My mind is not the universe [114] – where is the universe? Note for Chinese speakers: 建议您首先阅读本文内的中文部分 1 Abstract In order to describe my findings/conclusions systematically, a new semantic system (i.e., a new language) has to be intentionally defined by the present article. Humans are limited in what they know by the technical limitation of their cortical language network. A reality is a situation model (SM). For example, the conventionally-called “physical reality” around my conventionally-called “physical body” is actually a “geometric” SM of my brain. The universe is an autonomous objective parallel computing automaton which evolves by itself automatically/unintentionally – wave-particle duality and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle can be explained under this “first-order” SM of my brain. Each elementary particle (as a building block of the universe) is an autonomous mathematical entity itself (i.e., a thing in itself). If we are happy to accept randomness, it is obviously possible that all other worlds in the many-worlds interpretation do not exist objectively. The conventionally-called “space” does not exist objectively. “Time” and “matter” are not physical. Consciousness is the subjective-form (aka quale) of the mathematical models (of the objective universe) which are intracorporeally/subjectively used by the control logic of a Turing machine’s program objectively-fatedly. A Turing machine’s consciousness or deliberate decisions/choices should not be able to actually/objectively change/control/drive the (autonomous or objectively-fated) world line of any elementary particle within this world. Besides the Schrodinger equation (or its real-world counterpart) which is a valid/correct/factual causality of the universe, every other causality (of the universe) is either invalid/incorrect/counterfactual or can be proved by deductive inference based on the Schrodinger equation only. If the “loop quantum gravity” theory is correct, time/space does not actually/objectively exist in the objective-evolution of the objective-reality, or in other words, we should not use the subjective/mental concept of “time”, “state” or “space” to describe/imagine the objective-evolution of the universe. Keywords: Conway's Game of Life; causality; consciousness; free will; determinism; fatalism Abbreviations 1O: first-order 2O: second-order BB: building block MM: mathematical model SM: situation model TM: Turing machine 2 Just like other animals, humans are limited in what they know by the structure of their nervous systems and by the structure of their languages [5]. More specifically, humans are limited in what they know by the technical limitation of their cortical language networks [6][7]. In order to describe my findings/conclusions systematically, a new semantic system (i.e., a new language) has to be intentionally defined by the present article. The worldview common reductionists are using, is not completely objective. This study discusses the nature of universe, consciousness and causality in depth, based on a new, completely objective worldview which views the universe as a state machine of elementary particles. No one has had such a formal discussion before in depth based on such a completely objective worldview. Intracorporeal/subjective/subjective-reality/consciousness vs. Extracorporeal/objective/objective-reality/universe I can pretend/imagine that I am something else – I can imagine the existence of another “me”. With such an imagination, I feel as if that I am not alone – I feel as if that there are two clones of “me” now. By this imagination, I duplicate myself mentally. When I pretend/imagine that I am something else, this imagination means the existence of something other than my mind. But this imagination is not a proof of the existence of anything other than my mind – I have no way to prove the existence of anything other than my mind. This is the position of solipsism. When I think from the position of solipsism, I stop pretending/imagining that I am something else – I stop imagining the existence of something other than my mind. I write the present article, to record/track/organize/evaluate my own thoughts. In everyday life, actually I imagine/postulate every other person as another “me”, or as a variant of “me”. In this case, I imagine/postulate the existence of something other than my mind – I imagine/postulate the existence of two separated clones of my own mind. In other words, I imagine/postulate the existence of another clone of my mind – which is something other than my (own) mind. When I think from the position of solipsism, I stop imagining/postulating another person as another “me”. In this case, I stop imagining/postulating the existence of something other than my mind – I stop imagining/postulating the existence of two separated clones of my own mind. In other words, I stop imagining/postulating the existence of another clone of my mind – which is something other than my (own) mind. It is logically impossible for my mind to actually know, whether my mind’s clones actually exist or not. In other words, it is logically impossible for my mind to actually know, whether the position of solipsism is correct or not. 3 Every animal brain is a biological neural network [78][82]. Some (recurrent) neural networks are Turing machines (TMs) [1] [2]. For example, the human brain is a TM [3]. Some neural networks are universal Turing machines [4]. In the semantics of the present article, a situation means a system of related subjects/objects whose states are evolving. In the semantics of the present article, the term “subjective” means that “my brain does a cognitive task, only based on the (sensory) data/information itself should be able to get/process, while my brain manages to unlearn the (sensory) data/information only another TM should be able to get/process”, while the term “objective” means that “my brain does a cognitive task, only based on the (sensory) data/information another TM should be able to get/process, while my brain manages to unlearn the (sensory) data/information only itself should be able to get/process”. So, the term “subjective” in the present article means “completely subjective” in natural language; the term “objective” in the present article means “completely objective” in natural language. When my brain is being (completely) objective, my brain only imagines/postulates one potential spatiotemporal outcome (i.e., one situation-option) under the context of spacetime. (“No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.” – Heraclitus.) Let us call this single potential spatiotemporal outcome (i.e., this single situation-option) the objective-fate. The objective-fate is objectively- fated. In the semantics of the present article, “objectively-fated” means “completely objectively controlled/driven/caused/decided/chosen/stated/programmed (by something)”, and "not objectively free/flexible/ active”. This is my brain’s own (subjective) belief regarding the objective-state-evolution of an objective-reality [106][14][15] (aka objectivity, third-person objective reality [16][17], thing in itself [18], real world, or outer/ extracorporeal/public situation/reality/world). My brain imagines/postulates that the objective-state-evolution of the objective-reality is objectively-fated/passive. My brain imagines/postulates that every physical-object (e.g., my brain itself) is objectively-fated/passive – my brain imagines/postulates one potential spatiotemporal outcome of every physical-object's upcoming action under the context of spacetime. The objective-state- evolution of an objective-reality can be described by the phrase “matter in motion as a whole [105]” – if we imagine that matter actually/objectively exists within this objective-reality. “Heaven and Earth are ruthless and treat the myriad creatures as straw dogs. [74]” – Lao Tzu. When my brain is being (completely) subjective, my brain (subjectively) imagines/postulates two or more potential-outcomes/situation-options. My brain imagines/postulates that the objective-state-evolution of the objective-reality is free/flexible/active, not objectively-fated/passive. My brain imagines/postulates that at least one physical-object (e.g., my brain itself) is free/flexible/active – my brain imagines/postulates two or more potential-outcomes/situation-options of this physical-object's upcoming action. For example, when I reach a T-junction, the road ahead me has two branches under the context of space. Subjectively, my upcoming spatial movement has two potential branches (i.e., two situation-options) under the 4 context of space – my trajectory has two potential spatial branches (i.e., two spatial situation-options) under the context of space. Actually/objectively, my upcoming spatiotemporal movement only has one potential branch (i.e., one situation-option) under the context of spacetime – my body’s world tube only has one potential spatiotemporal branch (i.e., one spatiotemporal situation-option) under the context of spacetime. When my brain is being (completely) subjective, my brain is being treated (by my brain) as a subject which is free/flexible/active. When my brain is being (completely) objective, my brain is being treated (by my brain) as an object (i.e., a physical-object) which is objectively-fated/passive, not a subject which is free/flexible/active. “It's like you took a bottle of ink and you threw it at a wall. Smash! And all that ink spread. And in the middle, it's dense, isn't it? And as it gets out on the edge, the little droplets get finer and finer and make more complicated patterns, see? So in the same way, there was a big bang at the beginning of things and it spread. And you and I, sitting here in this room, as complicated human beings, are way, way out on the fringe of that bang. We are the complicated little patterns on the end of it.