physicists (theoretical physicists more precisely) apply a neat trick to understand the freedoms (symmetries) of a system described by a Lagrangian.

a Lagrangian is an equation which contains the entire information of the system in itself. symmetries are of the greatest interest because every symmetry explains a lot about the system. i cannot stress how important symmetrices are without going into technicalities which i do not want to go into. suffice to say, symmetrices describe the physics of the entire universe. hence, if one understands the symmetrices, one understands the universe. the trick is the introduction of an arbitrary field (so called gauge field) in the system (described by the Lagrangian). which is followed by finding/applying constraints on the gauge field which tells us any hidden symmetrices in the system. gauge is kind of weirdly named because although gauge fields are not measureable themselves, they make measurement of observables possible.

disclaimer that this premise reads a bit vauge since its been a while since i have taken/read any field theory texts.

let the system be a human mind. a human mind follows logic. let’s assume anything and everything that is required to call a human mind a physical system. a human mind thinks. how to measure the “think” of a human mind? a human mind ofcouse interacts with the universe not just physically with the help of a body, but also mentally/intelluctaly by “asking questions” and “finding answers”. note that both are being treated independently.

in the chronology of things, “asking questions” always takes precedence over “finding answers”.

is there any answer that does not have a question?

hence, using “finding answers” to measure the “think” of a human mind is counterproductive contrary to the popular belief that “finding answers” is more noteworthy than “asking questions”. of course, “finding answers” requires resources and this is in no way, an attempt to undermine the resources expended for doing so. but since every answer found must have been sought for a question asked before, “asking question” is more representative of the “think” of a human mind. in addition, “finding answer” is not always instanteneous or possible. hence, “finding answer” is not completely representative of the “think” of a human mind. moving forward, “asking question” is treated as the only observable in measuring the “think”.

herein comes the concept of gauge questions. if “asking questions” is the clear observable of the “think”, the kind of questions a human mind asks completely describe the “think” of such a human mind. of course, not all questions help in doing so. some of them will be silly/weird/pointless/already-been-asked before. but there will be some questions, henceforth called the gauge questions, which strongly reflect the “think” of a human mind.

explore-this-further: every question ever asked either must have been asked in the past before or would have been asked in the future later.

“gauge questions” enables one to measure the “think” of a human mind. this post is lacking since it does not enumerate the different types of questions and demarcate which types are closer to being gauge questions. more generally, what questions are gauge questions? must expand further

perhaps the strongest gauge question a human mind could ask is the answer that does not have a question. if there is no question to be asked even after thinking for infinite time, that means the human mind and the universe have become unified and no longer separate.

all of this sounds obvious/corny now.