Sources and further reading
These sources support the biological background, the simulation argument and the discussion of intention and action. They do not collectively establish simulation or manifestation. The proposed architectures and diagrams are explanatory constructions. Original source review 8 October 2026; expanded discussion and additional references checked 16 October 2026.
[1] National Nanotechnology Coordination Office. About Nanotechnology.
[2] National Human Genome Research Institute. Deoxyribonucleic Acid DNA Fact Sheet.
[3] National Institute of General Medical Sciences. Kinesin moves cellular cargo.
[4] National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Brain Basics Genes At Work In The Brain.
[5] National Human Genome Research Institute. Evolution.
[6] National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering. Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine April 2022.
[7] Gibson DG and colleagues 2010. Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome Science 329 52 to 56.
Sources continued
[8] Tufts University 2021. In a First Scientists Create Tiny Multicellular Organisms That Can Replicate.
[9] Bostrom N 2003. Are You Living in a Computer Simulation The Philosophical Quarterly 53 243 to 255.
[10] Kipping D 2020. A Bayesian Approach to the Simulation Argument.
[11] Kincaid J McLelland K and Zwolak M 2016. Measurement induced decoherence and information in double slit interference American Journal of Physics 84.
[12] The Nobel Prize 2022. The Nobel Prize in Physics Popular science background.
[13] Duckworth AL Kirby TA Gollwitzer A and Oettingen G 2013. From Fantasy to Action Mental Contrasting With Implementation Intentions Improves Academic Performance in Children.
A note on the evidence
Institutional explainers establish the biological and physical background. The synthetic genome paper reports a specific experimental achievement. The xenobot example is described in an account from one of the research institutions. Bostrom and Kipping analyse philosophical and probabilistic assumptions. None is cited as evidence that human beings are connected to a cosmic computer or that intention can override physical laws.
Additional sources
[14] Saddawi Konefka D and colleagues 2017. Changing Resident Physician Studying Behaviors A Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial of Goal Setting Versus Use of WOOP 2017.
[15] Foley S 2025. The Recursive Creation Hypothesis Intelligence Consciousness and the Simulation of Self Discovery LinkedIn 16 March 2025.
Interpreting the references
Reference 14 concerns a behavioural intervention in a particular study population. Reference 15 is cited to acknowledge a related speculative idea and its prior name, not to endorse its claims. The chapters on intention responsive simulations describe a hypothetical model constructed for analysis. No reference here demonstrates that personal thought changes external events through a simulator.
Reading the diagrams
The fourteen figures illustrate biology, the creator cycle, nested worlds and the additional assumptions about consciousness, intention and evidence. Gold dashed links in the new diagrams indicate hypothetical mechanisms. A diagram makes the proposal easier to inspect, but does not provide evidence that the depicted system exists.
Sources for superintelligence and quantum computing
[16] OpenAI 2023. Governance of superintelligence.
[17] IBM. IBM Quantum products and services accessed 16 October 2026.
[18] IBM 2026. What is quantum computing updated 2 April 2026.
How these sources relate to my proposal
These sources establish terminology and describe engineered quantum computing. They do not establish that humans were manufactured, that consciousness is implemented by a quantum computer, or that manifestation changes events through a simulator. Those connections are questions developed from my interpretation. The explanations and diagram were prepared with AI assistance; the cited sources retain credit for their own work.