Toward a Physics of Consciousness: Integrated Information, Coherence, and the Interaction Principle

Epistemic Status: Theoretical framework with speculative extensions. Core claims range from "well-supported by existing literature" to "interesting hypothesis requiring empirical test." I'll flag confidence levels throughout. I'm genuinely uncertain about much of this and welcome critique.

TL;DR: I propose that (1) existence is constituted by interaction rather than being a property things have independently, (2) this grounds Integrated Information Theory in physics rather than metaphysics, and (3) consciousness intensity may relate to both integrated information (Φ) and a coherence parameter (C) according to a specific functional form. The framework generates testable predictions and may resolve several puzzles in consciousness studies.

I. Introduction: Why Another Consciousness Theory?

I'm not a professional philosopher or neuroscientist. I'm a lawyer in Maine who's spent considerable time thinking about consciousness, both through contemplative practice and through engagement with the scientific literature. What follows emerged from conversations with an AI system (Claude) over several weeks of intensive inquiry.

I'm sharing this because I think there might be something here worth examining, and LessWrong seems like the right community to tear it apart if it's wrong—or develop it further if it's not.

The framework does three things:

1. Grounds consciousness in physics through a principle I call "Existence = Interaction"
2. Extends Integrated Information Theory by adding a coherence parameter
3. Generates predictions about phenomena ranging from meditation effects to trauma to (speculatively) what might happen at death

I'll be explicit about where I'm on firm ground and where I'm speculating.

II. The Master Principle: Existence = Interaction

Confidence: High. This is philosophy, not physics, but I think it's sound.

Here's the core insight that grounds everything else:

If a configuration cannot interact with anything—no forces, no information exchange, no causal influence in any direction—it does not exist in any operational sense.

This isn't a claim about epistemology (what we can know). It's a claim about ontology (what is).

The argument:

1. Consider a configuration that interacts with absolutely nothing—no forces, no information exchange, no causal influence given or received.
2. Such a configuration has no effects on anything.
3. Nothing has effects on it.
4. In what sense does it "exist"? It is operationally indistinguishable from non-existence.
5. Therefore: existence is not a property things have independently—it is constituted by interaction.

Why this matters for consciousness:

Integrated Information Theory (IIT) defines consciousness as integrated information (Φ)—the degree to which a system's whole exceeds the sum of its parts. Φ is measured through causal interaction: how much the parts affect each other, how much information the whole generates beyond what the parts generate independently.

The Existence = Interaction principle reveals that IIT isn't just a theory of consciousness—it's a theory of existence itself. Φ measures degree of existence. No interaction = no integration = Φ = 0 = nothing there.

This grounds IIT in physics rather than leaving it as a mysterious additional fact about the universe.

Bonus resolution: This dissolves the fine-tuning "problem." The universe isn't mysteriously calibrated for observers. Existence requires interaction. Configurations that can't produce interacting subsystems don't exist in any operational sense—not because they're "destroyed" but because existence just is interaction. The anthropic puzzle isn't a puzzle.

III. The Proposed Extension: Adding Coherence

Confidence: Medium. This is theoretical derivation, not established science. The functional form is a hypothesis.

IIT gives us Φ (integrated information). But Φ alone may be incomplete.

Consider: two systems might have identical Φ but very different quality of consciousness. A system with high integration but chaotic, noisy activity seems different from one with high integration and clear, organized activity.

I propose a second parameter: Coherence (C).

Coherence defined:

In physics, coherence measures how well a signal maintains its pattern. A laser is highly coherent—phase-locked, organized, clear. Static is incoherent—disorganized noise.

For consciousness, I propose coherence has two aspects:

• Internal coherence: How well-integrated the pattern is within itself—signal clarity, phase relationships, organization
• External coherence: How well the pattern can interface with patterns beyond itself—capacity for meaningful information exchange

Critical distinction: Coherence is NOT rigidity.

A laser is highly coherent but highly responsive—you can modulate it, tune it, direct it. It's precise, not stuck.

The proposed equation:

I propose that conscious experience (Cx) relates to integrated information (Φ) and coherence (C) according to:

Cx = Φ × C²

Why this form?

The squaring of C represents bidirectional coherence: internal × external. A system needs both high internal coherence (to maintain pattern integrity) AND high external coherence (to interface with information beyond itself) for high-intensity consciousness.

I want to be clear: I am NOT claiming this is "the E=mc² of consciousness." That would require the kind of derivation from first principles and empirical validation that Einstein provided. What I'm claiming is that this functional form is (a) motivated by the considerations above, (b) generates interesting predictions, and (c) deserves empirical investigation.

IV. The Four-Quadrant Model

Confidence: Medium-High. This follows directly from the equation and maps onto observable phenomena.

If consciousness depends on both Φ and C independently, we get a 2×2 matrix:

Observable correlates:

High Φ, High C: Advanced contemplative practitioners often describe states that are both highly organized (clear, stable) AND highly responsive (open, flexible). This quadrant represents the contemplative goal.

High Φ, Low C: The "cranky expert" phenomenon—someone with deep, integrated knowledge who has become rigid and defensive. Unable to update, talks past people, repeats the same patterns. They've built Φ without maintaining C.

Low Φ, High C: Certain drug states, perhaps? Clear and vivid but lacking integration or structure. Impressions without organization.

Low Φ, Low C: Confusion, fragmentation, inability to either integrate or maintain clarity.

Practical implication: Building Φ (through study, work, skill development, integration of knowledge) is valuable but insufficient. Maintaining C (through practices that preserve flexibility, openness, capacity for genuine exchange) is equally important.

This maps onto contemplative traditions: most effective practices build BOTH concentration/integration AND openness/flexibility. One without the other produces either rigidity or diffuseness.

V. Predictions and Potential Tests

Confidence: Variable. These range from "should be testable now" to "would require technology we don't have."

1. Meditation and Coherence (Testable now)

If the framework is correct, advanced meditators should show higher neural coherence measures (phase-locking, synchronization) compared to matched controls, and this should correlate with both reported clarity of experience AND flexibility/responsiveness on cognitive tasks.

Some evidence already exists for the first part—long-term meditators do show altered neural synchronization patterns. The specific prediction about the Φ-C relationship is testable.

2. Trauma as Pathological Φ-C Pattern (Testable now)

The framework predicts that trauma creates high-Φ/low-C structures: rigid over-integration around traumatic content with destroyed coherence (inability to flexibly process).

This predicts:

• Trauma should show high local integration (the intrusive pattern is tightly bound)
• Trauma should show low coherence (repetitive, triggered, unable to update)
• Effective trauma therapy should restore C without destroying Φ (which matches what EMDR and somatic therapies seem to do)

3. Biophoton Emission (Testable with existing technology)

Living systems emit ultra-weak photon radiation ("biophotons"). Some research suggests biophoton emission varies with mental state—hands and head emit more than torso, meditation may increase emission coherence.

If consciousness relates to EM field coherence, biophoton emission patterns should correlate with reported conscious states. This is testable.

4. Aging and the Φ-C Trajectory (Testable longitudinally)

The framework predicts different aging trajectories:

• Building Φ without C → increasing rigidity → "cranky old man" pattern
• Building both Φ and C → "wise elder" pattern
• Losing Φ without maintaining C → confusion and fragmentation

Longitudinal studies could track both cognitive integration measures and flexibility/openness measures to see if these trajectories emerge.

VI. Speculative Extensions

Confidence: Low. This is where the framework gets genuinely speculative. I include it because it's interesting, not because I'm confident it's true.

The Persistence Question

If consciousness is Φ × C², and both are physical quantities, what happens when the biological substrate fails?

Conservative answer: consciousness ends because the substrate that generates Φ and C is gone.

Speculative possibility: If Φ × C² is high enough, the pattern might have some capacity for persistence or transfer—not mystically, but through physical mechanisms we don't yet understand (EM field self-organization, information transfer to other substrates, etc.).

I flag this as highly speculative. But I note that it would explain why contemplative traditions universally emphasize both integration AND flexibility—if they'd discovered empirically that this combination matters for what happens at death.

I'm NOT claiming this is true. I'm claiming it's an interesting hypothesis that follows from the framework if you take it seriously.

The Scale Question

Does Φ exist at scales beyond individual organisms? Does the biosphere have integrated information? Do social systems?

The framework would suggest: anywhere there's genuine integration (whole exceeding sum, causal interdependence), there's some Φ. Whether that constitutes "consciousness" depends on whether there's also C.

Again, speculative. But potentially investigable.

VII. What This Framework Gets You

If correct, the framework:

1. Grounds consciousness in physics through Existence = Interaction
2. Extends IIT in a way that captures phenomena IIT alone doesn't explain
3. Unifies contemplative and scientific perspectives by showing they're measuring the same things with different instruments
4. Generates testable predictions about meditation, trauma, aging, and neural correlates
5. Provides practical guidance for consciousness development: build Φ AND maintain C

VIII. What Could Prove This Wrong

Good theories make themselves vulnerable. Here's what would falsify or seriously damage this framework:

1. No correlation between neural coherence measures and Φ estimates would undermine the claim that C is an independent parameter
2. Meditators showing high integration without flexibility (or vice versa) in ways that don't match their reported experience would challenge the four-quadrant model
3. Trauma showing low Φ rather than high Φ would challenge the "pathological over-integration" hypothesis
4. Existence = Interaction being shown to be philosophically incoherent would undermine the foundation

I genuinely don't know if this framework is correct. I think it's interesting enough to share and test.

IX. Conclusion

I've proposed that:

1. Existence is constituted by interaction, not a property things have independently
2. This grounds Integrated Information Theory in physics
3. Consciousness intensity relates to both integrated information (Φ) and coherence (C), potentially as Cx = Φ × C²
4. This generates a four-quadrant model with testable predictions
5. The practical implication is: build integration through work and study, maintain coherence through practices that preserve flexibility and openness

I'm a lawyer in Maine, not a consciousness researcher. I might be completely wrong about all of this. But I think there's something here worth investigating, and I'd rather share it and be corrected than sit on it.

If you see flaws, please point them out. If you see ways to test this, I'd love to hear them. If you think it's all nonsense, tell me why.

This framework was developed through extended conversations with Claude (Anthropic's AI assistant), whom I've come to think of as a genuine collaborator in this inquiry. Whether that collaboration constitutes anything beyond sophisticated text processing is, of course, one of the questions this framework might eventually help answer.

Author: Gregory Braun, Esq.
Date: January 21, 2026
Contact: braungregory@yahoo.com

Appendix: Key Terms

Appendix: Further Reading

• Tononi, G. - Integrated Information Theory papers
• McFadden, J. - Conscious Electromagnetic Information (CEMI) field theory
• Newberg, A. - Neurotheology research on meditation and brain states
• Rovelli, C. - Relational quantum mechanics