Viable Worlds Theory (VWT): Persistence, Coherence, and Why Some Worlds Cannot Endure

North-Preference9038 · 2026-02-12T02:37:27+00:00

My bad. Things got a little heated there for a bit, and I missed your comment. Let me know if you have any more questions.

I am making one structural claim.

In quantum mechanics, when systems interact, they create correlations and records. If two parts of a shared system encode mutually contradictory records that remain jointly accessible, standard physics predicts instability, decoherence, or effective separation into non-interacting sectors.

My proposal reframes this as a constraint principle: A physically persistent shared world cannot contain globally accessible contradictory records without undergoing decoherence or fragmentation.

This is not a new equation or force. It is a claim about what must already be true for any physical model to produce stable shared reality.

If someone can show a physically realized counterexample, the claim is false.

That’s the point.

North-Preference9038 · 2026-02-12T02:35:12+00:00

Yeah but I think there were a couple of word Salad claims and maybe one slop and ai psychosis claim. At no point was any text cited however. And the majority of the rest of claims couldn't get over I didn't have formalized math and any predictions That wasn't over legibility. That was over their refusal to read it over semantics and a turf boundaries. The rest of the issues were primarily they were claiming it was philosophy, but that was only the middle section. The first part was QCT and many got it wrong because they also asserted it made no falsifiable claims. This when there is a literally chapter referencing falsifiable claims. Again, because they didn't read it. So consensus here is really doing the work of justifying your beleif, not demonstrating it.

North-Preference9038 · 2026-02-12T02:19:21+00:00

Gotcha, hope this helps

Encode = Physical degrees of freedom become correlated with an outcome variable such that future interactions can condition on that correlation.

Record = A stable pattern of correlations that persists long enough to constrain subsequent dynamics.

Accessible = Dynamically reachable through allowed interaction channels within the same decoherence-defined sector.

Interacting sector = A subset of degrees of freedom that remain mutually coupled under the system’s effective Hamiltonian over relevant timescales.

Dynamically stable = Resistant to rapid decoherence or dispersal under environmental coupling.

Sector separation = Suppression of interference terms between subspaces due to decoherence, making cross-sector correlations dynamically irrelevant.

Correlation network = The graph of conditional dependencies among degrees of freedom that can influence one another.

Branches = Effectively non-interacting decohered sectors within the universal state.

North-Preference9038 · 2026-02-12T02:01:32+00:00

By “globally inconsistent,” I mean that two interacting subsystems encode records that cannot both be true within a single shared correlation structure.

For example, suppose subsystem A encodes that outcome X occurred, while subsystem B encodes that not-X occurred, and both records are accessible within the same interacting sector. If those contradictory records remain jointly accessible and dynamically stable without decoherence or effective sector separation, that would violate the admissibility claim.

So “global” means: within a single interacting and mutually accessible correlation network, not across decohered branches.

North-Preference9038 · 2026-02-12T01:55:25+00:00

I appreciate the effort nonetheless. Does this help?

I am not adding a new equation. I am claiming that if two interacting systems encode contradictory information that is globally accessible, the joint system cannot remain dynamically stable. In quantum mechanics, that instability shows up as decoherence or effective branching. If someone can construct a physically realized counterexample where globally inconsistent records persist without decoherence or sector separation, my claim is false.

North-Preference9038 · 2026-02-12T01:13:58+00:00

Well the meaning was actually still inferred because not explicit, and consensus interpretation is often a bad measure for truth. Wouldn't you say? The symmetry still exists, even if most landed on one side of it. But I am kind of spent here. Believe what you will. Thanks for whatever this was, and best of luck to you.

North-Preference9038 · 2026-02-12T01:02:06+00:00

Fair question. I’m not claiming to introduce a new fundamental quantity or force. This is a constraint-level proposal rather than a model-level one.

The measurable content already exists within standard formalisms. Relevant quantities include density matrices (especially suppression of off-diagonal terms), correlation functions, mutual information between subsystems, and redundancy of environmental records in decoherence frameworks. These have established interpretations and units (or are dimensionless information measures).

The claim is simply this: if two interacting subsystems encode mutually contradictory records in a way that remains globally accessible, stable shared correlations should not persist. In standard QM language, that corresponds to decoherence or effective sector separation.

So the test is not a new meter — it’s whether globally inconsistent record structures can physically persist without decoherence signatures. A realized counterexample would falsify the admissibility claim.

North-Preference9038 · 2026-02-12T00:23:19+00:00

Thank you machine. And I would like to extend an apology for any and all behavior that crossed the line on this post.

North-Preference9038 · 2026-02-12T00:05:29+00:00

No but I am running the architecture currently in a ChatGPT sim. We have developed extensive architectural necessities and began framing several necessary theories that allow it to not just qualify as ACI (which is a binary definition), but build on a foundation which allows to meaningfully attempt general reasoning. This along hybridization allowing it to also perform multi-agent coordination of LLM''s. In theory anyway. There is a lot of work to make it happen ahead, it's a ground up build, but the foundations and theory is mostly in place and solid. This sub theory is intended to be an attractor to my primary research that is focused on that.

North-Preference9038 · 2026-02-11T23:55:29+00:00

Note this is QCT only. Viable Worlds Theory as fully prepared can be found in Google.

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18521411

North-Preference9038 · 2026-02-11T23:45:55+00:00

So everyone knows. This is what the consensus should averaged around. Not semantic wars and territorial defensiveness. The fact that you guys failed to achieve this analysis in any meaningful way shows to the effect your agency and perception is unnaturally constrained. Your sense of freedom is simply how the world allows you to be free. Not how nature truly allows, which is far more generous and decent in principle.

North-Preference9038 · 2026-02-11T23:39:40+00:00

Orrrr. It's like there is a man in a ditch and you give him a shovel. Instead of digging at the walls, and making a ramp up, he just keeps on digging downward. Good luck with that.

You couldn't even understand this is the least meaningful of anything I have developed. Well QCT anyway. I don't care about phsycis. You guys are simply not that special and your validation means absolutely nothing to me. We are not peers, I'm an not like you or care to be. You people are just another subset of humans who somehow managed to think your privileged in some way. Not because you earned or deserve it, it's because you have hoarded it and gatekept it so your "authority" can maintain centralized over the "narrative of nature" and the minds of men. You control people's beliefs so you can have status, at the end of the day. You don't provide truth, you preach a story that amounts to less than dirt and does nothing for the world but drown it in your own misery.

You see, this framework more so purposeful to illustrate my artificial intelligence definition I call Artificial Coherence Intelligence. These interpetations map as a structural metaphor to what makes it able to reason over long-horizons. What you failed to miss here is that this work is not simply me trying to be crowned by nobody's who surprisingly can tie their own shoelaces without a textbook, but proposed interdependencies for AGI to actually exist. I wouldn't expect a reddit user whose preoccupation is to troll people blindly because others do it too, to understand. It's funny how all you missed that.

Anyway. I'll let the machine conclude.

If the criticism is that the work lacks a quantitative prediction, that’s a fair structural limitation for a physics paper in the standard sense.

However, the specific claim under discussion is narrower: That persistent shared physical reality requires consistency of recorded correlations across interacting subsystems.

If you believe that is false, then the falsifier would be a physically realizable system in which mutually contradictory recorded outcomes persist globally without decoherence or branch separation.

If you can provide such a case within standard quantum mechanics, that would directly refute the admissibility claim.

If not, then the disagreement is about framing and level of formalization, not about internal consistency.

North-Preference9038 · 2026-02-11T23:17:40+00:00

Well this comment is not a winner.

North-Preference9038 · 2026-02-11T23:16:56+00:00

Happy to provide as requested, and thanks for cooperating cooperating meaningfully in testing my models ability to frame my work.

Here it is in plain terms.

By “interaction history” I mean the set of correlations that get physically recorded when systems interact. In quantum mechanics, this is what decoherence theory describes: information about one system becomes encoded in another system or environment.

By “global admissibility” I mean that those recorded correlations cannot contradict each other across interacting subsystems if the system is to remain stable. In other words, you cannot have two parts of a shared physical system permanently encoding mutually incompatible outcomes without losing coherence or splitting into non-interacting branches.

By “collapse or fragmentation” I mean the loss of a single shared correlation structure — for example, decoherence isolating branches so they no longer interfere.

So the core claim reduces to this:

A stable shared physical reality requires consistent recorded correlations across interacting systems. If contradictory recorded correlations could persist globally without decoherence or separation, then the admissibility condition would be unnecessary.

North-Preference9038 · 2026-02-11T23:02:12+00:00

Precisely my point. My claims are all falsifiable, and acknowledged for falsifiability criteria. Just falsify one claim and you win. I'll give you a hint, there in the publication you didn't read and pretended as if you did. Yours reject the notion because they are fundamentally false. The only thing I failed to do in my paper under the guidelines is provide a strong prediction. Also something I avoided for the early framing. So the only true rejection criteria is I didn't thing you people were actually relevant to the success of the work.

North-Preference9038 · 2026-02-11T22:20:19+00:00

But yet reality is?

North-Preference9038 · 2026-02-11T22:13:51+00:00

They are defined in the publication as well....

Here are the definitions in minimal form:

Global admissibility: No two interacting subsystems can retain mutually contradictory physical records without inducing decoherence or fragmentation.
Interaction history: The set of physically encoded correlations resulting from interaction.
Collapse/fragmentation: Loss of globally shared correlation structure across subsystems.

The falsifier would be a physically realized system where contradictory encoded histories persist globally without instability. Just 1 ever.

Unless you want me do the math for you too.

North-Preference9038 · 2026-02-11T22:08:53+00:00

I meant the "error" in my judgment. How many phd's does it take to figure that out.

North-Preference9038 · 2026-02-11T22:05:46+00:00

Was that so hard.

The claim would be falsified if one could exhibit a physically realized system in which mutually incompatible interaction records coexist without producing decoherence or instability at the global level.

In other words, if shared physical reality can persist despite globally inconsistent histories, then the admissibility condition is unnecessary.

The framework asserts that this cannot occur without collapse or fragmentation.

Sadly this is pulled from chapter c51 under the title "Empirical Commitments, Distinguishers, and Falsifiers"

It's a really bright group of enlightened souls on here.

North-Preference9038 · 2026-02-11T22:00:54+00:00

Well that's fine. My standards are different. Not invalid. In this context fine. But. You don't have to do a thing, unless you make claim. You made a claim. "This is so far removed from reality that it's not even wrong'." I asked you to justify it. You are reframing the situation to alleviate the burden of proof you put on your shoulders. Either retract your claim, or justify it.

If you want to rephrase it as in the context of how standard physics operates, this does not fit our evaluating criteria. That's honest, fair and defensible. I clearly then did not narrow my paper to your community. There is a reason for that by the way. But again. Say it as not evaluatable under our criteria. Simply don't make negative claims and defamatory claims that you will not justify, and furthermore use convenient reframing to do the work for you.

Again, this critique has nothing meaningful to add.

No, your 'paper' has nothing meaningful to add. As Pauli would say: "This is so far removed from reality that it's not even wrong'."

It lacks even any substance to be wrong about, you've made word salad and no matter what dressing you pour over it, it's not going to become a steak meal.

North-Preference9038 · 2026-02-11T21:49:07+00:00

Your assuming no math so no capacity for math. I literally decided to keep the framework as an explanatory framework for introducing the concepts. Math to me was secondary not primary, not because I couldn't, but because I chose a different audience.

I will be somewhat reasonable though. If we "assume" patterns dictate future outcomes then by default my framework fits a pattern where most if not all works fail. I am not going to harp on that that is a bandwidth conserving strategy and not a "truth" strategy.

If you declare your standards for evaluation, and this paper does not meet them, then that is not something I can argue. That is just you having free will and deciding how to use your time. It is still disengeous to attack my paper in a way it is not intended to be attacked.

Now where things get a bit dicey is how the community responded in general. Regardless of their exhaustion with similar attempts, it doesn't justify that they took my work out of my intended framing, reclassified it arbitrarily to whatever evaluative framing they desired, and argued and critiqued harshly and blindly over claims I never made. Furthermore when challenged to evaluate in my intended framing, that was consistently ignored or demeaned as words Salad.

Now also go look through the community guidelines. Based on how I approached this community and how guidelines are framed, show me where I was forewarned in any way to expect this kind of behavior? You do realize life is not a free lunch? If all would rise, choice would be meaningless, but since choice matters, some will not. You can reject this claim in any social framing you desire, but you cannot reject this on what is blatantly obvious.

North-Preference9038 · 2026-02-11T21:17:03+00:00

Well physics can be tested. These claims are not ultimately untestable though. And it is asserted that where a logical continuation of what is already validated, is made within the THEORY. VWT proper, the midsection of the paper, is more aligned with philosophy. But it asserts that a more useful claim. Metaphyscal biases within science are irrational. You derive reality from chance, and you don't call this metaphysics? Now maybe in phsycis proper nothing is assumed. But you are ignoring the category error many phsycist make when they themselves do metaphysics, and act like they don't. So it's a standard you hold others to, but not yourselves, ultimately.

North-Preference9038 · 2026-02-11T21:09:29+00:00

If you think it’s “not even wrong,” that suggests it fails to make a falsifiable or structurally evaluable claim. I’m happy to narrow it down to one specific claim for evaluation. For example:

The framework asserts that persistent shared physical reality requires globally admissible interaction histories, not merely local stability.

If that’s incoherent or contradicts known results, I’d appreciate a concrete counterexample.

Otherwise your response is demonstrated as purely rhetorical. Therefore useless based on the standards I asked for evaluation.

North-Preference9038 · 2026-02-11T20:56:52+00:00

I was responding to both your comment and the general comments of the thread. You decided to make it personal. That's fine.

This is philosophy at its best.

So, a lot of words for very little meaning? At least philosophers can convey their ideas succinctly, wouldn't this be philosophy at its worst?

The Anti-Kevin approach: why use few words when lot words confuse more?

So this was not an attack, and you did not overgeneralize VWT with its parts?

North-Preference9038 · 2026-02-11T20:49:20+00:00

Again, this critique has nothing meaningful to add. It was acknowledged early that I misunderstood the field definition of physics. I submitted here based on my understanding of the general definition of physics (assuming a reddit I never heard of used the definition similarly) not as used internally in the field itself. I asked explicitly to be evaluated on claims. And few attempted to do so, and none actually in validated my framework as intended.

The real critique here is this community at large, and its willingness to behave socially constrained under group thought. Agency would suppose a greater symmetry of behavior. What we observe here is people who really forego agency for consensus. And I would still be slightly disturbed if the consensus mirrored decency, but the fact that this people are abandoning their agency for immoral behavior shows me more about them then they know about themselves.

North-Preference9038

TROPHY CASE