EmeraldBeetle
Hi, I told I would ignore , but we evolve after all, and each of us has our own character. So I will explain my point of view, because this essay is a very good general attempt, even if I see things differently, philosophically speaking.
The Many-Worlds interpretation is well chosen and correlated with phenomenology and cybernetics. Can we have a singular consciousness within the universal wave function? Maybe and it is indeed a philosophical choice. The measurement problem is very important, and distinguishing between continuousand discontinuous processes is interesting. If decoherence is understood in the way your essay presents it, then I understand well the idea of the Relative State Observer (RSO). The collapse is not considered fundamental, but rather a kind of entanglement between observer and system, since the observer is part of the universal wave function. That is philosophically relevant.
I see things differently, as you know, with my idea of a 0D infinite and eternal consciousness in my theory of spherisation. But the consciousness of the observer in my model is similar in one sense, because we express a finite part of this 0D consciousness through our physical structures. So I recognize the generality and relevance of your approach, even if I interpret quantum mechanics and the universe differently. Whether we speak of Many-Worlds, QBism, Copenhagen, the multiverse,....... or spherisation as in my theory, we cannot assert any of these absolutely because of our limitations.
Your discussion of phenomenal consciousness and its instantiation is interesting regarding dualism, as in Everett’s works. The adaptation of observers to environments is also a key in your RSO model,it seems Darwinian.This consciousness, together with intelligence and evolution, improves interactions, and this is an important point about Darwinism. If observation, observer states, and decoherence are seen in this logic, then choices and qualia also evolve; and in that sense, Darwinian adaptation and wisdom,perhaps even universal altruism,can lead to better interactions. That is why the critiques of Lorraine concerning Everett’s Many-Worlds interpretation are interesting, especially regarding agency and knowledge ,categories.And if we consider the causes, the knowledges and the evolution, so the universe evolves and the imrpovement is foundamental and so the darwinism is not static but evolves also .....
How should we consider entanglement, decoherence, continuity, discontinuity, the wave function, and the collapse? In the end, it is purely philosophical. Still, I can recognize the quality of your essay and its general attempt to unify things.quantum mechanics, information theory, cybernetics, and philosophy of mind. It is concrete because it follows a kind of cognitive logic within Everett’s reasoning.
But as you know, I interpret things differently, metaphysically speaking. The phenomenological reasoning in my theory differs concerning physical structures as primary essence, mathematical equations as descriptive tools, and logical relationships that complete the puzzle.That is why I appreciate Lorraine’s reasoning about numbers, knowledge, categories, and agency,it seems to me that we may need an infinite, eternal consciousness that codes, knows, and creates. This is how we interpret and choose the phenomenological correlations between physical structures and subjective experiences. Whether we take the mathematical universe, Hilbert space, or general relativity ......or interpretations,it seems we need a deeper universal logic. But of course, I repeat, we do not know,we can only extrapolate interpretations.
Your RSO model is consistent, and I respect that. Your empirical phenomenal continuity within a relative-state ontology is well argued, and it correctly locates reality.Congratulations on that.
We need both structures and relations. Personally, I prefer the abstract, infinite, eternal consciousness in 0D, as you know, but your empirical-phenomenal reality within a quantum-cybernetic framework is interesting because the observer expresses functions through consciousness and cognitive information processes. You have worked both epistemologically and ontologically. So I will send you beers from Belgium lol and some chocolates. After a few beers, perhaps you will go even further into Everettian realism, with deeper cybernetic functions. In the end, you might develop these phenomenological and empirical ideas even more, Laugh is good for health after all.
For me, life and consciousness belong to metaphysics, as you know. The universe itself seems to have life and consciousness as its basis, structured physically but rooted in something deeper. We cannot yet know, we cannot claim the truth. But we can keep exploring.
Best Regards
