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

Page 7 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Jun 19, 2025
293
3
185
What does S stand for in LUCAS?
Sentience (ie consciousness). "LUCAC" is too clunky.

Before the collapse, this potential history of LUCA needs to be a sequence of all the potential events which led to LUCA, with all the potential physics, chemistry, and biology that may have formed LUCA. It needs to be a potential process, that differs from the real process only because you say so.
No. The difference is profound and ontological. It is exactly the same difference as the world of the uncollapsed wavefunction and the physical world we phenomenologically experience. It is the same difference as Kant's phenomena and noumena (except with partially-knowable noumena).

The whole model starts with the observation that these two things are fundamentally different. This is not just "me saying so". It is the difference between Schrodinger's sealed box with its only partially knowable contents and the open box with a cat we can see.
 

marcin

You're a madman I've come to the right place, then
Jul 18, 2024
375
32
210
Sentience (ie consciousness). "LUCAC" is too clunky.
Nice. Was LUCAS self consciouss?

Ikaria_wariootia.jpg


I'm asking, because AI of Tesla is prefectly aware of its surrounding, so I would say it's partially consciouss, but not self consciouss. If you think that Ikaria wariootia was self conscious, I'd like to know why. If it wasn't, then a real double slit experiment can be conducted by a humanoid robot with AI with the same result as it was a human, because its partial consciousness of its surroundings would be enough to collapse the wave function of the particles.
 
Last edited:

marcin

You're a madman I've come to the right place, then
Jul 18, 2024
375
32
210
No. The difference is profound and ontological. It is exactly the same difference as the world of the uncollapsed wavefunction and the physical world we phenomenologically experience. It is the same difference as Kant's phenomena and noumena (except with partially-knowable noumena).

The whole model starts with the observation that these two things are fundamentally different. This is not just "me saying so". It is the difference between Schrodinger's sealed box with its only partially knowable contents and the open box with a cat we can see.
If one of the potential histories among the inifine number of them in the primordial wave function describes the process that is indistinguishable from the real one, then how do you know, that it wasn't real, and required the collapse to become real?
 
Jun 19, 2025
293
3
185
Nice. Was LUCAS self consciouss?
No. Self-consciousness doesn't appear until much later. That requires a further level of "recursive" awareness -- awareness not just of yourself, but awareness of awareness of yourself.

None of which has anything remotely to do with the double-slit experiment.

And no, AIs aren't conscious. At all.

This is more like what we are talking about, I think. It is just a blob of meat, but it is capable of making decisions in a way that no plant can, and not even jellyfish can. At the point it exists, it is top of the entire food chain. To it, everything is food, and it has no predators. Yet.

_111405757_227429_web.jpg
 
Last edited:

marcin

You're a madman I've come to the right place, then
Jul 18, 2024
375
32
210
None of which has anything remotely to do with the double-slit experiment.
Geoff, all your theory has everything to do with the double slit experiment and the consciousness that collapses the wave function. Greg knows that too. In his thread about QCT he said:
The double slit experiment became my obsession. It was so simple, so clean, and yet it exposed everything that was wrong. Fire single particles through two slits, and you get an interference pattern — proof of wave-like behavior. But as soon as you try to detect which slit a particle goes through, the interference vanishes. The particle behaves like a particle again.

Why should gaining path information destroy the interference? Why should the act of looking force the universe to choose?

I studied weak measurements, delayed choice experiments, quantum erasers. I sketched diagrams. I ran thought experiments. I tried to see where superposition failed. But the answers I found in textbooks and papers didn’t satisfy me. The idea that the universe cares about our gaze seemed absurd. The universe doesn’t revolve around us. There had to be something deeper, something structural.

Then came my happiest thought. I wasn’t reading. I wasn’t working calculations. I was sitting quietly, thinking, turning the problem over in my mind for what felt like the thousandth time. And it hit me: everything with a conscious will behaves differently when it knows it’s being watched.

Not because the particle is conscious. But because the informational context has changed. The conditions that sustain superposition are no longer there. Collapse happens because the system registers that change. Collapse isn’t imposed from outside. It happens from within.
 
Last edited:
Jun 19, 2025
293
3
185
If one of the potential histories among the inifine number of them in the primordial wave function describes the process that is indistinguishable from the real one, then how do you know, that it wasn't real, and required the collapse to become real?
Whatever the real starting history was (h1o), that information is now lost to us, but it cannot be the one that appears to us now (h1r). That would require a stable, unchanging past, which is ruled out by this model. The past cannot be completely fixed, because there's nothing to fix it in. There's nothing to "record" all of the changes made to the history of the cosmos since the phase shift. In other words, the 1970s simply do not exist anymore. They aren't part of original Platonic ensemble, because their existence involved dynamic consciousness-driven changes which aren't "written back" into the original platonic space. There's no equivalent of a "block universe" where the past is somehow fixed and recorded.

All we've got to work on is whatever we can observe now, and whatever we can legitimately extrapolate backwards from it (which does not include ΛCDM).
 
Jun 19, 2025
293
3
185
Geoff, all your theory has everything to do with the double slit experiment and the consciousness that collapses the wave function. Greg knows that too. In his thread about QCT he said:
I'm not Greg, and Greg's own views on the philosophical context of his own theories are currently undergoing radical change. Can you deal with 2PC as it is described by myself please. It will reduce the potential for confusion.
 

marcin

You're a madman I've come to the right place, then
Jul 18, 2024
375
32
210
Whatever the real starting history was (h1o), that information is now lost to us, but it cannot be the one that appears to us now (h1r). That would require a stable, unchanging past, which is ruled out by this model.
Isn't the second, conscious phase of your 2 phase cosmology a stable, unchanging past?
 
Jun 19, 2025
293
3
185
Regarding the double slit experiment, I really don't know why you are even bringing it up.

Think about it like this. Can we ever get beyond the veil of perception? Can we ever directly know anything at all outside our own consciousness? Of course not, which is why Kant's distinction between phenomena (things as they appear to us) and noumena (the things themselves) is the foundation of modern philosophy. This distinction is as important in philosophy as Newtonian mechanics is physics.

Everything we can ever know, empirically, comes to us through consciousness. This is exactly why John von Neumann had to remove collapse from the physical process -- at the end of the day, the only place where we can conclusively say collapse has occurred, is when somebody (or some animal) becomes aware of it. Claiming collapse happens somewhere else -- somewhere in the physical system -- depends on a metaphysical assumption which cannot be supported with empirical evidence. That is as true today as it was in 1937, which is precisely why large numbers of people can legitimately believe in MWI -- which denies collapse happens at all.

What has this got to do with the double-slit experiment?

Answer: it means the experiment is totally irrelevant, because whatever the outcome of the experiment (either IRL or in imagination), it will still be true that we can only be certain that collapse has happened when somebody becomes conscious of it.

Nothing that happens at the slits or on the screens makes any difference to this argument until they are phenomenal slits and screens.
 

marcin

You're a madman I've come to the right place, then
Jul 18, 2024
375
32
210
Regarding the double slit experiment, I really don't know why you are even bringing it up.
Even Greg knew it, but his own views on the philosophical context of his own theories are currently undergoing radical change.
 
Last edited:

marcin

You're a madman I've come to the right place, then
Jul 18, 2024
375
32
210
Answer: it means the experiment is totally irrelevant, because whatever the outcome of the experiment (either IRL or in imagination), it will still be true that we can only be certain that collapse has happened when somebody becomes conscious of it.

Nothing that happens at the slits or on the screens makes any difference to this argument until they are phenomenal slits and screens.
Geoff, forget about the slits. Imagine, that you're firing a single particles at the screen with your eyes closed and there is no barrier with the slits. Particles need to collapse on the screen to appear on it, but you can't see it as long as you have your eyes closed. After you fire the last particle, you open your eyes. Do you see the particle marks on the screen or the screen is blank?
 

marcin

You're a madman I've come to the right place, then
Jul 18, 2024
375
32
210
And no, AIs aren't conscious. At all.
Tesla's AI is perfectly aware if its surroundings. In that case in your opinion we can't equate awareness of something other than yourself with the consciousness regarding the same thing, other than yourself.
 
Jun 19, 2025
293
3
185
Even Greg knew it, but his own views on the philosophical context of his own theories are currently undergoing radical change.
Exactly.

When Greg was working on QCT, in his own mind he saw it as finally putting an end to both MWI and CCC. He saw it as a physical collapse theory which had isolated itself from the metaphysical problems of those two, and finally explained collapse materialistically. When he first encountered my ideas, he left a comment on an article on my website:


Gregory Capanda​

24/05/2025 04:22 AM
You make a few assumptions in order for your theory to be sound. Those assumptions are conceptually and logically incorrect, in my opinion. But, if you DO turn out to be correct, you will have solved a few long-standing problems in physics that no one else could.
Reply
The "assumptions" to which he refers are that materialism is false, and thus it is probable (or at least plausible) that consciousness causes collapse.

But I followed him round the internet for a week or so, actually responding to his posts (most people were ignoring him), and prompting him to think a bit harder. Eventually he came back and I was able to explain to him that even though he had, in a very real way, completed the physical end of the theory, he still hadn't explained the ontological context of his theory, or how selection takes place (which timeline is selected by the collapse, and why). So it turned out that instead of killing off MWI and CCC, his theory actually provides a way of joining them together.

Greg believed QCT was materialistic, but actually it isn't. In QCT reality isn't made of matter -- it is made of information. In his mind, he thought of that as information encoded in a material reality. What 2CP does is reverse this relationship -- it says material reality is encoded in a deeper reality which is literally made of information. This isn't materialism. It is neutral monism, and a very specific sort of neutral monism.

As for what he thinks right now, you will have to ask him yourself, but if you want to understand 2CP you will need to ask me.
 

marcin

You're a madman I've come to the right place, then
Jul 18, 2024
375
32
210
Let me be specific: Even Greg knew that your both theories have everything to do with the double slit experiment and the consciousness that collapses the wave function, but his own views on the philosophical context of his own theories are currently undergoing radical change.
 
Jun 19, 2025
293
3
185
Tesla's AI is perfectly aware if its surroundings.
It is not conscious. It is no more aware than a car alarm. That's just normal physical causality. There's no subjectivity involved.

Let's not play word games. "Consciousness" here doesn't just mean "able to sense your environment and respond".


In that case in your opinion we can't equate awareness of something other than yourself with the consciousness regarding the same thing, other than yourself.
That is correct. And this is why there's two parts to the mechanism -- QCT provides the physical end of it, and the Quantum Zeno Effect provides the other end, as described by Henry Stapp. We need both.

The Frame Problem is crucial here. There is a major difference between all AI systems ever constructed and conscious humans (and animals). The AIs cannot overcome the frame problem. This is caused by an infinitely expanding combination of possible futures -- it can't model all of them, but it has no way of deciding what is important and what isn't, and when to stop modelling and make a decision. More processing power does not help -- in fact it makes things worse, because it just increases the combinatorial explosion.

Human brains also process this sort of information, but we solve the frame problem effortlessly. We don't always make the right decision, but we don't end up paralysed in the frame problem. Why the difference?

Materialistic science has no answer. 2PC says this:


3.13 Resolving the Frame Problem through QCT and QZE​

The frame problem inartificial intelligence and cognitive science concerns the challenge of efficiently determining what information is relevant to update in response to a change in the environment. When something in the world changes, a thinking system must decide which facts to revise and which to keep fixed without exhaustively checking all possibilities – a computationally intractable task in classical systems.

The Frame Problem: A Brief Recap​

  • When a robot or agent observes a change (e.g., a door opening), it must figure out which aspects of its internal model need updating.
  • Over-updating leads to computational explosion, while under-updating leads to incorrect or incomplete representations.
  • Humans seemingly solve this intuitively, but classical AI struggles with this problem because it lacks an efficient, principled way to focus updates.

QCT: Selecting Relevant Information​


QCT posits that conscious collapse of the wave function occurs when a system’s quantum information crosses a threshold of complexity and coherence, triggering a selective, global update of its state.
  • QCT provides a natural quantum boundary determining when a superpositional system must “choose” a particular outcome or representation.
  • In cognitive terms, this collapse corresponds to selecting a coherent “frame” or context for updating beliefs and actions.
  • The collapse effectively filters out irrelevant quantum possibilities, preserving only those consistent with the current environmental change and the agent’s prior state.

QZE: Stabilizing Relevant Frames​

The QZE describes how frequent “observations” or interactions can inhibit the evolution of a quantum state, effectively “freezing” it in place.
  • When an agent focuses attention on a particular aspect of its environment, this corresponds to rapid, repeated “measurement” of relevant quantum states.
  • Through the QZE, this attention stabilises the chosen frame or hypothesis, preventing unwanted or irrelevant fluctuations in the cognitive state.
  • This selective stabilisation allows the cognitive system to maintain focus on relevant information, avoiding over-updating and the computational explosion characteristic of classical AI systems.

Integration: How QCT + QZE Solve the Frame Problem​


Together, the QCT and QZE provide a quantum mechanism for managing informational relevance and stability:
  1. QCT triggers collapse only when the system reaches a threshold of coherence that justifies an update, limiting updates to meaningful changes in the environment or internal model.
  2. QZE maintains stability of the chosen frame by suppressing quantum transitions to irrelevant alternatives during focused attention.
  3. This dynamic interplay allows a system to efficiently “prune” irrelevant information, update beliefs and actions only where necessary, and maintain coherent cognitive frames over time.

Implications for Consciousness and Artificial Intelligence

  • The QCT + QZE mechanism offers a natural, physically grounded solution to the frame problem, explaining how conscious agents filter and stabilize relevant information without exhaustive computation.
  • It explains why human cognition is both flexible (able to update when necessary) and stable (able to maintain focus), a balance classical AI struggles to reproduce.
  • This quantum approach provides a framework for designing more efficient AI systems that mimic the attentional and selective updating capacities of biological cognition.
Summary:

The combination of QCT and QZE provides a physically principled and computationally efficient mechanism for addressing the frame problem. By selectively collapsing only relevant quantum states (QCT) and stabilizing these choices through focused observation (QZE), conscious systems can update their internal models without exhaustive reprocessing, offering a novel quantum foundation for intelligent cognition.
 
Jun 19, 2025
293
3
185
Let me be specific: Even Greg knew that your both theories have everything to do with the double slit experiment and the consciousness that collapses the wave function, but his own views on the philosophical context of his own theories are currently undergoing radical change.
What point are you making? I am not responsible for what Greg thinks, and yes his views are changing. So...?
Please don't go down the "cryptic question" route again. I don't answer cryptic questions.

This post, for example, doesn't even contain a question. So apparently you are expecting me to come to some conclusion just by making the statement. I have no idea what you are thinking. Just say it.
 
Jun 19, 2025
293
3
185
Marcin,

This is silly. We should have moved on from the double slit experiment. You actually started trying to understand 2PC, and now you've slid backwards.

The double slit experiment cannot possibly prove physical collapse is real, or MWI wouldn't exist. In MWI there is no collapse. And if it is physically possible for there to be no collapse at all, then it is physically possible for there to be no physical collapse. Hence it is possible consciousness causes the collapse.

Science can't prove physical collapse is true. If it could, the measurement problem would no longer exist.

Can we move on please?
 
Jun 19, 2025
293
3
185
No, because you still haven't answered my three questions:

(1) Do you understand what 2PC is claiming about the nature of time?
(2) Do you agree that it is physically and logically possible?
(3) If not, why not?

It did appear you were preparing to answer them, but now we're going round the same old circle again.
 
Jun 19, 2025
293
3
185
Geoff, forget about the slits. Imagine, that you're firing a single particles at the screen with your eyes closed and there is no barrier with the slits. Particles need to collapse on the screen to appear on it, but you can't see it as long as you have your eyes closed. After you fire the last particle, you open your eyes. Do you see the particle marks on the screen or the screen is blank?
re: "Particles need to collapse on the screen"

What does this mean? That wave function needs to collapse when particles reach the screen? That's what you appear to be saying.

In which case, you are assuming your conclusion again -- you're just inserting "physical collapse is true" as an assumption implied in the question. (eg. "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?")

You are asking me a hypothetical question which only makes sense if I accept assumptions I am explicitly rejecting as part of 2PC, and you apparently believe this offers a viable route to falsifying 2PC. I am therefore refusing to answer the question. The only way forwards is for you to actually engage with 2PC.
 

marcin

You're a madman I've come to the right place, then
Jul 18, 2024
375
32
210
I didn't say that "Particles need to collapse on the screen", I said that Particles need to collapse on the screen to appear on it, but you can't see it as long as you have your eyes closed.
 
Jun 19, 2025
293
3
185
I didn't say that "Particles need to collapse on the screen", I said that Particles need to collapse on the screen to appear on it, but you can't see it as long as you have your eyes closed.
For the billionth time....

From a 2PC perspective, everything which is happening in the physical world -- photons, slits and screen -- remains in a superposition until observed by a conscious observer. There is no "collapse" anywhere in the physical world, just like there isn't any collapse in MWI. Phase 1 *is* MWI, except there are no minds so everything is going on "in the dark".

Maybe this will help. Imagine we set up the two-slit experiment, but we put the entire experimental apparatus inside Schrodinger's cat-box. There's no cat in there this time, and no other conscious animal either.

Now, you keep asking me about a thought experiment which I am not even thinking about, because from a 2PC perspective it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference what the outcome is, because in 2PC there is no outcome at all until you open the box.

Do you understand? You are trying to refute 2CP based on argument which directly analogous to arguing that we can know what is going on inside that box without opening it. In 2CP, everything inside the box remains in phase 1 -- uncollapsed -- until the box is open.

Why can't you understand this? It is not that hard.

What is the point in me answering your question, when the very act of answering it will just imply that I'm accepting the validity of a question that makes no sense in the context you are asking it?
 

marcin

You're a madman I've come to the right place, then
Jul 18, 2024
375
32
210
For the billionth time....

Will you see the particle marks on the screen when you open your eyes, or will you not see them, Geoff?
 

TRENDING THREADS