2025-12-30 | | Total: 5
What happens to a unified conscious field when its physical implementation straddles a black hole event horizon? This paper addresses that question for integration-based theories, including Integrated Information Theory, Global Workspace Theory, and Predictive Processing. These views share a structural commitment: unity requires a single strongly connected component (SCC) in an effective causal graph over a finite integration window $τ$. Using the standard black hole causal structure, I show that no SCC can span an event horizon. Any theory that ties unity to strong connectivity must therefore accept that a single conscious field cannot remain numerically identical and unified across such a configuration. From the perspective of the theories themselves, the outcome is bifurcation: each causally connected subsystem continues to satisfy the very structural criteria the theory declared necessary for a unified field. On any such view, the number and boundaries of unified conscious fields are therefore fixed not by the substrate alone but by the conjunction of its internal architecture with the relativistic causal structure of the spacetime it occupies, a dependency that ordinary spacetime conceals by supplying it so abundantly, but which an event horizon abruptly withdraws.
In this note I sketch the work of Christiaan Huygens to develop a theory of motion and its application to elastic collisions. In this theory he uses the relativity of uniform linear motion to derive the conservation of momentum and kinetic energy (at the time referred to as living force or vis viva). The conservation of living force was used subsequently by Leibniz as a basic general principle of dynamics, an alternative to that of Newton set forth in the Principia Mathematica.
Since its inception, quantum theory has been the subject of fierce interpretive controversy, which persists to this day. Disputed topics include the basic ontology and dynamics of the theory, the role (if any) of measurement, the meaning of probability, and the issue of non-locality. But there is yet another problem that has been largely ignored: how the theory makes contact with observational data. The problem is endemic to physics, and was discussed by Einstein in several places. In this essay, I discuss Einstein's general approach, how it applied to some quantum-mechanical phenomena, and why a central aspect of the solution might lead to novel and important new predictions.
This paper argues that the traditional opposition between determinism and indeterminism in physics is representational rather than ontological. Deterministic--stochastic dualities are available in principle, and arise in a non-contrived way in many scientifically important models. When dynamical systems admit mathematically equivalent deterministic and stochastic formulations, their observable predictions depend only on the induced structure of correlations between preparations and measurement outcomes. I use this model-equivalence to motivate a model-invariance criterion for ontological commitment, according to which only structural features that remain stable across empirically equivalent representations, and whose physical effects are invariant under such reformulations, are candidates for realism. This yields a fallibilist form of structural realism grounded in modal robustness rather than in the specifics of any given mathematical representation. Features such as conservation laws, symmetries, and causal or metric structure satisfy this criterion and can be encoded in observable relations in mathematically intelligible ways. By contrast, the localisation of modal selection -- whether in initial conditions, stochastic outcomes, or informational collapse mechanisms -- is not invariant under empirically equivalent reformulations and is therefore best understood as a gauge choice rather than an ontological feature. The resulting framework explains how certain long-standing problems in the foundations of physics, including the measurement problem and the perceived conflict between physical determinism and free agency, arise from the reification of representational artefacts. By distinguishing model-invariant structure from modelling conventions, I offer a realist ontology for modern physics that combines empirical openness with resistance to metaphysical overreach.
In a recent preprint [1] Jeffrey Bub presents a discussion of neo-Bohrian interpretations of quantum mechanics, and also of von Neumann's work on infinite tensor products [2]. He rightfully writes that this work provides a theoretical framework that deflates the measurement problem and justifies Bohr's insistence on the primacy of classical concepts. But then he rejects these ideas, on the basis that the infinity limit is "never reached for any real system composed of a finite number of elementary systems". In this note we present opposite views on two major points: first, admitting mathematical infinities in a physical theory is not a problem, if properly done; second, the critics of [3,4,5] comes with a major misunderstanding of these papers: they don't ask about "the significance of the transition from classical to quantum mechanics", but they start from a physical ontology where classical and quantum physics need each other from the beginning. This is because they postulate that a microscopic physical object (or degree of freedom) always appears as a quantum system, within a classical context. Here we argue why this (neo-Bohrian) position makes sense.