That was a really good post- an interpretation of physics that verges on poetry and religion. I could respond to each of those paragraphs, but that would just be quibbling, if such a word exists. Rather I would like to present you with another review by another rather learned person; but one that comes pretty close to a DrDick type philosophy.
Actually I do not really understand what Chris Lofting means by this review, which is all about meaning; and I am hoping that a smart guy like you could help me figure it out.
Review of A Dark Matter Model of Consciousness Chris Lofting
The manner in which we categorise as a species, as mindless stimulus/response creatures, reflects all we can know in that the method defines the possible expressions we can label in any context. Thus our instruments, being extensions of, not complements to, our methods of acquiring meaning will reflect the same patterns as that of the senses of the species. The senses in turn are rooted in patterns determined by differentiating and integrating. One of these patterns is reflected in the specialisation of particle physics where the label of 'fermions' serves to group a number of patterns we label as 'particles' into a distinct class. This class has properties and methods that are sourced from another distinct class of 'particles' labelled as 'bosons'. The bosons allow for what is called a 'superposition' where these 'particles' can share the same space, the same states and as such parts can form into a whole that is a direct reflection of the sameness of all parts. As such there is no 'difference', all is 'same', all is 'integrated', all is 'symmetric'. There is no differentiation and as such no differences, where differences are a requirement for 'complexity'.
The class we call 'fermions' have characteristics where each member of the class is absolute, pure, clearly defined. As such the fermions are 'hard', they cannot form into superpositions (if they do it is as a pair that 'convert' into a boson - as in electron-positron joining).
Given specific conditions, fermions emerge as PAIRS from the 'soup' of bosons, a soup we label the Bose-Einstein condensate and the elements of the pair go off on their adventures.
This dynamic of fermions, bosons, and the BEc reflect the dynamics of the brain's methods in categorisations. IOW the METHOD determines all we 'see' and the dynamics of that method operate across a dimension of 'precision', of differentiation, where one end is focused on pure integrations and the unary, the other on pure differentiations and the binary. As such, the discovery of the BEc etc was inevitable, as was the IDEA of such a concept in that all concepts are determined by the method of the brain in acquiring meaning.
The dimension of precision is a fundamental to our brain in deriving, processing, and asserting meaning such that all of our maps will REFLECT this dimension - just as the BEc reflects the properties of the sameness that is its parts.
The generic method includes differentiation of energy levels in that the more differentiating so the more exaggerating from the 'ground' state of the unary. Thus the realm of high dynamics to the degree of being unstable, the realm of complexity/chaos is at the position of the binary (or more just past that position) not the unary.
What is of interest is that, just as the BEc reflects the properties of all of the parts, so at the other end, the concept of emergence reflects what has emerged as reflecting from what it has emerged from - which is what happens when the BEc 'warms up' so it converts to parts that reflect the whole. IOW a GENERIC, species-wide level of awareness can become fragmented, reflected in parts, as each individual of the species is both a part of the species and yet also manifesting distinct 'unique' properties the longer the exposure to being discrete (noting the issues of discreteness in identical twins but also their tendancy, when raised togther, of forming fermionic-like pairs, as in opposites - one more positive, differentating, the other more negative, integrating but both 'unique'. Twins raised apart and unware of the other seem to reflect closer degrees of correlations in attitudes etc. IOW here, within the context of purity, of identical twins and mind states so we find issues of concepts labelled as 'BEc' concepts and 'fermions' and 'bosons'. Of particular note is that in an integrated whole so there are no 'distances', only correlations - this gets into some interesting areas re communication systems based only on correlations etc or more so a source of such ideas - be they 'real' or not - heurstics decides ;-)).
Overall, remove the labels, remove the specialisation, and we have basic patterns in meaning derivation, in meaning dynamics applicable to ANY specialisation. As such, the Mathematics of Fermions/Bosons and the BEc could serve as a source for mathematising the processes of meaning derivation as a whole. IOW remove the particular context, that of particle physics, and what is left is a set of descriptions used as universals by the species in deriving meaning - the development of consciousness has allowed for these universals to be associated with specialisations of focus and from their to have the set of descriptors 'refined'. Those descriptors are then applied in 'reality' as well as 'imagination' - heuristics then validates.
It is obvious here that the development of individual consciousness, its embodyment, allows for the breakdown of a species level consciousness/awareness into parts and as such individual consciousness takes on a 'fermionic' element. Thus the development of a BEc at the macro level is reflected in the concept of 'group mind', of extreme 'likemindedness' allowing for a collective to behave as if 'one'. The flocking behaviours we see in birds etc (and possibly in neurons) reflects the same GENERIC properties of 'likemindedness' (as in the container of a species defined by genetics) that reflect 'sharing the same space' and so 'superpositions'. IOW change the context and the same set of basic patterns used in the context of particle physics are applicable to the area of 'group' minds. The ease in doing this is due to BOTH specialisations sharing the ONE set of universal meanings such that analogy is extremely easy - what is a problem is recognising the labels as labels, as representations, not 'the thing' - and that with those labels can go a lot of 'baggage' in the form of a history of interpretations based on a consciousness trying to rationalise.
Thus the distinction of 'local consciousness' vs 'non-local consciousness', of 'positive consciousness' vs 'negative consciousness', reflects the linking of hard-coded methods, universal meanings, with a context and the re-labelling of the elements of the meanings to fit the context. IOW ANY specialisation will come up with such concepts that reflect the behaviours of fermions/bosons and the formation etc of a 'BEc' (noting that any 'condensate' in the neuron would be more at the dendritic end of things, the end that is more 'integrating' etc (Pribram favours consciousness as distributed through dendrities etc)).
To uncover the properties and methods of how we derive meaning, and so what we will see as 'universals' requires the re-focusing of attention on the species-nature, the properties and methods of meaning free of labels other than the generics of 'differentation/integration' and the dynamic of the relationship of differention (asymmetry) FROM integration (symmetry).