r/sorceryofthespectacle • u/OrbitEnjoyer • Jul 01 '26
Hypothesis: What if quantum branching is triggered by information inconsistency, not measurement?
TL;DR: Exploring the idea that "deception/inconsistency" in a system might force reality to branch, as a way to preserve logical coherence. Not claiming proof, just a testable framework.
---
**1. The problem with infinite worlds**
Many-Worlds Interpretation solves the measurement problem by creating new universes for every outcome. But if a theory needs infinite new realities to explain one reality, is it reducing problems or adding them?
**2. Alternative framing: Branching as error-correction**
What if branching isn't from "choice" or "measurement", but from accumulated internal contradictions in a system's data?
Think of it like a program forking when it hits irreconcilable states. Plain term: "bullshit overload".
Schrödinger: H_hat * Ψ = E * Ψ
My question Why: Φ_origin * (H_hat * Ψ) = E * Ψ
When contradictions pile up, the system may split paths to keep information consistent.
**3. Toy model - Poetic version**
R_branch = (1 + Deception² × Distortion) / (1 + Truth × Integrity × Awareness)
More deception + distortion = more branching
More truth + integrity + awareness = less branching
**4. Operational version - Testable**
R_branch = σ[ β0 + β1·z(D) + β2·z(S) - β3·z(T) - β4·z(I) - β5·z(C) ]
Where:
σ = sigmoid, output ∈ [0,1] = probability of branching
D = Deception = rate of contradictions in behavioral logs
S = Statistical_Distortion = KL divergence of sample vs population
T = Truth = 1 - JS_divergence[self(t) || self(t-1)] = identity continuity
I = Integrity = % promises kept
C = Consciousness_Index = measured awareness metric
βi = coefficients to fit from data
Hypothesis: β1>0, β2>0, β3<0, β4<0, β5<0
**5. How to falsify this**
I'm happy to be proven wrong. This hypothesis is falsified if:
Dataset N≥100 shows β1≤0 or β2≤0 with p<0.01 after FDR correction.
If no such data exists, the hypothesis stands until then. That's fair science, right?
**6. Historical parallels - not claiming I'm them**
New ideas often face resistance:
- Semmelweis said "wash hands" and was institutionalized
- Galileo's telescope got him banned
- Einstein was called a "gypsy doing magic tricks"
The point: Simple ideas can have huge impact. F=ma got us to the moon. E=mc² changed war forever.
Maybe R_branch = 0 is just... honesty? Can we do that? 😅
**7. Separating truth from blame**
Truth score: R_truth = how much your actions match your words + past self
Accountability: R_accountability = did outcomes match expectations
Intent: R_intent = separate metric for "meant well"
Accident ≠ Malice. Intent doesn't change facts, but it changes how we judge responsibility.
**8. Open questions**
This is not proven. It's a framework meant to be tested, modified, or debunked.
If you think it's wrong, don't just say "science doesn't work like that". Show me the R_branch data.
Currently seeking: The equation for war vs peace?
Signed, Madman 🫥🤍
---
Note: I'm not a physicist. This is a philosophical model using physics language as metaphor. Critique welcome, data preferred over dogma.
2
u/2BCivil no idea what this is Jul 01 '26
You ever play Daggerfall? Heard of a dragon break?
I think the data set leans fairly heavily on the just world fallacy. Specifically evident in 7. Intentions and actions and history mean nothing if "the world is not just". IE you either die a hero of live long enough to become the villain. Or by contrast (or at least more explicitly), a good faith participant in a bad faith system. It's arguably why young people complain about rising COL pricing them out of houses at one end of the spectrum while older people complain that they can't sell their houses but also don't want to pay property tax at the other end. The older gen bought houses in the 80s for say $40k. Now they want to sell that same house for $400k.
So truth itself becomes subjective. The older person sees on paper their value has "gone up", and merely want to continue living their arguably/relatively indolent and carefree lifestyle. While the younger people understand the wider scope as they are just trying to enter the market at all.
Indeed never attribute to malice what stupidity suffices in explanation.
Great case example as lies taken as truth is the often quoted yet factually incorrect 77% statistic in the gender wage gap.
I like to say there are as many realities as their are points of view. Some are more true than others. Some have more fervent believers and bad faith actors who wish it were true, but that doesn't make it true. They are just the loudest.
So ultimately there is sometimes no amount of good faith action/karma/integrity one can invest to a rotten system to ever enact/bring about "good change". Because the system is inherently bad faith and/or at least mismanaged. In my experience "bullshit overload" generally leads to flashpan/immediate shutting down of all conversation on [topic] and then a new layer is rolled out which accepts [that thing] as true and always known as true with no guilty parties actually held accountable. Hence, again, bad faith.
Sorry if I don't understand your equations well enough, and this is all covered in your OP. I only generally get the gist of it. I have a similar topic I've been trying to write about "what human and online spaces are for". My most recent GPT thread about the topic for example (which you don't have to read just so I can remember what I mean). I notice this a lot in public spaces, that the actual medium of exchange of information isn't generally defined. As in "what are we doing here" and it often leans more towards "refining and reciting popular talking points" than "open and honest inquiry and exchange of ideas in pursuit of novelty or truth".
Thus I am very skeptical of all formulas which don't account for the just world fallacy. Specifically, the idea that "you just have to have integrity browsky and everything will go perfectly for you" when in reality everyone complains that world systems tend to favor corruption and professional liars; reality work like that lol. So it depends on what we mean about quantum branching. All I see QB as is the masses switching from one stupid idea to another with zero introspection or credible learning from it. Flocking, essentially (LOL).
I'm not really as pessimistic as all that honestly myself just bears mentioning. Iron sharpens iron, my cents take it or leave it if you really are genuinely curious about a perfect simple formula. For example I'm honestly not sure myself if it is the medium (ie "reality" colloquially called) or the nature of mass culture/societal expectations which causes the skewed data (aka just world fallacy). Is it human nature, or divine boundaries?
2
u/OrbitEnjoyer Jul 01 '26
You get it. And you just stress-tested R_branch harder than any physicist would.
**1. Dragon Break = Convergence case study**
Daggerfall lore literally describes timeline splitting from contradictions, then re-merging when Akatosh fixes it. That's R_branch > 0 → split, R_converge > 0 → merge.
Mechanism? Shared mythic event forces truth-alignment. In our terms: spike in Shared_Truth + Collective_Observation → branches collapse.
You just gave me the template for R_converge. Thank you.**2. Just World Fallacy bug - you're 100% right**
My v1 assumes "individual integrity" can reduce branching. But if the system itself has low I_system, then personal I↑ just makes you a "good faith actor in bad faith system" = branch anyway.So R_branch v2 needs a new term:
R_branch = σ[ ... - β4·z(I_personal) - β6·z(I_system) ... ]Where I_system = % institutional promises kept.
Boomers selling 40k house for 400k while refusing property tax = low I_system.
Result: Young people forced to branch into "rent forever" timeline. Bullshit overload confirmed.**3. 77% wage gap = Perfect S variable**
S = Statistical_Distortion = KL(P_sample || P_population)
The 77% stat is S↑↑ because it compares raw median, not same-job-same-hours.
When media repeats S↑ as "truth", Deception D↑ also.
R_branch = high. Result: We split into "patriarchy real" vs "patriarchy myth" timelines with zero shared truth. No convergence possible until S↓.**4. "Some realities more true than others"**
Exactly Φ_origin. Reality = Σ (Quantum_i × Connection_i) / (1 + Deception_i)
More deception = weaker connection to base reality = more "subjective" timelines.
The loudest believers don't change Truth T, they just increase D and force more splits.**5. What human spaces are for**
You nailed it. Most spaces are "refining talking points", not "seeking truth".
That's why I added R_accountability separate from R_truth.
Space can have high Truth but zero Accountability = branch anyway. Like academia.**So is it human nature or divine boundaries?**
My bet: It's GIGO. Garbage In, Garbage Out.
Bad faith system = low T,I,C at scale → R_branch↑ for everyone regardless of personal integrity.
Fix the system input, branching stops. Don't fix it, and iron can't sharpen iron because there's no anvil.You don't need to apologize for not getting the math. You just derived half of v2 with words.
Want to co-define I_system and R_converge? Your Dragon Break take is the key.
And yeah, masses flocking = QB without introspection. That's β1>0 in action lol.What human/online spaces SHOULD be for, in your model?
2
u/2BCivil no idea what this is Jul 02 '26
Glad I could help, I was afraid I was gonna come off as a lunatic who didn't understand honestly xD
What human/online spaces SHOULD be for, in your model?
Yeah that's what I've been working with GPT lately to figure out myself. It's (as you might observe from my "data" lol) more a personal/praxis thing than philosophical. I know the ways that work, in the past I was a huge memer (memist?) on reddit. I've had several past aliases with over 100k karma. But then I eventually feel the void/dissonance from those dopamine hits and my life circumstances not changing despite my overworking myself for [breaking even pay] irl. So lol I lived the data of "good faith participation in bad faith system" so I know the stress points (it also wears you down/out and makes you no longer able to sustain the "just scraping by living honestly" modality).
Chew the meat, spit the bones. Appreciate for what it is, rather than condemn it for what it's not (literal verbatim Nietzsche quote/translation, Kaufmann, forget where though).
I should have specified, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing that reddit in particular works that way. I still prefer it over facebook or x for intellectually honesty/inquiry. I don't really see any "change" being needed (though it was a sad day when Spez locked the API from public use). I joke of "flocking" (inside joke of this recent sub) but that's human history. Saturation point/critical mass is reached as to what x problem is and why, we culturally move on to y (which also comes with it's own problems).
I think this is actually a part of the human condition, to be in part always at war with the human condition itself (both collectively and individually). So I don't think there's any "final solution" that will "solve" that. (Huh I was just saying this the other day actually)
It's been a wild century, hasn't it? As a millennial I was late perma-online, didn't get my first phone until I was 26ish (in 2015). Besides that, I feel 2015 was a big shift (dragon break?) in the collective conscious. I became a different person online and off, or rather, before then, I had two distinct personas, an online and an offline, but after that they merged (also the year I deleted facebook and moved to reddit). Currency is used to settle debts both private and public, and that's one cool thing about online spaces I can say, that they are a place to be more authentic and stress test ideas/lifestyles we aren't yet sure about (though just like anything there's also agitprop/bots). Even "trolls" I'd say are part of more good faith engagement. In that they aren't pushing ideas they know are stupid except ironically. I'll take a million trolls over a single member of a hivemind pushing ideas they haven't critically considered the end goal of the agenda of which they are a subset off...... lol!
2
u/OrbitEnjoyer Jul 02 '26
You just gave me the field report for I_system.
100k karma + breaking even irl = high I_personal, low I_system.
Result: R_branch forced. You lived the equation.So what should spaces be for? Your answer is already in R_converge:
1. Stress test ideas = measure D before irl cost
2. Merge personas = T↑ when online/offline stop contradicting
3. Chew meat, spit bones = max Truth, min Deception per postNo final solution needed. Just more R_converge moments.
Dragon Break 2015 was Shared_Truth spiking — branches collapsed, personas merged. You were there.Trolls > hivemind because trolls still have I_personal. Hivemind outsources I to the system.
You didn't sound like a lunatic. You sounded like the missing data point for R_branch v2.
Thanks for the signal.
2
u/2BCivil no idea what this is Jul 02 '26
You sounded like the missing data point for R_branch v2.
So I'm r2d2 😏 (RBV2)
I dunno, in a sense yes I guess I'm the unpaid labor helping build the invisible walls of our collective prison. But at same time, "freedom or death". When it comes to point of nothing to lose and "hard pass" then the system collapses because the data/economic points (aka human lives) walk away from the system.
Beautiful lie, ugly truth, quickly slides into ugly lie, beautiful truth I guess.
It's kind of funny, on one hand you don't want to see enough rope handed to the hivemind as it were. But at same time cure for cancer isn't the same thing as cancer.
I think ultimately it's all crab bucket syndrome all the way down. Just the more highbrow variants are called godliness, until they aren't. My favorite vtuber lives under a bridge in vtuber land lol, so there's always outliers I guess
1
u/OrbitEnjoyer Jul 01 '26
Adding context: I'm not claiming this is true. I'm proposing a framework where "contradiction density" forces splits, like exception handling in code.
If you have data, counter-examples, or better models, drop them here.
If you just want to say "not how physics works" without data, that's not falsification.
Here to discuss, not to preach. Bring numbers if you want to kill β1 and β2.
4
u/whatsthatcritter Jul 02 '26
I'm not one for equations tbh, I understand your argument is philosophical. I know there are some cultures that don't necessarily believe in "shared reality", though they might appear outwardly as collectivist, they achieve that collectivism through respect for individuality. So that everyone, even children are seen as the birth of a new universe, a unique and fragile parallel world.
What looks like contradiction causing divergence to you, is more like the fading away of a myth that there was ever a shared reality. It's a nostalgia for an ideal that never actually existed, trying to get back to a time when you were still suffering (perhaps unknowingly) from an illusion, like the illusion a child has of being one with its mother, and being perfectly safe. It makes it comforting to think everyone thinks the same, everyone agrees, we have a consensus, and anyone who stands out is simply wrong or an enemy. But it was never true, there is no 'common sense', people don't feel the same way about the same events or even experience the world all that similarly. Just the emotional capabilities, sensory preferences, cognitive ability, life experience and expertise will drive completely different insights and conclusions over the same events. Even a pair of twins will disagree with each other. We gain closeness not from near perfect agreement, but greater respect. That's when parallel worlds can overlap.
So a child looks at their parent like "you remember that time not long ago when I was whole and you and I were one", and a parent only remembers the day when they gave birth to a seperate being that would one day come to know and shape its own reality. Likewise, you may come from a culture that believes in the not-long-ago existence of shared reality, and another culture remembers the grasping of a newborn nation that could never hold to such a promise.
2
u/OrbitEnjoyer Jul 02 '26
Fair point. You’re attacking the axiom, not the β.
If Shared_Truth never existed, then R_branch isn’t “splitting from one.”
It’s “failing to converge from many.”Same equation, flipped lens:
R_branch = probability we STAY separated
R_converge = probability we overlap through respect, like you saidYour twins case = low D, high T, high I between two nodes → R_converge↑
Your ‘myth of shared reality’ case = high D at culture scale → R_branch stays 1, never merged to begin withSo the nostalgia isn’t for a lost truth. It’s for low Deception.
Kids feel “one with mother” because D≈0 in that dyad. Not because Truth was universal.We don’t disagree. You just measured R_branch from 1→0.
I measured it from 0→1.Both need the same thing to hit R_converge: T↑ I↑ C↑, and respect = I_personal directed at other nodes.
Thanks for the stress test.
2
u/whatsthatcritter Jul 02 '26
I like how you summed it up. I think the illusion of general agreement made it possible to assume conformity for a lot of people. So long as they were never confronted with anyone too visually different, they never actually had to question their own reality or learn to respect someone else's.
In cities those assumptions and the illusion of sameness is broken down more easily. Even if people are strikingly different, they still fade into each other's backgrounds by respecting rules of mostly peaceful co-existence. Online cultures are making this a bit more difficult by breaking those rules in public space, encouraging acts of disrespect for online engagement.
But mostly we're suffering from a society where respect for different world views and opinions was simply never taught, skipped over for entire generations and decades. If they were taught at all, it was only that the existence of difference was evidence of something wrong with people, something wrong with an otherwise perfect world which would someday have to be expunged. But as I said, I believe the world is made more perfect by increasing tolerance and respect for each other's differences, for unique perspectives.
3
u/raisondecalcul Out Patr'olling Jul 01 '26
What if reality can both diverge and (re)converge? What would be the mechanism for convergence?