Figure - available from: Axiomathes
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
![All causal chains unfold from the big bang within the global light cone. Here the present tpr\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$t_{pr}$$\end{document} is conventionally depicted as a spacelike horizontal line. Then the past of the entire universe within the global light cone is Con+ Com below the line for any causal chain separately (as the relativity of simultaneity does not affect the causal order) but not at tpr\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$t_{pr}$$\end{document}. A schematic Bell-type experiment can be then inserted. Here a source S\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$S$$\end{document} of two entangled photons lies beyond Alice’s and Bob’s past light cones while their spacelike-separated settings A\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$A$$\end{document} and B\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$B$$\end{document} are just placed on the line to make the future measurement outcomes a\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$a$$\end{document} and b\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$b$$\end{document}.Whenever observers make choices, this moment always is their actual present tpr\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$t_{pr}$$\end{document} while the measurement will be made independently at a moment tpr′>tpr\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$t_{pr}^{'} > t_{pr}$$\end{document} as a new actual present standing for the particles’ response not for their will. A cosmic conspiracy (Gallicchio et al. 2014) can then be imposed upon the assumption that Alice and Bob set their polarizers not at will but by monitoring the light signals (as 45∘\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$45^\circ$$\end{document} diagonals) emitted by distant quasars QA\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$Q_{A}$$\end{document} and QB\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$Q_{B}$$\end{document}. To account for BIV, both QA\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$Q_{A}$$\end{document} and QB\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$Q_{B}$$\end{document} should “conspire” with the source S\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$S$$\end{document} by a common cause (as their mathematical infimum in the causal structure of the universe) in the past billions of years ago](profile/Sergey-Yurchenko-3/publication/341397134/figure/fig1/AS:961327421980680@1606209726226/All-causal-chains-unfold-from-the-big-bang-within-the-global-light-cone-Here-the-present.png)
All causal chains unfold from the big bang within the global light cone. Here the present tpr\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$t_{pr}$$\end{document} is conventionally depicted as a spacelike horizontal line. Then the past of the entire universe within the global light cone is Con+ Com below the line for any causal chain separately (as the relativity of simultaneity does not affect the causal order) but not at tpr\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$t_{pr}$$\end{document}. A schematic Bell-type experiment can be then inserted. Here a source S\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$S$$\end{document} of two entangled photons lies beyond Alice’s and Bob’s past light cones while their spacelike-separated settings A\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$A$$\end{document} and B\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$B$$\end{document} are just placed on the line to make the future measurement outcomes a\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$a$$\end{document} and b\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$b$$\end{document}.Whenever observers make choices, this moment always is their actual present tpr\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$t_{pr}$$\end{document} while the measurement will be made independently at a moment tpr′>tpr\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$t_{pr}^{'} > t_{pr}$$\end{document} as a new actual present standing for the particles’ response not for their will. A cosmic conspiracy (Gallicchio et al. 2014) can then be imposed upon the assumption that Alice and Bob set their polarizers not at will but by monitoring the light signals (as 45∘\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$45^\circ$$\end{document} diagonals) emitted by distant quasars QA\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$Q_{A}$$\end{document} and QB\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$Q_{B}$$\end{document}. To account for BIV, both QA\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$Q_{A}$$\end{document} and QB\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$Q_{B}$$\end{document} should “conspire” with the source S\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$S$$\end{document} by a common cause (as their mathematical infimum in the causal structure of the universe) in the past billions of years ago
Source publication
In physics, free will is debated mainly in regard to the observer-dependent effects. To eliminate them from quantum mechanics, superdeterminism postulates that the universe is a computation, and consciousness is an automaton. As a result, free will is impossible. Quantum no-go theorems tell us that the only natural phenomenon that might be able to...
Similar publications
Background:
Transitioning towards sustainable food systems for the health of the population and planet will require governments and institutions to develop effective governance to support the adoption of sustainable food practices. The aim of the paper is to describe current governance within Australian and New Zealand universities designed to sup...
Students studying different levels of English require special attention in a higher educational classroom, especially when such levels are part of a university requirement and are not treated with the same focus as specialty courses. Hence, the aim of this study is to implement a teaching method that uses multicultural videos throughout an English...
Citations
... In doing so, CET makes the assumption that brains have primarily evolved as volitional (quantum in origin) subsystems of organisms at the hard level. CET emphasizes the importance of randomness in evolution (Yurchenko, 2021a) contrary to the idea that life can be viewed as the triumph of determinism (Marshall et al., 2017). ...
There are now dozens of very different theories of consciousness, each somehow contributing to our understanding of its nature. The science of consciousness needs therefore not new theories but a general framework integrating insights from those, yet not making it a still-born “Frankenstein” theory. First, the framework must operate explicitly on the stream of consciousness, not on its static description. Second, this dynamical account must also be put on the evolutionary timeline to explain the origins of consciousness. The Cognitive Evolution Theory (CET), outlined here, proposes such a framework. This starts with the assumption that brains have primarily evolved as volitional subsystems of organisms, inherited from primitive (fast and random) reflexes of simplest neural networks, only then resembling error-minimizing prediction machines. CET adopts the tools of critical dynamics to account for metastability, scale-free avalanches, and self-organization which are all intrinsic to brain dynamics. This formalizes the stream of consciousness as a discrete (transitive, irreflexive) chain of momentary states derived from critical brain dynamics at points of phase transitions and mapped then onto a state space as neural correlates of a particular conscious state. The continuous/discrete dichotomy appears naturally between the brain dynamics at the causal level and conscious states at the phenomenal level, each volitionally triggered from arousal centers of the brainstem and cognitively modulated by thalamocortical systems. Their objective observables can be entropy-based complexity measures, reflecting the transient level or quantity of consciousness at that moment.
... (1) to its foundations as a mathematically rigorous formulation of free will: no hidden deterministic variables can have full control over brain dynamics. In the physical framework, however, there is simply no other legal way to account for volitional mechanisms besides quantum randomness because classical processes in the brain rule out any other kind of genuine freedom (Yurchenko 2021). The probabilities in quantum mechanics are fundamentally different from those in statistical mechanics. ...
The brain integrates volition, cognition, and consciousness seamlessly over three hierarchical (scale-dependent) levels of neural activity for their emergence: a causal or ‘hard’ level, a computational (unconscious) or ‘soft’ level, and a phenomenal (conscious) or ‘psyche’ level respectively. The cognitive evolution theory (CET) is based on three general prerequisites: physicalism, dynamism, and emergentism, which entail five consequences about the nature of consciousness: discreteness, passivity, uniqueness, integrity, and graduation. CET starts from the assumption that brains should have primarily evolved as volitional subsystems of organisms, not as prediction machines. This emphasizes the dynamical nature of consciousness in terms of critical dynamics to account for metastability, avalanches, and self-organized criticality of brain processes, then coupling it with volition and cognition in a framework unified over the levels. Consciousness emerges near critical points, and unfolds as a discrete stream of momentary states, each volitionally driven from oldest subcortical arousal systems. The stream is the brain’s way of making a difference via predictive (Bayesian) processing. Its objective observables could be complexity measures reflecting levels of consciousness and its dynamical coherency to reveal how much knowledge (information gain) the brain acquires over the stream. CET also proposes a quantitative classification of both disorders of consciousness and mental disorders within that unified framework.
... However, on the assumption of Big Bang cosmology combined with the second law of thermodynamics and the so-called anthropic arguments, superdeterminism leads us inevitably to the scenario of a designed clockwork universe [25]. Thus, the strong consequence of predetermination is no more than a scientifically rigorous version of old-fashioned fatalism and Newtonian deism. ...
... The answer is that the universe had started with the Big Bang singularity at an incredibly ordered state whose entropy should be just zero so that all the future events in the universe, including the origin of life, the evolution of species, and, in particular, our birth, life, and death, had been uniquely encoded in the initial conditions of the Big Bang. Superdeterminism admits that we are not merely deterministic machines, but each of us is a machine designed from the beginning of time [25]. ...
This article reviews the modern approaches to the quantum brain hypothesis. The aim is to consider the hypothesis and its classical brain-machine alternative from a broad perspective, including physics, biology, computer science, cosmology, and metaphysics. My starting point is that asking whether consciousness can or cannot have free will is fundamentally incorrect. This aspect is challenged by both physics and neuroscience. The paper argues that the search for conscious free will, as it is typically tested in Libet-type experiments, implies putting the cart before the horse. From the evolutionary perspective, a more correct question is this. Might primitive neural networks of simple organisms have possessed free volitional mechanisms (quantum in origin) as an extremely valuable acquisition for the flourishing of life? Might then the mechanisms have evolved from primary (rapid and random) reflexes in the oldest brain regions such as the brainstem to give rise to conscious cortex-centered properties in later stages of the brain evolution?
