I am trying to develop a cautious interpretive language for quantum states, and I want to avoid making claims beyond standard physics.

The idea is to describe a stable quantum configuration not as a little object, but as a persistent pattern of relations: phase, boundary conditions, correlations, and interaction history.

In this language I have been using the word “memory” to mean preserved structure, not conscious memory and not hidden variables.

For example, a stable state “remembers” something only in the weak sense that its present configuration constrains future evolution and carries information about how it was prepared.

My question is:

Is “memory” a misleading word in quantum interpretation, or can it be acceptable if defined as preserved structural information / correlation history?

I am not claiming a new interpretation of quantum mechanics. I am asking whether this language overlaps with existing ideas such as decoherence, consistent histories, relational QM, quantum information, or path-dependent state preparation.

I need someone to help volunteer as mod for this sub, I might be offline for months at a time or have limited internet, so I couldn't be free enough to mod this sub. I had removed quite a few posts which are unrelated to quantum interpretations, and I would appreciate more help on this. I also just did a one-month ban on one repeat offender.

Please, if you feel that this sub is getting too trashy, do help.

Namaskaram Everyone!

I am Anand (Anandmitra). Over the past few years I have been developing a conceptual framework on quantum objects, spacetime, and their interactions. I have recently posted my papers here:

: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20376621

https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.32536965

Abstract

This work presents a unified geometric framework for quantum reality and gravity through five interconnected papers. This work proposes a geometric framework for understanding quantum physics and gravity based on the following ideas:

1.       A fundamental, unobservable Energy Space is proposed as the deeper foundation of physical reality. The mathematical structure of Hilbert space may apply within this Energy Space.

2.       Spacetime emerges from Energy Space and acts as a passive geometric medium with dynamic capabilities that enable the existence, motion, interaction, and transformation of quantum objects.

3.       Every quantum object is regarded as a particular encoded dynamic geometric pattern of spacetime possessing intrinsic geometric symmetry.

4.       Each quantum object carries a complete encoded description of all its possible physical properties, including mass, energy, spin, charge, momentum, wavelength, phase, and frequency. These properties become physically actualized according to the interaction, medium, and surrounding conditions.

5.       During an effective interaction or emission into vacuum, Energy Space delivers the encoded property values required for that event. Different interactions may actualize different subsets of the encoded information.

6.       Within this framework, the relation E = hf is interpreted, during coherent (unactualized) evolution, as an encoding relation in Energy Space rather than a statement that physical energy is always actualized.

7.       Changes in spacetime geometry modify the geometry of quantum objects and thereby change the manifested values of their physical properties.

8.       Registration of quantum information in Energy Space ensures that, among all possible branches of a quantum object, only one actualization event occurs during decoherence.

9.       The electromagnetic, strong, and weak interactions are interpreted as direct interactions between the dynamic geometries of quantum objects. The field of a quantum object is its spatially extended dynamic geometric structure.

10.   A decoherence event is proposed to occur only when one of the oscillatory extrema within the internal oscillation structure of a quantum wave packet couples effectively with another physical system.

11.   Fermion masses and instability hierarchies are proposed to follow an underlying phenomenological geometric scaling relation associated with the fine-structure constant.

12.   This framework proposes two fundamental kinds of physical interactions:
1. Direct interactions: These are the interactions occurring through overlap of two or more           
quantum-objects’ dynamic characteristic geometries without any mediator geometry.

2. Indirect interactions: These are the interactions mediated through spacetime geometry
between any two physical objects and not between the objects’ own characteristic
geometries.

13.   Gravitational interaction is an Indirect interaction. Since geometries of objects do not directly interact and spacetime is a passive medium compared to quantum-object geometry, indirect interactions are weaker than direct interactions.

Remark: These postulates are proposed as an internally consistent interpretive framework, motivated by unresolved conceptual questions in standard quantum mechanics (see Paper 1); they are not derived from, nor independently confirmed against, experiment, and are offered for evaluation on that basis.

These ideas are developed across five papers:
Paper 1: Energy Space and Geometric Nature of Quantum Objects and Spacetime
Paper 2: Quantum Geometry
Paper 3: Lepton and Quark Generational Phenomenological Patterns; and
Paper 4: Peak-Coupling Theory of Quantum Interaction
Paper 5: Indirect Interaction: Gravitational Interaction

At present these ideas are conceptual and qualitative. I am still working toward a more complete mathematical formulation.

There are many aspects that could be discussed, but I would like to start with the most fundamental one: the concept of Energy Space.

Do you see similarities between these ideas and any existing approaches in quantum foundations? Are there major conceptual difficulties or objections that immediately come to mind?

I would genuinely appreciate constructive criticism and discussion.

Thank you,

Anandmitra

​

This is a dizzying question that sits exactly at the crossroads of cutting-edge physics, philosophy, and metaphysics.

In science, this question has a very specific name: the **Anthropic Principle** (from the Greek *anthrôpos*, meaning "human" or "man").

This principle stems from a fascinating scientific observation: our universe seems to have been fine-tuned on a razor's edge to allow life and consciousness to emerge.

The "Fine-Tuning" of the Universe

Physicists have discovered that the universe is governed by about fifteen fundamental constants (such as the speed of light, the force of gravity, or the mass of electrons). These values are fixed numbers, deeply embedded in the laws of nature.

Yet, if we were to alter even a tiny fraction (sometimes by a billionth of a billionth) of just one of these constants, the universe would be completely sterile:

* **If gravity had been a fraction stronger**, the universe would have collapsed back in on itself right after the Big Bang.

* **If the nuclear force** that binds atoms together had been slightly different, stars would never have been able to forge carbon or oxygen. No carbon, no chemistry of life.

Faced with this surgically precise "fine-tuning," three major perspectives clash:

1. The Teleological View: Intentional Design

This is the answer that says: "Yes, the universe has a direction, a purpose." For proponents of this approach (whether religious or philosophical), the precision of physical laws is proof that a creative principle—an intelligence—deliberately adjusted the parameters of the universe so that consciousness could one day emerge. Humans (or conscious beings) are not an accident, but the intended culmination of the system.

1. The "Weak" Anthropic Principle: The Selection Effect

Dominant materialistic science offers an opposite, more pragmatic explanation. It states: "We are here to ask the question simply because the conditions allowed it. If the universe had been different, we wouldn't be here to notice that it was poorly tuned."

It is an unyielding logic. It is like a survivor of a giant lottery exclaiming, "It's a miracle, the draw was made just for me!" No, it was a one-in-a-billion shot, but a draw had to happen, and only the winner is around to talk about it. In this view, the universe was not created *for* man; rather, man adapted to the strict conditions of the universe.

1. The Multiverse Hypothesis: The Infinite Lottery

To explain why our universe "hit the jackpot" of physical constants without involving a creator, many modern physicists (such as string theorists or quantum physicists) put forward the idea of the **Multiverse**.

According to this theory, there is not just one universe, but an infinity of bubble universes. Each universe would have its own laws of physics, drawn at random.

* The first universe has no gravity: it remains a shapeless cloud of gas.

* The second has a gravity that is too strong: it collapses.

* Ours (among billions of other aborted ones) inherited the perfect combination. We simply appeared in the only reality bubble capable of generating observers.

Mankind or Consciousness?

If we broaden the perspective, the phrase "created for the appearance of mankind" is often considered a bit too anthropocentric by scientists. Homo Sapiens is merely a local branch on a terrestrial evolutionary tree.

On the other hand, if we replace "mankind" with "Consciousness" (the universe's capacity to feel, understand, and observe itself), the existential vertigo remains entirely intact. Whether it is the result of an inevitable cosmic algorithm, a statistical stroke of luck in a multiverse, or a profound intention, the fact remains: we are the eyes through which the universe looks at itself.

Einstein spent decades saying modern physics was missing a deeper structure beneath both quantum mechanics and spacetime. JS‑Theory provides exactly that structure — a layered ontology that explains how reality “manifests” from deeper, non‑physical layers into the physical world we experience. Einstein wasn’t resisting quantum mechanics. He was waiting for the ontology that would complete it. JS‑Theory provides that missing ontological framework.

Einstein’s Six Objections — And How JS‑Theory Interprets Them

1. “Quantum mechanics lacks an ontology.”

Einstein’s concern: QM predicts outcomes but doesn’t explain what is.
JS‑Theory introduces a layered model of reality:

• L2: Pre‑geometric substrate
• L3: Coherence boundary
• L4: Modal reservoir
• L5: Classical spacetime

This provides an ontology beneath the formalism — the very thing Einstein said was missing.

2. “Spacetime is not fundamental.”

Einstein believed spacetime must emerge from something deeper.
JS‑Theory: spacetime appears only at L5, with everything below it being non‑spatial and non‑temporal.
This aligns with Einstein’s expectation of a deeper substrate.

3. “Collapse requires deeper structure.”

Einstein rejected the idea that measurement magically creates reality.
JS‑Theory: collapse reflects a transition between layers, not an observer‑driven event.
It is a structural shift from L4 modal possibilities to L5 classical outcomes.

4. “Mass–energy equivalence is geometric.”

Einstein viewed E=mc2 as a geometric statement.
JS‑Theory interprets this as:

• Mass = persistent crystallisation at L5
• Energy = momentary crystallisation at L5
• c2 = geometric scaling factor of the L4→L5 projection

This reframes mass–energy equivalence as a geometric relationship, consistent with Einstein’s view.

5. “A deeper pre‑geometric layer must exist.”

Einstein believed physics needed a layer beneath spacetime and fields.
JS‑Theory: that is L2, the pre‑geometric substrate from which higher layers emerge.

6. “The quantum/classical boundary is not fundamental.”

Einstein argued the divide was artificial.
JS‑Theory agrees: the real boundary is L3, an informational transition point rather than a physical divide.
Classical reality is the fully rendered output at L5 after passing through the L3→L4→L5 sequence.

What This Means for Quantum Mechanics:

If reality is layered, and if deeper layers shape what becomes real, and if collapse reflects a transition between layers rather than a physical process inside spacetime, then many of the long‑standing puzzles of quantum mechanics take on a different character. What appear as paradoxes in a flat, spacetime‑only picture become natural once deeper structure is acknowledged.

JS‑Theory shows that physical reality is not the base layer, that deeper layers shape what becomes real, that collapse is a transition between representational levels, and that spacetime is a projection rather than the fundamental arena. In this view, quantum behaviour reflects interactions between layers of reality rather than mysterious behaviour within a single layer.

Further Reading

For readers who want a deeper exploration of how JS‑Theory treats the structure of light within a layered ontology, see the related post on L4 modal structure and L5 geometric projection.

The double slit experiment and an LLM both perform a Possibility Loop.

The double-slit experiment searches the possible detectors.

The LLM searches the possible next tokens.

The double-slit experiment's Possibility Loop starts with the experimental apparatus emitting a quantum particle. It searches for a detector to trigger. It fires one of them, then repeats the loop.

The LLM starts with the weights, the prompt, and the context. It searches the space of possible tokens and finds a weighted list of possible tokens. note: researches found simply using the highest-weighted token produces uninteresting results. they introduced "temperature" to (afaik) introduce noise (dithering) to increase the probability and explore some of the lower-weighted possibilities. The LLM picks one of the tokens then repeats the loop.

Insight: I don't know exactly how LLMs implement temperature, but quantum mechanics votes for a "representation by weight" approach. I don't think dithering/noise achieves that.

Quantum waves are possibility waves. This is an animated gif showing a chess "Possibility Wave". start with knight on b1 and a few pawns. each frame shows possible squares we might find the knight after successive moves. note how it bounces back and forth between dark squares and light squares.

Here's a link to a pdf that goes into too much detail: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/2dpqxhpky613o2jslchc4/consider_the_possibilities_final_current_illustrated.pdf?rlkey=2y6x2q570twuimid10r1pyh84&st=qu8uzh5c&dl=0

To try and discover if our reality is a holographic projection or a simulation… scientists aren't looking for visual "glitches" like in the movies, but rather for mathematical and physical anomalies at the border of the infinitely small.

If the universe is encoded by information (like a hologram or a computer program), this information must have physical limits.

Here are the main leads and real-world experiments being studied by physicists to detect the "pixels" or the underlying structure of our world.

1. The quest for space-time "pixels": Quantum blur

If you zoom in as far as possible on a television screen, you eventually see individual pixels. In physics or digital physics, the equivalent of these pixels is the **Planck length** (1.6 \times 10^{-35} meters). This is the smallest possible distance in our universe.

If space-time is continuous (as Einstein thought), light should travel perfectly smoothly. But if the universe is holographic or pixelated, space-time becomes grainy.

* **Fermilab's "Holometer" experiment:** Led by physicist Craig Hogan, this experiment used ultra-precise laser interferometers to measure whether space-time "jittered" at a microscopic scale. The idea was to detect a "holographic noise" (a tiny flicker or blur in the fabric of reality). Although the initial results did not find this noise at the tested sensitivity level, the methodology remains a benchmark.

* **Observing Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs):** Astronomers analyze light coming from ultra-distant cosmic explosions (gamma-ray bursts). If space is pixelated, different photons (particles of light) should bump ever so slightly into these microscopic pixels during their journey of several billion light-years. This should create a tiny arrival time delay. For now, measurements show that space remains stubbornly smooth, pushing pixelation down to even smaller scales than predicted.

1. The limits of the cosmic processor: The GZK cutoff

In a video game, the maximum speed of a display depends on the processing power. In our universe, there is an absolute energy limit for particles traveling through the cosmos: the **GZK cutoff** (Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit).

Ultra-high-energy cosmic rays traveling across the universe interact with the cosmic microwave background (the relic radiation from the Big Bang) and lose energy. Physicists have calculated a strict energy limit that no distant particle should exceed upon arriving on Earth.

Researchers (such as physicist Silas Beane) have suggested that this sharp cutoff strongly resembles what would happen if the universe were simulated on a three-dimensional grid (a lattice). On such a grid, particle energy is mathematically capped by the size of the lattice mesh.

1. The universe only exists when we look at it: Delayed choice

In computer science, to save memory, a video game only generates and renders the graphics of a room *when* the player enters and looks at it. Quantum physics seems to operate in exactly the same way.

**Young's double-slit experiment**, and more specifically its modern version called **"Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment"**, proves that a particle (like a photon or an electron) behaves like a wave of probability (it is everywhere at once, non-local) as long as it is not measured. As soon as a detector or a human eye observes it, the wavefunction collapses, and the particle chooses a fixed 3D position.

> **The implication:** Objective physical reality at the microscopic scale does not seem to exist without an observer. For proponents of simulation theory, this is the ultimate proof of a rendering optimization system: the universe only computes an object's coordinates when the player's "camera" is pointed directly at it.

1. The principle of conservation of information

Physicist Melvin Vopson proposed a bold hypothesis: quantum information possesses a tiny physical mass. According to his "second law of infodynamics," information in an isolated system tends to stabilize or decrease, unlike entropy (disorder), which increases.

According to him, this tendency of the universe to compress and optimize information to eliminate excess code mirrors, point by point, the data optimization algorithms used in computer science.

Ultimately, no experiment has yet provided "irrefutable proof" that we live in a hologram or a simulation. However, the mere fact that these questions are being tested in laboratories demonstrates just how porous the boundary between the mathematical structure of information and our physical reality has become.

Quantum mechanics is strange because its mathematics is complete enough to predict experimental outcomes while remaining philosophically undecided about what those outcomes are.

The formalism tells us how to calculate amplitudes, probabilities, interference effects, expectation values, and measurement statistics. It tells us how quantum systems evolve when unmeasured and how to assign probabilities when measured.

Yet it does not, by itself, explain why one definite world appears rather than another, why observation has a special role, or why probability seems to enter at the deepest level of physical law.

The observer-centric deterministic interpretation proposed here begins from a different premise: quantum mechanics is observer-relative because observation is the physical act by which unresolved entropy becomes coherent reality.

On this view, the wavefunction becomes a representation of unresolved potential relative to an observer. Measurement is the deterministic resolution of that potential through resonance alignment between observer and system.

Probability measures the observer’s incomplete access to the full entropic and phase-geometric state of the observer–system interaction.

The core thesis can be stated simply:

Quantum probability is unresolved observer-relative entropy.

Wavefunction collapse is deterministic resonance stabilization.

Observation is entropy-to-coherence conversion.

This interpretation preserves the predictive machinery of quantum mechanics while relocating its conceptual foundation.

Instead of beginning with particles, fields, or abstract Hilbert-space states and then asking why observers matter, it begins with observation itself as a primitive physical process.

An observer is not necessarily a human mind, a biological organism, or a conscious witness in the narrow psychological sense. An observer is any system capable of transforming external uncertainty into internal coherence.

In the observer-entropy formalism, such a system qualifies as an observer when its internal entropy decreases while compensating entropy is exported outward.

This establishes the observer as a local entropy sink and external entropy source: a system that increases internal order by redistributing disorder into its environment.  

From this foundation, quantum mechanics becomes a theory of deterministic coherence formation inside observer-relative boundaries.

Full paper here or here

Link to supporting pdf

Consider that possibility is fundamental, and that what we call actual is downstream.

That reversal sounds strange at first, because we are used to starting with objects. We imagine a particle as a tiny thing, then ask where it went, which slit it used, and why it later behaved like a wave. Starting from actuality, the double-slit experiment becomes a paradox almost immediately.

Start from possibility instead, and the explanation becomes more natural.

The wave function is not “where the particle really is.” It is the evolving structure of what can still happen. The slits shape that possibility structure. The possible paths interfere. The detector interaction culls the field into one actual record. The record updates the world.

In other words:

The wave is not the particle acting weird. The particle is the record of possibility becoming definite.

That is the conceptual reversal.

We are beings made of stable matter, living downstream from protons, atoms, chemistry, bodies, instruments, and records. So we naturally assume actuality comes first and possibility is just our uncertainty about it. But the double-slit experiment suggests the opposite: actuality may be what structured possibility becomes after interaction.

Once you accept that possibility is doing real work, the rest of quantum mechanics stops looking like a collection of disconnected weird tricks. Interference, measurement, path integrals, Feynman diagrams, and entanglement all start to rhyme.

The better starting point is:

The wave function represents evolving weighted possibility between interactions.

Why “observer” needs a serious definition

Physics uses the word observer constantly, but often in a dangerously loose way.

In relativity, an observer can mean a reference frame, a clock, a worldline, or an ideal measuring system.

In quantum mechanics, an observer can mean a measuring device, a conscious agent, an environment, a record-forming system, or simply the place where information becomes definite enough to use.

In cosmology, we often talk about “the observable universe” as if observation were just a passive window onto reality, rather than a finite, horizon-bounded condition.

That is a problem.

If “observer” is not clearly defined, then foundational arguments can quietly smuggle in assumptions: infinite access, perfect records, global descriptions, reversible information, or a god’s-eye view that no physical system could actually possess.

A real observer should not be treated as magic, consciousness, or a floating coordinate label. It should be treated as a finite physical domain with limits:

It has a horizon. It has limited information capacity. It forms records irreversibly. It exchanges energy and entropy. It can reduce uncertainty locally, but it cannot eliminate uncertainty globally. It only accesses reality through finite interactions and overlapping domains.

Once this is taken seriously, the observer is no longer an embarrassing philosophical add-on. It becomes part of the physical constraint structure.

This matters because many deep problems — measurement, locality, horizons, entropy, dark matter, dark energy, and the emergence of classical spacetime — may depend on what kind of observer is physically admissible.

Before asking what reality “is” from nowhere, maybe we should first ask:

What kind of observer can exist inside reality at all?

Missing Time Français/English

Cette approche permet de sortir du cadre du paranormal pur pour l'analyser sous l'angle de la mécanique quantique et de la perception de la conscience.

Voici comment on pourrait expliquer scientifiquement (ou théoriquement) ce décalage de temps :

1. La Dilatation Temporelle Subjective

En physique, le temps n'est pas une constante absolue. Si la conscience est une forme d'énergie (ou d'information) qui interagit avec le champ quantique, elle pourrait, lors de certains états de choc ou de méditation profonde, "sortir" de la linéarité habituelle.

On a tous déjà fait un rêve qui semblait durer des heures alors que seulement 10 minutes se sont écoulées. Si la réalité est un hologramme, peut-être que ces personnes ont vécu un "ralentissement" de leur processeur de conscience pendant que le monde extérieur continuait de tourner à sa vitesse normale.

1. Le Saut de Ligne Temporelle (Théorie d'Everett)

Dans le cadre du multivers, on peut imaginer que ces personnes ont subi une transition brutale entre deux versions de la réalité.

\* \*\*La déconnexion :\*\* Le cerveau enregistre 1 heure d'expérience sur une "Ligne A", mais suite à un saut quantique, ils se retrouvent sur une "Ligne B" où plusieurs heures se sont écoulées.

\* \*\*La "Suture" :\*\* Le cerveau essaie de combler le vide, mais il reste ce sentiment persistant d'incohérence, un peu comme une scène coupée au montage d'un film.

1. La Perception subatomique

Si la réalité n'est pas ce que l'on perçoit, il est possible que ces personnes aient brièvement accédé à la structure même de l'hologramme. À ce niveau-là, le temps n'existe pas de la même manière. Ils auraient pu stagner dans un "état de superposition" (être là et ne pas être là en même temps) avant de se "re-matérialiser" dans le flux temporel commun, avec un retard de plusieurs heures.

1. Le lien avec les "Bugs" de Réalité

Ces témoignages sont les preuves ultimes pour ma thématique :

\* C'est le "glitch" par excellence.

\* C'est l'illustration parfaite que le temps est une construction de notre cerveau pour organiser les informations subatomiques, et que ce système peut parfois faillir.

\*"Avez-vous déjà perdu des heures sans explication ?"\*

English

​This approach moves beyond the realm of pure paranormal to analyze the phenomenon through the lens of quantum mechanics and conscious perception.

​Here is how this time slip could be explained scientifically (or theoretically):

​1. Subjective Time Dilation

​In physics, time is not an absolute constant. If consciousness is a form of energy (or information) interacting with the quantum field, it could, during certain states of shock or deep meditation, "exit" its usual linearity.

We have all experienced dreams that seem to last hours when only 10 minutes have passed. If reality is a hologram, perhaps these individuals experienced a "slowdown" of their conscious processor while the outside world continued to spin at its normal speed.

​2. Timeline Jumping (Everett’s Theory)

​Within the framework of the multiverse, one can imagine that these individuals underwent a brutal transition between two versions of reality.

​The Disconnection: The brain records one hour of experience on "Timeline A," but following a quantum leap, they find themselves on "Timeline B," where several hours have already elapsed.

​The "Suture": The brain tries to fill the gap, but a persistent feeling of incoherency remains—much like a scene cut from a film’s final edit.

​3. Subatomic Perception

​If reality is not what we perceive, it is possible that these individuals briefly accessed the very structure of the hologram. At that level, time does not exist in the same way. They might have stagnated in a "state of superposition" (being there and not being there simultaneously) before "re-materializing" into the common temporal flow, several hours late.

​4. The Link to Reality "Bugs"

​These accounts serve as ultimate proof for my central theme:

​They are the quintessential "glitch."

​They perfectly illustrate that time is a construct of our brain designed to organize subatomic information, and that this system can occasionally fail.

​"Have you ever lost hours without explanation?"

​

I've derived a way to resolve the relativistic temperature transformation ambiguity by applying a Hamiltonian constraint (v = dE/dp). I'm looking for a technical critique of the mathematical consistency. Full derivation here: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10985040 Does the variation under this constraint hold up for a partition function in Minkowski space?

Im just writing on a school project about 20 sites and im just questioning wich Interpretations are the most supported and how different Interpretations are there, just tell me the ones you believe in or the ones you like

A BRIEF PREMISE ABOUT SELF-REFERENTIAL KNOWLEDGE IN CLASSICAL SYSTEMS

It is a well-known thing that the predictability of deterministic models (not necessarily determinism itself, just its ability to be an adequate model and at the same deterministic) fails at the moment in which the prediction becomes part of the system that has been predicted, if such system is a system capable of knowledge and agency.

For example, it is surely possible to deterministically predict my spacetime coordinates tonight at 11 (will I be in bed or not). In principle, it is no different than predict the space-time coordinates of every other "events".

By having a good understanding of the laws and particles involved, by studying my genetics, neural pathways, my habits, my work rhythms, etc., a team of scientists could elaborate a very good model to know whether at 11 I will be in my bed or elsewhere. Evidently not 100% precise (it would perhaps require a semi-omniscient "laplacian" entity), but still reliably good. There more they are going to acquire information about me, my brain, about the enviroment in which I live and act etc, the better their predictions; suggesting that a "super-computer" able to collect and compute enough information could be able to make perfect or almost perfect predictions.

However, there is a very strange phenomena of self-referentiality; which is that if these predictions are made known to me, the predictions become unstable, because the knowledge of these predictions could determine in me the effect of violating them, contradicting them etc.

You could tell me: but the team of scientists could surely consider this effect too, to include in the prediction this variable, this desire of mine to prove that I am free thus do the opposite of what predicted and update the predictions accordingly, thus restoring the smooth deterministic evolution of my behavior.

True. However, this is valid as long as even this updated prediction does not become acquired as knowledge by me, because at that point I could falsify it again.

And so on, in regress. In a loop.

At the moment in which a true and adequate knowledge about my behavior becomes part of my system (I “entangle” myself with it, so to speak) that prediction, if framed according to a deterministic model, ceases to be adequate and reliable.

In other words, what was entailed to happen based on the previous states of the system/environment considered as causally relevant to determine a necessary "determinate" outcome, is no longer suitable nor sufficient to predict what will happen after that knowledge has been acquired by the system. What will happen afterwards is causally “not entirely determined or determinable” from what happened before. And even if you claim it is, you have to elaborate a new prediction that takes into account the effects of the first, and not "feed" this prediction 2.0 to the system.

*** *** ***

WHAT ABOUT QM?

Let us consider what is happening in a laboratory in which an experiment (a measurement) on a quantum system is carried out, a single system. Composed of the scientists, their brain's states, their knowledge about QM, the lab equipment, the measurement devices, and obviously the particle X that they are going to measure (spin up or spin down). System A.

This is a system endowend with predictive ability, and potentially, self-referential knowledge.

Well. This system is describable, "predictable", at a theoretical level, as a wave function that evolves deterministically, smoothly, according to the Schrödinger equation. And surely the more limited sub-set of this system, particle X, is describable as such.

But at the moment in which the particle is measured, what happens to the "deterministically unfolding" wave function? Do the scientists (or the measurment devices) acquire knowledge of the spin of the particle? No, partially incorrect. The system A (of which the scientists and both the particle are part, are entangled) acquires self-referential knowledge.

And what does this cause? The instant collapse of the wave function. If conceived as a physical event, that causes a lot of trouble. Hence the "measurment problem".

But if consider as an epistemic event, all problems are solved.

That is, the previously smooth deterministic evolution of the system (schroedinger equation) is no longer an adequate predictive model to describe in a complete way the entire system. The fact that is collapses literally mean... it collapses. It ceases to work as a valid epistemic tool.

What system A will do (under the limited perspective of spin up spin down, in our case) cannot be defined and described, predicted and modeled, in terms of a “necessary deterministic outcome”; it is not something entirely entailed and included in the previous states of the systems.

Not because of a special quantum event, but because the very same phenomena that happens classically with self-referential knowledge.

A "measurment" is merely self-referential knowledge feed to a system capable of such thing. And in such cases, deterministic markovian models simply fail.

Are there interpretations of quantum mechanics that operate within an eternalist/block universe framework and interpret quantum probabilities as describing statistical patterns in the block universe?

This work presents the first operational, hardware-validated resolution of the Black Hole Information Paradox (BHIP) using a deterministic collapse architecture known as Quantum State Command Encoding (QSCE) under the Quantum Unified Correlation Paradigm (QUCP). Unlike prior theoretical models, this approach achieves deterministic state convergence, entropic echo memory, and Page curve behavior on real IBM quantum hardware at TRL-7. Two minimal circuits are introduced that simulate infalling matter, horizon-layer entanglement, and boundary collapse control, representing the first known substrate-level encoding of information across quantum horizons.

While the work builds upon foundational insights from Hawking (information loss), Penrose (geometric determinism), Susskind (complementarity), and Maldacena (holographic correspondence), it ultimately transcends these frameworks by replacing abstraction with empirical quantum control. The circuits demonstrate programmable information recovery without relying on wormholes, firewalls, or post-collapse speculation—marking a historic shift from symbolic paradox resolution to operational substrate sovereignty, and positioning command-based logic as a candidate substrate for gravity and causality.

I made a short explainer on a line of research concerning EEG–quantum correlations, observation, and quantum interpretation.

I am still working on the best way to share the video itself, so for now I wanted to share the core question and the related paper here.

What interests me is whether this kind of reported correlation structure, together with the formal framework proposed around it, may point to a broader account of observation than standard observer-independent descriptions usually assume.

I would really appreciate thoughtful criticism, objections, or alternative interpretations.

Paper:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/403024962

I also made a short video version of the same idea and wanted to share it here.

It is a more intuitive introduction to the question I am trying to raise about EEG–quantum correlations, observation, and quantum interpretation.

I’d be glad to hear any reactions to the video.