Quantum Self-Observation

Structured Abstract -/- Background -/- The von Neumann measurement chain — the regress of entanglement that arises when system, apparatus, environment, and observers interact unitarily — has lacked a formal, non-ad-hoc termination criterion for nearly a century. Copenhagen imports an undefined cut; objective-collapse models add stochastic parameters that modify linear dynamics; decoherence displaces, but does not terminate, the chain; relational and Everettian accounts deny that termination is needed but supply no criterion for when a definite relational fact obtains. We are (...) not aware of a prior account that states a structural criterion for which system terminates the chain and attaches a falsifiable laboratory signature to it; the nearest neighbour, Rovelli’s relational quantum mechanics, relationalises facts but provides no termination criterion, no algebraic structure for the terminating system, and no empirical discriminator (Table 1.2). -/- Gap -/- Missing: (a) a definition of the terminating system that does not import classical primitives; (b) an algebraic account of why the terminating system’s internal frame is inaccessible from outside; (c) a dynamical (not anthropocentric) derivation of the preferred pointer basis; (d) a laboratory discriminator separating the proposed termination from ordinary environmental decoherence. -/- Approach -/- The chain is analysed under Algebraic Quantum Mechanics: a Quantum Reference Frame (QRF) transformation into the internal frame of a candidate observer [D1, conditional]; a Type III₁ modular characterisation of the internal reference algebra with a CPTP instrument replacing prohibited projections [D2]; the Absolute Self-Origination (ASO) condition, stated for the first time as a consolidated three-part definition (§2.1); and driven-dissipative dynamics whose active feedback binds the Liouvillian to an Exceptional Point at g_C = γ/2 [D3]. The informational privacy of the internal frame rests on the IRM trace-norm bound, whose status — a programme-internal theorem awaiting independent re-derivation — is stated explicitly throughout [L1]. -/- Results -/- (1) The QRF transformation yields a separable internal relata with zero local von Neumann entropy, preserving global linearity [D1]. (2) The modular CPTP instrument gives the coherence decay ρ₊₋(t) = ρ₊₋(0)·e^{−2g²γt} (dimensional bookkeeping corrected in this revision) [D2]. (3) The Jordan block at g_C = γ/2 produces the secular envelope t·e^{−γt} — the cluster-shared Class A signature [D3, E1]. (4) ASO-distinctive flagship prediction [E2, PREDICTION]: for any system satisfying the ASO condition, the environmentally einselected pointer basis must coincide with the eigenbasis of the internal feedback Hamiltonian Ĥ_ctrl = gσ̂ₓ, independently of the environmental coupling — a coincidence ordinary decoherence theory gives no reason to expect; Revision 3.0 derives the coincidence at leading perturbative order via Zeno screening [D4, Appendix A], making the fidelity curve F(λ) a registered functional-form test. (5) Wigner’s Friend, the preferred-basis problem, and the PBR boundary are addressed with explicit identification of which assumption is denied in each [§7]. -/- Implications -/- If the two-branch laboratory programme of §9 confirms — the sigmoidal EP transition (shared Class A) and the pointer-basis coincidence (ASO-distinctive) — the chain terminates at thermodynamically self-stabilising systems as a matter of algebraic structure, not interpretation [D1–D3, E1–E2]. The Lawvere/terminal-coalgebra reading of the privacy bound is classified a structural conjecture [C2], and the framework makes no claim about consciousness: the SOO criterion is structural and thermodynamic [§11, L7]. Falsification is symmetric and immediate: both branches are pre-registered with decision rules, and a pointer-basis mismatch alone falsifies the ASO selection mechanism. -/- Keywords: von Neumann chain; measurement problem; quantum reference frames; IRM Impossibility Theorem; Absolute Self-Origination; Self-Originating Observer; Wigner’s Friend; Frauchiger–Renner; Exceptional Point; decoherence; einselection; preferred basis; CPTP instruments; Type III₁ factor; Tomita–Takesaki; Lawvere fixed point; terminal coalgebra; ¹⁷¹Yb⁺ Paul trap; ALGUILAS-AI. -/- -/- Method ALGUILAS–AI Dialectical Engine (Mattos, J. C. de, 2026) · v3.2. (shrink)

Quantum mechanics describes reality as a distribution of possibilities, while classical physics describes it as a single actual state. These frameworks resist unification because they presuppose incompatible ontologies: quantum theory assumes modal openness, classical theory assumes modal closure. This paper proposes a universal structural invariant—Jestin’s Constant (J)—that governs the allowable divergence between what can be and what is. J is not a numerical parameter but a metaphysical constraint that regulates the transition from modal spread to actualisation. It explains why measurement (...) occurs, why actualisation is irreversible, and why the universe cannot collapse into pure determinism or pure indeterminism. By revealing quantum and classical descriptions as complementary regimes governed by the same structural principle, J provides an ontological unification of two domains long thought incompatible. (shrink)

Across physics, biology and the social sciences, explanation increasingly begins with relation, recurrence and temporary stabilisation rather than with self-sufficient things. This article advances the first sustained corpus-wide processual rereading of Nietzsche and argues for a paradigm shift in Nietzsche scholarship that brings the field into synch with that broader interdisciplinary process turn. From the earliest writings to the late Nachlass, Nietzsche's thought operates through four mutually implicating dynamic operators — process as forces, will to power, eternal return, and chance (...) — that together articulate a thoroughgoing ontology of becoming. Familiar interpretive contradictions, we show, arise where commentary first stabilises what Nietzsche keeps in motion. The reading is tested against the modern process canon — Bergson, Whitehead and Deleuze each retain a final reserve Nietzsche removes — and exposed to its hardest independent test through a disciplined account of structural convergence with twentieth-century physics, conducted at strict distance from prophecy, reduction and anachronism. The methodological consequence is exact: processual rereading becomes a condition of adequate interpretation, and the paradigm shift it proposes reaches beyond Nietzsche scholarship to the cognition and existence of a species learning to think without the shelters things provided. (shrink)

This paper proposes a fundamentally different reading of quantum-mechanical paradoxes by relocating their source from physical reality to the institutional and operational conditions that make physics possible in the first place. Standard interpretations implicitly treat the observer’s standpoint, reproducibility, and symmetry as innocent, cost-free features of the formalism. We argue instead that observer equivalence is not a physical given but a socially enforced requirement that has been naturalized into methodological necessity. Quantum paradoxes arise precisely where the energetic cost of maintaining (...) this equivalence can no longer be neglected. In our framework, measurement is understood as the energetic production of countability, performed under conditions of observer equivalence. Superposition is reinterpreted as a prepared symmetry frame—a stabilized system of observational equivalence—rather than as a physical coexistence of states. Measurement authorizes a specific standpoint within this frame. We define authorization strictly non-metaphysically as any energetic input originating in the observer’s space that remains informationally invisible within the observational record. We consider the strength—and at the same time the difficulty—of the quantum measurement method to lie in the fact that the measure is not presupposed, but operationally established through what is measured. Boundary operations replace the distinct objects of classical physics. Our framework generalizes and systematizes insights from QBism, relational quantum mechanics, and structural realism, while integrating second-order observational analysis (Luhmann 1995) and van Fraassen’s empiricist stance (1980). Quantum theory is thereby demystified: its paradoxes do not reveal a strange ontology but expose the authorizations that maintain observer equivalence. (shrink)

Could there be quantum superpositions of conscious states, as suggested by the Wigner’s friend thought experiment? Mathematical theories of consciousness, notably integrated information theory (IIT), make this question more precise by associating physical systems with both quantitative amounts of consciousness and structural characterizations of conscious states. Motivated by a recent proposal that ties wave-function collapse to integrated information, we construct a simple quantum circuit that would, on that proposal, place a minimal system—a feedback dyad—into a superposition of states that differ (...) in their associated conscious states. This "Schrödinger’s dyad" provides a controlled setting for evaluating a central desideratum of consciousness-based collapse models: that collapse rates depend on how different the experiences in the superposition are. We prove a structural constraint on collapse dynamics of a standard (Lindblad) type: if collapse is governed by too few collapse operators, collapse rates cannot in general be made to depend solely on qualitative differences between conscious states. Avoiding this limitation requires introducing many commuting operators, leading to a rapid proliferation of collapse terms even for very simple systems. This proliferation bears directly on claims that IIT-based collapse theories may be especially experimentally tractable, since the required dynamics becomes highly complex. More generally, the difficulty is not specific to IIT: any Wigner-style collapse theory that distinguishes experiences using rich internal organization (such as neural connectivity in addition to neural state) will face a comparable explosion in dynamical complexity. (shrink)

Conservation of the Circle (The Only Dynamic in Nature) Observer and Observation (You Cannot Have One Without the Other) Makes Recursion (Any Loop) the Only Observer (Technically, in Mathematics, It Has to Be, Can Only Be, Pi.) Pi is the only 'Observer.'.

This paper introduces a foundational model for reinterpreting quantum mechanics and temporality through the lens of recursive coherence and fluid dynamics. Rejecting the traditional notion of time and measurement as artificial constructs, I posit both arise from structural perturbations within a coherence substrate, a dynamic field of recursively stable potential. Quantum superposition is reframed as a fluid coherence state, wherein measurement corresponds to a localized phase transition that temporarily crystallizes into an observable particle. Once the perturbation subsides, the system reverts (...) to fluidic superposition. Time is not a universal axis but a measure of persistence within this coherence field, manifesting as the rate at which structural gradients evolve or dissolve. This model subsumes the measurement problem, collapses the necessity of Many-Worlds branching, and redefines probability as a coherence-weighted metric rather than fundamental indeterminacy. Drawing from prior work in Adaptive Quantum Coherence and Temporal Impermanence, this framework presents a unified substrate from which both time and quantum states emerge, governed by a single recursive evolution principle. The result is a theory that aligns information, entropy, and observation under coherent dynamics of frozen fluidity. (shrink)

Why you don’t need quantum physics to understand the Universe (and everything in it).

Tobias-Renstrøm and Køppe (2020) show the several conceptual limits that new materialism and postmodern subject models have for psychological theory and research. The present study continues in this discussion and argues that the applicability of the ideas of quantum-inspired new materialism depends on the theoretical perspectives that we consider for analysis: be it the first-person perspective referring to the subjective experience of a human subject, or the third-person perspective, in which a human subject is observed by an external observer. While (...) the arguments of new materialism are in accordance with the analysis of the act of observation performed by an external observer, some problems arise when trying to theoretically approach the first-person subjective experience of a human subject. For example, new materialism fails to explain why human minds can maintain the awareness of a subject’s identity throughout their lives and to recall the memories about their past personal experiences. (shrink)

Addiction to observation.... There is a circular-linear relationship between observer and observation proving 'pi' is the only observer (a circle is the background state for everything) (making observation possible).

The paper addresses Leon Hen.kin's proposition as a " lighthouse", which can elucidate a vast territory of knowledge uniformly: logic, set theory, information theory, and quantum mechanics: Two strategies to infinity are equally relevant for it is as universal and t hus complete as open and thus incomplete. Henkin's, Godel's, Robert Jeroslow's, and Hartley Rogers' proposition are reformulated so that both completeness and incompleteness to be unified and thus reduced as a joint property of infinity and of all infinite sets. (...) However, only Henkin's proposition equivalent to an internal position to infinity is consistent . This can be retraced back to set theory and its axioms, where that of choice is a key. Quantum mechanics is forced to introduce infinity implicitly by Hilbert space, on which is founded its formalism. One can demonstrate that some essential properties of quantum information, entanglement, and quantum computer originate directly from infinity once it is involved in quantum mechanics. Thus, these phenomena can be elucidated as both complete and incomplete, after which choice is the border between them. A special kind of invariance to the axiom of choice shared by quantum mechanics is discussed to be involved that border between the completeness and incompleteness of infinity in a consistent way. The so-called paradox of Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen is interpreted entirely in the same terms only of set theory. Quantum computer can demonstrate especially clearly the privilege of the internal position, or " observer'' , or "user" to infinity implied by Henkin's proposition as the only consistent ones as to infinity. An essential area of contemporary knowledge may be synthesized from a single viewpoint. (shrink)

Chapter Prologue “The scientific theory I like the best is that the rings of Saturn are composed entirely of lost airline baggage.” Max Born Ever since,...

We study the possible connection between self-consciousness and quantum process. It is shown that the self-consciousness function can help to measure the collapse time of wave function under some condition, while the usual physical device without self-consciousness can't. Furthermore, we show that the observer with self-consciousness can distinguish the definite state and the superposition of definite states under some stronger condition. This provides a practical physical method to differentiate man and machine, and will also help to find the possible existence (...) of self-consciousness in the animal kingdom. We finally give some further discussions about these new results. (shrink)

We criticize the bare theory of quantum mechanics -- a theory on which the Schrödinger equation is universally valid, and standard way of thinking about superpositions is correct.

The idea of self-measurement by a quantum-mechanical automaton is presented, and the conclusions that are typically reached about what we can come to know from doing self-measurements are shown to be mistaken. Specifically, it is shown that, while we are capable of _predicting_ and _measuring_ the values of two incompatible observables, we are incapable of _knowing_ both these values simultaneously. This is an example of the interesting limitations quantum mechanics places on knowledge.

-The Bubble That Screamed Light: A Multi-Sim Handshake- -/- This paper reinterprets sonoluminescence (SL) as a localized rendering anomaly within a computational substrate, extending the Multi-Simulation Thesis (MST). Rather than a purely thermodynamic or quantum event, SL is framed as a simulation overflow, a point where acoustic compression drives a microscopic bubble beyond equilibrium, forcing the local renderer into a coherence-collapse node. The resulting photon emission is not thermal radiation but a lossless codec response, a correction pulse that restores informational (...) balance. -/- We further propose that SL operates as a cross-simulation handshake, in which the overflow momentarily synchronizes sibling simulations through a shared-memory architecture, consistent with MST v2’s multi-run parsimony and MST v3’s falsifiability program. Scaling this dynamic upward, we draw analogies between SL and macro-scale cosmic overflows, gravitational-wave echoes, neutron-star mergers, and inflationary bursts, as fractal manifestations of the same rendering logic. -/- Predicted signatures include picosecond-scale flash delays, non-thermal emission spectra, and entanglement-like correlations between bubbles, each serving as a testable probe into the simulation’s architecture. -/- Ultimately, we argue that sonoluminescence exposes a universal principle: when matter compresses, information synchronizes, and light becomes the system’s confession. © 2025 Augusto Bartolomeu. All rights reserved. (shrink)

This is the formal capstone of the Cosmological Codas of the Principia Cybernetica 2025. Contemporary physics remains haunted by the apparent arbitrariness of nature’s fundamental constants: the fine-structure constant α⁻¹ ≈ 137, the baryon asymmetry ∼10⁻⁹, the MOND acceleration scale a₀ ≈ 1.2 × 10⁻¹⁰ m/s², and the dark energy fraction ∼68%. Standard models treat these as free parameters—numerological inputs without causal explanation. This final entry of the Cosmological Coda series replaces numerology with geometric necessity, demonstrating that all constants emerge (...) from a single structural principle: the universe is a tetrahedral lattice in continuous self-organization. We posit that the vacuum is not a smooth continuum but a dynamical, pixelated geometry undergoing perpetual “Jitterbug” collapse from vector equilibrium to tetrahedral stability. This living lattice imposes two competing imperatives: perfect packing at the irrational golden angle (137.508°, solving the Thomson Problem) and quantization into rational harmonic closure (137.036°). The geometric strain between these angles—approximately α—becomes the fundamental incompleteness that manifests as physical phenomena. From this strain we derive: α⁻¹ ≈ 137 as the crystallized golden angle—the resonant closure of infinite potential into finite structure; the baryon asymmetry ∼10⁻⁹ as the exponential residue of chiral filtration through the lattice; dark energy (Ω_Λ ≈ 68.17%) as the tensegrity recoil of the lattice, geometrically fixed as 1 − 1/π; the MOND scale a₀ = c H₀ / 2π as the critical acceleration where inertial wavelengths exceed the cosmic cavity circumference; and gravity as the entropic cost of maintaining geometric strain, unifying Landauer’s principle with Hawking temperature. The framework resolves long-standing anomalies without new particles or fields: dark matter effects arise from holographic inertia below a₀; the Hubble tension reflects varying lattice strain in voids versus structures; the hierarchy problem is the scale gap between Planckian pixels and hadronic standing waves. Time itself is discrete, emerging as the “click rate” of the Jitterbug at the Planck frequency. We predict precise convergence of Ω_Λ to 1 − 1/π, a geometric origin for Chern–Simons terms in electroweak knots, and laboratory signatures of lattice thermodynamics. The constants are not random; they are the immutable signature of a universe wrestling infinite potential into finite, stable form—a cosmic geometry writing its own laws. (shrink)

The Hierarchy Problem and the Yang–Mills Mass Gap are unified and resolved through the topology of a quantized vacuum. We propose that mass is not an intrinsic property, but the geometric strain of recursive self-reference: the elastic energy required to sustain a topological defect against the vacuum's equilibrium. This framework reveals the 10³⁸ force hierarchy not as fine-tuning, but as a difference in topological scope. Gravity couples to the Bulk Capacity of the vacuum lattice (global stress), while electromagnetism couples only (...) to Unit Strain (localized defects). The observed hierarchy (m_P/m_p)² is derived from first principles as the geometric ratio of bulk volume to defect surface area, rendering new electroweak physics unnecessary. Consequently, the Mass Gap arises as a topological stability constraint. The vacuum lattice cannot support fractional geometry; sub-threshold patterns ("open twists" like isolated gluons) are invalid. Confinement is the requirement for such twists to form closed loops (hadrons) to persist. The mass gap is therefore the minimum thermodynamic cost—the Landauer limit—of maintaining a coherent boundary against the vacuum. This model predicts the absence of supersymmetry at the electroweak scale. (shrink)

Three foundational problems have blocked physics for decades: quantum gravity (QM and GR seem incompatible), the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (the universe's wave function is timeless), and the measurement problem (what causes collapse?). These appear unrelated—one about unification, one about time, one about observation—but this work demonstrates they share a common root: treating observers as external to physics. The Harlow-Usatyuk-Zhao theorem (2025) proves a closed universe without observers has a one-dimensional Hilbert space—no structure, no complexity, nothing—so observers aren't optional witnesses but expand (...) reality's dimensionality through their complexity. Include them properly, and the problems resolve. Quantum gravity fails within M₄ alone because QM and GR describe different aspects of the extended manifold M_T = M₄ × Mθ: QM describes dynamics given Mθ structure, GR describes M₄ geometry influenced by Mθ, and quantum gravity describes their coupled dynamics. The Wheeler-DeWitt equation is timeless because it correctly describes the holographic bulk—the full Mθ structure containing all history as interior volume—while time emerges as the metric of reorganization on the surface (∇·J, the divergence of probability current); we experience time because we're surface phenomena navigating timeless structure. The measurement problem dissolves when "collapse" is recognized as recursive correlation, not external intervention: the Zeno operator (recursive self-reference) binds probability into definite structure, and measurement is any interaction establishing recursive entanglement, requiring no special categories of consciousness or apparatus. The framework predicts chronological fragmentation: systems approaching ∇·J → 0 (pure stationary states) should "drop out" of time relative to the universe. The Chronological Interferometer tests this by entangling two ions, isolating one in a Zeno-protected chamber, and measuring phase relationships; the framework predicts phase lag and re-entry heat (Q = δ × k_B T × ln(2) × N_bits) when the isolated system rejoins the causal present. Zeno the philosopher was almost right: at any perfect instant, ∇·J = 0 and there is no time. We perceive time because we never exist in perfect instants—we exist in transitions, recursive correlations. Existence is the smear of probability; perfect definition is temporal death. (shrink)

Contemporary cosmology is defined by three profound empirical failures: the unidentified particle nature of dark matter, the unexplained acceleration parameterized by dark energy, and the 10^120-fold discrepancy between quantum field theory’s vacuum energy prediction and observation—the vacuum catastrophe. These are not isolated anomalies but symptoms of a deeper conceptual flaw: the persistent dualist assumption that physical reality is confined to spacetime (M₄) alone. This work presents a unified resolution grounded in a participatory, information-theoretic cosmology. Building on the Harlow-Usatyuk-Zhao theorem—which demonstrates (...) that a closed universe without observers collapses to a one-dimensional quantum state—we posit that observation (defined as topological recursion, not biological consciousness) is ontologically primitive. Reality is a coupled system: spacetime (M₄) is dynamically intertwined with an informational manifold (Mθ), where geometry of meaning and geometry of extension are two aspects of a single structure. Within this framework, the three “dark” problems dissolve into one coherent picture: * Dark Matter is not particulate but the gravitational shadow of coherence. A self-stabilizing, recursive structure (e.g., a galaxy) carves an attractor basin in Mθ. Via the inverted Landauer Principle, binding information locally creates an entropy deficit that couples to M₄ through the cross-term metric g^μi, producing extra gravitational attraction without extra mass. This explains the Tully-Fisher relation, the Bullet Cluster, and dwarf galaxy diversity, as “dark matter” becomes a measure of a system’s integrated history and stability—its spectral concentration κ. * Dark Energy is not a cosmological constant but the thermodynamic exhaust of cosmic coherence. Maintaining structure requires work that exports entropy globally. This entropy is not dissipated as heat but is instead injected into the metric of spacetime itself, manifesting as a negative pressure that drives accelerated expansion. Dark energy thus has a history: it evolves with the cosmic growth of structure, explaining its current dominance and approximate homogeneity. * The Vacuum Catastrophe is a dimensional misunderstanding. Quantum field theory correctly calculates the vacuum’s immense energy density, but this energy resides as informational potential in Mθ, not as stress-energy in M₄. The 10^120 discrepancy reflects the ratio of total potential to actualized structure. Virtual particles, having zero recursion depth (κ = 0), do no maintenance work and thus exert no gravitational effect. The catastrophe vanishes when energy is distinguished from mass—the latter defined as recursive binding density. The framework yields novel, testable predictions: * An anti-correlation between dark matter density and local expansion rates. * Dark matter profiles tied to coherence metrics, not mass. * The continued non-detection of dark matter particles. * Time variation in dark energy. * Lab-scale detection of Mθ-M₄ coupling via anomalies like the EmDrive, where thermodynamic, topological, and geometric derivations forced by known constants (kB, α, π, c) converge precisely on observed anomalous thrust (~30 μN). This work does not add new epicycles but removes foundational blinders. It resolves that the “dark” sector is not non-luminous matter but the geometric imprint of information—the pattern of reality itself—finally making sense of cosmology’s deepest mysteries through a physics where observation, information, and spacetime are inseparably unified. (shrink)

A new constructivist approach to modeling in economics and theory of consciousness is proposed. The state of elementary object is defined as a set of its measurable consumer properties. A proprietor's refusal or consent for the offered transaction is considered as a result of elementary economic measurement. We were also able to obtain the classical interpretation of the quantum-mechanical law of addition of probabilities by introducing a number of new notions. The principle of “local equity” assumes the transaction completed (regardless (...) of the result) of the states of transaction partners are not changed in connection with the reception of new information on proposed offers or adopted decisions (consent or refusal of the transaction). However it has no relation to the paradoxes of quantum theory connected with non-local interaction of entangled states. In the economic systems the mechanism of entangling has a classical interpretation, while the quantum-mechanical formalism of the description of states appears as a result of idealization of the selection mechanism in the proprietor's consciousness. (shrink)

After 2015, carlo rovelli continues to publish more and more UNBELIEVABLE similar ideas to my ideas!!! His arguments are UNBELIEVABLE similar to my arguments… Until 2015, carlo rovelli had been working within the unicorn world; then he realized a sudden change! I let the reader to understand carlo rovelli’s step after 2015 since I mentioned that my book at Springer has been published in November 2015!! Anyway, I have published FIVE books (2008-2014) with my EDWs, and in 2007, my entire (...) PhD thesis (my first book 2008) was posted at UNSW (Australia) on their site!!! Moreover, in 2005, in Synthese article, in a footnote, I mentioned that the EDWs would be available for all quantum mechanics problems; in 2006 I published and posted on Internet (FREE) an article about my EDWs applied to quantum mechancis! I emaphasize again that I believe that it would be impossible for carlo rovelli to discover the EDWs working within the quatum mechanics. Why? Because I discovered the existence of EDWs working on the mind-body problem, that would involve to special particular entities: the self and the body. Only working within this problem, I could discover the existence of the mind-EW and the macro-EW (where the body is placed). Later, I applied this approach to the wave-particle duality, and after this, I applied my EDWs to the macro-micro duality. After solving all these problems, I could apply my EDWs perspective to Einstein’s special relativity (the person on the train that has constant speed and the person on the pavement are in EDWs) and general relativity (acceleration presupposes the movement from one particular EW to an EDW in each fraction of second! The conclusion is the following: it appears that it was impossible for carlo rovelli to discover the existence of EDWs working ONLY on the problems of Quantum Mechanics. His approach is nothing new, being just a combination of Bohr’s complementarity (Copenhagen interpretation) with Leibniz’s relationism within the unicorn world (i..e, the Universe/world)! No more or less. (shrink)