Consciousness as the Source of

Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics

Sky Nelson

Statement of the solution:

There is one unified entity in existence (Self), which perceives the world (itSelf) through
localized perspectives, individually, one at a time.
I have begun with the statement of the solution that mirrors the perennial wisdom of
many Eastern cultures. In this way, one can see the application of these ideas beyond
basic physics. If true, however, the idea must also translate into a physical theory, and
must be described by the language of physics. So I will restate the solution in the
language of physics in two parts:
1. The Information realm: There is a non-physical realm of information, uniform in
its information content, which is the foundation of all physical effects. (The Self)
2. Single-Framework rule: When constructing a meaningful description of the
physical realm, it is necessary to restrict oneself to a single framework
(perspective), and not mix results of multiple frameworks.
I will now reason through the implications of these two statements, and show that they
lead to the seeds of both special relativity and certain interpretations of quantum
mechanics.

Special Relativity
A nonphysical realm would, by definition, transcend measures of space and time.
It would have no measure of spatial separation between its parts, and should therefore be
considered an undivided, uniform whole. Similarly, it would have no measure of duration
or time intervals of separation between its parts, so it would not change over time. Yet
this does not mean that it contains no information. In fact, on the contrary, it must
contain the totality of information.
How can the information realm be both perfectly uniform yet contain
information? It is uniform in its information content. Its information content is
represented by the frequency components that are contained in the information realm. As
is well known, the wave function for a free photon of light is distributed over all of space
and time evenly. This is the same as saying that in the spaceless and timeless
representation, the information represented by that waveform is equally spread
throughout the information realm.
What is not uniform is the phase relationships between components of waves in
the information realm. It is precisely the varying phase relationships between components
of waves in the information realm that gives rise to the physical distribution of objects in
real space and time, exactly as in a hologram. (the information is available uniformly
everywhere, but expressed uniquely at each location)

Formatted: Font: Italic

Formatted: Font: Italic

Because it is uniform, any changes in information within this nonphysical realm

would be omnipresent throughout the information realm. So from the point of view of
information transfer within the information realm, one would say that the time of
information transfer t = 0 (but time doesnt exist in the information realm). In other
words, one cannot imagine information traveling through it. Rather, the information
must exist instantaneously throughout.
As we will see shortly, once we leave the information realm and transform
ourselves into an individuated self, only then do we find that the rate of information
transfer in space-time becomes the speed of light (rather than instantaneous).

Actual Simultaneity Does Not Exist

Adding to this the second postulate (the single framework postulate), we can
derive the physical principles of special relativity by considering the nature of what we
call simultaneous events. Because (according to the single framework postulate) we
can only meaningfully describe the physical realm from one framework (or perspective)
at a given moment, it is only possible for a single observer to experience one local reality
at a time. Now consider that the idea of simultaneous events refers to two events which
are separated in space but coincident in time. This implies that there can be no such thing
as directly experienced simultaneous events, for one cannot be in two places at once.
It is only possible to measure the sort of simultaneity we usually talk about in a
remote fashion; one can never experience two separate but simultaneous events directly.
All we can hope for is to experience events which appear to have been simultaneous. In
other words, we infer from our measurements and the known laws of physics that two
given events must have been simultaneous. Yet we can never experience them both
directly.
True simultaneity cannot be experienced.

Lorentz Transforms
The first postulate implies that the meaning of motion is undefined in the
information realm. The second postulate implies that any observer would have a specific,
individuated perspective within the information realm, and hence a unique state of
motion. (Again, this motion is based on the phase space of the information realm, which
is not uniform).
The motion of any one individuated self must be completely relative to any other
individuated self, because the rules for creating an individuated self from the information
realm are the same for both. Each individuated self must also have exactly the same
relationship to the information realm that any other defined perspective would have. In
other words, all single framework perspectives (i.e. observers) will have relative states of
motion to each other, but an absolute and fixed state of motion relative to the information
realm.
These are exactly the conditions for the derivation of the Lorentz transformations
of space and time. To briefly explain, in the simpler Galilean transformation, we treat all
motion as relative. The Lorentz transformation only becomes necessary when we
consider information about events to be moving at a fixed rate relative to all observers.
In other words, the individuated selves move at varying speeds relative to each other, but

at fixed speed relative to the rate of information transfer. This is the exact scenario
described above that calls for the Lorentz transform.
If we use the fact derived earlier from the first postulate that information is
uniform throughout the information realm, then we can say the rate of information
transfer within the information realm is t = 0. This leads, with straightforward
calculations using the Lorentz transforms, to a minimum delay of t = L/c in order to
transfer information, when viewed from the perspective of any single framework.1
Therefore, when considering supposedly simultaneous events, we will always
experience at least one of the events after a delay due to the propagation of information in
physical space has occurred. The delay will have a minimum value of t = L/c. This is
equivalent to measuring the speed of information transfer as c.
The result is that we predict a maximum speed of information transfer (the speed
of light), that is the same for all reference frames. Indeed, this is Einsteins second
postulate in special relativity. It was arrived at here through two postulates, with no
explicit mention of motion at all. The derivation really has nothing to do with speed per
se, but everything to do with how two observers in different frameworks would perceive
two events.
Einstein's first postulate was the relativity of all laws of physics. This principle
follows fairly directly from the single framework rule, if one takes into consideration that
one must obtain consistent results for the same experiments posed, regardless of
framework.
Hence we have found that the two fundamental postulates of special relativity
arise naturally within the framework proposed above.

Consistent Histories and Relational Quantum Mechanics

The two basic principles can also be seen as the logical source for a quantum
mechanical description of the universe based upon two important interpretations,
Consistent Histories (1) and Relational Quantum Mechanics (1).
First, we accept the single framework rule. Next we use the Machian reasoning
that one cannot speak meaningfully of events that have not been observed from that
single framework.
We find that when an event takes place that is outside the scope of observation
of that framework, no question is asked of the wave function relating to that event.
Therefore, the wave function (and hence the event) remain in an ambiguous state. This
implies the superposition of various possibilities, which is a key piece of the quantum
mechanical formalism. Hilbert space is a natural structure for describing this property,
and so Hilbert space is the structure we use to describe the information realm. The
information realm is seen to be the realm containing all possibilities for the outcomes of
measurements.
As an example, right now (8:00pm) I cannot observe my neighbors in the house
next door. Are they awake? Asleep? Watching TV? It is not possible for me to know
conclusively without making a measurement of their state. Because I cannot possibly
know, and because my single perspective is all that I can meaningfully define, then my
neighbors state must be undefined. This is a macroscopic quantum superposition (MQS)
1

Here, L is the distance between emission and reception of information, and t is similarly the time
difference between these.

state. If I were to go next door and investigate (at, say, 8:05 pm), I could ask them what
they were doing at 8pm. Commonsense would lead me to assume that their reality was
fixed at 8pm, regardless of my knowing it or not. It is equally valid, however, given the
known evidence from my perspective, to treat their state at 8pm as undetermined until it
became determined (after the fact) five minutes later (when I observed them).
Clearly the question of what my neighbors are doing could also be answered in
that moment if I consider a second perspective as simultaneously valid. For instance, I
might suggest that the neighbors themselves have a valid perspective, from which the
events in their life are most certainly definite. This is an example of incompatible
frameworks. My perspective and my neighbor's perspective are both valid frameworks,
but they are not valid at the same time. Each framework can answer a certain set of
questions about the reality, but it only makes logical sense to look through one
framework at a time (ask a certain self-consistent set of questions).
One finds that all paradoxes regarding comparisons of information go away if one
constrains oneself to the Consistent Histories single framework rule. If we can only
look from a single perspective, then all unobserved events remain undetermined, and
entire histories of events must remain in undetermined states. This is a core premise of
quantum theory.
In addition, the fact that one can observe the world only through a single
individualized perspective also leads to the notion that there are no absolute states of
variables. The state of the system can only be defined from within a single framework.
The method through which these frameworks can be compared, and variables seen to
provide consistent results, is the essence of Relational Quantum Mechanics.

Conclusion
Intending to be succinct, the arguments presented here are by no means
exhaustive and not intended as a proof. A longer exposition should be worked out, and
the reader is referred to two earlier papers (1) (2) for an attempt at some of that
groundwork. What we have accomplished within this limited frame, however, is
worthwhile. Its somewhat ridiculous grandiosity combined with its simplicity are, to me,
both a little humorous as well as intriguing. We relied heavily on principles used
successfully by Mach, Einstein, Bohr and many others, in assuming that one can only
meaningfully discuss what one can directly observe. In doing so, we have found a
similarity between the roots of special relativity and quantum mechanics in their use of
(indeed being derived from) the single framework rule.
It is interesting that the postulates presented here can be easily phrased as one of
the most timeless and universal mythologies of metaphysics, namely that of a single
infinite consciousness looking in on the physical world from a multitude of different
individual perspectives.
Works Cited
1. Rovelli, Carlo. Relational Quantum Mechanics. arXiv. [Online] August 31, 1996.
arXiv:quant-ph/9609002.
2. Griffiths, R.B. Consistent Quantum Theory. New York : Cambridge University Press,
2002. pp. 332-335.

3. Retroactive Event Determination and the Interpretation of Macroscopic Quantum

Superposition States in Consistent Histories and Relational Quantum Mechanics. Nelson,
Sky. Petaluma : Society for Scientific Exploration, Summer 2011, Vol. 25 No.2, pp. 273304. ISSN 0892-3310.
4. Retroactive Event Determination and its Relativistic Roots. Nelson, Sky. [ed.] Daniel
P. Sheehan. San Diego : AIP Conference Proceedings, 2011. Quantum RetrocausationTheory and Experiment. Vol. 1408, pp. 45-74. ISBN 978-0-7354-0981-1.