|
Welcome all to my blended site of Consciousness & Physics. You'll notice it isn't very flashy. It's more a repository of shared hypothesis', and topics on understanding the experience of existence and individual wonder. I've published two books on these topics - available in print form and found on Amazon/KDP. Some of my work is open sourced and also found as pre-prints on Zenodo.org and Orcid. Both of my books are available without charge here and offered as PDF's - click in the menu for access to: * The Odds Equation Book * Biased Universe Book (best if you like a soft/easy read) A third book is also offered here, called The Permission You Don't Need. I've left it here to stew and have not yet published it in print form. Of them all - Biased Universe has been more popular - and I'm humble enough to admit I use that term loosely. While everything in "Consciousness" studies is considered speculative and generally out of bounds territory in the world of serious science, everything I compile I try to keep to peer reviewed and established science. I do not proclaim certainty, and nor do I promote nonsense. I also happen to share the same name as another more well known scientist/philosopher, whose work just happens to explore the same ridges of the unknown that I do. To mark that distinction, I use my middle initial (Michael J. Ruse). While I do hold undergraduate and postgraduate degrees from Norwich University, I am not chasing a PHD tenure track or beholden to any institution. I am completely independent, just as skeptical as anyone else, and encourage anyone who can wonder to promote their own work, and critique mine. Please feel free to peruse, share, enjoy, question or shred me to pieces on anything you find here worth your energy. While the bulk of my training in physics is through self, I'm most interested in Consciousness studies, it's potential correlation to the universe, and.....(this is where I lose people).....does awareness continue after biological death. I'm not a theologist and am not trying to find a stairway to Heaven or a God in the traditional human sense, but maybe a step, if such a stairway exists - to awareness, whatever that might even mean. There has never been a single book, lecture, podcast, or peer-reviewed paper (in philosophy, neuroscience, or physics) that seriously confronts the one question we all quietly carry: When the biology expires, what actually happens to the “you” that is experiencing this sentence right now? I do not dodge the question with hope or dismissiveness. I attack it with mathematics. Using only peer-reviewed physics (quantum information theory, statistical mechanics, computational complexity, and the hardest probability bounds we can derive), I attempt to demonstrate that the emergence of a single, continuous, self-aware observer inside this universe is so fantastically improbable that it constitutes a formal anomaly in our current models of reality. Not a small anomaly; an anomaly measured in hundreds of orders of magnitude beyond the Planck scale, beyond a googol standard deviations, beyond anything else physics has ever encountered and simply shrugged off. This is not metaphysical. It is measurement. And measurement at this level demands exploration and explanation. Long story longer: I am an amateur physicist with intuitive ideas, fueled by the fact I am living an existence that some people say extinguishes when my biological body fizzles out. I'm not totally convinced that is true - hence, I follow the science where the reductionists don't bother with. WELCOME! *NOTE* Update of Theory of Everything Version 2 - Plain English: By Michael J. Ruse For most of my life, without knowing the language for it, I’ve been chasing a single question: Why does anything remember anything? Which then would lead me to – ‘Why does a photon know where it’s going’? Or then…..why does a wave collapse at one moment and not another? Why does spacetime “keep” the fact that a black hole merged, or that two masses accelerated apart? Okay, so that is more than a single question, but it all falls under one umbrella. This question followed me through childhood, a long steady career, loss, grief, physics books, YouTube rabbit holes, and conversations with my own memories. Over the years it grew into a suspicion: Maybe the universe keeps traces of everything that happens - not in the form of symbols, but physically. At first I didn’t know what to do with that intuition. But I started writing. When I really buckled down with it, it was during a time of great personal loss for me, but that was the fuel I needed to press ahead. Little ideas became papers: • The Topological Resonance Hypothesis: spacetime might hold long-lived imprints. • The Fractal Vacuum Resonance Hypothesis: the vacuum might be structured, not empty. • The Threshold Information Loss Hypothesis: collapse might have a real physical trigger. • The Resonant Time Field Hypothesis: time might have a field structure. One paper became four. Four became six. Eventually I realized these weren’t separate ideas - they were mere chapters of the same story, and that I should unify them. So I combined the ones that mattered most, into a unified model: Threshold Collapse, Inertial Modulation, and Spacetime Memory (TOE V1). It worked - but I knew in my heart something was missing. I wasn’t sure if I would ever find the missing piece that would make my humble contribution to a TOE more solid, because I didn’t know what to look for that could be missing. I doubted myself many many times, because physics - it seems to me - can at times be a voraciously hungry beast with an army of soldiers just salivating to rip your ideas to shreds. My TOE V1 was innovative, at least to me, but I wasn’t fooling myself either, despite the feeling I had that it was decent, even though it teetered on the meta end of things. Then I stumbled upon the work of mathematician D.L. Bernstein on existence and PDE behavior. I purchased an old book of hers on eBay for $20 on Theorems for Existence and became immersed. This solved a problem I didn’t know I had: My equations needed hard mathematical guarantees. They needed to be well-posed. They needed to have unique solutions. They needed to collapse cleanly under certain conditions and remain stable under others. Bernstein’s work - along with Kenig–Merle threshold theory - gave me the missing formal structure. The collapse line could now be mathematically proven in the way physicists demand and Version 2 was born. Took a lot of time and heart for a guy like me to square the edges. But I know that when people who aren’t mathematically inclined do actually read a hypothesis, it usually gives a reader more questions than answers, and ending with clicking X to close it out. Maybe you’re asking yourself, just what is it, I’m trying to do? What the Theory Is Really Saying: At its heart, TOE Version 2 claims five things: 1. Collapse isn’t random. It’s triggered when a quantum system loses too much information into its environment - an entropy threshold. 2. The vacuum isn’t empty. It has layers of resonant structure that shape inertia and particle identity. 3. Spacetime itself can ‘remember’. Major events leave persistent topological “dents” - like gravitational memory, but more general. 4. When something big happens, the whole vacuum reacts. Super-threshold events create global information cascades. 5. All of this can be tested. With: • atomic interferometers • Casimir measurements • GPS timing anomalies • lunar seismology • vacuum noise statistics • gravitational memory signatures A theory is only valuable if it can be wrong. This one can be. Version 1 was already “falsifiable.” But Version 2 has mathematics that serve like the I-beams on a bridge. Version 1 was intuitive. Version 2 is mathematically defensible. It uses: • linear & nonlinear Klein–Gordon dynamics • stable/unstable threshold bifurcations • Kenig–Merle critical energy theory • deviation fields for spacetime strain • existence and uniqueness results • explicit predictions It’s not “Mike’s cool idea.” It’s: my attempt to create a well-posed, PDE-grounded, physics-anchored attempt at a unifying mechanism behind collapse, inertia, resonance, and spacetime memory. This theory isn’t trying to “win physics.” It’s trying to answer a deeper question: How does something as fragile and temporary as a human life leave an imprint on a universe made of cold equations? And the hypothesis I’ve been building - piece by piece, across years of writing, grief, curiosity, and intuition - is this: Because the universe is made of memory. Because collapse is a memory decision. Because spacetime is a memory field. Because the vacuum resonates with the echoes of everything that ever happened. If that’s true, then consciousness isn’t an accident, it’s a resonance pattern in a field that already knows how to hold history. Version 2 is the most complete attempt I’ve ever made to explain that. It's something, not nothing. **NOTE Update of Theory of Everything - Version 3 When I finished Version 2 of this work, I thought I had finally stabilized the framework. The mathematics were stronger, the collapse threshold had a proper foundation in nonlinear PDE theory, and the model was no longer just intuition tied together with equations. It had structure. But something still bothered me. Version 2 explained when collapse should happen, and it described how spacetime might store persistent imprints of events. What it did not fully explain was how the vacuum itself participates dynamically in that process. In other words: What actually carries the memory? Version 3 grew out of trying to answer that. Instead of treating the vacuum as a passive stage where collapse events happen, Version 3 treats it more explicitly as a structured resonant medium. The key shift is that collapse, inertia, and spacetime memory are no longer separate phenomena connected loosely by equations. They are modeled as different behaviors of the same underlying resonant vacuum system. In simpler terms: the vacuum isn’t just empty space with fields inside it. It behaves more like a layered instrument that can ring, store echoes, and sometimes release those echoes back into the system. Version 3 focuses on three improvements. 1. A clearer dynamical role for the vacuum Earlier versions suggested that the vacuum had structure. Version 3 pushes that idea further by modeling it as a resonant field system with stability thresholds. When a quantum system interacts strongly enough with its environment, energy and information leak into these resonant modes. When that leakage crosses a critical boundary, the system can no longer remain in superposition. Collapse occurs. In this picture, collapse is not a mysterious rule. It is a stability transition in a coupled field system. 2. A stronger connection between collapse and spacetime memory Version 2 already proposed that large events leave persistent imprints in spacetime topology. Version 3 strengthens that link by suggesting that these imprints arise from long-lived vacuum resonance modes excited during extreme events. Think of striking a bell. The bell rings long after the strike. In Version 3, spacetime behaves similarly. Major cosmic events excite resonant structures that can persist far longer than the event itself. This provides a possible mechanism for extended gravitational memory–like effects, but generalized beyond just gravitational waves. 3. Cleaner mathematical framing The mathematics are still built around nonlinear wave dynamics and threshold behavior, but Version 3 attempts to clarify how the stability boundaries arise in the coupled system. The goal is not to claim the equations are the final word. The goal is to show that the framework can be written in a well-posed mathematical language that physicists recognize. A theory that cannot be expressed clearly in mathematics cannot be tested. Version 3 tries to keep that door open. At its core, the model still proposes that: Wavefunction collapse is physical, not purely interpretational. Collapse occurs when a system crosses an information/entropy threshold with its environment. The vacuum has resonant structure, influencing inertia and particle behavior. That spacetime can retain physical memory of extreme events. These effects should produce measurable signatures. Possible testing avenues still include: • atomic interferometry • Casimir vacuum measurements • gravitational memory detection • high-precision timing networks • vacuum noise statistics If the predictions fail, the theory fails. Strengths of Version 3: The main strength of this revision is conceptual unity. Instead of separate mechanisms for collapse, inertia, and spacetime memory, the framework now suggests they may emerge from one underlying resonant vacuum structure. If that idea is correct, it would provide a common physical language connecting: • quantum measurement • inertia • vacuum structure • spacetime memory effects Weaknesses and Open Questions: Version 3 is still exploratory, and I recognize several problems remain. First, the vacuum resonance structure proposed here is not yet derived from a deeper fundamental theory. It is modeled phenomenologically. Second, the mathematical framework, while more stable, still needs independent scrutiny and refinement. Third, the predicted observational effects may be very subtle, which means experimental confirmation could take time. And finally, like every attempt at a “theory of everything,” this one risks being wrong in ways that are not obvious yet. I understand that is part of the process. Why do I bother? Physics advances when someone is willing to ask uncomfortable questions about assumptions everyone else takes for granted. The question that started this whole journey still feels important to me: Why does the universe remember anything at all? Why does spacetime keep track of events? Why does collapse happen at a particular moment? Why do physical systems seem to carry history forward? I make no claim that Version 3 has the final answer. But it suggests a possibility worth exploring: That the universe is not just made of matter and equations. It may also be made of memory. Self-critique: I whole-heartedly recognize the core problem with my ideas/work is the gap between the mathematical language I use and the actual derivations. I understand that invoking physics terminology (PDE theory, vacuum resonance, topological imprints) doesn’t automatically mean the framework is physically well-grounded. Specifically: * “Spacetime memory” - gravitational wave memory is a real, tested phenomenon, but extending that concept to mean spacetime retains general imprints of all events is a significant and unsupported leap. I get it, it's speculative. * “Structured vacuum resonance” - the quantum vacuum does have structure (Casimir effect, vacuum fluctuations), but my model of it as a layered resonant instrument that stores information isn’t derived from QFT in any standard way. * Consciousness survival - The framing that consciousness is so improbable it demands explanation is, in the world of science, a philosophical argument, not a physics result. I accept that critique, as tough as a horse pill that it is to swallow. I can't possibly be more clear that despite rigor, I'm an amateur - doing something genuinely harder than it looks - I'm trying to formalize intuitions about consciousness and physics into testable frameworks. That's an uphill battle for even a pro - it's a full stop moment. Even still, I know a working physicist reviewing these TOE papers would likely find the mathematics I've used as applied rather than derived, meaning real tools that I've borrowed to lend structure to ideas that weren’t born from those tools. I would denote however, that that is a common and understandable limitation for independent researchers without deep training (and other resources) in the relevant fields. Comments are closed.
|
Michael J. Ruse
|
RSS Feed
Proudly powered by Weebly