Карасев Александр Владимирович. The Neural Picture of the World

The Neural Picture of the World

The Big Book

There's nothing new here. All the articles are simply collected in one book.

Strung together on a single narrative thread.

A.V. KARASEV

Quantum mechanics is very similar to a neural network. A fundamentally new PHYSICAL picture of the world is built on this similarity. As a result, atomism loses its unfounded claims to uniqueness and exclusivity in explaining physical processes, which are now viewed not as the universal foundation of the universe, but merely as specially simplified manifestations of the higher properties of matter-Life, Mind, and Society-inexplicable within the meager framework of atomism, but for the first time PHYSICALLY substantiated within the neural picture of the world.

Preface

This book is actually about the meaning of life. No, not about what the meaning of life is. But about whether this meaning even exists.

Currently, the atomistic worldview dominates science. It denies the any meaning of life. Of course, there are a huge number of philosophical and religious teachings that do, in fact, offer such a meaning. It's understood in different ways, but that's not so important. The main thing is that it exists. And everyone can figure out for themselves what that meaning is. But all these teachings lack a physical basis. Atomism, however, does. Therefore, all these teachings seem like fantasies, dreams, and illusions, divorced from reality. I couldn't have put it better than Poet.

- My mind persists, denying hope.

Unmemoryness awaits us all beyond the grave.

How?!

Nothing?! ...

The main goal of the neural worldview is to counter the atomistic worldview at the PHYSICAL LEVEL. Not in philosophy, not in religion. But in PHYSICS. To demonstrate that all physical phenomena can be generalized not only on the foundation of atomism, but also on a different foundation, one that could become a solid foundation for many promising areas of science. And - most importantly - to substantiate the existence of some meaning in our lives.

And all that's needed to achieve this is to move from atomistic metaphysics to neural metaphysics.

1. Summary of the Neural Picture of the World

Quantum mechanics is very similar to a neural network.

That All

2. A little more detail. Classical metaphysics

So what? Who cares who looks like whom?

But then again, maybe this resemblance isn't a coincidence? Maybe it's not just a whimsical trick of nature, but a manifestation of deeper, fundamental principles of the universe?

And what exactly is quantum mechanics?

The quantum world consists not of things, but of events. More precisely, the world is observed as a stream of events. And not as a collection of some permanently existing things, as was assumed in classical atomism. In the intervals between events, there are no things. There are only events. Instead of elementary particles, quantum mechanics studies elementary events. But these events need to be named somehow. Elementary quantum events are the registration of particles by counters. It is from these elementary events that the entire diversity of the Universe (supposedly!) is formed. And so, to describe these elementary events, we have to use the concept of THING. As something that constantly exists.

For example.

- An electron was registered by such-and-such a counter.

In fact, no one has ever seen any electron. But we must somehow name the event-the flash or the click-the counter's signal. Our entire language is built on a subject and a predicate. We can't do otherwise. So we have to introduce the subject-the electron-next to the predicate-the event. But in the phenomena of diffraction and interference, it becomes obvious that there are no electrons between events. And attempts to somehow observe them, to track the electron between events, lead to the fundamental destruction of the very basis of the experimental design. That is, the subject-the electron-is not primary, but the predicate-REGISTERED. And the subject-is used solely because of the weakness of our language. Thus, the electron is not some fundamental entity, but merely an image of METAPHYSICS. Not physics, but metaphysics. That which comes AFTER PHYSICS. That is, systems of images, symbols and concepts - on the basis of which directly observed experimental data are generalized and described.

Classical physics strove to completely eliminate metaphysics.

"Physics, beware of metaphysics... I don't invent hypotheses..."

And it seemed to be quite successful. It seemed that the atomic picture of the world was absolutely correct and all-encompassing. That is, it could explain absolutely everything in the Universe we observe. And if some little details-Life, Consciousness, Reason, Society-were not yet fully revealed and understood, then it was only a matter of time. And in the very near future, these minor questions would be completely and finally resolved.

At the beginning of the 20th century, only Poincare warned that science could not do without metaphysics [2]. He called them - "Indifferent Hypotheses" and compared them to the scaffolding necessary for constructing a building. Once the building is completed, the scaffolding is removed. And yet, it must not be forgotten completely. Otherwise, the images of Metaphysics would become established not in the consciousness, but in the subconscious of scientists as absolute truths. And Poincare considered this very dangerous for the development of science. And indeed, the images of atomistic metaphysics became established as indisputable dogmas.

But quantum mechanics has shown that the most basic concepts of atomism-Space, Time, Particles-are also essentially just metaphysical images. And nothing more. And there are no fundamental entities behind them.

For example. The basis of space is a line. I can draw it with chalk on a blackboard. But this is only a crude image of the purely logical concept of a LINE. And behind this crude image lies a certain ideal line, which I can approach with as much precision as I like. Sharpen a pencil, take a scalpel, a diamond cutter, a laser...

But then comes the uncertainty principle. And it turns out there's no such thing as an ideal line. And there's nothing to approach. Because an elementary particle has no trajectory. What's observed isn't a trajectory, but a spectrum of fundamentally random, a priori uncertain, generally unpredictable events. One can only predict the probability of these events on a certain spectrum. That is, as the chalk, scalpel, or cutter shrinks, their trajectory becomes merely an illusion. Therefore, all our geometry is merely an approximate, practical, applied description of that incomprehensible entity we call Space. And even more so, of Time. Of course, it's a very useful description in practice. But there's nothing fundamental behind this description. It's merely an illusion-useful and practical within certain limits. And nothing more.

But at low energies, quantum mechanics retains the illusion of a fundamental concept-TIME. Indeed, the dynamics of the probability spectrum of events (the wave function) are described by a time derivative. Unfortunately, at high energies, even this dynamics becomes indefinite. Describing the continuous dynamics of fundamental high-energy processes becomes as illusory as describing particle trajectories in non-relativistic physics. In a fundamental process, the only observable quantities are the characteristics of free particles-the initial and final ones for a given process [20].

Physics remains faced with only one fundamental task: finding the S-matrix, the complex numbers elements of which determine the RELATIONSHIP between the initial and final states of particles as a result of some elementary process. But what happens to the particles during the process itself? This is fundamentally unobservable. Moreover, any attempt to somehow measure it, or track the particles, leads to a fundamental disruption of the process. Describing the continuous dynamics of a process over time is fundamentally impossible. It is only possible to predict the probability spectrum of the final outcome. In other words, this process degenerates into an EVENT-one that has only a beginning and an end, but no middle ground between them.

So, in the process itself, no particles are fundamentally observable. This means that, at a fundamental level, these particles simply DO NOT EXIST in the observable (visible) world. So what is there exist? There ARE - only CONNECTIONS between the initial and final states of the "particles" registered by the counters. The matrix of these connections (the S-matrix) will be the carrier of all information that has observable physical meaning. We emphasize that the complex elements of the S-matrix are not measurable in themselves. Only the squares of the absolute values of these elements are observed - and only statistically - as the probabilities of transitions between states.

That is, the observed elementary events (and these are only the signals from the particle counters, and nothing else) are linked together only by some fundamentally unobservable - INVISIBLE - array of information - the S-matrix. A matrix of CONNECTIONS. And nothing else. And only these connections, under certain conditions, generate the persistent illusions of the visible existence of particles in space-time. For example - in a bubble chamber.

Thus, in quantum mechanics, the fundamental concepts of classical atomism-Space, Time, Particles-become mere images of Metaphysics. The world is observed as a sequence of events. And the connections between these events are described by a fundamentally unobservable-INVISIBLE-array of information.

This fact in itself is a catastrophe for the atomistic worldview, which is based on the conviction that there is no INVISIBLE WORLD. That the world consists of constantly existing things-whatever you call them-particles, waves, strings, and so on. And that all the characteristics of these things are observable, visible, and measurable with any precision.

It would seem-even a hundred years ago-that this would be the end of atomism. Yet, atomism nonetheless retains its absolute dominance in academic science.

Why?

Simply because, in physics, it has proven most convenient to retain atomistic metaphysics. Despite the absolute unsuitability of this metaphysics for describing the fundamental processes of the Microworld.

It turns out that physicists don't really need the microworld. They need descriptions of large-scale processes-explosions, reactors, lasers, and so on. That is, they need to move from the micro to the macro level. When events don't occur singly, but rather in a continuous, powerful flow. And only in this continuous flow do familiar classical illusions reappear-Space, Time, Particles. And these illusions become so useful that they can be considered ALMOST real-as Feynman teaches [19]. The most remarkable thing here is the word ALMOST.

Truly, you have to be a Feynman to appreciate this caveat. Because all academic science unconditionally considers all this atomistic metaphysics to be the ultimate truth.

Thus, classical metaphysics has been preserved in quantum physics solely because it provides a convenient transition from the physics of the microworld to the description of macroscopic effects.

In other words, physics has been divided into two parts: the Microcosm and the Macrocosm. The laws and concepts of these worlds are fundamentally different. In the Microcosm, atomic metaphysics would seem fundamentally inapplicable. Neural metaphysics is much more closely aligned with the actual content of physics in the Microcosm, because it primarily operates not with things-particles, waves, strings-but with events-detector signals/neuron excitation. It is precisely the use of atomic metaphysics in the Microcosm that ultimately leads to the famous quantum paradoxes-and even to the denial of traditional logic.

But as processes are scaled up, the quantum laws of the Microcosm gradually transition into the classical Macrocosm. All quantum effects are averaged out and-essentially-disappear. And everything is explained based on semiclassical concepts.

And only for this purpose - for the principle of correspondence between quantum and classical mechanics-has it proven most convenient to retain atomistic terminology and atomistic metaphysics. And the resulting quantum paradoxes have long been accepted as a given. Even a special quantum logic is developing - as an independent field of science.

And the quantum properties of Nature are believed to exist only in the Microcosm. And only partially manifest in the Macrocosm-as alien semiclassical arrivals from the Microcosm.

For example, in laser physics, a new semiclassical concept emerges from the Microcosm: stimulated emission. However, in the Macrocosm, the origin of this stimulated emission remains unclear. How can an atom emit exactly the same photon as the one flying nearby? But for those who don't understand, welcome to the Microworld. Where there are neither atoms nor photons. What there are are events linked by the S-matrix. And the probability of a certain event-the emission of identical photons, in Macroworld terminology-is overwhelmingly high.

So the question - is the physics of the Microworld merely a bizarre appendage to the classical foundation? Are the laws of the Microworld valid only in a specific, narrowly defined area? Are they insignificant anywhere else?

It seems strange. Physics is considered the foundation of all sciences. And the physics of the Microworld is the foundation of all physics. And yet, it turns out that this foundation of foundations is merely a bizarre cave in the basement of the UNIVERSE, having no fundamental influence on the upper levels of this UNIVERSE.

The neural picture of the world (NPW) approaches this problem entirely differently. In the NPW, the quantum properties of nature are by no means concentrated solely in the isolated cave of the Microworld, but encompass the entire foundation of the Universe. And within this foundation, a deeper level of understanding nature is revealed-a world of generalizing arrays of information.

And the classical level of understanding nature is merely a superstructure on a neural foundation. Let's examine this neural foundation in more detail.

3. Neural Metaphysics

In NPW, the elementary object is not an electron or a photon, but the entire quantum device-including particle sources and detectors. We have already established that describing this device is the only correctly posed problem in fundamental physics.

And now it turns out that the simplest two-state quantum object is a fragment of a neural network consisting of two neurons [3].

Let's consider this statement in neural terminology.

What is a particle source?

It is a fragment of a neural network that receives a macroscopic signal as its input and produces a microscopic signal at its output.

In atomistic terminology, we say that the source has emitted a particle. If the source's output has two connections, such a source can emit particles in two pure states. Or - of course - in a superposition of these states.

And what is a particle counter?

It is another fragment of a neural network with a single input connection. If a microscopic signal is received at its input, a macroscopic signal is produced at its output. In atomistic terminology, we say that the detector has detected a particle, whose wave function collapses as a result of the measurement (state reduction). And in neural terminology, a command-Update-is sent through a coherent fragment of a neural network, changing the states of all neurons in that fragment.

Let's clarify that all these signals and connections in a neural network are complex numbers . That is, they are described by not one, but two numbers. Moreover, there is an additional parameter to these signals and connections: the imaginary unit.

So it turns out that if a source with two output wires is connected into a single device with two detectors, it will be a fragment of a neural network of two neurons, exactly equivalent to a quantum object with two states. The wave function of the object is the state vector of the neurons. And the S-matrix (the Hamiltonian at low energies) is the neural connection matrix - SHK.

So what?!

And here's what - if an elementary object of the Universe is the simplest fragment of some Neural Network - perhaps the entire Universe is also a neural network - just a slightly more complex one? From which the Researcher specifically extracted and isolated this fragment for study?

So what if it's a Neural Network? It's long been known that we live in a computer simulation, a matrix, a hologram, and so on. And now - a Neural Network as well.

This issue needs to be considered in more detail [6].

Where we live, we will never know. We are like Plato's prisoner in the cave, watching the play of shadows on the wall and trying to establish some patterns in this OBJECTIVE REALITY given to us through our perceptions. But what lies behind this reality, we are given no insight into. Our impotence is too great, as Poincare teaches.

These questions are not scientific, and discussing them is completely pointless and futile.

And the scientific question is this:

What is primary in this REALITY? In this play of shadows, this hologram, this matrix?

The atomic picture of the world answers this question like this: the reality given to us through our perceptions is defined at the most microscopic level. And macroscopic phenomena are merely combinations of microscopic processes.

The neural picture of the world answers completely differently. Our reality is defined in the higher neural layers. And the microscopic level is merely a specially prepared, simplified fragment of the Universe Neural Network, isolated from the influence of the higher layers. It is precisely this extremely simplified layer of the neural network that is the object of study of physics. However, it is obvious that no matter how successful the study of physical objects-that is, deliberately simplified and not controlled from above-can serve as the basis for extrapolating physical laws to higher realms-as was assumed during the era of the atomistic worldview dominance.

This is the essence of replacing atomistic metaphysics with neural metaphysics. All speculations about us supposedly living in a computer simulation, a matrix, or a hologram do not create a new picture of the world. Because they all still assume that elementary processes are primary, and all the rest of the diversity of the Universe is a consequence of combinations of elementary processes. All of these are merely bizarre variations on the atomistic picture of the world.

But neural metaphysics asserts the fundamentally opposite-that elementary processes are merely a consequence of the higher manifestations of Nature. Therefore, the transition to neural metaphysics leads to a fundamentally new picture of the world.

But this new-neural-picture of the world by no means asserts that we supposedly live in a neurocomputer. Just as classical metaphysics never claimed that we live in a mechanism.

The point isn't where we live. The point is that our world is partly similar to the ceramic process [6]

And partly - similar to a clockwork mechanism, a wave pattern, a computer, a hologram...

So the neural network simply asserts that our world is PARTLY SIMILAR TO A NEURAL NETWORK. But based on this similarity, it is possible to create a fundamentally new picture of the universe.

Let us emphasize once again: all the fundamental concepts of classical physics - Space, Time, Particles - become METAPHYSICS in quantum mechanics. Useful, convenient, but still - metaphysics. That is, a way of generalizing and analyzing immediate experimental data. Therefore, the contempt for metaphysics in general inherited from classical atomism actually becomes a subconscious recognition of atomic metaphysics as the only possible, uncontested basis for the universe.

Meanwhile, all the experimental data of quantum mechanics can be generalized in a different way. With the help of a different metaphysics. For example - neural metaphysics. Which is no better or worse than atomic metaphysics. Simply put, it's DIFFERENT. And this different, new, fresh perspective on the foundations of the universe can illuminate other, previously less noticeable properties of Nature.

Feynman called atomic metaphysics very useful for understanding how Nature works. Quite right - who would argue with a Genius? Useful, indeed, but only at the most elementary, primitive, and deliberately simplified level of Nature [5]. Namely this level of lifeless, meaningless, and indifferent nature is called PHYSICS. And for understanding how Nature works at higher levels, atomic metaphysics is not only useless, but downright harmful. It rejects many promising theories that are too restrictive within the framework of atomism.

Well, where there's benefit, there's harm. Disadvantages are an extension of strengths. And vice versa. The images of atomic metaphysics are indispensable in applied calculations of physical processes and in the invention of technical apparatuses [21]. However, when moving toward an understanding of more complex - higher - natural phenomena, these images pull science back - toward mechanism and determinism. In this process, the quantum understanding of nature is effectively rejected. It is unfoundedly claimed that quantum phenomena are significant only in the microscopic realm. And as the object of study becomes larger, the quantum properties of nature supposedly disappear.

This would be true if all the properties of nature were determined at the microscopic level-as the atomistic worldview asserts. But the neural worldview understands how nature works entirely differently. It's not the particles that determine nature. On the contrary, Nature itself, as a single, holistic reality, directs the movement of particles according to its own chosen schedule.

Let's illustrate this with a visual [5].

The study of Nature can be compared to excavating an ancient labyrinth. The classical worldview looks something like this.

Classical Mechanics

Biology

Anthropology

Sociology

We've excavated separate halls-but how are they connected? Which way to exit the labyrinth? Classical science suggests an atomistic approach-from simple to complex. But strictly speaking, this isn't fully scientifically substantiated. It's an extrapolation of scientific data beyond the bounds of firmly established certainty. But everyone has long since become accustomed to this and considers it absolute truth.

But now we've excavated another hall-the physics of the microworld. Within the framework of atomism, the excavation landscape simply extends slightly. The direction of movement remains the same. It's just that the starting point shifts slightly.

Quantum Mechanics

Classical Mechanics

Biology

Anthropology

Sociology

But the neural network suggests that the newly unearthed hall of quantum mechanics isn't on the same level as the classical worldview, but much deeper-as if in the very foundations of the universe. A basement, so to speak. And in this basement, if you dig deep enough, a deeper level of understanding nature will be revealed-a world of generalizing arrays of information.

Classical Mechanics		Biology		Anthropology		Sociology
Quantum Mechanics	<	Biosphere	<	Noosphere	<	Sociosphere

And the exit from this labyrinth is precisely the opposite - from the complex to the simple. Here, I dared to call the world of higher personalities, encompassing within themselves the totality of individuals - nations, tribes, clans, families, and so on - the Sociosphere. Only later did I learn that this same name had been proposed by Gumilev.

This image quite clearly expresses the fundamental essence of the quantum worldview. It is precisely this: the quantum properties of nature are not limited to the microcosm, but are the foundation of the entire universe. And the classical level of understanding nature is merely a superstructure on a neural foundation.

This metaphysics can be viewed differently.

In the following image, the work of Nature is defined as if on the upper level of the universe-in the world of generalizing arrays of information. And the fruits of this work are felt on the lower level-in the form of a stream of observable events. The image is also quite apt in its own way-the cause is from above, and the effect is, naturally, below.

Wave Function	<	Associative Memory	<	Personal Essence	<	Intelligent Essence	<	Generalizing Personality
Particles, Atoms, Molecules		Cells		Flora and Animal Kingdom		Human Being		Society

At the same time, the direction of extrapolation of Nature's knowledge is also diametrically opposed to the atomistic-from the complex to the simple.

4. Translating Metaphysics into Neural Language

Now that we're no longer so afraid of metaphysics, let's consider the fundamental properties of the Universe from a neural perspective.

So.

The Universe is a single, interconnected Neural Network. From it, we can isolate individual, isolated fragments that are not affected by the higher neural layers-these are physical objects. These objects can be studied comprehensively, and on this basis, a multitude of new technical devices can be invented. All this is called Physics and Technology. But that's not what interests us now. Physics and Technology can be successfully pursued without any concern for any kind of worldview. Such concerns will only hinder this endeavor.

We're interested in the following. Any neural network is a model of a certain personality [19]. Therefore, it turns out that personality traits are inherent to the Universe. Moreover, this applies to both the Universe as a whole and to its individual fragments. This applies to atoms, particles, cells-and to the higher forces of nature. It turns out that a person, as a part of the Universe, is also a fragment of the Neural Network.

Atomism asserts that humans-like the entire universe-are composed of atoms. But this has not yet been proven. What has been proven is that humans can be disassembled into atoms. But putting them back together...

In the NPW, only the human body is composed of atoms. That is, of elementary fragments of the neural network. And each such physical fragment has a neural layer-a SHK (neural connection matrix)-which receives some input information-an array of neural signals-analogous to the wave function of an object. The SHK (neural connection matrix) is analogous to the S-matrix in atomistic terminology [3,4]. At the next cycle of the neural computer, the output signals of the neurons are obtained. This process is analogous to the continuous dynamics of the wave function in the absence of events.

But then the signal enters the input of the particle counter. That is, a specially prepared fragment of the neural network in which even the most minimal input signal generates a macroscopic EVENT. This means that at the next cycle of the neural network, the array of neural signals will be irreversibly distorted across the entire fragment-by the UPDATE command. This corresponds to the reduction of the wave function upon observation of an event.

So far, all of this is absolutely identical to traditional atomistic terminology-only in neural language. And if that were all there was to it, there would be no point in arguing about neural networks.

But it doesn't stop there. A reasonable question arises: does the very essence of Man consist of atoms, or is his personality something more than a collection of elementary processes?

In atomism, the answer is obvious. Because there is nothing there but atoms and emptiness.

But in the NPW, the answer may be different. An atom is controlled by a certain array of information. In atomistic terminology, this array is called the S-matrix. In neural terminology, this same array is called the SHK matrix of neural connections. Moreover, regardless of the terminology, this array is fundamentally unobservable-only indirectly measurable. That is, this array belongs to the INVISIBLE WORLD. But what if Humans are also controlled by a similar array of information from the Invisible World? And why not? Then it turns out that a human, a cell, a tiny grain of sand, and even the most elementary particle are all personalitys. With varying degrees of development, of course. This eliminates the insurmountable-in atomism!-line between animate and inanimate nature.

Now it becomes clear why, instead of the Schr"dinger equation, [3-4] uses a program identical to this equation. It would seem-why bother with such complications? The result is the same. That's true, but not entirely true. Of course, this program isn't exactly suitable for calculating even the simplest potential well problem, to put it mildly. But once we write an equation, everything beyond that is a limit, a wall, a dead end. The equation doesn't allow for any further development, any-in other words, extrapolation. How can the Schr"dinger equation describe-no, not a human, but even a single-celled Amoeba? We need to define the wave functions of all the atoms that make up this Amoeba. But firstly, that's completely impossible. And secondly, it's completely pointless. Even from an infinity of dead atoms, particles, waves, and strings, neither Life nor-especially-Mind can ever emerge.

But when we write a program, an obvious question immediately arises: can't this program be fundamentally extrapolated? That is, expanded, deepened?

The programs in [3-4] describe the simplest, most elementary physical objects. But what if we slightly complicate these programs, so that they describe slightly more complex objects-a cell, an organism, a person, a society? With an equation, this is impossible. But with a program, you can do anything. Modify it, add fundamentally new algorithms, more complexly organized data arrays...

This is where a bold, yet completely PHYSICALLY SUBSTANTIATED hypothesis arises: the essence of the human personality lies not in the visible, observable brain, but in some INVISIBLE, unobservable array of information-similar to the SHK neural connection matrix, but with a much more complex organization.

But what, then, is the role of the VISIBLE brain and nervous system? After all, they, too, are structured like a neural network-but this network is entirely visible and tangible. Could it be that the entire essence of personality is concentrated in the brain-and there are no invisible massives? So argues Epicurus [22]. The entire philosophy of atomism is built on the denial of the Invisible World. The world is as we see it! And classical mechanics fully confirmed this-all its parameters are not only observable, but also measurable-in principle, with any degree of precision.

But quantum parameters are fundamentally immeasurable. That is, in quantum mechanics, even at the most elementary level, it is necessary to admit the existence of fundamentally unobservable information. That is, the Invisible World.

In atomistic metaphysics, the Invisible World is limited exclusively to the microcosm. But in neural metaphysics, this limitation seems completely unfounded. So why not try and expand the concept of the Invisible World to include Humans?

So, the personal essence of a Human is contained not in the brain, but in some invisible layer of the neural network, similar to the SHK matrix for a physical object. The similarity lies in the fact that at each cycle of the neural network, a Human evaluates the situation and makes a decision. Of course, this evaluation is incomparably more complex than in the case of an elementary object. For a particle, the choice of a future event occurs randomly - on the spectrum of the squared absolute values of the S-matrix amplitudes. This is the simplest algorithm that can be expressed by a mathematical operator. But who said that more complex evaluations, more advanced decision-making algorithms, are impossible? In Atomism, they are impossible. But in NPW, they are very possible! And these algorithms don't boil down to any combination of elementary mathematical operators-as is unfoundedly claimed within the framework of atomism. No!

We make plans and make calculations. This means that our personal essence (let's simply call it the SOUL!) can create new fragments of virtual universes in the invisible world, explore possible solutions within them, and only then make a DECISION in the real world. And this decision is made simultaneously by the entire human being-just as the UPDATE command acts simultaneously on all the neurons of a physical fragment of a neural network. We are all familiar with this from our own experience of thinking. And only then-after the decision is made in the invisible world-is this decision transmitted for execution to the visible world. How exactly? Most likely-by some command like UPDATE, the state of visible neurons in the brain instantly changes. And only then does the brain control the body at a well-studied physiological level.

Let us emphasize - we are not talking about some kind of radio signal from an invisible world. A radio signal is a phenomenon of the macrocosm, although fundamentally quantum, but all quantum properties in it have long been averaged out and play no role. This is a phenomenon of classical electrodynamics.

We are talking about a deeply quantum phenomenon - one with no classical analogue. It is an instantaneous, irreversible change in the state of an object. For a physical object, this phenomenon is called the reduction of the state vector. For more developed systems, such a phenomenon should also exist. At the very least, its existence is unlimited.

It turns out - as Poincare suggested - the brain is like a telephone exchange, which does not itself generate information, but only distributes it through communication channels. A more modern comparison would be to a modem - but the essence remains the same.

But why then are there neurons again in the observable brain? In principle, they are quite similar to the unobservable neurons of the invisible world. Only the connections between them are not by complex numbers, but by real numbers. And there are no Update commands-one that would affect the entire brain at once-unless they come from the invisible world. Observable neural signals are transmitted only to the nearest neuron, via a direct local connection. Such exclusively short-range, local actions lead to the persistent illusion of what we call continuous Space. But an effect affecting the entire object at once-that's not the case in observable systems. But in principle, everything is quite similar. Is there some hidden meaning in this similarity?

In my opinion, the meaning is that Nature strives for uniformity. A neural network is an excellent tool for solving a wide variety of problems. So Nature uses it-in the most primitive nervous system, in the human brain, and in the very foundation of the Universe. And in the simplest (physical) objects - and in developed subjects - and in the higher spheres that generalize Nature and Society.

So, the Personal Essence of a Human is determined by a certain developed, unobservable neural layer. This essence-the soul-is PRIMARY in relation to the body. That is, it is the soul that controls the human body-and above all, the visible brain-until the neural connections from the soul to the body are severed. But even after this, the personal essence does not disappear-and why, exactly, should it? In the neural picture of the world, this is not justified in any way. So what if the connection with the Visible World is severed? It's like a broken modem. Or a broken cable. But the internet won't disappear because of this. Similarly, if the receiver breaks, the airwaves won't disappear. If the telephone exchange breaks, the subscribers won't disappear. Similarly, no one and nothing will prevent the soul from continuing to live and develop in the Invisible World.

-- When we have shuffled off this mortal coil...

Hamlet

Therefore, the meaning of the future life receives a solid physical justification.

-- We don't live only on this piece of land today, but we have lived and will live forever...

War and World

But the matter doesn't end there. The Neural Network doesn't end with Humans. Human souls are also united into more general fragments of the Neural Network. And these fragments, which generalize people, also have personal qualities, although they don't have a separate physical embodiment. From now on, we will refer to personalities with a typical physical embodiment as static personalities. And those neural layers that encompass and generalize groups of static personalities will be called dynamic or generalizing personalities. These generalizing personalities also calculate options in the invisible world, make decisions, and influence the neurons under their charge. And we feel the influence of Society, Nation, Family-and often act contrary to our own base interests.

And the entire Universe is permeated with similar connections. The impact of these connections is most noticeable in bees and ants. But all other creatures are also connected into unified hierarchical networks.

This is how the picture of the universe appears in neural metaphysics.

5. Where is the truth?

At the physical level, both worldviews-atomistic and neural-are absolutely identical. This is confirmed, for example, by Vanchurin's theory [13], which shows that a trainable neural network naturally tends to arrive at a state described by the laws of quantum mechanics.

But which worldview is true?

Poincare teaches [7] that, in principle, there can be no true or false geometry (much less space-time geometry), metaphysics, or worldview. There can only be a more or less convenient geometry, metaphysics, or worldview. And here the question immediately arises: convenient-where, under what conditions? And-most importantly-for whom?

And Poincare answers-for the OBSERVER!

Poincare was the first to introduce the concept of the OBSERVER into science and placed this concept at the center of his worldview. He believed that it is the observer's properties that primarily determine the worldview accessible to that observer. Without a model of the observer, talking about a picture of the world is completely meaningless. Constructing a picture of the world should begin with the properties of the observer. Not with fields, not with particles, not with space-time-all these are merely illusions that arise in the observer as they distribute the information available to them.

Let us emphasize, however, that these illusions must be objective-that is, general, universal for all possible observers-from the simplest (physical objects) to the most developed and highest (generalized personalities). Just as-for example-the illusions of caloric and ether were once objective. So objective, in fact, that for a time they were considered not illusions at all, but actual reality itself, and brought enormous benefits to scientific progress. But both caloric and ether have long been consigned to the honorable museum of deserved illusions of metaphysics. Now the time has come-this museum needs to be thoroughly replenished. But at the same time, it must be emphasized that the very concept of SCIENCE can exist only when it-at all stages of its development, throughout metaphysics, through all the illusions that inevitably accompany it-reflects a certain OBJECTIVE REALITY-common to all possible observers. Otherwise, these observers simply wouldn't be able to understand each other-like aliens from incompatible universes. And since Science does exist - then these illusions are by no means subjective, as might seem at first glance. Therefore, the observer model shouldn't be subjective, but rather reflect the universal properties of all observers-that is, be an objective generalization of all these properties.

Speaking in the language of the not-so-distant past, one could argue that this model of the generalized observer is essentially an equally objective and real form of existence-as absolute time and three-dimensional space were once considered.

But the development of quantum physics has revealed a much deeper understanding of the forms of existence in general and space-time in particular. And especially - the significance of the observer's properties in the picture of the world.

In the atomistic picture of the world, a certain EXTERNAL observer is SUBCONSCIOUSLY assumed, with ideal THINGS - a rigid ruler and a standard clock. Poincare showed that it is precisely the subconsciousness of this observer model that leads to the paradoxes of the theory of relativity. And subsequently, all this led to the famous quantum paradoxes.

In the neural picture of the world, a CONSCIOUSLY assumed observer model is a certain fragment of a neural network. This INTERNAL observer of the neural network classifies the flow of EVENTS accessible to him through sensations. At the same time, the observer objectively develops a persistent illusion of certain truly existing things in the category of space-time and inevitably arrives at the principles of quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity [20]. I've already said that the atomistic worldview is indispensable for applied calculations of physical processes and the design of technical apparatuses. That is, in the fields of physics and engineering. Are there other fields of knowledge where the neural worldview would be most useful?

Yes - there are!

Advances in physics and technology have turned the atomists' heads. For some 300 years, they've seriously believed they can explain everything in the universe. Until recently, these unfounded claims didn't hinder the development of science. On the contrary, excessive optimism about the omnipotence of scientific progress significantly contributed to this very progress. But then came different times, and unconventional, innovative, and cutting-edge scientific trends developed, which felt constrained by atomism.

In philosophy, this is the doctrine of holism. In philology, this is the study of ancient legends whose origins are inexplicable within the framework of atomism. For example, the Rig Veda. In biology, these are the theories of Nomogenesis, Biocentrism, and Morphogenetic Field. In history, this is the doctrine of Ethnogenesis.

But official science declares all these cutting-edge teachings pseudoscience due to their fundamental contradictions with atomism, which continues to be considered the only possible picture of the world.

All these advanced teachings are united and connected by a yearning for a NEW PHYSICAL picture of the world. Where there are no atoms. But there are CONNECTIONS. Where the primary focus is not the microscopic movement of elementary particles, but the struggle of HIGHER Personalities who generalize within themselves the forces of nature. Where the physics of elementary processes is merely the simplest special case, and not the fundamental foundation of the world order.

The Neural Picture of the World, the only PHYSICAL alternative to atomism, meets all these requirements. It can become the physical basis for advanced scientific directions that fundamentally contradict atomism. And reciprocally, the very existence of advanced directions serves as a justification for the neural picture of the world in many fields of knowledge.

After all, all these advanced teachings did not arise and grow out of nowhere, but were accumulated through suffering and colossal scientific data - which directly or indirectly contradicts the foundations of atomism.

Thus, from several independent fields of science-philosophy, philology, biology, history, and quantum physics-we come to a unified conclusion: the world consists not of VISIBLE PARTICLES, but of INVISIBLE CONNECTIONS. For example, neural ones.

The actual content of the physics of the Microcosm fully confirms this conclusion. However, the atavism of atomistic metaphysics hinders the long-overdue spread of a quantum worldview in the field of understanding life and society. Neural metaphysics will remove this obstacle and ensure the recognition of advanced teachings within the holistic harmony of the Universe.

6. Generalizing the Concept of Interaction Field. Static and Dynamic Personalities in the NPW

Before examining these advanced teachings in the NPW in detail, it is necessary to emphasize that they all share an important common feature. Their authors, in order to overcome the narrow confines of atomism, attempt to expand the concept of Interaction. However, in doing so, they remain captive to the only atomistic metaphysics so far. As a result, they attempt to generalize the concept of an interaction field. This is how the concepts of biological, psychological, morphogenetic, ethnic, and other fields arise.

Such concepts are strongly rejected by academic science. And one can understand the academics' stance. Indeed, the assumptions of such "fields" seem very pitiful. What is this "field"? Where are its charges? Where are the waves? Where are the bosons? How does this field propagate in space-time? This rejection can be overcome in neural metaphysics by generalizing the concept of an INTERACTION FIELD to a more general concept-a NEURAL CONNECTION LAYER.

In the simplest-physical-fragment of a neural network, the SHK matrix is equivalent to the S-matrix of a physical object, which reflects the measure of the interaction energy of the elementary forces of nature [3,4]. At low energies, the S-matrix is directly expressed through the Hamiltonian-the energy operator of the physical field. In neural terminology, the S-matrix transforms into the SHK matrix of connections between neurons. Thus, at the physical level of the NPW, the interaction field is determined by the simplest connection layer of the neural network-the SHK matrix.

But in the neural worldview, it is entirely possible to assume that more developed layers of neural connections can express higher energies of nature, whose action is by no means reducible to combinations of elementary processes. In such a higher layer, INTERACTION is expressed not by some OPERATOR, but by a much more complex ALGORITHM for changing the network's state. Developed (HIGHER) neural layers can also have a hierarchical structure and influence the neurons accessible to them instantly-in a single neurocomputer cycle-analogous to the UPDATE command for an elementary (physical) object. Such layers are a generalization of the concept of an interaction field in the neural worldview.

Naturally, these layers-like any neural layer-have certain personality traits, from the simplest to the most developed and highest. For further analysis, it is very convenient to divide these personality traits into two types-static and dynamic [2].

A static personality has a visible, observable physical embodiment in the observable world. Accordingly, it is localized in space. Obviously, these are all physical bodies-controlled both by the wave functions of physical objects (the simplest level) and by the developed personal entities of biological objects.

A dynamic personality has no separate observable embodiment (or, simply put, body). But it can control an arbitrarily large group of static personalities-if its neural layer encompasses the neural layers that control static individuals. A similar personality also generalizes natural physical interactions-if its layer encompasses the elementary layers of SHK matrices.

Thus, the simplest static personalities (not microbes, of course, but physical objects) in the classical limit transform into material bodies, and dynamic personalities transform into interactions between them.

Spatial localization brings a static being closer to inanimate nature. Therefore, highly developed static personalities are more inclined to perceive themselves and their fellows as slightly animated matter, spiritualized flesh. From their perspective, a dynamic personality, capable of creating (as it may seem to static subjects) fundamentally new states of the Universe at their own discretion, appears as a powerful cosmic spirit, something akin to a pagan god.

People tend to ascribe purely human traits to dynamic personalities. This tendency reflects the conviction that the forces of Nature are fundamentally not dead or lifeless, but deeply personal. This conviction is entirely correct. But humanizing Nature is going too far. Not every personality is intelligent and human-like. The personal qualities of dynamic personalities are quite primitive.

However, the transition from the concept of the Interaction Field to the more general concept of the Neural Connection Layer will allow unconventional theories and teachings to break free from the shackles of Atomism.

Now let's examine these unconventional, innovative teachings in more detail.

7. Philosophy. Holism

The main principle of holism states: the whole is always greater than the simple sum of its parts. From a holistic perspective, the entire world is a single whole, and the individual phenomena and objects we identify have meaning only as part of the whole. The doctrine of holism has been universally accepted since the ancient Greeks. But with the development of atomism, holism began to be perceived as a philosophical concept lacking practical value and was relegated to the periphery of public consciousness. And for the same reason - there is no physical justification. Therefore, despite the development of quantum mechanics, the belief that humans are composed of subatomic particles still prevails [19].

Clearly, NPW provides holism with the long-awaited physical justification. A minimal portion of matter can be extracted from a human being in the form of a subatomic particle. But this does not mean that a human being CONSISTS of particles. The NPW demonstrates that the essence of man lies not in particles, but in the higher neural layers of the Invisible World. Combinations of any number of inanimate particles, however vast, will never yield life, much less intelligence. Nor will the Universe itself.

In the neural picture of the world, the Universe does not consist of particles. On the contrary, the very existence of particles appears to be merely an illusion, observable only in specially prepared, extremely simplified fragments of the neural network. And the development of the Universe is determined not by the movement of atoms, but by the interaction of higher dynamic personalities, personifying the forces of nature. Thus, it turns out that the One cannot be derived from the many.

And that Man is the crown of Creation. And the crown is not simply a peak, a summit. But it is precisely the crown-the wreath in which all the connections of the Universe are interwoven, thereby interlocking and strengthening. Without Man, the Universe does not exist.

Thus, Holism and the NPW mutually substantiate each other.

8. Biocentrism

Biocentrism [8] and the Neural Worldview have much in common.

The latter can even serve as a justification for Biocentrism on a physical level. It's only necessary to clarify: yes, Life creates the Universe, and not vice versa. But Life not in the biological, but in the neural sense.

Let's start with the common ground. The most important thing is the shared understanding that the main goal of Science is to explain life and consciousness. And not at all the calculations of lasers or accelerators. And not even the Higgs bosons, the Big Bang, or black holes...

And that this main goal is fundamentally unattainable within the framework of traditional academic science. Moreover, the high road of academic science leads in a diametrically opposite direction. To the dead end of applied, pragmatic physics. Within the atomistic worldview, it is impossible to understand the development of life and consciousness.

Also common is the idea that the observable (visible) world consists not of permanently existing things, but of events - acts of observing the Universe. Between observations, nothing exists-neither elementary particles nor large objects. During these intervals, the Universe exists in uncertain probabilistic states-effectively in the unobservable, or Invisible, World. In the absence of events in the Neural Worldview, the array of neural signals (analogous to the wave function) changes continuously, without reduction, according to the Schr"dinger equation (or, more precisely, algorithm). After an observation, this array changes abruptly, corresponding to reduction in traditional physics [3,4].

Another common understanding - is that physics must begin with the postulation of the properties of the Observer, not the properties of space and time. That space and time are not fundamental entities of nature, but merely subconscious illusions arising in the Observer as they perceive the flow of external information.

And here is where the differences arise.

Biocentrism holds that this Observer must possess consciousness-nothing less. I, however, follow Poincare's ideas in that consciousness is not at all necessary for this. It is quite sufficient for the Observer to possess associative memory, in which they distribute the flow of sensations given to them, similar to how we distribute our sensations-in categories of space and time.

In the neural picture of the world, the model of such an Observer is any coherent physical object. It should only be emphasized that the minimal, simplest physical object in the neural picture of the world is not the particle itself, but the entire observation system of a given particle-including the source of the particle and the detectors that register it. Such a physical object is represented as a fragment of a complex numbers neural network, which, one must assume, has the required associative memory.

Thus, in the neural worldview, every physical object is, in principle, capable of observing itself, and does not require any additional conscious observers to do so. Moreover, the fundamental basis for understanding the Universe is not biological life and consciousness, as in Biocentrism. Rather, it is the fact that even the most elementary physical objects possess the simplest personal qualities-those possessing neither life (in the sense of the protein structure) nor consciousness.

In the neural worldview, as in Biocentrism, the fundamental nodes of reality are neurons. But in Biocentrism, these are neurons of the central nervous system of a sentient being. In the neural worldview, these are invisible, unobservable neurons that make up the invisible neural network-the foundation of the Universe.

One could say that in the neural worldview, Biocentrism shifts its focus somewhat-life truly creates the Universe. But this life is not in the biological sense, but in the neural sense-when any physical object is already part personality, and therefore partly alive. And in this process, the insurmountable (in atomism) line between the living and the nonliving is erased.

Biocentrism tempts us to conclude that the reality we perceive is subjective, because each person's nervous system has its own neurons. In the neural picture of the world, however, this reality is quite objective, because the neural network of the Universe is uniform for all observers.

However, in addition to the simplest physical objects, other fragments-more complex, more developed-can (and even should) exist in this same neural network. These fragments can serve as models for even intelligent beings. This assumption is the main point of the neural picture of the world. And these developed beings are quite capable of influencing the behavior of physical objects, and even controlling them.

And yet, the method of controlling physical objects is similar to the fundamental structure of the Universe-Nature creates visible neural tissue from nerve cells in the image and likeness of the invisible Universal neural network. And quite rightly so-there's no need to create unnecessary entities. It's far more rational to use proven, reliable methods.

But this secondary neural network (known to us as the nervous system) merely functions as a transmission link between the true personal essence from the Invisible World and the visible actions of the physical body. The true personal essence is based on invisible, unobservable neurons and the connections between them.

This means that a developed personal essence from the Invisible World controls the observable physical body as long as invisible neural connections exist between these two fragments of the neural network.

Developed personalities can focus on controlling individual organisms, but they can also generalize within themselves the collective properties of society and nature. Perhaps it was through the struggle of such generalizing personalities in virtual, parallel worlds that our unified real world was formed-the only possible combination, a fine-tuning of the world's constants and parameters, was carefully selected.

Thus, it is precisely in the neural picture of the world that we can at least conceptually understand how Life (in the neural sense) creates the Universe (including biological life and consciousness). And, thereby, achieve the main goal of Biocentrism - and science in general.

The fundamental flaw of Biocentrism is that, despite its grandiose promises, it has never received a physical justification. As a result, it remains a collection of philosophical speculations. Along with the noosphere, the morphogenetic field, and so on, such a philosophy will never be fully accepted by academic science until it has at least a theoretical physical justification.

And the neural picture of the world is directly based on the extrapolation of the Schr"dinger equation beyond applied physics. In this sense, the neural picture of the world is a physical picture because it is based on a physical foundation. Just as the atomistic picture of the world is based on a similar extrapolation from physics to ethics [22]. The dominance of atomism in modern science is ensured solely by the fact that it was the first truly physical picture of the world in history, rather than abstract philosophizing. This is precisely why the neural picture of the world could very well become the physical basis for biocentrism and, thus, legitimize it within the framework of academic science.

9. Morphogenetic Field

Rupert Sheldrake proposed a generalization and extrapolation of the idea of a physical field from physics to biology and sociology [9]. Just as electromagnetic interaction creates atoms and molecules from individual particles, a new type of field-a morphogenetic field-creates complex biomolecules from individual atoms, then cells. From cells, tissues and organisms; from organisms, families and social structures.

These ideas provoked a sharp rejection in orthodox science; their author was declared a pseudoscientist, despite his previously earned degrees and titles. The basis for this unfounded snobbery is the same: the impossibility of describing a morphogenetic field within the framework of an atomistic picture of the world, in the language of elementary particles, which supposedly describes every manifestation of our Universe.

The decisive weakness of Sheldrake's position is his use of atomistic terminology in the very concept of "field." On this platform, any promising idea inevitably loses. There is no information about the nature and origin of these morphogenetic fields, and no proposals for research into their propagation methods. And if they don't exist, then there can't be any field; all this is pseudoscience.

Sheldrake writes that traditional biology is still based on mechanistic ideas that have long been rejected within physics itself. But why is this so? Why aren't quantum ideas extrapolated from physics to biology? It's not someone's ill will or lack of intelligence, but the use of atomistic terminology. All biomolecules are very large, their physical properties are quasi-classical, and quantum effects are averaged out to certain real coefficients. Well, somewhere in the equations, instead of the classical two, a quantum four will appear-that's all there is to it. And here comes the ancient, subconscious atomistic conviction-that physical properties are responsible for everything. If physics is classical, then the entire object is classically mechanistic, and that's it.

Overcoming this prejudice is only possible with a fundamentally different, non-atomistic terminology-for example, neural terminology, in which the Universe is represented as a multilayer neural network. In this network, a physical object corresponds to the simplest three-address layer. This physical layer has its own state-change algorithm, corresponding to the Schr"dinger equation.

To describe this algorithm in the simplest cases of the physical layer, it is very convenient and clear to use concepts such as particles, waves, Feynman diagrams, and the like. But in neural terminology, it becomes clear that these atomistic concepts are not fundamental, but merely persistent illusions that arise in the internal subject of the neural network when observing processes in the physical layers. In higher neural layers, these illusions dissolve, along with the need to use atomistic terminology.

At the same time, the generalization of quantum ideas and their extrapolation to the fields of biology or sociology becomes much more convincing. For example, to explain the processes of morphogenesis, the term "morphogenetic field" is no longer necessary. Instead, we can hypothesize the existence of higher neural layers with more advanced addressing and algorithmic state changes than the physical layers. These can be called morphogenetic layers (MGL). These layers are not directly observable in physical three-dimensional space, but their presence is indirectly manifested: if the MGL is connected to a physical layer, neural signals from the MGL can change the states of "physical" neurons and thus embody in the observable world the architecture of biological and social forms defined within the MGL.

Thus, in neural terminology, the concept of a morphogenetic neural layer is proposed in place of the vague, atomistic concept of a "morphogenetic field." We emphasize that such an extrapolation will be a purely physical extrapolation-not esoteric or otherwise-because, despite their diverse nature, the MGL preserves a single principle of state change, the same as in physical layers. At each cycle of the Universe - neurocomputer, all neurons are examined, the network state is assessed, and a decision is made, expressed as neural signals. For a physical algorithm, the state assessment and decision selection are very primitive-for example, the address of a detector-the neuron that will receive an excitation signal-is arbitrarily selected. The remaining detectors remain silent during this cycle. This is similar to how, in a chess program at the most primitive level, a valid move is selected with equal probability-without any calculations or guesswork. But in the highest MGL, nothing limits the possibility of calculations and virtual estimates-up to the grandmaster level and even higher-to world champions and even to Robert Fischer.

MGL can accumulate memories of previous decisions, taking into account all their real-world consequences. This memory, as Sheldrake teaches, is not localized in the brain, nor even in any specific address in the observable world. The illusion of space-time arises in a neural subject (a static personality) only when observing physical layers. The memory of MGL, however, belongs to the higher neural layers-dynamic personalities, who are unaware of such illusions. The brain, according to Sheldrake's figurative analogy, appears like a radio receiver. This legitimizes the most controversial (according to the author himself) part of Sheldrake's teaching-the memory of morphic fields.

If the physical neural layer is not closed, if the states and connections of its neurons are controlled by some MGL, we can conclude that some personal entity from the invisible world (simply put, the soul) controls the observed physical body until these connections are severed.

If some MGL correspond to observed organisms, nothing prevents the formation of additional neural connections between them. In this case, a generalized dynamic personality is created in the form of a generalized MGl. This generalized personality, again, is not directly observed as an individual, but is indirectly manifested, for example, in the behavior of collective insects. The concept of a collective unconscious in more developed personalities can be similarly substantiated. At the same time, as Sheldrake teaches, individual and collective memory are of the same nature.

In Sheldrake's teaching, the concept of habit plays an important role, developing over time for any individual system and for the entire Universe. This concept is intended to generalize and expand the concept of strict and immutable mathematical laws of nature. Let's consider how this concept translates into neural language using the simplest example of a particle with spin 1/2 [4]. Here, the particle's habit is expressed as a separate multiplication table of basis quaternions-Qwat. For example, each electron in the universe, at each cycle of the algorithm, accesses this table as a dispatcher and receives a response-what to do next. Naturally, such accesses occur outside the categories of space-time.

That is, this table can be viewed within the framework of various worldviews as a personal essence or, simply put, as the soul of the electron-as a generalized personality for all observable particles. Of course, for an electron, these are too grandiose words-its soul is very primitive, consisting of 16 rows. But when generalized, when extrapolating this table to the realm of higher MGL-jokes aside. In the higher layers, it is entirely possible to gradually construct such a table as a matrix of cumulative decisions, to which both individual organisms and generalized personalities will refer. Thus, all of them will be provided with some hidden non-local integrity.

Thus, in neural terminology, Sheldrake's doctrine receives sufficient physical justification and legitimation. On this foundation, the orthodox claims that his ideas are pseudoscientific become pitiful and insignificant. And the new science of life opens up a broad prospect for modeling the processes of the emergence and development of morphogenetic neural layers.

10. NOMOGENESIS

100 years ago, Darwinism was seemingly completely and definitively refuted by Academician L.S. Berg, based on a comprehensive analysis of a colossal amount of biological and paleontological data. It was refuted on all counts in the theory of Nomogenesis [10]. However, despite this, Darwinism continues to reign supreme - as if nothing had happened.

What is the reason? I believe it is because Darwinism, from the very beginning, has had a speculative justification at the physical level - in the atomistic picture of the world. Nomogenesis, however, has no such justification.

Nomogenesis can and should receive this justification in the neural picture of the world. In turn, the substantiation of the fundamental tenets of Nomogenesis should reveal the fruitfulness of the neural hypothesis of world order.

What explains the triumphant acceptance of Darwin's theory?

Firstly, because Darwinism provided a pseudoscientific justification for the then-dominant worldview of Social Darwinism. It's ironic that Social Darwinism emerged first, and only half a century later was its "justification" found. But that alone wouldn't have been enough.

Secondly-and most importantly-Darwinism, from its very inception, has had a theoretical foundation in physics, within the framework of an atomistic worldview. Back then, 150 years ago, genetics didn't even exist. But even without it, a fairly coherent (at first glance!) picture emerged. Some genetic material passes from parents to children-naturally, in the form of certain combinations of atoms. How could it be otherwise? After all, it's generally accepted that the entire world consists of atoms and empty space. And beyond that, there's nothing else in the world. And so, in these atomic combinations, a certain statistical variability is observed. And then comes natural selection. The struggle for existence. Positive mutations survive and become established. And negative ones are eliminated. Everything is simple and logical. And, most importantly, it's physically justified! True, this justification is rather vague-in the most general terms. But this is more than enough.

The main conclusions of the theory of Nomogenesis are diametrically opposed to Darwin's theory.

1. The animal kingdom evolved not from a single primary organism, but from a multitude of primary forms.

2. Development is achieved not by random, small, continuous mutations of individuals, but by enormous, abrupt changes that simultaneously encompass the entire range of a species.

3. Evolution does not consist of the random formation of new traits, but in the regular development of traits long existing in an older species.

4. The range of hereditary variations is not infinite, but strictly limited. Their direction is not random, but is entirely determined by the laws of Nomogenesis.

5. A new species is sharply demarcated from an old one. Transitional and dead-end branches of evolution (mandatory according to Darwin's theory) are not observed-either in wildlife or in paleontology. In other words, development proceeds not divergently, but predominantly convergently. The tree of evolution does not exist.

6. The struggle for existence and natural selection do not foster change. On the contrary, they tend to preserve the established norm of the species.

All these propositions (and many others, less interesting to me) are not some shocking hypotheses. The Theory of Nomogenesis is supported by a colossal amount of biological and paleontological data, and by the unwavering authority of Academician L.S. Berg. It would seem that this-even a hundred years ago!-would have been the end of Darwinism.

However, 100 years of Nomogenesis passed virtually without a trace. And it's not that Nomogenesis went completely unnoticed-far from it! The past century hasn't raised a single argument against Nomogenesis. Yet Darwinism thrives-utterly oblivious to any criticism.

Meanwhile, after 1945, Social Darwinism, for a number of reasons, somehow quietly faded into obscurity. And the primary reason for Darwinism's triumph disappeared. But the physical foundation of Darwinism was further strengthened by the development of molecular genetics. Indeed, here it is-the structure of the genome. All mutations are there, as molecular combinations. A little more-and the mystery of the origin of species will be completely dissected like a corpse. Genetic engineering will enable the creation of new, previously unseen species.

However, not a single new species has been created. Only genetically modified varieties of cultivated plants of dubious value have emerged. But varieties and breeds could be created without genetic engineering-through simple selection. We're talking about the origin of species! Not varieties or breeds.

At the same time, estimates of the expected time of random gene mutations for the evolution of simple organisms have become available. And this time-even for the evolution of microbes-turned out to be significantly longer than the age of the universe. So, molecular genetics ultimately led, once again, to the denial of Darwinism. And that's okay.

The reason is that the fundamental tenets of Nomogenesis fundamentally contradict not only Darwin's theory, but the entire atomistic worldview. This is precisely why Nomogenesis is not taken seriously by academic science. It seems to exist. And yet, not a single factual argument against it has been put forward in a hundred years. And yet-at the same time-it's as if it doesn't exist.

Indeed, how is this possible-abrupt changes simultaneously encompassing the entire range of a species? This fundamentally contradicts atomism. Atomism allows only random, small, continuous mutations of individuals. This is simple and understandable. But here-simultaneously across an entire range... Within the framework of atomism-this is absolutely incomprehensible! The fact that L.S. Berg proves this position with colossal factual material makes it all the worse for the facts.

Even more incomprehensible is that the essence of evolution, according to L.S. Berg, consists of the development of traits long-existing in older forms. That is, older forms seem to foresee which traits will be useful to their future descendants. And at a certain point, they bring these traits to the forefront. And not by chance, but in very specific directions. Atomism cannot explain this-and, consequently, cannot accept it. And against this wall of rejection, the entire array of facts presented by L.S. Berg crashes. This cannot be-because it can never be.

For the same reason, another of L.S. Berg's revolutionary conclusions is ignored. The formation of new forms in languages also simultaneously encompasses very large groups of individuals. All the speech features that characterize a given dialect manifest themselves in all children of a given region simultaneously and independently. And again, atomism remains stupidly silent - unable to either accept or refute the mass of comprehensively substantiated facts.

Thus, it is clear that atomism is fruitful only in the field of applied physics. But in the field of evolutionary theory, atomism is not only unproductive, but completely reactionary. It hinders not only the development of new scientific data, but even the recognition of theories that have been comprehensively substantiated for a long time (a hundred years ago!). Atomism becomes a brake on scientific progress.

Let us now consider the basic tenets of Nomogenesis in light of the neural picture of the world.

The simplest physical object in both atomism and the neural picture is described by the Schr"dinger equation. But in the neural picture, this equation is no longer an equation, but a program describing a fragment of a neural network that corresponds to a certain physical device. The program for this fragment is elementary and can be reduced to two simple algorithms:

1. Linear dynamics of an array of neural signals (wave function)

2. Random excitation of one of the neurons (reduction).

At the physical level, there's nothing new; everything is absolutely identical to the traditional atomistic description-only the language is a bit unfamiliar at first.

However, when extrapolating physical results to higher levels of knowledge (for example, to biology), fundamental disagreements with atomism immediately become apparent.

Atomism asserts that in biology, and indeed in the Universe itself, there are no other algorithms-besides these two-and cannot be. The entire universe is explained by combinations of the aforementioned simple algorithms. As a result, quantum effects of uncertainty and interference manifest themselves only at the microscopic level. And when we scale down an object, even to the level of biomolecules, we return to classical mechanics and determinism.

The neural worldview assumes that the increasing complexity of a research object means that its behavior is described by more complex, more advanced algorithms than those for a physical object. We emphasize - not by more complex combinations of elementary algorithms, but by fundamentally different algorithms of the same type, but of increased complexity. This is precisely the meaning of the transition from the Schr"dinger equation to the Neural Network program in [3,4]. When we write an equation, it's a limit, a wall, a dead end-nothing beyond that is visible. But when we write a program seemingly equivalent to this equation, the question immediately becomes obvious: this program describes an elementary, simple object. But aren't similar, but much more complex, programs possible for more advanced objects?

This is precisely how the boundaries of physics can be defined. A physical object is one whose dynamics are described solely by the aforementioned pair of primitive algorithms.

But for a biological object, these algorithms are insufficient-no matter how you combine them, a living object will never emerge from combinations of dead atoms. The behavior of a biological object can be represented by certain neural-like algorithms. But for biology, these algorithms cannot be written as a specific program, as is done for a physical object. One can only sense the basic properties of these algorithms. Biological algorithms should be similar to physical ones, but much more developed and profound. This similarity ensures the unity of the universe in the neural picture of the world.

The general properties of biological algorithms should be as follows:

1. Evaluation of various options for the development of the network state.

2. Making an optimal decision to change the network state.

These algorithms are similar to physical ones, but much more developed. Not the primitive linear dynamics of neural signals, but their virtual development in all possible directions. Not the random selection of a single neuron for excitation (reduction), but the optimal choice of a developmental option.

Thus, it is obvious that in the neural picture of the world, a physical object is only the simplest case of a biological object - as the simplest fragment of a neural network. The absurdity of the assertion that a biological object supposedly consists of physical objects is also obvious. Simply - from atoms. No!!!

You can extract a minimal portion from a biological object in the form of an atom or molecule. But this doesn't prove that the biological object is composed of atoms. Biological algorithms are fundamentally not reducible to any combination of physical algorithms. This is precisely the fundamental difference between the neural picture of the world and the atomistic picture of the world.

And in the neural picture of the world, all the provisions of the Theory of Nomogenesis become extremely natural and organic.

First of all, we emphasize that in the neural picture, the insurmountable (in atomism) boundary between animate and inanimate nature disappears. Because every fragment of the neural network-be it a primitive physical fragment or a developed biological fragment-already possesses certain personal properties. And, therefore, even a physical fragment is already partly a living personality-albeit a very primitive one. But that's not all. The neural picture clearly demonstrates the possibility of the existence of collective dynamic personalities that encompass all individuals of a given species, class-or any coherent community of individuals. After all, any combination of neural fragments is also a neural fragment, possessing its own personality traits. Such a collective personality has no visible embodiment, but is capable of effectively influencing all observable individuals of a given species or habitat.

Now it becomes clear how abrupt changes can simultaneously encompass the entire habitat of a species. This species-generating dynamic personality (let's call it the Big Species) assessed all possible developments in parallel virtual worlds and made the optimal decision-for the entire species-to change its genotype. This colossal reduction in hereditary molecules simultaneously swept through all individuals of a given species. The neural picture answers the question-the chicken or the egg-as follows. First, in the invisible world (in unobservable neural fragments), the collective personality of the Big Chicken develops. She makes a decision-and the genetic molecules of all individuals of the old species (say, a dinosaur) simultaneously change. As a result, the first observable chicks hatch from dinosaur eggs across the entire range. Only in this way can we understand and imagine the enormous, abrupt changes that simultaneously sweep across the entire range of a species.

Similarly, we can understand that the Big Chicken influences the dinosaur genotype long before the first chicks are hatched. Dinosaurs already possess traits that are completely useless to them, but will prove very useful to future chicks millions of years later. These traits are not formed randomly, but according to specific laws of nomogenesis. Moreover, the range of hereditary variations is not infinite, but strictly limited. And their direction is not random, but entirely determined by the laws of nomogenesis.

As a result, individuals of a new species-quite perfect creations of nature-emerge en masse in the observable world. And no intermediate or dead-end forms are observed. The further development of the new species occurs in the context of a struggle for existence that suppresses any deviations from the norm and refines the resulting ideal of the new species to absolute harmony. In other words, development proceeds not divergently, but predominantly convergently-in full accordance with the conclusions of L.S. Berg.

And finally, regarding the formation of new forms in languages. Here, L.S. Berg pays tribute to atomism, suggesting some anatomical changes in the speech organs. However, no such changes are observed. Indeed, in the neural picture, there's no need for them. Here, it's a manifestation of the control of a collective personality, generalizing the entire people or tribe. That is, the Great Nation decides that it would be appropriate for it to differentiate its speech from other, previously closely related tribes. And all the characteristics of the new speech manifest simultaneously in all individuals of this people. And without any anatomical changes. It's as if the Great Nation simultaneously instructed all its proteges to say not KRAVA, but KOROVA. Perhaps the Great Nation convinced them that this is the new cool thing to do. And we will never again be brothers...

Thus, in the neural picture of the world, the theory of Nomogenesis receives its long-awaited physical justification. With all the ensuing consequences-even the complete overthrow of Darwinism.

11. Principles of Nomogenesis in the Development of Society

The fundamental principles of Nomogenesis-the seeds of future structures and the abrupt transition to new forms-are observed not only in biology but also in the development of society [11].

In the neural worldview, society, like a biological species, is governed not by a collection of individuals, but by a higher, unobservable personality-analogous to the Greater Species in biology. This higher personality compels the peoples under its charge to act often against their own immediate personal interests-but in the name of the future development of society.

From this perspective, let us consider the history of European civilization, which is apparently governed by a certain higher, generalized personality-let us call it Higher Europe. And we see that, for 1,000 years before Copernicus, European science was engaged in what is now generally recognized as pseudoscience-astrology, alchemy, theology, and so on. However, all modern forms of scientific organization were already established and developed back then, in the Middle Ages. Universities, departments, academic degrees, graduate school, dissertation defenses...

For the society of that time, all of this was completely useless and even harmful. However, society meekly accepted the considerable costs of maintaining a world of pseudoscience. Apparently, Higher Europe has REASONED UPON its subjects-be patient! The time will come when all these currently useless rudiments will be imbued with genuine scientific content. Science will break through into production and ensure global domination. And this came to pass in the 19th century. As a result, by 1900, European civilization completely dominated the entire world.

This is especially evident in medicine. Before 1896, when aspirin was discovered, European medicine was completely useless and harmful. Physics and engineering had already seen many useful advances-engines, machines, electricity... And in medicine, all methods-especially the widely used bloodletting-are now dismissed as harmful and pseudoscientific. Mortality in European hospitals is much higher than in russian villages. Tolstoy rightly scoffed at all this, comparing it to quackery.

And yet, Higher Europe compelled its subjects to sincerely believe in and respect its science, and especially medicine. The title of Doctor is the most honorable in all of science. And this belief was only justified in the twentieth century, with the discovery of antibiotics.

The same can be said of European democracy. In the age of absolutism, all its institutions are utterly useless. The feudal elite openly mocks them, forcing them to rubber-stamp-often retroactively-their whims and caprices. However, for some incomprehensible reason, they leave them alone, don't destroy them! And then comes the time... The King convenes the Estates General, fully confident that they will once again rubber-stamp his decisions. But no such luck...

But the economic class, apparently, lacks a higher personality. Therefore, in the neural picture of the world, the Marxist concept of class is false.

Already the First World War demonstrated that the proletarians of all countries, far from uniting, brutally and mercilessly destroy each other. And the Second World War...

Marxism is impeccably logical-it would be perfectly logical and reasonable for the proletarians to unite in the struggle for their rights. But - apparently - life is governed not by human reason, not by logic, but by the dictates of higher personalities, who generalize within themselves peoples and states [23]. And if there is no higher personality, then there is no one to govern the proletariat - except the generalized Peoples.

- If we admit that life is governed by reason, the possibility of life is destroyed.

War and World

The history of all societies that have existed hitherto has certainly been the history of struggle. But not of classes, but of peoples. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, landowner and serf, master and apprentice - of course, there were certain economic contradictions between them. But at decisive moments in history, economic contradictions always receded into the background compared to national contradictions. Class struggle was always secondary, while interethnic struggle was primary. Those peoples who were able to unite despite class and other internal contradictions always won the interethnic struggle. And those who fanned internal contradictions were exterminated by the victors. And destroyed.

Of course, there are contradictions between workers and capitalists, but they are not at all antagonistic. That is, each worker sees their own bright future, their own personal dreams within the framework of existing society, and they have absolutely no need for rebellions and revolutions.

The Marxist theory of class struggle is like examining human life and activity in zero gravity. Everything is absolutely logical and absolutely correct-and yet completely useless. Because real people live in a field of gravity. And real society lives in a field of interethnic struggle. And class struggle is merely an insignificant, insignificant nuance on the field of national struggle, which is determined not by material factors, but by the confrontation of the generalized souls of peoples in the Invisible World.

Marx teaches that capitalism is a more advanced economic formation-hence, he says, Europe's advantage in the 19th century. But if this is truly true, then why does Europe need colonies? Why does it need the slave labor of blacks? Or Chinese? Advanced workers themselves should be able to do everything much better than backward societies. But somehow they can't quite do it without colonies. Or without the Chinese. Western nations apply their truly advanced technologies primarily not in the economic sphere, but in the military. And relying on their superior military force, they dictate economic conditions to the vanquished. Therefore, the Marxist formula Money - Commodity - Money had to be rewritten in the 19th century as follows:

Money - Weapons - Blacks - Colonies - Commodity - Money

And in this chain, Western workers and capitalists become accomplices in a single gang robbing backward nations. Of course, the rank-and-file bandits are rather upset when the bigwigs take the lion's share for themselves. But at the same time, the working class isn't exactly disadvantaged either. And there's no antagonism between the classes. Everyone is generally happy. And those who are dissatisfied always have the opportunity to climb the social ladder themselves. Now, if we could imagine England living on its own, alone in the world, then class struggle might reign supreme in that society.

Although even in that case, the intensity of class struggle couldn't compare to the intensity of interethnic struggle observed in real society. Because true struggle is a willingness to make unreasonable sacrifices. A willingness to give one's life. This can't be explained by any economic interests. People throw themselves under tanks not for material gain, but in obedience to the guidance of the Higher Soul-the Soul of the Motherland. Economic interests have no soul, nor can they have one. Therefore, among all truly great nations, economic interests are considered inferior, one might even say contemptible. Based on economic, class interests, only a temporary, unstable, fragile unification is possible, which inevitably crumbles-everything ends in the most blatant deception and scam. From the first phalansteries to the plundering of the USSR.

The Russian Revolution of 1917 was the result of a powerful spiritual flow, not from economic class interests, but from a supra-personality-Higher Russia. For a time, this flow was utterly useless and harmful, driving the best people to death and hard labor-Radishchev, the Decembrists, the People's Will members... Most of them sacrificed their personal interests (and often their very high positions) for the sake of the Bright Future of Higher Russia.

It's ironic that the ideological framework for this colossal spiritual flow, this spiritual impulse, was Marxism-the doctrine of the absolute priority of base, economic interests, completely rejecting the very concept of spirituality. This seems like a predetermined irony of history.

But the time came-and a new type of Party was already prepared for it, ready for all unimaginable sacrifices in the most brutal struggle. Thus, for the Soviet people, Marxism became the Ideal of a Bright Future for Great Russia.

Stalin, of course, understood all this better than anyone. But he could not openly reject Marxism. He was not Khrushchev. Ideals-even dubious ones-cannot be rejected, much less denigrated. His words about Marxism being more than just a scientific theory are telling. It is the Banner of our struggle. These words are a warning to future dissidents who, in the heat of scientific research, might carelessly fall into the millstones of a blunt and ruthless state machine. And then even Stalin won't make it in time to extricate them.

It is also significant that Stalin included the mental makeup of the people in his definition of nation. Translated from ancient Greek, this simply means the generalized soul of the people, the soul of the nation.

That's why Stalin said that class struggle would intensify. But how would it intensify? The defeated classes of pre-revolutionary oppressors could no longer take revenge in this struggle on their own. But they could join hostile states and win, relying on their military support.

With these words, Stalin elegantly transferred the Marxist principle of class struggle to the realm of interethnic struggle. Now Soviet youth could throw themselves under fascist tanks, continuing to believe they were devoting all their strength and their entire lives to the most precious thing on earth-the liberation of humanity. In reality, our fathers and grandfathers were led to feats unimaginable to the vile personal natures by the collective soul of the Great, Just, and Beautiful Russia of the Future.

Nobody couldn't have said it better Evdokia Mukhina :

"Besides our personal soul, there is also a SHARED SOUL: the people's, the army's, the Komsomol's. It exists under the name 'WE.'"

The chief of staff read us the Sovinformburo report, which said that OUR troops had gone on the offensive. Our souls rejoiced. Our shared SOUL. At the airfield, the paratroopers were preparing for takeoff. Our might was audible in the roar of the engines. All of this was 'WE,' vast, incalculable... The planes flew away, vanished into the sky. 'WE' dwindled to a small group of scouts. We took off, flew, and were together for about an hour. And then... with each person disappearing into the black rectangle, 'we' seemed to shrink... And then, following the jump, my parachute opened, and clouds separated me from the plane. Alone? No, the mood remained so cheerful and combative because the SOUL hadn't been torn away from everything that was OURS, everything that was "WE." This was what kept my nerves in check.

This wasn't just theoretical reasoning, but a FEELING OF THE SOUL, without which there is no scout. I hung from the parachute and shouted into the pitch darkness:

- Hey, you Fritzes! Get out of here! WE are advancing. WE, WE, WE!

8 centimeters

This personal testimony is of course most valuable because it was not wrought through the criticism of pure reason or the abstract analysis of mathematical formulas, but was revealed from a direct, real-weighty, raw, visible-highest and purest love for the Fatherland.

From this powerful spiritual impulse, Soviet civilization arose, developed, and triumphed-absolutely contrary to all logic and the teachings of Marx.

- The spirit breathes where it wills...

And the reasons for the collapse of the USSR are also not economic, but spiritual. The spiritual impulse from the invisible world dried up-and the colossus collapsed. Like a mighty tornado settling into a shapeless pile of debris when the impulse of air movement ceases. And why did this impulse dry up? This is completely unknown and incomprehensible to us. The surprising thing isn't that the USSR suddenly collapsed. The only surprising thing is why the USSR arose at all.

-- For life is like the wind, and we are like fluff...

So, in the development of society, the same principles and algorithms of Nomogenesis can be observed as in biological evolution. Higher personalities, generalizing both species and society, instill in the observed structure the seeds of the future-useless to contemporaries, but crucial for subsequent development. And the leap in this development occurs simultaneously throughout society as a whole.

These principles are incomprehensible within the framework of atomism. However, they are organic and natural in the neural picture of the world.

12. Ethnogenesis

Another unrecognized doctrine receives a PHYSICAL justification in the neural picture of the world [12]. And again, one only has to discard atomistic metaphysics and move on to neural metaphysics-and everything immediately falls into place, resting on a solid physical foundation.

Compare the pitiful nature of Gumilev's hypothesis about the nature of passionarity, supposedly dependent on mutations caused by some kind of "cosmic" radiation. Here, the impossibility of physically substantiating the interesting and promising doctrine of Ethnogenesis within the framework of an atomistic picture of the world is most evident. In the neural picture of the world, the nature of passionarity is obvious-an individual is influenced not only by signals from his own vile personal essence, but also by influences from generalized personalities-family, clan, tribe, nation. The ratio of these interfering signals determines the degree of passionarity of the subject.

The most passionate are collective insects-bees and ants. Speaking of gene mutations, the genes of the queen, worker, scout, and guard bees are absolutely identical. Therefore, understanding the differences in bee specialization within the framework of atomism is completely impossible. Only in the neural worldview does it become clear that the essence of specialization lies neither in atoms nor in genes.

Gumilev asserts that the truly existing and active factors of the system are not objects-that is, not atoms or genes-but CONNECTIONS, although they have neither mass, charge, nor temperature. This insight fundamentally contradicts the atomistic worldview, but remarkably aligns with the principles of the neural worldview. Remarkably, Gumilev's assertion is painstakingly derived not from the mathematical structure of quantum mechanics, but from an analysis of a colossal amount of historical material.

Thus, in the neural worldview, bees' specialization is explained by NEURAL CONNECTIONS between the personality of an individual bee and a higher, generalizing personality-the SWARM, which determines the specialization and, in general, the behavior of all the bees under its charge.

But even in higher animals-and in humans-the influence of generalizing personalities is also quite perceptible. Each of us has felt this influence firsthand, on a purely physiological level. While normal people cope with this influence quite successfully, passionaries succumb to it completely. And here lies another paradox, inexplicable within atomism: these passionaries suddenly appear in large numbers at once, in order to fulfill a certain historical mission assigned by a Higher Personality-the Ethnos. This simultaneity cannot be explained by any mutations. The simultaneous, massive coincidence of seemingly independent events is too improbable. Similarly, as in evolution according to the laws of Nomogenesis, passionarity manifests simultaneously throughout the entire Ethnos-under the influence of a Higher Personality.

It is now clear that Super-, Sub-, and simple ethnic groups-and indeed, all ethno- and anthropo-spheres-are certain neural layers that generalize and encompass those fragments of the Universal neural network that determine the personal qualities of individuals.

Interestingly, while paying tribute to atomism, Gumilev-like many other innovators-proposes a new type of interaction: an ethnic field. There's nothing particularly interesting in this proposition-it's what all researchers, constrained by atomism, are forced to do. What's even more interesting is that, in describing the ethnic field, Gumilev prudently adds "or a phenomenon equivalent to it."

Truly a brilliant insight! In the Neural Picture of the World, such a phenomenon becomes a generalization of the concept of a physical FIELD-a Higher Neural Layer, encompassing the entire Ethnos under its purview.

Similar higher neural layers encompass the entirety of ethnic groups-the Noosphere. And the entire animal kingdom-the Biosphere. It's only necessary to clarify that, with this definition of the Biosphere, life is understood in the traditional sense-as a mode of existence for protein bodies. Because in the neural picture of the world, even the simplest physical objects are represented by some of the simplest fragments of the Universal neural network. And therefore, even these physical objects are already partly personalities, albeit primitive ones. And, consequently, they are already partly alive, although not protein. But we call the Biosphere the Higher Personality that controls the behavior of namely protein bodies.

Thus, in the neural picture of the world, the line between the living and the inert is erased. And the theories of Ethnogenesis, the Biosphere, and the Noosphere gain a solid physical foundation.

13. PHYSICS

And what about Physics? Will the neural picture of the world really pass without a trace for physics? Of course - for applied calculations of physical processes and the design of technical apparatus, atomism is most convenient. Moreover, it is practically IRREPLACEABLE. When the Inner Observer of the NeuroUniverse, as it develops, determines that the state of the OBJECTIVE REALITY accessible to it in its perception is described by a complex numbers wave function and the Schr"dinger equation, it will most likely abandon neural metaphysics and begin inventing technical apparatuses basing on atomistic metaphysics.

But physics is not limited to technology. Physics is not just bare facts. Physics is fantasy... That is - ugh!! What am I saying! Physics is not fantasy, but it cannot exist without fantasy. I'll prove it!!!

- Well, yes... Try and prove it...

Dunno on the Moon

Worldviews, if they are needed for anything, are, of course, primarily to connect seemingly completely unrelated phenomena. For example, Poincare believed that the advantage of the Copernican worldview is precisely that it connects together, producing the same cause, the diverse manifestations of the Coriolis force, which are completely unrelated in the geocentric system: the flattening of the Earth, the rotation of the Foucault pendulum, the rotation of cyclones, the trade winds, etc.

We have already shown that the neural worldview interconnects and substantiates diverse and promising teachings in philosophy, biology, and history.

But do similar phenomena exist in physics? After all, any approach to a problem from a new perspective can reveal something unexpected and promising.

Such manifestations exist!!!

For example, the successful application of spin networks in loop quantum gravity. Of course, a specific, detailed description of quantum gravity is hardly conveniently provided in neural terminology. And yet, in the most general terms, although they are spin networks, they are nonetheless networks. Apparently, in [4], the simplest spin network with a spin of 1/2 was actually considered in neural terminology. Thus, the network principle of organizing matter at the microlevel is confirmed.

On the other hand, network principles are also observed at the macrolevel - in the galactic structure of the Universe. But here, the neural picture is of no help so far. Apart from perhaps very general considerations - if the entire world is fundamentally composed of neurons, then this neural structure must somehow manifest itself at various levels - in quantum mechanics, in the nervous system, and in galactic structures.

And here again, one can discern Nature's striving for uniformity.

In the atomistic picture of the universe, these manifestations of network principles of organizing the universe are in no way connected.

In the neural worldview, the connection between these manifestations is obvious-here, spin networks and the neural-like nature of the galactic structure of the Universe are, at least conceptually, linked by a single underlying cause-the neural foundation of the world's structure.

Thus, the neural worldview connects not only biological and social manifestations, but also strictly scientifically observable, generally accepted physical phenomena-spin networks and the neural structure of the Universe. This connection, in turn, is an indirect confirmation, a justification of the neural worldview on a strictly scientific, physical foundation [14].

Moreover, the neural worldview can also be very useful in understanding and assimilating the basic principles of quantum mechanics, which, within the framework of atomism, inevitably lead to incomprehensible paradoxes. There's even a belief that quantum physics is fundamentally contradictory, incomprehensible, and paradoxical. A unique quantum logic has been invented that's incompatible with ordinary common sense.

I believe that all these contradictions and paradoxes stem from poor terminology. Because quantum mechanics inherited atomistic terminology-and with it, many of the prejudices of classical atomism. This solved the problem of compatibility with classical mechanics-that is, the problem of practical applied calculations of quantum objects. However, this also led to contradictions with logic and common sense.

And the principles of the quantum worldview fit organically and naturally into neural terminology. Therefore, many traditional quantum paradoxes don't seem so paradoxical here.

For example, let's consider the "heart of quantum mechanics"-two-slit interference [15]. Here, closing the slit means breaking the spatial connection through it from the particle source to the detector. And this connection is always subconsciously assumed to be positive. This gives rise to a paradox: how can it be that the slit is closed, but particles suddenly begin to hit the detector? Or vice versa-the slit is opened, but particles don't pass through. We emphasize that this assumption of a positive spatial connection is precisely an implicit, subconscious assumption. It is inherited from Epicurus, from his doctrine of emptiness. Indeed, empty space can have only the simplest properties; otherwise, how can it be emptiness? But experience reveals a complex connection between events from the source to the detector. In traditional terminology, this complexity must be attributed to the particle itself, in the form of a wave function. This is where wave-particle duality and other paradoxes arise.

Describing empty space in neural terminology is not nearly as simple as in atomistic terminology.

In neural terminology, empty space is represented by a certain layer of a neural network with complex, incomprehensible, and mind-boggling connections. This layer must be organized so that it appears empty space to an internal observer [4]. This is precisely why the NPW is completely unsuitable for solving applied problems.

For example, in atomistic terminology, it's enough to say, "Let's consider a spherically symmetric wave function..." And everything is immediately revealed and understood.

But in neural terminology, the neural network must be organized so that an internal observer of this network is convinced of spherical symmetry. This is not at all so simple-to me, it all seems rather vague, in the most general terms.

But this shortcoming of the NPW for general and applied physics could turn into a decisive advantage in attempts to comprehend the fundamental internal structure of space, and even more so, of time.

In neural terminology, there are no particles or voids, only neural connections and neural signals. A fragment of a neural network that transmits neural signals without distortion appears to the observer as empty space. If the neural signals are distorted, the observer will say that a region filled with some substance exists in the particle's path. There are fragments of the network in which a minimal input signal produces a stable flow of neural signals at the output. The observer will then notice that some classical event has occurred. And if they add a measuring needle to this flow and calibrate the scale, they will have a classical device, and the event will become a measurement. Such a measurement-event is described by an instantaneous (in a single neurocomputer cycle) change in the state of neural signals in a certain neural layer, which corresponds to a coherent quantum object.

Of course, all of this requires more detailed research at an incomparably higher level. But already now, using neural terminology, it is possible to significantly deepen our understanding of the essence of quantum mechanics. Indeed, in neural terminology, it's self-evident that spatial neural connections must, generally speaking, have a complex structure. If the entire world is represented by a complex numbers neural network, then the reality we perceive as empty space must also have a complex numbers structure, although this structure isn't always noticeable in classical cases. And the occlusion of a complex number connection can and should quite naturally have more varied consequences-both positive and negative. Therefore, after the slit closes, the total neural signal on the detector can either decrease or increase. In the latter case, some detectors will record events that the internal observer of the network will conveniently interpret as registering "particles," because all minimal events will be absolutely identical-after all, there's never half an event. For a while, this observer may wonder-through which slit did this "particle" pass? But if they grasp the neural structure of the universe they observe, all confusion and paradoxes will be cleared up. They will understand that no "particles" exist between events. That in his Universe there are no permanently existing things at all-except for relatively stable streams of events, which are sometimes conveniently described as acts of observing things-and even then only very roughly. He will also understand that the observed stream of events is permeated with complex numbers connections. Therefore, for the internal observer of the neural network, it will no longer be surprising that complex neural signals and connections sometimes lead to interference phenomena. The results of interference will immediately cease to be paradoxical, incomprehensible, mysterious, etc.

If we somehow tag a particle and track its trajectory, we add another source of neural signals and an additional neural layer from the new source to the new receiver, which tracks the particle. The resulting event becomes more complex-now it is not only the registration of the particle being studied on the screen, but also the registration of the tracking of this particle. The neural layers for experiments with interference and for experiments with a tagged particle are fundamentally different in their very structure. Naturally, the results will also be completely different. For delayed-choice experiments, the structure of the neural layer changes during the experiment. For example, if the screen on which interference fringes are recorded is removed so that the particle falls into one of two telescopes, each precisely aimed at its own slit, this corresponds to replacing the neural layer in which interference is observed with another neural layer in which each telescope receives complex numbers neural connections from only one slit. Clearly, no interference is possible in the latter case.

Thus, in neural terminology, experiments on particle interference at two slits become understandable and logical. No special logic other than common sense is needed to explain the interference. It's as if a lightbulb were turned on in the dark, and everything suddenly became clear and understandable. This clarification is possible because traditional terminology postulates the properties of particles and space. Moreover, these postulations are largely implicit, subconscious, based on classical prejudices. In neural terminology, however, the properties of a neural network are explicitly and consciously postulated-so that the internal observer of this network ultimately experiences the illusion of particles and void, whose properties correspond to our understanding. This opens the possibility of at least a qualitative study of these previously mysterious and enigmatic properties.

Let us emphasize once again that atomistic terminology is much more convenient in applied physics. But its application to understanding the foundations of quantum mechanics is like describing rain not as a stream of events, but as a constantly existing thing. Especially if the rain is light, which corresponds to quantum event flows. With a large event flow, no questions arise-a river seems to us a constantly existing thing. And only the most inquisitive mind realizes that you can't step into the same river twice. But under a light drizzle, questions immediately arise: is it raining or not? It turns out that it is raining and not raining at the same time. We'll have to come up with a special logic! Or introduce a special "rain dualism."

All this becomes completely redundant in neural terminology, which operates not with things, but with events.

Another example of a quantum paradox is the problem of observation (measurement), which in the traditional framework is broken down into three processes [16].

Process 1 is the observer's decision regarding what question to ask the quantum world.

Process 2 is the evolution of the state according to the scheme described by the Schr"dinger equation.

Process 3 is the quantum state that is the answer to the question formulated during the implementation of process 1, or the reduction of the state.

In the atomistic picture of the world, all these processes are fundamentally different from one another. So different that no unity is discernible between them. The participants in these processes-the object being studied, the measuring device, and the observer-are equally fundamentally different. The object being studied is described by quantum mechanics. But the measuring device, by contrast, is always assumed to be a fundamentally classical object. And the observer is conceived as an alien being, fundamentally excluded from the picture of the universe. It is precisely this alienness that leads to the well-known paradoxes.

Let's consider how these processes look in the neural picture of the world.

Let's start with the fact that in the neural picture of the world, all three participants-the object, the device, and the internal observer-are represented as separate fragments of a single neural network of the Universe. This alone underlies the organic unity and integrity of the neural picture of the world compared to the atomistic one. Of course, the fragment modeling the internal observer will be somewhat more complex than the fragment representing the physical object. But not much more complex. To adequately observe physical objects, the internal observer only needs to possess associative memory. And neural networks are quite capable of possessing this property.

Process 1 means that the internal observer of the neural network creates a special fragment of the neural network-a measuring device. The particle source for this device will be represented as an input neural connection. Ideally, this connection should be unique-after all, in physics, we want to study a certain object in isolation from the rest of the world. That is, the fragment of the neural network representing the measuring device should have a single input from the rest of the neural network of the Universe. The internal observer itself does not create neural connections. It merely utilizes existing neural network fragments in the form of sufficiently rigid and robust bodies already existing in nature. For example, a solid screen is a similar fragment created by nature itself. The set of inputs to this screen fragment appears to the observer as an opaque surface. Opacity means that the input signals arriving at this surface are lost in the labyrinth of the fragment's internal connections.

If the observer has sufficiently rigid bodies, then it will be convenient for them to construct Euclidean geometry-convenient to the extent that the approximation of the rigidity of these bodies works.

If, however, the observer does not have sufficiently rigid bodies-for example, on a cosmological or, conversely, microscopic scale-it will be more convenient for them to choose the maximum transmission speed of neural signals as the space-time standard and, consequently, to use a different space-time geometry-in the form of Lorentz transformations [7].

The observer receives all information about the quantum object from counters of various particles. In neural terminology, such counters are represented by neural network fragments in which a minimal input signal branches and multiplies into a sufficiently powerful output signal, observable at the macroscopic level as, for example, the click of a counter or the movement of a needle along a measuring scale.

The observer combines all these naturally prepared neural network fragments into a measuring device that must answer the question posed in Process 1. Obviously, the design of devices for different measurements can differ fundamentally. Therefore, in neural terminology, it is not surprising that, for example, coordinate and momentum cannot be measured simultaneously. After all, measuring them requires organizing fundamentally different matrices of neural connections and neural signal flows.

Finally, the measuring device is ready, and Process 2 begins. The observer sends a neural signal to the input of this device. This signal can branch and multiply, depending on the specific organization of the neural connections that make up the device. The evolution of the neural signal is described by the Schr"dinger equation in neural terminology.

Vi = SUM(j) Tij Uj

Where

j - is the address of the first neuron, Uj is its output signal;

i - is the address of the second neuron, at whose input the signal Vi is summed;

Tij - is the connection matrix between neurons from j to i, created as a result of process 1.

Signals U, V are analogous to the probability amplitude of an event-the excitation of the particle counter with number i. The connection between neurons Tij is analogous to the transition amplitude <iЃsЃj>. The quantities T, U, V are finitely complex numbers, which is ensured by the additional column Im (imaginary unit) in the tables of neuron signals and connections.

As in traditional atomistic terminology, process 2 does not pose any fundamental problems-it is simply the continuous evolution of the wave function in the absence of events (measurements).

The fundamental problems begin with process 3, in which the wave function (state vector) changes abruptly. In traditional terminology, this process is the most difficult to understand. How can this be-all our mathematics is based on the analysis of continuous, smooth functions-and suddenly, abruptly...

Especially in the case of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox.

In neural terminology, process 3 appears much more natural, since the dynamics of the state vector (neural signals) are described not by operators, but by neural network algorithms. A command to change the state of all neurons in the network or a single, individual fragment is simply one of many similar algorithms. The scope of this command determines the degree of coherence of the network fragment. That is, if some neurons can change their states with a single command, in a single neurocomputer cycle, in one fell swoop, so to speak-then all these neurons constitute a coherent network fragment, which to an internal observer appears as a coherent physical object. In this case, it doesn't matter how spatially separated the coherent neurons are. That is, how many intermediate neurons separate them (or can be inserted between them). The scope of the command to change state remains unchanged-it will pass through all neurons that were initially coherent. Therefore, Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox no longer appears paradoxical.

So, in neural terminology, all three measurement processes are simply three stages of a single, holistic algorithm for changing the state of a neural network, in which both the object being studied and the observer with the measuring device seamlessly participate. They are all fragments of a single, Universe neural network with uniform state-change algorithms.

Another mystery, unsolved in the atomistic picture of the world, is the question of why all elementary particles are absolutely identical [17]. In the neural picture of the world, there is no such misunderstanding. Because in the neural picture, there are no permanently existing entities as such. All such entities are mere illusions, mere approximations that arise in the flow of events and disappear over time. Namely by this - elementary particles are the same.

The internal observer of the neural network tends to generalize stable branches of the flow of events and call them separate, permanently existing entities. Simply because it is convenient. This is precisely how the illusion of the existence of elementary particles arises. Why do these particles appear identical? Because their behavior is determined by the same array of information - the multiplication table of basis quaternions - Qwat [4]. This single table determines the dynamics of ALL electrons in the Universe. It is also the informational analogue of a single electron in the theory of a single-electron Universe. The flow of neural signals, which dynamically accesses the Qwat table at every neurocomputer cycle, is perceived by the neural network's internal observer as a particle with spin 1/2. This table can be generalized and expanded for other particles. Such an expanded table, like Qwat, would allow for a convenient classification of all elementary particles. How beautiful it would be - all particles in one table! Some rows define an electron, others a proton, and from there it's not far to the Higgs boson. But I'm incapable of such a generalization - it requires a genius on the level of Mendeleev.

Thus, the transition to neural terminology helps to easily and simply resolve all the well-known paradoxes and return common sense to quantum mechanics.

14. Parallel Worlds

All of this pertains to the generally accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics. But neural terminology is particularly interesting in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which isn't exactly universally accepted.

The concept of parallel worlds in the neural picture of the world is fundamentally different from how such worlds are viewed in the atomistic picture of the world [18].

In atomism, there really are an infinite number of parallel worlds. Perhaps even too many. But all atomistic worlds remain dead, wretched, and dreary-in which the existence of life, much less a developed personality, is impossible. Even from an infinity of dead worlds, life and personality cannot emerge.

But even if the existence of personality is allowed in the atomistic picture of the world, this personality will essentially be unable to experience the multivariate nature of the Universe, because there is no macroscopic connection between atomistic worlds. For example, this unfortunate cat, which is alive in one world and not in another. It would seem that these two worlds are connected by a common wave function-a superposition of the two basis states of a cat-living and dead. But in practice, this common wave function instantly splits into two separate branches, leaving no trace of any connection.

As a result, the multivariance of the atomic Universe exists only at the micro level-as long as the wave functions of particles in these worlds are still coherent. But the exchange of information between coherent objects is impossible. To transmit a significant amount of information, at least several sequentially completed events are required-for example, dots, dashes, and spaces in Morse code. And the completion of an event destroys the coherence of the wave function. Therefore, only a single bit of information can be transmitted through a coherent object, which is fundamentally indistinguishable from insurmountable quantum noise. That is, if a particle counter in our laboratory clicks just once, we cannot definitively assert that this single bit was transmitted from a parallel world, and did not fly through all the barriers from the edge of our Universe. To make a definitive statement, we must accept a certain telegram text-like the famous "Heinrich Hertz" one. But the coherence of the object's state is destroyed after the first click, making information exchange at the micro level impossible. And at the macro level-for a cat, or even for large biomolecules-there can be no connection between parallel atomic worlds, because there is no coherence of wave functions. Besides these functions, atomism provides no other connection. And since there is no connection, there is effectively no multivariate universe. Atomistic worlds remain disjointed, and information exchange between them is impossible, much less the travel of a developed personality

Attempts to imagine transitions to parallel worlds through extravagant solutions to Einstein's equations have no scientific basis, since within the framework of atomic field theory, no one even asks the obvious question: how does the letter t in these equations relate to the observer's psychological and biological sense of time and space? Why would an observer, after some rotation or acceleration, suddenly find themselves in a past or future world? Transformations of the letter t by themselves mean nothing-they also need to be linked to the observer's conscious model, something that has not yet been accomplished in the atomic worldview.

In fact, the atomic worldview subconsciously assumes an observer composed entirely of elementary particles. The interaction between these particles will lag during acceleration, and so the observer's biorhythms will slow down. Their heartbeat will slow down, and they will supposedly not age as much as their stationary counterparts. However, no one has yet proven that even the observer's body is entirely composed of particles. So far, all that's been proven is that a minimal portion of matter can be extracted from this body in the form of an elementary particle. And the individual observer is fundamentally excluded from the atomistic picture of the universe. Therefore, all idle speculation about wormholes and wormholes is, at the very least, premature.

Yet, it's not enough for us to acknowledge the multivariate nature of the Universe only at the micro level. We also want to travel to parallel worlds, as depicted in the film "Mirror for a Hero." Is this possible? We remember the assertion that, besides our familiar world, other worlds exist that possess a clearly defined reality. These are worlds created by the creative imagination throughout human history. Is a macroscopic connection, an exchange of essential information, between these worlds really possible?

This connection can be traced in the neural picture of the world.

Here, in addition to the observable three-dimensional world, there also exists an unobservable, invisible world. Both of these worlds-visible and invisible-are represented as neural layers of a global neurocomputer. The observable (physical) world is a primitive three-address neural layer in which the internal observer of the network registers a stream of events in three-dimensional space.

The body of this inner observer also belongs to the physical layer. But the observer's personality is contained in more developed, invisible (to the inner observer, of course), but also neural layers. This personality (the soul, if you will) controls the physical body until the neural connections from the soul to the body are severed. Moreover, the nervous system, with its visible neurons, observed in the physical world is a weak imitation of the powerful, invisible neural layer where decisions regarding personality control are actually made. The visible brain merely receives and executes these decisions in the visible world. As Sheldrake teaches, the brain is like a radio receiver or (in more modern terms) a modem.

Thus, the entire universe-both visible and invisible-is structured similarly, as neural networks. Only the power of these networks varies. In such a multilayer neural network, it is possible to instantly (in a single neurocomputer cycle) create an infinite number of additional physical neural layers, each of which currently replicates the state of the current layer, but subsequently develops in its own way. These will be parallel worlds in the neural picture - from elementary particles to boundless universes.

Even in the physical neural world, teleportation of elementary particles is, in principle, possible. It is logical to assume that the transfer of control of a developed personality from one physical world to another - a parallel one - is similarly possible. To do this, it is sufficient to slightly change the addressing of the connections between the higher personality layer and the physical layer in the neural database. And the body of the neural network's internal observer will instantly find itself in a parallel, fairly similar, yet still different physical world.

Of course - it's easy to say - slightly change. But how to do this? Here the pitcher of my insignificant thoughts shows the bottom. For now, let's limit ourselves to the prospect - that such operations, in principle, do not contradict the foundations of the neural picture of the world. Perhaps, eventually, the internal observers of neural networks will learn to do this-through science or other methods of cognition. For now, let's consider the possibilities of connections between parallel physical worlds in the neural picture.

This connection is possible through the personality of the observer, which maintains its integrity in the invisible world. Let us emphasize: this connection is not through the wave functions of the particles that supposedly comprise the observer. Rather, it is through higher neural layers, not directly observable in physical experiments but constituting the essence of both individual personalities and their community as a whole. These higher neural layers form an invisible world, which is united and integral, whereas physical neural worlds can be infinitely numerous.

In an atomistic universe, all the many parallel worlds are equivalent-there is no control center. In the neural picture, only the physical worlds are equivalent-here they are as parallel to each other as in atomism. But all the control connections of the physical neural worlds converge on the higher layers of a single invisible world. Neural connections in the physical neural layer unambiguously correspond to the wave function of an object in the atomistic picture of the world. But in atomism, there is and cannot be anything other than physical connections. And in the neural picture of the world, nothing other than physical connections prevents us from assuming the presence of much more developed higher layers of personality. This is the fundamental difference between the neural picture and the atomistic one.

Thus, the observer will be able to travel through parallel physical worlds and return through the higher, invisible world-all the while preserving the integrity of personality and memory. There will be no causal paradoxes. All these journeys will be virtual. Anything that happens in parallel worlds will have almost no physical consequences for the real world, other than the memory of these journeys. And yet, this is not so little. Memory is the only constant entity in the transitory physical world, the only thing that binds the fleeting flow of disparate events into something coherent. Therefore, the Human in the NPW is not just a peak, a pinnacle-it is the CROWN of creation. A wreath-in which all the CONNECTIONS of the Universe are intertwined and completed. Without the Human, the Universe does not exist. It will crumble into pieces.

It is precisely the memory of the inner observer that can provide a weak, yet quite distinct, connection between the physical neural worlds. This interconnection, expressed by the corresponding matrix of neural connections, must be weak enough for the parallel worlds to remain distinct, without significantly overlapping. At the same time, this interconnection can provide some interference between the parallel worlds. Thus, at the end of "Mirror for a Hero," the main character merged two personalities from the real and parallel worlds. He retained the memory of his travels and realized that this was not delusion, but reality.

But then the question arises: how does virtuality differ from hallucination? And from reality?

Apparently, there can be no other answer here than that people go mad alone. Therefore, embarking on such journeys alone is dangerous. A sense of reality can only be ensured by the mutual coordination of a sufficient number of interacting personalities. Thus, in "Mirror for a Hero," there are two travelers-otherwise, each of them would go mad alone. The totality of all the interconnected, mutually coordinated higher personality layers controlling physical parallel neuroworlds ultimately constitutes a single information field of the Universe.

In the atomistic picture of the world, this concept is pseudoscientific. There is no macroscopic connection between parallel worlds, and therefore, no field expressing this connection can exist.

In the neural picture, the connections between worlds are expressed as a matrix of connections between neuronal layers. This matrix creates a physical basis for the concept of an information field. For physical objects, such a matrix in the non-relativistic case corresponds to the interaction Hamiltonian-that is, the physical field. For more complex objects, this matrix of connections ensures a certain informational interaction, which, by analogy with physics, can be called an information field. However, to avoid misunderstandings and the inevitable irritation of specialists in atomic field theory, it is better to avoid intruding on their firmly established terminology and switch to the language of neural signals and connections. That is, it is better to speak not of "field" or "interaction," but of "neural layer" or "neural connections."

For example, for identical particles, in addition to their own wave function, there exists a generalized array of neural connections that ensures their identity. For electrons, this is the multiplication table of basis quaternions [4]-a total of 16 rows. More developed personalities are controlled by more powerful fragments of the invisible neural network. Moreover, they can also be controlled by both individual and generalized neural layers. For example, a single individual is governed both by his own personality and by generalized personalities such as family, gender, nation, courtyard, company, class-not according to Marx, of course, but according to school. Such multi-level governance provides the physical basis for the concept of collective intelligence.

For example, how does a scout bee communicate the direction of its honey harvest to its fellow bees? In the 1960s, popular science films depicted it supposedly using a special dance to indicate the directions and turns of its flight. But who in a hive of thousands can see these dances? Five to ten bees, no more. In the neural network, it's clear that with this collective dance, the scout primes the swarm for access to a specific neural layer in which it has recorded its flight program. With a similar dance, Native Americans prime themselves for a hunt or a fight, then act together, as if sensing a supernatural connection. This connection is also realized through a certain neural layer common to the entire tribe. Electrons consult the multiplication table of basic quaternions [4], as if for instructions on what to do on the next cycle of the neurocomputer. In a similar way, members of a swarm, tribe, or team also access some invisible neural layer (which can conveniently be called the collective mind of a given community) to instantly coordinate further actions. The synchronized flight of a flock of pigeons, which would undoubtedly become confused and crash if they exchanged any visible information, is similarly instantly coordinated. Similarly, the intestinal microflora organizes itself into a single, unifying personality, capable of calculating virtual futures and quite noticeably, albeit unconsciously, influencing the intestinal host's choice of these options-when he says, "I Feel It by My Gut" [24]!

A sick mongrel, chained all its life, runs off into an unknown forest and there searches for a medicinal herb. Atomists say that the program for this search is encoded in its genes. But this is impossible. Only a rigid program can be encoded in the rigid molecular structure of a gene. But the unfortunate dog is undoubtedly guided by a flexible, learning search program. The neural network clearly shows that the dog is connected to a generalized personal neural layer-the collective intelligence of all dogs throughout history. This collective neural intelligence generates multiple parallel physical neural worlds, where the virtual dog, through trial and error, develops a treatment plan. Meanwhile, time stands still in the real world. Finally, the plan is finalized, and the dog, already in the real world, unerringly runs to the healing herb, guided by the collective intelligence of the entire canine tribe. This dog's personal experience complements and enriches that of the collective neural intelligence and will be used in the subsequent actions of its members.

Atomists again claim that the birds' migration program is encoded somewhere in the molecular structure of their genes. But here's a personal observation.

In the 1960s, all the rooks flew south. It was impossible to see a rook in winter. But in the 1970s, winter rooks gradually began to appear. And by 1980, about half the rooks were wintering. In the March snow, the plump winterers stood out sharply from the skinny-as thin as a beak-migratory birds. And by 1990, the migrants had disappeared completely. At the same time, amidst the general chaos, daily garbage collection ceased, and permanent garbage dumps sprang up-to the delight of crows, rats, homeless and wintering rooks! And this happened all over Russia. What kind of gene mutation could possibly have spread across their entire range in 20 years? No, there was no mutation. The collective mind of a supremely dynamic personality-Big Rook-analyzed the risky experiences of the first wintering adventurers and gradually INSPIRED all his charges-there's no point in wasting their time on deadly flights. We're well-fed here, too!

The footballers are playing for themselves, and teamwork just isn't working. There's irritation, recriminations, desperate hand-waving... But the fans get the crowd going, and every glimmer of understanding is supported by a powerful, as yet undeserved, delight. Missteps are met with consolation and encouragement. And the talentless team, assembled from the second league, visibly acquires a unified rhythm of play, an inexplicable coherence, and a vibrant audacity. A resonance develops between team and crowd. The greater the fans' encouragement, the more brilliantly the team plays. And every successful move, in turn, heightens the crowd's enthusiasm. Players and crowds are attuned to a single neural control layer, and-all together! - they outplay a much better opponent, whose game, on the contrary, is suppressed and falls apart.

All these examples demonstrate the action of the collective mind of a bee swarm, flock, tribe, family, or team. In the atomistic worldview, this concept is again pseudoscientific, even if we accept the many-worlds interpretation. An atomist can only posit quantum interference between parallel versions of the same brain. But even this hypothesis fails to hold water, because brain activity is mediated by fairly large biomolecules, which are classical objects, and interference between their states is virtually impossible. And in the atomistic worldview, there is absolutely no way to unite the brains of individuals into a collective mind. The idea of information exchange (such as psi-radiation) with some collective mind, which supposedly also exists somewhere in the visible physical world (and there's no other way to imagine it-there's no invisible world in atomism!) is simply laughable. But even if we imagine this collective intelligence hidden somewhere in dark matter, in the atomistic picture it remains something incomprehensible and completely inaccessible. But in the neural picture, the collective intelligence, as the essence of the invisible neural world, can be touched, modeled, and virtually explored with one's own hands (of course, by an external creator, not an internal observer). Moreover, it is obvious that this essence, although much more powerful than the visible image of the nervous system, is structured similarly to the simplest physical objects-as a fragment of a neural network. This similarity is crucial, because any picture of the world must at least provide the illusion of a unified world order at all levels. In atomism, this illusion is ensured by the hypothesis that the entire world is composed of atoms. It is precisely this illusion that ensured the triumphant march of atomism-from Newton to Feynman.

But for concepts like "parallel worlds," "information field," and "collective intelligence," the framework of atomism becomes too narrow. The unity of the atomic universe is destroyed. Therefore, these concepts are considered blatant pseudoscientific in academic science.

In the neural picture, the unity of the universe is ensured by the similarity of the structure of neural network fragments-from physical objects to an invisible personal center. The only difference between these fragments lies in the number of constituent neurons and connections, but the principles of neural universe structure are the same for all neuroworlds. Therefore, the above-mentioned concepts are organically integrated into the neural picture, receiving their justification, legitimation, and research potential.

Thus, in atomistic terminology, the Multi-World Universe appears as an endlessly dreary collection of monotonous and disparate atomistic worlds, between which the exchange of information, much less travel, is impossible.

In neural terminology, parallel worlds are represented as isolated neural layers controlled by a single higher center, through which information exchange and travel by a developed personality are possible. This legitimizes the concepts of an information field and collective intelligence, opening up the prospect of modeling and researching these concepts.

15. Ancient Legends. Rig Veda

And finally, a bit of esotericism. Well, where would we be without it!

However, for those narrowly focused on their own subject matter, we emphasize that the mythological model of the Rig Veda, used subsequently, has long been universally recognized not by mystics and esotericists, but by all serious historians and philologists of the highest international standing [2].

An analysis of ancient legends can provide interesting material for comparing the two views of the universe. According to the neural picture, as a person's inner world develops, their ability to directly connect with the outside world should gradually diminish. At a certain stage, this personality will reach a level at which it is already aware of its individuality, but will not yet become isolated, merely separated by a shaky boundary from (supposedly!) inanimate nature. A weakening, but still quite perceptible, connection to the shared memory of the Universe must inevitably manifest itself in myths and legends that stun the imagination of descendants, who, with the development of abstract logical thinking, lose the gift of intuition.

On the contrary, the atomistic picture presupposes a monotonous development of knowledge, in which enlightened heirs condescendingly explain away the personification of nature characteristic of their ancestors as the fear of primitive savages before an as-yet-unexplored element. They supposedly see wood spirits, water spirits, and other evil spirits behind every bush.

Our Universe contains many legends whose origins are inexplicable within the framework of atomism. The most striking of these is the collection of religious hymns of the ancient Aryans, the Rig Veda. It should be emphasized that the Rig Veda reflects precisely the most primitive, simple, pure, and unsophisticated figurative-associative memories. They contain neither later abstract logical layers nor artistic invention in the spirit of ancient or Scandinavian mythology.

Various scholars of the Rig Veda agree in recognizing the incredibly deep and precise intuition of the ancient Aryan sages, who discovered a way to liberate time compressed in the subconscious, allowing them to experience memories of the formation of life on Earth and even the formation of the Universe.

Where did this creation come from?

Perhaps it created itself?

Perhaps not?

He who oversees the world in the highest heaven-only He knows this. Or... does He not know?!

No-these lines were by no means created by savages!

In the NPW, it is natural to assume that such memories of ancient sages are a consequence of weakened neural connections between Man and cosmic memory, remnants of his former unity with the universe as a whole and with higher beings in particular. For example, the existence of personal qualities in the Universe as a whole could be manifested in the myths of Purusha-the primordial personality, the cosmic giant from whose body the universe is created. The cosmogonic sacrifice is depicted as a weaving process stretching across the entire sky, in which all the gods participate. This suggests an analogy with the algorithm for deploying a complex numbers neural network with a three-dimensional address of neurons, the nested cycles of which closely resemble the movement of a shuttle across a two-dimensional fabric. The regular repetition of such cycles of enumerating all neurons and connections at each cycle of the neurocomputer is reflected in the interpretation of time as a cyclical process, not entirely defined for the modern reader of the Rig Veda, as well as in the concept of RITA-the cosmic law to which all gods must submit, the fundamental principle of creation upon which the entire Universe rests and moves.

Interestingly, the image of Purusha also suggests itself in Vanchurin's theory, which demonstrates that a learning-capable neural network naturally develops into a state described by quantum mechanics [13]. That is, from a certain primordial personality (the initial state of the neural network), the Universe evolves through the learning process to the state of the laws of physics familiar to us.

Using the example of simple personalities, one can sense this proposition, unusual to us but indisputable to the ancient sages, that the unification of a group of subjects creates a qualitatively new personality - so that the entire Universe as a whole is personified in the image of Purusha.

From this perspective, it is natural to assume that the ancient personifications of family, nation, the forces of nature - and indeed the entire Universe - should not be considered merely artistic images. Nor are the gods of the Rig Veda, in whom it is easy to see the personification of the dynamic personalities of the quantum neural network, the operators-algorithms that change the states of the Universal neurocomputer. The properties of these dynamic personalities (likely embedded by some objective function) can only be characterized in the most general terms. For example, the image of Varuna, the bearer and protector of rita, personifying the power to govern the world, the divine instrument for implementing the will of rita, can be interpreted as a generalization of all possible state-change operators, just as the image of Purusha is a generalization of all possible states of the Universe as a whole. Naturally, individual operators will have their own personal properties. The superposition of several algorithmic operators, each striving to activate the connections and neurons it requires, may resemble the struggle or interaction of dynamic personalities, the motifs of which fill the hymns of the Rig Veda.

It is interesting to consider the main myth of the Rig Veda from this perspective. It is known that the version of the Universe we observe is the result of an unlikely fluctuation in the values of World constants. The permissible values of these constants lie in a narrow region, outside of which the Universe transitions to states where the development of intelligent beings is impossible, and space is curled up-for example, into a superstring. Apparently, the ensemble of such states, indistinguishable from the perspective of the anthropic principle, was personified in the image of Vala, and the algorithm for "folding" space-in the person of his double, Vritra. Judging by ancient depictions, in this case, the superstring may have been a spiral, enveloping the one- or two-dimensional embryo of the universe and preventing it from unfolding. The folded state corresponds to a neurocomputer spinning idly, without developing a neural network, without accumulating neurons or connections. The difficulty of selecting the parameters under which the neural network will unfold as a boundless universe expresses the myth of the long gestation of Indra-the personification of the operator-algorithm for the transition of the universe to an anthropic state. It is possible that it was precisely for this selection that the factor of randomness and the principle of learning had to be introduced into the state-changing circuit of a quantum neurocomputer. Finally, the key combination is found, and the familiar three dimensions of space begin to unfold, reflected in the myth of Vishnu's three ascending steps. Indeed, the three nested cycles of enumerating all neurons with three-dimensional addresses are very reminiscent of three ascending steps.

In a space with three unfolded dimensions, the one-dimensional Vritra can no longer prevent Indra from transforming the Universe from the Vala state to the state we observe, which initially has zero entropy. Subsequently, entropy begins to increase, and consequently, the irreversible flow of time begins, associated in the Rig Veda with the flow of cosmic waters liberated from Vritra.

As noted above, the anthropic state is unstable; any unsuccessful move by a dynamic personality in the highly charged cosmic game can lead to the collapse of the Universe into its previous form-Vala. A premonition of catastrophe prompts the rishis' frequent appeals to Indra, Vishnu, and Varuna, asking them not to weaken their control over the universe in the constant struggle against the serpentine operators attempting to fold space once again.

And the gods haven't let us down yet. At each cycle of the universal neurocomputer's algorithm, they review all the neurons and successfully adjust the state of the quantum neural network in accordance with their inherent objective function, so that at the end of each cycle, the Universe preserves the properties of the world we know, ensuring victory over Vritra and his kin, whose objective function is apparently somewhat different. In this endless battle, static personalities can also provide the gods with the necessary assistance if they correctly activate the neurons and connections available to them-primarily in their inner world. The ancient sages, "through reflection and questioning in the heart," established that positive results are achieved through purity of actions and thoughts, the most important of which they considered to be reflection on the origin and structure of the universe and the existence of the MEANING of our lives.

I hope that this book will also make its modest contribution to the cosmic struggle. Well, at least in that the atomistic pessimism about the absolute meaninglessness of our existence is now completely unfounded. There is meaning - without a doubt! But which namely that meaning is - let everyone figure it out for themselves.

Appendices

To make the material easier to understand, the Big Book has omitted detailed references to primary sources.

They are found in the individual articles that make up the Big Book.

1. A.V.KARASEV. Neural world picture. Introduction. http://samlib.ru/k/karasew_a_w/nwp.shtml

2. Карасев А.В. Нейронная картина мира. Вестник новых медицинских технологий. 2002. том 9. N 2. http://samlib.ru/k/karasew_a_w/nkmfs.shtml

3. A.V.KARASEV. Schr"dinger's equation in the neural picture of the world. http://samlib.ru/k/karasew_a_w/us_nkm_en.shtml

4. Карасев А.В. Трехмерное пространство и спин электрона в нейронной терминологии. Квантовая Магия, 2011, том 8, вып. 2. http://quantmagic.narod.ru/volumes/VOL822011/p2168.pdf

5. A.V.KARASEV. Labyrinth of understanding in the neural picture of the world. http://samlib.ru/k/karasew_a_w/lab_en.shtml

6. A.V.KARASEV. Than a neural picture of the world different from speculation about - we live in a computer. http://samlib.ru/k/karasew_a_w/nkm_diff.shtml

7. Карасев А. В. Модель наблюдателя в картине мира Пуанкаре. http://samlib.ru/k/karasew_a_w/poincare.shtml

8. A.V.KARASEV. Biocentrism of Robert Lanza in the neuron picture of the world. http://samlib.ru/k/karasew_a_w/bz_en.shtml

9. A.V.KARASEV. Legitimating the teachings of Rupert Sheldrake in the neural terminology of quantum mechanics. http://samlib.ru/k/karasew_a_w/rs_leg.shtml

10. Карасев А.В. Теория эволюции - Номогенез Л.С.Берга в нейронной картине мира. http://samlib.ru/k/karasew_a_w/berg.shtml

11. Карасев А.В. Принципы Номогенеза в развитии общества. http://samlib.ru/k/karasew_a_w/nom_soc.shtml

12. Карасев А.В. Обоснование теории Этногенеза в Нейронной картине мира. http://samlib.ru/k/karasew_a_w/etnos.shtml

13. A.V.KARASEV. Substantiation of the neural picture of the world in Vanchurin's theory. http://samlib.ru/k/karasew_a_w/van_en.shtml

14. A.V.KARASEV. Physical evidence for the neural picture of the world. http://samlib.ru/k/karasew_a_w/fp_nkm.shtml

15. A.V.KARASEV. Clarification of the paradoxes of quantum interference in neural terminology. http://samlib.ru/k/karasew_a_w/interference_engl.shtml

16. A.V.KARASEV. Measurement problem in the neural picture of the world. http://samlib.ru/k/karasew_a_w/mp_nkm.shtml

17. A.V.KARASEV. Particle Identity Principle in the neuron picture of the world. http://samlib.ru/k/karasew_a_w/ptp.shtml

18. A.V.KARASEV. Parallel worlds, information fields, collective intelligence in the neural picture of the world. http://samlib.ru/k/karasew_a_w/if_cm.shtml

19. It's written about this in all the books!

20. Карасев А.В. Вселенная в нейрокомпьютере. http://samlib.ru/k/karasew_a_w/neuroun.shtml

21. Карасев А.В. Кризис науки по А.Г.Дугину с точки зрения нейронной картины мира. http://samlib.ru/k/karasew_a_w/dugin.shtml

22. A.V.KARASEV. Against Epicurus. http://samlib.ru/k/karasew_a_w/ag_ep.shtml

23. Карасев А.В. Квантовое мировоззрение "Войны и мира". Квантовая Магия, 2010, том 7, вып. 4. https://quantmagic.narod.ru/volumes/VOL742010/p4234.pdf

24. A.V.KARASEV. Brain hologram in the neuron picture of the world. http://samlib.ru/k/karasew_a_w/kp_bl.shtml

Оставить комментарий © Copyright Карасев Александр Владимирович (kar64382@mail.ru) Размещен: 27/09/2025, изменен: 27/09/2025. 170k. Статистика. Статья: Естествознание Скачать FB2		Ваша оценка:
Аннотация: Quantum mechanics is very similar to a neural network. A fundamentally new PHYSICAL picture of the world is built on this similarity. As a result, atomism loses its unfounded claims to uniqueness and exclusivity in explaining physical processes, which are now viewed not as the universal foundation of the universe, but merely as specially simplified manifestations of the higher properties of matter-Life, Mind, and Society-inexplicable within the meager framework of atomism, but for the first time PHYSICALLY substantiated within the neural picture of the world.

Карасев Александр Владимирович The Neural Picture of the World

Карасев Александр Владимирович
The Neural Picture of the World