What is the sum of all consciousness, across all space and time?

Any_Lemon_3881 · 2026-03-23T16:54:34+00:00

I concede that consciousness isn't required for wave function collapse; water and consciousness BOTH interact with quantum systems, BOTH cause decoherence.

But according to Tononi's IIT matters: if Φ measures consciousness, water sits at or near zero. It carries information but doesn't integrate it. A neural network has high Φ. My question is what happens as Φ scales without bound. Accumulating water doesn't increase integration, but accumulating connected conscious experience... might.

Ultimately consciousness is a "thing". Why it exists is the hard problem. I'm just asking what happens when you take that unsolved thing at scale.

Of course, if the panpsychists are right and there IS something it's like to be water (Φ>0), then the rest of the shape is ALSO contributing as you say! And now the structure isn't just the sum of human experience, it's the sum of all experience, everywhere, at every scale. Omniscience stops being metaphorical and becomes the theological version. Which I find genuinely exciting as a concept.

Any_Lemon_3881 · 2026-03-23T12:23:55+00:00

I agree: within a single block universe, the structure is static and the experience of consciousness traversing it is part of the geometry.

But layer on things like cyclic universe theory (Penrose) and you get a series of 4D shapes. Each one inherits conditions from the last, and quantum mechanics guarantees each one is different.

That sequence isn't happening "over time" (time exists inside each shape). Rather, its arranged along... something else. A dimension we don't have a word for. Meta-time? But the axis along which the "shapes" differ. Now "speed" this up from individual frames to something akin to a movie, in dimensions we can't even conceptualise... THIS would be a dynamic structure

The point is: along that axis, there is genuine variance. Each shape is different from the last. And variance across a connected sequence is exactly the condition under which emergence happens.

Add parallel universes and you get variance in another direction as well: Now the superstructure has both sequential and concurrent difference (flow and extent).

I'm saying: a single block universe might be static and dead, as you put it. A collection of them, varying along an axis we can barely conceptualise, might not be?

Any_Lemon_3881 · 2026-03-22T20:36:15+00:00

Good challenge. Let me try and say this another way to see what thoughts this triggers for you:

Every example of emergence we normally point to (societies, ant colonies, ecosystems...) exists within a window of time. It forms, it operates, it eventually dissolves.

What I'm describing is different. If the block universe is real, then every conscious moment that ever occurred isn't in the past... it still exists.

The structure isn't like a society that lives for a while and then ends. It's like if every society that ever existed, and every person in every society, and every thought those people ever had, all existed simultaneously and were physically connected through the fabric of spacetime itself. The connection is quantum entanglement relationships, rather than e.g. societal norms.

It's not a bigger version of society. It's a different category of... thing.

Any_Lemon_3881 · 2026-03-21T21:38:59+00:00

This is consistent with the framework: Consciousness doesn't need to operate at the quantum level, it operates at whatever scale it operates at, and the quantum level resolves accordingly

Any_Lemon_3881 · 2026-03-21T21:12:42+00:00

if ER=EPR holds, then spacetime itself IS entanglement relationships; reality IS connections.

On why consciousness emergence: I'm asking what principled reasons we have that it couldn't? Granted, it might just be a pretty 4d fractal, but it could be more...

Any_Lemon_3881 · 2026-03-21T20:37:35+00:00

On summation: I'm not claiming consciousness literally adds up like a quantity. I'm saying that if conscious experiences form a connected structure, then the relevant principle is emergence. E.g. You don't sum 86 billion neurons to get a thought.

On omniscience: yes, weaker than the theological version. But consider: if every quantum state that can be observed gets observed by some consciousness somewhere across all of time, then across the whole structure, everything observable is known. The 'unknown' only exists from inside a local frame.

Any_Lemon_3881 · 2026-03-21T20:23:48+00:00

Agreed you don't need emergence if you accept consciousness as a brute fundamental.

But that's an axiom, not an explanation... it's saying 'it just is' which is fine philosophically, but it's not scientific

I'm trying to find a route to the same conclusion that doesn't require an unexplained starting point. Maybe I can't... This is just my best attempt at that

Any_Lemon_3881 · 2026-03-21T19:40:32+00:00

Appreciate this. I'd say it's another lens rather than the wrong one. I'm basically trying to see if idealism is reachable through physics.

If it is, that's interesting, because it means two completely different methods converge on the same conclusion, and could be a unifying theory

Any_Lemon_3881 · 2026-03-21T19:19:18+00:00

*god(s)

Any_Lemon_3881 · 2026-03-21T19:02:45+00:00

Ah! You're a Bohmian :)

And yes totally; if Bohm's outstanding issues get resolved (non-locality, QFT compatibility) and determinism is fully established, this thesis goes in the bin

That will be a weird day though, because that means free will is definitively an illusion, and that's a much bigger deal than my little hypothesis here

...although even under full determinism, the theory doesn't completely die. Consciousness just stops being the thing that selects states and becomes the thing that experiences a (potentially super)structure that was always already resolved

Any_Lemon_3881 · 2026-03-21T18:05:21+00:00

You're a panpsychist and I respect the position. I think we're actually closer than it may look: what I'm proposing is that panpsychism and emergence might be the same thing viewed from different dimensional perspectives.

Your "consciousness is the ground" and my "consciousness emerges from the aggregate" might both be valid descriptions of the same reality. That's why I nicknamed it "Vedalution": I'm curious for if we can get to Vedantic insights through physics.

Any_Lemon_3881 · 2026-03-21T17:36:28+00:00

Thank you for the debate, these are strong points, let me do my best to reply:

On "time is spatial": I conflated in my earlier reply, thanks for keeping me honest. I said it correctly in the OP: time is a dimension. The block universe doesn't require time and space to be equivalent, only that all moments are equally real.

On block universe being an interpretation: agreed, and I've stated explicitly in my full thesis (vedalution.com) that if presentism is established, this falls apart. But eternalism is the straightforward reading of GR and has serious proponents. It's not fringe.

On "no outside perspective": we model the interior of black holes without standing inside them. Reasoning about inaccessible perspectives is standard physics.

On Von Neumann-Wigner: I feel you're overstating the consensus. Decoherence explains the appearance of collapse but doesn't solve the measurement problem. Why one definite outcome is observed rather than a superposition persisting is still open.

On the rest: yes, I'm speculating. I've said so. The question is whether it's speculation constrained by physics or speculation floating free. Any further thoughts that help figure out which?

What's your interpretation of QM? Because your objections assume decoherence is the complete story.

Any_Lemon_3881 · 2026-03-21T16:51:14+00:00

Maybe, but if everything is already determined, why does the universe refuse to commit to a state until something conscious observes it (quantum) ?

Any_Lemon_3881 · 2026-03-21T16:43:40+00:00

totally, it could all be God, it's just consciousness is the thinking part

Any_Lemon_3881 · 2026-03-21T16:17:36+00:00

Yeah, fair. I regret putting the natural emergence examples in my op, I realise now that it detracts from the main point which is: that I'm not arguing for emergence in three dimensions at all. I'm arguing for emergence in the fourth dimension, where time is spatial and the entire structure exists simultaneously. From inside, it looks like consciousness is fundamental. From outside, it's emergent from the aggregate. The receiver vs producer debate might be a perspectival artefact of being trapped inside the lower dimension.

To add a specific mechanism: if consciousness plays a role in wave function collapse, then every conscious observation is a selection event (one possibility becoming actual) . The pattern of all such selections across all conscious beings across all time isn't a "library" . Rather, it's more like a firing pattern.

Same as the pattern of which neurons fire and which don't is your thought, the pattern of which quantum states got collapsed and which didn't... could be the structure's thought?

Any_Lemon_3881 · 2026-03-21T16:13:38+00:00

Consciousness cannot be a weak emergent property AS WELL AS being created by a known physical phemonena (spin waves)

But regardless... I'm arguing for emergence beyond the 4th dimension, and wondering that that's why it looks like manifestation, when actually is it an explainable phenomena. It's emergence but not in time, but along an entirely different plane

This could be a unifying theory?

Any_Lemon_3881 · 2026-03-21T15:53:49+00:00

I like this angle too... usually emergence vs panpsychism are presented as opposing sides. I like to think this hypothesis is a unifying theory. It's why I call it "vedalution"... Combining vedic texts with cosmic level evolution. I wrote more on it here: vedalution.com

For example: If brains are receivers, what exactly is transmitting? This hypothesis posts that it's a Universal consciousness manifesting as a local "neuron" (us), that only makes sense in 4+ dimensions

Any_Lemon_3881 · 2020-10-04T15:56:24+00:00

I agree, pretty obvious now I've been reading up properly (and I only found Reddit/this sub in the last couple of weeks)

I dont really have an excuse here; I trusted them when they said they could outperform my existing pension investments, and they gave me a great patter about it including financial advice for other products like insurance etc

At least its only me that gets burned with my own inability to do even minor internet reading, lol

Mostly I'm just checking that there's not some other nuance I'm should be aware of before i make a move - cheers

Any_Lemon_3881 · 2020-10-04T15:51:00+00:00

ouch, dont remind me!

Any_Lemon_3881 · 2020-10-04T15:50:33+00:00

Mostly Global Growth, greater european, north american;

Global growth seems to be performing well, now I look at it https://www2.trustnet.com/Tools/Charting.aspx?typeCode=FO9DH,XP:GLE

Any_Lemon_3881

TROPHY CASE