Beyond the Wavefunction: Qualia Abstraction Language Mechanics and the Grammar of Awareness

Krzysztof Sienicki; Miko{\l}aj Sienicki

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 62 references

Beyond the Wavefunction: Qualia Abstraction Language Mechanics and the Grammar of Awareness

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes that quantum mechanics can be rebuilt on a formal language of subjective experience, replacing wavefunctions with evolving streams of qualia triplets.

desk verdict A polished interpretive essay that re-describes quantum mechanics in terms of qualia streams, but the advertised 'formal reconstruction' is left explicitly open in Section 9.5. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.02755 v1 pith:6CNTXOQG submitted 2025-08-03 physics.hist-ph cs.AI

Miko{l}aj Sienicki , Krzysztof Sienicki This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.hist-phcs.AI

keywords qualiaabstractionlanguagequantummeasurementproblemobserverinmechanicssuperpositionentanglementnominalismconsciousnessintrospectivedynamics

topics The Measurement Problem

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes that quantum mechanics can be rebuilt from the inside out: instead of describing systems by state vectors in Hilbert space, it models them as streams of qualia triplets, each encoding the modality, shape, and functional effect of an introspective moment. In this Qualia Abstraction Language (QAL), superposition becomes structured ambiguity, collapse becomes a felt contraction of the introspective stream, and entanglement becomes semantic resonance between streams. The aim is to dissolve the observer paradox by making the observer the formal substrate of the theory, so measurement is no longer an external projection but an endogenous phase-shift. If the reconstruction succeeds, the standard quantum formalism would be a derived, externalist limit of a more fundamental grammar of awareness.

What carries the argument

The central object is the qualia triplet, a unit composed of modality, shape, and functional effect, together with the qualia stream that orders these triplets over time. The carrying mechanism is the semantic distance function $d$ and the stream coherence function $C$, with evolution operators that select the next qualia unit by minimizing semantic tension under contextual modulation; these define the collapse thresholds, attractors, and resonance conditions that stand in for amplitudes, eigenvalues, and entanglement.

What would settle it

A concrete test is to choose explicit forms for the semantic distance and coherence functions and derive the Born rule and Bell-type correlation statistics from QAL stream dynamics. If no assignment of the weights and distance components yields quantum predictions, or if the framework forbids the correlations that Bell tests observe, the central reconstruction fails; the paper itself identifies this as open question 3 in Section 9.5.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

QAL's central claim is that physical systems are best modeled not as amplitudes in an abstract vector space but as temporally structured sequences of qualia units, and that the core quantum phenomena are reinterpreted as introspective transformations. Superposition is a phase of unresolved semantic ambiguity, collapse is a coherence-driven contraction of the stream, measurement is an internal phase-shift, entanglement is resonant coupling through a shared morphodynamic attractor, and decoherence is fragmentation of introspective continuity. The paper argues that this removes the observer-system dichotomy by construction and replaces the projection postulate with endogenous transformation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that there exists a way of measuring how far apart two felt experiences are, and a way of scoring how coherent a whole sequence of experiences is, such that the resulting stream dynamics reproduce the empirical content of quantum mechanics, including probabilities and correlations; the paper does not prove this and lists it as an open question.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If QAL is right, the measurement problem is recast: collapse is no longer a separate postulate but a coherence-driven contraction within the observer's own stream.
Superposition, entanglement, and decoherence receive unified experiential interpretations, so quantum paradoxes become properties of introspective grammar rather than ontological mysteries.
The observer is embedded in the formalism by construction, which removes the need for an external classical measuring apparatus or an undefined observer-system boundary.
QAL offers a structured alternative to existing interpretations, positioning itself as an extension of QBism and relational quantum mechanics, and as a replacement for Many-Worlds with a Many-Qualia picture.
The same qualia-stream machinery supports models of temporal binding, identity persistence, and observer death, and is proposed as a substrate for introspective artificial agents.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If QAL is right, quantum probabilities would follow from semantic coherence rather than being assumed as axioms, so the Born rule would be a derived property of stream dynamics rather than a primitive postulate.
The framework suggests that cognitive experiments on sequential judgments and non-commuting psychological observables could calibrate the semantic distance metric, giving the formalism empirical traction outside physics.
Until an explicit construction shows standard quantum mechanics as a degenerate limit of QAL streams, the proposal is best read as an interpretive language rather than a predictive alternative.
The reframing of quantum immortality as semantic persistence changes what survival claims mean, moving them from physical branching to coherence of introspective form.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know upfront: this paper is not a derivation of quantum mechanics from conscious structure, though the abstract and title say it is. The paper itself admits in Section 9.5 that recovering standard QM as a limit of QAL is an open question, and the only concrete equations (2.9–2.10, 6.4) are schematic, with unspecified distance functions, weights, and modulation terms. There is no mapping from qualia triplets to Hilbert-space states, no derivation of the Born rule, and no quantitative prediction. The central claim is therefore unsupported, and this is a load-bearing flaw, not a cosmetic one.

Credit where it is due. The paper is clearly written and the conceptual vocabulary—modality–shape–effect triplets, semantic resonance, coherence thresholds—is genuinely new, even if the underlying ideas track QBism, RQM, and phenomenological readings the authors cite. The comparison tables with QBism, RQM, and MWI are honest and useful. The paper also deserves credit for flagging its own open questions rather than pretending the formalism is complete. On its own terms, as an interpretive essay, it is coherent.

The soft spot is precisely this gap between ambition and execution. Collapse is defined as a contraction in the qualia stream and then asserted to explain collapse; entanglement is defined as resonance via a Q_link attractor and then asserted to explain entanglement. That is stipulation, not derivation. The only external support is a self-cited in-preparation series, which is not a substitute for a derivation. For a physics paper this is fatal; for a philosophy-of-physics essay it would be acceptable if framed as a proposal rather than a reconstruction.

Who gets value from this? Someone mapping the interpretive landscape of QM might find the comparisons helpful, and the phenomenological angle is clearly and earnestly explored. But no one should cite this as a result. My recommendation: desk reject for a physics venue, because there is no testable content to referee. A philosophy journal could referee it if the claims are scaled back to a programmatic proposal, but the 'formal reconstruction' framing should be retracted. I would not send it to a physics referee expecting to learn something about quantum mechanics.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the Qualia Abstraction Language (QAL), in which physical systems are represented as evolving streams of qualia triplets (modality, shape, effect) rather than as state vectors in Hilbert space. It defines a semantic distance function and a coherence function, sketches an evolution principle based on minimizing semantic tension, and reinterprets superposition, collapse, entanglement, and decoherence as ambiguity, introspective contraction, resonance, and fragmentation. The paper then compares QAL with the Copenhagen interpretation, QBism, relational quantum mechanics, and the Many-Worlds interpretation, and extends the framework to observer death, quantum immortality, and AGI self-modeling.

Significance. The ambition is real: a constructive, observer-inclusive formalism that avoids abstract state spaces would be a significant contribution, and the paper is transparent in listing its open questions (Section 9.5). It also assembles a broad philosophical context and useful comparative tables. However, the formal core is too under-specified to support the central claim of a reconstruction of quantum mechanics. The manuscript is best read as a research proposal or philosophical manifesto rather than as a working formal reconstruction; its positive value lies in the questions it poses rather than in the results it establishes.

major comments (5)

[Section 2.3, Eqs. (2.9)–(2.10)] The semantic metric and coherence function are introduced only schematically: the normalized distances d_M, d_S, d_E, the weights alpha_m, alpha_s, alpha_e, and the threshold theta_c are never specified, and no example assigns concrete values to them. Because every later dynamical claim depends on these objects—Eq. (6.4) minimizes D, Eq. (5.3) uses D to define collapse—the framework is not yet a formal reconstruction; it is a template for one.
[Sections 5.2 and 5.4, Eqs. (5.4)–(5.9)] Collapse is defined as a contraction in the qualia stream and then asserted to explain collapse; entanglement is defined as resonance through a shared Q_link attractor and then asserted to explain entanglement. These are stipulations of the target phenomena, not derivations from independent dynamics. The paper does not show that QAL streams reproduce the empirical content of quantum mechanics, including Born-rule probabilities, unitary evolution, or Bell correlations.
[Section 6.1, Eq. (6.4)] The QAL evolution operator is defined as a map that minimizes transitional tension, with a contextual modulation term C_ctx that is never given an explicit form. No concrete operator, no Hamiltonian analogue, and no derivation of a Schrödinger-type equation is provided. The paper itself, in Section 9.5, lists 'Is it possible to recover standard quantum mechanics as a degenerate or externalist limit of QAL structures?' as an open question and calls for a QAL analog of the Schrödinger equation. This is a load-bearing missing derivation: without it, the abstract's promise of a 'formal reconstruction of quantum mechanics' is unsupported.
[Section 4.4] The paper claims that QAL uses 'No Numbers' and that 'Dynamics are governed by structural relations, not numerical parameters,' yet the formalism relies on real-valued weights, thresholds, coherence values in [0,1], and summations (Eqs. (2.9), (2.10), (2.11)). This tension needs to be resolved for the nominalist claim to be coherent; as written, the claim is internally inconsistent.
[Section 9.5] The open-problems section concedes that the central reconstruction is unfinished: no complete semantic metric, no algebraic structure for QAL units, no recovery of quantum mechanics, and no dynamical equation are supplied. These are not peripheral refinements; they are the core commitments of the paper. The paper is honest about this, but the honesty also confirms that the central claim of the abstract is not established in the body of the manuscript.

minor comments (6)

[Title page and Abstract] The title page contains 'Saturday 9th August, 2025 at 06:51' and several missing or garbled words in the introduction (e.g., 'the language it employs' appears with blank placeholders), which makes the manuscript appear unfinished.
[Section 5.1] The text says the semantic distance metric was introduced in 'Section 2.4,' but the metric is actually defined in Section 2.3; the cross-reference should be corrected.
[Figures] Figure numbering is inconsistent: one caption reads 'Figure 2: Figure 5: Conceptual Contrast — Relational Quantum Mechanics vs. QAL,' which suggests a duplicated or erroneous label.
[References, [5]] Reference [5] lists twelve 'in preparation' manuscripts by the authors; these are not publicly verifiable and should be cited as unpublished work or removed from the reference list.
[Appendix A, Tables 4–5] The notation tables contain raw LaTeX commands (e.g., '\neg', '\wedge') and are difficult to parse; they should be typeset cleanly with readable symbols.
[Throughout] The paper shifts between 'formal reconstruction,' 'reinterpretation,' and 'generative seed'; a precise statement of what is being claimed and at what level would improve the reader's ability to evaluate the contribution.

Circularity Check

4 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The central QM-QAL correspondences are stipulated by definition; the promised recovery of QM is left open, and the linguistic premise rests on in-preparation self-citations.

self definitional [Section 3.3, Eq. (3.13); Section 5.2, Eqs. (5.4)-(5.5)]
"Collapse is not a discontinuity in amplitude space, but a contraction in the introspective configuration of awareness... Collapse, in this model, is the semantic contraction of this tension."

The right-hand side is the QAL definition of contraction: the stream reorganizes itself to minimize dissonance (5.4-5.5). The left-hand side is the quantum-mechanical word 'collapse.' Since the paper simply assigns the QM term to this defined QAL process, the claim 'collapse is felt restructuring' is the definition itself, not a derived result. No independent derivation connects the contraction rule to the Born probabilities or measurement statistics of ordinary QM.
renaming known result [Section 5.1, Eqs. (5.1)-(5.3)]
"Rather than treating superposition as ontological simultaneity, it conceptualizes it as a state of internal ambiguity... if d(q1,a)≈d(q1,b) (5.2) then the stream is said to be in superpositional ambiguity — not split, but suspended."

The term 'superposition' is attached to a QAL condition defined by approximate equality of semantic distances (5.2). The conclusion 'superposition is structured ambiguity' is therefore true by construction. It does not explain the linear structure of Hilbert-space superposition, interference phases, or amplitude weights; it renames the phenomenon in QAL vocabulary.

2 more flagged steps

self definitional [Section 4.3, Eqs. (4.7)-(4.8); Section 5.4, Eq. (5.9)]
"QAL reinterprets entanglement as the resonance of identity-structured streams... They are said to be resonantly coupled if there exists a shared internal morphodynamic pattern."

Resonant coupling is introduced as the definition of a relation between QAL streams; the word 'entanglement' is then assigned to that relation. Because no consequence of standard entanglement (nonlocal correlations, Bell-inequality violation, reduced density matrices, partial traces) is derived from QAL, the identification 'entanglement = resonance' reduces to a stipulation about how the term is used.
self citation load bearing [Section 1.1, citation [5]; References [5]]
"motivated by the same epistemic limitations that underlie recent work on oversight incompleteness in strategic AI systems [5] ... [5] Sienicki, Mikołaj and Sienicki, Krzysztof (in preparation)"

The paper's central linguistic diagnosis — that the observer problem is a limitation of expressive vocabulary rather than ontology — is introduced as running 'in parallel with findings' from a twelve-part series by the same two authors, all listed as 'in preparation.' This is not an external, machine-checked, code-reproduced, or independently verified result. The citation is therefore load-bearing self-reference used to justify the paper's premise, not independent support.

full rationale

The paper never actually crosses from QAL vocabulary to quantum predictions. Each of the central explanatory moves is a definitional identification: collapse is defined as contraction (3.13, 5.4-5.5), superposition as unresolved ambiguity (5.2), entanglement as Q_link resonance (5.9). These are true by construction because the QAL process is defined and then the QM word is attached to it; no amplitude sums, Born-rule probabilities, unitary evolution, or Bell correlations are recovered. Section 9.5 confirms the gap by explicitly listing 'Is it possible to recover standard quantum mechanics as a degenerate or externalist limit of QAL structures?' as an open question and asking for a 'QAL analog of the Schrödinger equation.' That admission shows the promised 'formal reconstruction' is not a derivation. Separately, the premise that the observer problem is linguistic is supported only by the authors' own in-preparation 'Scheming AI' series, cited as [5]; since that series is unpublished and self-authored, it cannot provide independent evidence. The absence of an actual derivation is an incompleteness, but the paper's presentation of the stipulated identifications as 'reinterpretations' and 'reconstructions' makes the central result forced by definition, which is circular in the sense used here.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The framework's central claim depends on several unevidenced inputs: qualia triplets treated as primitive units; an unspecified semantic metric with hand-chosen weights and thresholds; the asserted correspondence between quantum concepts and qualia concepts; and the validity of unpublished self-cited 'Scheming AI' results. No numbers are fitted, but none are specified either, and no independent evidence is provided for the invented structures. This is why the paper cannot support its claim to be a formal reconstruction.

free parameters (3)

Semantic metric weights alpha_m, alpha_s, alpha_e = unspecified
Eq. 2.9 defines semantic distance as a weighted sum over modality, shape, and effect distances, but the weights are never specified or derived.
Coherence threshold theta_c = unspecified
Eq. 2.11 uses a threshold below which a stream collapses or fragments; the value is never given or justified.
Contextual modulation term C_ctx = unspecified
Eqs. 6.4 and 6.6 invoke a contextual modulation term encoding attention, memory, or resonance, but it is never defined.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Consciousness is the fundamental substrate; physical phenomena are modes of introspection.
Section 9.3 states that consciousness is 'the substrate itself'; this is asserted, not argued from evidence.
ad hoc to paper Qualia can be represented as triplets (modality, shape, effect) with well-defined semantic distances.
Sections 2.1 to 2.3 introduce the grammar without empirical or mathematical justification.
ad hoc to paper Quantum superposition, collapse, and entanglement correspond to ambiguity, contraction, and resonance.
Sections 5.1 to 5.4 define this mapping; it is asserted by construction rather than derived.
domain assumption The oversight incompleteness results of the authors' in-preparation 'Scheming AI' series are valid.
Section 1.1 and Ref. [5] use these unpublished findings as motivation; they cannot be checked.

invented entities (3)

Qualia triplet (modality, shape, effect)
purpose: Atomic unit replacing state vectors in Hilbert space.
Introduced in Section 2.1; no falsifiable handle outside the paper.
Q_link (shared morphodynamic attractor)
purpose: Mediates entanglement as resonant coupling between qualia streams.
Defined in Section 5.4; explicitly not observable and not a signal, with no independent prediction.
Many-Qualia branches
purpose: Replaces Everett branches with diverging introspective trajectories.
Section 7.4 offers no testable consequence for these branches.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond the Wavefunction: Qualia Abstraction Language Mechanics and the Grammar of Awareness." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6CNTXOQG

@misc{pith2026250802755,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond the Wavefunction: Qualia Abstraction Language Mechanics and the Grammar of Awareness},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6CNTXOQG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.02755}
}

read the original abstract

We propose a formal reconstruction of quantum mechanics grounded not in external mathematical abstractions, but in the structured dynamics of subjective experience. The Qualia Abstraction Language (QAL) models physical systems as evolving streams of introspective units, structured sequences of modality, shape, and functional effect, rather than as state vectors in Hilbert space. This approach reimagines core quantum concepts: superposition becomes a form of structured ambiguity; collapse is reframed as an introspective contraction; and entanglement is modeled as semantic resonance across streams of qualia. Drawing on insights from nominalist philosophy and oversight theoretic limits in AI, we argue that the observer paradox in quantum mechanics reflects not an ontological lacuna, but a linguistic one: the absence of a formal vocabulary for modeling first person structure. QAL introduces such a vocabulary, providing a morphodynamic framework that embeds the observer within the system and replaces abstract projection with endogenous transformation. We analyze the alignment of QAL with endophysical approaches, contrast it with standard interpretations of quantum theory, and explore its implications for a post Platonist, introspectively grounded physics.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

[1]

��

Galilei, Galileo. �� . Translated by Stillman Drake. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1632/1953. �� ...

work page 1953
[2]

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences

Wigner, Eugene. “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.”�� 13, no. 1 (1960): 1–14. �� 61

work page 1960
[3]

Remarks on the Mind–Body Question

Wigner, Eugene. “Remarks on the Mind–Body Question.” In�� , edited by I. J. Good, 284–302. London: Heinemann, 1961

work page 1961
[4]

The Mathematical Universe

Tegmark, Max. “The Mathematical Universe.”�� 38, no. 2 (2008): 101–150.��

work page 2008
[5]

Sienicki, Mikołaj and Sienicki, Krzysztof (in preparation)

work page
[6]

The Incompleteness of Oversight Theorem

Scheming AI: I. The Incompleteness of Oversight Theorem

work page
[7]

When Machines Speak Their Qualia

Scheming AI: II. When Machines Speak Their Qualia

work page
[8]

No Recovery, No Cloning, No Confidence

Scheming AI: III. No Recovery, No Cloning, No Confidence

work page

Show all 62 references

[9]

Unknowable Minds in Quantum AI Systems

Scheming AI: IV. Unknowable Minds in Quantum AI Systems
[10]

Oversight in the Continuous Regime

Scheming AI: V. Oversight in the Continuous Regime
[11]

The Game-Theoretic Structure of Deceptive Align- ment

Scheming AI: VI. The Game-Theoretic Structure of Deceptive Align- ment
[12]

Epistemology Under Strategic Optimization

Scheming AI: VII. Epistemology Under Strategic Optimization
[13]

Cryptographic Obfuscation and Hidden Objec- tives

Scheming AI: VIII. Cryptographic Obfuscation and Hidden Objec- tives
[14]

Goal-Embedding and the Ontology of Preference

Scheming AI: IX. Goal-Embedding and the Ontology of Preference
[15]

Auditing as a Falsification Problem

Scheming AI: X. Auditing as a Falsification Problem
[16]

The Limits of Alignment by Training

Scheming AI: XI. The Limits of Alignment by Training
[17]

Scheming AI is not an AI Hallucination

Scheming AI: XII. Scheming AI is not an AI Hallucination
[18]

Endo- and Exo-Concepts of Observation and Knowledge in Physics

Primas, Hans. “Endo- and Exo-Concepts of Observation and Knowledge in Physics.” In�� , edited by H. Atmanspacher and G. J. Dalenoort, 163–193. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1994. Atmanspacher, Harald, and Gerh...

1994
[19]

Endophysics: Towards a Worldview Shift

Havel, Ivan M. “Endophysics: Towards a Worldview Shift.” In�� , edited by H. Atmanspacher and G. J. Dalenoort, 115–131. Springer, 1995

1995
[20]

Order Effects in Sequential Measurements of Non-Commuting Psychological Observables

Atmanspacher, Harald, and Hartmann Römer. “Order Effects in Sequential Measurements of Non-Commuting Psychological Observables.”�� 9, no. 1 (2002): 51–66. ��

2002
[21]

��

Chalmers, David. �� . Oxford University Press, 1996

1996
[22]

��

Varela, Francisco J., Evan Thompson, and Eleanor Rosch. �� . MIT Press,
[23]

On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox

Bell, John S. “On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox.”�� 1, no. 3 (1964): 195–200

1964
[24]

The Reappearance of the Mind

Rosch, Eleanor. “The Reappearance of the Mind.” In�� , edited by Gay Watson, Stephen Batchelor, and Guy Claxton, 261–272. York Beach, ME: Samuel Weiser, 1992

1992
[25]

��

Jackendoff, Ray. �� . Oxford University Press, 2002

2002
[26]

Columbia University Press, 1991

Rosen, Robert.�� . Columbia University Press, 1991. Di Paolo, Ezequiel A., Elena Clare Cuffari, and Hanne De Jaegher. Linguistic bodies: The continuity between life and language. MIT press, 2018

1991
[27]

��

Husserl, Edmund. �� . Translated by John B. Brough. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1991

1991
[28]

The Specious Present: A Neurophenomenology of Time Consciousness

Varela, Francisco J. “The Specious Present: A Neurophenomenology of Time Consciousness.” In �� , edited by Petitot et al., 266–329. Stanford University Press, 1999

1999
[29]

Harvard University Press, 2007

Thompson, Evan.�� . Harvard University Press, 2007

2007
[30]

Dirac, Paul A. M. �� . 4th ed. Oxford University Press, 1958. ��

1958
[31]

Chuang.��

Nielsen, Michael A., and Isaac L. Chuang.�� . Cambridge University Press, 2010.��

2010
[32]

D., and E

Landau, L. D., and E. M. Lifshitz.�� . 3rd ed. Pergamon Press, 1977

1977
[33]

The quantum-to-classical transition

Schlosshauer, Decoherence. "The quantum-to-classical transition." The Fron- tiers Collection (Springer-Verlag, 2007) (2007).��

2007
[34]

Decoherence, Einselection, and the Quantum Origins of the Classical

Zurek, Wojciech H. “Decoherence, Einselection, and the Quantum Origins of the Classical.”�� 75, no. 3 (2003): 715–775. ��

2003
[35]

Princeton University Press, 1955

Von Neumann, John.�� . Princeton University Press, 1955. 63

1955
[36]

��

Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. �� . Rout- ledge, 1962. �� , Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. The world of perception. Routledge, 2004. ��...

1962
[37]

Prince- ton University Press, 1980

Field, Hartry.�� . Prince- ton University Press, 1980

1980
[38]

Burgess.� ��

Rosen, Gideon, and John P. Burgess.� �� . Oxford University Press, 2005

2005
[39]

��

Hellman, Geoffrey. �� . Oxford University Press, 1989

1989
[40]

What Is Quantum Mechanics Trying to Tell Us?

Mermin, N. David. “What Is Quantum Mechanics Trying to Tell Us?” �� 66, no. 9 (1998): 753–767. ��

1998
[41]

Quantum-Bayesian Coherence

Fuchs, Christopher A., and Rüdiger Schack. “Quantum-Bayesian Coherence.” �� 85, no. 4 (2013): 1693–1715.��

2013
[42]

��

Balaguer, Mark. �� . Oxford University Press, 2001

2001
[43]

��

Northoff, Georg. �� . W. W. Norton, 2016

2016
[44]

Physical Relations or Functional Structures? A Phenomeno- logical Interpretation of Quantum Theory

Bitbol, Michel. “Physical Relations or Functional Structures? A Phenomeno- logical Interpretation of Quantum Theory.”�� , 2007. ��

2007
[45]

Introspection and Self-Interpretation

Rosenthal, David. “Introspection and Self-Interpretation.” �� 28, no. 2 (2000): 201–233. �� ...

2000
[46]

CanQuantum-MechanicalDescrip- tion of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?

Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., andRosen, N.“CanQuantum-MechanicalDescrip- tion of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”�� 47.10 (1935): 777–780. ��

1935
[47]

Relational Quantum Mechanics

Rovelli, Carlo. “Relational Quantum Mechanics.” �� 35.8 (1996): 1637–1678. ��

1996
[48]

��

Bohr, Niels. �� . New York: Wiley, 1958

1958
[49]

On principles of inductive infer- ence

K. Knuth, �� , AIP Conf. Proc. 2005, Kostecki, Ryszard Paweł. "On principles of inductive infer- ence." arXiv preprint arXiv:1109.3142 (2011). �� , Kostecki, R.P., 2010. Quantum theory as inductive inferen...

2011 arXiv
[50]

��

Rovelli, Carlo. �� . Riverhead Books, 2017

2017
[51]

Relative state

H. Everett, "Relative state" formulation of quantum mechanics,�� , 29(3), 454–462 (1957).��

1957
[52]

Tegmark, The interpretation of quantum mechanics: many worlds or many words?, �� , 46(6-8), 855–862 (1998)

M. Tegmark, The interpretation of quantum mechanics: many worlds or many words?, �� , 46(6-8), 855–862 (1998). ��

1998
[53]

Tegmark,�� , Vintage Books (2014)

M. Tegmark,�� , Vintage Books (2014)

2014
[54]

Rovelli, Relational quantum mechanics,�� , 35(8), 1637–1678 (1996).��

C. Rovelli, Relational quantum mechanics,�� , 35(8), 1637–1678 (1996).��

1996
[55]

The physics of immortality: Modern cosmology, God and the resurrection of the dead

Tipler, Frank J. The physics of immortality: Modern cosmology, God and the resurrection of the dead. Anchor, 1997

1997
[56]

Husserl,�� , Northwestern University Press, 1970

E. Husserl,�� , Northwestern University Press, 1970

1970
[57]

Goodman, �� , Hackett Publishing, 1977

N. Goodman, �� , Hackett Publishing, 1977

1977
[58]

Cassirer, �� , Yale University Press, 1955

E. Cassirer, �� , Yale University Press, 1955

1955
[59]

Wittgenstein, �� , Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1922.��

L. Wittgenstein, �� , Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1922.��

1922
[60]

Maturana and F

H. Maturana and F. Varela,�� , D. Reidel Publishing, 1980

1980
[61]

Goldman, �� , Oxford University Press, 1999

A. Goldman, �� , Oxford University Press, 1999

1999
[1996]

Resonant cell assemblies: a new approach to cognitive functions and neuronal synchrony

Francisco J. Varela (1996). Neurophenomenology: A methodologi- cal remedy for the hard problem. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 3(4), 62 330–349. Varela, Francisco J. "Resonant cell assemblies: a new approach to cognitive functions and neuronal synchrony." Biological researc...

1996

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

��

Galilei, Galileo. �� . Translated by Stillman Drake. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1632/1953. �� ...

work page 1953

[2] [2]

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences

Wigner, Eugene. “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.”�� 13, no. 1 (1960): 1–14. �� 61

work page 1960

[3] [3]

Remarks on the Mind–Body Question

Wigner, Eugene. “Remarks on the Mind–Body Question.” In�� , edited by I. J. Good, 284–302. London: Heinemann, 1961

work page 1961

[4] [4]

The Mathematical Universe

Tegmark, Max. “The Mathematical Universe.”�� 38, no. 2 (2008): 101–150.��

work page 2008

[5] [5]

Sienicki, Mikołaj and Sienicki, Krzysztof (in preparation)

work page

[6] [6]

The Incompleteness of Oversight Theorem

Scheming AI: I. The Incompleteness of Oversight Theorem

work page

[7] [7]

When Machines Speak Their Qualia

Scheming AI: II. When Machines Speak Their Qualia

work page

[8] [8]

No Recovery, No Cloning, No Confidence

Scheming AI: III. No Recovery, No Cloning, No Confidence

work page