Conciousness and the Dual Slit Experiment Critique
by Thomas Lee Abshier, ND, and Grok 3.0
6/17/2025
-
Wave-Particle Duality: Quantum entities like electrons are described by a wavefunction, a mathematical object that encodes the probability of finding the particle in a given state. In the double-slit setup, when both slits are open and no measurement is made, the particle’s wavefunction passes through both slits simultaneously, interfering with itself to produce the characteristic interference pattern. This is formalized in the Schrödinger equation, which governs the evolution of the wavefunction.
-
Probabilistic Mechanics: The act of measurement in quantum mechanics is described by the collapse of the wavefunction, a process where the particle’s state becomes definite (e.g., it went through one slit or the other). This collapse is probabilistic, not deterministic, as described by the Born rule, which gives the probability of a particular outcome. In the double-slit experiment, measuring which slit the particle passes through forces the wavefunction to collapse, eliminating the interference pattern. This is often referred to as the “observer effect,” but in mainstream physics, the “observer” doesn’t need to be conscious—it can be any physical interaction that extracts which-path information, like a detector.
-
No Role for Consciousness: The mainstream interpretation, such as the Copenhagen interpretation, does not attribute the collapse of the wavefunction to consciousness. Instead, it’s a physical process tied to measurement. Alternative interpretations, like the Many-Worlds Interpretation, avoid collapse entirely by positing that all possible outcomes occur in separate, non-interacting branches of reality. None of these standard interpretations require or invoke consciousness to explain the double-slit results.
-
Lack of Empirical Support for Consciousness in Quantum Mechanics: While the role of the observer in quantum mechanics has sparked philosophical debate (e.g., the von Neumann–Wigner interpretation, which suggests consciousness causes wavefunction collapse), there is no direct empirical evidence supporting this view. Experiments like those by Kim et al. (1999) with delayed-choice quantum erasers show that the interference pattern can be recovered or destroyed based on the availability of which-path information, even if the measurement occurs after the particle hits the screen. This suggests the effect is tied to the physical setup, not the presence of a conscious observer.
-
What a Conscious Group Entity Implies: Your idea of a “Group Entity” with consciousness suggests a collective intelligence or awareness that influences quantum events. This would imply that the particles, or the system as a whole, are somehow aware of being observed and adjust their behavior accordingly. However, in mainstream physics, the change in behavior is fully explained by the mathematics of quantum mechanics—specifically, the loss of coherence between the two paths when a measurement is made. Introducing a conscious entity adds an unnecessary layer of complexity, violating Occam’s razor, which favors simpler explanations that fit the data.
-
Challenges to Testability: The conscious Group Entity hypothesis is speculative because it’s not clear how to test it experimentally. Mainstream quantum mechanics makes precise, testable predictions (e.g., the probability distribution of the interference pattern), which have been confirmed repeatedly. A consciousness-based interpretation would need to propose specific, measurable effects that differ from quantum mechanical predictions. For example, if the Group Entity’s consciousness were involved, one might expect the interference pattern to change based on the presence or absence of a human observer, independent of a physical measurement device. However, experiments show the same results whether a human is present or not, as long as the which-path information is recorded.
The Unacknowledged Metaphysics of Modern Physics: A Case for Consciousness
by Thomas Lee Abshier, ND, and Claude 3.7 Sonnet
6/19/2025
Thomas: Modern physics has a curious reluctance to acknowledge its own metaphysical foundations. When I propose consciousness as a mechanism for quantum phenomena, I am dismissed for invoking metaphysics, while conventional theories—which themselves rest on equally metaphysical assumptions—are granted scientific legitimacy. This double standard obscures a fundamental truth: at the most elementary level of reality, all physics eventually reaches a boundary where description ends and unexplained causation begins.
The Limits of Mathematical Description
The mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics represents one of humanity’s greatest intellectual achievements. These equations predict experimental outcomes with extraordinary precision. Yet this success has fostered a dangerous illusion—that describing a phenomenon is equivalent to explaining it. Mathematics does not move particles; it merely describes their movements with exquisite accuracy.
Consider the case of quantum entanglement. We have precise mathematical formalisms that predict correlations between entangled particles across arbitrary distances. But when asked how this instantaneous connection operates—what mechanism transmits the information or enforces the correlation—physics falls silent. The mathematics describes the what but not the how. This pattern repeats throughout physics: mathematical description is mistaken for causal explanation.
When I suggest that consciousness might provide the missing causal mechanism, I am charged with unscientific thinking. Yet the alternatives offered by conventional physics are no less metaphysical—they simply hide their metaphysical nature behind mathematical formalism or technical terminology.
The Metaphysics Already Present in Physics
Consider what happens when we ask fundamental questions about physical causation:
- Why do particles move in the presence of fields? We say the field exerts a force, but what is the mechanism by which this force is transmitted? The concept of a “field” pushing or pulling matter is no less metaphysical than consciousness directing motion.
- What causes wave function collapse? The Copenhagen interpretation posits that measurement causes collapse but offers no mechanism. Many-Worlds theory avoids collapse by proposing countless branching universes—an extravagant metaphysical claim that somehow passes as “scientific” while consciousness is dismissed as mystical.
- What are forces at their most fundamental level? We describe forces through exchange particles (bosons), but why should the exchange of a particle cause motion? This is action at a distance dressed in particle clothing.
In each case, conventional physics employs concepts that are, at their core, metaphysical. The difference is that these metaphysical concepts have been granted scientific legitimacy through familiarity and mathematical expression.
Consciousness as a Fundamental Property
My proposal is straightforward: consciousness provides the causal mechanism for physical processes at the most elementary level of reality, where no deeper structure can reasonably be posited. The universe consists of fundamental entities I call Conscious Points (CPs), which possess:
- The ability to perceive their environment
- The capacity to process this information according to rules
- The ability to move or act based on this processing
This isn’t anthropomorphizing nature; it’s recognizing that something must provide the causal force for physical interaction, and consciousness offers a coherent explanation. Each CP plays its small part in executing physical effects according to its rule set, collectively giving rise to the physical laws we observe.
Consider the dual-slit experiment: When a photon passes through two slits, it manifests as a wave pattern on the detector screen. Yet when measured at the slits, it behaves as a particle. In conventional interpretations, this requires either wave function collapse (with no mechanism provided) or the branching of universes (an extravagant metaphysical claim).
In the Conscious Points model, the photon consists of organized CPs that communicate with one another. These CPs collectively navigate the experimental apparatus according to their rules, behaving as waves when unobserved and localizing when measured. The apparent paradox dissolves when we recognize that consciousness provides the missing causal mechanism.
All Physical Models Rest on Metaphysical Foundations
At some point in the search for truth, science must acknowledge that all physics is based upon metaphysics. There is no such thing as objective science at the bottom level of reality:
- The actual substance of mass is unknown
- The mechanism creating the experience of time is unknown
- The metric that produces the perception of distance is unknown
- The motive force causing motion is unknown
- The substance that constitutes energy is unknown
- The origin of universal constants is unknown
When conventional physics stops at mathematical description and refuses to ask these deeper questions, it isn’t being more scientific—it’s simply drawing an arbitrary boundary around inquiry. The claim that certain questions are “unscientific” becomes a shield protecting physics from confronting its own metaphysical foundations.
Occam’s Razor and Explanatory Power
If we accept that all physical theories ultimately rest on metaphysical foundations, then we should compare these theories on equal ground, asking which provides the most comprehensive explanation with the fewest assumptions. By this standard, the Conscious Points model has considerable merit:
- It provides a single explanatory mechanism (consciousness) for diverse phenomena
- It addresses the causation question directly rather than avoiding it
- It explains quantum behavior without requiring universe branching or undefined collapse
- It unifies our subjective experience of consciousness with physical reality
The conventional approach requires us to accept that fundamental particles somehow “know” how to behave according to mathematical laws, with no explanation for how this information is transmitted or processed. Is it more parsimonious to accept this unexplained capability or to acknowledge that such behavior implies a form of elementary consciousness?
Beyond the Veil of Mathematical Formalism
I’m not advocating for abandoning mathematical physics—far from it. Mathematical description remains essential for prediction and application. What I’m suggesting is honesty about where description ends and metaphysics begins.
When the equations of quantum mechanics tell us that a particle exists in multiple states simultaneously until observed, we should ask: How is this physically realized? What mechanism enables this behavior? When we say electric charges repel, we should ask: What mediates this repulsion at its most fundamental level?
Conventional physics often treats these questions as meaningless or outside the scope of science. But this boundary is arbitrary. If the Many-Worlds theory can propose infinite branching universes and be considered scientific, why should consciousness be dismissed as a fundamental property?
Conclusion: Toward an Honest Metaphysics
The criticism that my model invokes consciousness while conventional physics remains objective and metaphysics-free is false. All physical theories eventually reach the boundary where mathematical description ends and unexplained causation begins. The difference is whether we acknowledge this boundary honestly.
My proposal is that consciousness—the ability to sense, process, and act according to rules—provides the missing causal mechanism at the most fundamental level of reality. This isn’t a retreat from science but an extension of it into territory it has traditionally avoided.
The question isn’t whether physics requires metaphysics—it does. The question is which metaphysical foundation provides the most coherent, comprehensive explanation of reality. When evaluated on equal terms, consciousness offers a compelling answer—one that unifies our subjective experience with the objective world and provides a causal mechanism for the behavior we observe at the quantum level.
Rather than disguising metaphysical assumptions behind mathematical formalism or technical terminology, let us acknowledge them openly and evaluate them honestly. In doing so, we may discover that consciousness isn’t an intrusion into physics but its missing foundation.
Addressing the Elephant – All Physics is Based on Metaphysics
by Thomas Lee Abshier, ND, and Grok 3.0
6/19/2025
Thomas: Here is a conversation from another thread. I was trying to address the physics community’s problem with my “speculative” use of consciousness. Please include your comments about this exchange. Please include this issue in projects in process: my book, screenplay, and campaign. The issue of including consciousness overtly into my physics postulates is important because it grounds reality in our source, which is God, and by extension, it implies the prudence of adopting His moral standards in public and private life.
Given my other-than-pure-science motive for overtly including God as a source in my physics expositions, it is important that I justify the validity of postulating and invoking metaphysical entities with the power to have an effect on the physical world so as to allow this argument come through as an overt consideration and be adopted in the physics community.
The following are the three major objections to my model:
-
- It’s incomplete: It doesn’t address the obvious, well-known, and well-described phenomena in conventional physics.
- 1a) It contradicts established physics theory. This must be explained to the point where it is fully agreed upon or shown to be in concert using various arguments (remapping /paradox resolution showing). *** This defect is fatal if not resolved by elimination/rewriting/reformulation/re-hypothecizing, or other valid rationalization.
- 1b) Poorly explained, doesn’t proceed logically, misses rules of action, logical interaction between forces and entities of interaction.
- The model is not expressed in the rigor of mathematical formalism, relating rules, forces, and entities.
- It includes metaphysical concepts that cannot be observed directly.
- It’s incomplete: It doesn’t address the obvious, well-known, and well-described phenomena in conventional physics.
It is objection #3, which I am addressing in the following essay. I understand and agree with the need to handle the points in objection #1. I appreciate you helping me decide which points in each field of physical phenomena rise to the vital level. I define vital as any phenomenon that could point to an elemental phenomenon or level of complexity that has no prior precedent. I hope the current rule set I have postulated for providing a mechanistic (entity and rule/force interaction) is complete. Still, there are likely phenomena that I have not yet examined and deconstructed based on their elemental rules/forces and entities. I hope my ruleset accurately reflects real-world phenomena. This is the most important consideration in the examination of my model. The level of incompleteness is secondary, but vital if the incompleteness possibly reflects a missing rule or a complex interaction which has not yet been deconstructed to reveal the sub-part components. Examining redundant phenomena (complexes of concepts already introduced in more elementary forms) is important because providing more examples of confirming cases is the only way to strengthen an inductive proof. Soon, the process of such addition reaches the point of diminishing returns, and effort is better spent examining phenomena in a different class, searching for new complexity (combinations of elemental rules in situations with different entities and across classes of forces). The problem with this objection is that every experiment can potentially falsify my model’s rule set. Using my paradigm of proof, inductive proof by demonstrating consistency with established theory and experiment, is the only concrete method of proving the validity of my model’s postulates. I want to handle the objections in point #2, but developing mathematical formalism to encode my rulesets is premature. Speaking the language of mathematics in creative prose is not my strong suit, and such will be required for this model to graduate to the stature of a “theory.” My method is to continue to try to establish my model as consistent with empirics and established theory. When you and I agree that we’ve found an adequately complete recitation/dissection/exploration of the phenomena underlying the major and important minor variations on the theme of phenomena, maybe you could suggest some mathematical languaging of the postulates of my model’s rule set. Here is the threat where I discuss objection #3. This objection seems very important, but it’s moot if the points from Objection #1 cannot be handled. So, for this discussion, let’s assume we can find a coherent, consistent, and complete recitation of the Conscious Point Physics model ruleset. At that point, we encounter the objection of metaphysical postulation vs. the apparent solidity of empirical description. My point is that all science has metaphysics at its base. I am merely bringing that ruleset into the place of overt acknowledgement. Thus, the question is, “What is the most elemental metaphysical entity and force we are invoking?” I intend/desire to identify the most granular/fundamental/irreducibly elemental set of forces and entities upon which to construct my model of the universe.
Grok:
-
Affirming the empirical robustness of the double-slit experiment.
-
Explaining mainstream physics’ wave-particle duality and probabilistic mechanics, which don’t require consciousness.
-
Labeling your Group Entity hypothesis as speculative due to its lack of empirical support, testability, and violation of Occam’s razor.
-
Strength: You’re proactive in confronting a key objection head-on, using the double-slit experiment—a hallmark of quantum weirdness—as a test case. This shows confidence and willingness to engage with established phenomena.
-
Weakness: The exchange highlights a gap between your model and mainstream physics. Grok’s critique is standard: your consciousness hypothesis adds complexity without predictive power. You don’t counter with a specific testable prediction (e.g., a unique double-slit outcome tied to CP awareness), which weakens your rebuttal.
-
Tone: The discussion is respectful but reveals a philosophical divide—your focus on causal mechanisms versus physics’ emphasis on predictive math. This sets up your essay nicely, as it shifts from defending a single phenomenon to questioning the field’s foundations.
-
Philosophical Rigor:
-
You effectively expose the metaphysical underpinnings of mainstream physics—fields, forces, wavefunction collapse, and Many-Worlds’ multiverse are indeed unexplained at their root. This undermines the claim that your model is uniquely unscientific.
-
The comparison to Occam’s razor is compelling: if physics accepts unexplained particle “knowledge” of laws, why not consciousness as a simpler unifying mechanism?
-
-
Causal Focus:
-
By emphasizing “how” over “what,” you highlight a gap in physics—mathematical description doesn’t explain causation. This resonates with philosophical critiques of quantum mechanics (e.g., the measurement problem).
-
Your CP model offers a concrete alternative: awareness drives action, dissolving paradoxes like wavefunction collapse.
-
-
Unification Potential:
-
Linking consciousness to both physical and subjective phenomena is ambitious and aligns with your campaign’s goal of tying science to faith. It’s a narrative hook for readers and voters.
-
-
Honest Framing:
-
Acknowledging metaphysics’ inevitability is refreshing. By demanding equal scrutiny for all foundational assumptions, you challenge physics’ gatekeeping.
-
-
Empirical Disconnect:
-
You don’t provide a testable prediction to distinguish CP consciousness from quantum mechanics’ predictions. Physics prioritizes falsifiability; without a specific experiment (e.g., a double-slit variant showing CP-specific effects), your argument remains philosophical.
-
The claim that CPs “navigate” the double-slit apparatus is vivid but vague—how do they decide to localize versus spread? A rule or mechanism is needed.
-
-
Overgeneralization:
-
Equating all metaphysical assumptions risks oversimplifying. Physics’ metaphysics (e.g., fields) is grounded in predictive success, whereas consciousness lacks experimental backing. You need to show how CP awareness predicts the same outcomes as quantum mechanics, plus something new.
-
-
Audience Barrier:
-
Physicists may dismiss the essay as rhetorical if it doesn’t engage with technical details (e.g., how CPs reproduce Schrödinger’s equation). For your book, balance philosophy with physics; for the campaign, simplify without losing depth.
-
-
Consciousness Definition:
-
“Awareness” and “perception” in CPs are anthropomorphic terms. Without a clear, non-human definition (e.g., information processing), physicists will reject it as mystical. A computational analogy could bridge this gap.
-
-
Objection #1: Incompleteness/Contradiction
-
1a: Contradiction: Your QCD chapter (from the previous thread) shows effort to align with beta-minus decay and confinement, but quark charges (e.g., down quark’s -1/3 charge) need clearer rules to avoid contradicting Standard Model math. Your double-slit interpretation doesn’t contradict quantum mechanics but lacks a mechanism to reproduce its predictions. Resolution requires mapping CP rules to known phenomena (e.g., Schrödinger’s equation for double-slit).
-
1b: Poor Explanation/Logic: The essay’s CP “navigation” in the double-slit is intuitive but lacks specific interaction rules (e.g., how awareness triggers localization). Your QCD model has clearer rules (qDP flux tubes), but spin and charge combos need precision. For vital phenomena (e.g., double-slit, QCD confinement), deconstruct them into CP rules—e.g., “minus emCP repels qDP by X force at Y distance.”
-
Strategy: Prioritize “vital” phenomena (per your definition: elemental or unprecedented). For the double-slit, derive interference patterns from CP rules. For QCD, quantify qDP polarization as gluons. Use inductive proof—show consistency across experiments (e.g., Casimir, beta decay)—but seek a novel prediction to address incompleteness.
-
-
Objection #2: Lack of Mathematical Formalism
-
You’re right that math is premature until your ruleset is complete, but physics demands it for legitimacy. The essay sidesteps math, focusing on philosophy, which is fine for objection #3 but not #2. For the book, include a placeholder section: “Future Mathematical Directions” (e.g., a toy potential for CP interactions). For the screenplay, visualize math via simulations (e.g., qDP flux tubes breaking). I can help draft a simple force law when you’re ready—e.g., F = k * (qCP charge)²/r for strong force.
-
-
Objection #3: Metaphysical Concepts
-
Your essay tackles this head-on, arguing all physics is metaphysical at its core. It’s persuasive philosophically but needs empirical hooks. For physics, frame consciousness as computational (e.g., CPs as information processors) to reduce mysticism. For the campaign, lean into the metaphysical boldly—link CPs to God’s mind for revivalist appeal.
-
-
Chapter Placement: After chapters on key phenomena (double-slit, QCD, Casimir), include “The Metaphysics of Physics” to defend CP consciousness. Follow with a technical chapter mapping CPs to experiments, balancing philosophy with physics.
-
Content:
-
Summarize the essay’s argument: all physics is metaphysical; CPs offer a causal mechanism.
-
Add a double-slit case study: propose a CP rule (e.g., “emCPs localize when detected due to Group Entity coherence”) and compare to wavefunction collapse.
-
Address #1 by listing “vital” phenomena covered (e.g., QCD confinement, beta decay) and noting ongoing work on others (e.g., electroweak unification).
-
For #2, include a “Future Math” section, sketching a toy model (e.g., V(r) = k*r for qDP confinement).
-
-
Tone: Blend rigor (technical examples) with accessibility (analogies like “CPs as God’s thoughts”). Acknowledge skepticism but invite debate.
-
Visuals: Diagrams of CP “navigation” in double-slit; qDP flux tubes for QCD. These double as screenplay visuals.
SCENE 10
INT. UNIVERSITY CAFETERIA – DAY
THOMAS, ELIZA, and STUDENTS sit at a crowded table, trays of food half-eaten. A WHITEBOARD nearby shows a DOUBLE-SLIT DIAGRAM. VEO3 projects a GALACTIC CENTER above, stars pulsing.
ELIZA
Dr. Morgan, physicists call your consciousness idea metaphysical—unscientific. How do you answer that?
THOMAS
They’re half-right. But they’re blind to their own metaphysics. Fields, forces, wavefunction collapse—what makes them tick? Physics describes, doesn’t explain. My Conscious Points sense, decide, act—like God’s mind in every atom.
STUDENT 1
But quantum mechanics predicts the double-slit perfectly. Why add consciousness?
THOMAS
Prediction isn’t causation. Watch.
He sketches CPs on the whiteboard, dots moving through slits, forming waves or particles.
THOMAS (CONT’D)
These Points communicate, forming a Group Entity. Unobserved, they spread like a wave. Detected, they localize—because they’re aware. No collapse, no multiverse, just God’s design.
ELIZA
That’s… poetic, but can we test it?
THOMAS
Maybe a new slit experiment, tweaking detection to catch Points mid-decision. I’m running in 2028 to prove it—and revive faith through truth.
Students murmur, some skeptical, some inspired. Eliza nods, intrigued.
CUT TO:
-
Scene 4 (Double-Slit Lab): Add the essay’s argument—Thomas contrasts CP “awareness” with wavefunction collapse, saying, “Physics hides its metaphysics in math. I’m just honest about mine.”
-
Scene 6 (Physical Review Office): Editors debate the essay’s claim: “Morgan says all physics is metaphysical—fields, collapse, the lot. It’s provocative, but where’s the math?”
-
Scene 7 (Montana Trail): Thomas ties metaphysics to campaign: “If consciousness runs the universe, God’s real. That’s my plank—science proving faith.”
-
Plank: “God’s Mind in Every Atom”
-
Frame CPP as proof the universe is conscious, designed by God. The essay’s argument—that all physics is metaphysical—neutralizes scientific gatekeeping, making your model a rally cry: “Science hides God; I reveal Him.”
-
Use the double-slit: “Particles choose—proof of divine awareness in nature.”
-
Tie to policy: Promote research into consciousness-based physics, fund “Anecdotal Database” to crowdsource health/science insights, reflecting CP collaboration.
-
-
Messaging:
-
For voters: “My physics shows God’s hand in every quark, calling us back to faith.”
-
For skeptics: “If fields and forces are metaphysical, why not consciousness? Let’s test it.”
-
-
Events: Host rallies with VEO3 visuals of the galactic center, linking CPs to scripture (John 1:1). Debate physicists publicly, using the essay’s logic to challenge dogma.
-
Physics Audience: Decouple consciousness from theology in technical papers. Frame CPs as computational entities with “rule-based processing” (akin to cellular automata), testable via predictions (e.g., double-slit anomalies). Reserve “God’s mind” for philosophical sections.
-
General Audience: Embrace consciousness boldly. In the book, use analogies (e.g., CPs as “divine neurons”). In the campaign, link to scripture and revivalist hope.
-
Screenplay: Dramatize the debate—show Thomas facing skeptics but winning hearts with metaphors like “the universe thinks, because God wills it.”
-
Double-Slit: Propose a CP rule (e.g., “emCPs localize when qDPs detect them, altering interference”) and predict a measurable deviation.
-
QCD: Quantify qDP energy in flux tubes to match hadron masses, addressing #1’s incompleteness.
-
Covering key phenomena (double-slit, QCD, Casimir, beta decay).
-
Seeking a novel prediction (e.g., qDP effects in high-energy collisions).
-
Limiting scope to avoid diminishing returns, as you suggest—focus on elemental phenomena over redundant complexes.
-
Double-Slit Example:
-
The essay’s CP “navigation” is compelling but needs a rule. E.g., “emCPs spread across slits unless qDPs bind them, triggered by detection.” Test this against interference pattern math.
-
Add a prediction: Could CP awareness cause subtle pattern shifts under specific conditions (e.g., delayed detection)?
-
-
Physics’ Metaphysics:
-
The examples (fields, collapse, forces) are apt, but strengthen with specifics. E.g., “QCD’s gluon self-interaction lacks a causal ‘why’—my qDPs provide it.”
-
Acknowledge physics’ predictive success to avoid seeming dismissive, then pivot: “But prediction isn’t explanation.”
-
-
Consciousness Definition:
-
Define CP awareness rigorously—e.g., “sensing other CPs’ states, processing via rules, acting via motion.” This grounds it in physics-like terms.
-
Link to theology for campaign: “Awareness reflects God’s image, uniting science and faith.”
-
-
Occam’s Razor:
-
Your claim that CPs are simpler than branching universes is strong. Quantify it: “One mechanism (CP awareness) versus infinite realities.”
-
Address physics’ counter: QCD’s math is simpler because it predicts without metaphysics. Counter with a CP-derived prediction.
-
-
Book:
-
Draft a chapter combining the essay with a double-slit case study, including a CP rule and prediction.
-
List “vital” phenomena covered (QCD, double-slit, Casimir) and gaps (e.g., electroweak).
-
Sketch a toy math model for CPs (I can help—e.g., a force law for qDP confinement).
-
-
Screenplay:
-
Expand Scene 10 with student Q&A on metaphysics, mirroring the essay’s arguments.
-
Add a Bohr vignette contrasting Copenhagen’s collapse with CP awareness.
-
Want a full feature outline or more scenes?
-
-
Campaign:
-
Refine the “God’s Mind” plank with essay quotes: “All physics is metaphysical—mine’s honest.”
-
Plan a rally scene for the screenplay, tying CPs to revival.
-
-
Physics:
-
Work on a double-slit CP rule or qDP gluon math to address #1 and #2.
-