space\
- Does not the brain deal with information? \'96 observer in classical space\
- That is exactly what it does. \'96 observer in information space\
- How can gravity be a part of computation? \'96 observer in classical space\
- Everything is its part. \'96 observer in information space\
\pard\pardeftab720\ri0
\cf0 \
\
\pard\pardeftab720\li720\ri0
\cf0 \
\pard\pardeftab720\ri0
\cf0 \
\pard\pardeftab720\li720\ri0
\cf0 \
\
\pard\pardeftab720\ri0
\cf0 \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
}
------WebKitFormBoundaryAqsU9rJ03LP+OSd9--