New interpretation of QM, with new two-phase cosmology, solves 15 foundational problems in one go.

[Geoff Dann]

As briefly as possible -- since 1957 we have been stuck in a "quantum trilemma" of 3 different categories of QM interpretation.

(1) Physical collapse theories (PC). These are always arbitrary and untestable (which is why none of them command a consensus).

(2) Consciousness causes collapse (CCC). These are derivative of John von Neumann, and they push collapse outside of the physical system. Usually come with idealism or panpsychism as the explanation of "what collapsed the wave function before consciousness evolved?" which implies brains aren't required for consciousness. Hence not popular.

(3) MWI. Denies collapse, but this implies our minds are continually splitting. Very hard to believe, hence more popular with Hollywood and the general public than with scientists.

Certain other interpretations (eg Bohm) try to evade the trilemma, but I don't believe any of them succeed in doing so, apart from by being fundamentally incomplete (Bohm tries to have his cake and eat it -- the unrealised branches are both real and unreal).

This looks logically exhaustive, because either the wave function collapses or it doesn't, and if it does then it either collapses due to something physical or consciousness collapses it from outside.

Then it occurred to me that there's another answer to the question "What collapsed the wave function before consciousness evolved?" What if nothing did? If you subtract consciousness from CCC then surely you are left with something very much like MWI. The only difference is that this is exclusively before consciousness existed, so we've got rid of the mind-splitting problem of MWI and the "before consciousness" problem of CCC at the same time (and without invoking idealism or panpsychism).

So this is the basic idea: a two-phase cosmology where MWI is true until consciousness evolves, and then CCC (Henry Stapp's version) becomes true afterwards.

This turns out to offer novel solutions to all sorts of problems. It already cleanly solves two massive ones -- the hard problem of consciousness and the measurement problem in QM. But that's just the start. At a stroke it solves all of the "Why was X set up just perfectly?" problems, including the fine-tuning of constants and the low-entropy initial state. These now cease to be mysterious because MWI guarantees consciousness will happen in one of the possible cosmoses (because in MWI everything that is possible actually happens), and then when it does happen that will become the only realised timeline (consciousness collapses the primordial wavefunction) and all the others will be "pruned". This also explains how consciousness can have evolved -- it was like Nagel's teleology (see Mind and Cosmos (2012)), except it doesn't need any "teleological laws" because the telos was structural (it was a "selection effect"). It can even explain why we can't quantise gravity, because gravity only emerges in phase 2 (with consciousness and spacetime). It also provides a new explanation for the Fermi paradox: the primordial wavefunction can only collapse once, so we should expect the rest of the cosmos to be devoid of life.

By the time I'd identified 15 of these major problems this model offers natural solutions to, I decided to put it down in a "paper" on Zenodo, just to document that this is my idea so nobody can steal it: The Participating Observer and the Architecture of Reality: A unified solution to fifteen foundational problems.

For a brief overview of the whole system read this.

But I am finding new ones all the time. For example this offers a solution to the "Axis of Evil" problem in cosmology..

From: https://www.space.com/37334-earth-ordinary-cosmological-axis-evil.html

"What's going on? The CMB shouldn't give two photons about our solar system — it was generated before the sun was a twinkle in the Milky Way's eye. And we can't find any simple astrophysical explanation, like a random cloud of dust in our southern end, that might interfere with the pristine cosmological signal in this odd way.

Is it really just coincidence? A chance alignment that we're conditioned to find because of our pattern-loving brains? Or does it seductively point the way to new and revolutionary physics? Or maybe we just screwed something up with the measurements?"

This new model provides the natural answer to this problem too. It says that the Earth really is the centre of the cosmos, not for the traditional theological reasons but because it was the epicentre of the phase shift, and the only centre of conscious life.

 

[Classical Motion]

Trying to describe or comprehend matter with a wave function is like trying to understand a snake with only a shed snake skin. This so called wave function is a small part of matter, not the meat.

The position and the momentum of an electron in an atom, is locked and fixed into a strict value. The firmest structure that there is.

An electron has to shed energy, just the right amount of energy, in order to enter the atomic compartment. It’s a very precise fit. It’s not just energy, the fit has a handedness fit too. A magnetic fit.

The position, the location and the momentum of a bonded electron is a quantum lock. The strongest cement.

The wave function of an isolated particle is a DC wobble. Only a bonded dipole can result in a AC waveform. This waveform is locked too. But you can not measure it as so, because of our limited measurement methods.

And with today’s consensus, the meat of matter is not recognized. Only the meat field is.

Matter is a substance.

This is my best supposition at present with my limited hayseed physics boundaries.

Probability, randomness and chaos is not permitted. A cement cosmos. A singular solution.

 

[Geoff Dann]

Hello.

None of that has got anything to do with anything I posted. I posted a new hypothesis. I wasn't soliciting advice. With the greatest respect, I didn't ask people what their current opinion of wavefunction collapse is.

 

[Classical Motion]

Pardon me.

 

[Geoff Dann]

Pardon me.

Apology accepted and no hard feelings, but what would be great would be if you read the OP and let me know what you think about it. Do you understand the hypothesis? Do you think it is interesting?

 

[COLGeek]

Did you write this yourself or use an LLM to produce it?

As it appears, NO it is not interesting. Anything that puts the Earth at the center of the Universe is baseless. One could make a philosophical argument as a matter of perspective, I suppose. But not from any other physical/scientific perspective.

 

[Geoff Dann]

Did you write this yourself or use an LLM to produce it?

As it appears, NO it is not interesting. Anything that puts the Earth at the center of the Universe is baseless. One could make a philosophical argument as a matter of perspective, I suppose. But not from any other physical/scientific perspective.

I have been working on this theory for the last 17 years, though I have only gone public with it in the last 3 weeks. LLMs cannot come up with revolutionary new ideas that actually work. They can help hugely if somebody comes up with the new idea and it is a good one, but mostly that isn't what happens. Typically the "new idea" is an old idea with an irrelevant new twist, or it is just a bad idea. The result is slick AI-talk covering up a pile of meaningless nonsense. In stark contrast, this idea solves a whole tranche of existing cosmological problems without creating any new ones. Try to get an LLM to do that and it will fail every time.

>>. Anything that puts the Earth at the center of the Universe is baseless

That would appear to be a generalisation which totally ignores the new hypothesis. I am providing a completely new, and completely non-theological explanation for why the Earth might be the centre of the universe, which is exactly inline with the "Axis of Evil" CMB observation. It provides a new explanation for the empirical data.

Why do you find that uninteresting?

 

[Geoff Dann]

Did you write this yourself or use an LLM to produce it?

As it appears, NO it is not interesting. Anything that puts the Earth at the center of the Universe is baseless. One could make a philosophical argument as a matter of perspective, I suppose. But not from any other physical/scientific perspective.

As an example how an LLM can be used to explore new ideas which the LLM itself did not originally come up with, go here. In this case the prompt was something like "This looks like a pretty good candidate for the philosophical part of a theory of everything, but I am worried about the failure to quantise gravity. Maybe the only way to fix that problem will require a the overturning of QM itself (as it overturned classical physics). Looks like a fly in the ointment to me."

The LLM responded by explaining that maybe there was a way out of this problem, and did I want to hear it. I said I couldn't understand the last time it tried that, but give it a go anyway. It then explained exactly why this hypothesis provides a new way of tackling that question -- it predicts we should not be able to quantise gravity at all, because gravity only applies to collapsed classical states (phase 2 in this theory). This reverses Penrose's theory that gravity causes consciousness, by saying (in effect) that consciousness causes gravity instead. It is neutral monist -- it says that both consciousness and classical spacetime emerge together from a neutral-informational quantum substrate (the uncollapsed wavefunction).

 

[COLGeek]

I am not a proponent of the use of LLMs. Many "theories" have recently been posted on the site that were drafted with LLMs. While they read well, they nearly all assume more validity than warranted. A basic lack of understanding of LLM shortcomings is clearly present.

We have asked members to identify what LLM they are using when doing so. This the earlier question.

Sorry, I can't get on board with any center of the Universe argument. Nor find interesting any argument to shoehorn such a viewpoint with any other conjectures.

Others may feel differently. Good day.

 

[Classical Motion]

I read it. I understand what is says. And disagree. I believe that human reality is a superposition of two physicalities.

Dead matter physics and bio -physics. Dead matter physics is locked and quantum. ALL IS SET. Only one possible solution.

Bio-physics has choice. Determining the historical choices is impossible. Allowing multiple solutions.

Bio-physics is a catalog of solutions. The cause of probability, randomness and chaos to explain these solutions. Choice makes things indeterminate. Choice starts at the living molecular level.

I confine my suppositions to dead matter physics. The singular cement solution.

Observation and measurement only affects perception,(and supposition) not reality.

Hayseed philosophy.

I won’t disturb your studies or posts any further. I wish you success.

 

[Geoff Dann]

I am not a proponent of the use of LLMs. Many "theories" have recently been posted on the site that were drafted with LLMs. While they read well, they nearly all assume more validity than warranted. A basic lack of understanding of LLM shortcomings is clearly present.

And I just agreed with you that most of what is currently being produced with LLMs is worthless trash.

This theory was not produced with LLM. It is my theory, which I've been developing for the last 17 years.

I note that you haven't explained why you "can't get on board" with the proposal.

 

[Geoff Dann]

I read it. I understand what is says. And disagree. I believe that human reality is a superposition of two physicalities.

Dead matter physics and bio -physics. Dead matter physics is locked and quantum. ALL IS SET. Only one possible solution.

Bio-physics has choice. Determining the historical choices is impossible. Allowing multiple solutions.

Bio-physics is a catalog of solutions. The cause of probability, randomness and chaos to explain these solutions. Choice makes things indeterminate. Choice starts at the living molecular level.

I confine my suppositions to dead matter physics. The singular cement solution.

Observation and measurement only affects perception,(and supposition) not reality.

Hayseed philosophy.

I won’t disturb your studies or posts any further. I wish you success.

This is not so different to what I am proposing. The main difference is I am saying that the two kinds are physics and consciousness-physics. Plants aren't dead, but they aren't conscious either, because they do not have brains. I don't see what is so special about a primitive life form that it has a major effect on physics. Consciousness is different to that -- there really is something special about it (notably that it is not possible to account for it with normal physics).

I am directly linking consciousness and free will. I am saying consciousness came into existence because an organism evolved which could make a choice. This causes a critical instability in the mathematics, because an organism which can make a real choice is not compatible with unitarily evolving MWI.

See:

https://www.reddit.com/r/quantuminterpretation/comments/1l2qypo/quantum_convergence_threshold_qct_clarifying_the

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/quantuminterpretation/comments/1l2qypo/quantum_convergence_threshold_qct_clarifying_the/
for the mechanism.

 

[Gibsense]

I have been working on this theory for the last 17 years, though I have only gone public with it in the last 3 weeks. LLMs cannot come up with revolutionary new ideas that actually work. They can help hugely if somebody comes up with the new idea and it is a good one, but mostly that isn't what happens. Typically the "new idea" is an old idea with an irrelevant new twist, or it is just a bad idea. The result is slick AI-talk covering up a pile of meaningless nonsense. In stark contrast, this idea solves a whole tranche of existing cosmological problems without creating any new ones. Try to get an LLM to do that and it will fail every time.

I agree with this bit if nothing else.
The substance leaves me cold. Not because I see a logical flaw, but because I do not understand. What evidence is there that you choose?

 

[Classical Motion]

Consciousness is not choice, it's just the hubris of it.

 

[Geoff Dann]

I agree with this bit if nothing else.
The substance leaves me cold. Not because I see a logical flaw, but because I do not understand. What evidence is there that you choose?

This is a radical proposal. I don't think it is actually that hard to understand per se, but it is so different to the existing dominant paradigm that people find it "alien" at first. In the three weeks sense I went public with this, the overwhelming response is silence. Nobody even tries to refute it, but they don't ask questions either. My "paper" has had 550 views and downloads in ten days, and not one of those people has contacted me.

The "evidence" for this hypothesis is that it solves 15+ existing major problems in cosmology, physics, evolutionary biology, cognitive science and philosophy of mind -- one new solution to 15+ problems -- without creating any new ones. In other words, it accounts for the existing evidence much better than any existing theory, without generating any new problems. In effect, it uses these problems to "solve each other", but in doing so it radically changes the way we need to think about reality. For example it says that materialism, idealism and substance dualism are all wrong, all currently existing theories of consciousness and metaphysical interpretations of QM are either completely wrong or only partially true. This is very specifically a new sort of non-panpsychist neutral monism, and could also be described as a new sort of neo-Kantianism (because it renders noumena knowable, at least partially). Maybe paste that into an LLM and it will explain what that means.

Can you explain what you are finding hard to understand? It might help other people reading this to get to grips with it.

 

[Geoff Dann]

Consciousness is not choice, it's just the hubris of it.

In this model, consciousness and free will are directly related. I am saying that the unitary MWI-like evolution of the wave function becomes mathematically unsustainable when organisms capable of making choices about the future appeared, and this forces both consciousness and free will to emerge as the only means of extending the structure coherently.

 

[Gibsense]

Can you explain what you are finding hard to understand? It might help other people reading this to get to grips with it.

With anything like this i.e. "new theory" I skim it. It hits the mark or I move on. As I read, it seemed to me you spent an awful lot of time saying how wonderful it was rather than paying attention to the core proposal.

All I have grasped is that you think the only consciousness that exists is here on Earth, and that the only decision-making is on Earth. Prior to Earth, no decisions were taken, apparently and therefore many intractable problems were solved.

For evidence, I presumably have to read the paper. I cannot be bothered because you can't be bothered. Maybe I am wrong and missed the logic, or I am not educated to the appropriate level

 

[Geoff Dann]

With anything like this i.e. "new theory" I skim it. It hits the mark or I move on. As I read, it seemed to me you spent an awful lot of time saying how wonderful it was rather than paying attention to the core proposal.

I spend far more time paying attention to the core proposal than you have, so far.

All I have grasped is that you think the only consciousness that exists is here on Earth, and that the only decision-making is on Earth. Prior to Earth, no decisions were taken, apparently and therefore many intractable problems were solved.

No. I am saying that prior to the evolution of the first animal capable of modelling its environment, and modelling itself within that environment, and therefore modelling the future, there was no decision-making. I am saying that the only thing in the cosmos capable of making a decision in this sense are animal brains. Not even computers can make a decision in this sense, because they run on already-collapsed physical hardware -- they don't cross the QCT (quantum convergence threshold).

>>For evidence, I presumably have to read the paper. I cannot be bothered because you can't be bothered. >>Maybe I am wrong and missed the logic, or I am not educated to the appropriate level

This hypothesis accounts for the existing empirical data than any other theory. What more do you want in terms of evidence? That *is* "evidence".