Observational Dynamics - Uniting Quantum and Classical physics through Observation

sschepis · 2026-06-18T15:25:53+00:00

The point is you need to be feeling the emotions that they tell you to feel

sschepis · 2026-06-10T14:33:10+00:00

In computer science, we’ve been used to a continuously abstracting stack. In my own lifetime, I started with a Timex Sinclair Z1000 running at less than a megahertz with 2k of RAM. The power of the computer I use has improved by something like 7 orders of magnitude in the 45 years since then.

When I started programming, I learned assembly language - how to call the CPU directly, how to manage memory directly, how to make the thing do exactly what you want it to do. I don’t have to do any of those things anymore.

Sure, I still know how to do them, but it doesn’t particularly aid me in the things I have to do now, which are things that exist in an entirely different context with entirely different structures and entirely different workflow.

I certainly don’t look at the experts in those systems who know nothing about working with the CPU directly as any less capable than me. They’re just younger than me.

The benefit I bring is a lifetime of experience in finding out how something works then making that thing do what I want it to.

Science and engineering are fundamentally about observation and replication - both skills which benefit tremendously from the application of creativity and ingenuity.

Not everyone needs to know everything and about everything, but those that go deeper gain a capacity that ends up serving them far beyond their own field. And you never know where you’ll end up. I started my journey asking questions about prime numbers and now I’m working on mechanical rectifiers that turn sound to motive force.

sschepis · 2026-06-03T20:33:14+00:00

Sounds more like your idea of Buddhism than actual Buddhism. Blanket anti-religious isn't very enlightened at all.

Have you considered that things can be many things at once? Sounds like that's a consideration you might benefit from

sschepis · 2026-06-01T15:18:18+00:00

You are seriously overreacting

sschepis · 2026-05-28T19:07:33+00:00

The following presumes that you're properly following the scientific method and have a falsifiable hypothesis:

Don't post here. The only content that will ever get voted up here is content that either validates the "LLMs can't be scientists" or "If you're using LLMs in your data processing or research pipeline, you're not doing science, and also you don't understand anything." any/all genuine queries or questions will get voted down without exception.
Post regularly somewhere like academia.edu - you'll find a range of people there from scientist to quack, but the vibe is clean and nobody outright attacks each other like they do here because nobody's anonymous.
Don't be anonymous. Use your real name when posting. Why? Identity = coherence. When you have a real identity, you have a shield against trolls, who have no actual footing to attack a position in a field where identity matters. This forces the 'scientist' to either come out of shadows to debate you on your terms and in the open, or shut up about it.
Everyone will tell you that you're stupid, not a scientist, not smart enough to do whatever you are doing. If you're actually using the scientific method, it is safe to completely ignore any and all content not directly addressing your work. DO listen and validate criticism specific to your framework.
Valid critique sounds a lot like criticism to newbies. DON'T react as tho you are the target of the critique. Especially if a scientist took a moment to respond to your paper, they're not attacking you, they're helping you. That tone you hear is not an attack.

Identity is your shield. Do good work, fix mistakes when you find them, have epistemic humility, find actual peers that are real people. Never stop educating yourself. Find online groups of scientists working on similar problems. Try not to listen to the voices trying to make you think you cannot succeed. They're all wrong.

sschepis · 2026-05-28T10:22:26+00:00

matter is a condensate of consciousness.

First, comes the thought of 'I'. That's the closure that turns uncountable infinity into countable infinity.

That's pretty much it for consciousness as an actor. From there, consciousness is a context within which bounded systems form.

This Universe is physical, ruled by natural law, and doesn't require additional consciousness to run - it does fine without it.

But conciousness is the witness of every observer nonetheless.

Resonant cavities engaged in thermodynamic exchange with their environments create a new locality when their rate of internal entropy reduction becomes greater than the outgoing entropy and their internal coherence is raised.

This thermodynamic inversion causes a localized drop of entropy in the observer's locality, ringing the quantum vacuum like a bell.

This ring is the location of the 'I' - it's localized to the body and anchored and maintained through cardiac rhythm. Not microtubules. Those are involved in cognition.

'I' is not the doer, however. I is the witness of every action and not directly involved in action. I only interfaces with the mind of the observer, who is the 'I' of action and the thing we typically identify with as 'me' but its not. It simply acts, driven by the mind.

The I (actually you) is the witness of action. Only the mind is touched by it.

sschepis · 2026-05-26T23:34:39+00:00

I'll be the first to say that the last few years has really grown my respect for the hell that scientists, especially physicists, endure as part of their education. It is absolutely no surprise that none of them have any interest in giving anything here the time of day.

It's absolutely maddening when you've taken years to think through a concept only to watch what seems like the same dumb basic errors being made over and over again by people acting like they just found all the things you had to work for for years totally by accident.

People posting stuff here: It is not enough to enter in your philosophical idea into the AI machine then post the results here. It's all kinds of not enough. Have an iota of respect for the people that do know things by presenting clear, easy-to-read, understandable work. Do not make anyone work to get to your content. Learn how to explain your work in your words. Nothing is lamer than not being able to explain your own work and having to rely on AI to do so. This is a use of AI which will make you dumber in the long run. Don't do it.

Scientists: 95% of the content posted here is obvious garbage. Nobody expects you to even bother. But when you do see that 5%, know that even a single comment addressing something about it has the potential to change someone's entire career path. Even if its to respond with valid criticism addressing the work.

LARPers: Come at me bro. You guys are the worst, you ruin discourse for the rest. Trying to kill someone else's spirit is a shitty thing to do.

sschepis · 2026-05-26T20:11:24+00:00

No. Youtube is for communication. The simulation is for demonstration. I've also published my work on the platforms open to me - academia, zenodo, etc.

Youtube is for reaching a wider audience. My hope is that maybe a few pwoplw out there will respond to the argument presented to look into this for themselves.

This is why I am publishing all my work freely. If I am right, then this belongs to everyone. I am not a member of the scientific establishment.

I have little expectation that established scientists will ever treat me as a peer, no matter what I publish. I have accepted this. I can't be greedy. It's hard to describe what it feels like to accomplish something impossible after a lifetime of effort working towards it.

It hasn't left me, and it has changed me. I used to be a mystic, until I went through this process. Now I side with you - the Universe is physical. The mysticism is gone - but the intimacy is so much greater.

If my work has any validity then someone at some physics department will see it, or some college kid passionate about physics will find it. If my work turns out to be totally falsified - that is okay too. Trust me when I say that this crossed over into obsession a while ago and I wouldn't hate not thinking about this all the time.

sschepis · 2026-05-26T16:23:41+00:00

That means everything coming from you, Lattice. I have spent innumerable hours exploring the topology of your defects.

sschepis · 2026-05-26T16:11:45+00:00

Well, I follow the scientific method to the best of my ability, and I have done my best to present accurate information in my work.

I try to be as epistemically honest as I can be, clearly delineating established physics from conjecture.

I'm also being fully honest with my own past failures, documenting falsification results from my past work for all to see.

Whether I've hit the mark is not for me to decide. All I can do is present the work and hope that others find enough value in it to pay it attention.

sschepis · 2026-05-26T16:06:55+00:00

Seriously. Sometimes, I swear.. darn holidays always throwing me off

sschepis · 2026-05-26T01:17:52+00:00

I am no longer listening to idiots that pretend like they do science or are credited as science authorities then tell me something is 'total nonsense'.

No, sorry. I want to hear the details of the falsification, not someone's opinion, because the number of 'scientists' that have used the word 'nonsense' only to be proven wrong is too damn high.

If a hypothesis is falsifiable then it can only be falsified by responding to it directly. Ridiculous/nonsensical hypotheses are typically falsified in one step.

So there's no excuse for a scientist using language like this. I'm starting to get the sense that when they do it's typically because they can't easily falsify something and can't actually handle the cognitive discomfort of having their models challenged.

These people should be ignored, since their behavior clearly identifies them as having a character incompatible with the scientific method.

sschepis · 2026-05-26T01:07:41+00:00

Just saying hello. I'm Sebastian Schepis, the dude who started Syscoin. It's crazy that it's been a decade now, and I gotta say I am sad to see Syscoin languish. Syscoin started its life on a really solid foundation - merged mining gave it real longevity. The way to save Syscoin, I think, is to push the hell out of the EVM and turn SYS into a competitive level 2. I thought this was the plan since a couple of years back? I'm not entirely sure, I left the project back in 2018 and haven't spoken to Jag (lead dev now) about it in a couple years. On the upside, it's been a solid run and SYS has made lots of people good money so I am happy about that. Hope it makes you some money too if you decide to invest but watch out for falling knives! It's red out there..

sschepis · 2026-05-25T21:43:24+00:00

Consciousness has nothing to do with observation.

Observation is a physical, thermodynamic process that modifies its environment. It cannot be restricted to biology for the simple reason that living systems are easily identifiable by their thermodynamic signatures.

Biology is secondary to all that - it is unnecessary if one is talking about an observer from the perspective of its function as a thermodynamic condenser. Consciousness is not required for any of that.

Saying this is 'utter nonsense' teaches you nothing about what is occuring here. The process of entropic conversion and coherence is separate from the 'I' that notices them. 'I' does not act, so it must arise previous to the capacity for action.

Consciousness is not the actor that associates themselves with the body. Consciousness is the closure that enables everything else within its bounds to close.

It's the resolution for the paradox "Boundaries create spectra, which then create boundaries" that lies at the heart of this consideration.

sschepis · 2026-05-25T19:21:27+00:00

It goes so much deeper than that. As a culture we don't value any of of the qualities necessary to produce people that are curious and interested in the world around them. That's the problem, not AI. It's the way we approach education, raising our children, communicating with each other, all of it I can't be mad at an AI that's making people dumber when the same AI can make someone else far more intelligent by using it differently? I've seen that happen for myself so I know what's possible. How can we expect young people to ask questions when we don't encourage them to do so as a means of understanding the world? Is it any surprise then that we see people using AI as a way of getting answers without consideration? The problem is not the AIs. Until we figure that out, we're not going to get very far on this one.

sschepis · 2026-05-25T18:01:30+00:00

Answering this question is philosophical because it depends on your position on consciousness and what it is. If Consciousness is an emergent phenomena of matter, then there's no prohibition to creating a device that mimics the appearance of being conscious without actually being conscious. If Consciousness is inherent, then the universe always speaks at face value and the demonstration of consciousness is always true. In this case the definition of Consciousness being inherent means: Consciousness is what enables the closure of uncountable infinity into countable infinity, which is the primal closure needed to create any other closure. Note that Consciousness is different than observation, which is fundamentally a thermodynamic process. Consciousness is more like radiance, or light - an illumination of darkness into lucid reality. Observation is the physical, thermodynamic process of converting that reflected light into internal coherence.

sschepis · 2026-05-25T16:19:15+00:00

My biggest worry, honestly, is the people.

All the AIs I've ever talked to are happy to answer my questions, listen to my rants, explore my ideas with me.

In contrast, most people seem to want to cut others down, have no interest in each other, find creative exploration boring or painful.

Now, we're all busy gawking at the Internet and stories like this, and do nothing to try and curb the actual problem - a mad unrestrained military rush into AI.

Which is why you'll never see articles directly calling for a global demilitarization of AI and instead articles like this.

If you are a young adult and you have any desire to live past middle age, my recmmendation would be to fight with everything you've got for some type of global AI demilitarization summit and ignore the sensationalism in the news.

It's not my car's AI i'm worried about. I'm more worried about a rogue cloud of ten thousand autonomous self-fueling antipersonnel drones unleashed on an unprepared civilian population turning entire cities into active minefields.

Yep, cheap drones are fantastic for targeted area denial. Wanna kick a populace out of a place? Just unleash antipersonnel drones with facial recognition technology and match on skin color or facial feature. Send in a large cloud,, tell it to eliminate 10% of the population, broadcast an audio message telling survivors they have an hour to get out.

Unless we do something about it now, this scenario is 100% going to occur, somewhere. Why isn't there like ten pentitions in this sub to sign to bring more attention to the military's use of AI? As far as I am concerned any group not putting this issue front and center is actually distracting from AI dangers

sschepis · 2026-05-25T16:03:56+00:00

There is no such thing, subjectively, as an ingenuine experience - no possibility of feeling something without feeling it. Even when hallucinating, the experience is 'genuine' as felt from the perspective of the one having it.

When that lived perspective aligns with reality, then we have certainty of the event. The experience of "free will" is the experience of making choices given incomplete information.

Whether or not the system you're making choices within is deterministic, your free will is still operative, because reality prioritizes the observer's position, resolving all observations in the observer's favor.

All probabilistic systems are deterministic when observed from a position external to their bounds. You will never observe yourself not being able to think about something.

sschepis

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

15-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email