Herein we are not interested in merely using dynamical systems theory, graph theory, information theory, etc., to model the relationship between brain dynamics and networks, and various states and degrees of conscious processes. We are interested in the question of how phenomenal conscious experience and fundamental physics are most deeply related. Any attempt to mathematically and formally model conscious experience and its relationship to physics must begin with some metaphysical assumption in mind about the nature of conscious experience, the nature of matter and the nature of the relationship between them. These days the most prominent metaphysical fixed points are strong emergence or some variant of panpsychism. In this paper we will detail another distinct metaphysical starting point known as neutral monism. In particular, we will focus on a variant of the neutral monism of William James and Bertrand Russell. Rather than starting with physics as fundamental, as both strong emergence and panpsychism do in their own way, our goal is to suggest how one might derive fundamental physics from neutral monism. Thus, starting with two axioms grounded in our characterization of neutral monism, we will sketch out a derivation of and explanation for some key features of relativity and quantum mechanics that suggest a unity between those two theories that is generally unappreciated. Our mode of explanation throughout will be of the principle as opposed to constructive variety in something like Einstein’s sense of those terms. We will argue throughout that a bias towards property dualism and a bias toward reductive dynamical and constructive explanation lead to the hard problem and the explanatory gap in consciousness studies, and lead to serious unresolved problems in fundamental physics, such as the measurement problem and the mystery of entanglement in quantum mechanics and lack of progress in producing an empirically well-grounded theory of quantum gravity. We hope to show that given our take on neutral monism and all that follows from it, the aforementioned problems can be satisfactorily resolved leaving us with a far more intuitive and commonsense model of the relationship between conscious experience and physics.

中文翻译：

---

用中性一元论重新思考世界：消除思想、物质和时空之间的界限

在这里，我们不感兴趣仅仅使用动力系统理论、图论、信息论等来模拟大脑动力学和网络之间的关系，以及意识过程的各种状态和程度。我们对现象意识体验和基础物理学之间的关系如何最感兴趣。任何对意识体验及其与物理学的关系进行数学和形式建模的尝试都必须以某种形而上学假设开始，即意识体验的本质、物质的本质以及它们之间关系的本质。如今，最突出的形而上学固定点是强大的涌现或泛心论的某种变体。在本文中，我们将详细介绍另一个不同的形而上学起点，称为中性一元论。特别是，我们将关注威廉詹姆斯和伯特兰罗素的中性一元论的变体。我们的目标不是从物理学作为基础开始，正如强涌现和泛心论以自己的方式做的那样，我们的目标是建议人们如何从中性一元论中推导出基础物理学。因此，从基于我们对中性一元论的表征的两个公理开始，我们将勾勒出相对论和量子力学的一些关键特征的推导和解释，这些特征表明这两种理论之间存在统一，但通常不被重视。我们自始至终的解释模式将是原则性的，而不是像爱因斯坦对这些术语那样的建设性多样性。我们将自始至终论证，偏向于性质二元论和偏向于还原动力学和建设性解释导致意识研究中的难题和解释差距，并导致基础物理学中严重的未解决的问题，例如测量问题和奥秘量子力学中的纠缠以及在产生经验丰富的量子引力理论方面缺乏进展。我们希望表明，鉴于我们对中性一元论的看法以及由此而来的所有问题，上述问题可以得到令人满意的解决，从而为我们提供一个更加直观和常识性的意识经验与物理学之间的关系模型。例如量子力学中的测量问题和纠缠之谜，以及在产生经验丰富的量子引力理论方面缺乏进展。我们希望表明，鉴于我们对中性一元论的看法以及由此而来的所有问题，上述问题可以得到令人满意的解决，从而为我们提供一个更加直观和常识性的意识经验与物理学之间的关系模型。例如量子力学中的测量问题和纠缠之谜，以及在产生经验丰富的量子引力理论方面缺乏进展。我们希望表明，鉴于我们对中性一元论的看法以及由此而来的所有问题，上述问题可以得到令人满意的解决，从而为我们提供一个更加直观和常识性的意识经验与物理学之间的关系模型。