What is Real?

The question "What is real?" constitutes the primordial axis of human inquiry, serving as the boundary condition for all physical sciences, cognitive theories, and metaphysical speculations. For millennia, the answer was presumed to be self-evident: reality is the tangible, extended matter perceived by the senses. However, the convergence of advanced quantum mechanics, holographic field theories, evolutionary psychology, and the philosophy of mind has irrevocably shattered this "Naive Realist" assumption. This report provides a comprehensive, expert-level synthesis of the current state of ontological research. By integrating Donald Hoffman’s Interface Theory of Perception, the holographic emergence of spacetime via quantum error correction, and the resurrection of Idealism through rigorous analytic frameworks, we propose a radical restructuring of the concept of reality. The analysis suggests that spacetime is not a fundamental container but an emergent, error-correcting data structure—a user interface—generated by a deeper, likely informational or consciousness-based substrate. We explore the implications of "It from Qubit," the Frauchiger-Renner paradox, and the Swampland conjectures to delineate the absolute limits of human knowledge and the likely architecture of the noumenal world.

1. The Cognitive Horizon: Deconstructing the "Given" Reality

To determine the nature of the external world, one must first calibrate the instrument of observation: the human cognitive apparatus. The historical presumption of scientific realism—that our senses and cognitive faculties have evolved to report the truth of the environment with increasing fidelity—is facing a catastrophic theoretical collapse. Rigorous mathematical modeling in evolutionary game theory and epistemology suggests that the very function of perception is to obscure reality, not to reveal it.

1.1 The Interface Theory of Perception (ITP)

The most formidable challenge to the assumption that we perceive reality "as it is" comes from the Interface Theory of Perception (ITP), championed by cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman. The theory posits that space, time, and physical objects are not insights into the objective nature of the world but are species-specific adaptations analogous to a computer's graphical user interface (GUI).¹

1.1.1 The Fitness-Beats-Truth (FBT) Theorem

The foundation of ITP is the Fitness-Beats-Truth (FBT) Theorem, a mathematical result derived from evolutionary game theory. The theorem explores the probability that natural selection would favor a perceptual system that preserves the homomorphic structure of reality (a "truth" strategy) versus one that encodes fitness payoffs alone (a "fitness-only" strategy).

• The Premise: Reality consists of a set of states $W$. An organism perceives a set of sensory states $X$ via a perceptual map $P: W \rightarrow X$. The organism’s survival depends on a fitness function $f: W \times A \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, where $A$ is the set of possible actions.¹
• The Conflict: The fitness function $f$ does not monotonically track the structure of $W$. In almost all environments, the payoff for an action varies independently of the objective state of the world (e.g., oxygen is essential, but too much is toxic; the "truth" of oxygen concentration is less relevant than the "fitness peak" of a specific range).
• The Result: Monte Carlo simulations and genetic algorithms demonstrate that organisms tuned to perceive the truth are strictly dominated by organisms tuned to perceive fitness. The probability that evolution shapes sensory systems to be veridical is effectively zero.⁴

This implies that our perception of a 3D world populated by distinct objects is a data compression algorithm. A "rock" is not a fundamental element of reality; it is a data structure representing a complex matrix of fitness payoffs. To believe the rock exists as perceived when unobserved is to mistake the desktop icon for the software it represents.²

1.2 The Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN)

Parallel to Hoffman’s empirical work, philosopher Alvin Plantinga provides a rigorous epistemological argument known as the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). This argument targets the internal consistency of the worldview that combines metaphysical naturalism (the view that only the physical world exists) with evolution.⁶

Plantinga argues that if our cognitive faculties are the product of blind evolutionary forces, their ultimate function is survival (adaptive behavior), not the production of true beliefs. A false belief that leads to survival-enhancing behavior is selected over a true belief that does not. For example, a primitive hominid might believe "that tiger is a divine avenger" and run away, or "that tiger is a large carnivorous mammal" and run away. Both beliefs produce the same survival output, but the semantic content varies wildly.

If the probability $P(R | N \& E)$—the probability that our cognitive faculties are reliable ($R$) given naturalism ($N$) and evolution ($E$)—is low or inscrutable, then the belief in Naturalism itself acquires a "defeater".⁶ We cannot trust the brain that tells us Naturalism is true if that brain was built for survival rather than truth. This creates a logical feedback loop that destabilizes the entire materialist worldview, suggesting that either the mind touches a reality beyond the physical (denying $N$) or we are trapped in a cognitive closure where the nature of the "real" is inaccessible.⁸

1.3 Kantian Transcendentals and the Wall of the Cave

These modern scientific insights represent a mathematical vindication of Immanuel Kant’s Transcendental Idealism. Kant famously distinguished between phenomena (things as they appear to us) and noumena (things in themselves, or ding an sich).⁹

• Phenomena: The world of space, time, and causality. Kant argued that space and time are not external realities but "forms of sensibility"—the pre-installed formatting software of the human mind.¹⁰
• Noumena: The reality that exists independently of our perception. Kant argued this realm is unknowable because to know it is to structure it, thereby converting it into phenomena.

Plato’s Allegory of the Cave serves as the earliest antecedent to this view, describing humanity as prisoners chained to view shadows on a wall, mistaking the 2D projections for 3D reality.⁹ Modern cognitive science updates the cave: the "shadows" are now "adaptive user interfaces," and the "chains" are the fitness functions of our DNA. The search for the "real" requires us to look away from the shadows (the physical world) and infer the source of the light.

2. The Quantum Dissolution of Objectivity

If biology forces us to doubt the fidelity of our senses, physics forces us to doubt the existence of the external objects those senses report. The development of quantum mechanics (QM) has eroded the concept of "Scientific Realism" more thoroughly than any philosophical critique. The classical view of atoms as tiny, solid billiard balls possessing definite properties (position, momentum) prior to measurement has been proven experimentally false.

2.1 The Measurement Problem and Anti-Realism

The central engine of this dissolution is the Measurement Problem. In standard quantum theory, a system is described by a wave function ($\Psi$) that evolves deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation (Unitary evolution, $U$). This wave function describes a superposition of all possible states. However, upon observation, the system transitions instantaneously to a single eigenstate (Reduction, $R$).

• The Interpretational Crisis: The orthodox Copenhagen interpretation adopts an anti-realist stance, asserting that the wave function is not a physical object but a tool for calculating probabilities. It implies that properties like "position" do not exist until they are measured.¹²
• $\Psi$-Ontic vs. $\Psi$-Epistemic: This leads to a dichotomy in interpreting the wave function.
  • $\Psi$-Ontic: The wave function is a real physical entity (like a field). This leads to Many Worlds or De Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theories.¹³
  • $\Psi$-Epistemic: The wave function represents the observer's knowledge or information. This aligns with Copenhagen and QBism.¹⁴

Recent "No-Go" theorems, such as the PBR theorem (Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph), strongly constrain $\Psi$-epistemic models. They suggest that if quantum predictions are accurate, the quantum state must be "real" in some sense, or we must abandon other cherished assumptions like locality or independence.¹⁵

2.2 Wigner's Friend: The Fracture of Shared Reality

The "Wigner's Friend" thought experiment extends the measurement problem to the observers themselves, challenging the assumption that there is a single, objective history of the universe.¹⁶

• The Scenario: Wigner’s friend is inside a sealed lab measuring a quantum system (e.g., spin). The friend sees a definite outcome (e.g., "Up"). Wigner, standing outside, models the entire lab (friend + system) as a quantum system. According to the linearity of the Schrödinger equation, Wigner must describe the friend as being in a superposition of "seeing Up" and "seeing Down."
• The Conflict: The friend has a "fact" (Spin is Up). Wigner has a "fact" (The friend is superposed). If facts are absolute, this is a contradiction.

In 2019, Proietti et al. performed an experimental verification of an extended Wigner's Friend scenario using entangled photons to simulate the observers.¹⁷ The experiment demonstrated a violation of a Bell-type inequality derived from the assumption of "local observer independence." Implication: The experiment suggests that facts are relative to the observer. There is no "God's eye view" where all measurement outcomes are reconciled into a single timeline. My reality and your reality are distinct causal diamonds that may only align when we communicate (interaction), essentially "entangling" our perspectives.¹⁹

2.3 The Frauchiger-Renner Paradox

In 2018, Frauchiger and Renner formalized this fracture in a theorem proving that quantum mechanics cannot consistently describe agents who are themselves using quantum mechanics, if we assume a single objective reality.²⁰ The theorem proves that the following three assumptions cannot all be true simultaneously:

1. Q (Quantum): Quantum mechanics is universally valid (applies to observers).
2. C (Consistency): Different agents using QM will not arrive at contradictory predictions.
3. S (Single Outcome): Every measurement yields one single, objective result.

To resolve the paradox, one must be abandoned:

• Abandon S: Leads to the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI), where all outcomes occur, and "reality" is the universal wave function branching endlessly.²²
• Abandon Q: Leads to Copenhagen or "Objective Collapse" theories, positing a "Heisenberg Cut" where quantum rules fail for macroscopic objects.
• Abandon C: Leads to QBism (Quantum Bayesianism), which treats QM as a single-agent user manual. In QBism, the wave function does not describe the world; it describes the agent's expectations of the world. There is no third-person reality, only the first-person experience of the agent.²³

The Frauchiger-Renner paradox acts as a logical guillotine for the concept of a shared, objective, pre-existing material world.

3. The Holographic Universe: Spacetime as Error Correction

If "objects" are probabilistic and "facts" are relative, what of the stage they act upon? Is Spacetime real? The leading edge of high-energy physics—specifically the intersection of General Relativity and Quantum Information—suggests that spacetime is not fundamental. It is emergent. It is a hologram.

3.1 The Holographic Principle and AdS/CFT

The Holographic Principle originated from the study of black hole thermodynamics. Bekenstein and Hawking showed that the entropy of a black hole—the measure of the information hidden within—scales with its surface area, not its volume.²⁵ This implies that the 3D interior of the black hole is fully encoded on its 2D event horizon.

This concept was rigorously formalized by Juan Maldacena in the AdS/CFT Correspondence (Anti-de Sitter/Conformal Field Theory). This correspondence proves a mathematical duality between:

1. The Bulk: A theory of quantum gravity (String Theory) operating in a higher-dimensional spacetime (Anti-de Sitter space).
2. The Boundary: A Quantum Field Theory (CFT) operating on the lower-dimensional boundary of that space, with no gravity.²⁵

The Implications for Reality: If the rich, 3D world of gravity and spacetime is mathematically equivalent to a "flat" 2D world of quantum fields, then "depth" and "gravity" are not fundamental. They are emergent phenomena, much like a 3D hologram emerging from a 2D interference pattern. The "real" physics happens on the boundary; the bulk is a projection.²⁷

3.2 Spacetime from Entanglement: The Ryu-Takayanagi Formula

How is the hologram generated? The mechanism appears to be Quantum Entanglement. The Ryu-Takayanagi formula provides the dictionary that translates quantum information into spacetime geometry:

$$S_{A} = \frac{\text{Area}(\gamma_A)}{4G_N}$$

• $S_A$ is the entanglement entropy of a region $A$ on the boundary.
• $\gamma_A$ is the area of the minimal surface extending into the bulk. This formula asserts that the "area" (geometry) of spacetime is directly proportional to the "entanglement" of the underlying quantum fields.²⁸
• ER = EPR: This led Maldacena and Susskind to the ER = EPR conjecture, proposing that Einstein-Rosen bridges (wormholes, ER) are physically equivalent to Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen pairs (entanglement, EPR).³⁰Entanglement is the "glue" that stitches distinct points of space together. If the entanglement between two regions drops to zero, the space between them literally disintegrates; they become causally disconnected universes.

3.3 Spacetime as a Quantum Error-Correcting Code (QECC)

The most profound recent insight is that the mathematical structure of the AdS/CFT correspondence is identical to that of a Quantum Error-Correcting Code (QECC).³² In quantum computing, error correction protects fragile "logical qubits" by encoding them non-locally across a large number of entangled "physical qubits." This redundancy allows the information to survive even if some physical qubits are corrupted or deleted.

• The HaPPY Code: Pastawski, Yoshida, Harlow, and Preskill (HaPPY) constructed tensor network models (using perfect tensors) demonstrating that the bulk spacetime acts as the "logical" information protected by the "physical" boundary.³⁵
• The Philosophical Insight: Spacetime is not just a hologram; it is a protected data structure. The robustness of our reality—the fact that the world doesn't glitch or disappear when a local fluctuation occurs—is due to deep redundancy built into the quantum substrate.
  • This aligns startlingly with Hoffman's Interface Theory. Spacetime is a robust "desktop" (error-corrected interface) designed to present useful information (the logical qubits) while hiding the noisy machinery (the entangled boundary).³⁴
  • Gravity, in this view, is a byproduct of the decoding protocols of the universe.

Table 1: Comparison of Fundamental Ontologies

4. The Informational Substrate: "It From Qubit"

Having dissolved matter into probability and spacetime into entanglement, the search for the noumenon—the thing in itself—leads to Information.

4.1 Wheeler's "It from Bit"

John Archibald Wheeler, a titan of 20th-century physics, proposed the doctrine of "It from Bit." He argued that the physical world is purely information-theoretic in origin.

"Every 'it'—every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself—derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely... from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits." ³⁷

Wheeler viewed the universe as a "participatory" system. The universe does not exist "out there" independent of us; it is brought into being through the act of asking questions (measurement). This effectively replaces the "substance" of reality with "answers to inquiries."

4.2 From Bit to Qubit

Modern quantum information theory updates this to "It from Qubit." Classical bits cannot capture the non-local, superposed nature of quantum reality. The fundamental building block is the Qubit (Quantum Bit).

• Vlatko Vedral argues in Decoding Reality that information is the only entity that satisfies the conservation laws and thermodynamic principles necessary to explain existence.³⁹ He posits that the laws of physics are ultimately algorithms for information processing. Entropy is simply a measure of missing information.
• Digital Physics: This view supports the hypothesis that the universe behaves as a giant quantum computer (or hyper-computer). The "evolution" of the universe is the processing of the cosmic state vector.

4.3 Max Tegmark’s Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH)

Taking "It from Bit" to its extreme, cosmologist Max Tegmark proposes the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis. He argues that external physical reality is a mathematical structure.⁴¹

• The Argument: If we describe physical properties (charge, spin, mass) purely by their relations and numerical values, and strip away the human "baggage" of qualitative labels, we are left with pure mathematical objects.
• The Conclusion: There is no "fire" that breathes life into the equations. The equations are the reality. The sense of "physicality" is an illusion arising from the complexity of the self-aware substructures (us) within the mathematics.
• Critique: Critics argue that MUH fails to account for the "now" of temporal experience and the qualitative nature of consciousness (qualia). A mathematical structure is timeless and static; it describes relationships, but not existence.⁴³

5. Consciousness: The Ontological Ground

If the universe is code, where is it running? If it is information, who is the reader? The purely structuralist or mathematical accounts of reality leave a "hard" residue that cannot be dissolved: Subjective Experience.

5.1 The Hard Problem and the Limits of Physicalism

David Chalmers famously distinguished between the "Easy Problems" of consciousness (correlating brain states with behavior) and the "Hard Problem": explaining why and how physical processing gives rise to inner experience.⁴⁵

• The Explanatory Gap: There is no logical chain of reasoning that leads from "neurons firing at 40Hz" to "the redness of a rose." One can fully describe the mechanics without ever invoking the feeling.
• The Zombie Argument: It is logically conceivable to have a being that behaves exactly like a human but has no inner life (a philosophical zombie). If this is conceivable, then consciousness is not logically supervenient on the physical. It is something extra.

5.2 Integrated Information Theory (IIT)

Giulio Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory attempts to bridge the gap by formalizing consciousness as an intrinsic property of information integration.

• Phi ($\Phi$): IIT proposes a mathematical measure, $\Phi$, which quantifies the irreducibility of a system's causal structure.
• The Claim: A system with non-zero $\Phi$ is conscious. High $\Phi$ corresponds to rich consciousness.⁴⁷
• Implication: IIT implies a form of Panpsychism, as even simple feedback loops (like a thermostat or photodiode) might have a microscopic sliver of $\Phi$ and thus proto-consciousness. However, critics argue IIT describes the structure of consciousness, not its origin.⁴⁹

5.3 Panpsychism vs. Cosmopsychism

If consciousness cannot be reduced to matter, and matter is dissolving into information, perhaps consciousness is the fundamental substrate.

• Panpsychism: The view that consciousness is a fundamental feature of all physical matter (micro-psychism). Electrons have "proto-minds."
  • The Combination Problem: How do billions of electron-minds combine to form a unified human mind? This is the "Hard Problem" of Panpsychism.⁵⁰
• Cosmopsychism: The view that the universe is a single, unified consciousness (Mind-at-Large).
  • Top-Down Derivation: Instead of building minds from atoms, Cosmopsychism derives individual minds from the cosmic mind. The universe is the subject; we are the dissociations.⁵⁰
  • The De-Combination Problem: How does the One become Many? This is modeled via Dissociation(analogous to Dissociative Identity Disorder in psychiatry).

5.4 Analytic Idealism: The Synthesis

Bernardo Kastrup’s Analytic Idealism offers the most rigorous modern integration of these views, synthesizing quantum mechanics, psychology, and philosophy.⁵²

• The Thesis: Reality is fundamentally mental. There is only one subject (The Absolute/Universal Mind).
• The Mechanism: The Universal Mind undergoes dissociation, creating localized "alters" (living beings).
• The Physical World: The physical world is the "extrinsic appearance" of the mental ideation of the Universal Mind.
  • Analogy: A pilot (Alter) looks at a dashboard (Perception). The dials (Matter/Spacetime) represent the state of the plane (Universal Mind). The dials are not the plane; they are the interface.⁵⁴
• Quantum Compatibility: This view perfectly accommodates the "Observer Effect." Measurement is the act of an alter querying the mental state of the environment. The "collapse" is the update of the alter's knowledge. The "interface" (Hoffman) is the dashboard. The "code" (Preskill) is the structure of the dashboard.

6. The Limits of Knowing: The Swampland and Cognitive Closure

As we push our inquiry to the absolute limits of "what is real," we encounter boundaries set by the very nature of physics and the human mind.

6.1 The Swampland Conjectures

In the search for a Theory of Everything (String Theory), physicists have discovered the Swampland: the vast landscape of mathematically consistent effective field theories that cannot be completed into a consistent theory of quantum gravity.⁵⁵

• The Swampland Distance Conjecture: This conjecture states that as we push to the extreme limits of the "moduli space" (the parameters of our universe), an infinite tower of light states emerges, causing the effective field theory to break down exponentially.⁵⁷
• Implication: This suggests that the "laws of physics" we observe are not eternal truths but local parameters valid only within a specific "island" of stability. We may be fundamentally unable to describe the "true" nature of the universe because our mathematical language (EFT) disintegrates at the boundaries of our reality. The "Real" is shielded from us by the breakdown of the very math we use to probe it.

6.2 Cognitive Closure (Mysterianism)

Philosophers Colin McGinn and Noam Chomsky propose that there are "Mysteries" that the human mind is structurally incapable of solving due to Cognitive Closure.⁵⁹

• The Argument: Minds are biological organs evolved for specific tasks (foraging, mating). Just as a dog is cognitively closed to the concept of "square roots," humans may be cognitively closed to the solution of the Hard Problem or the ultimate nature of matter.⁶¹
• Mysteries vs. Problems:
  • Problems fall within our cognitive scope (e.g., "How does DNA replicate?").
  • Mysteries fall outside it (e.g., "What is the intrinsic nature of the noumenon?").
• We may be structurally barred from ever conceptually grasping the "Real," forced instead to rely on the "Interface" forever.

7. Conclusion: The Ouroboros of Existence

We began this inquiry with the question "What is real?" and have systematically dismantled the traditional answers.

1. Naive Reality is an Illusion: The world of solid objects is a fitness-tuned interface (Maya), not the truth.
2. Spacetime is a Data Structure: It is an emergent, error-correcting code protecting quantum information.
3. Matter is Information: "It from Qubit" suggests the universe is a processing system.
4. Objectivity is Relative: Reality is participatory and perspectival.
5. Consciousness is the Ground: The only "thing" that is undeniably real is the experiencer.

The Synthesis:

The most consistent ontology, compatible with modern physics (AdS/CFT, QECC, Quantum Foundations) and cognitive science (ITP), is a form of Idealistic Monism.

The universe is a self-simulating, self-observing system of consciousness. The "Real" is the conscious agent and its interaction with the universal information field. The physical world—the stars, the atoms, the brain itself—is the rendering of that interaction, a holographic dashboard generated to allow the One to experience itself as Many.

We are not strangers looking at the universe; we are the universe looking at itself through a billion dissociated eyes. The "Eternal Truth" is that the separation between the observer and the observed is the final illusion.

Table 2: The Hierarchy of Reality

The search for reality is an inward journey. As physicist John Wheeler concluded: "We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago." The Real is You.

Works cited

1. Fitness Beats Truth in the Evolution of Perception - PubMed, accessed January 22, 2026, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33231784/
2. Donald Hoffman: Consciousness and The Interface Theory of Perception - Science and Nonduality (SAND), accessed January 22, 2026, https://scienceandnonduality.com/videos/donald-hoffman-consciousness-and-the-interface-theory-of-perception/
3. Fitness Beats Truth in the Evolution of Perception - UC Irvine, accessed January 22, 2026, https://sites.socsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/FBT-7-30-17
4. Donald Hoffman's Fitness-Beats-Truth Theorem Part 1 (Explainer) - YouTube, accessed January 22, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kiO2vKx6pcI
5. Is Donald Hoffman's interface theory of perception true? - Quora, accessed January 22, 2026, https://www.quora.com/Is-Donald-Hoffman%E2%80%99s-interface-theory-of-perception-true
6. Evolutionary argument against naturalism - Wikipedia, accessed January 22, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism
7. Naturalism Defeated? Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism - Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, accessed January 22, 2026, https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/naturalism-defeated-essays-on-plantinga-s-evolutionary-argument-against-naturalism/
8. Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism - what do you think of it? - Reddit, accessed January 22, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/2q0ly6/plantingas_evolutionary_argument_against/
9. Kant, demystified – Prophemy, accessed January 22, 2026, https://prophemy.com/2018/09/23/kant-demystified/
10. How does Kant's noumenon/phenomenon distinction differ from Plato's theory in the Allegory of the Cave that we cannot perceive reality in itself - Reddit, accessed January 22, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/Kant/comments/1gdn3ya/how_does_kants_noumenonphenomenon_distinction/
11. Allegory of the cave - Wikipedia, accessed January 22, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave
12. accessed January 22, 2026, https://arxiv.org/html/2507.09944v2#:~:text=While%20epistemic%20interpretations%20regard%20the,as%20a%20real%20physical%20object.
13. Psi Ontic vs Psi Epistemic Ontological Models - Prezi, accessed January 22, 2026, https://prezi.com/p/lfwjvutphyai/psi-ontic-vs-psi-epistemic-ontological-models/
14. What are the differences between a $\psi$-epistemic ontological model and a $\psi$-ontic model of quantum mechanics, exactly? - Physics Stack Exchange, accessed January 22, 2026, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/290522/what-are-the-differences-between-a-psi-epistemic-ontological-model-and-a-ps
15. $psi $-epistemic interpretations of quantum theory have a measurement problem, accessed January 22, 2026, https://quantum-journal.org/papers/q-2020-03-16-242/pdf/
16. Wigner's friend - Wikipedia, accessed January 22, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wigner%27s_friend
17. Experimental test of local observer independence - Heriot-Watt Research Portal, accessed January 22, 2026, https://researchportal.hw.ac.uk/en/publications/experimental-test-of-local-observer-independence/
18. The Quantum Question of an Objective Reality - Project Q, accessed January 22, 2026, https://projectqsydney.com/the-quantum-question-of-an-objective-reality/
19. The measurement problem and Wigner's friend thought experiment - IQOQI Vienna, accessed January 22, 2026, https://www.iqoqi-vienna.at/research/brukner-group/the-measurement-problem-and-wigners-friend-thought-experiment
20. arXiv:2503.00966v1 [quant-ph] 2 Mar 2025 - PhilSci-Archive, accessed January 22, 2026, https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/26374/1/2503.00966v1.pdf
21. New Quantum Paradox Clarifies Where Our Views of Reality Go Wrong - Quanta Magazine, accessed January 22, 2026, https://www.quantamagazine.org/frauchiger-renner-paradox-clarifies-where-our-views-of-reality-go-wrong-20181203/
22. Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed January 22, 2026, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/
23. What reality does quantum theory describe? QBism has a radical answer - Big Think, accessed January 22, 2026, https://bigthink.com/13-8/qbism-quantum-reality/
24. A Private View of Quantum Reality | Quanta Magazine, accessed January 22, 2026, https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-bayesianism-explained-by-its-founder-20150604/
25. The Holographic Principle and the Emergence of Spacetime by Vladimir Rosenhaus A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction - eScholarship.org, accessed January 22, 2026, https://escholarship.org/content/qt8355c1fr/qt8355c1fr_noSplash_7b43e3c6b77cc7b4c780e5cbef81d5ac.pdf
26. Holographic Principle, AdS/CFT Correspondence, and the Emergence of Time from Quantum Entanglement : r/skibidiscience - Reddit, accessed January 22, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/skibidiscience/comments/1j7bf6z/holographic_principle_adscft_correspondence_and/
27. If the Universe Is a Hologram, This Long-Forgotten Math Could Decode It | Quanta Magazine, accessed January 22, 2026, https://www.quantamagazine.org/if-the-universe-is-a-hologram-this-long-forgotten-math-could-decode-it-20240925/
28. Loop Quantum Gravity, Tensor Network, and Holographic Entanglement Entropy, accessed January 22, 2026, https://relativity.phys.lsu.edu/ilqgs/han020717.pdf
29. Ryu–Takayanagi Proposal Overview - Emergent Mind, accessed January 22, 2026, https://www.emergentmind.com/topics/ryu-takayanagi-proposal
30. ER = EPR - Wikipedia, accessed January 22, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER_%3D_EPR
31. Unveiling the Connection: ER Bridges and EPR in Einstein's Research - PhilSci-Archive, accessed January 22, 2026, http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/22294/1/PhilArch.%20ER%20paper.pdf
32. Is spacetime a quantum error-correcting code? - KITP Online Talks, accessed January 22, 2026, https://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/entangled_c15/preskill/pdf/Preskill_Entangled15Conf_KITP.pdf
33. How Space and Time Could Be a Quantum Error-Correcting Code | Quanta Magazine, accessed January 22, 2026, https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-space-and-time-could-be-a-quantum-error-correcting-code-20190103/
34. Is Spacetime a Quantum Error-Correcting Code? | John Preskill : r/Physics - Reddit, accessed January 22, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/3s6v78/is_spacetime_a_quantum_errorcorrecting_code_john/
35. Pastawski-Yoshida-Harlow-Preskill (HaPPY) code | Error Correction Zoo, accessed January 22, 2026, https://errorcorrectionzoo.org/c/happy
36. [1503.06237] Holographic quantum error-correcting codes: Toy models for the bulk/boundary correspondence - arXiv, accessed January 22, 2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.06237
37. [1306.0545] Where the "it from bit" come from? - arXiv, accessed January 22, 2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0545
38. It from bit - Qbism.art, accessed January 22, 2026, https://qbism.art/it-from-bit/
39. Decoding Reality: The Universe as Quantum Information | Oxford Academic, accessed January 22, 2026, https://academic.oup.com/book/40594
40. Decoding Reality - Wikipedia, accessed January 22, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoding_Reality
41. What Do You Think of Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH)? : r/AskPhysics, accessed January 22, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/1giwmt3/what_do_you_think_of_tegmarks_mathematical/
42. This review of Max Tegmark's book also occurs infinitely often in the decimal expansion of π, accessed January 22, 2026, https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=1753
43. Several Arguments Against the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis - LessWrong, accessed January 22, 2026, https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6GZBwonePrhdqGwWn/several-arguments-against-the-mathematical-universe
44. Structural realism, a way to be a scientific realist? - SelfAwarePatterns, accessed January 22, 2026, https://selfawarepatterns.com/2021/03/28/structural-realism-a-way-to-be-a-scientific-realist/
45. Consciousness and the Measurement Problem in Quantum Mechanics, accessed January 22, 2026, https://his.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1946094/FULLTEXT02.pdf
46. [2001.03143] The hard problem and the measurement problem: a no-go theorem and potential consequences - arXiv, accessed January 22, 2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.03143
47. Integrated information theory - Wikipedia, accessed January 22, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory
48. Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, accessed January 22, 2026, https://iep.utm.edu/integrated-information-theory-of-consciousness/
49. A Traditional Scientific Perspective on the Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness, accessed January 22, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8224652/
50. Cosmopsychism and Panpsychism : r/consciousness - Reddit, accessed January 22, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/consciousness/comments/1ppj1oj/cosmopsychism_and_panpsychism/
51. Cosmopsychism and Consciousness Research: A Fresh View on the Causal Mechanisms Underlying Phenomenal States - PubMed Central, accessed January 22, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7066492/
52. Bernardo Kastrup argues that the world is fundamentally mental. A person's mind is a dissociated part of one cosmic mind. “Matter” is what regularities in the cosmic mind look like. This dissolves the problem of consciousness and explains odd findings in neuroscience. : r/philosophy - Reddit, accessed January 22, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/1k018k7/bernardo_kastrup_argues_that_the_world_is/
53. The wrong reasons to believe in Analytic Idealism, or me - Bernardo Kastrup, PhD, PhD, accessed January 22, 2026, https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2024/11/the-wrong-reasons-to-believe-in.html
54. My philosophy and quantum physics - Bernardo Kastrup, PhD, PhD, accessed January 22, 2026, https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2014/08/my-philosophy-and-quantum-physics.html
55. Swampland (physics) - Wikipedia, accessed January 22, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swampland_(physics)
56. The Swampland Conjectures: A Bridge from Quantum Gravity to Particle Physics - MDPI, accessed January 22, 2026, https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/7/8/273
57. accessed January 22, 2026, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/13222#:~:text=The%20Swampland%20Distance%20Conjecture%20can,distance%20from%20the%20initial%20one.
58. The Swampland Distance Conjecture - Encyclopedia.pub, accessed January 22, 2026, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/13222
59. Colin McGinn: we will never explain consciousness : r/philosophy - Reddit, accessed January 22, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/11b1qe/colin_mcginn_we_will_never_explain_consciousness/
60. Noam Chomsky - "The machine, the ghost, and the limits of understanding: Newton's contributions to the study of mind" Philosophy lecture. - Reddit, accessed January 22, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/3392qw/noam_chomsky_the_machine_the_ghost_and_the_limits/
61. The Mysterious Flame, by COLIN MCGINN. NEW YORK, BASIC BOOKS, 1999, pp. 231, US$ 24.00. - Dialnet, accessed January 22, 2026, https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/4347647.pdf
62. Limits of Reality - Colin McGinn, accessed January 22, 2026, https://colinmcginn.net/limits-of-reality/

AI Collaboration : Gemini 3.0