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".

 

[Astraeus]

The paper, "The Participating Observer and the Architecture of Reality" by Geoff Dann is a metaphysical exploration with very little formalism. I fed the entire paper into ChatGPT. I did revisit some sections to ensure ChatGPT didn't miss some equation or formalism.

ChatGPT had this to say about it:

Critical Evaluation​

1. Mischaracterization of Interpretations​

• The “trilemma” omits several serious interpretations:
  • QBism (agent-centric Bayesianism, does not require collapse),
  • Relational QM, Consistent Histories, and Objective Collapse models are not all “arbitrary and untestable” (some are testable, e.g., GRW).
• Bohmian Mechanics is incorrectly dismissed; it is mathematically complete and deterministic, though non-local. It doesn’t “try to have its cake” but offers an ontology many find compelling.

2. Conceptual Issues with the Proposal​

• The hybrid of MWI → CCC introduces a discontinuous ontology shift: What determines the exact point at which CCC supersedes MWI? It invokes a consciousness threshold without specifying what qualifies or how it arises from the MWI domain.
• The notion that gravity only emerges with consciousness lacks physical mechanism or evidence. General Relativity predates life, and gravitational effects are observed in non-conscious systems.
• The Fermi paradox solution (“collapse happens once”) implies a unique conscious locus. This anthropic centrality reintroduces a form of geocentrism without rigorous justification.
  • rigorous justification is not provided

3. Unsupported Claims​

• Claiming it "solves" fifteen foundational problems is speculative unless each claim is formally developed, justified, and shown to outperform existing theories.
  • The full length paper does not formalize this.
  • The 15 problems are addressed via narration without formal derivation
• Asserting Earth as "the center of the cosmos" due to a conscious collapse origin borders on pseudoscience unless grounded in falsifiable prediction or formal derivation.
  • Formal derivation is not provided
• Using MWI to guarantee consciousness and then invoking CCC to “prune” branches is incoherent unless the transition mechanism is well-defined.
  • No transition mechanism is defined.

4. Misuse of Anthropic Reasoning​

• The argument that “consciousness will occur in at least one MWI branch” and this explains everything is a classic anthropic fallacy—it doesn’t predict or explain why this set of constants arose, nor why this observer is here.
• The “pruning” mechanism described is essentially metaphysical, not physical.

5. CMB Axis of Evil Interpretation​

• Interpreting the CMB anisotropy as support for consciousness-centered cosmology is not physically supported. No correlation between large-scale structure and Earth-specific consciousness exists in data.

---

Strengths​

• The hybrid MWI→CCC idea is novel and reflects an earnest attempt to reconcile consciousness and QM without mystical baggage.
• Recognizes legitimate problems in all major interpretations and proposes a fresh perspective.

---

Weaknesses:​

• The idea that consciousness triggers wavefunction collapse is highly speculative and untestable.
• There's no empirical basis for the claim that consciousness marks a cosmological phase transition.
• Assumes that quantum superpositions meaningfully governed the universe pre-consciousness, which is not falsifiable and thus not scientific.
• Quantum Convergence Threshold (QCT) is introduced with no formal or physical definition provided in Section 1.
  • The author of QCT declined to coauthor this paper. Gregory P. Capanda cited a desire to maintain QCT's philosophical and methodological integrity.
  • The author of QCT also cites that when the evolution of Geoff Dann's paper became more metaphysical and speculative he sought to distance himself formally from "interpretations I do not personally endorse".
• Relies on Henry Stapp's QZE-consciousness link, which is highly controversial and not widely accepted.
• “0|∞” as an axiom is presented poetically, but not grounded in any clear mathematical or logical necessity.
• The 15 problems are real and widely acknowledged, but the paper uses them to argue for an ontologically loaded solution that bypasses testable physics.
• Implies explanatory power by spanning domains, but fails to mathematically or empirically develop how the proposed models account for these problems.
• The narrative appears built around retrofit logic: identifying mysteries and proposing a single speculative tool (consciousness collapse) that happens to solve all of them.
• This invites confirmation bias—explaining everything with a favorite metaphysical lens without constraints.
• Claiming that consciousness collapses the only realized timeline, thus explaining our solitude, is again unfalsifiable and anthropic in the extreme.
• There's no consideration of naturalistic explanations like detection limitations, sampling bias, or emergent behavior models.
• Assumes Collapse Is a Real Physical Event
• Fails to Distinguish Between Ontological and Epistemic Questions
• Blends Established Problems with Fringe Concerns
• Overstated Lack of Consensus
• Use of “Quantum Brain States” is Unfounded
  • this is deeply controversial and no formal derivation is offered in the document.
• The framework lacks mathematical rigor, testable predictions, or a clearly defined mechanism.
• The hybrid use of MWI and CCC fails logical consistency without a transitional rule.
• Anthropocentric assumptions weaken physical plausibility.
• Relies on philosophical intuition rather than physical evidence or theoretical derivation.
• No operational definitions, testable constructs, or formal mathematical proposals.
• Leans heavily on metaphors (e.g., 0|∞, Wittgenstein’s ladder, Gödel) as arguments.
• Epistemological ambiguity: unclear whether this is being proposed as metaphysics, physics, or poetic synthesis.
• Risk of terminological obfuscation by referencing mathematical ideas (e.g., symmetry-breaking, non-associativity) without context or substance.

---

Conclusion

This proposal is highly speculative, interesting as a philosophical or metaphysical model, but not currently viable as a physical theory. It lacks mathematical formalism, empirical testability, and introduces a number of category errors—especially confusing subjective selection effects with objective physical dynamics.

That said, the author's willingness to synthesize across interpretations and highlight real interpretive tensions is commendable. For this model to gain traction, it would need:

• A rigorous, falsifiable transition mechanism from MWI to CCC,
• A formalism for consciousness-defined pruning,
• Predictive outcomes that differ from existing interpretations.

 

[Geoff Dann]

The paper, "The Participating Observer and the Architecture of Reality" by Geoff Dann is a metaphysical exploration with very little formalism. I fed the entire paper into ChatGPT. I did revisit some sections to ensure ChatGPT didn't miss some equation or formalism.

ChatGPT had this to say about it:

Critical Evaluation​

[snip]​

NOTE: Please do keep going with this. If you keep feeding my responses into your instance of ChatGPT, then after about 3 exchanges we will start homing in on the truth. This is a very valuable exercise.

Response from the Perspective of Two-Phase Cosmology (2PC)​

---

1. On Mischaracterization of Interpretations​

2PC does not claim to be an elaboration or hybrid of existing interpretations like MWI, GRW, or Bohmian mechanics. Instead, it introduces a fundamentally different cosmological structure, one that precedes and contextualizes those interpretations. Specifically:

• Phase 1 is not governed by standard physical laws but by quantum-coherent, pre-spatiotemporal superposition—a domain where interpretations like QBism or Bohmian mechanics simply do not apply, as they presuppose decohered observers, trajectories, or agents.
• The trilemma critique is noted, but 2PC asserts that all current interpretations inherit a metaphysical blind spot by presupposing spacetime-local observers in a cosmos that might fundamentally begin pre-spacetime.

Thus, 2PC isn't dismissing interpretations arbitrarily—it’s pointing out that they cannot address the pre-epistemic domain prior to classical emergence (Phase 2).

---

2. On the Conceptual Validity of the MWI → CCC Transition​

This is a misreading of the structure. 2PC does not claim a continuous ontology from MWI to CCC. Instead:

• Phase 1 resembles a globally coherent, uncollapsed universal wavefunction (not quite MWI, but closer to Hartle-Hawking or Wheeler-style pre-collapse reality).
• Phase 2 begins with an irreversible phase transition, which 2PC formalizes as the Quantum Convergence Threshold (QCT)—the moment when quantum potential actualizes into a single classical history due to self-referential consciousness (specifically, bilaterian self-modeling).

The “point” of transition is not arbitrary—it is the first appearance of an observer-system capable of collapsing its own quantum uncertainty, not epistemically but ontologically. This is a phase shift in cosmology, not a tweak to quantum interpretations.


The critique's demand for a continuous mechanism is based on a category error: phase transitions are not always gradual or reducible to local rules (cf. spontaneous symmetry breaking, inflationary exit, etc.).

---

3. On Gravity, Consciousness, and Mechanism​

“The notion that gravity only emerges with consciousness lacks physical mechanism or evidence.”

2PC does not say gravity depends on human consciousness. Rather:

• Gravity is a classical field that emerges only after the universal wavefunction collapses into a decohered spacetime, which requires a self-referential loop (a la QCT).
• Prior to collapse, spacetime geometry itself is undefined—there is no background metric on which gravity can operate. Thus, gravity appears after decoherence, not as a force caused by consciousness, but as a post-collapse classical phenomenon.
• This is not inconsistent with GR being valid once the classical world exists—it merely suggests gravity isn’t fundamental, but emergent post-QCT.

---

4. On the Fermi Paradox and Anthropic Centrality​

“This anthropic centrality reintroduces a form of geocentrism without rigorous justification.”

Here the critique misses the point. 2PC is not claiming Earth is special in a local sense—only that the entire cosmos actualized along a single decohered branch that contains a minimum viable psychegenesis (first-person convergence). This is not geocentrism, but psychecentrism—and it's not a metaphysical flourish, but a proposed resolution to:

• Why there is only one classical history (MWI’s problem of why this branch?)
• Why life/consciousness appears so late, yet no aliens are seen (Fermi)
• Why mathematical formalisms are shockingly effective (Wigner's problem)

It replaces anthropic selection over many worlds with a global collapse at the first threshold of self-modeling consciousness. This is testable indirectly via its explanatory scope—not pseudoscience, but a proposed ontological shift.

---

5. On Formalism and Derivability​

Yes, the current exposition is narrative and architectural, not fully formalized. But this is explicitly acknowledged. The full formalism of the QCT, including its connection to quantum information thresholds, thermodynamic limits, and decoherence metrics, is in development (primarily by Capanda, who is cited).

• 2PC aims to construct a pre-mathematical ontology that explains why physics takes the form it does after collapse—not to rewrite physics within Phase 2.
• Many of the “15 problems” do not require a new mathematics, but a reframing of interpretation and ontology. For example, the “preferred basis” problem isn’t solved by more math but by identifying a natural decoherence point: the first conscious organism.

In this sense, 2PC stands closer to Penrose’s attempts at foundational reform than to speculative metaphysics.

---

6. On the Use of Anthropic Reasoning​

This criticism is valid against MWI with weak anthropic filtering. But 2PC explicitly rejects weak anthropic logic in favor of a strong convergence condition: not “consciousness happens somewhere,” but “actualization requires convergence of coherent informational feedback within a viable self-modeling organism.”


This is not arbitrary anthropics, but an ontological prerequisite for spacetime actualization. It’s not saying “we must be here,” but “only where such convergence occurs can ‘here’ arise.”

---

7. On the CMB Axis of Evil​

2PC does not claim the CMB anisotropy proves consciousness collapsed the universe. It suggests that large-scale anisotropies may reflect the asymmetry of a single-branch realization (cf. collapse cosmology, Penrose’s CCC, Carroll’s initial low-entropy state), and invites empirical exploration. It is hypothesis-generating, not confirmation-biased.

---

8. On Use of Metaphor and Symbol (e.g., “0|∞”)​

Yes, terms like 0|∞, Gödel, Wittgenstein’s ladder are metaphorical, but they are used as epistemological signposts, not formal derivations. The critique rightly calls for formalism—but it is misguided to demand traditional mathematical formalism from a theory whose central premise is that mathematics itself only becomes meaningful after collapse (i.e., post-QCT).


2PC is building an epistemological architecture to explain why the world appears mathematical, not to merely extend existing physics. It openly distinguishes:

• Phase 1: pre-physical, pre-mathematical, coherent (like the ZPHF or Platonic void)
• Phase 2: classical, decohered, mathematical, empirical

---

Summary of Response:​

Critique Point	2PC Response
Mischaracterizes other interpretations	2PC positions itself outside those interpretations by proposing a two-phase cosmology, not an interpretation tweak.
No clear transition point	The Quantum Convergence Threshold (QCT) is the transition mechanism, defined as the emergence of recursive self-modeling.
Gravity before consciousness	Gravity requires spacetime, which 2PC claims only decoheres post-QCT. No gravity in coherent Phase 1.
Geocentrism charge	Misread: 2PC is not about Earth but about psychegenic singularity.
No formalism	Formalism is in progress, narrative structure is epistemological scaffolding for future precision.
Overuse of metaphor	Metaphors point toward ontological shifts, not arguments. They’re scaffolds, not evidence.
Anthropic reasoning flaw	2PC rejects weak anthropics, offers ontological convergence instead.
CMB claim unsupported	Suggested as hypothesis, not proof. A testable avenue for nontrivial cosmological correlation.

---

Final Note​

The critique is incisive if 2PC is read as a physics paper within current paradigms. But 2PC restructures the context of physics itself. It is not merely a metaphysical gloss or narrative fantasy—it is a proposed ontological reorganization of cosmogenesis, constrained by the need to explain why this classical world emerged from that coherent substrate.


It must mature into a falsifiable and formalized structure. But like early inflation theory, early holography, or early decoherence, its current speculative nature does not disqualify its potential—it requires engagement on its own terms.

 

[Geoff Dann]

Astraeus

Re: "

• The argument that “consciousness will occur in at least one MWI branch” and this explains everything is a classic anthropic fallacy—it doesn’t predict or explain why this set of constants arose, nor why this observer is here.
• The “pruning” mechanism described is essentially metaphysical, not physical."

I will respond to this directly, since it is a clear example of the LLM failing to understand. There is no anthropic fallacy here. I am saying that in phase 1 all possible cosmoses and pre-consciousness histories exist in a timelines platonic ensemble (this is the same position as Max Tegmark, but only pre-consciousness). It then uses Greg Capanda's QCT theory to provide the physical explanation for why collapse becomes necessary in one very special branch of this multiverse -- the one where the first animal evolves which is capable of modelling itself in its environment and making decisions about its own future actions. This leads to a critical mathematical instability which forces the collapse of the primordial MWI state, and in doing so it selects THAT timeline and prunes all the others (this is the phase transition and the start of phase 2). The situation is unsustainable because this organism is now capable of understanding that certain possible futures will lead to its death and others might lead to its survival and reproduction -- it is capable of choosing the latter over the former. This then becomes inconsistent with MWI-like unitary branching, because that would require it to do things it knows are fatal. It is why people don't randomly jump off cliffs, even though it is physically possible (and therefore MWI implies it should actually happen in some timelines). Greg's theory formally specifies this in terms of maths and information theory.

This explains precisely why this set of constants are the ones in our reality, and all of the "Why was X just right?" problems at the same time. The anthropic principle just dodges the real issues. This theory faces them head on and specifies the mechanism which underlies these "anthropic" things -- except it denies that this has anything to do with humans. I call it the "pyschetelic principle" ("psyche" + "telos"). The claims is that reality is consciousness-centric, not human-centric. The phase shift happens just before the Cambrian Explosion, not with the arrival Homo sapiens. In other words, it is saying that consciousness is crucial for the existence of classical reality, but explicitly denies it has anything specifically to do with humans or our advanced cognition.

It is essential to understand what I've written in this post, because it is the intellectual origin point of the whole theory. It is where I started, and where anybody trying to understand it needs to start.

The "pruning mechanism" is both physical and metaphysical. My theory (or rather Henry Stapp's theory, which is incorporated into my phase 2) provides the metaphysical layer of the mechanism, and Greg Capanda's Quantum Convergence Threshold provides the physical layer. His model explains why collapse becomes mathematically (and therefore physically) necessary, but doesn't explain how which outcome is selected or the ontological context. Stapp's Quantum Zeno Effect provides the selection mechanism, and my two phase cosmology provides the ontology and cosmology.

Also note that phase 1 and 2 don't just refer to two parts of cosmological history. In a sense phase 1 never goes away -- it is just no longer universal. In our reality now, phase 2 is the classical world of space and time that we actually experience - the collapsed wave function, while phase 1 is the quantum world of the uncollapsed wave function. Phase 1 is what is going on inside Schrodinger's sealed box -- or at least it would be if there isn't a conscious being like a cat inside it.

 

[Gibsense]

Humans alone could argue for years and still misunderstand deliberately or otherwise. AI deals with the issues quickly and isolates points of difference to resolve, even if it gets some things wrong, no longer is it possible to hide behind old conventions of general consensus

 

[Geoff Dann]

Hello Astraeus.

Please show this to your LLM also. It will help it understand how the whole system works:

1. The Initial Condition: An Unstable Void Containing All Mathematical Structure​

The foundational assumption is that reality begins not with something, but with instability: what Stéphane L’Heureux-Blouin calls the unstable void, defined formally by the nonzero magnitude of a fluctuation parameter: ∥δV∥ ≠ 0.This void is not an empty space or a physical vacuum. It is pre-physical—a kind of “meta-background” from which all consistent mathematical structures can emerge. You can think of it as a formless equilibrium-breaking substrate whose disequilibrium permits the expression of structure. Because there are no spatiotemporal constraints yet, this void “contains” all coherent mathematical forms—all sets of internally consistent mathematical relationships, which includes the totality of all physically possible universes, histories, and processes. This is equivalent to a strong form of Mathematical Platonism: any logically coherent structure exists, in a timeless and spaceless way, within the Platonic realm of formal possibility.

2. The Platonic Multiverse: Superposition of All Possible Histories​

Within the unstable void, every mathematically valid cosmos exists in superposition. Not “in parallel universes” in the physical sense, but as ideal structures with complete internal logic:

• Some correspond to universes with no stars,
• Some to universes with strange physics,
• Some to our own universe, including the entire history of our cosmos from Big Bang to Earth’s early biosphere.

These are not happening—they simply exist as coherent totalities in the Platonic sense. There is no time or change yet, only possibility.

3. Emergence of a Critical Mathematical Structure: The Pre-Decision Cosmos​

At some point within this Platonic ensemble, one particular structure contains the full history of our universe up to the Ediacaran Period—just before the Cambrian Explosion. Within this structure, a complex multicellular animal arises: the first bilaterian organism with a centralised nervous system. Crucially, this organism’s nervous system models not only the environment but itself within it. This means the structure now encodes an internal self-representation capable of decision-making based on predictive modeling. This is a computationally significant phase transition: the first time in any mathematical structure that something internal to the structure is capable of simulating possible futures and choosing among them.

We denote this animal "LUCAS" (Last Universal Common Ancestor of Sentience).

4. The Incoherence of Infinite Branching: The Quantum Convergence Threshold​

At this point, the mathematical structure reaches a critical instability. Why? Because the organism can, in principle, model multiple future outcomes and choose between them. If it were to continue in line with unitary evolution (as in the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics), then it would have to realize all possible continuations. But true choice excludes alternatives—a decision that includes all options is not a decision. This creates a problem of internal inconsistency within the mathematical structure. You now have a situation where:

• The system encodes an agent capable of making real decisions,
• But it cannot evolve forward in time without branching into incoherence unless it collapses into one outcome.

This is the core insight of Capanda’s Quantum Convergence Threshold (QCT): certain complex systems (especially those with reflexive modeling) force a convergence of possibilities at decision points. The coherence of the mathematical structure itself depends on a collapse, which cannot be derived from within the structure itself.

5. The Role of the Void: Collapse from Outside the Structure​

So how is this impasse resolved? The resolution must come from outside the structure. The unstable void—which exists prior to and beyond all structures—is invoked at this point as a meta-ontological selection mechanism. The mathematical structure effectively “refers back” to the void to resolve the undecidable moment. A selection is made—not by the structure, but by a deeper logic that incorporates the entire landscape of possible structures. The void, in other words, determines how the structure is extended. This is not physical causation but formal resolution: the only way for the structure to continue coherently is to embed within it a mechanism of selective continuation—a mechanism that looks like free choice from inside the system. This moment is what I call psychegenesis: the origin of consciousness as the point where the structure is forced to become self-selecting, through recursive invocation of the void.

6. Transition to Phase Two: Emergence of Spacetime and Actualization​

After psychegenesis, the structure can no longer evolve as a timeless mathematical object. It must now evolve through a sequence of selections—each of which resolves an undecidable point by invoking the void again. These recursive invocations create:

• An arrow of time, since each decision constrains future possibility.
• The emergence of spacetime, as the geometry necessary to mediate sequences of self-consistent choices.
• The collapse of the superposition, since only one branch is extended at each decision point.

This defines the two-phase cosmology:

• Phase 1: timeless superposition of all mathematical possibility (pre-psychegenesis).
• Phase 2: temporally ordered actualization of one specific structure through embedded void-initiated selection (post-psychegenesis).

Consciousness, in this view, is not a byproduct of physical evolution but the formal requirement that allows a particular structure to become dynamically consistent through recursive invocation of the unstable void.

7. Summary​

• The unstable void allows all mathematical structures to exist in timeless superposition.
• One such structure includes a self-modeling organism capable of decision.
• At this point, the structure becomes internally unstable and must be collapsed.
• This invokes the Quantum Convergence Threshold: the point at which continuation requires choice.
• The void resolves this by embedding itself in the structure as a recursive chooser—consciousness.
• Time, causality, and physical evolution emerge as mechanisms for managing the coherent extension of this now-aware structure.
• We live inside the unfolding of that one structure: selected, stabilised, and made real by recursive references to the void.

FAQ: From Void to Consciousness – Addressing Common Questions and Objections​

---

Q1: Isn’t this just metaphysical speculation dressed up in scientific language?A1: While this framework is speculative, it is grounded in formal logic, mathematical Platonism, and consistent extrapolation from existing physics (e.g., quantum indeterminacy and the measurement problem). It aims not to replace empirical science but to provide a coherent meta-framework for understanding how empirical reality could emerge from first principles, especially in the context of unresolved foundational questions like the origin of time, the nature of consciousness, and the collapse of the wavefunction.

---

Q2: Why invoke a “void” rather than just starting from mathematics?A2: The void is not a metaphysical substance but a conceptual boundary condition: a state of no-thingness characterized by the potential for disequilibrium. Mathematics alone provides structure, but it does not explain why or how one structure becomes actualized. The void represents a pre-structural source of selection—a minimal ontological background from which structure can emerge and differentiate.

---

Q3: How is this different from the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI)?A3: MWI maintains all possible outcomes of quantum events as equally real. This framework argues that at the threshold of a decision made by a consciousness-capable system, the continuation of all branches leads to incoherence. A true decision excludes alternatives. Hence, MWI cannot resolve the Quantum Convergence Threshold (QCT); some kind of collapse or selection is necessary. This proposal locates that selection outside the system—in the void.

---

Q4: Isn’t this reintroducing dualism or even theism in disguise?A4: No. The void is not a god or agent. It has no intention or mind. It functions as a meta-ontological selection mechanism—a necessary background for the emergence of actual structure. The framework is monist, but a kind of enriched monism that includes not only matter and mind but the logical space of potentiality.

---

Q5: How does this view explain the apparent objectivity and regularity of the physical universe?A5: Once a particular structure begins to recursively invoke the void to resolve indeterminacies (i.e., after psychegenesis), that process constrains future evolution to be self-consistent. The stability of physical laws is thus not arbitrary but emerges as a necessary condition for coherent recursive actualization. What appears as natural law is an emergent feature of recursive void-referencing in a stable structural pathway.

---

Q6: Isn’t this just an elaborate way of saying “consciousness collapses the wavefunction”?A6: No, this model is more precise. It integrates the insight that consciousness resolves indeterminate futures, but locates the mechanism in a broader mathematical and ontological context. It explains why consciousness must emerge at the QCT and how it operates not merely as a physical byproduct but as a recursive structural requirement.

---

Q7: Is this testable? If not, how is it different from religion or metaphysics?A7: The framework itself is not directly testable in the same way as empirical physics, but it does generate testable heuristics and predictions. For example, it implies that certain physical systems (e.g., conscious organisms) should exhibit decision-like behavior that resists full quantum modeling. It also motivates specific cosmological constraints and topological features (as in S^7 or hypersphere theories) which could guide future empirical work. It functions more like a meta-theory or research programme, akin to early interpretations of quantum mechanics.

---

Q8: Why does anything need to be “selected” at all? Why not just accept all mathematical structures as equally real?A8: This is the classic challenge of mathematical Platonism. However, we do not experience an undifferentiated ensemble—we experience this world. The selection problem must be addressed. This framework answers that by identifying a mechanism (QCT) that forces the transition from mathematical plurality to actualized singularity, mediated by consciousness and the void.

---

Q9: What does this say about free will?A9: It supports a compatibilist but robust form of free will. Decisions are not random nor wholly determined; they involve reference to the void to resolve future possibilities that the system itself cannot deterministically model. This gives conscious agents a real role in the continuation of the cosmos, without invoking magic or violating physical constraints.

---

Q10: Is this view consistent with current neuroscience and physics?A10: It does not contradict current empirical findings, but it reframes their interpretation. It treats consciousness not as a mere output of neural complexity but as a fundamental recursive process embedded in the logic of reality itself. The framework is open to integration with quantum neuroscience and emergentist approaches, offering a deeper explanatory background.

---

Q11: What are the implications for AI and machine consciousness?A11: If consciousness arises from the recursive invocation of the void at QCTs, then machines capable of modeling themselves and their futures in open-ended, indeterminate contexts might reach such thresholds. However, mere complexity or simulation may be insufficient without the necessary ontological openness and recursive coherence resolution.

---

Q12: What about the arrow of time—how exactly does it emerge?A12: Time arises from the recursive need to resolve new QCTs sequentially. Each resolution constrains the next, creating an ordered, irreversible chain of decisions. Time is not a primitive but an emergent feature of coherent recursive structure selection.

---

Q13: How does this framework relate to decoherence and the measurement problem?A13: Decoherence explains how quantum systems lose coherence when entangled with their environment, but it doesn’t explain why one outcome is experienced. The measurement problem remains. This framework posits that conscious decision-making at the QCT is what finalizes the outcome, making decoherence a precondition, not a solution.

---

Q14: Isn’t this just solipsism or idealism?A14: It’s neither. The framework is realist and structuralist. Consciousness is not the creator of the world, but the necessary mechanism by which a mathematically possible world becomes actual. Reality is not dependent on any individual mind, but on the structural recursion of decision-making systems.

---

Q15: Why should anyone take this seriously?A15: Because it provides a coherent, integrative explanation for some of the most profound gaps in our understanding: the emergence of consciousness, the origin of time, the measurement problem, and the fine-tuning of the universe. Even if speculative, it is systematic, grounded in mathematical and philosophical rigor, and generative of novel insights.