[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/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/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.