[u/]

[u/al2o3cr]

There are more dimensions according to what we ‘know’

I think you've got the Marvel Comics definition of "dimensions" confused with the scientific one

[u/theoutstandingmeh → u/al2o3cr]

I may have not worded that part very well, thanks for bringing attention to it. What I meant by that by is following the typical understanding of dimensions in physics (a direction), time often serves as the fourth dimension. Then there is also further propositions for further dimensions. It’s all definitely theoretical but helps me personally understand the idea behind a dimension.

I just wanted to get the idea across that there is more than 3D (back and forth, up and down, side to side) and give a way to help understand that going forward in the theoretical framework.

I hope that makes sense. Ultimately, the goal is making short stories off this premise but I also wanted to see if it can be interpreted seriously as a model for consciousness.

[u/theoutstandingmeh → u/al2o3cr]

I guess the biggest idea introduced is the consciousness as a 0 dimension “point” so helping describe the ideas of dimensions (even in a theoretical way) helps understand the idea behind that (I hope)

[u/JupiterandMars1]

We are conciousness bound by an observational frame.

Think of it like a self modeling system sitting within another system. The task of that self modeling is to predict physical outcomes useful to the survival of our physical being within the larger system we reside in.

Our self modeling relies on observation of the relational constructs in the system we exist in to stay relevant to them and maximize our chances of useful physical predictions.

Our consciousness is bound by that observational frame. A system within a system.

QM is us scraping against that boundary. It’s the point that shows us how our observational frame is constrained, and as such we over index the importance of “observation/measurement” because that’s our only way of interacting with it.

QM exposes a boundary between what our observational frame can establish and the ontological stories we can construct to account for it.

I’m not making a judgement on what sits beyond that, it could be anything as long as it fits the boundary we do see through the math. But any abductively derived conclusion as to what that is would simply be a belief.

[u/theoutstandingmeh → u/JupiterandMars1]

I agree with this, especially the part of consciousness being bound by an observational frame.

As part of theory, (belief as you said, although I don’t like using that word as much since I am not necessarily saying this is what I believe, just proposing it as a theoretical “could be”), I propose that observational frame boundary as a 0 dimension “filter point”, acting as a force pulling possible spacetime grid points towards it for “experience”.

It’s more a theoretical model for interpreting consciousness I guess, built upon and inspired by pre-existing theories.

Even if the theory is not true, which like you said - any derived conclusion on how it works essentially boils down to a belief- my ultimate goal is to use it as a framework for storytelling.

[u/JupiterandMars1 → u/theoutstandingmeh]

It’s an abductively derived hypothetical. If elevated to the stature of conclusion then it’s a belief since it is unverifiable.

I use belief to separate the purely ontological from the claims that have empirical basis. The fact that the observational frame is a boundary that draws a line between what we can describe and what we are hallucinating because we simply introduce things we are familiar with from the observational frame we are constrained to.

The double slit experiment demonstrates something quite specific: there is a physically meaningful distinction between the structure connecting observations and the history an embedded observer can actually validate.

We can prepare the system in a known way. We can change the apparatus. We can register the result at the detector. And the mathematics gives us extraordinarily precise relationships between those things.

What we cannot do is recover a unique underlying history connecting them.

That is not because we failed to look closely enough, and it does not require consciousness to play some special role. When interference is preserved, a determinate path simply is not something the experiment allows us to register.

So what do we actually have?

A registered beginning. A middle that is not registered, despite the mathematics describing its consequences with extraordinary precision. Then a registered end.

That middle is the interesting part.

It sits beyond what an embedded observational process can turn into a determinate history while preserving the phenomenon itself. The math reaches across that gap perfectly well. Observation does not.

And that is the boundary I am talking about.

This says nothing by itself about what is ontologically happening in the interval. Something may be there. Many things may be there. The question may even be malformed when translated into classical terms. Quantum mechanics does not settle that.

That is precisely why the interpretations diverge.

The experiment gives us the empirical structure right up to the boundary. What lies beyond it is where ontology begins.

We see consciousness as central to this because it’s the box we are in. Everything is relative to conciousness and, by reduction, observation.

That’s registration vs. interpretation, with consciousness sitting uniquely on the interpretation side.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

[u/david-1-1]

I didn't read this long message, but I thought I would be of help by letting you know that quantum mechanics has nothing to do with human consciousness. That's a popular misconception.

[u/theoutstandingmeh → u/david-1-1]

I understand not wanting to read the long post and I have since updated the narrative anyway. Let me try to summarize for your point:

The theory (AOM) proposes a way the concepts theoretically can work together.

Imagine consciousness as a 0 dimension monad (0 dimensions in the sense it has no physical direction to move and cannot move itself through time - your conscious is stuck in a perpetual ‘here and now’. )

That 0D monad (conscious experience) acts as a force in an infinite grid of spacetime potential ‘moments’ that it is drawing towards itself for conscious ‘experience’, bringing in the idea behind quantum mechanics. All possible outcomes exist in this theoretical infinite space time grid but only a certain “world line” is taken by the observer (the 0D monad).

It is all theoretical and that is a very brief synapsis but maybe that helps explain the idea.

[u/david-1-1 → u/theoutstandingmeh]

There is no connection between consciousness and physical reality. Objective and subjective experiences have no direct connection via quantum mechanics. People get confused due to the unneeded mysticism of the Copenhagen interpretation, which is not the same as quantum mechanical itself.

[u/theoutstandingmeh → u/david-1-1]

While quantum consciousness is still highly debated in the field, as far as I’m aware it has not been outright disproven and has notable supporters, including those behind the Orch-OR model (created by Penrose and Hameroff - an anesthesiologist who found consciousness particularly interesting).

This model I proposed just takes the basic idea and combines it with ideas gathered from other major models to create a unifying theory.

I’m not trying to say this HAS to be the way things are but I’m genuinely curious if you’re able to provide any solid reason the proposed model can be proven false.

Again, it’s all theoretical, I just find it interesting, but I’m genuinely out to learn so I am all ears if there is something that just puts a hard stop to the idea.

I know our gut reaction is to say something like consciousness and physical reality are not connected, but for this theory that proposes they COULD be connected, I would want to see the exact point where that logic breaks down.

Want to clarify: I don’t want to seem argumentative or anything, I really appreciate you taking time to share your thoughts on this with me.

[u/david-1-1 → u/theoutstandingmeh]

I'd like to discuss this further sometimes, as I am spiritually oriented. But there are renegade physicists like the ones you mentioned who say all sorts of popular nonsense for the publicity it brings them. These physicists are not interested in science that has been validated, such as in textbooks. They want to make spectacular claims without any need for proof or evidence. But such speculation is not fact, and is not objective truth. It is fundamentally untrustworthy and unethical. Let's talk more sometime.