It may be a good idea to write a small summary of your ideas so that people can better understand the "whole."
I read some of it, because you have written a lot, but I disagree with a lot of things.
For instance, several times you say "the objects exists FOR itself and BY itself."
But the problem is that you have not yet described how an object exists independently of itself, for itself.
As you know, there is a problem with physics and mathematics, and particularly abstract statements.
You cannot quantify and measure emotions with mathematics, you can't say "there is this amount of happiness in me right now, and that amount of sadness." for instance.
And this is what physics is based upon, quantifying, measuring and predicting.
For those reading, here's an example.
Let's say a person states the following to another person; "I am not myself."
Well, how can we measure this physically?
We can of course measure neurons in the brain and other brain activity, we can also record and measure the sound waves, but the meaning of the sentence is lost.
What this means is that the meaning, the subjective meaning that the consciousness adds when hearing the sentence, is lost in translation.
This goes for basically any kind of subjective state as far as i know.
I am bringing this up because quantum physics is after all just that, physics.
My point is that you are giving way too much into quantum physics, it's not THAT revolutionairy when it comes to consciousness and qualia.
In fact I propose the answer to the hard problem doesn't lie with quantum physics at all. But I will wait to discuss that for later on, if you want to know more.
Also, you really should cite your sources more in your papers, when you state something as fact.
Anyway I will feel terrible if I haven't read enough of your work though.
Will do that later.
