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.

 

[Geoff Dann]

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

That is all in your own head, of course. I am merely stating facts. It isn't my fault if you experience an unpleasant internal reaction to them.

It is only "bloated and self-righteous" if I am wrong. You haven't demonstrated that I am wrong. You just can't emotionally cope with the fact that I might be correct.

Any chance of stopping the personal attacks? I haven't attacked you, have I?

 

[marcin]

No. You're extremely polite and modest. Tell me, can't I emotionally cope with the fact that you may be right or the fact that you are right? Did you demonstrate that you are right?

 

[Geoff Dann]

No. You're extremely polite and modest. Tell me, can't I emotionally cope with the fact that you may be right or the fact that you are right? Did you demonstrate that you are right?

Does posting a theory that nobody can find any serious problem with count as demonstrating I am right?

Maybe not. In fact, maybe this theory shifts our understanding of what "demonstrating it is right" actually means, because it depends on radical coherence. This makes it fundamentally different to any existing dominant theories in either science or philosophy. It integrates four things : empirical science, analytic philosophy, Continental philosophy and mysticism. It does not "mix them up", but it does provide a new way of integrating key insights from all of them, and it explains how they ought to fit together.

Does a theory which successfully integrates those things demonstrate that it is right simply by integrating them? If that is accepted then our understanding of how science and philosophy will have changed.

 

[marcin]

Does posting a theory that nobody can find any serious problem with count as demonstrating I am right?

It doesn't. It only means that nobody is determined enough to break through your theory. Nobody cares that much.

 

[Gibsense]

(2) Consciousness causes collapse (CCC).

Define consciousness. Then differentiate consciousness from programming or any mechanical system. When you have done that, explain how a trained rat can cause collapse (obviously, it can) and long after the trainer is dead.
It's action that causes collapse not some mystical idea

 

[marcin]

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.

Define consciousness. Then differentiate consciousness from programming or any mechanical system. When you have done that, explain how a trained rat can cause collapse (obviously, it can) and long after the trainer is dead.
It's action that causes collapse not some mystical idea

I'm really starting to like you both despite your use of LLMs for your theories.

 

[Gibsense]

I'm really starting to like you both even despite your use of LLMs for your theories.

Ha ha!
I have decided to post, in English words, without Elete symbolic manipulations from AI (or any other unconscious or conscious source), the irresistible logic of the Hypersphere Universe for the benefit of all conscious dreamers and rats.
Considering my painful struggle to get anyone to acknowledge the relationship between the age of the universe and the Hubble Constant (and hence hypersphere geometry) 25 years ago, any arrogant assertions that the model is 'old hat' by a flippant youngster are hard to take.

But first, I must check the news and make sure my calendar is not redundant

 

[Geoff Dann]

Define consciousness. Then differentiate consciousness from programming or any mechanical system. When you have done that, explain how a trained rat can cause collapse (obviously, it can) and long after the trainer is dead.
It's action that causes collapse not some mystical idea

Consciousness can only be defined subjectively, because it refers to subjectivity itself. We must make what Wittgenstein called a "private ostensive definition" -- we mentally "point" to our own conscious experiences and call that "consciousness". Then, in order to avoid solipsism, we observe that there are other beings in this world (humans and most other animals) which appear to be conscious too, at which point the word takes on a public meaning.

I didn't understand your second question.

 

[marcin]

Considering my painful struggle to get anyone to acknowledge the relationship between the age of the universe and the Hubble Constant (and hence hypersphere geometry) 25 years ago, any arrogant assertions that the model is 'old hat' by a flippant youngster are hard to take.

You were not the only one. I count 3 of us up to now. Hubble constant approaches the inverse of the universe age despite Hubble tension.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2023/11/050

Unit conversion: [(km/s)/Mpc] = [1/(300⋅3.26⋅10^9y)]

 

[Gibsense]

Consciousness can only be defined subjectively, because it refers to subjectivity itself. We must make what Wittgenstein called a "private ostensive definition" -- we mentally "point" to our own conscious experiences and call that "consciousness". Then, in order to avoid solipsism, we observe that there are other beings in this world (humans and most other animals) which appear to be conscious too, at which point the word takes on a public meaning.

Yes, of course, just like my decision-making macrophages in my blood. They consciously investigate any foreign substance. Yes, sure, let's include the mystical. Or better still, magic. . Or we could become realistic and suggest the Universe is a computation.

 

[Geoff Dann]

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?

No LLM has had trouble parsing my claims once they have been properly addressed.

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.

It is 100% substantiated. I am saying that in the MWI-like phase 1 it is inevitable that consciousness evolves somewhere (because MWI guarantees anything physically possible must actually happen at least once), and the moment this happens then that reality will be selected by consciousness collapsing the primordial wavefunction. This naturally entails that phase 2 reality is consciousness-centric. It is logically inevitable. How can that be "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.

I don't understand this objection. There is no observational basis for an event which happened over 4 billion years ago and which wouldn't leave any empirical trace anyway, because it is metaphysical. Why should that be a problem? This is scientism -- it is demanding empirical evidence for a metaphysical claim.

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.

This just completely ignores the model I am proposing. It pre-supposes that consciousness cannot be involved in collapse, so it begs the question against my argument. There is no fallacy in my use of "free" -- in this model free will is invoked precisely because the physical system cannot stay coherent without the frame problem being resolved from outside the physical system. That is what "free" means in this context. So, no, no red flag here.

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.

Again, all you are doing is criticising the new paradigm under the terms of the old. This model *is* the evidence that consciousness may well be involved, precisely because it has so much explanatory power. Previous models that invoked consciousness failed to do this, because they implied consciousness could exist without brains. Mine is the first consciousness-causes-collapse theory which explicitly denies this.

The observable universe does not appear to support such a mechanism and you do not offer any formalism to justify it.

Yes I do. It is called "Quantum Convergence Threshold". This is why Greg Capanda's theory is so important as a missing piece of the puzzle in my own.

I do think you have received criticism.

You have raised some objections. I have responded to them. You are most welcome to continue the debate, which has not reached its conclusion.

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.

He has since changed his mind again and is now planning on co-authoring a whole book with me.

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

Keep going then. Let's see where the discussion takes us.

 

[Geoff Dann]

Yes, of course, just like my decision-making macrophages in my blood. They consciously investigate any foreign substance. Yes, sure, let's include the mystical. Or better still, magic. . Or we could become realistic and suggest the Universe is a computation.

I have no idea what this post is supposed to mean.
I am defining consciousness subjectively. Do you have a problem with that? Is it mystical, or magical? No, it's just how we use that word.

Is the universe a computation? That's not exactly how I would frame it, but my position is not a million miles away. I am saying that noumenal reality (reality independent of observation, phase 1 in my model, or the uncollapsed wave function) is "made of" mathematical information. I am a non-panpsychist neutral monist, and the "neutral stuff" consists of mathematical information grounded in the Void (zero/infinity). This isn't a computation as such, because it is timeless -- it's not doing anything -- it just is. Only in phase 2, where both consciousness and space-time emerge, does anything start "happening". This can be thought of as a computation, but it involves a non-computable entity (the Void, which is also the root of consciousness and a critical part of the agent of free will). So it is almost like the phase 2 reality is like a computation which has a non-computable variable in it (or maybe more than one, though this is getting deeper into my model and I will have to start talking about causality if we want to dig deeper into this).

 

[marcin]

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.

He has since changed his mind again and is now planning on co-authoring a whole book with me.

@Capanda Research really?

 

[Geoff Dann]

@Capanda Research really?

Read the opening post in this thread: https://forums.space.com/threads/the-birth-of-the-quantum-convergence-threshold-qct.71884/

That text was written after he changed his mind again, and explains why:

"When I finished the core structure of QCT, I believed I had what I needed. I had a mechanism — a way for collapse to happen without magic, without arbitrary rules, without the universe waiting on human eyes. Informational convergence explained collapse. It explained time’s arrow. It explained why classical memory could arise from quantum events. It explained why we don’t see macroscopic objects in superposition. QCT was the machine behind the scenes, the code that turned possibility into fact.

So when I first encountered Geoff Dann’s Participating Observer model, I resisted. His work spoke of agency, participation, and meaning. It asked not just how collapse happens, but who participates and why it carries significance. At first, that felt unnecessary to me. I had what I wanted: a clean, mechanistic account. Why complicate it? Why bring in participation when the machinery was enough?

But the more I engaged with Geoff’s work, the more I felt the tension. His Participating Observer wasn’t some mystical, hand-waving addition. It was an attempt to answer what my model had left implicit. QCT told me how collapse happens. But what defines the boundary conditions? What sets the context for when convergence matters? What determines when and how the universe makes a choice? I realized I hadn’t answered that. I had a mechanism, but no context."

Greg went from believing what he called an "assumption" that materialism is false must be wrong, to suggesting we co-author a paper. Then when the paper became too obviously non-materialistic he withdrew. Then (after I published the paper on my own) he came to the realisation that actually I must be correct (the FB message when the penny dropped was "Holy blue balls Batman, YOU'RE RIGHT.") At which point we began collaborating again, and this text is part of an early draft for a chapter in our co-authored book.

We are currently working on the formal mathematics to link his QCT with Stapp's Quantum Zeno Effect (which is incorporated in my phase 2). I have used AI to generate the maths (using two different models to cross-check), and I am now waiting for him to respond to that. Exciting times for us.