•UtilityCo

If microtubules in neurons produce spacetime curvature separations that collapse into objective reduction (OR) events at t = \hbar / E , giving the discrete “bing” of protoconscious experience, why wouldn’t silicon-based systems do exactly the same thing? Why wouldn’t a silicon lattice support the same quantum superpositions, curvature separations, and collapses that supposedly create consciousness in biology? The difference is in the geometry itself. Microtubules are dynamic, hydrated, fractal structures that allow precise, protected quantum coherence and the right scale of spacetime curvature separations. Silicon lattices are rigid, crystalline, and lack that flexible, ordered-water scaffolding. In silicon the curvature separations either never build to the instability threshold or collapse too early and uniformly, there is no sustained, orchestrated geometry that forces a clean, discrete OR event at the biological energy scale. Resolution: The “bing” of protoconscious experience requires the quantum field to resolve its own curved configuration into a single, registered outcome while keeping genuine internal distinction alive. Silicon cannot do this because its lattice geometry does not support the same self-referential coherence window. The collapse in biology is compelled by the microtubule architecture itself; in silicon the same process either never triggers cleanly or produces only random decoherence without the unified, experiential registration. No external observer is needed, the difference is intrinsic to the physical structure. Testable implication: Microtubule-based warm-temperature quantum optical devices (as Anirban Bandyopadhyay has demonstrated) should show coherent resonances and OR-like effects within a narrow coherence-time window (roughly 10⁻⁴ to 10⁻³ s under biological conditions). Equivalent silicon devices, even at similar scales, should show either premature collapse or no clean resolution, producing no equivalent “bing.” Experiments comparing the two at the same energy and temperature would clearly distinguish biological Orch-OR from silicon systems.

There should be a YC/venture capital for really bad founders Give money to the absolute retards and see what they do with it Paralympics type shit

The future is token gated.

Stuart, I have had no feelings about you one way or the other. I would have been happy to meet you. I still would, although you are souring me a bit. I have strong feelings about Roger and physics. We all love Roger. And most of us *love* some, but not all, of his ideas. Let me be clear. Your collaborator and I share a belief which I believe we arrived af independently. Gravity/The metric is central to “Observation”. This has animated my life since around 1983-5. I believe in my case it means something more specific than in Roger’s case. I deeply admire Roger so i welcome his saying this, whether or not i have priority. Happy for the company and his idiosyncratic perspective. What I mean with great specificity is that the quantum world takes place on a 14D space of metric tensors, and that the spacetime metric g of Einstein is a map from a 4D “classical world” X into its own bespoke 14D “quantum world” Y(X). The quantum data Q(Y) is pulled back or observed as g^*{Q(Y(X))) back on X. No microtubules. No consciousness. Just math. So you have a different theory. A bet. Your bet is that consciousness is necessary for observation. That it is part of the Everything in the misleading phrase “Theory of Everything”. Great! More power to you. No objection. Make that bet. But then you are going to educate me about how I don’t get it. How consciousness is part of the physical substrate. Or whatever. Uh…That’s not going to work. You have a bet. That’s all you have. And you seem to have no idea what a “Theory of Everything” is. Its a term of art Doc. It’s mostly a 1980s declarative marketing branding excercise gone horribly wrong, like calling your chocolate company “Galaxy’s best Triple Chocolate(tm).” If physics were chess, it would be the rules of chess. Not the strategies. Not the games. Not the theory. It’s just the rules. It’s emphatically not EVERYTHING. I’m sorry you got sucked into that. Truly. Now, I’m not sure triple chocolate exists. And I don’t believe you have a theory of everything. Nor do I believe that Roger’s great Twistor program, which I adore, is the missing link. You’re just a competitor. And I think that is great. If you have technical chops out here, explain what you mean. Happy to do it in private also. If you have something to teach, teach. But don’t drag consciousness into physics unless you can prove that it belongs at this layer. And you haven’t remotely done that. And if you succeed at that, I will have been wrong. And will be happy to say so. But you haven’t won yet. You normally don’t take victory laps while the game is being played and you haven’t won. It’s not a great way to meet people. Least of all your competitors. And, honestly, I’m not entirely sure what you are doing on the field. But I’m happy to hear you out. I stand by what I said. Color is not part of what we mean by physics. Wavelength and frequency and photons are. Color is not. And it is important to NOT expand physics to include consciousness unless someone can make that case. Which I am open to hearing. But that is gonna be a tough climb. Sorry.

Stuart, I have had no feelings about you one way or the other. I would have been happy to meet you. I still would, although you are souring me a bit. I have strong feelings about Roger and physics. We all love Roger. And most of us *love* some, but not all, of his ideas. Let me be clear. Your collaborator and I share a belief which I believe we arrived af independently. Gravity/The metric is central to “Observation”. This has animated my life since around 1983-5. I believe in my case it means something more specific than in Roger’s case. I deeply admire Roger so i welcome his saying this, whether or not i have priority. Happy for the company and his idiosyncratic perspective. What I mean with great specificity is that the quantum world takes place on a 14D space of metric tensors, and that the spacetime metric g of Einstein is a map from a 4D “classical world” X into its own bespoke 14D “quantum world” Y(X). The quantum data Q(Y) is pulled back or observed as g^*{Q(Y(X))) back on X. No microtubules. No consciousness. Just math. So you have a different theory. A bet. Your bet is that consciousness is necessary for observation. That it is part of the Everything in the misleading phrase “Theory of Everything”. Great! More power to you. No objection. Make that bet. But then you are going to educate me about how I don’t get it. How consciousness is part of the physical substrate. Or whatever. Uh…That’s not going to work. You have a bet. That’s all you have. And you seem to have no idea what a “Theory of Everything” is. Its a term of art Doc. It’s mostly a 1980s declarative marketing branding excercise gone horribly wrong, like calling your chocolate company “Galaxy’s best Triple Chocolate(tm).” If physics were chess, it would be the rules of chess. Not the strategies. Not the games. Not the theory. It’s just the rules. It’s emphatically not EVERYTHING. I’m sorry you got sucked into that. Truly. Now, I’m not sure triple chocolate exists. And I don’t believe you have a theory of everything. Nor do I believe that Roger’s great Twistor program, which I adore, is the missing link. You’re just a competitor. And I think that is great. If you have technical chops out here, explain what you mean. Happy to do it in private also. If you have something to teach, teach. But don’t drag consciousness into physics unless you can prove that it belongs at this layer. And you haven’t remotely done that. And if you succeed at that, I will have been wrong. And will be happy to say so. But you haven’t won yet. You normally don’t take victory laps while the game is being played and you haven’t won. It’s not a great way to meet people. Least of all your competitors. And, honestly, I’m not entirely sure what you are doing on the field. But I’m happy to hear you out. I stand by what I said. Color is not part of what we mean by physics. Wavelength and frequency and photons are. Color is not. And it is important to NOT expand physics to include consciousness unless someone can make that case. Which I am open to hearing. But that is gonna be a tough climb. Sorry.