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

[Geoff Dann]

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

No! It isn't physical at all. It is thoroughly non-local. It is unchanging and does not exist within time. There is no "real one" in a physical sense.

I need to finish the document that explains the completed system, with solutions to nearly all of those outstanding problems with LDCM. I'll return to this thread in a few hours when I've done most of that work.

 

[marcin]

No! It isn't physical at all. It is thoroughly non-local. It is unchanging and does not exist within time. There is no "real one" in a physical sense.

If your LUCAS can choose it, it MUST be INDISTINGUISHABLE from the reality of LUCAS.

 

[marcin]

I need to finish the document that explains the completed system, with solutions to nearly all of those outstanding problems with LDCM. I'll return to this thread in a few hours when I've done most of that work.

I guess that if you realized how self-deluded you are, it would kill you.

 

[marcin]

They are exactly as distinguishable as all of the timelines in MWI before consciousness exists.

My model is literally identical to MWI in phase 1.

LUCAS collapses that whole MWI structure, which spans 13 billion years. One great big collapse.

What do you think is the difference between MWI and my phase 1?

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.

Yeah... You may have said... And you didn't figure it out yourself. I was saying it to you all along.

Your LLM said:

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: "There’s no actual split — no branching, because there’s no consciousness yet to FORCE COLLAPSE OR DIVERGENCE."
In that case your LLM seems to know, that branching requires collapse, and that the different outcomes of this collapse are the different branches after the branch was split by the collapse. And I'm talking about the branching in MWI.

Your LLM said:

"MWI says the world is always branching — every tiny quantum event causes a split, with or without observers. But in my model (2PC), there’s only one big quantum structure before consciousness appears — nothing has branched yet. It’s not a set of multiple real worlds, it’s a single possibility space. LUCAS doesn’t 'choose from' branches — LUCAS creates the branch by needing to decide in a way that can’t coexist with superposition."

I quote: "LUCAS doesn’t 'choose from' branches — LUCAS creates the branch by needing to decide in a way that can’t coexist with superposition."
This primordial superposition is anything but a set of a separate, but virtual or mathematical branches, from which LUCAS can create one. No splitting in phase 1, remeber? No branching in phase 1. Calling these branches mathematical or virtual does not help you and I told you why. That's because one of them MUST be INDISTINGUISHABLE from the reality of LUCAS. Moreover, needing to decide is choosing.

I quote: "MWI says the world is always branching — every tiny quantum event causes a split, with or without observers."
Would you look at that... Does every quantum event cause a split in your phase 1 WITHOUT the observers? NO, Geoff. This quote also tells me, that your LLM believes in a physical collapse, but since its schizophrenic, it also believes, that it requires observer (it said there's no branching in phase 1 because there's no consciousness yet to FORCE COLLAPSE). And don't tell me, that it can't believe in anything. That was colloquial speech.

 

[jhixon]

I don't know what interpretation this is, but it certainly isn't 2PC.

This is why a wave collapses when you measure it. It's not rocket science...