EmeraldBeetle Be professional, EmeraldBeetle. We are discussing, not asserting things that others have not said. Please do not risk your credibility with attitude or vanity ,that is not how a good professional acts in philosophy or science.
I have engaged with your essay several times and explained why, in my opinion, it is of interest but not particularly special or innovative from an ontological point of view. However, the general quality is good.
Let’s analyze further. Your essay, as I mentioned, seems to be an attempt to refine or extend the MWI or the works of Ney and Carroll, whose analyses I respect. Regarding the works of de Broglie and Bohm on pilot waves, they are much more concrete than Everett’s approach ontologically speaking, because position and properties follow the Schrödinger equation. The particles are explicitly considered, and there is a clear logic for their trajectory and position. This is concrete regarding the quantum potential.
Their works are therefore more deterministic and realistic, as they propose a coherent physical field in space, not merely a mathematical tool. Furthermore, we can consider possible hidden variables in their reasoning.
Bohmian mechanics can include a universal wavefunction describing all particles in the universe, but in Bohm’s view, this universal ψ has physical meaning only through the configuration of the actual particles it guides , something that the MWI lacks. That is why my interpretation can follow the reasoning of de Broglie–Bohm, Copenhagen, and Rovelli. Information can be correlated only through logical relationships and physical structures for the fields ,something I believe you do not fully grasp. Particles are fundamental; without them, ψ would be only an abstract wave in a high-dimensional space with no physical 3D reality. This seems totally impossible ontologically and universally. That is what makes your RSO and the MWI weak.
Let’s take a musical analogy. I have played guitar and piano for more than 30 years and also write poems, the arts are important for creativity, and science follows a similar logic of constructing harmonies while respecting structure and logic.
The guitar represents the physical structures ,the instrument for matter, fields, and real geometrical entities. The player represents the cause or physical mechanism. The sound and waves are the results, with amplitudes and wavefunctions. In the MWI, the sound is assumed to be everything but there is no guitar and no player, no cause for the branches and no physical carrier for the waves.
The worlds are merely mathematical decohered patterns inside ψ, but ψ itself exists in Hilbert space, not in our 3D space. This is totally incoherent universally, because reality needs physical substrates and mechanisms to generate real physical matter and energy. You do not seem to understand this due to what I would call a philosophical confinement. Mathematical formalism can be coherent and elegant, but the equations lack physical entities and logical structures.
De Broglie and Bohm include real objects in 3D space. The MWI says the universe is the wave, while de Broglie and Bohm say the universe has waves and things that generate them.
That is exactly what my reasoning about spherisation supports ,we need physical structures, not just abstract mathematical amplitudes. My Objective Spherisation Interpretation (OSI) goes a step beyond Bohm, Copenhagen, and Rovelli, and it fits well because we have information, energy, and matter in physical structures implying coherence, memory, negentropy, and evolution. MWI or your RSO cannot provide this. We simply need real ontological units and structures.
The universal wavefunction alone, as in MWI, is like describing music with no instrument and no performer ,mathematically interesting and elegant but ontologically incomplete. The de Broglie–Bohm theory adds the instrument (particles) and the rules of motion, giving physical meaning to the melody.
My OSI adds one more layer a physical geometry and informational logic underlying the instruments themselves, which could unify matter, energy, and information.
To you, my dear thinker.
Best regards,
