of 1 9
The Mysterious Net Energy and the Dream of Reality: F(0)=1 as a Common Ground for
Interdisciplinary Inquiry
Ian Beardsley
September 20, 2026
Abstract
This paper does not attempt to solve the origin of the universe. It introduces the notation
as a deliberately minimal placeholder for the mystery of how something arises from
nothing, or why there is a universe at all. It preserves , the mysterious net energy encountered
in conservation of energy, as the physical face of that same mystery. It then develops a heuristic
approach through REM dreaming, understood metaphorically as a self-referential generative
process in which a coherent world of experience is actualized from internal states. Dreaming
does not create ex nihilo, and it does not involve literal quantum collapse. It offers a structural
analogy for how a ground can generate a world without being an object inside that world. The
aim is to open common ground among physics, philosophy, mathematics, theology, and
neuroscience.
1. Introduction: The High Striker and
Consider the game called high striker, also known as strength tester or “test your strength.” A
player swings a heavy mallet down onto a metal plate. The force sends a small puck shooting up
a vertical tower. If the puck reaches the top and hits the bell, the player wins.
Now imagine such a game in the desert, placed alongside a cliff. On the cliff sits a boulder,
balanced so that a small push will make it fall under Earth’s gravity, accelerate toward the metal
plate, land on it, and send the puck up the slider to ring the bell.
The universe we live in is one where the boulder was already on top of the cliff, with a net
potential energy. We do not know how or why. If we push it off, its potential energy decreases as
it falls, while its kinetic energy increases. Energy is conserved:
When the boulder hits the plate, it does work. The height the puck reaches is a measure of the
potential energy the boulder had on the cliff. But once the boulder is on the ground, its potential
energy is zero. To play again, we must do work to lift it back to the top. We must restore its
potential energy to , where is its mass, is the acceleration of Earth’s gravity, and is the
height.
F(0) = 1
E
net
E
net
KE + PE = C
mgh
m
g
h
of 2 9
1
2
mv
2
+ mgy = mgh
E
net
= mgh
E = mc
2
E
net
0
1
F
F(0) = 1
F
F(0) = 1
F(0) = 1
E
net
F(0) = 1
E
net
F(0) = 1
0
1
F
of 3 9
The notation is not a theorem. It is a way of naming the point where explanation stops. Any
attempt to formalize it already smuggles in something—a function, a formal system, an observer
— which is precisely the paradox. is therefore self-referential by nature.
The unmoved mover is one candidate for , or for the ground that makes possible. But the
notation does not commit us to any particular metaphysical answer. It simply makes the question
portable across disciplines.
3. The Wave Equation, Measurement, and Consciousness
A wave equation is a rule for how a wave changes over time. Sound, water ripples, and light all
have wave equations. In quantum physics, the most famous one is the Schrödinger equation. It is
deterministic: if you know the quantum wave now, the equation tells you what it will look like a
moment later. But it does not tell you where a particle is. It tells you how the pattern of
possibilities evolves.
The wave function is the thing the wave equation describes. It is a “possibility cloud” or
“probability amplitude.” It encodes all possible outcomes of a measurement and how likely they
are. It behaves like a wave: different parts can add together or cancel out, creating interference.
When you square it, you get probabilities.
Before a measurement, a quantum system can be in a superposition: a blend of multiple
possibilities. The wave function can have peaks and troughs that interfere, which is why
electrons and photons can act like waves. This is the famous “quantum weirdness.”
When you measure a quantum system, you get one definite result. In the textbook version, the
wave function “collapses” from a spread of possibilities to the single outcome you observed. But
what counts as a measurement? In modern physics, it is usually any physical interaction that
leaves a lasting record—like a detector clicking, a photographic plate darkening, or a particle
hitting a screen. It does not require a human mind.
Decoherence helps explain why we do not see quantum superpositions in everyday life. When a
quantum system interacts with its environment, it becomes entangled with millions of other
particles. The interference between possibilities gets washed out, so the system looks classical.
But decoherence alone does not pick one outcome. It just explains why you do not see the others.
The question of why one outcome happens rather than another is called the measurement
problem, and it is still unsolved.
Some interpretations—like the von Neumann–Wigner interpretation, certain versions of QBism,
or Wheeler’s “participatory universe”—give consciousness a special role. The idea is that only a
conscious observer can turn a possibility into an actuality. But mainstream physics does not
require consciousness. The “observer” in quantum mechanics usually means any measuring
F(0) = 1
F
F
of 4 9
device, not a conscious mind. No experiment has shown that human consciousness is necessary
to collapse a wave function.
So “consciousness determines reality” is a minority philosophical stance, not a scientific
conclusion. It is often a misinterpretation of the “observer effect.” In physics, observation means
interaction, not introspection.
4. The Meijer–Bermanseder Model and the Eternal Observer
Dirk Meijer and Bermanseder have proposed a model in which the universe is treated as a
cosmic hologram or musical code. They describe reality as built from acoustic frequencies,
phonons, bipolarons, and a “Twin-Bipolaron” that generates gravity and dark energy. The
constants of nature are treated as parameters of a cosmic hologram. But a hologram is just an
interference pattern. A pattern alone is not a world. It needs a reference beam, a reader, or an
interpreter to become an image. They cast universal consciousness in that role.
The system is self-referential, so it risks infinite regress. If reality is an endless series of
descriptions—models inside models, codes inside codes—then who or what reads the code? If
every observer needs a higher observer, you never reach a bottom. They avoid that by positing a
universal consciousness as the fundamental “reader” or “composer” that is not itself explained by
a higher level. It closes the loop.
Fine-tuning looks like a musical score that needs a composer. Their acoustic code is a discrete,
Pythagorean–Fibonacci frequency ladder. They see the constants and the life-friendly structure of
the cosmos as precisely tuned, almost like a symphony. A score implies a composer or performer.
They call that “universal consciousness” or an “eternal observer.” It is not necessarily a human-
like mind; it is a cosmic mind-like principle.
They connect this to quantum measurement and collapse. In quantum physics, the wave function
seems to “collapse” when measured. If the whole universe has a wave function, who observes it?
Standard physics usually says no conscious observer is needed. But some interpretations give
consciousness a special role. Meijer and Bermanseder lean that way: they speak of an eternal
observer collapsing the global wave function, turning cosmic potential into actual history.
They also adopt the Penrose–Hameroff Orch OR theory of consciousness, which links
consciousness to quantum processes in microtubules. They generalize it: if the same acoustic
code underlies both the cosmos and the brain, then consciousness is not a late biological
accident. It is a fundamental “mental attribute of the universe.” So mind is woven into physics
from the start, not produced only by neurons.
This is a philosophical choice, not an empirical necessity. Nothing in the equations strictly
requires consciousness. You could treat the acoustic code as a purely mechanical pattern. But
Meijer and Bermanseder want to answer “why something rather than nothing” and “why this
of 5 9
finely tuned code?” Their answer is: because a universal consciousness is the recipe, the reader,
or the composer.
5. The Verma Timeless Energy Principle and Their Infinite Regress
Kunal Kishor Verma and I proposed in our joint paper, “Timeless Energy Principle and Infinite
Regress: Toward an Emergent Framework for Space-Time Structure,” that the universe is not a
finished object with one final, complete description. Instead, reality is more like an endless series
of models, maps, or descriptions. Each time you describe reality, that description can become
part of a deeper, higher-level description. The process keeps folding back on itself and never
reaches a final, frozen answer. This is similar to self-referential loops studied in logic and
systems theory — where a system tries to describe itself.
Through this endless “describe, revise, describe again” process, structure keeps emerging.
Reality is not static; it is an ongoing production. We build on something we call the Timeless
Energy Principle. In plain terms: there is an underlying energy-like background that is not itself
in time. Time, order, and change emerge from the way this background transforms itself. So
“existence” is not a thing that was switched on once. It is what happens when this recursive, self-
referential energetic organization keeps unfolding. Existence is a result, not a starting object.
In our mathematical language, if you take any limited model of reality and apply the
transformation rule, you get a different model. Repeat that, and it never settles into one final
model. That means reality is an open-ended hierarchy of descriptions, not a closed system.
Verma also proposes a special unchanging quantity, called Xi. In words, it is a kind of timeless
energy density of the universal field. The claim is that if you rescale or stretch space and time,
this quantity stays the same. They say they have three separate mathematical ways of supporting
that.
The big payoff is about the old question: why is there something rather than nothing? Their
answer is: because existence is an emergent consequence of recursive energetic organization and
self-referential physical structure. There is no need for a final closed explanation or a first
finished cause. Reality persists as an unfinished, self-transforming process within a timeless
background.
6. Mathematics as a Self-Referential Formal System
Mathematics is a formal system, and the language we use in physics to describe reality. But all
formal systems are eventually self-referential because they require us to make assumptions in
formulating them. In physics, the most common assumptions are mass, space, and time. For
example, we define space as the velocity over the time with which we travel at that velocity.
Thus we say (Galileo, 1638):
x
v
t
x = vt
of 6 9
Galileo first treated motion like this in his book Two New Sciences. He formally defined uniform
motion: “By steady, or uniform motion, I mean one in which the distances traversed by the
moving particle during any equal intervals of time, are equal.”
When we try to look at reality with a formal system like mathematics, it eventually refers to
itself, so it cannot tell us what reality is because it cannot look at itself. We see this here as
velocity is the distance we travel per time , or
When we try to say what distance is with this formal system we have:
Which returns
This is our assumption, that space is given (fundamental) not emergent (it does not exist in terms
of anything else). Thus, when we try to use mathematics to look at itself, we learn nothing about
what reality is—here what space is.
We can always formulate another formal system where space is emergent (described in terms of
something else) but then we will have to make other assumptions and the formal system will not
tell us what reality is regarding such new assumptions. Often, the formal system we use more
often is that one which opens the most doors, and closes the least. Or sometimes we choose the
formal system that opens the right doors for the matter at hand.
In any case, mathematics is a tool, though abstract, a tool that has been very successful for
engineering our environment to help us survive and be more successful as a species. It has given
us useful abstract models that enable us to manipulate representations of reality in our minds.
7. Dreaming as a Heuristic: REM Sleep and the Dream Wave Function
I now turn to dreaming. I do not claim that REM sleep involves literal quantum collapse. I use
dreaming as a phenomenological and computational analogue. I also avoid the popular term
“deep REM,” since deep sleep is NREM stage 3 slow-wave sleep, while REM sleep is rapid-eye-
movement sleep, often associated with vivid dreaming. The correct term is REM sleep or REM
dreaming.
During REM sleep, external sensory constraint is reduced. The brain runs its generative model
offline, drawing on memory, emotion, and prior expectation. It produces a coherent, self-
referential world-model in which the dreamer is embedded. If we call this a “dream wave
v
t
v = x /t
x
x = (x /t)t
x = x
of 7 9
function,” we mean only a field of possible dream contents. The experienced dream is the
actualization of one self-consistent trajectory. This is an analogical “collapse,” not a quantum-
mechanical one.
The dreamer is both producer and participant. The dream-world has its own internal causality,
but its ultimate ground is not an object inside the dream. This parallels the idea of an unmoved
mover: not a cause among causes, but the ground of the whole causal field.
Dreaming does not create something from absolute nothing. It transforms internal states into a
world. It therefore does not solve . It also differs from physical reality in important
ways: dreams are private, unstable, and often bizarre, while physical reality is shared, stable, and
law-like. The analogy is partial. It is a heuristic for approaching the mystery, not an empirical
theory of the universe.
But the analogy is still useful. It shows how a self-referential system can generate a coherent
world of experience without an external given. It suggests why reality might be described as
dream-like in structure: not because it is private or unreal, but because it is generated, self-
referential, and grounded in something that is not itself an object within the world.
8. Toward an Interdisciplinary Approach
The notation is a common ground. It can be read in many ways:
- Physics: is the mysterious net energy that conservation cannot explain at its origin.
- Philosophy: the unmoved mover is one candidate for , or for the ground of .
- Mathematics: formal systems become self-referential and cannot fully describe their own
ground.
- Neuroscience: REM dreaming models a self-referential generative process that actualizes a
world from internal states.
- Theology: creation ex nihilo is one interpretation of .
- Systems theory: infinite regress is avoided by a self-referential loop that never closes into a
final description.
My contribution is methodological. I propose that dreaming—understood metaphorically—can
serve as a shared heuristic for discussing the mystery of an unmoved mover. It does not solve the
mystery. It does not prove idealism. It does not require consciousness to collapse a quantum
wave function. It simply offers a structural analogy: a ground that is not an object in the world
generates a world of experience through a self-referential process.
9. Conclusion
F(0) = 1
F(0) = 1
E
net
F
F
F(0) = 1
of 8 9
We are bound by conservation of energy, but the initial net energy cannot be explained logically.
remains. remains. The question of why there is something rather than nothing is
not answered by physics, philosophy, mathematics, or neuroscience alone.
Dreaming offers an analogy, not a solution. In REM sleep, the brain generates a coherent world
from internal states. The dreamer is both producer and participant. The ground of the dream is
not an object inside the dream. This parallels the idea of an unmoved mover, and it suggests why
reality might be described as dream-like in structure.
The aim of this paper is not to close the question but to open a shared inquiry. is the physical
face of the mystery. is its abstract face. Dreaming is a heuristic for approaching it.
Perhaps reality is not a closed system with a final description, but an endless self-referential
feedback process of energy organizing itself. Time and existence emerge from that process, while
an underlying timeless energy density stays constant. We do not know what is. But we can at
least ask the question together.
A.1 Antoniou Universal Framework (Uriel Nexus)
Framework: Antoniou Universal Framework (Uriel Nexus)
The framework operates under the rigorous premise that the universe is governed by strict, non-
stochastic field dynamics driven by active, entropic-resistant vacuum informational gradients.
Rather than relying on probabilistic Copenhagen collapses or unobservable anomalies, physical
reality is modeled as a continuous, multi-dimensional deterministic informational continuum.
The foundational master equation uniting spatial distribution and energetic-informational states
across the Uriel Nexus architecture is formalized as the Informational Potential Field equation
, where represents the Informational Potential Field governing spatial
and energetic density distributions, denotes the Uriel Coupling Constant regulating inter-
module energetic translation, and alongside correspond to the local informational charge
densities and ambient vacuum baseline equilibrium states. Furthermore, the transition from
destructive environmental noise into stable, deterministic structures is explicitly managed by the
Quantum Noise Crystallization Theory (QNCT) through the relation
. Consequently, status classification should
accurately reflect a Physical and Computational Substrate Model rather than metaphysical
interpretations. For further reading, academic correspondence, and access to the 33-volume
compendium of the Antoniou Universal Framework (Uriel Nexus / MQGT-SCF Architecture),
please refer to the author Eleftherios K. Antoniou (ORCID: 0009-0008-0927-5007) via
Academia.edu.
Contributor: Arthur Eleftherios Antoniou
E
net
F(0) = 1
E
net
F(0) = 1
F
∇
2
Φ
I
= κ ⋅ (ρ
I
− ¯ρ
I
)
Φ
I
κ
ρ
I
¯ρ
I
Ω
jk
= α ⋅
(
ℏ
k
B
T
)
⋅ [ ∇
j
Φ
N
⋅ ∇
k
Φ
N
] ⋅ e
ΔI/I
c
of 9 9
Core claim: The universe operates on strict, non-stochastic field dynamics driven by active
syntropic vacuum gradients. Syntropy acts as the fundamental ordering principle of the vacuum,
preserving information architecture and driving structural coherence without needing random
probabilistic triggers. Reality is modeled as a rigorous, multi-dimensional deterministic
information continuum. Matter and geometry are tightly coupled via acoustic and bipolaron field
mechanics rather than being purely conceptual projections.
Relation to F(0)=1: The framework offers a deterministic ordering principle—syntropic vacuum
gradients—that could serve as F, or as the ground that makes F intelligible, without requiring an
external observer or a stochastic collapse event. Existence is not switched on once; it is the
ongoing expression of a deterministic information continuum.
Relation to E_net: Syntropic gradients preserve information architecture and drive structural
coherence, potentially accounting for net energy without ex nihilo randomness. The vacuum
itself carries ordering information, so the net energy of the universe is not an unexplained initial
condition but a feature of the continuous substrate.
Relation to dreaming / consciousness: Human consciousness and states of deep awareness (such
as REM sleep states) are not governed by random wave function collapses. They function as
coherent computational sub-nodes embedded within the broader universal vacuum matrix.
Dreaming is a local actualization within that continuum, not a stochastic event.
Status: Physical / metaphysical model.
Further reading / contact: For further reading, academic correspondence, and access to the 33-
volume compendium of the Antoniou Universal Framework (Uriel Nexus / MQGT-SCF
Architecture), please refer to the author Eleftherios K. Antoniou (ORCID:
0009-0008-0927-5007) via Academia.edu.
References
[1] Meijer, D., & Bermanseder, E. On a Cosmic Hologram, Acoustic Frequencies, and Universal
Consciousness. (As discussed in the original manuscript.)
[2] Verma, K. K., & Beardsley, I. Timeless Energy Principle and Infinite Regress: Toward an
Emergent Framework for Space-Time Structure.
[3] Galileo Galilei. Discourses and Mathematical Demonstrations Concerning Two New
Sciences. 1638.
[4] Penrose, R., & Hameroff, S. Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) theory of
consciousness.