Quantum Consciousness and the Illusion of Reality | Federico Faggin

I am the universe observing itself because my consciousness was in this sea of white scintillating light that was coming out of me. You know, I am both the source and the observer of this thing. What I am is love, joy, and peace, which is, you know, wow, I thought I was a human being, a machine, which is not true. I mean, you know, our cells are quantum and classical. I am a field. I'm not the body. The self is much vaster than the ego, which is what we normally think we are. When we awake, like in my first awakening experience that I described earlier, once you make a connection with your vaster self, then, you know, the information exchange between the ego and the vaster self increases dramatically, and it comes in the form of, you know, other extraordinary experiences of consciousness, more intuitions, and so on.

Great. Thank you, Michael. I'm glad to be in the crowd of the people that are thinking deeply about this subject.

Yeah. So as a way of background, we are in the late '80s. At that time, I was trying to understand consciousness. I had sort of discovered for myself, I mean, not discovered consciousness, but discovered for myself the issue of consciousness, because I was trying to understand neural networks, studying neuroscience, reading books of biology, and so on. And it occurred to me that we do not recognize things by electrical signals or biochemical signals. We recognize things because we feel, we have experiences, and, you know, so that's what consciousness does. And it dawned on me that it was impossible to transform electrical signals and biochemical signals into experience, what later philosophers call qualia. In other words, the experience is something that goes beyond electrical signals in the brain. And that, you know, at that time I was trying to understand, could I make a robot or something, some, you know, some computational structure that could show consciousness, that could have feelings, and that was impossible. And I also was not happy in those days, and I wanted to understand the source of my unhappiness. And unhappiness or happiness are phenomena of consciousness, not electrical signals in the brain. So, at least not for me. And it was in that climate of searching or wanting to know, having already accepted that I had full responsibility for whatever happens in my life. And that's, I consider today, I consider that a pre-, you know, an essential precondition to be able to have such experiences. You have to accept that you are responsible for what happens to your life, otherwise you always will look for causes outside of yourself. So I was, you know, I was unhappy. So I said, well, I want to find out why I am unhappy. You know, I caused that to myself. So let's find out. And so with that preliminary, then one night in 1990, during the Christmas holidays, I was in Tahoe skiing with the family. And one night I woke up, midnight or so, and I was thirsty, and I wanted, I got to the kitchen, got a glass of water, went back to bed, and while I was just waiting normally with thinking nothing, you know, to fall back asleep, you know, a beam of energy came out of my chest, and it was physical. It was not a thought. It was not an image. It was a physical thing, and it was love, and it was perceived as a white scintillating light. It was love, it was peace, and it was joy all mixed together. And the peace was actually the most astounding thing because I never felt peace. Peace was simply the fact that my consciousness was in this energy, and I finally recognized myself in this energy, which is love, joy, and peace. So I am this, you know, I am this thing that comes out of me. And of course, you know, the stunning thing was, how can I generate this energy, this love? I mean, how is that possible? Then this love exploded. It went everywhere, and all of a sudden I am, you know, I am immersed in this light, white scintillating light. My body was hot. It was vibrating as if the cells of my body were, you know, going with this scintillation of the light. And I recognized that, of course, my consciousness was also out in everything, right, in this light that covered everything that I could see. So all of a sudden I realize that I am both the observer and the observed. You know, again, a complete reversal of the sense of myself, because I am normally separate from what I observe. You know, the observer and observed are completely different aspects of reality. Well, now I am the observer of myself, and as I observe myself, my sense of self is both in me and in the world that I am observing. So this is crazy. And then a thought comes to mind, and a thought is, oh my God, this is a thought recognition. Wow, this is the stuff of which everything is made. So, you know, this white scintillating light is the substance out of which the universe is made. So the universe is made of something like what I felt that observed itself, and that was the end of the experience. And of course, that experience changed me completely, because from, you know, it was a 180 degrees, you know, basically I was the opposite of what I had accepted myself to be, which was the, you know, studying physics, studying science, I had accepted the fact that I'm the body, and as such, when the body dies, there is nothing left of me, and all that kind of ideas that now I call scientism, because they're not ideas that are proven to be true. They're simply extrapolations from a starting point that accepts only the existence of what exists in space and time and you can measure. But if you start with that, you know, you have eliminated what is interiority that cannot be measured. So, you know, science has started with an idea of the world that has eliminated a priori our humanity, our sense of who we are, our capacity to understand, and all of that that, of course, have to preexist or at least be concurrent in existence with everything. So in other words, consciousness and free will cannot derive later from brains of animals. It must be right at the very beginning a part of reality, of the fundamental reality. That, of course, you know, that kind of, I'm saying what I'm saying now after 35 years of work, you know, at that time it was clear that I had hit and I had understood at an intuitive level, a kind of understanding, intuitive understanding, which is what, of course, interiority is about, that required a rational analysis. And so, you know, and that experience had such a power that it directed me to find out, you know, just like when you have an, you know, as an inventor, you have an idea and you get it that, wow, this can work, and, you know, and then you go and you start working until you make that idea work. Same way, I'm an inventor, so I understand this, and so it was like a, you know, a flash of insight that told me this is the way reality is, not what you thought. And 20 years later, I arrived after working very hard with myself, 30, 40% of my time, I was running a couple of companies during that time, so a lot of work to arrive at the conclusion, which was a conclusion that was the beginning of a new level of inquiry. The conclusion, which is an hypothesis, that consciousness and free will must come, must be together, and they must be, they must exist at the beginning of the universe. They cannot come later. They have to be part of the nature of everything.

Well, I mean, the most important thing is that I am, I am the universe observing itself with my point of view. You know, I was observing myself because my consciousness was in this, you know, sea of white scintillating light that was coming out of me. So, so I am, you know, I am both the source and the observer of this thing, you know, that I am observing. And, and what I am is love, joy, and peace, which is, you know, wow, that's crazy. You know, I, I thought I was a, you know, I was a human being, a machine made of biological stuff. And of course, in those days, I had not come to the conclusion that biology had to be quantum and classical. I thought, you know, I, again, I bought the idea that life is a classical phenomenon, which is not true. I mean, it, you know, our cells are quantum and classical. So we are a collection of cells that work through principles which are not principles of classical physics, which are the principles that, that makes a computer work. The principles of quantum physics are completely different. So we are not built like a computer. In fact, every cell of my body contains the genome of the egg that created the entire body. So the instructions, the, the, you know, the, the potential knowledge of the entire organism is contained within each of its parts. Our cells are parts-whole. They are both part but also whole because they have the genome of the entire organism. This is incredible. You know, a computer is made of transistors. On, off, on, off, on, off. That's it. What does a, what does a switch know about the entire computer and its workings? Nothing. Maybe just zero and one, but that's not much.

I had hundreds, I had of what you would call extraordinary experiences where, you know, they came generally, they came in response to questions that I had, and they were spontaneous, just like the first one. I would have never imagined that something like what I experienced existed. I mean, if you had, you know, so how, how can I ask to have an experience in a certain way if I don't even know that it's possible to have such an experience? You know, for example, I experienced my consciousness as a point of light at the base of my sternum. Everything that existed was this point of light, and that was me. Then I experienced myself out of body, so I'm, I'm, I'm not even in the body, I'm outside the body. In, in this early experience, I was both inside and outside. But then what was outside was this light. It was not reality, you know, the real, the physical reality. Then I experienced myself as out, inside and outside. But then this time the outside was the conventional reality. So my consciousness was in the grass, in the trees, and the buildings that were in front of me, and so on. And then I experienced myself where I, you know, and this I believe, you know, the way that I interpret this experience is a memory of something that there was a field. There was a field, and in this field all the qualia were all in this field of qualia, but there was no observer. So there was, there was a field of stuff that I recognized as lights, as sounds, as emotions, but they were not my emotions because there was no me yet. So I perceive, you know, the way I reconstructed this later was that it was an experience when I was very young, maybe one, two weeks old. So these other experiences, you know, so now, now it's before there is even an observer, but there is a field of stuff. Just to give you a few, then I was out of body, okay? So my consciousness is not even in the body, it's, you know, it's outside, and, and on it goes. So, you know, what, you know, and it was through these experiences that I could then construct a theory, because I had to explain whatever theory I could put together. It had to explain what I experienced. I mean, this is science. Science, you know, you can experience what happens in the laboratory, and you can experience what happens within you. Except that generally scientism, what I call, you know, now a religion, which is what we believe based on science, but it's not science, because it goes against the principles of quantum physics. For example, scientism believes that only what exists can only exist in space and time, and exist only what you can measure. So if you believe that, then we have eliminated any kind of inner experience. And when you do that, you eliminate our humanity, the fact that we have a soul, that we have a mind that can intuit things, and so on. So this is the situation that we have today.

In fact, most of those experiences that I had, that I call extraordinary experiences, are more real than what I call the reality of an ordinary experience. So, so how can that be? And of course, people that tell you what you should experience or what you should think about your experience, you know, are not, cannot be correct, because you are the judge of your own experiences, not them that ever had such experiences. So, shut up.

You know, come on. I mean, you know, you want to tell me what I have to, what I had, I have experienced.

I mean, I actually had similar to yours, but actually I was fully out of body, and I was out of body a few seconds, but I got scared, and I was, you know, sucked back into my body, and this happened three times. And then one night I woke up, and half of my body was out and half was in, and I was awake, like, and it was the most crazy thing. Half of me is out, and, you know, and the rest is in.

I did, I did, I did, I went to Monroe several times, different, you know, I did Gateway also. I never went out of body there. I had some extraordinary experiences there, but they were not out of body, they were other experiences. So it was an environment that was conducive to have other experiences, you know, deepening experiences, but not, I did not go out of body.

No, because I, you know, I think, I think, you know, I mean, we would stay here for hours and hours, you know, to share. I have shared enough. I think that the important thing is to understand that there is a, there is a theory that can actually explain it, because otherwise it's all kind of stuff, right? But I'm a physicist, and I want to understand what's going on, and what these experiences are showing, that there is a deeper reality that science today has ignored, and has ignored because it has been eliminated at the start by the misunderstanding of what quantum physics has been telling us. Quantum physics has been telling us that the world is not the way we think the world works. And, you know, the interpretation of quantum physics is still up for grabs, because physicists have not agreed at all how to interpret the craziness of quantum physics. So together with a famous physicist that, you know, is an expert in quantum physics, I have created a theory, and this theory explains perfectly exactly the stuff that physicists have never understood. But of course, you know, as you know, you get, you get wedded to your own way of thinking, and so it's very hard to reach people that believe that know more than you. And so they, you know, we are here to talk about this stuff, and I would like to tell you about this theory, because this is really, you know, the next step, otherwise we keep on arguing about something that cannot be checked or understood, because there is no theory even to talk about it.

Okay, yeah. So, so a few words of the distinction between classical and quantum. So, the classical world is the world of objects which are macroscopic objects. Macroscopic means something, you know, that you can see with an optical microscope, not with a, not with a, you know, an electronic microscope. So composed of lots of atoms and molecules, but there are tiny objects that you cannot even see. For example, a living cell, a living cell, the smallest one, the, you know, bacteria, the smallest bacteria has already 10 billion, 10 billion atoms. So my goodness, that's a lot of atoms. Okay, but that's the smallest one. You need a very, very major microscope to see that. In fact, you can hardly see it with a conventional microscope. But anyway, so, so that world is deterministic. You know, what does it mean? It means that it can be described perfectly, at least for, not forever, but for a short period of time that depends on the complexity of the system and, you know, how much interaction that system, how much you can keep that system isolated from the rest of the world, and so on and so forth. But basically you can describe, you can have equations, mathematical equations that describe the motions of that object in space and time. Okay, so that reality is what today scientism believes is the only reality. Now there is another physics, quantum physics, that describes particles, atoms, and molecules, you know, very microscopic, very small, but not just that, because for example there are microscopic quantum phenomena that are quite large and quite powerful. For example, a laser light. Laser light is quantum light which appears, you know, as a very sharp, is monochromatic, and all the photons are in phase. So this light maintains its coherence. So that even if you beam a beam of, you know, a beam of laser light to the moon, that beam is only a few meters wide. So, I mean, amazing coherence, right? Where if you beam a beam of monochromatic light, you know, the beam diverges, you know, enough that you wouldn't even, you know, you wouldn't even see it in the moon, you know, it would never, never stay coherent enough for that. And yet it is purely, you know, purely monochromatic light, but because it's not in phase, and that phase is quantum phase. It's not necessarily the phase of the wave the way you imagine it, but let, you know, it's too complicated to go into the details. So let's stay at this level. So sure. So quantum physics, one of the major fundamental differences between quantum physics and classical physics is that the laws of quantum physics only tell you the probabilities of all the positions or velocities that you could determine a particle to be, for example, but not where you will measure that particle or at what velocity, what velocity will have that particle. It can only tell you the possibility, the probability of the possibilities. So it doesn't tell you what happens. What happens is indeterminate, though it will be with those probabilities and those possibilities. So it can tell you what you can know about, but not what you will know when you make a measurement. And that is the major problem with quantum physics, it's called the collapse of the wave function. The collapse. It's called the measurement problem, which is basically, you know, one of the ways in which you explain this incomprehensible phenomenon is called the collapse of the wave function, which says that when you make a measurement, you will measure randomly the position or the velocity that you will find for that particle will be a random event, non-algorithmic random event that you cannot predict. So if you prepare a system in, you know, you prepare the same system at the same condition and you repeat the experiment, you can verify that the probabilities are exactly the way the theory tells you, but you had to make thousands of experiments of the same experiment, and then you find that the profile of probabilities is actually the behavior that you observe. But it's naturally because a lot of particles, you know, appear where they are highly probable, very few where they're low probable, nothing when there is zero probability that something be there. And so quantum physics cannot tell you what happens because what happens is not determined by quantum physics, it's determined by something else. And the something else is the collapse of the wave function, which is just a phrase that means nothing really because you cannot, you cannot tell what happens. Only when you do many measurements you will see that the measurements correlate with the probability, you know, but every time you measure, you do the experiment again, you will find that the particle appear in different orders in all these positions in which they appear, and yet they will build up at the end the same pattern, which is the probability, is basically the probability distribution that is computed by the theory is reflected in the number of particles that are in different positions.

Yeah. What is going on is that within scientism, within scientism, quantum physics does not describe ontology, it's simply a mathematical theory, it's a mathematical theory that makes predictions about what you can measure in space and time. That's it. So it doesn't describe reality. It describes, it's a mathematical theory, it's a mental construction that allows you to tell, it tells you all that you can know about physical reality. That's it. But in this new theory that I'm talking about of consciousness and free will, the quantum physics is actually describing ontology. But it describes ontology in a way that is completely new because we have never given ontology to this type of, to consciousness and free will. In fact, scientism says that free will doesn't exist. And if free will doesn't exist, then consciousness has no purpose. There is no causality. So it's just an epiphenomenon of the brain. I mean, that's what most theories of consciousness say. There is no free will and consciousness is simply an epiphenomenon of the brain. But in the theory that I have with Dariano, Professor Dariano, we say that consciousness is a property of a field, of a quantum field, that I will explain how. And free will is a property also, you know, that you cannot take apart. It is part of the workings of the quantum field. So consciousness and free will are aspects of the field that are integral to the operations of the field, and they exist as the field exists. And when I'm talking about the quantum field, you know, quantum theory describes the fields, for example, of the particles, the field, you know, the quantum field of electrons, the quantum field of quarks, the quantum fields of electromagnetic radiation, and so on and so forth. And so those are the fundamental fields, and in this theory these fields are conscious and then free will. So what does consciousness and free will do then, and why? How can we explain them? All right, so let's take the field of electrons. The field of electrons, first of all, in quantum field theory, is the reality of electrons. Even though, you know, even though as I said earlier, most scientism, the scientist, not the, not the scient, well, there is a problem here with, with language. Yes. With, with, in Italian I can say, I can, I can actually distinguish the, the scientist of science and the scientist of scientism. I can use two different words. It's hard to do it in English at least. I, I, they don't come right, right now. So let's forget about it. But basically scientism is saying that, that, you know, the, the state of the electron, the state of the electron is actually what we call an electron, and the state of the electron is not separable from the field of electrons. So, you know, it's not like, you know, you can no longer think of a particle of the electron as a particle because it is really a manifestation of the field, inseparable from the field. And this is a, this, this new way of thinking about electrons and fields really happened about 50 years ago. So it's not, not in the early days of, in the early, in the early days of quantum physics, an electron was considered a wave or a particle, and it would behave either as a wave or as a particle. But in this new understanding, it is really the best way to imagine that is like a wave of a sea. You know, the wave of the sea is like an electron is something that happens in the sea, but the wave of the sea cannot be separated from the sea. So, so the same way, an electron, the electron is a state, and it can appear and disappear. When it appears, it would, you know, it would appear in the measurement, you know, in space and time, and you say, oh, I got it, I got an electron. But in reality, even that appearance will simply trigger a quantum to classical phenomenon in the instrument, and you would eventually say, oh, there is an electron over here, or over here, over here, or there is an electron with this momentum, or whatever. But whatever you do, you do not see an electron as a classical phenomenon. It's just impossible to see. Okay, so, so the electron is a state that engenders some phenomena that, you know, you eventually can see in an instrument.

Well, I mean, you also have to consider then, you know, the fields, the separate fields are not separate from a field of one. The totality of what exists is fundamentally a huge field that, that out of which you can, you know, you have parts-whole, just like, you know, my cell, the cell of my body are part of the body, and they are inseparable in some way from the environment in which they are part, because, you know, you know, a cell, a cell is not a closed system. You know, it interacts with the environment, which are in the body other cells. So, so we are, you know, the separateness, the, you know, the reductionism of scientism and materialism, which is the other property of scientism, that reductionism is not what reality is about. Basically, quantum physics is saying that the world is holistic. The universe is holistic. It's not made of separable parts. Everything is interconnected within this world, this universe. That's, that's what entanglement has shown. Entanglement is a, is the property that particles that interact, they have properties in common that cannot be known. They cannot be measured except when you prepare them in a special way, and only for very simple systems. But fundamentally, everything is entangled with everything else in ways which are impossible to know. And the picture that comes out is that one, the totality of what exists is not made of separable parts, and that is fundamental. That's, you know, what was my, you know, my take-home, you know, in my first experience, that I was not separate from the, I was not an observer separate from the observed. I was part, I was observer and observed. And now the fields are observers, observed, and agents. In quantum physics, they are all three of those. When, you know, any time that there is an interaction, you have a field that asks a question, so to speak, the other one that responds to that question with free will, and the question is asked with free will. And so, you know, so the question is, the instrument that we built forces the field to interact, the field of the observed to interact with a proper field within the instrument to create an interaction where now you will see then the result, and you then create the theories of quantum physics. But that's what's going on. What's going on is not that there is, you know, that there is a world ruled by mathematics. No, that's scientism, and that's valid only partially within the classical world. In the classical world, you can actually predict things up to a certain level because there is chaotic behavior, and chaotic behavior is determinism that, however, requires the knowledge of the initial conditions to a precision which is impossible because quantum physics doesn't allow you to know those, you know, position and velocity, for example, with infinite precision. And also there is all continuous disturbance and interaction between objects and the quantum vacuum. Quantum physics, the quantum vacuum is not nothing. Quantum vacuum is an active participant to the, to the world of quantum physics. So, you know, all of a sudden we have a completely different reality to deal with. But to go back to the theory, then, if we start with the idea that a quantum field is conscious and has free will, then we can explain the properties of the quantum fields that otherwise will not be explainable. What are those properties? First of all, the state of the quantum field is a vector, is a vector with n components, and the components are complex numbers, and they represent probability amplitudes. Don't ask me to define all these terms because otherwise we stay here another half an hour. But basically what it means is that this state exists in an abstract mathematical space, it's not in space and time. Okay, it's an abstract mathematical space, but it has two crucial properties which are exactly the properties of our conscious experience. That's why we can say that the quantum field is conscious, because those two properties are: number one, the quantum state cannot be reproduced. There is a theorem, it's called the no-cloning theorem in quantum physics, that says that the state of a field cannot be reproduced, cannot be known. You cannot make a copy. If you cannot make a copy, you cannot know, because to know you have to make a copy of what you know. You cannot do that. Not only that, second theorem, theorem of Holevo, says that when you make a measurement of a state, at the most you can get one bit per quantum bit. And the quantum bit, you know, not the quantum state can be described by a vast number typically of quantum bits that are entangled, that have properties in common that are unknowable. And entanglement exists only in the quantum world. It does not exist in the classical world. The classical world can be described by bits, classical bits, zero or one, but the zero or the one have nothing in common with each other or with other bits. They are separate, independent, deterministic states. Not so with the quantum state, because if you measure one of the quantum bits of a state, the ones that are connected are affected by that measurement. And so it's impossible to actually make a measurement without changing what you measure in a fundamental way. So now these are exactly the properties of a conscious experience. My conscious experience, I am a field, and my conscious experience is private, meaning I cannot reproduce it. I can, you know, the love that I feel, I cannot express it as I feel it. I'm the only one to know the love that I feel for someone or for myself, whatever it is, that the feelings, the qualia, the qualia, which are the sensations and feelings that bring the knowing to me, those qualia are private, exactly like the quantum state. The quantum state is private, and what I can say about what I feel, or what someone from the outside can measure, if they could measure what I feel, for example, opening up the brain and measuring these signals in the brain. Okay. What I, you know, that measurement will only give you a small one bit per quantum bit. So, you know, and also what I can say is only a small part of what I feel. So now, so what it means then is that the quantum state of a field is the mathematical representation of the qualia of the conscious experience, of the qualia. But the mathematical representation of the qualia cannot be the qualia. The qualia is my experience, the field that is conscious. You can represent the quantum state, say that's qualia, but only the field knows within the field its own experience, its own qualia. That's the ontology. The ontology is only described by the map of the territory, which is the mathematical representation. So the mathematics is the map of a territory, which is the ontological deeper reality, which is the fact that fields know their own state. Now, of course, that's a step that has to be accepted as, you know, as a postulate, but if you think for a second about it, you know, it explains why you have states that cannot be measured, you know, and that cannot be copied, you know, exactly like we have experience. We experience stuff, our qualia cannot be copied and cannot be measured. And all I can say about what I feel is that, you know, when I say I love you to my son, that I love, I'm not transferring what I feel, I'm transferring my interpretation or my, this, the meaning of the qualia that I feel. But the meaning of the qualia, which is what I then put into symbols, don't even exist in science, because in science information is only what you can measure. So it's completely, and it is a probability, the amount of information is associated with the probability of what you measure. For example, the higher the probability that you can measure a certain symbol, the lower is the content of information, you know, the amount of information that carried by that symbol. That's how information is defined. That definition says nothing about the meaning of the information. For us, for us, the information is the meaning carried by symbols. What we call information is the meaning of the symbols. Yes. That's not what science calls information. Information says simply the probability that a symbol appears is what carries information. The probability of the appearance of symbols is what carries information. Completely different. Exactly. Okay. And it is by this fundamental difference in understanding that is codified using the same words that are deceptive that we are actually getting, you know, getting, you know, thrown away from the deeper reality that we are. The same thing is happening today with artificial intelligence. We call intelligence what is not intelligence. Intelligence is about the meaning of symbols, just like information is about the meaning of symbols, not the symbols or their appearance or their correlations. Really? Yeah, really, that is the major problem today that confuses everybody, and that's the source of what I call scientism as it relates to consciousness.

and free will. Now I did not explain free will, so let me say that and then we can go in the third part. But at least I...

Yeah, but let's not do that, Michael. Let's finish the theory, otherwise it's, you know, because okay, there are so many new concepts here and, you know, we can, you know, jump up and down, but I would want to at least say the theory, the core theory and what it means for quantum physics and, you know, the interpretation of quantum physics and so on. So now we have defined consciousness for a field. So consciousness is a property that a field has to experience its own state. That's what consciousness is. And the state of the field must have the same properties of the experience of the state, which is the experience is private and we can only know a small portion of it. That's it. But now that the field is conscious, now that field then is the one that decides what to manifest when it is measured.

It is the field that decides what to manifest, not the observer. The observer is the one that asks a question by setting up an instrument that is trying to, you know, that will interact, will force an interaction with the field or the particle that you want to know about. So, for example, you're observing an electron and you set up an instrument that wants to determine the position of an electron in a measure, you know, in an experiment. And so where would the electron show up? It would be the collapse of the wave function. So it would show up in all possible positions where there is probability that is greater than zero, and with no rhyme or reason it will appear, you know, randomly at the various positions.

This theory says, uh-uh, the field decides where to manifest the electron. So that's it. The collapse of the wave function has been explained as a decision of free will of the field that is observed by what? By this instrument. The instrument is the one that is observing the field. And then the observer that set up, you know, if it's a human being that set up the experiment, is the one that allowed this interaction to occur. So there was a theory many, many years ago that attributed the collapse of the wave function to the consciousness of the observer, which was the person that set up the experiment. This is not what this theory says. This theory says that the free will is the free will of the field that you are observing. That is the free will that determines where this... because that symbol is the symbol with which that field communicates with the field of the instrument that is interacting with it, because the fundamental reality is that these fields communicate with each other their own meaning to know themselves and the other.

Indeed.

You know, in this way, my decision which I attribute to the body... Yeah. But my decision, I am a field. I'm not the body. So the decision of what I will manifest is basically the decision of the field. And here we have to be a little careful because the self or the field is much vaster than the ego, which is what we normally think we are. We normally think we are the body. So what we think we are is a small portion of the self that we are, that portion that only pays attention to the symbols, to the information produced by the body. And that's where, you know, we also don't understand who we are because we think we are our body because we are convinced that we can only experience what the body is presenting to us. But that is not true because we also experience dreams, for example, which is certainly when our eyes are closed and everything else, you know, where is the dream coming from? Where is the experience of the dream coming from? Especially some of the most vivid and most powerful dreams that are, you know, precognitive dreams, for example, or, you know, dreams where you had solutions to problems, which I had many of. So, you know, so we are vaster beings with a vaster consciousness than what we think we normally are. And when we awake by realizing that we are not the body, like in my first awakening experience that I described earlier, and I realize that I'm the world observing itself. So I'm certainly not, you know, I'm not the body. So when in that experience, then once you make a connection with your vaster self, then, you know, the information exchange between the ego and the vaster self increases dramatically, and it comes in the form of, you know, other extraordinary experiences of consciousness and more intuitions and so on, and generally a better satisfaction in your life.

I got the core part of the theory, which is, you know, now in summary, we are a field. The field is conscious and has free will. And the consciousness of the field can be represented by the state. The state of the field represents the qualia of the conscious experience of the field. And the free will is the ability of the field to manifest whatever symbols, whatever, you know, whatever symbol he wants to express what his inner state is. And it's the field that expresses his own inner state. Not someone that forces or randomness forces an answer or randomness. No, that's not the case. You know, we have free will. Free will means free will to express whatever portion of our own meaning, which is the meaning of qualia. The qualia are the bringers of meaning. The meaning is the deeper aspect of, for example, of the quantum information which represents the state of the field. So in this type of view, there are three aspects which are inseparable: the body, the mind which is expressed by the quantum state, and the spirit which is expressed by the meaning of the experience which is brought by the qualia, which is expressed symbolically by the quantum state.

Correct. Yeah, so that's consciousness, information, and then the physical.