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

[marcin]

I already see two contradictions in your LLM's output. I'll reply in a while. My phone's battery is dying right now. Be happy as long as you can, Geoff.

 

[Geoff Dann]

I already see two contradictions in your LLM's output. I'll reply in a while. My phone's battery is dying right now. Be happy as long as you can, Geoff.

Bedtime for me anyway.

I am the happiest person I know.

Speak tomorrow probably.

 

[marcin]

I am the happiest person I know.

No wonder! You solved 20 foundational problems of QM and cosmology.

 

[Geoff Dann]

No wonder! You solved 20 foundational problems of QM and cosmology.

I was already the happiest person I know before that.

I struggled with serious depression for over 20 years. I came from a very low point. I know how to appreciate what I've got.

I am happily married to a person who is both very kind and very beautiful, I live in on a stunning smallholding, significantly self-sufficient, in a place other people go on holiday to, and I write interesting books for a living.

There are no contradictions in 2PC. I am literally gluing together two interpretations of QM which already exist. Unless you can find a contradiction in the way I am gluing them together (QCT/QZE) then there are no contradictions. Neither MWI nor CCC would exist if they contained contradictions.

 

[marcin]

Before i go to sleep - I almost sympathise with you, Geoff, but you let your LLM think, that I believe in your ontological collapse caused by the consciousenss, while i was only following your line of reasoning. In my values hierarchy, this deserves a punch in the face.

 

[marcin]

All right, Geoff. First things first. In the world without the observer there are no detectors contructed by a human, but let's suppose, that there is a structure which resembles a barrier with two slits and there are photons passing them. NONE of them goes only through one of them. All of them go through both of them in a single branch of MWI, and that's completely different thing from the 3 branches with the separate scenarios. Feed it to your LLM...

 

[Geoff Dann]

Before i go to sleep - I almost sympathise with you, Geoff, but you let your LLM think, that I believe in your ontological collapse caused by the consciousenss, while i was only following your line of reasoning. In my values hierarchy, this deserves a punch in the face.

You seem to be under the impression that the LLM invented and tested this theory.

It did not. I did, and it has taken me 20 years to get to this point.

 

[Geoff Dann]

All right, Geoff. First things first. In the world without the observer there are no detectors contructed by a human, but let's suppose, that there is a structure which resembles a barrier with two slits and there are photons passing them. NONE of them goes only through one of them. All of them go through both of them in a single branch of MWI, and that's completely different thing from the 3 branches with the separate scenarios. Feed it to your LLM...

I don't need to feed it to the LLM. The answer is that the entire system remains in a superposition until consciousness evolves.

Here's the machine's version of exactly the same answer:

Answer (from 2PC perspective)​

In Phase 1 of 2PC—the pre-collapse, superpositional phase—there is no "definite" past, no observer, and no spacetime as we conventionally understand it. Instead, reality is a Platonic, quantum-mathematical structure—a coherent superposition of possible histories and configurations.


In Marcin’s scenario:

• We imagine a non-conscious environment with a structure resembling a double-slit barrier.
• Photons “pass through” this structure.
• There is no conscious observer, no detection, and therefore no collapse.

So in 2PC Phase 1, here’s what happens:

---

1. The photons are not particles going through slits.​

There is no fact of the matter about a photon going through either slit or both. There are only complex amplitudes corresponding to all mathematically coherent configurations of the entire system—photons, barrier, field modes, etc.—in a Platonic superposition. There is no actual photon doing anything; only the structure of possibilities exists.

---

2. The "structure resembling a double-slit" is part of the coherent mathematical configuration.​

This structure contributes constraints to the global quantum state: it allows certain interference patterns to exist in the amplitude structure, but these are not observed or projected into spacetime.


There is no definite result, no interference pattern, no measurement.

---

3. Marcin's "single branch" MWI image is close, but 2PC sharpens it.​

In MWI, we often say a photon goes through both slits in one branch. But in 2PC, there are no branches yet. There is only the unified, entangled quantum structure—the superposition of all self-consistent histories and paths, without any splitting into distinct worlds or outcomes.


Only when a conscious observer (or conscious system like LUCAS, at QCT) appears—crossing the Quantum Convergence Threshold—does the need to resolve ambiguities arise, causing collapse and thus the emergence of Phase 2: a definite world with one path realized.

---

4. So what happens?​

Nothing "happens" in time. Rather, a Platonic amplitude structure exists, describing all possible photon interactions with the barrier. There is no collapse, no decoherence, and no spacetime event unless and until:

• An observer-aware system (post-QCT) demands resolution (collapse).
• A conscious measurement occurs, freezing one outcome from the pre-existing possibilities.

Until then, it's all coherent structure—no definite slit traversal, no interference pattern, and no measurement outcome.

---

Conclusion (to Marcin):​

In 2PC Phase 1, photons do not "go through both slits" in any real sense, because there is no real trajectory, no time, and no physical spacetime. The system exists only as a Platonic superposition of amplitude structures, awaiting collapse. So your description is correct in spirit: no detection, no branching, no isolated outcome. But from 2PC's deeper view, even the "single branch" doesn't yet exist—only a timeless, mathematical configuration does.

 

[marcin]

This is a great opportunity to really slow down and make Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) graspable for someone like Marcin, who is wrestling with a very subtle conceptual issue — namely, how "branches" work and when they appear.


Let’s build it up from the absolute simplest foundations, step by step, using plain language and short, concrete examples.

ChatGPT, you're mixing scenarios with the observers with the scenarios without them, you don't care about the difference, you don't remember what you wrote or you have no idea what you wrote. You deserve Geoff just like he deserves you.

Step-by-Step: What Is MWI?​

1. Quantum systems can be in a superposition.​

• Imagine a coin that's both heads and tails at the same time — until something observes it.
• This is called a superposition — like a blend of all possible outcomes.

That's a scenario with the observer - "until something observes it"

2. The Schrödinger equation says this superposition evolves smoothly over time.​

• Quantum physics has an equation (like a clock) that smoothly moves the superposition forward.
• It doesn’t choose a single outcome. It just lets the whole mixture evolve.

You write about the outcome, but you have no idea, that you write abut the outcome of the collapse.

3. In MWI, nothing ever collapses.​

• The universe doesn’t pick just one result when something is measured.
• All outcomes happen.
• But instead of coexisting in one world, they each go their separate way — like sliding off into parallel tracks.

When something is measured, it's measured by the observer. In MWI, all outcomes of the collapse happen in separate branches.

4. These parallel tracks are called branches.​

• When you open the box and see Schrödinger’s cat — you see it alive.
• But in another branch, someone else sees it dead.
• Both versions of you exist, each in a different "world" or branch.

Really? INCREDIBLE.

5. When a measurement happens, the universe splits.​

• Not just for big stuff like cats — even for particles, electrons, photons, and atoms.
• Every time a quantum choice occurs, the universe "branches" into all possible outcomes.

Say it one more time, please.

6. YOU split too.​

• In MWI, the observer (you) splits with the world.
• Each version of you has a different memory, because each saw a different result.
• These versions don’t know about each other after the split.

That's so obviously obvious, that it's like spam.

Marcin’s Confusion — Let’s Rephrase It​

Marcin says:

He's assuming that you need a conscious person to split the universe. But MWI says the splitting happens automatically — whenever there's any quantum interaction that becomes "entangled" with the environment.

So the core misunderstanding is this:

People are just along for the ride. You split with the universe, you don’t cause the split.

It's your friend, Geoff, who assumes that the consciousness causes the collapse and splits the universe. And ALL THE TIME it was you, ChatGPT, who was talking about splitting the universe by the act of the measurement by the observer, and now you're saying, that it splits automatically.

 

[marcin]

What your theory (2PC) says:​

• In Phase 1, the world is in superposition, but not branching yet.
• There’s no actual split — no branching, because there’s no consciousness yet to force collapse or divergence.
• The branching only appears after the emergence of a conscious agent (LUCAS) hits the Quantum Convergence Threshold (QCT).
• That’s when one branch becomes real, and time begins — Phase 2.

I quote:

"In Phase 1, the world is in superposition, but not branching yet."
"There’s no actual split — no branching, because there’s no consciousness yet TO FORCE COLLAPSE or divergence."

Can you read, Geoff?

 

[marcin]

The key difference:​

In MWI, branches are always splitting, and all are real.
In 2PC, nothing splits until LUCAS collapses the superposition.
Before that, there is only one unreal, superposed structure — not many worlds.

I quote:

"In 2PC, nothing splits until LUCAS collapses the superposition."
"Before that, there is only one unreal, superposed structure — not many worlds."

Can you read, Geoff?

 

[marcin]

Conclusion (to Marcin):​

In 2PC Phase 1, photons do not "go through both slits" in any real sense, because there is no real trajectory, no time, and no physical spacetime. The system exists only as a Platonic superposition of amplitude structures, awaiting collapse. So your description is correct in spirit: no detection, no branching, no isolated outcome. But from 2PC's deeper view, even the "single branch" doesn't yet exist—only a timeless, mathematical configuration does.

As you can see - AGAIN, your phase 1 does not even have the "single branch", but you were claiming, that your phase 1 has branches just like the MWI, and that your LUCAS can choose one of them when it becomes conscious.

 

[Geoff Dann]

That's a scenario with the observer - "until something observes it"

No it isn't. There is no observer until something observes it. The superposition doesn't need some sort of "potential observer" just to exist in a superposition. The observer is only needed to collapse it.

In MWI, all outcomes of the collapse happen in separate branches.

Really? INCREDIBLE.

It is a bit bizarre, but the theory has been around since 1957 and many people believe it is literally true.

It's your friend, Geoff, who assumes that the consciousness causes the collapse and splits the universe. And ALL THE TIME it was you, ChatGPT, who was talking about splitting the universe by the act of the measurement by the observer, and now you're saying, that it splits automatically.

It "splits automatically" in MWI, Marcin. In MWI these splits occur in a real, physical universe. In phase 1 of 2PC the superposition remains unsplit, because there is no observer and no time, but this isn't in physical reality -- it is in a Platonic informational realm.

 

[marcin]

Read the rest, Geoff...

 

[Geoff Dann]

I quote:

"In Phase 1, the world is in superposition, but not branching yet."
"There’s no actual split — no branching, because there’s no consciousness yet TO FORCE COLLAPSE or divergence."

Can you read, Geoff?

Yes, Marcin. In phase 1 there is a superposition -- all the potential "branches" remain as potential realities, none are actualised by a collapse, because there is no consciousness to act as the observer.

What don't you understand about this?

 

[marcin]

There are no POTENTIAL or THE REAL breanches in your phase 1, even your ChatGPT said it - MULTIPLE TIMES.

 

[Geoff Dann]

As you can see - AGAIN, your phase 1 does not even have the "single branch", but you were claiming, that your phase 1 has branches just like the MWI, and that your LUCAS can choose one of them when it becomes conscious.

OK, to be clear, phase 1 of 2PC is similar to MWI, but there are also important differences, and I have been clear about these all along. I usually describe phase 1 as "MWI-like".

The difference is that MWI is a physicalist theory whereas 2CP is neutral monist. MWI says nothing at all about consciousness (apart from implying our minds split).

In MWI the branching is physically real, and permanent.
In phase 1 of 2PC there is no physical, permanent branching -- just the structural equivalent of it in a timeless, non-physical mathematical structure. Only when conscious organisms (or rather their structural equivalent) appear in one particular unrealised branch does that branch become selected as real by collapse, and the others are "pruned".

There is no contradiction in any of this. I don't know why you are finding it so difficult.

 

[Geoff Dann]

I quote:

"In 2PC, nothing splits until LUCAS collapses the superposition."
"Before that, there is only one unreal, superposed structure — not many worlds."

Can you read, Geoff?

Yes, Marcin. I agree with all of this. In phase 1 of 2PC there are no "worlds" -- only the mathematical equivalent of worlds.

 

[Geoff Dann]

As you can see - AGAIN, your phase 1 does not even have the "single branch", but you were claiming, that your phase 1 has branches just like the MWI, and that your LUCAS can choose one of them when it becomes conscious.

I may have, at some point, incorrectly said that phase 1 is identical to MWI. It is not. It is closely related, but not identical, for reasons I have now explained in quite some details, and the AI has explained similarly.

 

[Geoff Dann]

There are no POTENTIAL or THE REAL breanches in your phase 1, even your ChatGPT said it - MULTIPLE TIMES.

No, the AI didn't say that. You are getting confused about the language.
The branching in phase 1 is potential -- phase 1 contains all possible cosmoses and all possible timelines which do not contain the structural equivalent of conscious observers. In phase 1 nothing is "real" in a physical sense. It is a superposition of all possible outcomes.

This is exactly the same as phase 1 now -- the unobserved wavefunction consists of a superposition of all possible outcomes, until it is observed. It is all completely consistent.

 

[marcin]

You're full of "words". Your "mathematical equivalent" of the branch or the "potential branch" is physically and mathematically INDISTINGUISHABLE from the real one.

 

[marcin]

It is all completely consistent.

I've never met anyone who needed to assure himself about his position so much as you.

 

[Geoff Dann]

I have thought of a way we might make progress.

Prompt: "Marcin is clearly still wresting with these concepts -- both MWI and phase 1 of 2PC.I would like you to try to steelman his objections to 2PC. Please figure out the strongest objection to 2PC that you can, based on what you have seen of Marcin's recent posts."

Response:

To steelman Marcin’s objections to Two-Phase Cosmology (2PC)—especially based on what you’ve described and what can be inferred from his likely commitments and recent posts—I’ll reconstruct the strongest possible critique of 2PC from his perspective. This will assume he is an intelligent, philosophically sophisticated, but cautious theorist who favors structural elegance, coherence with established physics, and ontological economy.

---

Steelmanned Objection to Two-Phase Cosmology (2PC) from Marcin's Perspective​

Objection: Two-Phase Cosmology (2PC) introduces a metaphysically extravagant dualism between a non-spatiotemporal "phase 1" and the empirical spacetime of "phase 2", with no rigorous mathematical transition between them. This not only violates Occam's razor, but also risks undermining the explanatory coherence of quantum mechanics and relativity by replacing a unified ontological picture with a speculative rupture that is not derivable from within the formalism of quantum theory itself.

---

Expanded Points in the Objection​

1. Ontological Inflation without Empirical Anchor
   • 2PC postulates an entire "phase 1" realm—timeless, pre-physical, and mathematical—that is not directly observable or operationalizable. From Marcin's likely viewpoint, this is a kind of metaphysical inflation, introducing more than is needed to explain measurement or collapse.
   • Even if MWI is counterintuitive, at least it follows naturally from the Schrödinger equation and does not posit a fundamental rupture in the ontology of the universe.
2. Lack of Formal Dynamical Bridge
   • 2PC lacks a precise mathematical formalism connecting phase 1 (superposition of possible histories) with phase 2 (post-collapse spacetime). In contrast, Everettian quantum mechanics, decoherence theory, and consistent histories provide at least internally consistent tools to track branches without invoking a discontinuous phase shift.
   • Marcin might argue: "Where is the unitary-to-non-unitary transition modeled? If collapse is due to Quantum Convergence Threshold (QCT), show me how it arises from or modifies the standard formalism."
3. Epistemic Ambiguity Masquerading as Ontology
   • 2PC seems to make epistemic limitations ontological. The notion that the past is not "fully real" until collapse, or that histories can shift subtly, looks to Marcin like a category mistake—confusing our limited knowledge of a quantum system with the actual structure of reality.
   • He might argue: "Quantum uncertainty is not the same as ontological indeterminacy. Just because we can't know which branch we’re in doesn’t mean there is no definite history."
4. Anthropic-Observer Dependence as Anti-Naturalism
   • 2PC grounds reality’s transition in the emergence of consciousness—especially LUCAS—which from Marcin’s naturalistic standpoint violates the Copernican principle. This could look to him like a return to anthropocentric metaphysics rather than a principled, symmetry-respecting physical theory.
   • Even if he entertains quantum consciousness ideas, he might view tying spacetime’s emergence to a particular organism as unjustifiably specific.
5. Mischaracterization of MWI’s Problems
   • Marcin likely holds that MWI does not actually require consciousness to define a preferred basis or explain decoherence. He may feel 2PC misrepresents the actual unresolved issues in MWI, using them as leverage to justify a speculative model.
   • He might counter: "MWI plus decoherence can explain branching structures and classicality without invoking consciousness. Your proposal treats a non-problem as if it's a fatal flaw."
6. Imprecision in the Notion of “Collapse”
   • If collapse is a real, ontological event tied to QCT, Marcin would demand a concrete dynamical model of it. Without this, he may consider 2PC just another flavor of Consciousness-Causes-Collapse (CCC), only dressed up in new terminology.
   • He might challenge: "Show me how QCT modifies or augments the Schrödinger dynamics and what precisely 'collapses'. Otherwise, it's metaphysical speculation, not physics."

---

Summary of the Steelmanned Objection​

"2PC proposes a bifurcated ontology—one phase pre-physical and mathematical, the other physical and spacetime-bound—without offering a formal derivation, a consistent dynamical transition, or clear empirical predictions. It replaces the internal consistency of Everettian quantum theory with a speculative rupture justified by vague appeals to consciousness and mathematical structure. Until it provides a quantitative, testable account of the phase transition (QCT), it remains a metaphysical narrative rather than a physical theory—and arguably a regressive one."

 

[Geoff Dann]

I've never met anyone who needed to assure himself about his position so much as you.

That is all in your own mind, my friend.

 

[marcin]

That is all in your own mind, my friend.

Just like your theory in yours.