As briefly as possible -- since 1957 we have been stuck in a "quantum trilemma" of 3 different categories of QM interpretation.

(1) Physical collapse theories (PC). These are always arbitrary and untestable (which is why none of them command a consensus).

(2) Consciousness causes collapse (CCC). These are derivative of John von Neumann, and they push collapse outside of the physical system. Usually come with idealism or panpsychism as the explanation of "what collapsed the wave function before consciousness evolved?" which implies brains aren't required for consciousness. Hence not popular.

(3) MWI. Denies collapse, but this implies our minds are continually splitting. Very hard to believe, hence more popular with Hollywood and the general public than with scientists.

Certain other interpretations (eg Bohm) try to evade the trilemma, but I don't believe any of them succeed in doing so, apart from by being fundamentally incomplete (Bohm tries to have his cake and eat it -- the unrealised branches are both real and unreal).

This looks logically exhaustive, because either the wave function collapses or it doesn't, and if it does then it either collapses due to something physical or consciousness collapses from outside.

Then it occurred to me that there's another answer to the question "What collapsed the wave function before consciousness evolved?" What if nothing did? If you subtract consciousness from CCC then surely you are left with something very much like MWI. The only difference is that this is exclusively before consciousness existed, so we've got rid of the mind-splitting problem of MWI and the "before consciousness" problem of CCC at the same time (and without invoking idealism or panpsychism).

So this is the basic idea: a two-phase cosmology (2PC) where MWI is true until consciousness evolves, and then CCC (Henry Stapp's version) becomes true afterwards.

This turns out to offer novel solutions to all sorts of problems. It already cleanly solves to massive ones -- the hard problem of consciousness and the measurement problem in QM. But that's just the start. At a stroke it solves all of the "Why was X set up just perfectly?" problems, including the fine-tuning of constants and the low-entropy initial state. These now cease to be mysterious because MWI guarantees consciousness will happen in one of the possible cosmoses (because in MWI everything that is possible actually happens), and then when it does happen that will become the only realised timeline (consciousness collapses the primordial wavefunction) and all the others will be "pruned". This also explains how consciousness can have evolved -- it was like Nagel's teleology (see Mind and Cosmos (2012)), except it doesn't need any "teleological laws" because the telos was structural (it was a "selection effect"). It can even explain why we can't quantise gravity, because gravity only emerges in phase 2 (with consciousness and spacetime). It also provides a new explanation for the Fermi paradox: the primordial wavefunction can only collapse once, so we should expect the rest of the cosmos to be devoid of life.

By the time I'd identified 15 of these major problems (with the help of another new theory called the Quantum Convergence Threshold model, which fits perfectly with the 2PC) this model offers natural solutions to, I decided to put it down in a "paper" on Zenodo, just to document that this is my idea so nobody can steal it: The Participating Observer and the Architecture of Reality: A unified solution to fifteen foundational problems.

For a brief overview of the whole system read this.

But I am finding new ones all the time. For example this offers a solution to the "Axis of Evil" problem in cosmology..

From: https://www.space.com/37334-earth-ordinary-cosmological-axis-evil.html

"What's going on? The CMB shouldn't give two photons about our solar system — it was generated before the sun was a twinkle in the Milky Way's eye. And we can't find any simple astrophysical explanation, like a random cloud of dust in our southern end, that might interfere with the pristine cosmological signal in this odd way.

Is it really just coincidence? A chance alignment that we're conditioned to find because of our pattern-loving brains? Or does it seductively point the way to new and revolutionary physics? Or maybe we just screwed something up with the measurements?"

This new model provides the natural answer to this problem too. It says that the Earth really is the centre of the cosmos, not for the traditional theological reasons but because it was the epicentre of the phase shift, and the only centre of conscious life.

18 minutes ago, Geoff Dann said:

These are always arbitrary and untestable (which is why none of them command a consensus)

Interpretations are, by their nature, not testable. They’re interpretations - ways to think about the science, but separate from the actual theories. You use the one that you want to use.

Rule 2.7 requires that discussion take place here, and that participation be possible without clicking any links.

Speculations has its own rules, too

https://scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

Interpretations are, by their nature, not testable. They’re interpretations - ways to think about the science, but separate from the actual theories. You use the one that you want to use.

Indeed. I am proposing a new one and explaining why it has vastly more explanatory power (it fits better with existing empirical data) than any other interpretations that have ever been proposed.

It literally solves 15+ major problems, with a single new proposal, without introducing any new ones.

And it is not quite true that it "can't be tested" -- for example, it makes the empirical prediction that we should not find any life beyond Earth's biosphere. This is both a better fit for existing observational data, and theoretically falsifiable (if we find aliens, it is falsified).

Edited June 19Jun 19 by Geoff Dann

Just now, Geoff Dann said:

Indeed. I am proposing a new one and explaining why it has vastly more explanatory power (it fits better with existing empirical data) than any other interpretations that have ever been proposed.

So where is the maths that offer me something I can go and measure ?

Just now, studiot said:

So where is the maths that offer me something I can go and measure ?

None of the interpretations of QM are primarily dependent on new mathematics. They are metaphysical frameworks. They provide the philosophical context in which we understand scientific theories, and in the case of QM and cosmology this turns out to be extremely important.

The maths and the metaphysics have been separated for most of the history of QM. If you want to use QM to do practical science and engineering then you can "shut up and calculate". This worked quite well from about 50 years, but in the second half-century since the discovery of QM there has been growing discontent with the existing situation. Meanwhile major problems in cosmology have been multiplying. I am offering a new philosophical framework which appears to solve nearly all of those problems in one go.

Just now, Geoff Dann said:

None of the interpretations of QM are primarily dependent on new mathematics. They are metaphysical frameworks. They provide the philosophical context in which we understand scientific theories, and in the case of QM and cosmology this turns out to be extremely important.

The maths and the metaphysics have been separated for most of the history of QM. If you want to use QM to do practical science and engineering then you can "shut up and calculate". This worked quite well from about 50 years, but in the second half-century since the discovery of QM there has been growing discontent with the existing situation. Meanwhile major problems in cosmology have been multiplying. I am offering a new philosophical framework which appears to solve nearly all of those problems in one go.

So perhaps you can use your "interpretation" to tell me how and why silicon, hydrogen and carbon combine with oxygen to form respectively a solid, a liquid and a gas ?

I suppose you could have referred to this drivel from your article when asked for some mathematics.

3.15 The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics

The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics – the surprising and deep alignment between abstract mathematical structures and the physical universe – has long puzzled philosophers and scientists alike. Why should human-devised mathematics, originally developed as an abstract language, so precisely describe the workings of nature?

Under 2PC, during the first phase the universe exists as a superposed quantum multiverse described by a rich, highly symmetric mathematical structure. This pre-collapse phase encodes fundamental laws and relationships as aspects of the quantum state itself, effectively defining the “rules” of the cosmic computation that unfolds. In the second phase physical laws emerge as effective patterns. Consequently, the laws of physics and the constants of nature are not arbitrary but reflect the underlying mathematical architecture of the primordial wave function from which reality collapsed. Human mathematics is effective because it discovers and encodes the same abstract structures embedded in this primordial quantum fabric. Our cognitive faculties – products of this cosmic unfolding – are naturally attuned to perceive and manipulate these fundamental mathematical truths. Thus, the deep congruence between mathematics and physics arises because both originate from the same foundational quantum-mathematical source.

The 2PC and QCT framework suggests that mathematics is not merely a human invention or an arbitrary descriptive tool but a direct reflection of the fundamental quantum substrate from which the classical universe emerges. This explains why mathematics is so unreasonably effective: it is woven into the very fabric of reality itself.

But even the christian bible contains more proper mathematics than this offering, which as far as I can tell, contains exactly zero mathematics.

Edited June 19Jun 19 by studiot

1 hour ago, studiot said:

So perhaps you can use your "interpretation" to tell me how and why silicon, hydrogen and carbon combine with oxygen to form respectively a solid, a liquid and a gas ?

This theory doesn't attempt to replace any existing bog-standard science, such as chemistry or the phase transitions of matter. These are not outstanding scientific or philosophical problems. The only thing this theory says about this is that if it was physically necessary for the existence of conscious life that silicon, hydrogen and carbon combine with oxygen to form respectively a solid, a liquid and a gas, then it was guaranteed to happen, regardless of how improbable. This has little or nothing to do with chemistry itself.

The theory does aim to provide a new, integrated to solution to existing problems that are not satisfactorily solvable within the prevailing paradigm. Some sort of new paradigm is therefore required. I am proposing one.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

But even the christian bible contains more proper mathematics than this offering, which as far as I can tell, contains exactly zero mathematics.

There is much more to science than just mathematics. The key insight of evolution by natural selection (for example) also contains exactly zero mathematics. Is this a problem? No.

Edited June 19Jun 19 by Geoff Dann

Just now, Geoff Dann said:

Just now, studiot said:

So perhaps you can use your "interpretation" to tell me how and why silicon, hydrogen and carbon combine with oxygen to form respectively a solid, a liquid and a gas ?

This theory doesn't attempt to replace any existing bog-standard science, such as chemistry or the phase transitions of matter. These are not outstanding scientific or philosophical problems. The only thing this theory says about this is that if it was physically necessary for the existence of conscious life that silicon, hydrogen and carbon combine with oxygen to form respectively a solid, a liquid and a gas, then it was guaranteed to happen, regardless of how improbable. This has little or nothing to do with chemistry itself.

That's a no then

Just now, Geoff Dann said:

There is much more to science than just mathematics.

But I asked you specifically about another science, Chemistry, which when I studied it at university was all about how and why certain chemical reactions occur. Yes of course there are many others but to suggest that they only do so to support the existence oc conscious life is nonsensical.

Further I commented about mathematics since you told me that

Just now, Geoff Dann said:

None of the interpretations of QM are primarily dependent on new mathematics

when I asked you about mathematics,

Yet you included that nonsensical preaching about a subject you clearly know little about.

So that is two sciences you have 'rubbished' by offerring metaphysical woo in their place, which is most definitely not a science at all.

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

But I asked you specifically about another science, Chemistry, which when I studied it at university was all about how and why certain chemical reactions occur. Yes of course there are many others but to suggest that they only do so to support the existence oc conscious life is nonsensical.

And I said that this proposal makes absolutely no difference to chemistry. It isn't about chemistry. So why are you asking questions about chemistry?

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

Yet you included that nonsensical preaching about a subject you clearly know little about.

What subject is that then? You seem a little confused about what subject we're actually talking about.
We are NOT talking about chemistry.
We are NOT talking about mathematics (apart from in the most general sense of explaining why physics is so mathematical in the first place).
We ARE talking about cosmology, evolutionary biology, cognitive science and the metaphysical interpretations of quantum theory.

Does that help to clarify for you?

Just now, Geoff Dann said:

And I said that this proposal makes absolutely no difference to chemistry. It isn't about chemistry. So why are you asking questions about chemistry?

What subject is that then? You seem a little confused about what subject we're actually talking about.
We are NOT talking about chemistry.
We are NOT talking about mathematics (apart from in the most general sense of explaining why physics is so mathematical in the first place).
We ARE talking about cosmology, evolutionary biology, cognitive science and the metaphysical interpretations of quantum theory.

Does that help to clarify for you?

We are talking about what you chose to write, not what you want to pretend you didn't

Suxh as

And apparantly something called Quantum Darwinism ( is A quantum of Solace next on the fiction list ?)

And QM and geology

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

[incomprehensible]

OK. You asked for the maths. I am not a mathematician, but my theory could do with some maths to complete it. This maths needs to explain how to conjure the uncollapsed platonic multiverse from something like an "unstable void".

See attached file for 6 fascinating mathematics papers, currently unpublished (written in March), which does exactly that.

Here is how:

Part One: The Zero Point Hypersphere Framework: A Radical Proposal for Pre-Quantum Cosmogenesis

The Zero Point Hypersphere Framework (ZPHF), developed by independent theorist Stéphane L’Heureux-Blouin, is a novel approach to the foundational structure of reality. It aims to explain the emergence of quantum mechanics, spacetime, gravity, and even consciousness, not by assuming pre-existing spacetime or particle fields, but from a radically minimal pre-geometric foundation: a network of nonlocal, dimensionless void-nodes governed by topological and algebraic constraints.

At its heart, ZPHF is a void-based theory of emergence. Rather than taking spacetime or quantum fields as primitive, L’Heureux-Blouin posits a pre-physical substrate composed of so-called Di nodes—points of pure voidness that are not embedded in any background space. The only structure at this fundamental level arises from the relationships between nodes, described using octonionic flux dynamics over an S⁷ hypersphere topology. The system is inherently nonlocal, and the familiar properties of quantum entanglement, wavefunction collapse, and even causality emerge secondarily from this deeper network.

ZPHF departs radically from conventional quantum gravity approaches by embracing maximal abstraction. The Di nodes have no size, no energy, and no defined position; they are not particles or events but potentialities of activation in a topological configuration space. Their activation states evolve through what L’Heureux-Blouin calls octonion flux dynamics, a generalized form of algebraic interaction that is highly constrained by the nonassociative and noncommutative properties of the octonions. These constraints are central to the theory’s explanatory power.

The S⁷ hypersphere plays a dual role. On one hand, it encodes the possible activation states of the network in a pre-geometric sense; on the other, it gives rise to emergent spacetime curvature when projected into lower dimensions. This allows for an origin of gravity that does not depend on quantizing general relativity, but rather derives spacetime itself as an epiphenomenon of topological degree transitions. L’Heureux-Blouin claims to derive holographic scaling laws from the flux network without invoking AdS/CFT duality, instead tying entropy bounds and horizon emergence to combinatorial dynamics of the void nodes.

Central to ZPHF is the notion of the Bascule Event: a hypothesized phase transition in the void configuration that triggers the emergence of time, quantum potential, and localized structure. This event is not in spacetime but gives rise to it, marking the boundary between a timeless pre-cosmic equilibrium (defined by δV = 0) and the activated universe (δV ≠ 0). Here, δV represents the flux disequilibrium among void nodes. This disequilibrium is proposed to manifest in the macroscopic universe as dark matter energy density, and recent papers offer mathematical derivations of its magnitude that allegedly align with empirical cosmological data.

The implications are ambitious. If correct, ZPHF would offer not only a pre-quantum theory of cosmogenesis but also a new paradigm for understanding the emergence of order from nothingness. L’Heureux-Blouin gestures toward potential links with consciousness, but his work in that area remains preliminary. Nonetheless, the mathematical formalism he presents—grounded in octonion algebra, hyperspherical topology, and flux networks—is internally coherent and offers novel avenues for addressing longstanding problems like the fine-tuning of the universe, the nature of dark matter, and the origin of time.

Though speculative and outside the mainstream, the Zero Point Hypersphere Framework deserves attention as a bold attempt to reconceptualise the ground of being through abstract mathematical structures. It challenges researchers to think beyond spacetime, beyond particles, and even beyond fields, offering instead a vision of reality grounded in void, algebra, and topology.

Part Two: Bridging Void Dynamics and Conscious Selection: How L’Heureux-Blouin’s Zero Point Hypersphere Framework Resonates with the Two-Phase Cosmology of Psychegenesis

A bold new approach to cosmology and quantum gravity has emerged from the work of Stéphane L’Heureux-Blouin, culminating in his formalization of the Zero Point Hypersphere Framework (ZPHF). This suite of interrelated papers (written in March and April 2025) attempts nothing less than a first-principles derivation of quantum spacetime, dark matter behaviour, and cosmological structure from the postulate that the true ground of reality is a perfectly balanced Void composed of algebraic hypersphere nodes. L’Heureux-Blouin’s work is mathematically sophisticated, invoking octonion flux dynamics, topology, and a network of pre-geometric nodes known as void dots (“D_i”). It attempts to reconcile quantum field behaviour, holography, and gravity as emergent from a non-material substratum.

What follows is a comparative interpretation of how the central claims of ZPHF resonate with the metaphysical and cosmological proposals laid out in my own work, particularly in the framework I call the two-phase theory of cosmological and biological evolution (or “psychegenesis”). While our approaches are independent and formulated in very different registers—his rooted in formal physics and mathematics, mine in philosophical cosmology and consciousness studies—there are striking overlaps that, I believe, mutually illuminate both bodies of thought.

---

1. Void Primacy and the Pre-Psychegenesis Phase

The cornerstone of ZPHF is the axiom of Void Primacy: the idea that before spacetime, fields, or particles, there exists a state of perfectly balanced algebraic nullity. This void is not empty in the conventional sense but is constituted by a network of non-spatiotemporal entities (“void dots”), arranged such that the sum of all fluxes across the system remains exactly zero.

In my two-phase cosmology, this primordial state corresponds to the first, pre-psychegenesis phase of cosmic history. During this phase, the universe exists as a superposition of all possible worlds—a multiverse in the sense of Many Worlds Quantum Mechanics (MWI)—without collapse, structure, or particularity. There is no arrow of time, no spacetime geometry, and no actualised history.The metaphysical consonance here is significant: both frameworks begin from a fundamentally neutral, non-material field of potentiality that precedes (and underwrites) the observable universe. ZPHF gives this void a rigorous mathematical structure; my theory treats it as the noumenal ground of being, prior to conscious selection.

---

2. Degree Activation and Psychegenesis: Two Views of the Bascule

ZPHF posits that spacetime and physics emerge when certain void nodes (“D_i”) reach flux thresholds that trigger what L’Heureux-Blouin calls degree activation. These activated degrees yield localised metric properties and field behaviours. This event constitutes a phase shift from timeless algebraic balance to emergent structure.

In my own terms, this corresponds to the phase shift that occurs as psychegenesis is completed: the emergence of conscious observers capable of collapsing the superposition of potential worlds into one experienced, actualised timeline. This moment, whichL’Heureux-Blouincalls the Bascule (French for a pivot, or see-saw), is the ontological pivot of the cosmos. Before it, only potentials; after it, history.L’Heureux-Blouin does not invoke consciousness in his formulation of degree activation, treating it instead as a purely dynamical process within the flux-network. But from my perspective, degree activation can be interpreted as the physical signature of a deeper ontological act: the arrival of consciousness in the cosmos.

---

3. Fine-Tuning, Constants, and Timeline Selection

One of the core explanatory targets of ZPHF is the origin of the universe’s physical constants and the apparent fine-tuning problem. It proposes that the values of these constants reflect a specific configuration of degree activations that are consistent with long-range flux equilibrium and void stability. In other words, the constants arise not arbitrarily, but as constraints on which hyperspherical harmonics can stabilize the emergent spacetime.

My theory proposes that these constants are contingent on the timeline selected through psychegenesis. That is, in the pre-conscious phase, all possible sets of laws and constants exist in superposition; once consciousness emerges, it "chooses" a self-consistent history compatible with its own arising.These interpretations are not mutually exclusive. The constants may indeed reflect equilibrium criteria of void flux dynamics, but the realisation of one particular configuration may require the involvement of consciousness to collapse the indeterminate potentialities into an experienced world. In this light, psychegenesis provides an ontological selection mechanism, while ZPHF provides the structural logic of the options from which the selection is made.

---

4. Octonions, S^7, and the Architecture of Emergence

ZPHF’s use of octonion algebra and topology is central to its mathematical architecture. The non-associative nature of octonions allows for localized degrees of freedom without requiring a fixed background spacetime. The choice of reflects its status as one of the few spheres that is parallelisable, making it suitable as a framework for emergent locality and field behaviour.

While my work does not engage these mathematical structures directly, I propose that the ontological substrate of the universe has a non-material, holistic architecture that can support the emergence of particularised experience. In this sense, octonionic flux dynamics could be interpreted as the mathematical shadow of a deeper, conscious-ordering principle.This opens the door to an integrative view: that the S^7/octionion system describes how experience becomes structured, while psychegenesis explains why it becomes structured in the way it does. In this framing, ZPHF supplies the grammar; consciousness writes the sentence.

---

5. Emergence of Holography and Ontological Duality

L’Heureux-Blouin’s derivation of holographic principles from the internal equilibrium of void nodes resonates with my claim that the observable universe is an emanation of a deeper, noumenal ground. In both models, the manifest world is a surface projection of deeper, trans-spatiotemporal dynamics. 

Where ZPHF sees this in terms of flux encoding across the boundary of activated regions, I see it as the necessary consequence of subject-object duality: the world arises as the externalised correlate of inward consciousness. The holographic patterning thus reflects both a physical and phenomenological necessity.

---

Conclusion: Complementary Frames of the Same Event?

L’Heureux-Blouin’s ZPHF offers a daring and deeply rigorous attempt to derive physics from a void-based, algebraic substrate. My own theory, though less technical, aims to explain how consciousness fits into the cosmic story and why the universe came to have a history at all.If ZPHF describes how the world arises, the two-phase theory of psychegenesis suggests why it arises in this form. These are not contradictory views, but complementary ones. The mathematics of void activation and the metaphysics of conscious selection may, in the end, describe the same cosmic event seen from two sides: the inside and the outside of the Bascule.

Understanding the resonance between these perspectives may be a crucial step toward a new paradigm in cosmology—one that integrates formal physics with ontological insight, and treats consciousness not as an epiphenomenon, but as the axis upon which the universe turns.

merged_file.pdf

Edited June 19Jun 19 by Geoff Dann

Anytime I see consciousness mentioned in a thread about QM, I stop reading, and post a sarcastic comment, as obviously the OP doesn't even understand the 'interpretations', never mind the mathematical theory.

If I was asked to state the 'philosophy' of QM in less than 10 words I would say something like

Quantum Mechanics is about minimising energy. (6 words)

If I want to make it more mathematical I might say

Quantum Mechanics represents the Principle of Least Energy (8 words)

38 minutes ago, MigL said:

Anytime I see consciousness mentioned in a thread about QM, I stop reading, and post a sarcastic comment, as obviously the OP doesn't even understand the 'interpretations', never mind the mathematical theory.

What in particular do you think I don't understand?

1 minute ago, studiot said:

If I was asked to state the 'philosophy' of QM in less than 10 words I would say something like

Quantum Mechanics is about minimising energy. (6 words)

If I want to make it more mathematical I might say

Quantum Mechanics represents the Principle of Least Energy (8 words)

The biggest problem in QM philosophy is the Measurement Problem. See opening post for the broadest possible description of that problem.

Just now, Geoff Dann said:

What in particular do you think I don't understand?

The biggest problem in QM philosophy is the Measurement Problem. See opening post for the broadest possible description of that problem.

Whislt I don't agree that there is a 'measurement' problem, only an obscuration and obfuscation problem by those who don't understand it.

When folks in Science and Technology want to solve a problem, they don't tackle the biggest one they can find first.

They start with a (simple) model and try it out on a simple problem, preferably one with an already known solution.

When they can match their model to this they move on through increasingly difficult problems, possibly refing the model and may be even replacing the their model with a better one as the go.

I offered you the opportunity to do this with your grand hypothesis at the outset but you declined.

So what exactly is this measurement problem that you are so worried about ?

Edited June 19Jun 19 by studiot

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Whislt I don't agree that there is a 'measurement' problem, only an obscuration and obfuscation problem by those who don't understand it.

You cannot disagree that there is a measurement problem. The problem is that there is absolutely no consensus within science about what "measurement" actually means in QM, but it is not possible to get rid of it. That is the problem.

So you are disagreeing with reality. If you think there is a consensus then you are deeply mistaken.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

When folks in Science and Technology want to solve a problem, they don't tackle the biggest one they can find first.

They start with a (simple) model and try it out on a simple problem, preferably one with an already known solution.

When they can match their model to this they move on through increasingly difficult problems, possibly refing the model and may be even replacing the their model with a better one as the go.

Usually that is what they do. Occasionally there is a major "paradigm shift", and these work very differently.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I offered you the opportunity to do this with your grand hypothesis at the outset but you declined.

You offered me the opportunity to explain why my hypothesis rewrites chemistry, and I explained to you that it doesn't, because it isn't about chemistry.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

So what exactly is this measurement problem that you are so worried about ?

See above. Try asking ChatGPT.

Just now, Geoff Dann said:

You cannot disagree that there is a measurement problem. The problem is that there is absolutely no consensus within science about what "measurement" actually means in QM, but it is not possible to get rid of it. That is the problem.

You have stated that you are not a mathematician, but neither are you a scientist.

So why do you claim such absolute knowledge of what scientists agree on ?

Where is you evidence ?

Furthermore you were the one who introduced the term measurement, so it is your responsibility to define it for the purposes of this thread.

Without that, discussion cannot proceed.

You have already ignored the moderator's warning about the rules and this seems to be your style of discussion.

Good night.

8 hours ago, Geoff Dann said:

I am proposing a new one and explaining why it has vastly more explanatory power (it fits better with existing empirical data) than any other interpretations that have ever been proposed

Existing interpretations don’t deal with data and only tell you how to think about QM, which fits the data.

If yours “fits better with the data” you need to have math. If you are trying to agree with data but have no math what you have is a narrative.

8 hours ago, Geoff Dann said:

it makes the empirical prediction that we should not find any life beyond Earth's biosphere. This is both a better fit for existing observational data, and theoretically falsifiable (if we find aliens, it is falsified).

That’s quite vague and I don’t see the connection with QM

8 hours ago, Geoff Dann said:

You cannot disagree that there is a measurement problem. The problem is that there is absolutely no consensus within science about what "measurement" actually means in QM, but it is not possible to get rid of it. That is the problem.

So you are disagreeing with reality. If you think there is a consensus then you are deeply mistaken.

Usually that is what they do. Occasionally there is a major "paradigm shift", and these work very differently.

You offered me the opportunity to explain why my hypothesis rewrites chemistry, and I explained to you that it doesn't, because it isn't about chemistry.

See above. Try asking ChatGPT.

Chat GPT will just tell you what you want to hear.

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Chat GPT will just tell you what you want to hear.

OK then, in that case use ChatGPT to prove that "there is no measurement problem."

Go on. Try it.

AIs will do their best to reply to any prompt you give them, and they will tend towards being sycophantic. It does not follow they will tell you whatever you want to hear.

9 hours ago, studiot said:

Furthermore you were the one who introduced the term measurement, so it is your responsibility to define it for the purposes of this thread.

Without that, discussion cannot proceed.

"The Measurement Problem" is the biggest outstanding problem in QM, and has been so for the last 100 years.

It is not my job to educate you about the basics of quantum mechanics.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

Existing interpretations don’t deal with data and only tell you how to think about QM, which fits the data.

That is not the case. This interpretation resolves multiple long-standing problems, where "problems" includes "accounting for existing empirical data".

For example -- this interpretation makes the empirical prediction that the universe should be fine-tuned for the emergence of conscious life. None of the others do.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

If yours “fits better with the data” you need to have math. If you are trying to agree with data but have no math what you have is a narrative.

According to that logic, Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection did not agree with the data, because it did not involve any maths, and therefore it is "just a narrative".

Which is, of course, total bullshit.

>>That’s quite vague and I don’t see the connection with QM

Then you either didn't read the opening post, or you failed to understand it.,

Edited June 20Jun 20 by Geoff Dann

Just now, Geoff Dann said:

7 hours ago, studiot said:

Furthermore you were the one who introduced the term measurement, so it is your responsibility to define it for the purposes of this thread.

Without that, discussion cannot proceed.

"The Measurement Problem" is the biggest outstanding problem in QM, and has been so for the last 100 years.

It is not my job to educate you about the basics of quantum mechanics.

Whenever I ask you something specific about your claims.

You avoid answering or offering any support for them.

In your opening post you refer to of site material where you claim QM to be the reason for both biological and geological - again unsuported claims.

However if your really understood either of your claims you would not have been so downright rude about Chemistry, since the 4 elements I referred to are part of the handful of most abundant at the surface of the Earth and the fact that one of them combines with oxygen to form a liquid is widely held to be reason for terrrestrial biogenesis.

Discussion (this is a discussion site, not your preaching platform) is a two way process.

I have examined your posts and while I do not claim to have fully combed them, I note you do not pay attention to mine.

Have you nothing whatsoever to say about energy ?

Do you even know what energy is ?

Edited June 20Jun 20 by studiot

13 hours ago, Geoff Dann said:

Try asking ChatGPT.

Moderator Note

Not if you want to continue discussing it here. Rule 2.13

3 hours ago, Geoff Dann said:

According to that logic, Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection did not agree with the data, because it did not involve any maths, and therefore it is "just a narrative".

Which is, of course, total bullshit.

Darwin had a model. If you don’t think probability is math I can’t help you and if you think you can do physics without math we have a serious problem. And speculations has its own rules.

20 hours ago, Geoff Dann said:

(3) MWI. Denies collapse, but this implies our minds are continually splitting. Very hard to believe, hence more popular with Hollywood and the general public than with scientists.

This looks to me like an argument from incredulity.

2 hours ago, KJW said:

This looks to me like an argument from incredulity.

Well, it isn't. I'm not arguing that MWI must be false because it is unbelievable in this way. I am merely pointing out that most people do indeed find it unbelievable, and that is one of the main reasons that it has remained a fringe theory instead of commanding a consensus.

At the end of the day I am offering an alternative model which makes intuitive sense, and hoping people will just abandon MWI because they've finally been offered something better. At the moment people who believe MWI tend to do so not because it is particularly believable, but because they consider all of the alternatives to be even worse.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Moderator Note

Not if you want to continue discussing it here. Rule 2.13

I am afraid I cannot find your rules. If you've really got a rule which says nobody is allowed to suggest somebody else privately uses AI to do research then that is rather a silly rule, IMO. I am guessing the actual rule doesn't say that at all.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Darwin had a model. If you don’t think probability is math I can’t help you and if you think you can do physics without math we have a serious problem. And speculations has its own rules.

I have a model, and it is all about probability -- considerably more than Darwin's is. It redefines what probability means within the context of QM.

What is your actual objection? I can't see one. Not all science boils down to mathematics. This is so obviously true that I'm really not sure why I am having defend the idea. This theory is about the interface between cosmology, evolutionary biology, cognitive science and the interpretations of QM. It does not need any maths. I am also a recognised authority on fungi (and have written a 500+ page book on it). There is no maths in that either. Do you think that means it is unscientific?

3 hours ago, studiot said:

However if your really understood either of your claims you would not have been so downright rude about Chemistry...

Have you nothing whatsoever to say about energy ?

Do you even know what energy is ?

OK. With the greatest respect I don't think there's much point in me continuing to discuss this with you. Have a nice day.

Edited June 20Jun 20 by Geoff Dann

1 hour ago, Geoff Dann said:

I am afraid I cannot find your rules. If you've really got a rule which says nobody is allowed to suggest somebody else privately uses AI to do research then that is rather a silly rule, IMO. I am guessing the actual rule doesn't say that at all.

You can’t bring it into the discussion. And in any other context it’s off-topic.

I have a model, and it is all about probability -- considerably more than Darwin's is. It redefines what probability means within the context of QM.

Where is it? Can you determine a probability without math?

What is your actual objection? I can't see one. Not all science boils down to mathematics.

This is purportedly about QM, which does.

This is so obviously true that I'm really not sure why I am having defend the idea. This theory is about the interface between cosmology, evolutionary biology, cognitive science and the interpretations of QM. It does not need any maths.

You claimed it was an interpretation of QM in the thread title. But if it’s a theory, can you name another physics theory that doesn’t have math?

I am also a recognised authority on fungi (and have written a 500+ page book on it). There is no maths in that either. Do you think that means it is unscientific?

Not being science (or being pop-sci) and being unscientific aren’t the same thing. What experiments did you run to determine the toxicity of the mushrooms?

Is this supposed to lend credibility to your claims? Stereotypically it’s the physicists who overstep their area of expertise.