Quantum/Dimensional Additional Theories

The following theories of consciousness are not quantum theories per se in that they do not have quantum mechanics as the essence or generator of consciousness. Rather, each reflects how quantum mechanics could facilitate or interact with other theories of consciousness. All are highly speculative.

Bollinger's Quantum Consciousness

Computer scientist Terry Bollinger enjoys speculating about possible mechanisms of quantum consciousness; these include non-linear soliton Schrödinger wave models in sensory neural networks; neural dendrites as antennas for wave collapses; how warm brains might actively maintain and manipulate quantum wave functions; and how “quasiparticles” might enable quantum consciousness by quantizing classical data transfers between neurons (Bollinger, 2023).

Patra's Quantum Information

Complexity theorist Sudip Patra posits that mathematical tools used in quantum science (information theory included) can be also used to describe cognition; for example, Hilbert space modeling of cognitive states might provide better descriptions of different features like contextuality in decision making, or even exploring ‘entanglement-like’ features of mental states (Patra, 2023; Rooney & Patra, 2022). Though Patra is agnostic about any underlying physics of consciousness, he works with Kauffman to construct a non-local theory of consciousness outside the constraints of physical space-time.

Chopra's Consciousness and Quantum Fields

New-age physician-author Deepak Chopra explains “the intricate relationship between consciousness and the quantum field” by applying the same word, “field,” to both. Consciousness isn't individual, he says. “Instead, it is a vast field that individuals share in. This field encompasses myriad possibilities. It is the source from which thoughts, sensations, images, and feelings emerge and then dissolve back into, just as subatomic particles do in the quantum field. Mental experiences and quanta are transient, shaped by uncertainty, and are, in essence, energetic fluctuations within the consciousness field.”

Chopra points to the infinite nature of the quantum and the consciousness fields and to the essential entanglement within each, such that local realism—i.e., the world of isolated physical objects and mental thoughts—is “out the window” for both physical and mental phenomena. This entanglement, he says, “suggests that physical objects are intertwined with perception and consciousness, blurring the boundaries between the observer and the observed.” Chopra proposes “a drastic paradigm shift” in which “consciousness comes first, being the field that is the origin of creation, acting in concert with the quantum field” (Chopra, 2023a, Chopra, 2023b).

Parikh’s Awareness-Field Interaction Theory

Materials scientist Suketu Arun Parikh proposes Awareness-Field Interaction Theory (AFIT) in which phenomenal consciousness arises from a coupling interaction between integrated neural information and a fundamental, non-local awareness field—a basic property of reality irreducible to matter—such that experience is neither generated by neural activity alone nor identical to it, but is the product of their causal interaction (Parikh, 2026).

AFIT reframes the hard problem of consciousness (Chalmers, 1995) from a question of emergence to one of interaction. Where Integrated Information Theory (IIT) identifies phenomenal consciousness with integrated information Φ by brute identity (Tononi, 2004), AFIT holds that Φ is the physical coupling condition—the key that unlocks interaction with the awareness field—rather than consciousness itself. This preserves IIT's central empirical insight while supplying an ontological account IIT cannot provide: why Φ should be accompanied by experience at all.

AFIT's coupling mechanism is located, following Penrose and Hameroff (1996), at neuronal microtubules, where quantum-coherent states in tubulin proteins undergo orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR). AFIT reinterprets this event: rather than generating proto-experience directly, the OR event is the physical gate through which globally integrated neural activity couples with the awareness field. This accounts for the striking empirical finding that chemically diverse anesthetic agents—halothane, xenon, propofol—suppress consciousness by binding hydrophobic pockets in tubulin, selectively disabling the coupling mechanism while leaving cortical activity intact (Hameroff, 2006).

AFIT's distinguishing contribution beyond existing dualisms and field theories is a second, dynamic coupling variable. Coupling strength at any moment depends not only on an organism's neural integration capacity (Φ max, set by species architecture, from fungi through humans) but on the quality of mental activity within that architecture (q(t)), which varies moment-to-moment within a single nervous system. Ordinary waking consciousness is characteristically divided—organized around competing, ego-driven content—and the phenomenological path from inattentive waking through witness-consciousness to the state classical Vedantic sources term Turiya (Nikhilananda, 1949) reflects the progressive resolution of this division as q(t) approaches its ceiling, not any change in underlying neural capacity. Functional form C(t) ≈ Φ_max × q(t).

"Ultimately, according to Parikh, AFIT provides a rigorous scientific grounding for Eastern philosophical concepts of pure consciousness, Brahman, and Atman. By demonstrating how the fundamental awareness field is constrained by an individual's own mental activity—originating from ego, desire, and bias—AFIT bridges ancient metaphysics and the study of deep meditative states with the biophysics of quantum coherence and the information-theoretic framework of IIT, offering profound implications for understanding and enhancing human experience.

References
Chalmers, D.J. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2(3), 200–219.
Hameroff, S.R. (2006). The entwined mysteries of anesthesia and consciousness. Anesthesiology, 105(2), 400–412.
Nikhilananda, S. (trans.) (1949). The Mandukya Upanishad with Gaudapada's Karika. New York: Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center.
Parikh, S.A. (2026). Awareness-Field Interaction Theory: Mental state as a second, dynamic determinant of conscious coupling. Manuscript under review, Philosophy and the Mind Sciences.
Penrose, R. and Hameroff, S.R. (1996). Orchestrated reduction of quantum coherence in brain microtubules: A model for consciousness. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 40(3–4), 453–480.
Tononi, G. (2004). An information integration theory of consciousness. BMC Neuroscience, 5, 42.

Ransford's Quantum Panpsychism

Philosopher Emmanuel Ransford proposes “quantum panpsychism,” where matter is richer “with an extra content or dimension”—he calls it “holomatter,” composed of “holoparticles”—and consciousness is “a nonmaterial content of the world.” It assumes two types of causality: “out-causation,” causation from outside, out of reach and deterministic; and “in-causation,” causation from within, unpredictable and “self-willed,” a kind of randomness. Holoparticles, Ransford offers, also have two parts: one obvious, deterministic, and out-causal; the other hidden, random-looking, and in-causal. This hints, he says, that “the randomness of some quantum events is a smoking-gun evidence of in-causation.”

He adds the “im-im hypothesis,” where “im-im” stands for immaterial and immanent, and his claimed insight is that the brain is a catalyst of the mind. “It is a biological ‘lamp’ of sorts that pours out untold sparks of consciousness instead of untold sparks of light (or photons) in the case of ordinary lamps.” Indeed, the brain spawning large flows of active and entangled in-causal holoparticles within the im-im framework would underpin ordinary consciousness—holoparticles linking quantum and consciousness. This is why “consciousness, albeit immaterial, needs a physical structure to ‘catalyze’ it into being” (Ransford, 2023).

Corrigan’s Cognizant Gravitation

Philosopher James Corrigan (PhD, Stony Brook) weaves cognizance and intellect with gravitation, situating the three as aspects of the production of our embodied activities and perceptions. Why gravitation? Start with Corrigan’s description of physical reality as encompassing materiality and nonmateriality as one indivisible reality. He explains that while gravitation is nonmaterial, it is said to affect ‘matter.’ But 'matter' is how we perceive complex geometries of gravitation, he says, following the later work of Einstein, and that of John Wheeler’s “purer” gravitation-only GEONS.

These complex geometries are ‘beings,’ and atemporal reconfigurations that immediately replace the prior geometry account for the ontogenetic development of each being, while considering their ontogenetic potential, contextual possibilities, including their affective intents (attention, intention, desire), if any. Corrigan categorizes this as ‘responsive naturing,’ which subsumes causality, which is only applicable to collections of the least complex beings.

Each gravitational geometry is dimensionally complex, and, because gravitation is non-exclusive, can comprise deeply nested, recursive, complex organic structures. Intellect, cognizance, and gravitation are aspects of all things, not ‘under’ all things, and together they complete the productive principle. So, our conscious ‘moment’ and our feeling of being are none other than this nonmaterial principle.

Cognizance is necessary for the maintenance of the coherent continuity of all life, and what cognizant gravitation produces is the actual percepts that we perceive. That is, cognizance is not conceptual, not mental, nor something other than what this productive principle is doing. Cognizance is inseparable from the actual. Conceptual ‘consciousness’ is abstracted from the cognizance of what is done by each reconfiguration.

The brain is obviously involved in perception but is not capable of producing either percepts or thoughts, as it is only an analog signal processor. Intellect is nonmaterial and recognizes patterns of encoded sense stimuli in the brain, stimuli that change the configuration of the brain. Thoughts are similarly produced, changing the brain's configuration, and are correlates of intellect. Brain activity is a correlate of conscious perception and thinking. Ontogenetic forms, their momentary topology, and all their motions are correlates of the local complex geometry of gravitation as atemporal reconfigurations.

Duration is the produced continuity of the being from the actual configuration to the successive reconfiguration. Perception has two phases: the first is the immediate recognition by cognizance and is called ‘imperience’; the second decorates the imperience with qualities, names, meanings, identities, classifications, relations, and history, etc., which gives us experience. Every natural being, from the largest cosmological formal structure, down to the smallest particle, is alive, is Life in action. Chairs and tables are not, although the molecules, atoms, and quanta that make up their material are. There isn't a different gravitation for bacteria, for example. All natural things have the same intellect, cognizance, and gravitation, as there is only one productive principle. The differences are in how these are deployed as each kind of ontogenetic form. [See Corrigan’s website—https://stilljustjames.com/.]

Kamen's Human Soul as a Quantum Field

Theoretical engineer Edward Kamen proposes that “the human soul is a type of quantum field,” which interacts with only certain fields in the physical universe and not directly with matter. The claim is made that “fields that interact with the soul field include electromagnetic waves,” citing as evidence “near-death experiences where events that could not have been seen through the eyes of the individual are verified" (Kamen & Kamen, 2023). In other words, "the human soul is a manifestation of a soul field consisting of a collection of quantum-like fields. The soul field interacts with the electromagnetic field, manifested by photons interacting with the quanta of the soul field" (Kamen and Kamen, 2025).

Extending the theory, Kamen speculates that because “electric fields and electromagnetic fields have the same quanta consisting of photons, electric fields may also interact with the soul field.” This could result in the transfer of information, he says, from working memory to the soul through electric fields produced by neural ensembles in the human brain. Further, the soul field may also affect neurons on the molecular level, perhaps via electric fields and cytoelectric coupling (Kamen & Kamen, 2023). "The human soul is coupled to the body through its interactions with bioelectric fields in the body. Manifestations of the quantum-like fields comprising the soul field may carry out different functions such as encoding memories and experiences, representing emotion states, and defining personal identity. Interactions of these fields and their quanta could produce emergent properties such as self-awareness and consciousness" (Kamen and Kamen, 2025).

Matzke's 'Existons' as Conscious Hyperbits

Quantum scientist Doug Matzke proposes “Existons” as “conscious hyperbits that can coalesce into conscious clusters of increasing complexity and group consciousness.” In his 2002 Ph.D. dissertation, Matzke says that he demonstrated that “quantum computing (qubits/ebits) could be produced using purely topological bitvectors represented in Geometric Algebra.” In 2024, he says he “confirmed that these hyperdimensional bitvectors (aka hyperbits) also support the Dirac Spinors math used to represent the standard model particles.” Therefore, Matzke claims that “hyperbit math can represent the quantum physical world at the Planck scale similar to John Wheeler's “it from bit” model and Rolf Landauer's “information is physical” model (Matzke, www.Existons.one, www.QuantumDoug.com; Matzke & Tiller, 2020; personal communication, 2025).

Matzke says that the novel part of his model is that “these hyperbits are also the primitive unit of consciousness, defining a ‘mathematical panpsychism.’” Matzke claims that his conscious hyperbits simultaneously solve the “hard problem of consciousness” and mathematically supports the “simulation hypothesis.” He says, “Math-based spacelike conscious hyperbits form a common infrastructure for both objective and subjective reality, because everything is conscious at the Planck scale. Existons form a hybrid consciousness classification combining math, quantum, intelligence, and panpsychism.

Khan's Fractal Theory of Consciousness

Philosopher of science Tariq Khan proposes a fractal theory of consciousness where consciousness, in some sense, occurs at or below the Planck scale (i.e., the smallest scale of space-time), and consciousness, as we know it, exists at a fractal critical point in the brain. Consciousness is fractal and holographic and exists on a space-time boundary where consciousness and memories are ‘processed’ and operate external to the human mind, analogous to cloud computing.

According to Khan, perhaps the similarities between fractals and renormalization suggest a deeper connection. Could a theoretical Planck-length space-time ‘pixel’ be a fractal shape? Could the scale-free or scale-invariance aspects of self-organized criticality relate to the critical brain hypothesis? At the critical point in the brain, could the pattern of signals exist at every scale like a fractal? Consider an analogy to cloud computing where processing is done at a remote ‘compute’ location and results are transported back to a user. Benefits, similar to those sought by life, drove the creation of cloud computing, including its resiliency and redundancy. Brains are optimized at the critical point, Khan argues, and consciousness fades as the brain drifts away from it (e.g., under anesthesia).

At the critical point, signaling is scale invariant (fractal pattern going down to the smallest scale). Might it be that human consciousness does not actually lie inside our physical skulls but, rather, in the microscopic quantum boundary? Perhaps the reason for brain criticality is that, by reaching a state of scale invariance, actual thought and intelligence, occurring at the quantum boundary, is thus able to be communicated ‘up the fractal ladder’ to the scale of neurons in our macro world. The brain, at its critical point, where all scales are identical fractals (i.e., synchronized), becomes a ‘vertical’ human data network channel. If all particles and forces that create our reality can be encoded on a boundary, then why not consciousness as well? (Khan, 2025).

Burnor’s Causal Quantum Tetrahedra

Independent researcher Christopher Burnor proposes a participatory Causal Quantum Tetrahedra (CQT) framework, in which consciousness is not an accidental byproduct of brain activity or an emergent property of computation, but rather modeled as an intrinsic, active capacity woven into the fundamental structure of reality itself. At its core, the framework describes a participatory process in which high-variability states resolve into stable, meaningful experience. This resolution occurs through a repeatable dynamic: a brief phase of relational friction or stress (the Friction Dip), followed by a self-stabilizing surge that restores and elevates coherence. Consciousness functions as the active participant that guides this process — selecting among possible quantum paths by reducing dissonance and favoring higher-coherence outcomes (personal communication, 2026),

Subjective experience arises because mutual tetrahedral closure is intrinsically self-referential. When four units achieve mutual closure, the system does not merely update a functional self-model—it generates an internal perspective from which the resolution is experienced. The “inside view” is the direct, first-person manifestation of the closed quantum loop turning back on itself: the tetrahedron literally feels its own stabilization as coherence. Qualia are this felt signature—the redness of red is the internal shape of a specific pattern of participatory closure resolving uncertainty in the visual lattice.

Burnor claims his model addresses the Hard Problem. Rather than treating consciousness as something mysteriously added atop physical processes, the CQT framework makes participation fundamental: the observer is embedded within the lattice, co-authoring the quantum path outcomes through intentional alignment. The self-referential closure does not produce just another functional model—it produces the subjective “what it is like” because the system is experiencing its own causal participation from within.

Free will follows naturally. Because the participatory process actively selects among higher-coherence quantum paths rather than being strictly determined by prior states, genuine causal authorship exists. Observer and observed are inseparable co-creators.

This perspective suggests that consciousness and free will are not late additions to reality—they are essential to the generative process by which reality actualizes. Burnor says that his framework is inherently multi-domain, integrating quantum gravity, participatory mechanisms of consciousness, information dynamics, and relational emergence within a unified resonance lattice.

Editor’s Note: Christopher Burnor earned his GED and high school diploma while incarcerated. Entirely self-taught across multiple disciplines—including criminal and civil law—he successfully litigated cases on his own behalf, securing an acquittal in one trial and winning an appeal that reduced a life sentence to 9½ years, which he completed. He has focused on foundational questions at the intersection of physics and consciousness through sustained self-directed collaboration with AI systems and large-scale computational exploration.

Marker’s Entanglement Theory of Consciousness

Retired actuary Richard Marker, an independent researcher with undergraduate degrees in mathematics and physics, proposes the Donut Chain Theory (DCT), where entanglement provides a mechanism that may explain consciousness.Electromagnetism theories of consciousness—for example, the ephaptic approach—are limited to a single brain in both its distance range and execution speed.Entanglement overcomes these limitations.If brains operate on entanglement, then different brains can be connected in varying degrees.For AI to replicate consciousness, it would need to interact with an elaborate network of connections between brains.

With DCT, universes must grow from their boundaries.This introduces both a decreasing entropy for the universe and an element of randomness.There cannot always be a predetermined outcome.A person’s thoughts may be constrained by entanglement connections with others, but there is room for significant free will.

When does consciousness start in one’s mind?Entanglement could link to the expression of genes and be present long before birth.Consciousness manifestation in the mind could disappear on death while the mind’s contribution to the more universal aspect of connected consciousness could continue.

Marker, R. L. (2025). Our Hidden Reality: Revealing the Foundational Structure. https://philpapers.org/archive/MAROHR.pdf. The parts of DCT that relate to consciousness are in Part V – Theory Speculations (pp. 59 – 64).

Frenkel’s Hyperdimensional Neutral Monism

Architect/philosopher Jason Frenkel introduces the concept of “hyperdimensional neutral monism” (HNM) as an elaboration and exploration of neutral monism, and he argues that it/HNM is “a viable means of addressing the mind–body problem and the hard problem of consciousness.” Neutral monism states that “there is a single type of neutral, ontologically primary ultimate, which both the physical and the mental supervene on. HNM states that these ultimates exist in a more-than-4-dimensional realm and that the physical world of spacetime is a 4-dimensional aspect of this realm.” Consciousness, Frenkel posits, is "the localized protrusion of spacetime into more than four dimensions.” In order to explain these concepts, he utilizes “an aquatic metaphor of vortices appearing within a physical ocean.” He compares HNM to panqualityism, which, he says, is another version of neutral monism, and cosmopsychism, which relies on a similar aquatic metaphor (Frenkel, 2022).

Frenkel, Jason. (2022.) Hyperdimensional Neutral Monism: A Dimensional Approach to the Mind–Body Problem. Philosophia 51 (1):149-184.

*********************

Quantum, dimensional, and non-standard physics theories of consciousness: a growth market.