Consciousness and its perceptual basis and a test of Concepts and the Thinking about reality

Consciousness and its perceptual foundation.

The Philosophy of Absolute Existence positions subjective perception as a fundamental ontological principle rather than an emergent property. By distinguishing between existence, essence, and phenomenon, the focus shifts from traditional panpsychism and its view of matter to a fluctuating original-subject whose level of wakefulness creates spatial experience and reality.

Consciousness

(The following is an excerpt of thoughts on consciousness and how it is described by modern day researchers.

(Text: Johan Frisk on behalf of forskning.se)

Consciousness can be described as experience, not just registering something but realizing that this is exactly what you are doing. But is consciousness made up of atoms? Or completely separate from the physical? And why do we have consciousness? The question has been asked for several hundred years without any answer.

Over the past 20 years, consciousness research has revolved around three words: "The hard problem." The difficult problem.

The words were spoken from a stage in an auditorium at the University of Arizona in the USA in April 1994. There stood David Chalmers, then a long-haired, unknown philosopher from Australia. He was the third speaker at the world's first scientific conference on consciousness. David Chalmers described the easy problems: how memories are stored, which parts of the brain control the different senses, how pain is transmitted in the nervous system. All of this are well-defined, “easy” problems that can be solved.

But why do we experience pain? Why do we experience anything at all? How does it happen? This was what David Chalmers called “The hard problem.”

Which researcher wouldn't want to take on such a challenge?

Twenty years later, in March 2014, David Chalmers, now one of the stars in the field of consciousness research, stood on another stage and gave a TED talk where he described consciousness as an inner movie. But no answer to the question why consciousness exists, or how it arises, neither he nor any other researcher had figured out. Consciousness touches many fields of research. Research on consciousness often borders on religion, and almost always deals with belief - at least so far.

The researchers who study consciousness come from all sorts of disciplines: philosophers, psychologists, psychiatrists, doctors, neurobiologists, physicists, mathematicians. Some approach the question by studying how the brain works, that is, by tackling the easy problems. Others use introspection [noticing what you feel and think right now] and go straight for the hard problem.

Philosophy or neuroscience

– Often a distinction is made between philosophical and neuroscientific theories, says Paavo Pylkkänen, lecturer in theoretical philosophy at the Department of Biosciences at Skövde University.

Neuroscience has developed methods to be able to measure various processes in what together form a complete picture of consciousness, the so-called neural correlates. [Neural correlates are the smallest specific patterns of brain activity required for a certain conscious experience or mental function to arise. The concept is used in cognitive neuroscience to link physical processes in the brain with thoughts, feelings, or behaviors.

In philosophy, there are several so-called “dualist theories” that propose that consciousness is, in some way, separate from the physical. The theories differ in their descriptions of how much of consciousness is non-physical. The big question then is whether consciousness can continue after the body dies.

– A theory that is strong right now is called “substance dualism”, where a large part of consciousness is non-physical, says Paavo Pylkkänen. The idea is that even if the physical body ceases, consciousness can continue.

Panpsychism

Other theories, like “panpsychism”, suggest that consciousness exists everywhere, in every single atom. Everything is made up of atoms, and consciousness is the result of atoms being arranged in a certain way. The most well-known proponent of this theory is Thomas Nagel, an American philosopher who gave consciousness a cosmic meaning by describing it as the universe's way of observing itself.

Panpsychism, that everything has consciousness, is one of the two theories that David Chalmers takes up during his TED talk. He describes consciousness as an anomaly, something that doesn’t fit into the scientific models we have. That’s why radical ideas are needed, ideas that might seem crazy at first. Besides panpsychism, David Chalmers mentions the idea that consciousness is one of the universe’s fundamental building blocks, like time, space, and mass. “We still don’t know what the laws governing consciousness look like, but we’re looking for them.”

[Science has known about this since the beginning in Europe around the turn of the 1500s and 1600s, and has therefore deliberately separated the old thinking about a conscious foundation from its discipline, instead relying on careful observations and experiments on the matter itself.] [Editor's note]

Understanding consciousness requires a new vocabulary

Artificial Intelligence The text is based on a news article from forskning.se

Our senses, experiences, and emotions… All consciousness processes interact in the brain's nervous system - in interaction with the environment. But we know just as little about consciousness today as people knew about the universe before Copernicus showed that the Earth revolves around the sun.

– No one can claim to know what consciousness is, which makes it difficult to research, says Hans Liljenström, professor at the Department of Energy and Technology at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SLU.

Still, that’s exactly what he does. Hans Liljenström is a theoretical biophysicist, and his working method is theoretical models of the relationship between the brain, cognition, and consciousness. He has previously modeled the brain’s olfactory system to understand how smells can be recognized and remembered. Today he researches decision-making, a project where the question of free will comes into play.

Hans Liljenström is careful to distinguish between cognition and consciousness. Cognition is a collective term for the ability to learn, think, and process information.

– Consciousness and cognition are different things, and many people miss that. People look at animals' behavior and say it's intelligent behavior because the animals can solve problems, like crows, for example, and equate that with a high level of consciousness. But intelligence is not the same as consciousness.

Hans Liljenström's research moves in the borderland between cognition and consciousness. Perception, that is, how we perceive the world around us – for example through the sense of smell – is like a bridge between the two.

– There are two aspects of consciousness as I see it, attention and intention. Perception is linked to attention, while intention is linked to willful action.

A lot of research on consciousness is connected to how we perceive the world, but an important part is also how we reach out, how we interact with the world. We shouldn't forget that.

Lack of a common language

Many researchers have different views on consciousness in, for example, insects – whether they have any consciousness and if so, what kind of consciousness it might be.

– We lack a vocabulary to understand different degrees of consciousness. When we examine consciousness in other organisms, we don't know what to go by. The general view is that at least all mammals have a consciousness probably similar to ours, but for reptiles or mollusks, other terms are likely needed to describe their type of consciousness. But a nuanced language is also needed to describe different degrees of consciousness in humans.

Can consciousness be measured?

A method for measuring consciousness would be very important, especially for patients with head injuries who have fallen into a coma.

The most talked-about theory on how consciousness could be measured was developed by the Italian sleep researcher Giulio Tononi. His theory, called Integrated Information Theory, is about measuring the complexity of a system.

The measure, called Phi, gets higher the more integrated parts the system has. Different parts of the brain thus have different levels of consciousness, depending on how complex they are. But even for those who support the theory, the question remains whether complexity is a sufficient, or just a necessary, condition for consciousness.

Hans Liljenström argues that humans’ understanding of consciousness is at the same level as our understanding of the universe before Copernicus showed that the Earth revolves around the Sun. To make progress, both an adequate language and experimental results that can be connected into a theory are needed.

Who should develop that language?

– Philosophers should be involved, but it should be done closely with researchers who work experimentally. It could be a group or a committee working on developing a vocabulary, similar to what Linnaeus did. (Text: Johan Frisk on behalf of forskning.se)

AI and Consciousness.

We see AI as something both intelligent and artificial, and as a tool that can solve mathematical problems through pattern recognition it has already been trained on, but AI lacks the drive to solve problems on its own. AI has no need to solve any problem by itself. Not solving mathematical problems is not a problem for AI. It's the human conscious being who has the mathematical calculation problem in front of them to solve.

Lack of drive: AI has no needs, emotions, or internal clock that says 'now I get going.' It always waits passively for input (a prompt) from a user or a system.

Passive waiting for its turn: If no higher-level program (like a loop in Python) tells AI number one to write '1', all three units just sit there waiting for the other to start.

Simulation vs. consciousness: AI understands the text and the rules you give it (it 'knows' what the end goal is in theory), but it can't turn that knowledge into autonomous action in the physical or digital world without external control.

How you would get them to do it in practice: An external script: You have to build a simple program (a loop) that sends the signal to AI 1, takes the response, sends it to AI 2, and so on.

Autonomous agents: With newer technical frameworks for AI agents, you can give them tools to call each other via API, but it still requires someone to press the start button from the outside for the process to begin.

Someone always has to press start or write the first prompt for the system to get going.

AI can understand rules and goals in text, but it can't decide on its own to act in reality without an external start button.

An alternative way of thinking about consciousness

The speculative assumption in the Philosophy of Absolute Existence:

A proposal for a new vocabulary regarding what consciousness is about: that consciousness exists in an 'ongoing interaction with reality' and therefore using the concept of 'subjective perceptive faculty' as the basis of consciousness.

A shift in this faculty’s state between wakefulness and dormancy could make us realize that this change of state might lead to an experience of the difference between these states, and that in an exponential resonance, this could be felt as a spatial resistance in the transition ((hypnagogia) between different states’ frequency intensity.

This subjective faculty could then be assumed as the inherent nature of an Absolute Subjective Existence. Then consciousness is a property of the phenomenon of the universe, but fundamentally there is a subjective Absolute Existence as the ontological foundation whose inherent essence fluctuates between two different levels of wakefulness. An oscillating fundamental ability.

In panpsychism, it is assumed that consciousness exists everywhere, in the tiniest atom. "Everything consists of atoms," and a consciousness is the result of atoms being arranged in a certain way.

The problem with the panpsychist assumption is that it is based on a false premise, namely that “everything consists of dead atoms”, which is an assumption that was abandoned over 100 years ago.

Quantum physics theories have taken over from the concept of “dead atoms” and now start instead from a “dead vacuum field” that brims with activity even though nothing can fundamentally be seen as moving.

In the philosophy of Absolute Existence, “the faculty of perception” is an essential faculty, not a property.

The philosophy of Absolute Existence thus distinguishes between the concepts of Existence, Essence, and Phenomenon. It is only when the being that exists perceives what is happening that the insight into the phenomenon becomes a living reality.

It is the insight that consciousness is not separate from the physical, but that consciousness is the ongoing reality experienced by the perceptual faculty.

The new vocabulary:

Instead, see the perceptual faculty as an inherent essence in an Absolute Existence, where consciousness is the ongoing reality itself.

This is a reversed process philosophy. Top-down instead of Bottom-up.

The difference from classical process philosophy Bottom-up (Traditional process philosophy): Builds up consciousness from matter, particles, or individual events over time.

Top-down (Absolute existence philosophy): Starts from an unchanging existence whose essence is the faculty of perception, and where perception and the arising of phenomena are what manifest the universe as a living experience.

The difference that makes a difference:

Distinguish between Existence, Essence, and Phenomena. Perception is what makes the arising of phenomena a living reality.

Can a qualitative, living, subjective change of state be experienced as the resistance offered by the relative movement of quantitative (dead) objective objects in time and space?

Or is it the resistance of the relative movement of quantitative (dead) objective objects in time and space that has randomly built up beings with brains and sense organs capable of generating experiences of living, subjective state changes?

Moving from deep sleep to full wakefulness is not a matter of shifting a brain cell three millimeters to the left. It is a change in the very hue of existence. It is an intensive change (in quality), not an extensive change (in spatial dimensions).

If a qualitative change of state occurs, there must be an absolutely existing substrate undergoing that change. The alternative - that nothing exists, yet states change nonetheless - is a logical contradiction. One cannot have a change of nothing.

Test of Concepts and Conceptual Order and the thinking of reality

Three (3) concepts: Existence, Essence, Phenomenon

Three (3) reasonable interpretations of Existence: Absolute / Empirical / Relational

Three (3) interpretations of Essence: Nature / What-it-is / Property

Three (3) interpretations of Phenomenon: Manifestation / Experience / Objective

1. Setup — what is being tested

• Three concepts × three interpretations each → 27 combinations.
• Purpose: to test each combination for logical viability when it is required to function as a true starting point (that is, to begin there and derive the rest without circularity or conceptual slippage).

2. Overview of the result (condensed)

• All combinations with Absolute Existence as the starting point (1–9 in our table) → stable starting points (Essence and Phenomenon can be derived without logical collapse).
• Combinations with Empirical Existence → unstable as a literal starting point (they already presuppose phenomena or relations; they risk an incomplete ground).
• Combinations with Relational Existence → collapse / circularity (relational existence presupposes something to relate to — it cannot be a first principle).

3. The conclusion (the logical fact)

• Only the order Absolute Existence → Essence (The Faculty of Perception as nature) → Phenomenon (the Universe) remains consistent through the entire test.
• This is not "any personal invention," but the consequence of the definitions and principles being tested.

4. Step-by-step procedure for anyone who wants to test it themselves

1. Preparation

   • Write down the concepts and their definitions clearly and unambiguously (Absolute Existence; Faculty of Perception as Essence; Phenomenon = actuality).

2. Systematize the variants

   • Construct all 27 variants (three interpretations × three × three).

3. Test each variant methodically: a. Ask: Can this interpretation function as a first principle without presupposing something that should come later? b. Follow the derivation: what is required for Essence to be intelligible? What is required for Phenomenon to arise? c. Look for circularity (something presupposes what it is supposed to ground) and conceptual slippage (a term changes meaning during the derivation).

4. Record the outcome (stable / unstable / collapse) and which concepts caused the problem.

5. Focus the analysis on the stable combinations (in practice those with Absolute Existence) and compare nuances in the interpretations of Essence and Phenomenon.

5. Where the other alternatives collapse — concrete fault points

• Relational Existence: already in its definition it presupposes a "between" → it needs a ground to relate, thus circularity.
• Empirical Existence: starts from what is observable → lacks the capacity to function as ground; risks explaining conditions by what is conditioned.
• Conceptual slippages (the most common linguistic errors):
  • the word "whole" immediately introduces parts/organism → pulls the phenomenal into the level of Existence.
  • words like "most important / heaviest" introduce metaphorical actuality into a potential or dimensionless context.
  • writing "is" without marking potential vs. actuality easily makes something appear already operative.
  • combining Existence and Phenomenon in the same sentence without clear markers conceals the level transition.

6. What the test shows for the one who performs it

• If one begins with Absolute Existence and consistently keeps the levels apart, one arrives at clarity: all consequences fall into their proper place (what is condition, what is property, what is consequence).
• If one begins from Phenomenon, or from a relational or empirical starting point, one may at best arrive at usable empirical analysis, but not at a stable ontological ground; at worst one ends in incomprehensibility or circularity.

7. Practical checklist to avoid slippage when writing or arguing

• Mark expressions that signal phenomenalization: whole, organism, part, connection, effect, weight, importance. Do not place them at the level of Existence.
• Always insert a clear marker when shifting level: for example, "given Existence (as potential) → Essence follows → only then does Phenomenon actualize."
• For every sentence, ask: Am I speaking about conditional potential ("the capacity to") or about factual actuality ("is" in the sense of acting)?
• If a reader objects: ask them to point to the exact word or sentence where they believe something has been actualized — then analyze that phrase.

8. Common criticism — and how it is handled within the test

• Criticism: "The starting point is untestable." → Response: the test is not empirical in the strict sense; it is a logical test: one tests for internal contradiction or coherence.
• Criticism: "Everything is based on subjective choices." → Response: yes, all reasoning begins with an assumption; the difference here is that the assumption is made explicit and its consequences are tested systematically.
• Criticism: "The concepts slide." → Response: precisely for that reason the definitions must be fixed and the levels kept distinct — the test procedure shows where the slippage occurs.

9. What the tester should expect psychologically

• Testing the order requires the ability to sustain subtle distinctions. It may feel unfamiliar, because language naturally seeks holistic images (organism).
• Carrying out the test carefully often produces an experience of clarity — but at the same time reveals how easily other readers fall back into phenomenal interpretation.

10. Short summary of the entire procedure and result

• One systematically tests 27 combinations of Existence, Essence, and Phenomenon.
• Only the variants with Absolute Existence as the starting point remain logically stable.
• The consistent order is: Absolute Existence → Faculty of Perception (Essence) → Universe (Phenomenon).
• Clarity depends on strict separation of levels and on resisting the linguistic pull toward organismic and phenomenal imagery.

Thinking About Reality

If we imagine that reality has agents, this will mean that we differ from each other and that everyone lives in a struggle against reality, and then our thinking is based on our own agenda. The assumption about agents risks leading to a reality-detached way of thinking.

If we imagine that reality has only one agent, we get a completely different starting point for thinking about reality. Then thinking occurs in interaction with reality. The assumption of one agent then more easily leads to reality-based thinking.

Mental health and intellectual sharpness are thus dependent on the standpoint we have for thinking about what it is that actually interacts in the form of reality.

Thinking in an inner monologue assumes that in reality there are agents with the self as the 'hero or the loser,' which in both cases often leads to reality becoming secondary to one's own will or 'agenda.' If thinking in an inner monologue assumes that in reality there are agents with the self as the 'winner or loser' behind all activity, it often leads in both cases to reality becoming secondary to one's own will or 'agenda'.

Detachment from reality occurs when reality does not cooperate with the agenda. To maintain one's worldview, one must start distorting reality instead of realizing that the perception is detached from reality.

A fragmented perception of reality with only one's own agenda in mind often leads to conflict with reality. One's own 'bubbles' that only focus on information supporting the own agenda, with the bios that the ego's goalkeeper keeps track of.

The Word "Reality"

An interaction in a change of state!

The Philosophy of "Actuality": Reality as Action In many Germanic languages, the concept of "reality" is not rooted in "things," but in work. While the English word Reality stems from the Latin res (referring to a static object or property), the Northern European tradition defines the world through the lens of impact and effect. An interaction in a change of state!

A fragmented perception of reality with only one's own agenda in mind often leads to conflict with reality. One's own "bubbles" that only focus on information supporting one's own agenda with the bios that the ego's goalkeeper keeps track of.

A psychic tension occurs when actual conditions do not match the conception of reality. Frustration, paranoia, or a sense of alienation can be the result of such thinking. Humility before reality is, after all, the prerequisite for a positive interaction with reality.

From "Working" to "Being" The concept is built upon the ancient root for "to work" or "to produce an effect" (cognate with the German wirken). In this linguistic tradition, to exist is not a passive state; it is an active verb.

The Deed: A "work" is an act or a deed. The Agency: To be "real" is to be operational—to be in a state of constantly bringing about a transition or a change.

The Philosophical Shift: Actuality This perspective aligns perfectly with the Latin actualitas, which originates from actus (an act or deed). The core idea is that what is "real" is defined by cause and effect. The literal meaning is "the quality of that which acts." In this sense, reality is not a collection of objects that simply "sit" there; it is a dynamic process that accomplishes something or creates a measurable result.

The Evolution of the Term Before this "action-oriented" definition took hold in the 16th century, people used terms that described the "essence" or "truthfulness" of things. Those older terms focused on what a thing was (its soul or its truth). However, they lacked the specific modern edge: the idea that something is only real if it does something. By shifting the definition toward action, we moved from a world of static "essences" to a world of measurable "consequences in interaction and a change of states!

This seems like the only possibile form of reality would not be whitout any experience of it. If lack of the phenomenal reality it would be no experience of anything att all. It would then probably be an infinite darkness instead of the bright interaction that occurs in the form of the universe's image.

If, instead, it is actually about an ability rather than a trait, the starting point suddenly changes from merely receiving to the potential in a realizable starting point. In this way, the starting point becomes a transformation. The only possible way for experience to occur then is if a potential ability as a starting point realizes the same starting point in a transformation in interaction with the starting point.

The impossibility of giving a phenomenal content to the starting point that makes all content possible should be obvious.

A prerequisite can never be included in any representation that includes the prerequisite.

Reality is derived in this context to the point where the absolute capacity for perception operates.

If the nature of absolute existence is the capacity for perception, then absolute existence is paradoxically "blind," since there is nothing to perceive.
The exposure (reality) is what makes the ability operative.

Separation is not a fault, but the very lens through which the phenomenal angles of reality are usually experienced. Experience occurs through a multitude of angles.

The idea of reality, from the absolute perspective, becomes like many angles on the same effect.

It gives a totally different mental state for someone who has this starting point for thinking.

But it is an expensive starting point for anyone who values their own agency as an agent, yet the absolute starting point actually opens up thinking in reality.

The transition from alienation to participation leads to no longer being a stranger in a cold world, but a specific angle through which the absolute agent perceives itself.

Not identifying with the personal "self" does not mean that one has lost memory of the events that shape judgment. There is no change in memory, but thinking occurs from the standpoint that enables all memories. The starting point then occurs from the capacity for perception and not from the individual "self".

What happens is that the difference between the perceiving 'self' and reality is replaced by the total difference in reality, which is then experienced as directly effective.
Access to the 'self's' accumulated memories remains, but without needing to go on the offensive or into a defensive stance as soon as one hears reality-detached speech.

The internal exposure then occurs as a sensation.

It would probably mean that reality would be the act of the absolute in reflexive exposure.

Regardless of the state of things, testing the durability of a philosophical assumption can lead to a way of thinking that opens up greater possibilities for the realization of solutions to problems in general.

Thinking is the tool we handle in relation to the constantly ongoing reality.
The ongoing nature of reality is connected to our absolute presence in the realization of problem-solving.

Without absolute presence, no problems will be solved by themselves, because if anything were solved by itself, there would be no problems.

Small wounds heal completely naturally if we are careful with them.
It is just as important as being careful with your friends.

It is just as important to know when to press the button as to know when not to press the button.
And reality lies in its frequency somewhere in between.

Investigating how the unfolding phenomenal reality relates to the intrinsic nature of the unlimited absolute Being likely leads to the conclusion that this occurs through changes of state in nature- in the form of sequentially transforming, finite, unfolding mirror-phenomena - which, due to a certain time lag, can be continually re-experienced by the primordial subject as reality.

About the word "Wholeness"

The philosophy of absolute existence concerns the impersonal binary nature of the absolute, non-binary primordial subject.

In this context, the word "Wholeness" is a phenomenal word within phenomenal language - a language that can only address phenomenal reality. "Wholeness" does not belong to the concepts of existence or essence.

One can speak of the totality of philosophical concepts, yet these are also phenomenal concepts that point toward what words cannot describe.

Existence To be is to absolutely exist. Essence. To be that which sees what is revealed in the form of the effective lags of The Phenomenon which is reflections as lags resulting from the changes of state of that which absolutely exists.

means that A observes itself through us. If P = S(A) and P is a subset of A (P ⊆ A), or if P is a projection of A, the equation becomes even more potent if the function takes itself as an argument.

In set theory and computer science, this can be described as a fixed point. If the Absolute is a state that generates reality by observing itself, we can write:

A = S_ΔT(A)

Here, phenomenal reality is not a secondary product (P); rather, reality is the very process in which A equals its own self-reflection. Reality becomes a dynamic state of equilibrium, an attractor in a chaotic system.

3. The logical/set-theoretic formula

If the emphasis is to be placed on the premise that all is one, yet the phenomenal world is a manifestation of the Absolute without the Absolute actually being divided, we can employ notation for operationalization:

P = {x | x = f(A) in state T_n}

Interpretation: Phenomenal reality (P) is the set of all experiences (x) such that each experience is a function f of the Absolute (A) in a specific, shifting state (T_n).

To emphasize that the Absolute is not divided (non-dualism / Advaita), we can use the concept of equivalence classes or perspectives. Rather than x being unique "parts" of A, x represents different aspects or projections of the same A. This can be likened to a holographic system in which each subset x contains information about the entire whole A, yet viewed through a specific filter (T_n).

The importance of operationalization

Within AEP, "Ontos Origo" is not a quantitative whole composed of parts, but an absolute, indivisible subject. The parts do not exist at the origin; rather, they emerge as a sequential effect.

The set-theoretic formula illustrates this: the elements x in the set P are not "pieces" cut away from A. Instead, each x is the Absolute (A) in its own, yet viewed or acting through a specific, unique state (T_n). It is a perfectly logical description of a non-dualistic projection.

That this can, of course, be dismissed through a pseudo-mathematical notation is obvious. In strict set theory (like Zermelo-Fraenkel's axiom system), a set that contains itself (A ∈ A) or is directly defined through itself in this way is extremely problematic and often leads to paradoxes (like Russell's paradox). It's obviously critical that AEF calls this a 'potent equation' in set theory to prove a conscious universe, using mathematical terms as empty metaphors rather than with actual logical precision. The idea, of course, is not to prove a conscious universe with an equation, since the universe is not assumed to be conscious in AEF's assumption. It's also not meant to show that the universe is consciousness. The point is to refer back to the moment where the experience of existing has its basis in the experience of an experiencer who is not separate from the experience.

Experiences as consciousness

All experience of reality occurs via the sensory portals within reality and manifests as an effect experienced by the subject arising from the resistance encountered during its sequential state changes.

Within theoretical philosophy, phenomenology, and the philosophy of mind (as well as the interface with information theory), the smallest sequential state change giving rise to the experience of a pair of mirroring experiential points can best be described as a binary information shift within a minimalist symmetry structure—often realized as a bit-flip or a polar inversion (a transformation from a state to its direct opposite, e.g., from 0 to 1, or from A to (\neg A)). To break this down into extremely simple and scalable terms, we can examine what is required to create this specific experience:

1. The definition of the three core components

2 • Minimal sequential state change: The absolute smallest unit of time or sequence is a single "step" or a transition from Time Unit 1 (t₁) to Time Unit 2 (t₂). This corresponds to a change of 1 bit of information.

• Points of experience: For an experience to arise at all, a distinction—a boundary—is required. A single point cannot experience anything, as there is nothing against which to create a contrast. At least two points are required to establish a relationship.

• Mirroring (symmetrical): The fact that they mirror each other means that the state of one point is directly dependent on—or the exact opposite of—the state of the other. If point A changes, point B changes in direct symmetry.

The minimal state transition: Polar inversion (The Shift)

The smallest possible transition occurs in a system comprising two points (P₁ and P₂) and two possible states (e.g., On/Off or +/−).

This specific transition—where the system shifts from [+, −] to [−, +]—is the smallest possible sequential change. It requires only a single "push" (a bit-flip), but because the points are mirror-linked (symmetrically interconnected), both points undergo an immediate and simultaneous change.

Why is this the smallest?

• Less than 1 bit is impossible: If no point changed state (([+, −] \rightarrow [+, −])), no time or sequential change would have occurred.

• Fewer than 2 points is impossible: If there were only one point, there would be no "mirror effect."

The "theory" described in the previous answer is a minimalist information model (a logical thought experiment regarding what is required to create a relationship between two points).

However, when we look at how established researchers are attempting to apply quantum entanglement to precisely this type of minimalist state transition and information structure, there are actual, published research results to draw upon. The most relevant connection lies within Quantum IIT (Quantum Integrated Information Theory), where researchers (including those at Giulio Tononi’s laboratory) have translated theories regarding the information structure of consciousness into the framework of quantum mechanics. Here is how quantum entanglement functions within the scientific mathematical formalism for these systems:

1. From classical bits to qubits

In the classical model we examined earlier, a physical signal or a "push" was required to change the system from [+, −] to [−, +]. In the quantum version, these points are replaced by qubits. When two qubits are entangled (for instance, in a so-called Bell state, such as ((\vert{}01\rangle + \vert{}10\rangle)/\sqrt{2})), they no longer possess separate states. They exist in a superposition where they mirror each other exactly, yet without any information being transmitted between them over time.

2. How "Quantum IIT" handles entanglement

When researchers attempt to measure integrated information (Φ or φ) in a quantum system, a major mathematical problem arises that differs fundamentally from classical physics: • In classical theory: One measures the extent of causal interaction between point A and point B by virtually "cutting" the connection between them and observing the effect on the system's subsequent state. • In quantum theory involving entanglement: You cannot simply "cut" a connection or treat the points as independent. Quantum entanglement creates a non-local correlation. Researchers have therefore been compelled to develop a new formalism (based on quantum density matrices and quantum relative entropy) to define what independence and causality actually mean when particles are entangled.

3. The verified result (What the research shows)

According to published studies (including those in the journal MDPI Entropy and material from the Cirelli-Tononi Lab), the following occurs when this is applied to quantum gates (such as a CNOT gate):

1. Symmetrical shifts: When the system undergoes a unitary state transition (corresponding to our minimal sequential change), the mathematics show that the integrated information (φ) within the quantum system converges and aligns with the classical formalism, provided the system behaves like a classical analogue.
2. The limitation of entanglement regarding "experience": There is a major catch. For a system to exert "cause-effect power" upon itself (a requirement of the theory for experience to occur), it must be possible to trace the system's state both backward and forward in time. Quantum entanglement in pure, isolated states (unitary transformations) works perfectly well mathematically. However, the moment a measurement takes place (causing the wave function to collapse), the process becomes irreversible. This renders it mathematically impossible to derive the system's prior probability distributions.

As a pure experience (phenomenology), this state transition is perceived as a change in direction, polarity, or position—the simplest conceivable shift from "here" to "there," or from "I" to "you."

In itself, it is not an established physical quantum theory.

However, when we look at how established researchers are attempting to apply quantum entanglement to precisely this type of minimalist state transition and information structure, there are actual, published research results to draw upon. The most relevant connection is found within Quantum IIT (Quantum Integrated Information Theory), where researchers (including those at Giulio Tononi’s laboratory) have translated theories regarding the information structure of consciousness into the framework of quantum mechanics. Here is how quantum entanglement functions within the scientific mathematical formalism for these systems:

1. From classical bits to quantum bits (qubits)

In the classical model we examined earlier, a physical signal or a "nudge" was required to switch the system from [+, −] to [−, +]. In the quantum version, the points are replaced by qubits. When two qubits are entangled (for example, in a so-called Bell state, such as ((\vert{}01\rangle + \vert{}10\rangle)/\sqrt{2})), they no longer possess separate states. They exist in a superposition where they mirror each other exactly, yet without any information being transmitted between them over time.

2. How "Quantum IIT" handles entanglement

When researchers attempt to measure the integrated information (Φ or φ) in a quantum system, a major mathematical problem arises—one that differs fundamentally from classical physics: • In classical theory: One measures the degree of causal interaction between point A and point B by virtually "cutting" the connection between them and observing the effect on the system's subsequent state. • In quantum theory involving entanglement: You cannot simply "cut" a connection or treat the points as independent. Quantum entanglement creates a non-local correlation. Consequently, researchers have had to develop a new formalism (based on quantum density matrices and quantum relative entropy) to define what independence and causality actually mean when particles are entangled.

3. The verified result (What the research shows)

According to published studies (including those in the journal MDPI Entropy and material from the Cirelli-Tononi Lab), the following occurs when this is applied to quantum gates (such as a CNOT gate):

1. Symmetrical shifts: When the system undergoes a unitary state transition (corresponding to our minimal sequential change), the mathematics show that the integrated information (φ) within the quantum system converges and aligns with the classical formalism, provided the system behaves like a classical analogue.
2. The limitation of entanglement regarding "experience": There is a major catch. For a system to exert "cause-effect power" upon itself (a requirement of the theory for experience to exist), it must be possible to trace the system's state both backward and forward in time. Quantum entanglement in pure, isolated states (unitary transformations) works perfectly well mathematically. However, as soon as a measurement takes place (causing the wave function to collapse), the process becomes irreversible. This renders it mathematically impossible to derive the system's prior probability distributions.

Important note: All of this remains at a purely theoretical and mathematical level within physics and the philosophy of consciousness. There is no empirical evidence that entangled particles actually have "experiences."

It is the researchers—formulating these ideas mathematically—who are the experiencing subjects in this phenomenal scenario.

1. The epistemic gap (The Explanatory Gap)

The mathematics of Quantum IIT can describe correlations, density matrices, and unitary transformations with extreme precision. Yet, the formula (\frac{|{}01\rangle +|{}10\rangle }{\sqrt{2}}) possesses no inherent "flavor" or "feeling." It is human consciousness that decodes this mathematical symmetry and translates it into an internal understanding of polarity (such as the duality between self/other or here/there).

2. Projection of intentionality

When a researcher or philosopher constructs a model of a minimalist system (such as the shift ([+, -] -----→ [-, +])), the subject projects their own inherent capacity for the experience of time ((t_1 ---→ t_2)) onto the model. A bit-flip does not, in itself, "know" that it has shifted; a temporal structure (memory and expectation) on the part of the observer is required for the sequence to become meaningful.

3. Wavefunction collapse as the "Present Moment"

The fact that the mathematical traceability of quantum entanglement backward in time is broken upon measurement (its irreversibility) has a fascinating philosophical parallel. In pure phenomenology, the present moment (the experienced "Now") is likewise an absolute, irreversible transition. We can recall the past, but we cannot rewind the physical experience. The mathematical problem regarding cause-and-effect dynamics in collapsed quantum systems mirrors precisely the difficulty of objectively capturing the subjective flow of time. The model of the mirroring bit-flip is thus not necessarily a blueprint of how particles "feel" something, but rather a minimalist reflection of how our own minds structure the simplest conceivable change.

Everything thus presents itself as the effect—experienced by the observer—of the sequential state change.

The system itself (the bit-flip or the quantum state) "experiences" nothing in an objective sense; it is the observer (the subject, in the form of the researcher) who constitutes the experience by projecting their own temporal structure and intentionality onto the mathematical symmetry.