The free energy principle states that self-organization occurs through minimization of free energy, which is a measure of potential thermodynamic work. By minimizing free energy, the organism happens to also minimize surprise over its boundary, promoting chances of survival. We discuss the ethical implications of the cognitive goal in detail from an empirical point of view, highlighting the principle of least action as a physical basis of Occam's razor, the universality of the free energy principle, and its explanation of natural selection. We explain that the free energy principle extends to groups of organisms and helps us understand group-scale adaptations and selection in biology. The free energy principle applies to all scales of organization in the organism from single cells to the entire nervous system. When this principle is taken to its logical extremes of modeling groups, populations and ecosystems, we uncover a new, evolutionarily sensible path at explaining puzzling aspects of human motivation and judgement, including ethical decisions. To minimize free energy, populations have to act to maximize gathering of information, while building effective models at mitigating changes to its dynamic structure. The free energy principle thus provides a naturalistic explanation of some of our deepest ethical intuitions, and valuable principles of social behavior. We interpret the cognitive goal that corresponds to the principle as seeking a dynamic, fruitful, yet peaceful activity that sustains the organism. This state of mind is interestingly similar to the Buddhist intuition of mental equanimity; the organism's final goal is to be at peace and harmony with the environment. Another immediately relevant aspect is that assemblies must form to promote symbiotic, synergistic, positive feedback loops, which coincides with the findings of ecologists. Therefore, ethics naturally emerges in self-organizing systems. Assemblies of organisms must ultimately unite in macro-minds to achieve the greatest reduction in free energy, as well as building technological extensions of themselves to improve their capacity to do such, therefore the principle also predicts a post-singularity world-mind composed mostly of artificial intelligence.

In a previous work by the author it was shown that the Koopman-von Neumann formulation of classical mechanics (KvN) exhibits quantum interference. As such it was there claimed that KvN ought to be considered as a proper quantum mechanical theory in a similar sense as ordinary non-relativistic quantum mechanics (OQM) is. In this article this claim is made manifest by showing that KvN and OQM can be taken as merely inequivalent representations resulting from one and the same quantization scheme. Of course, as the typical notion of quantization necessitates the canonical commutation relations (CCR) to hold, which they do not in KvN, the concept needs to be properly revised. To justify such a revision the typical reasons for necessitation the CCR, reductionism and quantization as 'turning brackets to commutators', are examined and found insufficient.

Using arguments originally introduced by Einstein we show that the reductionist philosophy of quantum mechanics reverses the natural order. In quantum mechanics emission is followed by observation and interpreted classically with the collapse of the wave function, whereas in nature classical absorptions of energy precede emission. Also momentum transfers leading to emissions are asymmetric with respect to spatial orientation and time, but are disregarded in quantum mechanics because molecular impulses cannot be observed. Thus despite irrefutable physical evidence that microscopic processes evolve asymmetrically the wave function is assumed to apply symmetrically in time. The deficiencies are corrected by introducing Hamilton’s principle and deriving relativistic equations of motion. The calculus of variations is then applied to the wave function to show that it is an incomplete equation of motion because it yields twice the allowable action minimum thereby allowing the concept of reality to be redefined.

This article proposes a novel formulation of quantization, which considers the Koopman-von Neumann formulation (KvN) and ordinary non-relativistic quantum mechanics (OQM) as unitarily inequivalent representations of the same underlying structure. The approach is grounded in the notion that contextuality, rather than occurrence if Plank's constant, is the fundamental aspect of quantum mechanics. The motivation for this novel view arises from the limitations of traditional approaches to quantization, combined with previous research demonstrating contextuality in KvN. Using a representation-theoretic approach, both KvN and OQM are regarded as valid quantum theories, separated by a superselection rule.