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

[Geoff Dann]

Are you sure that ikaria wariootia developed a model of the external world?

No. But I have a very strong case for claiming it was the first organism capable of such a thing, and it is already considered the prime candidate for the last unique common ancestor of all the animals that intuitively seem conscious. So that limits the time of the phase shift going backwards. And it is limited going forwards by the Cambrian Explosion, which was only 20 million years later. In terms of cosmology, that time frame is a blip. So it doesn't matter if Ikaria wasn't actually LUCAS. It's just the most likely candidate.

 

[marcin]

No. But I have a very strong case for claiming it was the first organism capable of such a thing,

Based on what? You're not biologist nor neurobiologist.

 

[marcin]

So it doesn't matter if Ikaria wasn't actually LUCAS. It's just the most likely candidate.

I agree. It doesn't matter. What matters is that developing the model of the external world, no matter how primitive and how limited to the closest surroundings of LUCAS, formed the whole universe.

 

[Greenlight]

If you pick any complex species evolved enough for consciousness, then how did that species arise from the nothing before it? Is is that you dont need an actual species with consciousness, you just need the quantum probability of one to create itself and its ancestors? if thats the case then time started at the collapse not before, anything before is negative time that never really existed until the wave collapsed and propagated the probabilities backwards. That means the past beyond the universe horizon hasnt happened yet, but it will some time in the past. im so confused. Sorry if some of this was already covered. i didnt read all 100+ replies.

 

[contrarian]

If you pick any complex species evolved enough for consciousness, then how did that species arise from the nothing before it?

It could not have. It must have arisen from a slightly less complex species, as the one before that arose, until you get back to the most primitive proto-bilaterian species just prior to the appearance of some form of consciousness. Some who have studied this believe we are talking about an earthworm as the most basic bilaterian with some form of consciousness.

One of the biggest problems with this whole issue is of course the definition of consciousness in this context. Doubtless that alone is another topic for intense debate.

>>Sorry if some of this was already covered. i didnt read all 100+ replies either.<<

 

[Geoff Dann]

Based on what? You're not biologist nor neurobiologist.

That is an attempted reverse argument from authority, and I am not even going to engage with it. Ask me what my reasons are and I will answer.

I am a radically interdisciplinary philosopher.

 

[Geoff Dann]

I agree. It doesn't matter. What matters is that developing the model of the external world, no matter how primitive and how limited to the closest surroundings of LUCAS, formed the whole universe.

It didn't "form the whole universe". It was the trigger for a universe-wide phase shift. And I have explained very clearly what the proposed mechanism is.

 

[Geoff Dann]

If you pick any complex species evolved enough for consciousness, then how did that species arise from the nothing before it?

There wasn't nothing before it. There was something almost ready to be conscious, but not quite. Plus it was in phase 1, so it was only "noumenal" -- it didn't exist in space and time.

Is is that you dont need an actual species with consciousness, you just need the quantum probability of one to create itself and its ancestors?

Yes, exactly. If strong mathematical platonism is true, then all you need is the mathematical structure representing the entire quantum timeline from the big bang to the ancestor of LUCAS. That is what 2PC says happened.

if thats the case then time started at the collapse not before, anything before is negative time that never really existed until the wave collapsed and propagated the probabilities backwards. That means the past beyond the universe horizon hasnt happened yet, but it will some time in the past. im so confused. Sorry if some of this was already covered. i didnt read all 100+ replies.

Read this for a summary. You are very close to understanding it. Much faster than most others!

https://www.ecocivilisation-diaries.net/articles/void-emergence-and-psychegenesis

Phase 1 doesn't "happen" at all. It just exists, in a timeless, spaceless realm of Platonic-quantum possibility.

 

[Geoff Dann]

It could not have. It must have arisen from a slightly less complex species, as the one before that arose, until you get back to the most primitive proto-bilaterian species just prior to the appearance of some form of consciousness. Some who have studied this believe we are talking about an earthworm as the most basic bilaterian with some form of consciousness.

Simpler than an earthworm, but not that different. Yes, I am saying the ancestor of all bilaterians was probably the first conscious organism. I think it requires a central processing unit (a primitive brain) and it may even need to be split into two lobes. I'm a big fan of Iain McGilchrist.

One of the biggest problems with this whole issue is of course the definition of consciousness in this context. Doubtless that alone is another topic for intense debate.

>>Sorry if some of this was already covered. i didnt read all 100+ replies either.<<

Consciousness can only be defined subjectively. It needs a "private ostensive definition".

 

[marcin]

You really need to think about MWI. There is no collapse in MWI.

Have you actually never even thought about the implications of this??

Every branch in MWI is made of its own sequence of collapses with their specific outcomes. MWI is based on them just like our single branch.

That is an attempted reverse argument from authority, and I am not even going to engage with it. Ask me what my reasons are and I will answer.

I am a radically interdisciplinary philosopher.

And the product of radically interdisciplinary philosophy in combination with LLM is burdened with self-righteousness, self-delusion and self-assurance.

It didn't "form the whole universe". It was the trigger for a universe-wide phase shift. And I have explained very clearly what the proposed mechanism is.

Your proposed mechanism is based on MWI without a single collapse in the phase 1 of you 2 phase cosmology. That makes it plain wrong. In MWI collapse is not pruning all the branches except one. It's a fork of a single branch. Without these collapses you wouldn't have a continuous process that could form LUCAS and its branch.

 

[Geoff Dann]

Every branch in MWI is made of its own sequence of collapses with their specific outcomes. MWI is based on them just like our single branch.

You think there is wavefunction collapse in MWI??????

And the product of radically interdisciplinary philosophy in combination with LLM is burdened with self-righteousness, self-delusion and self-assurance.

Says the person who thinks wave functions collapse in MWI.

Your proposed mechanism is based on MWI without a single collapse in the phase 1 of you 2 phase cosmology. That makes it plain wrong. In MWI collapse is not pruning all the branches except one. It's a fork of a single branch. Without these collapses you wouldn't have a continuous process that could form LUCAS and its branch.

It is evident that you do not have even the most basic understanding of MWI, which in turns means you lack basic understanding of the Measurement Problem. Which explains why this debate has been so teeth-pullingly grim.

 

[marcin]

The one who has absolutely no understanding of MWI is you. MWI is practically based on the outcome of the double slit experiment. In MWI there is a branch where a particle collapses on the left slit, there is the other branch where it collapses on the right slit, and there is a branch where it collapses on the screen behind the slits giving the interference pattern. All these branches are a part of multiverse.

 

[Geoff Dann]

The one who has absolutely no understanding of MWI is you. MWI is practically based on the outcome of the double slit experiment. In MWI there is a branch where a particle collapses on the left slit, there is the other branch where it collapses on the right slit, and there is a branch where it collapses on the screen behind the slits giving the interference pattern. All these branches are a part of multiverse.

Oh dear, Marcin. You have got some serious neck-winding-in to do.

I thought you actually knew what you were talking about about. Now I know you don't.

Here's the AI response to your post:

Marcin, your description of the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) contains a fundamental error: you’re still talking about wavefunction collapse — but MWI explicitly rejects the idea of collapse. That’s the whole point of MWI.

Let me be clear:

In MWI, the wavefunction never collapses. Ever.

Instead, the entire quantum state — including all possible outcomes — evolves deterministically and unitarily according to the Schrödinger equation. What we call "measurement" is simply the entanglement of the observer with the system. Each possible outcome corresponds to a branch of the universal wavefunction, and all branches continue to exist in parallel.

So when you say:

"In MWI there is a branch where a particle collapses on the left slit..."

That’s wrong. There is no collapse in any branch. The particle's quantum state remains in superposition. What happens is that in one branch, you observe the particle go left; in another, you observe it go right; and in others, you see interference patterns — but the wavefunction remains fully intact and uncollapsed across all branches. Each observer version is entangled with a different outcome, but the total wavefunction continues evolving smoothly.

To recap:

• Copenhagen: Wavefunction collapse is real.
• MWI: No collapse. Only branching due to unitary evolution.
• If you invoke collapse at all, you’re no longer talking about MWI.

Hope that clears things up.

 

[marcin]

Oh dear, Geoff.

Here's why your LLM is simply dumb, and your use of it remains completely mindless, not to mention your trust in it.

Instead, the entire quantum state — including all possible outcomes

Outcomes of what??

Each possible outcome corresponds to a branch of the universal wavefunction, and all branches continue to exist in parallel.

Each possible outcome of what?? Of the collapse, Geoff.

That’s wrong. There is no collapse in any branch. The particle's quantum state remains in superposition. What happens is that in one branch, you observe the particle go left; in another, you observe it go right; and in others, you see interference patterns — but the wavefunction remains fully intact and uncollapsed across all branches.

If the particle remained in a superposition, there would be no observer in any branch, who could see its detection. If any of them can see its detection in his branch, then it collapsed in his branch.

 

[Geoff Dann]

Outcomes of what??

Wave function evolution

If the particle remained in a superposition, there would be no observer in any branch, who could see its detection. If any of them can see its detection in his branch, then it collapsed in his branch.

There is no "observer" in MWI. No observations, no measurements, no collapse.

You seriously don't know what you are talking about. Instead of digging a deeper hole, I suggest you go and do some research about this.



A guide to MWI for dummies, delivered by the person who will hate 2PC more than anybody else in the world

My phase 1 is pure Schrodinger equation.
My phase 2 is Second Schrodinger equation.

 

[marcin]

There is no "observer" in MWI. No observations, no measurements, no collapse.

You seriously don't know what you are talking about. Instead of digging a deeper hole, I suggest you go and do some research about this.

According to MWI we live in one of the branches. You're saying, that according to MWI there are no observers in our or any other branch. Now I'm asking You, Geoff. Are you the observer of the reality around you, according to You?

 

[Geoff Dann]

According to MWI we live in one of the branches. You're saying, that according to MWI there are no observers in our or any other branch.

I am saying the word "observer" has no meaning in MWI.

Now I'm asking You, Geoff. Are you the observer of the reality around you, according to You?

Yes. That I am.

MWI says our minds continually split. There is no observer to collapse the wavefunction, so all possible outcomes happen in diverging timelines. Literally.

 

[marcin]

I am saying the word "observer" has no meaning in MWI.

Yes. That I am.

MWI says our minds continually split. There is no observer to collapse the wavefunction, so all possible outcomes happen in diverging timelines. Literally.

In that case MWI stands in direct contradiction to your 2PC, because your LOCUS is not the observer according to your understanding of MWI, so it couldn't collapse the wave function, and its mind has been splitting just like everything else.

 

[externo]

AI has rewritten all of physics in the formalism of Clifford algebra and has rewritten under my verification all of physics from QM to cosmology, determining the masses of particles and solving all cosmological problems. It has established a total Lagrangian for all interactions combined.

 

[marcin]

A guide to MWI for dummies, delivered by the person who will hate 2PC more than anybody else in the world

My phase 1 is pure Schrodinger equation.
My phase 2 is Second Schrodinger equation.

The most sick part of my brain wishes you good luck, Geoff, because I'm also at war with the followers of LCDM.

 

[Geoff Dann]

In that case MWI stands in direct contradiction to your 2PC, because your LOCUS is not the observer according to your understanding of MWI, so it couldn't collapse the wave function, and its mind has been splitting just like everything else.

You have never understood what I am proposing. Perhaps now finally you will.

There are three categories of QM interpretation, which I call "the quantum trilemma".

(1) Physical collapse theories.(PC) These say that something physical collapses the wavefunction, but they are all arbitrary and empirically untestable.

(2) Consciousness causes collapse. (CCC) Because (1) is impossible to model mathematically, in 1932 John von Neumann declared that collapse could happen anywhere from the observed system to the consciousness of the observer. He therefore removed it from the maths, and in doing so removed it from the physical system.

(3) Because both of the above are unsatisfactory, in 1957 Hugh Everett invented MWI -- he declared no collapse happens at all. Instead, all possible outcomes occur in parallel timelines. This get rid of arbitrary physical collapse and non-physical conscious observers, but at the cost of claiming our minds are infinitely splitting.

Until 2PC, all interpretations faced a choice of the above, or are fundamentally incomplete (they do not explain how we get from a superposition to one outcome).

2PC proposes a completely new solution. It says MWI was true until the first conscious organism evolved, after which the entire primordial wavefunction collapsed, and from that moment onwards CCC became true. It is a synthesis of MWI and CCC which gets rid of the worst problems of both, while maximising their explanatory power.

Are you ready for me to start explaining how it gets rid of nearly every single major problem of LambdaCDM?

 

[marcin]

2PC proposes a completely new solution. It says MWI was true until the first conscious organism evolved, after which the entire primordial wavefunction collapsed, and from that moment onwards CCC became true. It is a synthesis of MWI and CCC which gets rid of the worst problems of both, while maximising their explanatory power.

Geoff, there was no splitting and therefore no branches in your 1 phase, so MWI does not describe it.

 

[marcin]

Are you ready for me to start explaining how it gets rid of nearly every single major problem of LambdaCDM?

At all means. Explain it as extensively as you can. I couldn't care less. I just care about the basic logic.

 

[Geoff Dann]

Geoff, there was no splitting and therefore no branches in your 1 phase, so MWI does not describe it.

Eh?

In my phase 1 all possible cosmoses and all possible (non-conscious) timelines exist. It is functionally identical to MWI apart from the fact that in MWI all of the branches stay real and continue to diverge until the end of a physically real time, because there is no potential for consciousness to collapse them in a phase shift (because MWI is proposed as being true at the moment, not just before a phase shift 555mya).

 

[Geoff Dann]

At all means. Explain it as extensively as you can. I couldn't care less. I just care about the basic logic.

We need to first get to the point where you understand what 2PC actually is.

Phase 1: MWI (or something very similar) is true. All possible outcomes occur, but in a timeless, spaceless, purely mathematical way. The wavefunction does not collapse, but because there are no conscious organisms there is no mind-splitting going on. No observers are needed.

I am saying phase 1 is the literal existence of the entire Schrodinger equation for our cosmos. Reality = mathematics.

Somewhere in this great mathematical structure an organism (or rather its structural equivalent) arises, which is capable of modelling itself, and the future, and therefore capable of making decisions about which of the physically possible futures it wants to manifest (go left, go right, find a mate, etc...). At this point if MWI continued to be true then it would have to make all possible decisions in parallel worlds, which is logically inconsistent. Additionally it has no means of avoiding what AI people call "the frame problem" -- more brainpower just gives it a bigger range of options to choose between, with no way of ending the "combinatorial explosion".

How is this impasse resolved? Answer, the "unstable void" (from which all things come, including all the mathematical structures of phase 1) is invoked. This causes the phase shift. One timeline is selected, and it is the one that contains this thinking organism -- consciousness has selected itself into reality. Schrodinger said that Atman = Brahman is the "second schrodinger equation." So my phase shift is logically identical to that. I am literally taking Schrodinger's own interpretation to its logical conclusion, in both phases.

Phase 2: consciousness now collapses the wavefunction, there is a "now", and spacetime comes into existence as the thing which keeps the whole system coherent.

This system says reality is made of mathematics (specifically the Schrodinger equation) and the Infinite Void (Brahman which is also Atman). Everything can be logically accounted for. There can be no system which is more parsimonious than this.

Any questions?