Psychical and physical realms: SMM/DTT and Integrated information theory

01The question behind the comparison

Psychical and physical can name two kinds of description, two kinds of property, two modes of access, or two distinct realms of being. These are different positions. SMM/DTT’s attraction is the possibility that a single generative source supports both an outwardly measurable world and inwardly meaningful experience. A clear comparison begins by stating what the distinction means. Otherwise a shift from first-person experience to an additional spatial dimension can occur without argument.

An experience of red and a measurement of reflected light are related but answer different questions. The measurement specifies a public procedure and result. The experience concerns how something appears to a subject. A single-source ontology may seek to ground both, yet common dependence does not itself establish an identity between them or a law connecting them. If the psychical is given an autonomous causal role in physical events, the role must be specified. If it is a different aspect of the same events, the task is to explain the correspondence and the limits of each description.

DTT’s six nested inner levels belong to its proposed organization of generation. They should not be assigned one by one to unverified mental dimensions, nor equated with a list of brain networks merely because both lists contain several entries. A bridge to consciousness needs a criterion of subjecthood and a mapping from source states to accessible experience. A bridge to physics needs observables, probabilities and a dynamical law. The two bridges may share structure, but they remain distinct explanatory tasks. This allows the metaphysical programme to stay ambitious while its empirical claims remain precise.

02The single-source and nested-time proposal

SMM begins with one nonspatial generative source. DTT distinguishes its inner production from the outer order in which completed results become accessible. The six inner levels are nested functional dependencies within that production; the seventh denotes outer completion. They are not six independent clocks, six spatial directions, or six simultaneously occupied temporal axes. This distinction makes the framework more specific than a general claim that everything changes: it asks how a world of persistent relations can be generated before its spatial representation is taken for granted. ^[2]

03The comparator’s explanatory structure

IIT proposes that experience corresponds to an intrinsic, irreducible cause-effect structure. Its formal analysis concerns a specified system, its state and counterfactual transitions under a chosen modelling scale. It should not be reduced to the claim that more stored bits mean more consciousness. Integration, information and the identification of a subject are separate requirements within the programme.

Consider two independent memory banks storing the same file. Their data agree, but agreement is not the same as an integrated causal organization. Connecting them through reciprocal operations changes the causal model even if the visible file remains the same. This distinction is useful for SMM/DTT: a common source or a completed archive need not constitute one conscious subject. A bridge to IIT would require a transition structure and an account of system boundaries, then a reason to accept IIT’s proposed identity with experience. The mathematical calculation and that identity claim should remain distinguishable. ^[1]

04The precise agreement and difference

IIT proposes a relation between experience and the intrinsic causal structure of a physical substrate. It does not begin with a separate psychical realm outside that substrate. SMM/DTT can compare with IIT by treating psychical description as an aspect of generated causal organization, or it can propose a different ontology. The choice affects what evidence and calculations are relevant.

If DTT uses the aspect route, its completed record network must include counterfactual transition structure, because observed correlations alone do not determine IIT’s causal analysis. If it proposes an autonomous psychical sector, it needs to explain how that sector relates to the physical substrate that IIT analyzes. Neither route is established by the existence of six nested levels. The useful bridge is to define a particular source-generated system and compare its causal organization with its proposed experiential boundary. This gives the discussion a concrete object while keeping the stronger identity of experience and structure explicit as a theoretical commitment. It also avoids equating a large archive or a quantum superposition with consciousness. ^[1]

05Worked example: what follows and what does not

A person silently imagines a triangle and later draws it. The imagined triangle is not a small physical object hidden behind the eyes; the drawing is not identical to the act of imagining. Both can be related through a person’s capacities, intentions and bodily actions. An account can treat these as two aspects of one process, as causally interacting states, or as different levels of description. Each interpretation must explain the same ordinary sequence without confusing representation with represented object. SMM/DTT’s source unity can frame the relation, but the transition from imagination to drawing still calls for a specified account of agency and physical action.

06What this comparison contributes

The most productive comparison therefore asks how a theory handles access, identity and causation across the distinction. Does it preserve first-person meaning? Does it explain public agreement? Does it introduce new causal effects or reinterpret familiar ones? Psychical discourse can make a serious philosophical contribution without being labelled a new measured dimension. Conversely, a genuine physical proposal becomes stronger when its additional variables and their observable effects are stated independently of the metaphysical language that motivated them.

THE SAME QUESTION, DIFFERENT STARTING POINTS

The comparison at a glance

Continue on SMONAD

• Physical Time and Spiritual Time →

  Connects this comparison with the author’s discussion of realms.

• Preliminary Outline of Ibn Arabi's Cosmology →

  Connects this comparison with the author’s discussion of realms.

• Observer and record: making observation part of the model →

  Connects this comparison with the author’s discussion of realms.

• Introducing Ibn al-Arabi's View of Time →

  Connects this comparison with the author’s discussion of realms.

• Philosophy of time and creation →

  Connects this comparison with the author’s discussion of realms.