Matt >From "no thing", "every thing" isn't conscious, not by Orch-OR definition. For an Earth universe (our Earth galaxy) to exist, there seems to be no requirement for a directly-measurable and pervasive consciousness. The standard model proves a 3D + time (a 4D) universe as a real (falsifiable) universe. Quantum physics supports, and finds support in the standard model. E.g., quantum gravity is only applicable to very-specific cosmological perspectives.
Unification of up to 5D Earth-universal modes and dimensions have been proven (ref: public papers on ZPE-mode experiments, including for de Broglie and Moody pilot-wave-to-light). How the Earth universe operates within 5D is derivable within the context of a Kaluza-Klein 5D reality. In other words, in applied scientific research, the standard model may now confidently be extended to include 5D, insodoing seamlessly unifying with quantum mechanics/physics. The fact that it's not happening yet, is only a matter of time. Meanwhile patents and prototypes are rolling out. The 5th dimension is the theoretical realm of black-hole seeding (information), quantum memory, quantum foam, horizon, black holes (there is no information paradox anymore), wormholes, etc. In other words, it is scalar to 11D. Insodoing, unifying for String Theory, Quantum Loop Gravity and a few others, all critical paradoxes, conjectures, and "insolvables", solving for NP Hard and other "hard" questions. The Riemann Hypothesis has been proven to hold as a universal truth. The Einstein-Rosen bridge is proven to be valid and eliable, and so totally amazing. I've read at least one theory, which detailed a mechanism for opening the throat of the ER bridge (wormhole) and how to keep it open indefinitely. I've seen the experimental lab results of a scientist who created the 5D wormhole effect, and then wondered aloud: "Did I just break reality?" In a modest, low-energy "home" lab. Yip, he probably did. He's very quiet lately. Maybe he disappeared into the hole. Who knows what's possible? To conclude, everything and nothing are extreme stochastic, or entropic, terms. This presents a juxtaposition of ideas, not scientific theory. In that sense, let me agree with you in terms of philosophical science. However, in terms of theoretical and experimental physics, the statement could be proven to be valid, but not reliable. If you've read up to here, next, your early-Christmas pressie. Which theory was key to unlocking the Earth universe? Prime-number driven, ADEC. I'd highly recommend getting a hold of the enigmatic Gianluca Pisano's ADEC theory (in Italian). it will rock your software-dev world. Only verified up to the lower boundary of String Theory, there's no scientific doubt it functions as one of the keys to the Earth universe. I've left a latent question in there for you to selectively pick up on. On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 5:32 AM Matt Mahoney <[email protected]> wrote: > Panpsychism (everything is conscious) is indistinguishable from > materialism (nothing is conscious). Or is there an experiment that would > tell us which universe we are in? > > -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] > > On Sun, Nov 9, 2025, 10:55 AM John Rose via AGI <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Sunday, November 09, 2025, at 8:34 AM, Matt Mahoney wrote: >> >> Are dogs conscious? Are fish conscious? Are insects conscious? At what >> point after conception does a human become conscious? Is an LLM that passes >> the Turing test conscious? Is a simple reinforcement learner like >> http://mattmahoney.net/autobliss.txt conscious? >> >> A philosophical zombie is defined to be exactly like a human by any >> behavioral test except for lacking consciousness. Are you OK with this >> definition? If not, what is your test for consciousness? >> >> >> UCP consciousness is easy, everything has consciousness just some things >> have more. And it should be somewhat computable or estimable. Animals >> obviously are conscious, bugs, bacteria, the tricky things are rocks but >> take that down to atomic. Does an atom have consciousness? Yes simply >> because it is possible to know that it exists via some physical >> interaction, a protocol, and for it to sense that something else exists. >> But an insect would have less consciousness than a human simply due to the >> scaling. Humans have more bandwidth and symbol complexity. An exercise >> might be to determine if one protein molecule has more consciousness than a >> different protein molecule. Does empty space have consciousness? Yes it >> would have to since forces are present. >> >> Sounds simplistic but to me it seems to resolve ALL issues with >> consciousness. It might not be complete with quantum fields or whatever but >> I think it might just fit in with entanglement, superposition, etc.. >> > *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* > / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + > participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + > delivery options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> > Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T7ff992c51cca9e36-M6f34aeef6851564b09838192> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T7ff992c51cca9e36-M5c27575cdc6efa3d2eb01aad Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
