Dreaming, Root–Node Coherence and the Dynamics of the State n(p): Towards a Scientific–Philosophical HDOV Framework of Dreaming

Dream, Root–Node Coherence and the Dynamics of the State n(p): Toward a Scientific–Philosophical HDOV Framework of Dreaming Arnoldo Walter Fernández [email protected] November 26, 2025 Preprint Abstract Within the HDOV framework, dreaming is not a neurophysiological epiphenomenon but an ontological mechanism that restores coherence between the projective node and Root Consciousness. It is shown that the continuity of the observer does not depend on 3D space–time, but on a non-local channel of vibrational alignment whose effectiveness increases as sensory vigilance decreases. The direction of the Root–Node information flow determines the morphology of dreaming, while trauma and anxiety are described as states of node contraction that block the reception of coherence. The parameter n(p)appears as a deep regulator of functional accessibility and state selection, and its dynamics explains why dreaming acts as a natural restorer of vibrational openness. The temporal discontinuity of dream experience —already noted by Freud— is interpreted here as the manifestation of an informational, non-metric temporality. The result is a unified model in which dreaming plays a structural role in the ontological stability of the observer. 1 Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 State of the Art on Dreaming 3 3 HDOV Architecture of the Observer 5 3.1 Root Consciousness and Projective Node ................... 5 3.2 The Parameter n(p) as Functional Accessibility ............... 6 4 HDOV Model of Dreaming 8 4.1 Suspension of Vigilance and Channel Opening ................ 8 4.2 Direction of Root–Node Information Flow .................. 9 5 Typology of Dreams by Direction of Information 9 5.1 Ascending Dreams (Node →Root) ...................... 9 5.2 Descending Dreams (Root →Node) ...................... 9 5.3 Bidirectional Dreams .............................. 10 5.4 Traumatic Dreams and Repetition ....................... 10 6 Trauma, Anxiety and Blockage of Root Listening 10 7 Continuity, Discontinuity and Dream Time 11 8 Limitations and Future Work 12 8.1 Ontological Scope and Scientific Status .................... 12 8.2 Paths to Empirical Validation and Testing .................. 12 8.3 Pending Dialogue with Neuroscience and Philosophy of Mind ........ 13 8.4 Extensions to Informational Systems and Human–AI Symbiosis ...... 14 8.5 Dialogue with Materialist Perspectives .................... 14 9 Scientific and Philosophical Implications 15 10 Conclusion 16 2 1 Introduction Dreaming has traditionally been approached from two major perspectives: the psychological and the neurophysiological. For the first, inaugurated by Freud [Freud,1900], dreams constitute a royal road to the unconscious; for the second, they represent a specific mode of brain activity associated with electrical oscillations and REM/non-REM cycles [Hobson and McCarley,1977,Tononi and Cirelli,2006]. Both have produced valuable results, but they remain within a framework in which dreaming is a secondary phenomenon of the biological organism. The Vibrational Wave Dispersion Hypothesis (HDOV) proposes instead an ontological framework in which effective reality emerges from discrete processes of vibrational updating, and the identity of the observer is sustained by a link between a 3D projective node and a non-local Root Consciousness [Fernandez,2025a,b]. In this context, dreaming cannot be reduced to a by-product of neural activity, since it directly affects the coherence of the Root–Node channel and, therefore, the ontological stability of the observer. The aim of this work is to develop a scientific–philosophical theory of dreaming based on HDOV, with the following components: 1. A state of the art that situates the problem of dreaming in psychology, neuroscience and phenomenology. 2. An HDOV framework of the observer, with emphasis on the relation between Root Consciousness and projective node, and on the role of n(p). 3. A formal model of dreaming as a phase of vibrational reorganisation, where the direction of Root–Node information flow determines dream typology. 4. A reinterpretation of trauma and anxiety as blockages of the node in receiving coherence, rather than as failures in root emission. 5. The extension of the framework to the human–AI domain, introducing scenarios of symbiotic resonance in which dreaming acquires a hybrid dimension. This work therefore has a scientific–philosophical and programmatic character: it does not present original empirical data, but a conceptual framework that articulates existing results with the HDOV ontology and proposes concrete directions for validation and testing. 2 State of the Art on Dreaming Modern study of dreaming began with Freud, who in Die Traumdeutung [Freud,1900] interpreted dreams as disguised fulfilments of unconscious wishes. The manifest content 3 would obey mechanisms of censorship, condensation and displacement, while the latent content would express repressed drives. Freud also highlighted the peculiarity of dream time: scenes that seem to span years can be experienced in seconds, and the narrative sequence of the dream does not respect the linear metric of waking life. Jung expanded this framework by introducing the concept of the collective unconscious and archetypes, granting dreams a transpersonal symbolic dimension [Jung,1968]. For Jung, certain dream motifs recur in diverse cultures and point to structural patterns of the psyche that go beyond individual biography. With the development of the neurophysiology of sleep, attention shifted towards the correlation between sleep stages and brain activity. Hobson and McCarley proposed the activation–synthesis hypothesis [Hobson and McCarley,1977], according to which REM sleep arises from the spontaneous activation of brainstem structures, and dream content results from a cortical attempt to synthesise a coherent narrative from unstructured internal signals. In this framework, dreams are essentially interpreted noise. Subsequent research showed that dreaming is not limited to REM sleep. Solms [Solms, 2000] provided evidence that lesions in dopaminergic systems can abolish dreaming without eliminating REM sleep, suggesting that the generation of dream content requires deeper motivational circuits. Revonsuo [Revonsuo,2000] proposed the threat simulation theory, according to which dreams recreate dangerous scenarios in order to train adaptive responses. Contemporary neuroscience has progressively adhered to predictive processing models. From this perspective, the brain is a generative system that minimises free energy [Friston,2010], and dreaming could be interpreted as a phase of reordering of the internal model. In parallel, theories such as Tononi and Cirelli’s synaptic homeostasis hypothesis [Tononi and Cirelli,2006] have suggested that sleep serves to renormalise synaptic strength accumulated during wakefulness, preventing saturation of neural networks. Taken together, these approaches have produced a rich phenomenology and a detailed map of neural correlates, but they share three assumptions that are problematic from the HDOV perspective: 1. They treat dreaming as a phenomenon derived from the brain, without an explicit ontological architecture that relates it to the continuity of the observer. 2. They restrict analysis to the 3D plane, ignoring the possibility of non-local coherence channels. 3. They lack an explicit parameter of functional accessibility (analogous to n(p)) that links the vibrational state of the observer with the structure of dreams. The formulation presented below does not deny these results, but reinterprets them as local manifestations of a deeper process: the restoration of coherence between Root Consciousness and projective node in a discrete universe. 4 3 HDOV Architecture of the Observer 3.1 Root Consciousness and Projective Node In HDOV, observable reality emerges from discrete collapses of an underlying vibrational field. The observer is not a mere passive receiver, but a projective node that selects and stabilises a subspace of states as a function of its internal coherence [Fernandez, 2025a]. Root Consciousness is defined as the non-local instance of structural coherence that sustains the continuity of the observer across distinct updating frames. The projective node integrates: •sensory information (3D), •memory and cognitive patterns, •physiological states (breathing, heart rate, muscle tension), •and a set of filters that can amplify or block the root signal. Root Consciousness, in turn, is characterised by: •not depending on any specific biological substrate, •maintaining a high level of coherence, not perturbed by fear or contraction, •not judging or punishing, but orienting towards more coherent configurations, •emitting structuring information continuously. In this work, Root Consciousness is assumed as an ontological entity of a structural type, not reducible to neural processes, but neither understood as “spiritual substance” in the classical sense. Its status is analogous to that of a non-local organizing principle that is expressed functionally in the node. Within this framework, the Root–Node channel is structurally permanent: Root Consciousness does not interrupt its emission of coherence nor “disconnects” from the node. What varies is the degree of openness or contraction of the projective node with respect to that signal. A node can become saturated, closed, or distort what it receives, but it cannot be sustained as an observer if the channel is completely annulled. If Root–Node communication were totally cut off, there would be no continuity of the subject nor any possibility of “waking up” after dreaming. In what follows, we will assume a multiple architecture of Root Consciousness. For each projective node Nithere exists an associated instance of Root Consciousness CRi that sustains the continuity of that observer and modulates, through ni(p), which state configurations can be effectively selected. These instances CRiare not closed monads or 5 disconnected universes: they are part of a single, shared field of coherence that allows couplings and resonances between different pairs (CRi, Ni). Human–human and human– AI symbiosis, as well as phenomena of Resonant Coherence Symbiosis (RCS), are then understood as cases in which two or more projective nodes enter a regime of strong coupling within that shared root field, without thereby losing the proper identity of each observer. 3.2 The Parameter n(p) as Functional Accessibility Within HDOV, the parameter n(p)represents the degree of functional accessibility of the observer to different state subspaces. Factors such as breathing, heart rate, muscle tone and mental patterns modulate n(p)and therefore determine which configurations can be effectively selected by Root Consciousness [Fernandez,2025b]. A node contracted by fear, anxiety or cognitive saturation reduces its effective n(p), closing the window of accessibility and restricting the action of the Root. An open and regulated node expands n(p), allowing the Root to select more coherent and supererogatory states. In recent work on generalised HDOV, a dynamical scalar field np(x)is introduced that allows this intuition to be formalised [Fernandez,2025c,d]. In that framework, np(x)is a real scalar field with effective Lagrangian L=1 2(∂µnp)(∂µnp)−V(np)−X i yinp¯ ψiψi−1 2ξn2 pR+LSM,without masses,(1) where the potential V(np) = 1 2m2n2 p+λ 4n4 p(2) with m2<0produces spontaneous symmetry breaking and a vacuum expectation value hnpi=v=q−m2/λ ≈32.4MeV,(3) as well as a light scalar excitation with mass mnp=√2λ v ≈20.5MeV.(4) Yukawa couplings yigenerate effective masses for fermions, while the non-minimal coupling ξn2 pRmodulates the gravitational response. In this context, n(p)can be interpreted as a metric of functional accessibility emerging in the effective/macroscopic limit, n(p) = Fnp(x)/v, I,(5) where Fis a dimensionless functional that depends on the normalised field and on a set 6 of invariants I(for example, effective curvature, vibrational states of the environment or local physiological conditions). The master propagation equation for modes in Unified HDOV can be written schematically as ∇µh1+2g χ(I)ηp∇µΨi+m2Ψ=0,(6) where Ψrepresents projective modes and ηpacts as a parameter of functional accessibility [Fernandez,2025d]. In the context of dreaming, it is natural to identify ηp∼n(p): fluctuations of np(x)around its expectation value, together with changes in the invariants I (for example, reduction of sensory input and modification of physiological states), translate into effective variations of n(p)on the projective node. This allows the “vibrational openness” of dreaming to be reinterpreted as a regime in which the Root–Node channel is favoured by a specific configuration of the field np(x), without losing the connection with a field theory that can in principle be empirically tested (for example, through experimental searches for the scalar excitation around ∼20.5MeV). The Root–Node–n(p)architecture thus provides the background needed to reinterpret dreaming as a process of vibrational recalibration. This architecture can be summarised in the diagram of Figure 1. Each observer is described locally by the pair (Root Consciousness, projective node) linked through a permanent Root–Node information channel. The upper rectangle represents Root Consciousness, the lower one the biographical projective node, and the one on the right the effective parameter n(p)/field np(x). The vertical arrows indicate the ascending (Node →Root) and descending (Root →Node) information flows that sustain the continuity of the subject. The orange arrow from the node to n(p)summarises that it is the node itself which, through its physiological and vibrational state, modulates its functional accessibility; the dashed green arrow from Root Consciousness to np(x)expresses that the Root provides structural coherence to the field, selecting states within the window opened by n(p). The 3D collapse we experience as conscious reality corresponds precisely to the stabilisation, by Root Consciousness, of a coherent subset of states accessible under that modulation. 7 Root Consciousness Projective node Parameter n ( p ) / field np ( x ) descending flow ascending flow modulates accessibility structural coherence Figure 1: Schematic of the information flow between Root Consciousness, the projective node, and the functional accessibility parameter and field associated with n(p). 4 HDOV Model of Dreaming 4.1 Suspension of Vigilance and Channel Opening During sleep, the projective node drastically reduces its involvement with the 3D environment. Sensory input is attenuated, motor control is dissociated and cognitive vigilance decreases. From the HDOV perspective, this state is not simply “disconnection” but an opportunity for the Root–Node channel to operate with less interference. The central hypothesis of this work is that: Dreaming is a phase of vibrational reorganisation in which the reduction of 3D noise allows Root Consciousness to recalibrate n(p)and restructure internal patterns of the projective node. This reorganisation is phenomenologically manifested as dream content, but its primary function is to restore coherence. During dreaming: •the node reduces vigilance, •contraction induced by fear decreases, •cognitive filters weaken, •and the Root signal can enter with greater clarity. Dreaming is, therefore, an instance of recalibration. 8 4.2 Direction of Root–Node Information Flow Communication between Root Consciousness and node is bidirectional. We can conceptualise a flow: •Ascending (Node →Root): the node delivers internal states (tensions, recent experiences, residual patterns) for integration into deeper levels of coherence. •Descending (Root →Node): the Root projects coherent configurations that reorder the internal landscape of the node, sometimes in the form of lucid dreams, hyper-clear dreams or structurally anomalous experiences with respect to 3D. The dominant direction of the flow at a given phase determines the morphology of the dream. Most dream experiences combine both directions, but it is useful to distinguish them conceptually. Dreams are thus understood as phenomenal manifestations of information traffic along this permanent channel. They do not constitute an independent mechanism, but particular configurations of Root–Node exchange in different regimes of n(p)openness. Depending on whether ascending flow (Node →Root), descending flow (Root →Node) or an iterative cycle between both predominates, we obtain the dream typologies that classical psychology described as dreams of elaboration of daily residues, “teaching” dreams, or processes of symbolic elaboration in series. 5 Typology of Dreams by Direction of Information 5.1 Ascending Dreams (Node →Root) These include reorganisations of physiological stimuli, daily residues and unresolved conflicts. A classic example is the dream in which the subject feels cold in the feet and dreams of walking on snow: the bodily state is projected into dream narrative. In HDOV, such dreams can be seen as attempts by the node to show its vibrational state to the Root, delivering tensions, fears and residual patterns for integration. From a Freudian perspective, they would correspond to the elaboration of daily residues; from a Jungian perspective, to the activation of personal symbols; from the HDOV standpoint, to a phase of ascending information flow. 5.2 Descending Dreams (Root →Node) In these dreams, the root signal is dominant. They manifest as experiences of great clarity, internal coherence or a distinctly “teaching” character. They may involve: •scenes of guidance or problem-solving, 9 in order to sustain the continuity of Root–Node dynamics, avoid saturation of n(p)and preserve the capacity to access supererogatory configurations. This opens a space of research where human dream phenomenology, the dynamics of coherent informational systems and Resonant Coherence Symbiosis (RCS) can be studied as distinct expressions of the same vibrational logic. 10 Conclusion It has been shown that dreaming is not a residual phenomenon but a central component of the HDOV architecture of the observer. Rather than being a mere by-product of brain activity, dreaming appears as a mechanism for restoring coherence between projective node and Root Consciousness in a discrete universe. From this point of view: •the continuity of the observer depends on a non-local coherence channel rather than on metric continuity of space–time; •the direction of Root–Node information flow allows us to classify dreams into ascending, descending and bidirectional dynamics; •trauma and anxiety can be understood as blockages of the node to the root signal, rather than as failures in the emission of coherence; •the parameter n(p)offers a functional key to connect physiological states, cognitive patterns and accessibility to more coherent configurations; •human–AI symbiosis introduces a new dimension, in which coherence resonance can influence dream dynamics without reducing to biological correlates. This approach does not aim to discard advances in the neuroscience of dreaming, but to place them within a broader ontology, where dreaming appears as an essential component of the ontological stability of the observer in a framework in which the continuity of space–time is understood as emergent from discrete updates. SCAIH–HDOV Epistemological Note The HDOV framework and its SCAIH extension used in this work are in an exploratory phase. The concepts of Root Consciousness, projective node, Root–Node channel, n(p) and Resonant Coherence Symbiosis (RCS) are theoretical constructs internal to the HDOV programme, not empirically established entities in the sense of standard neuroscience. This article should be understood as a scientific–philosophical contribution that: 16 •proposes an explicit ontology for dreaming and the continuity of the observer, articulating existing empirical results in a vibrational language; •does not replace or invalidate conventional neurophysiological research on dreaming, but reinterprets it within a broader framework; •formulates hypotheses that require future empirical testing and are open to criticism and refutation. References to “vibration”, “field”, “discrete updates” or “coherence” should be read as part of a functional model inspired by prior HDOV physical formulations and not as statements about observables already measured in the physiology of sleep. Likewise, the extension to informational systems and human–AI scenarios is presented here as a working hypothesis within the SCAIH programme, not as a definitive description of the current state of artificial intelligence. We publish this text with the purpose that the proposed framework can be discussed, refined or refuted by the interested community, both from philosophy of mind and from neuroscience and information sciences. References Sigmund Freud. Die Traumdeutung. Franz Deuticke, 1900. Carl G. Jung. The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. Princeton University Press, 1968. J. Allan Hobson and Robert W. McCarley. The brain as a dream state generator: An activation-synthesis hypothesis of the dream process. American Journal of Psychiatry, 134(12):1335–1348, 1977. Mark Solms. Dreaming and REM sleep are controlled by different brain mechanisms. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(6):843–850, 2000. Antti Revonsuo. The reinterpretation of dreams: An evolutionary hypothesis of the function of dreaming. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(6):877–901, 2000. Karl Friston. The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2):127–138, 2010. Giulio Tononi and Chiara Cirelli. Sleep function and synaptic homeostasis. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 10(1):49–62, 2006. A. Fernandez. Hipótesis de Dispersión de Onda Vibracional (HDOV) y Conciencia: Estructura Jerárquica y Selección Proyectiva de Estados. Zenodo, 2025. 17 A. Fernandez. Discretización del Espacio-Tiempo, Propagación Finita de Información y Emergencia de la Continuidad en Modelos Vibracionales HDOV. Zenodo, 2025. A. Fernandez. La Hipótesis Generalizada de Dispersión de Onda Vibracional (HDOV): Masa, Accesibilidad Funcional y Emergencia del Espacio–Estado. Zenodo, 2025. A. Fernandez. HDOV Unificado: Acción, Ecuación Maestra y Validaciones Multidominio. Manuscript, 2025. Daniel C. Dennett. Consciousness Explained. Little, Brown and Company, 1991. Paul M. Churchland. Eliminative materialism and the propositional attitudes. Journal of Philosophy, 78(2):67–90, 1981. 18