The birth of the Quantum Convergence Threshold (QCT):

[Geoff Dann]

Really?

List of potentially habitable exoplanets - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

List of Kepler exoplanet candidates in the habitable zone - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Listing "potential habitats" is not actually getting us any closer to finding alien life. We've been clutching at straws like this for a very long time now.

 

[Geoff Dann]

And if Musk flies to Mars, then the Earth will no longer be the only planet with the conscious beings. Do you agree?

That is irrelevant though. It will still be the same instance of conscious life. The theory doesn't say humans can't travel to Mars. It says there isn't any life there before we get there.

 

[marcin]

So theoretically humanity could spread across the whole galaxy, inhabit multiple planets, and your theory would still be in agreement with it, yes? Conscious observers would be separated by a tens of light years.

If all these potentially habitable planets are lifeless, then I still wonder why I don't and you have a problem imagining a planet full of life in other galaxy within our observable universe, but also and especially beyond it.

The funnienst thing for me in our conversation and in this theory is that retrocausality based on our consciousness shaping the past could make aliens pop-up out of non-existence and align them with everything that we know so far. Do you agree with it?

Sorry for mixing the forums, but it would be great if you also replied to this comment:

Physics Discussion Forum-New "two phase" cosmology and QM interpretation, solves 15+ foundational problems

What if one simple new suggestion resolves nearly all of the major outstanding problems/paradoxes in cosmology, and doesn't introduce any new ones? Si

physicsdiscussionforum.org

 

[Geoff Dann]

So theoretically humanity could spread across the whole galaxy, inhabit multiple planets, and your theory would still be in agreement with it, yes? Conscious observers would be separated by a tens of light years.

Given enough time, yes. I am not saying there's a laws-of-physics reason why conscious organisms can't spread, only that it can only have evolved once, in one place.

If all these potentially habitable planets are lifeless, then I still wonder why I don't and you have a problem imagining a planet full of life in other galaxy within our observable universe, but also and especially beyond it.

The reason is that I understand my theory and you don't. It explains a whole bunch of stuff which isn't explainable any other way, and it has an implication that conscious life can only evolve once (and almost certainly the same applies to any form of life).

The funnienst thing for me in our conversation and in this theory is that retrocausality based on our consciousness shaping the past could make aliens pop-up out of non-existence and align them with everything that we know so far. Do you agree with it?

No, that doesn't work. Our consciousness can't shape the past in that way -- it can only do so with respect to our own consciousness -- it can't cause consciousness to arise somewhere else. That doesn't fit the theory.

Sorry for mixing the forums, but it would be great if you also replied to this comment:

Physics Discussion Forum-New "two phase" cosmology and QM interpretation, solves 15+ foundational problems

What if one simple new suggestion resolves nearly all of the major outstanding problems/paradoxes in cosmology, and doesn't introduce any new ones? Si

physicsdiscussionforum.org

I hadn't seen that. That is you is it?

 

[marcin]

Given enough time, yes. I am not saying there's a laws-of-physics reason why conscious organisms can't spread, only that it can only have evolved once, in one place.

I see the problem with "one place" even on a single planet. We would all have to evolve from a single, self replicating rna molecule. If there were at least two of them, they were not in one place.

it has an implication that conscious life can only evolve once (and almost certainly the same applies to any form of life).

I'm not an expert in the history of the Earth, but I know that there were a multiple extinctions, and that single cell organisms could have beed eradicated by a cosmic events multiple times, so their evolution could have started from scratch many times.

No, that doesn't work. Our consciousness can't shape the past in that way -- it can only do so with respect to our own consciousness -- it can't cause consciousness to arise somewhere else. That doesn't fit the theory.

We don't have a collective consciousness. One consciousness can certainly affect the others. It can even create a new one - in a traditional way

I hadn't seen that. That is you is it?

No, but I like his objections.

 

[Geoff Dann]

I see the problem with "one place" even on a single planet. We would all have to evolve from a single, self replicating rna molecule. If there were at least two of them, they were not in one place.

We already knew that there have been multiple individual bottlenecks of this sort. Eukaryogenesis is probably the single most improbable event in the whole of phase 1 history -- it happened only once. LUCAS is a special example of this, because it was accompanied by a metaphysical phase shift in reality, but there have been multiple instances of specific critical events only happening once.

I'm not an expert in the history of the Earth, but I know that there were a multiple extinctions, and that single cell organisms could have beed eradicated by a cosmic events multiple times, so their evolution could have started from scratch many times.

Not if it is structurally teleological it can't. Without teleology there would be no abiogenesis -- that's another example of a one-off. The old paradigm says "It happened once, it must be possible it could happen twice." This new proposal turns that on its head and says it almost certainly only happened once, and it only happened at all because of the immense computing power of MWI. It took 8 billion years of every possible outcome occurring to make it happen once. Without MWI loading the quantum dice in this way, it cannot happen again -- not even in a cosmos the size of ours.

 

[marcin]

It took 8 billion years of every possible outcome occurring to make it happen once. Without MWI loading the quantum dice in this way, it cannot happen again -- not even in a cosmos the size of ours.

Did you calculate it?

 

[marcin]

I like your honesty on physicsdiscussionforum.org:

>Could you show me a single example of how you work a practical physics problem out with a wave-function ?

No. But this isn't about practical physics. It is about the philosophical context in which we understand what physics actually is. The only practical purpose is getting rid of what currently look like really horrible problems (such as the measurement problem) by understanding why they currently look so horrible. These sorts of problems, rather than being solved, usually end up being "dissolved" instead. Sometimes they are dissolved by a new paradigm within science, and sometimes it is at least partly philosophical. In this case it is deeply philosophical, which is why such a diverse range of problems are being dissolved (or solved).

 

[Geoff Dann]

Did you calculate it?

I don't have to. If it can only happen once, for structural reasons, no calculation is required.

 

[Geoff Dann]

I like your honesty on physicsdiscussionforum.org:

There is no point in being anything other than honest. I'm a philosopher. We are discussing philosophy. It just happens to be a part of philosophy which is directly connected to cosmology. This should not be that surprising -- the word "cosmology" has a meaning beyond physics anyway. In anthropology it refers to a "worldview" in the broadest sense -- a foundational set of beliefs about what reality is, how it works and what the place of humans is within it.

 

[marcin]

I don't have to. If it can only happen once, for structural reasons, no calculation is required.

So your structural reasons have nothing to do with the calculation of probability ?

 

[Geoff Dann]

So your structural reasons have nothing to do with the calculation of probability ?

Exactly. The structural reasons make the probability 100%.

Let me explain again. In phase 1 not only is MWI true, but all possible cosmoses and histories exist in a timeless superposition (like an MWI block universe of all possible pre-conscious cosmoses). So everything that can happen does happen, in a spaceless, timeless way. This absolutely guarantees that if it is physically possible for a conscious worm-like creature (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikaria_wariootia) to evolve, then it will happen somewhere. And "when" (it is timeless) it does, then consciousness will collapse the entire "primordial" cosmic wavefunction and select the branch where that creature exists as the one real branch, "pruning" all the others. This is the phase shift, and phase 2 begins - spacetime and consciousness emerge in that branch, and evolution more like we understand it begins.

 

[marcin]

So the first conscious being on Earth collapsed the primordial wavefunction?

 

[Geoff Dann]

So the first conscious being on Earth collapsed the primordial wavefunction?

Yes, that is key to understanding the whole theory. That is the phase shift. Before that MWI was true (with no mind-splitting required, because no minds yet), and after the shift consciousness collapsed the wave function. This phase shift is what provides a unified solution to 15+ major problems -- including all of the fine-tuning-related problems, how consciousness evolved, what the Cambrian explosion was, why there aren't any aliens, etc...

There is a very clear candidate for the organism which first crossed the threshold and triggered the phase shift, and a very clear date: Ikaria wariootia, 555 million years ago.

Fossil hunters find evidence of 555m-year-old human relative

Ikaria wariootia is half the size of a grain of rice and an early example of a bilateral organism

www.theguardian.com

This was the first creature which could move under its own volition and the oldest known ancestor of all bilaterians -- the first creature to have an identifiable left and right, and front and back. It was the first conscious animal, and marks the beginning of evolution as we currently understand it (except with consciousness playing a causal role itself now). Before that the most complex animals were things like jellyfish and comb jellies -- they've got sensory organs and muscles, but their behaviour is entirely driven by unconscious reflexes. No complex modeling is going on -- no precursor to "thinking". Ikaria was the first organism which modelled its environment and ran into the frame problem, triggering QCT and the phase shift.

Then it took another 20 million years of "incubation" before the first predators evolved, and that kicked off the Cambrian "arms race".

 

[Geoff Dann]

Here is a formal system of equations linking the Quantum Convergence Threshold (QCT) to QuantumZeno Effect (QZE) dynamics, using a coherent memory-based feedback formalism:

---

1. Quantum Zeno Suppression​

The evolution of the quantum state ψ(t) is suppressed by frequent informational measurement I(t):


dψ(t)dt=−I(t) ψ(t)\frac{d\psi(t)}{dt}= -I(t)\, \psi(t)dtdψ(t)=−I(t)ψ(t)

---

2. Coherence Dynamics with InformationalFeedback​

The system's coherence ρ(t) (e.g. purity of the state or off-diagonal density matrix strength) decays over a timescale τ, but is reinforced by observation-like feedback I(t):


dρ(t)dt=I(t)−ρ(t)τ\frac{dρ(t)}{dt}= I(t) - \frac{ρ(t)}{τ}dtdρ(t)=I(t)−τρ(t)

---

3. Memory Integration (ARC Remembrance Operator)​

A memory-like accumulation of coherence over time (retrocausal influence, stabilizing identity across time):


R(t)=∫0tρ(τ) dτR(t)= \int_0^t ρ(τ)\, dτR(t)=∫0tρ(τ)dτ

---

4. Temporal Coherence Operator (Θ)​

The ARC Θ(t) operator reflects the degree of stable temporal memory integration (temporal self-reference):


θ(t)=exp⁡(−1R(t)+ε)(with small ε to avoid singularity)θ(t)= \exp\left(-\frac{1}{R(t) + \varepsilon}\right) \quad \text{(withsmall } \varepsilon \text{ to avoid singularity)}θ(t)=exp(−R(t)+ε1)(with small ε to avoid singularity)

---

5. Quantum Convergence Threshold (QCT)Condition​

Collapse occurs (QCT is triggered) when the system's temporal coherence reaches a critical value:

θ(t)=QCT

---

Interpretation and Integration​

This system frames collapse as a feedback-driven,temporally integrated phase transition:

• I(t) acts like an observer-like pressure, suppressing evolution (QZE) while enhancing coherence.
  
• R(t) accumulates coherence history, enabling the system to build up temporal memory.
  
• θ(t) functions like an order parameter, sensitive to whether the system achieves stable temporal identity.
  
• QCT is the critical point beyond which a single, consistent history is selected—i.e., wavefunction collapse via psychegenic selection.

 

[marcin]

Yes, that is key to understanding the whole theory. That is the phase shift. Before that MWI was true (with no mind-splitting required, because no minds yet), and after the shift consciousness collapsed the wave function. This phase shift is what provides a unified solution to 15+ major problems -- including all of the fine-tuning-related problems, how consciousness evolved, what the Cambrian explosion was, why there aren't any aliens, etc...

There is a very clear candidate for the organism which first crossed the threshold and triggered the phase shift, and a very clear date: Ikaria wariootia, 555 million years ago.

Fossil hunters find evidence of 555m-year-old human relative

Ikaria wariootia is half the size of a grain of rice and an early example of a bilateral organism

www.theguardian.com

This was the first creature which could move under its own volition and the oldest known ancestor of all bilaterians -- the first creature to have an identifiable left and right, and front and back. It was the first conscious animal, and marks the beginning of evolution as we currently understand it (except with consciousness playing a causal role itself now). Before that the most complex animals were things like jellyfish and comb jellies -- they've got sensory organs and muscles, but their behaviour is entirely driven by unconscious reflexes. No complex modeling is going on -- no precursor to "thinking". Ikaria was the first organism which modelled its environment and ran into the frame problem, triggering QCT and the phase shift.

Then it took another 20 million years of "incubation" before the first predators evolved, and that kicked off the Cambrian "arms race".

It's not so stupid as it seemed, but your bragging about a unified solution to 15+ major problems still looks stupid. We would have to scrutinize each and every one of them.

Here is a formal system of equations linking the Quantum Convergence Threshold (QCT) to QuantumZeno Effect (QZE) dynamics, using a coherent memory-based feedback formalism:

---

1. Quantum Zeno Suppression​

The evolution of the quantum state ψ(t) is suppressed by frequent informational measurement I(t):


dψ(t)dt=−I(t) ψ(t)\frac{d\psi(t)}{dt}= -I(t)\, \psi(t)dtdψ(t)=−I(t)ψ(t)

---

2. Coherence Dynamics with InformationalFeedback​

The system's coherence ρ(t) (e.g. purity of the state or off-diagonal density matrix strength) decays over a timescale τ, but is reinforced by observation-like feedback I(t):


dρ(t)dt=I(t)−ρ(t)τ\frac{dρ(t)}{dt}= I(t) - \frac{ρ(t)}{τ}dtdρ(t)=I(t)−τρ(t)

---

3. Memory Integration (ARC Remembrance Operator)​

A memory-like accumulation of coherence over time (retrocausal influence, stabilizing identity across time):


R(t)=∫0tρ(τ) dτR(t)= \int_0^t ρ(τ)\, dτR(t)=∫0tρ(τ)dτ

---

4. Temporal Coherence Operator (Θ)​

The ARC Θ(t) operator reflects the degree of stable temporal memory integration (temporal self-reference):


θ(t)=exp⁡(−1R(t)+ε)(with small ε to avoid singularity)θ(t)= \exp\left(-\frac{1}{R(t) + \varepsilon}\right) \quad \text{(withsmall } \varepsilon \text{ to avoid singularity)}θ(t)=exp(−R(t)+ε1)(with small ε to avoid singularity)

---

5. Quantum Convergence Threshold (QCT)Condition​

Collapse occurs (QCT is triggered) when the system's temporal coherence reaches a critical value:

θ(t)=QCT

---

Interpretation and Integration​

This system frames collapse as a feedback-driven,temporally integrated phase transition:

• I(t) acts like an observer-like pressure, suppressing evolution (QZE) while enhancing coherence.
• R(t) accumulates coherence history, enabling the system to build up temporal memory.
• θ(t) functions like an order parameter, sensitive to whether the system achieves stable temporal identity.
• QCT is the critical point beyond which a single, consistent history is selected—i.e., wavefunction collapse via psychegenic selection.

It still looks ridiculous and totally hallucinated by LLM, especially the description. You're a philosopher. Do you understand a single equation?

 

[Geoff Dann]

It's not so stupid as it seemed, but your bragging about a unified solution to 15+ major problems still looks stupid. We would have to scrutinize each and every one of them.

So it is stupid in principle to claim that it is a unified solution to 15+ major problems even if it actually is?

Yes, you do need to look at all 15 answers. If you do so then you will realise that in fact I am telling you the truth. This is not "bragging". It is a statement of fact, and unless you can find problems with those 15 answers you are in no position to criticise me for claiming they are valid solutions.

It still looks ridiculous and totally hallucinated by LLM, especially the description. You're a philosopher. Do you understand a single equation?

You have decided it "must be" ridiculous because it is such a huge claim. That is not valid reasoning. Please either engage with the theory itself, or stop claiming it "must be" wrong.

This theory has been public for three weeks and nobody has come up with a serious objection. 600+ downloads and views of my paper, and no objections.

This is the most important theoretical advance since the 1920s. Your incredulity is not a valid objection.

The reason it solves so many problems is that it is based on the correct metaphysical interpretation of QM. All the other interpretations are either completely wrong or fundamentally incomplete. This one is correct and complete, which is why it solves so many problems.

 

[marcin]

So it is stupid in principle to claim that it is a unified solution to 15+ major problems even if it actually is?

Yes, you do need to look at all 15 answers. If you do so then you will realise that in fact I am telling you the truth. This is not "bragging". It is a statement of fact, and unless you can find problems with those 15 answers you are in no position to criticise me for claiming they are valid solutions.

I wrote that it looks stupid regarding how unverifiable it seems, just like MWI for example.

You have decided it "must be" ridiculous because it is such a huge claim. That is not valid reasoning. Please either engage with the theory itself, or stop claiming it "must be" wrong.

This theory has been public for three weeks and nobody has come up with a serious objection. 600+ downloads and views of my paper, and no objections.

This is the most important theoretical advance since the 1920s. Your incredulity is not a valid objection.

I wrote, that it still looks ridiculous. There is a difference. You're a philosopher. Do you understand a single equation hallucinated by LLM?

 

[Geoff Dann]

I wrote that it looks stupid regarding how unverifiable it seems, just like MWI for example.


You're a philosopher. Do you understand a single equation hallucinated by LLM?

I understand why the philosophy works, and why all the other interpretations are wrong.
Your hostility to AI isn't a refutation either.
You are not engaging with the actual theory, are you? You are finding "meta-reasoning" to reject it without engaging with it. Do you want me to list all the fallacious reasons you've given for not actually assessing the theory on its own merits?

This theory has been public for three weeks and nobody has come up with a serious objection. 600+ downloads and views of my paper, and no objections. Your objections aren't valid objections. "I just can't believe it" isn't a valid objection. "I bet you don't understand the AI-generated maths" isn't a valid objection. "It solves 15 problems at the same time, that's silly." isn't a valid objection.

You can either critique it yourself or you can use AI to do that job. You have chosen to do neither. Instead, you're coming up with one justification after another for not bothering to actually think about whether it might be correct.

This theory will inevitably meet a lot of resistance because it basically means that almost everybody's current beliefs about reality are seriously wrong, including yours. I don't expect it to be accepted straight away. Instead I am expecting irrational psychological resistance of exactly the sort you are engaged in right now.

However, I am also expecting some people to understand why it is indeed correct, and why it offers new opportunities to solve all sorts of other long-standing problems in a wide variety of branches of both science and philosophy. Those people will start citing me. I also have a book coming out in three weeks time, which is going to be difficult to ignore. I am guessing it may take six months before the resistance starts to crumble.

 

[marcin]

How can you claim that is solves anything, if you don't understand a single equation?

Don't quote me, if you make up my words in quotation marks.

 

[Geoff Dann]

How can you claim that is solves anything, if you don't understand a single equation?

None of the solutions in the paper depend on any equations. Those equations were only generated a few hours ago. They are the cherries on top, not the cake.

My two phase theory never depended on QCT at all, let alone on equations synthesising QCT and QZE. This is an extra advance on top of what was already solved.

To put this another way: I already knew what the equations represent. They are the mathematical distillation of a logical structure I invented myself. I provided the information from which the equations were generated. The purpose of those equations is to explain to mathematicians what the theory actually means in a language they can understand.

 

[marcin]

They are not cherries. You have no idea what they are and how incorrect and ridculous they may be, becuase you don't understand them, so you shouldn't put them on your cake in the first place.

They are the mathematical distillation of a logical structure I invented myself.

If you don't understand them and claim that they are mathematical distillation of a logical structure you invented, then you don't understand your logical structure.

 

[Geoff Dann]

They are not cherries. You have no idea what they are and how incorrect and ridculous they may be, becuase you don't understand them, so you shouldn't put them on your cake in the first place.

If you don't understand them and claim that they are mathematical distillation of a logical structure you invented, then you don't understand your logical structure.

That's just silly. You are claiming that if AI produces a mathematical description of something I already understand, but I don't understand the mathematical description, then it means I no longer understand the thing I already understand.

And you can't see a problem with that reasoning?

It is like saying that if you get an AI to translate an essay you have written (in English) into Russian, but you don't understand the Russian, then it means you no longer understand the essay.

Total nonsense.

 

[marcin]

That's just silly. You are claiming that if AI produces a mathematical description of something I already understand, but I don't understand the mathematical description, then it means I no longer understand the thing I already understand.

And you can't see a problem with that reasoning?

It is like saying that if you get an AI to translate an essay you have written (in English) into Russian, but you don't understand the Russian, then it means you no longer understand the essay.

Total nonsense.

You have a point, but this translation could be a total garbage and you wouldn't know it. LLMs are great in translations, but they are schizophrenic in mathematical physics. Your math is probably a total garbage and you have no idea if it is, but you claim, that it's not. You claim, that it's a distillation of a logical structure you ivented yourself.

 

[Geoff Dann]

You have clearly given up on any attempt to engage with the actual material, having failed to come up with a reasonable objection. You are now just finding ways to derail the discussion.

Just don't fool yourself into thinking you've refuted my position. You've done nothing of the sort. You tried for a while, couldn't find an objection, then descended into stupid, irrelevant nonsense, which has succeeded in derailing the thread.

Congratulations! Have a peanut.

Which part of

THE THEORY DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE MATHEMATICS.

are you unable to understand?

You are clutching at straws because you are psychologically unable to accept what your own eyes are telling you. You started out this discussion quite reasonably and rationally, but in recent posts it has all gone horribly wrong.

Any time you are ready to start engaging with the actual material again, I'll be available.