Observer from Quark to Consciousness: Evolutionary Epistemology

THE OBSERVER FROM QUARK TO CONSCIOUSNESS: ODTOE AND EVOLUTIONARY EPISTEMOLOGY

1.1 Why the observer ≠ human, what existed before life, and how conscious context choice works without magic Pankratov Anton Sergeevich Independent Researcher, Kazan, Russia E-mail: [email protected] · ORCID: 0009-0002-4870-2995 UDC 530.145 + 575 + 159.9 + 167.7

ABSTRACT

The article addresses three fundamental objections to ODTOE: (1) if observer = human, the theory is anthropocentric and contradicts evolutionary biology; (2) what existed before the emergence of organic life — who “observed” for 5+ billion years? (3) Ashby’s law of requisite variety forbids a system to describe a higher-order system — is a “theory of everything” possible? It is shown that ODTOE is not anthropocentric: by P1, an observer is any object, from a quark to a galaxy. Evolution is formalized as growth in dimensionality d and increasing complexity of cognitive coherence B, rather than “appearance of an observer from nothing.” Before life existed, atoms observed — elementary strange loops [3]. Ashby’s law is consistent with ODTOE Assertion 3 (S = 1 is unattainable): complete description is impossible, but the architecture of interaction is describable. A precise connection is established between the “conscious context choice” paradigm (Sapolsky, Dawkins) and ODTOE formalism: selfmanagement of one’s own operator = Ô(Ô) = Ô′ — not magic, but a mechanism for increasing B through context. Keywords: observer, evolution, anthropocentrism, dimensionality, quark, atom, consciousness, context, free will, Ashby, Sapolsky, ODTOE.

1.2 I. THREE OBJECTIONS 1.2.1

1.1. First objection: anthropocentrism

If observer = human, the theory repeats the error of geocentrism: placing us at the center. Genetically we differ from chimpanzees by ~1.2%. The prefrontal cortex — a “recent invention” of life (~2 million years out of 3.8 billion). Throughout the history of science, theories based on human uniqueness and centrality have led to dead ends: geocentrism → heliocentrism → a universe without a center.

1.2. Second objection: before life

5+ billion years the Earth existed without organic life. 10 billion years the Universe existed without planet Earth. Who “observed”? If observer = living being — who constituted configurations before life appeared? Stars formed, galaxies rotated, chemical reactions proceeded — without a single “observer” in the conventional sense. 1.2.3

1.3. Third objection: Ashby’s law

The law of requisite variety (Ashby, 1956): a regulator must possess variety no less than the regulated system. Consequence: a lower-order system cannot completely describe a higherorder system. If we are part of the Universe, can we create a “theory of everything” for it? 1.2.4

1.4. Alternative paradigm (opponent’s position)

A position requiring response: there is no free will (Sapolsky), we are biological robots (Dawkins). But one can program reality by CONSCIOUSLY selecting CONTEXTS. Morning exercises → cold shower → dopamine expression → search-setting → increased probability of events. This is not “quantum wavefunction collapse” — it is self-management of a system of biological agents. And precisely in this consciousness — HUMANITY.

1.3 II. FIRST ANSWER: OBSERVER ≠ HUMAN 1.3.1

2.1. What ODTOE says

Postulate P1 [1]: “any object can act as an observer.” Formally: observer Oi = (Bi , Ai , Hi ) — a state vector, not limited to biological substrate. An electron observes [3]. An atom observes [3]. Cesium-133 constitutes time [5]. A bacterium observes — with dimensionality d = 1. A tree observes — phototaxis, gravitaxis. An ant colony observes — through collective coherence (P5). A human observes — with d = 3 − 4. The architecture is one: R = Ô(Ψ) at each level. The difference is in dimensionality d and complexity B. 1.3.2

2.2. Evolution = growth of d and increasing complexity of B

Epoch

Observer

13.8 billion

Quarks, elementary particles

−1 — 0

Components of B F (interaction), Λ (stability)

What “sees” Nearest neighbors

Epoch

Observer

10 billion

Atoms, molecules

0—1

3.8 billion

Cells (prokaryotes)

1.5 billion

Eukaryotes

1—2

600 million

Multicellular

500 million

Nervous system

2—3

300 thousand Now?

Homo sapiens

3—4

Homo sapiens + AI

4+?

Components of B F , Λ, beginnings of E (chemical affinity) F (chemotaxis), E (response to environment), Λ (memory through DNA) F , E, (1 − σ) (intracellular coordination), Λ All four, but (1 − σ) = coordination between cells All four, F = directed attention Complete B = F ·E ·(1−σ)·Λ Bjoint = ιhuman ◦ ÔAI [8]

What “sees” Chemical gradients

Immediate environment

Broader environment

Macroscopic world

Objects, predators, prey Abstractions, time, self Architecture of observation (ODTOE)

2.3. Prefrontal cortex — not “invention of observation”

Observation existed from the first atom. The prefrontal cortex — an extension of the operator’s d, giving Ô(Ô) (self-observation, reflection, metacognition). This is not “appearance of an observer” — but recursion: an observer capable of observing its own observation. An amoeba observes (d ≈ 1): distinguishes a gradient and moves toward food. This is Ô(Ψ) = R — without neurons, without cortex, without “consciousness” in the human sense. A human does the same, but with d = 3 − 4: distinguishes abstract gradients (values, goals, meanings) and moves toward them. 1.3.4

2.4. Why this is not anthropocentrism

Anthropocentrism: “Humans are a unique/central observer.” ODTOE: “Humans are one level Ψ∗d in a continuum that began with quarks.” Not at the center, but a point on the spectrum. Analogy: temperature 36.6°C is not “unique” and not “central.” It is one point on a scale from absolute zero to billions of degrees. But at precisely this temperature, specific biochemistry

works. So with d = 3 − 4: not “the center of the Universe,” but the dimensionality at which Ô(Ô) is possible.

1.4 III. SECOND ANSWER: BEFORE LIFE, ATOMS OBSERVED 1.4.1

3.1. Atom — elementary strange loop

By [3]: atom = minimal self-consistent configuration Ψ∗ = Φ(Ψ∗ ). Triple architecture: Component Subatomic particle Observable Observer Operator

ODTOE role

Proton (+1, stable) R ∈ C — configuration Neutron (0, unstable alone) O = (B, A, H) Electron (-1, delocalized) Ô : H → C

Verified across 9 independent parameters [3]: proton stability, free neutron instability, neutron stability in nucleus, electrical neutrality, electron delocalization, mass ratios, quark structure, discrete spectrum, antineutrino. 1.4.2

3.2. 5 billion years before life

This is not “a dead world waiting for an observer.” This is a world where ∼ 1080 atomic observers already constitute configurations. Their d = 0, their B is minimal — but their number is colossal. ∏ By P5.1: Pcoll (E) = 1 − ni=1 (1 − Bik ). At n ∼ 1080 even with tiny Bi collective probability of stable configurations → 1. Stars formed, galaxies rotated, elements synthesized — all of this configurations, co-constituted by atomic observers. 1.4.3

3.3. Who set the gradients?

Gradient — ∇U (C) in the reconfiguration equation [1, formula 4.4]: dC α =− ∇U (C) + η(t) dt I(C) + ε The potential U (C) is determined by the structure of the field H, not by an external agent. As a gravitational gradient is determined by mass distribution (without “someone setting it”), so ∇U (C) is determined by the topology of H. Gradients are not set externally, but emergent: they arise from collective observation. There is no “conductor.” There are 1080 observers whose collective coherence forms stable configurations. Self-organization, not design.

3.4. Chronology of observation

13.8 billion years 13.8 — 13.5

Big Bang = first Φ: Ψ = Φ(Ψ) at Universe scale Primordial nucleosynthesis: quarks → nucleons → atoms Observers: ~10^80 atoms with d = 0

10 billion years

Stars: nucleosynthesis of heavy elements Observers: atoms with d = 0, stars as clusters S > S_

5 billion years

Solar system: from supernova remnants Observers: molecules with d = 0-1

4.5 billion years

Earth: planetary cluster of coherence [7] Observers: ~10^50 atoms

3.8 billion years

First cell: d = 0 → d = 1. DIMENSIONALITY LEAP Observer first "sees" environment, not just neighbors

600 million years

Multicellularity: d = 1 → d = 2 Coordination of observers within organism

300 thousand years self-observation

Homo sapiens: d = 3-4. Ô(Ô) —

First observer capable of observing its own observati Now

ODTOE: observer describes architecture of observation Strange loop: Ψ = Φ(Ψ) at meta-level

1.5 IV. THIRD ANSWER: ASHBY’S LAW AND LIMITS OF DESCRIPTION 1.5.1

4.1. Ashby’s formulation

The law of requisite variety (1956): “Only variety can destroy variety.” Formally: the number of possible states of the regulator must be no less than the number of possible states of the regulated system. Consequence: a system inside the Universe cannot completely describe the Universe. 1.5.2

4.2. ODTOE agrees with Ashby

Assertion 3 [1]: ODTOE belongs to the set of theories T , whose cardinality it itself defines: TODT OE ∈ T and TODT OE ⊢ |T |. This is a strange loop — not a contradiction, but structural incompleteness. Consequence: S = 1 is unattainable. Complete coherence is a regulative ideal, not a final state.

By Ashby: we cannot completely describe a system of which we are part. By ODTOE: S = 1 is unattainable → complete description is impossible. Two statements — the same thing in different words. 1.5.3

4.3. What is possible

We cannot describe everything. But we can describe the architecture of our interaction with a system. This is what ODTOE does: What ODTOE describes

What ODTOE does not describe

Architecture of observation (R = Ô(Ψ)) Mechanism of coherence (S, B, Pcoll ) Hierarchy of dimensionalities (d = 0, 1, 2, ...) Limits of description (Assertion 3)

Specific physical constants Specific configurations (which exactly R) Specific observers (who exactly Oi ) Content beyond the limits of description

ODTOE is not a “theory of everything” in the sense of “a formula describing every atom.” It is a metatheory: describes how description works, not what is described. 1.5.4

4.4. Evolutionary gradients instead of “theory of everything”

Opponent’s position: “Through simulation we can understand how our species evolutionarily interacts with the world and develop better strategies.” Through ODTOE: precisely this. Not “theory of everything,” but theory of observer interaction with the field of potential states. Evolutionary gradients are ∇U (C): directions in which coherence grows, configurations become more complex, dimensionality d increases. Not “grand design,” but gradient ascent in the landscape of possibilities.

1.6 V. CONSCIOUS CONTEXT CHOICE = ODTOE IN ACTION 1.6.1

5.1. The “biorobot with self-management” paradigm

Sapolsky (Determined, 2023): free will as causa sui does not exist. Every decision is the result of genes, hormones, environment, experience. Dawkins (The Selfish Gene, 1976): we are machines for gene survival. ODTOE does not contradict: Ô is determined by (B, A, H) — coherence, archetype, history. Not “free choice from nowhere.” Every act of observation is the result of the entire history of the observer. But — and this is key — Ô(Ô) = Ô′ . An observer that has directed Ô at itself changes. Not “freely” (not from nowhere), but recursively: through awareness of one’s own limitations.

5.2. Precise map of “morning sequence”

Action

Component of B

Decision to rise

(1 − σ) ↑

Plank (1 min)

F ↑

Cold shower

Search-setting

Total effect

Biological mechanism Prefrontal cortex suppresses amygdala Activation of dorsal attention network Noradrenaline + dopamine, HRV-coherence Dopamine reward system Sympatheticparasympathetic balance

ODTOE formulation Alignment of internal decision with action Focus gathered, operator directed Emotional mobilization Experience: “I did this and it works” P (E∥B) = B k ↑

5.3. Why this is not magic and not “quantum wavefunction collapse”

The morning sequence does not “change reality by force of thought.” It increases the coherence of the operator, which increases the probability of certain configurations. Mechanism: Step 1. B ↑ → P (E|B) = B k ↑. Probability of target outcomes grows. Step 2. Higher B means: more precise F (notice opportunities), higher E (emotionally engaged), lower σ (no internal conflict), higher Λ (act from experience). Step 3. These four components physically manifest: dopamine (search), noradrenaline (alertness), cortisol-balance (no burnout), BDNF (neuroplasticity). Step 4. Physical state determines real behavior: what you notice, how you react, what decisions you make, who you interact with. Step 5. Behavior forms real results: not through “quantum magic,” but through increased probability of target actions. The chain is completely materialistic. No “wavefunction collapse in meditation.” There is: selfmanagement of one’s own operator through context → change in B → change in probabilities → change in behavior → change in results. 1.6.4

5.4. Free will: reframing

Classical framing

Sapolsky’s answer

ODTOE’s answer

Is there free will?

No. Everything is determined by genes + environment + history Illusion of choice

The question is incorrectly framed

What is there instead? Can one “manage”?

Yes — through understanding biology

Ô(Ô) = Ô′ : recursive reconfiguration Yes — through conscious context choice (F , E, σ, Λ)

ODTOE does not say “free will exists.” ODTOE says: an observer that understood its own structure can recursively reconfigure its operator. Not “from nowhere” (that would be magic), but through understanding limitations. Not causa sui, but Ô(Ô). Sapolsky is right: “free will” as spontaneous, unconditional decision — does not exist. But there is recursion: Ô(Ô) = Ô′ — observation of one’s own observation, changing the observer. And this recursion is not an illusion. It has neurophysiological correlates (prefrontal cortex), evolutionary history (growth of d), and measurable consequences (change in B). 1.6.5

5.5. Humanity = Ô(Ô)

Opponent: “It is precisely in this consciousness that I see HUMANITY.” Through ODTOE: exactly. Humanity is not “possession of a soul” and not “uniqueness of species.” Humanity = Ô(Ô): the ability to observe one’s own observation and change it. An amoeba cannot do Ô(Ô) — its d is too small. A chimpanzee — partially (mirror test, but not metacognition). A human — fully. But this is an evolutionary gradient, not a binary leap. A chimpanzee is closer to Ô(Ô) than an ant. A dolphin is closer than a fish. A human — at present — is farther along d. But not “uniquely” and not “forever.”

1.7 VI. WHAT ODTOE DOES NOT CLAIM For complete honesty (σ → 0): ODTOE does not claim

Why

Humans are the center/apex of the Universe Thought magically creates reality

P1: any observer, from quark to galaxy B is probability, not certainty. Mechanism through behavior Mechanism through B ↑, not quantum magic Assertion 3: S = 1 is unattainable. Ashby confirms

“Quantum wavefunction collapse” in meditation We can describe “everything”

ODTOE does not claim

Why

Free will exists as causa sui

Ô is determined by (B, A, H). There is recursion, not spontaneity An atom observes [3]. Observation = R = Ô(Ψ), not “consciousness”

Only the living observe

ODTOE claims

Formula

Observer is any object Conscious context choice increases B → increases P (E∥B) Evolution = growth of d and increasing complexity of B Complete description is impossible Humanity = Ô(Ô) Ô(Ô) = Ô′ — recursive reconfiguration, not magic

P1 D1.1 + P4.1 Chronology of observation (Section III) Assertion 3, Ashby’s law Recursion of dimensionality Self-observation

1.8 VII. CONCLUSION 1.8.1

7.1. Answers to three objections

Observer ≠ human. Observer is any object, from quark to galaxy. Evolution is growth of d and increasing complexity of B. Humans are one point on the spectrum, not the center. Before life, atoms observed. 1080 atomic observers constituted configurations 10+ billion years before the first cell. Gradients are emergent, not set externally. Ashby’s law holds. S = 1 is unattainable. Complete description is impossible. But the architecture of interaction is describable. ODTOE is a metatheory, not “a formula on a t-shirt.” 1.8.2

7.2. Synthesis

The “conscious context choice” paradigm (Sapolsky + Dawkins + neuroscience) and ODTOE formalism are the same thing in different languages: • “No free will” = Ô is determined by (B, A, H) • “Conscious context choice” = Ô(Ô) = Ô′ (recursive reconfiguration) • “Self-management of biological agents” = Ôd=3 manages cluster {Ôd=1 }cells through Sorganism • “In consciousness — humanity” = Humanity = Ô(Ô)

7.3. Evolutionary gradient

Not “theory of everything,” but theory of evolutionary gradient of observation: d−1 → d0 → d1 → d2 → d3 → d4 → ? Quarks → atoms → cells → organisms → societies → ? At each level the same architecture (Ô, Ψ, R), the same loop (Φ), the same fixed point (Ψ∗ ). But with growing d and increasingly complex B. Where the gradient leads further — an open question. By Ashby — we cannot know completely. But we can move along the gradient, consciously increasing B through context choice. And this is not magic, not religion, not numerology. This is self-management of one’s own operator in the evolutionary landscape of possibilities.

Ô ̸= human. Ô(Ô) = consciousness. S = 1 unattainable.

Not magic — self-management through conte

1.9 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND TOOLS In developing ODTOE theory and all articles based on it, artificial intelligence tools were used: Claude Sonnet / Opus 4.6 Extended (Chat & Code) (Anthropic), ChatGPT 5.3 (OpenAI), Google Gemini (Google DeepMind). All substantive decisions belong to the author.

REFERENCES

1. Pankratov A.S. Theory of everything: observer-dependent (ODTOE) // Preprint. — 2025. — 47 p. 2. Pankratov A.S. The number π as a structural invariant of self-consistent observation // Preprint. — 2025. 3. Pankratov A.S. Atom as an elementary strange loop in ODTOE // Preprint. — 2025. 4. Pankratov A.S. Quantum computer in ODTOE // Preprint. — 2025. 5. Pankratov A.S. Nature of time in ODTOE // Preprint. — 2025. 6. Pankratov A.S. Quaternion structure of the observer // Preprint. — 2026. 7. Pankratov A.S. Earth as a cluster of observers // Preprint. — 2026. 8. Pankratov A.S. Self-observation and AI extension // Preprint. — 2025.

9. Pankratov A.S. Quant, string and everything else: modern theories through ODTOE // Preprint. — 2026. 10. Sapolsky R.M. Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will. — New York: Penguin Press, 2023. 11. Dawkins R. The Selfish Gene. — Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976. 12. Ashby W.R. An Introduction to Cybernetics. — London: Chapman & Hall, 1956. 13. Hofstadter D.R. I Am a Strange Loop. — New York: Basic Books, 2007. 14. Friston K. The free-energy principle // Nature Reviews Neuroscience. — 2010. — Vol. 11. — P. 127–138. 15. Tononi G. An information integration theory of consciousness // BMC Neuroscience. — 2004. — Vol. 5. — P. 42.