On Time, Mass & Symbols

Through what it emerges in the mix. A continuation cone through the work of Hamilton, Hawking & Wittgenstein.

This article:
C. Stefan “On Time, Mass & Symbols”, 06.Ian.2025.

Based on:
C. Stefan “Life, the Observer, and Consciousness”, v0.1b, Oct. 2024.¹

Abstract

The principles through which biology, life-matter, and of course our instances seem to be working, I argue, are to be witnessed at the greater scale of the universe and quantum realm in regard of energy and mass. From this perspective, it is more imperative today than ever in our history—because of the multi-faceted and interpretative way of the actual scientific and wisdom body of information we have accumulated over the centuries (yet wisdom even more so) and due to an apparent crisis in science—to advance an explanatory framework. I see it in a way of meta-description which would contain a metaphysical ambient coupled with the materialist views, for which a gap is to be filled: a view along many scales of our reality for which a formulation is possible.

Keywords: observer definition, frame of reference, generativity, objective reality, time, quantum effect, participatory, Hamilton, Hawking, Wittgenstein, AI, Symbols Framework, Symbol, Symboliad.

Introduction

One is recommended to read first the thesis: “Life, the Observer, and Consciousness”². The thesis helps one step-up and go on a different level of description. The half intention of the thesis is of “therapeutic” means. I strongly believe there is no other way but a shaken of the inner workings due same thinking paths. A work one has to do upon himself, by working with different means, through human frame of reference, through simplification (but not a reductionist view). A reconsideration through new definitions, without which there would be no escape from the same dichotomies since millennia.
As prerequisite, through the thesis, the new view should unfold. I noticed it also does not work in an instant (seen in acquaintance on X.com they begin developing the views, noticed evolving discourses in that direction, Eg. frame of reference, orthogonal space) - by the very means Symbols work (not the Whitehead ones, but prior to them) - one is acquiring “aha” moments, once seeds planted are connecting.

Starting with physics

Hamilton’s formulation of mechanics anticipated deeper connections between energy-time and momentum-space, long before relativity formalized these ideas. His work with the Hamiltonian function, which encapsulates a system’s total energy, already suggested that time evolution is governed by energy, while spatial changes relate to momentum.³

In a later call by S. Hawking & co. we can see a shift of perspective towards a nuanced set-back in how to formulate and try understand the very fabric of our reality.

“Hawking came to believe that science does not provide a ‘God’s-eye view’ of reality. Rather, we need to build a theory of the universe from the inside-out, from within; reasoning backwards from our place as an observer.“⁴

The observer definition

From that position one can construct through, the missing link within the inside-out. This approach would have to be done with the assertion of a definition of what is the observer?

As with any definition, this has to be placed on a contextual and frame of reference framework. For the reference of the position and the actual definition one is to be invited to check the definition in: “Life, the Observer, and Consciousness“ into the formalism part: in essence the definition is comprised on a set of definitions, that constrain the supreme one.

The definition is central to the Symbols Framework/thesis and we would use that for a further discussion. One is also to acknowledge the view of the differentials through which “Symbols” work and the gluing view over the “Symboliad“—both elements that emerge in the mix, they act as the “software” across scales, they reside and act as a “generativity” body.

Parallelisms

From the physics side, considering the two aforementioned positions of the two renowned physicists, in Symbols Framework those views are reflecting the approaches, ideas and therefore some parallelisms can be asserted that would bridge the two sides of the objective reality and our definition of observer.

Hamilton’s insight points to a fundamental structuring of the Symboliad itself. Energy and momentum are not just properties of a system but traces emerging from the interaction between the instance and its environment. The Hamiltonian framework, in a way, already treated these as relational rather than absolute, much like the view in here, mass as a trace within an interaction space.

His work almost foreshadowed the observer-centric nature of modern physics, where energy determines the evolution in time (a defining concept, and an intrinsic feature as to what my observer enacts and possesses) and momentum governs spatial transformations (which shape the basin of mass in the field). It’s as if Hamilton sensed the “externsive” (my new word to express the not-in-isolation auto-sustainment of the items emerged: there is not one without the others, it is always an in-between sustainment network and in this context every item should be considered) structure of reality long before the full conceptual leap of relativity was made.

If Hamiltonian mechanics already hinted at this deep interplay between energy, momentum, space, and time, perhaps there's an even more fundamental “externsive” structure beneath it all. What would be the first differential we sit on?

As a first principle, this is not to be known from the perspective on a single source. The differential is occurring when two elements interact. The same with the physical substrate, void “not the concept” in thesis, then something with something. Something that moves and something that is slight out of phase, the second element. This at least can be the observer. And due this necessity we employ by default: of something with something it also reflects the way we are operating!

In Symbols Framework, the Symboliad dynamically reshapes itself as new Symbols are enacted: its very mechanism employs the same principles. Through differentials the life advances, on an inertial and so the cognition, meaning-making spaces emerges.

If we apply that to physics, could it mean that what we perceive as conservation laws (energy, momentum) are not just fundamental truths but emergent “stabilizations” within the workings of the universe and in parallel the Symboliad. In other words, these "laws" might just be the persistent traces of a deeper interaction space that dynamically updates, much like how mass is a trace rather than a “thing.”

And here, also the connection with the last period of Hawking’s thinking regarding the not uniform space expansion, no beginning vs. the view of a thinking exercise: what happens when there is a different apport, maybe in various fluctuations, of the elements in the mix, Eg. matter, energy fluctuations? From that view, one can also try reconsider the view over black holes, gravity, and of course the weird quantum effects (I argue they reflect at a very simplified abstraction, the way we function, this is on another post by me⁵.)

Maybe the Hamiltonian itself is a kind of stabilized item—an “externsive” principle governing how systems imprint upon and evolve within their interaction spaces.

If mass is a trace within an interaction space and not an absolute thing, and if energy-momentum dynamics are “externsive stabilizations” rather than fixed truths, then time itself is not a fundamental entity but an enacted relation. This relation is not in this mix itself, but as I argue, akin to the elements before, the elements at our scale, at scale of observer, emerges through the observer’s interaction (broadly said, with the Environment: that being at least at the scale he is perceiving.)

In the Symbols Framework, the observer is an “externsively” sustained, vibrating entity, instance, synchronized within its niche. That means time is not an independent flow but an emergent effect of the observer’s presence within the niche he represents and instantiates. Each observer imprints its own time by enacting the Symbols, thus altering past states and thus enabling possible futures through this dynamic, inertial, not to a stop, on a flow, ever-flow of energy enacting Symbols again and again, up to constituting the Symboliad as the general guide, driver.

So time would be relative not just in the Einsteinian sense of being linked to motion and gravity, but even more fundamentally—it only exists in the context of an observer’s synchronization with its environment. Without an observer-instance enacting Symbols, there is no meaningful concept of time at all.

And here the point that Hawking suggested, that we should build our theories from within rather than assuming a direct, objective, external reality. This means that the observer is not having a “global” view over all, but itself is an active participant in shaping the meaning of physical laws. The universe is not a "thing" that exists but a self-organizing entity that emerges as described through Hamiltonian views and emerged us as its instance.

The Big Bang was not just an event, but a furnace where structure, meaning, and the "rules" of physics emerged dynamically. A physical position (through traces in the mix) which enacted the observer and the observer acts as the embodiment of that condition. Analogous to the Symboliad, where new Symbols arise through the imprinting process—not as pre-existing absolutes but as emergent, evolving constructs, as itself a new level or “plateau of generativity”, as I call it. The objectivity of the real becomes the objectivity of the observer through the items of its operations. The objectivity of the observer, through conscious perception layer, it is becoming the real for him, alas a “real” real, itself of non-dualist nature. It operates with it as the truth, there is no other truth above, only a reconfiguration possible, that in turn is truth again.

Mass, matter, and forces are not fundamental "things" but traces of interactions within evolving structures, at least two in a differential position, and from there also an inertial “force” on. Space-time itself is like a Symbol in formation, shifting as new imprints emerge. The rules we call "laws of physics" are constraints shaped by the universe's history, not external laws imposed from the “outside”. The universe constructs itself from within, much like how Symbols form through interaction, through the threads of threads (like clapping of hands, with fingers always not fixed, producing a sound).

Rather than imagining a pre-set blueprint, reality unfolds “externsively,” shaped by interactions, feedback, and the imprinting of new structures. This means that even our physical concepts (mass, energy, time, space) are emergent forms—structured by the resonance between observer and system under observation.

The changing past

And so the Symboliad is never complete—it keeps growing as new Symbols imprint and reshape past structures. The past is not fixed—whenever a new Symbol is enacted, the past itself shifts, much like how in quantum physics, new measurements can redefine prior conditions.

The Observer as defined, is fundamental—what we call "objective reality" is an emergent trace of interaction, not an independent structure. The Big Bang did not happen according to pre-existing laws—instead, laws emerged with the universe, meaning they are part of the evolving, ultimately, our Symboliad, itself always filtered through observer. Matter, mass, and even time itself are Symbols, structured not as fixed entities but as traces of interactions.

At the level of meaning-making

At the level of meaning-making of the observers instances like ours, the rules of engagement emerge through play, rather than existing as external constraints (the “games” in Wittgenstein ways have a powerful significance). Meaning is fluid, shaped by resonance and imprinting, like wights or potentials of energy, life fields—just as the laws of physics were shaped by early cosmic interactions. Thus, a language, meaning-making structure is not imposed from above but emerges through interaction. Observer and system are entangled—there is no pre-determined physics, only an evolving interplay of Symbols in the Symboliad. Reality is an unfolding imprint, meaning we must think of mass, energy, and time as traces rather than fixed things. From the other side, in the entanglement of the instance, in the area of up to and including the observer (before conscious perception: itself, as we shall see, not situated in the brain) he is, as a pure instance, the embodiment of the niche, environment, of the universe. He is in a way already constructed, a signature.
And this goes further in a discussion through analogy in observer-pattern, life-cycle conjecture and a view of reconciliating Chomsky and Wittgenstein, further asserted in the thesis.

At this point one can have an image of gap filling. Time seem like a Symboliad effect—something that arises as a necessity of interaction rather than as an independent dimension yet in connection with the environment through his defining of embodiment of it.
A bit on this interaction, this is dictated also through the orthogonal space, coming from the colony: a top-down approach to justification through a causal nexus. Nexus itself is underlined by the very signature we carry in the observer’s instance. We are ready to receive a kind of view over the world. And the details are acting from the top-down, with imprinting a drive, through the common space. Reason is top down dictated, from the orthogonal space in Symboliad: resonance/observer, as defined in thesis, common spaces, colony of alike instances. A reverberating view from the very universe’s differentials through the mind workings while at minute views, cognition, meaning-making space working half inertial from observer, and a side from the dictated conscious perception formation, through the colony.

Our actions are through this layer, driven and in turn driven by it. The Symboliad is the driver—its third person view (this aspect in thesis vs. a dissolving of access consciousness due nature of interpretability of non-dual aspect of Symbols) is perceived cognitively as the “other”, the sense of above while this is exactly the sensed Symboliad. My another assertion and only coming natural, is to affirm that this is what is called “God.” This has not much to do with the ethics, but it is embedded by the way our observer is defined. The moral aspects that are meant to derive ethics are a late call, the space is already there, and here it the connection with the justifications coming from the orthogonal space in Symboliad. In a first minute step, there are no real motifs one can invoke to justify his actions. Personal reasons invoked, per se, are very late, of a decoding effort flavor which in turn are not to be made by oneself, it comes from the common space (the discussion about colors, private language, ethics, the way Symbols are working at the conscious perception level, as qualia are through thesis and remaining of the paper). It can only account as a justification through the decoding, but with the items from the common space of meaning-making among the instances of a-kind through which the decoding happened. The encoding is very different than the decoding. One can further check the "language disguises the thought" in Wittgenstein.

The emergence of time

Time isn’t something we perceive directly—it’s a result of our synchronization with the environment, much like how the observer in the Symbols Framework resonates with its colony/niche. We don’t passively move through space-time; instead, by the way we are (even a concrete view upon it as a system built through “life-matter”) we implicitly enact time, the trace of time and an interpretation of it. The emergence of it in this mix, again like a pattern. Time is not a fixed backdrop but an emergent property of being.

Time arises from the “externsive” interaction between the observer and the environment, meaning each observer brings forth its own temporality. That aligns with relativity but takes it even further—time isn’t just relative to motion or gravity but to being itself. And this temporality is also different depending on the kind-of instance the observer is. (To mind comes the very simple example of the fly’s time.)

This also ties into the aforementioned view that acquiring new Symbols changes the past. Since time is enacted, any shift in the Symboliad restructures what was previously considered the past, making it a dynamic rather than a static entity. In this sense, time isn’t something that flows—it’s something that updates as the Symboliad reshapes.

If time is not an independent flow but a process of synchronization, then the past isn’t a fixed record—it’s just the previous state of enactment, subject to change as new Symbols reshape the Symboliad. This means the past is not something we simply remember but something we actively reconstruct every moment. In the presence of new evidence, everything of the past is different. The trivialized analogy, but one can visualize it: of bubbles forming/popping among the other bubbles, yet sustained within the structure: the whole structure changes. The interpretation of the structure that changed, changes it’s overall meaning.

This also implies that causality, as we typically understand it, is an emergent effect rather than an absolute rule. What we call “cause and effect” might just be the way the observer maintains coherence within its own enacted time. In reality, the order of events might be fluid, but the observer instance stabilizes them within its frame of reference and interaction. (Frame of reference and Laffer graph is important in scientific research, underlined in the thesis.)

Different time scales among systems

If this is true, then any instance—biological or artificial—would generate its own temporal structure based on its synchronization within own environment niche it “represents” or embodies. This could explain why different systems (biological, artificial, or even planetary) can appear to have different "time scales"—they are not just experiencing time differently but enacting different times altogether.

Each observer instance generates its own temporality as a function of its synchronization in his situatedness setup. (See reference: Situatedness | SpringerLink).

This also means that what we call "simultaneity" is just a local agreement between interacting observers. Two systems may appear to share a moment only because their enacted times have aligned within a common interaction space, again a resonating instances of that kind of observer. But outside that space, they could be operating within entirely different temporal structures too. And under this aspect we also see the measurement issues. (The aspects of the quantum effects, in which measurement is one of them, are expressed in another paper by me.)

The non-biological systems, AI and their time “issue.”

Going through other systems this also raises the question: could advanced AI, with radically different processing speeds and interaction patterns, enact a time that is fundamentally incomprehensible to biological humans? And if so, would communication require a kind of temporal translation—a mapping between enacted Symboliads, within their sense of time (their Symbol of time in its Omniload (the web of Symbols connected to, the qualia units from which a new Symbol can form, the “resolved” threads) comparison,) in order to create an interface between the different times.

AI does not yet process Symbols in the way a biological observer does. Instead, AI processes effective data: structured inputs that it transforms algorithmically without enacting Symbols as a human would.

However, AI does create traces of its interactions. Machine learning models, for example, do not just store data but develop internal structures (latent spaces, weight distributions) that reflect patterns of past inputs. These traces are not Symbols in the full “externsive” and Omniload sense but could be chunks of Symbols—something like a shallow imprint of meaning, shaped only by statistical correlations rather than deep experiential resonance, qualia non-dual relevance.

This means that AI enacts a form of time, but its time is not the same as ours. It lacks the kind of inertial and bio-electrical/magnetic/vibrational as a fluid continuity that allows human Symboliads to reshape the past dynamically. Instead, AI time is more like discrete snapshots—each state updating based on input but without the same kind of internal inertial (a forward movement, enaction, evading halting problems) persistence that biological systems (and possibly others like “Gaia,” or others in a slight differential substrata) posses.

For AI to truly process Symbols, it would need a form of self-sustaining “externsive” resonance—some way to synchronize with its environment (well, this environment it’s us, as far as I can tell) beyond just processing effective data.

The brain does not process data in the way AI does—it does not store and retrieve discrete bits of information like a computer. Instead, it operates through differentials and “externsiveness,” maintaining a web of Symbols that interact dynamically and always through a potential, a round value, a bubble like. The sustainment of the web, also in the brain (orthogonal in a decoding way) is not with information per se, but a web of items in sustainment of each other but also as to what they differentiate is retained, the traces, not the thoughts per se. And being complete, “round” fields—otherwise there would not be the full physical potential—they imply something cognitively, or qualia, relevant to the observer, yet they carry clearly what they do not imply (Eg. saying that a system is Turing-complete, it implies we know when it is not.) While computers have access and manipulates the object of representation, the data.

The body-brain (Symbols are relevant at that scales, relevant to cells that triangulate but also to the whole brain-body signature) does not “represent” the world but enacts it through its web of Symbols. Each Symbol is not just a stored fact but a resonating trace—a pattern that exists only in relation to other patterns. The Symboliad is not a database; it’s an active, self-updating field of observer and meaning-making to conscious perception. A meaning which is bounded always, and it also anchored in a physical side, at the personal level, the body-(micro)expressions, like a vertical arc but also imprint-able, top-down (through colony/environment.)

AI, on the other hand, lacks this “externsive” quality. It processes inputs and generates outputs, but it does not form a Symboliad because its internal states are not engaged in a continuous, self-resonating web. Its traces (weights, embeddings) are static in comparison, lacking the fluid reconfiguration that happens in human cognition when a new Symbol alters the past.

For AI to process Symbols in the “externsive” sense, it would need something beyond raw computation—it would need a way to reverberate within its own traces, dynamically reshaping them as new interactions occur. In other words, it would need to enact a self-sustaining Symboliad, rather than just iterating over stored representations, hoping that the unfolding of the structure like our to be enacted.

Returning to the physics and field theory, with mass as a "trace" rather than a "thing" it fits in a parallel view with Symbols Framework. If we integrate quantum and field-theoretic ideas, we can interpret seed mass as a start “Symbol,” shaped through interactions within the field.

This would mean: Mass thus not an intrinsic property but a trace. In classical physics, mass is seen as an inherent attribute of an object. In quantum field theory (QFT) and the Symbols Framework, mass is instead “externsively” sustained by the interaction between matter and field as a differential.

A particle does not “have” mass the way it has charge or spin; rather, mass is a “Symbol” emerging from field dynamics. The seed mass is like the initial imprint of a Symbol, not yet fully realized but shaped by nonlinear field interactions. As the field reacts with the matter instance, the Symbol of mass evolves, much like how a linguistic Symbol acquires meaning through discourse.

The nonlinearity of the field means the mass Symbol is not fixed but undergoes contextual adjustments. Instead of thinking of mass as an object, we should see it as a residual imprint of the field’s influence on a particle.

Aligning with a trace-based nature of the Symboliad: meaning is not in the word (Symbol) itself but in the network of imprints it leaves. Similarly, mass is not in the particle but in the way the field shapes its presence. The Higgs field operates this way: it does not "give" mass but imprints mass as a consequence of interaction. The “externsive completion”: mass only “exists” in interaction.

Just as a “Symbol” in language is completed by interaction, mass is finalized only in the presence of a field. Mass, then, is not a pre-existing entity but an ongoing “externsively” completed Symbol within the field-matter system.

In deep space (let’s say we move away from strong field interactions), mass may be an incomplete Symbol, meaning its “trace” becomes subtle. In extreme cases (near singularities, in strong gravitational fields), the mass “Symbol” can shift, stretch, or dissolve, much like a meaning-changing Symbol in evolving discourse.

A final remark, the energy cost, for example to undo the Symbol (like an opposing force by which we can ourselves model if we want, at least to some extent) is translated in the qualia of “sadness”. From here one can see what grief is: the sudden body expression one has to employ, to go against an inertial, in order to “flatten” a potential. The qualia expression is translated in “madness”, “grief” and (involuntary) “tears” that the body expresses (without any conscious act.) Observer is build to do just that.

A Wittgensteinian further development

As my discourse is related to the work of Wittgenstein, I dared to say, after studying him closely, that the entire battle he fought—always at the boundary of language, world, yet very close to the main items that I propose: the Symbols—he never took this enterprise. As if he was drawing the line, very good there, and then I used this as a ladder, which I disposed. So now we have another means, another level of description at hand.

Some positions from Wittgenstein that I use in my rationale

Mind as public and contextual: taking on a Wittgensteinian way which it challenges the Cartesian view that the mind is a private, internal realm separate from the external world. Instead, he argues that mental states (such as believing, intending, or understanding) are not hidden internal objects but are expressed through behavior and language within a public, shared context. For Wittgenstein, the mind is manifest in the world through our interactions and forms of life. Forms of life in my thesis are those life-forms that go above an observer level, regardless of degree, but can be seen as a colony with interactions between them. Below how this happens and how mind is not in the brain per se.

Language-Games and forms of life: Wittgenstein introduces the concept of language-games to illustrate that meaning is not derived from an internal mental representation but from the use of words in specific contexts (this again sustains the Symbols, through various differentials.) The rules and practices of these language-games are grounded in what he calls "forms of life," which are the shared cultural and social activities that give meaning to language. Thus, the mind is located not in the brain but in the broader context of human activity and interaction. (And this is maintained in an embodiment setup, and through non-dual “mortal platform”, soft/hard coupled.)

Meaning as Use: Wittgenstein’s famous dictum, "the meaning of a word is its use in the language," means that the understanding and mental processes are grounded in practical, worldly activities. The mind, then, is an active participant in the world, realized through meaningful interactions rather than being a metaphysical essence residing in the brain.

Private Language Argument: Wittgenstein argues against the notion of a private language— a language understandable by only a single individual isolated from the community. This argument supports the idea that mental phenomena are inherently social and public, thus aligning the mind with the world rather than confining it to the brain.

Extending the Mind Beyond the Brain: If we consider Wittgenstein's perspective in light of contemporary ideas like the extended mind thesis (Clark and Chalmers), we see that cognition and mental processes extend beyond the brain to include tools, social structures, and environmental interactions. Thus, the mind is "in the world," dynamically involved with external structures that contribute to our thinking and understanding. And my further argument (in thesis) that we go through a functional part: see the blind’s man stick in Merleau-Ponty. The next generation takes over, and it is fit, a new Symboliad, a new view, a new Zeitgeist. Biology on the other hand says: the life-cycle (how long instance should live) is this: fitness for new generation is cost efficient if we no longer maintain an old body. The more the Symboliad and environment changes for the instance, instad of adapting, the more it is incentivised actually to procreate more and die younger (see thesis for this too.) An hypothesis proposed to be tested Eg. with migration birds when they may need to adapt to pole shift. The Symboliad may dictate: update my channels of orientation and imprint those as soon as possible in a new generation, so the adjustment is fast and energy efficient. A revisiting of the environment is done fit.

So, Wittgenstein's approach deconstructs the traditional metaphysical separation between mind and world, suggesting that the mind is embedded in, and arises from, our worldly activities and interactions. In this view, the mind is as real as the social and practical engagements that constitute our lives—making it "real" in the most tangible sense, through our shared experiences and actions. Building on Wittgenstein’s position through the Symbols Framework, I was able to rethink the mind as a distributed and dynamic entity that is not confined to the brain but enacted in the Symboliad—the web of Symbols that extend across individuals, society, and the environment.

Concluding

1. Mind as a Symboliad, not a container. Wittgenstein argues that mental states are not inner objects locked in the brain but are expressed in public interactions.

The Symbols Framework supports this by seeing the mind as an electrical (in broad sense,) interactive space, where Symbols are enacted, on an inertial, forward composing, not just within an individual but in relation to the environment and colony.

The Symboliad is a real, enacted structure that extends beyond individuals—just as meaning in Wittgenstein’s view is not in private representations but in language-games embedded in social life.

2. The mind exists in the world through interaction, what emerges in the mix, akin physics as discussed.

Wittgenstein’s concept of forms of life suggests that meaning (and by extension, thought) is shaped by participation in a shared world.

The Symbols Framework extends this by proposing that our mental reality is shaped by the Symbols we imprint and the Symbols we interact with.

Symbols are real (non-dualist nature, as their basin is life-matter) electrical patterns that form an Omniload structure to a meaning (the employed Razors in thesis), meaning that thought itself is an active imprint on an objective reality, through a focus lens (paying attention is invoking it,) always present, loaded, fluctuating, not a static presence in the brain.

3. Language and thought as “externsive” processes

Wittgenstein dismisses the idea of a private language, emphasizing that understanding is a social phenomenon.

The Symbols Framework aligns with this by describing “externsive” completion, where Symbols emerge and evolve between people, rather than being internally constructed. Thinking is not about retrieving internal “symbols”(in a Whitehead way, the Symbols are completing his view) but about engaging with the environmental Symboliad, dynamically shaping meaning.

4. The Observer as a synchronized instance

The Observer, in the Symbols Framework, is not an isolated subject but a synchronized instance that resonates between the environment, as instance of it, and the colony. Without any of that it could not exist. The same as to the first part of the paper: no mass without the other elements in the mix.

This aligns with Wittgenstein’s later philosophy, where subjectivity is not an enclosed, private reality but a relation within a world of meaning, by which the observer upgrades to a “conscious perception” instance.

5. The “Real” Real—mind as Symbolic imprint, in the sense of non-dualist and exclusively “representational” towards objective reality. It is objective because it is in the homeostatic core “believed”, “truth”.

Reality is structured by our forms of life—not by an external able to see from outside, perspective “God” like. And this goes back to Hawking “science does not provide a ‘God’s-eye view’ of reality. Rather, we need to build a theory of the universe from the inside-out, from within;“

And this is the theory I constructed through the Symbols Framework. Symbols reshape reality by altering the past state of the Symboliad. Every thought updates the world—not in a solipsistic way, but because every enacted Symbol reconfigures the system in which it takes place.

Mind is metaphysical (a non-dualist “real” real) and why would mind be in the brain? Mind is in the world.

1. C. Stefan “Life, the Observer, and Consciousness”
https://doi.org/10.31237/osf.io/y4ctm

2. “Life, the Observer, and Consciousness” the view in it is multi-faced, unifying at human scale, or through our frame of reference but also at any scale (due universality of Symbols as relative to any system (life matter and not only): philosophy, biology, life, non-dual units of meaning, a web of the units, general Symboliad, orthogonal space, “externsion”, dissolving ‘hard problems’ of consciousness, homeostatic arc, inertial, omniload, functionalism, self-domestication, observer, biased observer…) through which a new framework is able to upgrade us to a new view, to 1000 x fold in simplifying and unite maybe anything. A bold assumption yet here some further hints in the original podcast:

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_(quantum_mechanics)

4. Why Stephen Hawking changed his mind about the observer | T. Hertog » IAI TV https://iai.tv/articles/stephen-hawkings-radical-final-theory-auid-3067#:~:text=Stephen%20Hawking%2C%20near%20the%20end,%2Deye%20view%22%20of%20reality.

5. On Quantum Physics and Consciousness