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:

Grounds consciousness in physics through a principle I call "Existence = Interaction"
Extends Integrated Information Theory by adding a coherence parameter
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:

Consider a configuration that interacts with absolutely nothing—no forces, no information exchange, no causal influence given or received.
Such a c

...

Posts

Wikitag Contributions

Comments

Posts

Wikitag Contributions

Comments