Dear Dr. Šorli!
As a preamble, I assert that all core notions and definitions, all key ideas of any theory can be and must be discussed without plunging into their mathematics, at least by using not formulas and equations but words, pictures, animation. If this is impossible, something is wrong with the theory.
All quotations are taken from your papers in NeuroQuantology, mostly from the 6-th paper for it has happened that I’ve printed it up.
1. You introduce an n-dimensional Hilbert space as “the fundamental background of consciousness, which acts in the human being as the observer”. Here n stands for the cardinal number of natural numbers. OK, I can understand that you have chosen an n-dimensional space. However, why must it be Hilbert? Too much of order, I’d say. Were I you, I’d propose something more complicated and disordered, a model where so friendly and simple structures are impossible and one even can’t introduce any usual topology. All such constructions are purely speculative, of course, but I take into account an ethic aspect. To me, the greatest human value must be the following: any human being is immeasurably more complex than any theory might assert; the behaviour of any human is strictly unpredictable, much more unpredictable than the behaviour of all other nature, living or not. It’s more important for me than the absence of violence, the peace between humans and the inner peace of each individual. That is, the models of consciousness cannot be simple and cannot have such a small dimension as your n.
2. You write that your nD consciousness becomes mind in lower dimensional spaces and finally becomes matter in the 3D-reality. I can’t help asking: why the terminal stage is 3D? Does any reason exist for 3D and not 2D or 4D? Why matter “has an inherent tendency to develop into life”? Do you consider life (homeostasis + self-reproduction) as the first obligatory stage of intelligence and then consciousness? (I can’t agree but it may be your choice).
3. Why and for what does the time you call “psychological time, the linear time “past-present-future” exist? If we are nothing more but manifestations of the nD consciousness why this consciousness prefers to manifest itself in the linear time “past-present-future”? How might it occur that we live in this non-natural (from your point of view) kind of time? How is it reproduced in every new-born child?
4. You write “It is widely accepted that the observation of a given superposition favours the superposition to manifest in the physical world. Less known, but not of less importance, is that it is the observation that gives the duration to the observed motion in space. Without the observation, there is no duration.” What about the difference between the micro and macro levels? Do you consider the collapse of the wave function? Is observation really obligatory at the macro level of duration?
5. When you write that “the hundred year-old convictions that time is the 4th dimension of space has ended”, I’d strongly recommend you to precise the definition of time. I’m afraid that the word “time” has become too multivalent and the time of the Relativity – which you would see “happily divorced [with space] after 100 years of forced marriage” – doesn’t coincide with your version of time, which is the “numerical order of material changes”. Both notions are close enough but different.
6. You insist on the “timeless approach” in science but use the standard technique of differential equations where time derivation is evidently preferred to all other types of (space) derivations. Well, you use an advanced and generalized technique, not ordinary functions but operators. It doesn’t matter: in models of the contemporary Theoretical Physics time has a special place when compared with space. Why?