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

[marcin]

Right! So now we are finally getting somewhere. This isn't a standard problem in QM, but something you have made up. I am very well aware of the double slit experiment and very obviously it doesn't cause any problem for my theory. I would have abandoned it years ago if there was anything that badly wrong with it. And the AI would have flagged it donkey's years ago.

If someone does this experiment and doesn't get the interference pattern, then your theory is gone.

 

[marcin]

If you are saying you cannot give me a version of this that I can get the AI to analyse then this discussion is not going to go anywhere, and you've demonstrated nothing. At the moment I still don't understand what you're even asking.

That's a horrible shame that you can't think for yourself anymore. And I wasn't asking you about anything regarding this experiment.

 

[Geoff Dann]

If someone does this experiment and doesn't get the interference pattern, then your theory is gone.

OK...I don't accept that, because I don't understand the experiment. As I said, I would need the AI to analyse it and you haven't provided me any way of making that possible. So I am not committing to a position on whether or not I agree with this statement.

But some obvious questions arise even without that information:

Has anybody actually done this experiment?

Also, if somebody did do it, and does get the interference pattern, then would it prove my theory is correct?

 

[Geoff Dann]

That's a horrible shame that you can't think for yourself anymore. And I wasn't asking you about anything regarding this experiment.

I am perfectly capable of thinking for myself. It is just that in this case don't see why it is worth my effort trying to understand what you are proposing and why. Too much effort required for too little potential reward.

 

[marcin]

OK...I don't accept that, because I don't understand the experiment. As I said, I would need the AI to analyse it and you haven't provided me any way of making that possible. So I am not committing to a position on whether or not I agree with this statement.

All the details why the consciousness shouldn't be the cause of the collapse are in this paper which explains why the interaction causes it. I gave it to you.

Has anybody actually done this experiment?

Also, if somebody did do it, and does get the interference pattern, then would it prove my theory is correct?

No. I appended the sentence to the statement, that your theory would be correct: "At least that's what the summary says". For me it would prove a crucial assumption of your theory, that our conciousness really causes the collapse. Do I have to explain why, in terms of the damaged detectors and interference pattern?

 

[marcin]

I am perfectly capable of thinking for myself. It is just that in this case don't see why it is worth my effort trying to understand what you are proposing and why. Too much effort required for too little potential reward.

I have exactly the same feeling about your solutions to the 15 major problems of QM and cosmology. Not to mention the equations hallucinated by LLM.

 

[Geoff Dann]

I have exactly the same feeling about your solutions to the 15 major problems of QM and cosmology. Not to mention the equations hallucinated by LLM.

A new paradigm capable of solving 15 massive problems is not equivalent to one thought experiment about the measurement problem.

 

[Geoff Dann]

All the details why the consciousness shouldn't be the cause of the collapse are in this paper which explains why the interaction causes it. I gave it to you.

fifth sentence: "However, it remains unclear at what point in time and under what laws this transition occurs."

Not any longer. Greg Capanda has now provided perfect clarity about that. I have no need for the hypothesis which follows. It doesn't solve 14 other problems, does it? So why should anybody believe it?

No. I appended the sentence to the statement, that your theory would be correct: "At least that's what the summary says". For me it would prove a crucial assumption of your theory, that our conciousness really causes the collapse. Do I have to explain why, in terms of the damaged detectors and interference pattern?

I am not "assuming" consciousness causes the collapse.

What I am doing is proposing a hypothesis -- that during phase 2 it does cause the collapse -- and then showing that the theory this is part of provides an integrated solution to 15 foundational problems. It doesn't just solve the MP, like your solution does. So, again, why would anybody prefer your solution to mine?

 

[marcin]

A new paradigm capable of solving 15 massive problems is not equivalent to one thought experiment about the measurement problem.

You're probably the most bloated and self-righteous bragger I've talked to.

fifth sentence: "However, it remains unclear at what point in time and under what laws this transition occurs."

Not any longer. Greg Capanda has now provided perfect clarity about that. I have no need for the hypothesis which follows. It doesn't solve 14 other problems, does it? So why should anybody believe it?

Greg has the same credibility as yours until he shows his own equation and explains it. The measurement vs consciousness problem is crucial for your theory.

What I am doing is proposing a hypothesis -- that during phase 2 it does cause the collapse -- and then showing that the theory this is part of provides an integrated solution to 15 foundational problems. It doesn't just solve the MP, like your solution does. So, again, why would anybody prefer your solution to mine?

Because it's doable and there is nothing metaphysical about it. And you're all about metaphysics.

 

[COLGeek]

Let's calm down a bit, please. Thank you.

 

[Astraeus]

I provided a detailed breakdown of your entire document. You responded with eight items and criticized an LLM for “failing to understand.” But consider this: if a highly capable language model cannot parse your claims, what realistic chance does a human reader have?

The rest of my critique remains unaddressed. Responding with a short list doesn’t invalidate deeper structural concerns. I find the claim that “this is not geocentrism, but psychecentrism” unsubstantiated. There is no observational basis for the mechanism proposed, and the paper lacks any formal structure to justify it. In effect, you ask the reader to accept something that occurs prior to observability—without offering the tools to evaluate it.

Regarding the notion of free will: it does not exist in any absolute sense. Human will is not free—it is physically constrained. Every choice arises from biological structure, environmental pressure, prior causality, and internal state. To label such a system as “free” is to conflate complexity with autonomy. A more accurate framing is “physically constrained will.” The use of the word free here is a semantic fallacy—an immediate red flag in any argument.

More broadly, I think the emphasis on consciousness in your theory is a liability. There’s no evidence that animal consciousness, including human, has the capacity to influence or collapse spacetime geometry. The observable universe does not appear to support such a mechanism and you do not offer any formalism to justify it.

I do think you have received criticism. The author of QCT respectfully withdrew from co-authorship of 2PC. That decision constitutes a substantive disassociation by the mathematician who may best understand the framework. This occurrence shouldn't be taken lightly, especially since you are leaning into QCT for mathematical structure.

Bottom Line: 2PC faces a substantial credibility deficit, and your work does not yet offer the formal grounding required to resolve it.