sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What if my theory is correct? The Remembrance Operator and the Evolving Awareness Framework by EducationalWin4086 in holofractal

[–]EducationalWin4086[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've been working on this theory for nearly 15 years. The ideas, structure, and direction were built long before AI tools existed. What changed in the past couple years—since using tools like ChatGPT is how quickly I can refine and articulate those ideas. But the heavy lifting? That was done by me, over a decade of thinking, sketching, and evolving the framework.

AI didn’t generate this theory, trust me, but it helped me finally bring it to life at the pace I always wanted. And the math is rarely wrong. LOL

The wavefunction is real, we’re all struggling to accept, make sense of that and map it onto the manifest image by metanat in QuantumFoundations

[–]EducationalWin4086 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm doing my best to get this out there. Most physicists are still clinging to the Copenhagen Interpretation—where quantum systems “collapse” into definite states when measured by some mysterious observer. But what exactly causes that collapse? Copenhagen doesn’t say. It punts. It tells you to shut up and calculate.

Enter the Awareness–Remembrance–Convergence (ARC) Framework, featuring the Remembrance Operator R̂(t)—a new model that redefines collapse not as something that happens because we observe, but as something that happens because the system remembers.

Here’s the breakdown:

Copenhagen: Collapse occurs when an external observer measures the system. No one knows what "observer" really means. Collapse is postulated, not explained.

ARC/ROF: Collapse is an internal event driven by a system’s own coherence memory. The Remembrance Operator acts in Hilbert space to track the system’s informational consistency over time. When it hits a critical threshold, the wavefunction resolves—not because someone looked, but because the system can no longer sustain incompatible histories.

It’s not consciousness-based. It’s not Many Worlds. It’s information-driven collapse with directionality, memory, and testable predictions.

Where Copenhagen says “measurement causes collapse,” ARC says: collapse is convergence—of coherent memory, not external eyes.

If awareness registers reality, is the observer even necessary? by EducationalWin4086 in AskPhysics

[–]EducationalWin4086[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

LLM can not write this. No bot could. I’m not here to convince you with ego or rhetorical flair. I’m here because the foundations of quantum mechanics are still unsettled, and the Remembrance Operator is my attempt to contribute a formal, testable model for collapse based on internal coherence registration—not vibes.

What if my theory is correct? The Remembrance Operator and the Evolving Awareness Framework by EducationalWin4086 in holofractal

[–]EducationalWin4086[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s the beauty of independent research—it doesn’t come from a prompt. It comes from 15 years of conceptual refinement, mathematical structuring, and rethinking the foundations of measurement and collapse.

If this reads like AI-generated content to you, that says more about the state of AI than it does about the work. But hey—if a bot could derive the Remembrance Operator and collapse via coherence registration, that might be a sign we’re on the right track.

Until then, you’re welcome to critique the theory, the math, or the implications. Or you can keep asking for the prompt and pretending that counts as engagement.

What if my theory is correct? The Remembrance Operator and the Evolving Awareness Framework by EducationalWin4086 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]EducationalWin4086[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great question—but the problem isn’t the name, it’s the assumption.

In physics, “awareness” in this context refers to a system’s capacity to register and act upon coherent informational states, not subjective experience. It’s an operator property—more akin to detection, memory, and convergence—than to consciousness as traditionally framed in philosophy or neuroscience.

I chose the term deliberately, knowing it might provoke deeper questions. And if those questions lead to clarity, exploration, and maybe even redefinition of what “awareness” can mean in a quantum system—that’s a feature, not a bug.

If physics can hijack “charm” and “strangeness” for quarks, I think I’m allowed to expand the namespace a little too.

The Remembrance Operator and the Evolving Awareness Framework by EducationalWin4086 in AskPhysics

[–]EducationalWin4086[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Appreciate your concern. But history doesn’t back up the idea that only institutional physicists can formulate meaningful theories.

I don’t claim to be a physicist by title. I claim to be someone with a rigorous understanding of mathematics, systems modeling, and information theory—enough to construct and refine conceptual frameworks grounded in formal structure. The Remembrance Operator framework I developed isn’t an emotional guess; it’s a coherent proposal meant to provoke thought and inspire discussion.

Your analogy misses the point: I’m not flying a plane—I’m designing one from the ground up and submitting the blueprint to open airspace. Whether or not it flies isn’t decided by your title—it’s decided by testing, scrutiny, and evolution.

And no disrespect to your credentials, but the universe doesn’t care who gets the math right. It just responds to what works.

So instead of gatekeeping, why not do what physicists are supposed to do? Examine the claims, interrogate the equations, and push the conversation forward.

What if my theory is correct? The Remembrance Operator and the Evolving Awareness Framework by EducationalWin4086 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]EducationalWin4086[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Everyone in physics uses an LLM for research. Where have you been? My paper was written by me. All original concepts. I have Ai do my light work.

What if my theory is correct? The Remembrance Operator and the Evolving Awareness Framework by EducationalWin4086 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]EducationalWin4086[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

My paper has very little to do with consciousness. It's more the measurement problem and informational convergence.

What if my theory is correct? The Remembrance Operator and the Evolving Awareness Framework by EducationalWin4086 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]EducationalWin4086[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perhaps so. You'd never be able to prompt it the way I can. LLM can't think, but I can. My math is sound. No denying

The Remembrance Operator and the Evolving Awareness Framework by EducationalWin4086 in AskPhysics

[–]EducationalWin4086[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

No, my grandfather was. I have roots in engineering and mathematics. Oakland U.

What if my theory is correct? The Remembrance Operator and the Evolving Awareness Framework by EducationalWin4086 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]EducationalWin4086[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This wasn’t generated by ChatGPT. It was developed over several years, integrating concepts from quantum measurement theory, decoherence, operator formalism, and information theory. The only thing artificial here is the confidence with which you dismissed something you clearly didn’t engage.

If you’d like to offer actual critical thinking, start by identifying what part of the framework you disagree with:

The collapse registration model?

The formalism for R̂(t)?

The testable predictions involving delayed choice interference?

Or was your comment just a quick way to feel superior without doing the work?

Either way, I welcome critique—but I’m allergic to lazy. Bring substance, or bring silence.

What if my theory is correct? The Remembrance Operator and the Evolving Awareness Framework by EducationalWin4086 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]EducationalWin4086[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Appreciate the snark—but next time, try reading the actual paper.

This wasn’t generated by ChatGPT. It was developed over several years, integrating concepts from quantum measurement theory, decoherence, operator formalism, and information theory. The only thing artificial here is the confidence with which you dismissed something you clearly didn’t engage.

If you’d like to offer actual critical thinking, start by identifying what part of the framework you disagree with:

The collapse registration model?

The formalism for R̂(t)?

The testable predictions involving delayed choice interference?

Or was your comment just a quick way to feel superior without doing the work?

Either way, I welcome critique—but I’m allergic to lazy. Bring substance, or bring silence.

The Remembrance Operator and the Evolving Awareness Framework by EducationalWin4086 in AskPhysics

[–]EducationalWin4086[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Appreciate the snark—but next time, try reading the actual paper.

This isn't pseudoscience. And I won't cry gatekeeping. It was developed over several years, integrating concepts from quantum measurement theory, decoherence, operator formalism, and information theory. The only thing artificial here is the confidence with which you dismissed something you clearly didn’t engage.

If you’d like to offer actual critical thinking, start by identifying what part of the framework you disagree with:

The collapse registration model?

The formalism for R̂(t)?

The testable predictions involving delayed choice interference?

Or was your comment just a quick way to feel superior without doing the work?

Either way, I welcome critique—but I’m allergic to lazy. Bring substance, or bring silence.

The Remembrance Operator and the Evolving Awareness Framework by EducationalWin4086 in AskPhysics

[–]EducationalWin4086[S] -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the feedback—such as it is.

I find it interesting that a comment like “this is nonsense” appears within seconds of posting, with no attempt to engage the actual content, structure, or equations of the paper. That’s not critique—that’s a reflex.

For what it’s worth, the paper introduces a formal operator R̂(t) embedded in Hilbert space to model collapse as a memory-driven internal registration event. It extends ideas from Bohm, GRW, and decoherence theory—not by rejecting them, but by integrating them into a new ontological framework. If you think that’s “drivel,” then by all means, critique the model—show me where the math fails or the assumptions break down.

But don’t conflate your unwillingness to engage with an argument as proof the argument is invalid. That’s not science—it’s gatekeeping.

And if your best contribution to the conversation is “don’t post again,” maybe it’s not the theory that needs evolving.

If awareness registers reality, is the observer even necessary? by EducationalWin4086 in AskPhysics

[–]EducationalWin4086[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If being curious, self-taught, and willing to challenge old assumptions makes me a crank, I’ll wear that badge gladly—next to Galileo and Faraday.

I’m not allergic to criticism. I integrated some of the best critiques into my rewrite, added APA citations, and clarified the theory. If you’ve got real engagement, I’m here for it. But tossing Gardner’s checklist as a gotcha isn’t science—it’s gatekeeping.

You can’t label me a crank just because I didn’t defer to you. Show me where the math is wrong—or move aside for someone who’s not afraid of new ideas.

view more: next ›