An adversarial review from the perspective of a theoretical physicist
For formal definitions of the axioms, see the Logic section. For conceptual exploration, see the main Content section.
Claim: Reality is defined by relationships, not intrinsic properties. (See Logic for formal statement.)
Physics describes relations because measurements access relations, not because intrinsic properties do not exist.
Response:
Holos does not deny ontic structure (the existence of real things); it denies observer-independent intrinsic essence (the idea that things have a fixed nature outside of their relationships).
This aligns with:
- Gauge invariance (only relational quantities are physical)
- General Relativity (no absolute spacetime background)
- Relational Quantum Mechanics (observer-relative states)
Intrinsic properties that are never physically accessible are epistemically inert (they don't add anything to our knowledge).
Status: Survives
Fields possess mass, charge, and spin.
Response:
These are relational invariants defined through symmetry), interaction, and representation—not standalone substances.
Status: Survives
Claim: Reality is only fully realized when information is integrated into conscious experience. (See Logic for formal statement.)
Physics experiments (like the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester) show that 'collapse' occurs via mechanical possibilities, even without direct interaction or conscious observers.
Response:
Holos incorporates decoherence (the process where quantum systems interact with their environment) as a function of Creation (C), not Observation (O). See the Logic section for the operational definition R = C ⊛ O.
- Decoherence explains the suppression of interference (how possibilities become distinct).
- It does not explain actuality (why one distinct possibility is experienced to the exclusion of others).
- Decoherence develops the negative; Consciousness prints the photograph.
Status: Survives
Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation is historically less commonly accepted.
Response:
Holos is compatible with modern frameworks:
- Quantum Darwinism (redundant classical information)
- Relational QM (observer-relative facts)
- Participatory Anthropic Principle (observers as boundary conditions)
Consciousness here means experiential integration (the joining of information into a single experience), not human cognition. This threshold is detailed in the Definition of Φ.
Status: Survives
Early cosmology predates life.
Response:
Under eternalism) (block universe), observation need not be temporally local (happening at the same time as the event).
Later observers can consistently instantiate earlier states without causal paradox.
In delayed-choice experiments and quantum erasers, future observations retroactively 'manifest' past states, demonstrating that consciousness doesn't need to act in real-time—it's the global self-consistency of the block universe that matters.
Status: Survives (conditional on block universe)
Claim: Information is conserved across all transformations. (See Logic for formal statement.)
Classic black hole evaporation implies loss.
Response:
Modern consensus (AdS/CFT correspondence, Page curve, holographic principle) supports information conservation.
Status: Strongly survives
Collapse appears to violate unitarity (the principle that probabilities always sum to 100%).
Response:
Unitarity holds in:
- Holographic frameworks
Non-unitarity is interpretive, not formal.
Status: Survives
Claim: Apparent infinities resolve from higher-dimensional perspectives. (See Logic for formal statement.)
Extra dimensions lack direct evidence.
Response:
Holos asserts conceptual resolution, not empirical proof.
This mirrors accepted speculative frameworks (inflation, multiverse, string theory).
Status: Survives as structural heuristic (a useful mental shortcut)
Not all infinities are physical pathologies) (problems where equations break down).
Response:
Holos targets physical infinities (singularities), not mathematical abstraction.
Status: Survives
Claim: Consciousness is the fundamental interface of reality. (See Logic for formal statement.)
Panpsychism lacks mechanistic detail.
Response:
Panpsychism (the idea that consciousness is a fundamental property of matter) explains continuity:
- Avoids emergence ex nihilo (life coming from absolutely nothing)
- Avoids substance dualism (the idea that mind and body are separate substances)
- Aligns with field-based ontology (the study of being and existence)
It is ontological, not mechanistic. The definition of consciousness as interface is detailed in the Definition of Φ.
Status: Survives
Consciousness implies metaphysics.
Response:
Holos does not require:
- Intentional agency
- Will or purpose
- Moral authority
It requires only irreducible experience (experience that cannot be simplified further), already acknowledged in philosophy of mind. This capacity is detailed in the Definition of Φ.
Status: Survives
If consciousness determines reality, does the mind exert a physical force on matter?
Response:
No. Holos posits that consciousness is a logical constraint, not a dynamical) force.
- It does not 'push' atoms (Creation/Dynamics handles that).
- It selects which history becomes actualized within the static Spacetime Block#Block_universe).
- The effect is atemporal (outside of time) and geometric, not kinetic. It is the difference between drawing a line (Force) and observing where the line must be (Logic). See the Logic section for the operational definition (R = C ⊛ O).
Status: Survives
| Risk | Result |
|---|---|
| Violates [causality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality) | No |
| Contradicts [relativity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity) | No |
| Breaks [unitarity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarity_(physics)) | No |
| Requires new forces | No |
| [Anthropocentric](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocentrism) | No |
| Fully [falsifiable](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) | No (interpretive framework) |
Recent experiments—interaction-free measurements, debunked psi claims, and partial falsifications of objective collapse models—pose challenges to consciousness-centric interpretations. They suggest quantum "measurements" can occur through purely physical processes without requiring a conscious observer. However, Holos accommodates these findings by refining how observation operates, emphasizing its [ontological role](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology) (how it relates to existence) over a causal one. These experiments inform testable [predictions](/predictions) about [relational quantum mechanics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_quantum_mechanics).
Interaction-free measurements show information extraction without direct particle interaction or consciousness. Decoherence (environmental interactions suppressing interference) provides the physical mechanism that prepares information for experiential registration, but not the full "discovery."
Holos Response: Decoherence is part of Creation (generating classical-like states), but Observation "registers" them experientially in the recursive loop. Mechanical interactions handle physical "collapse" or decoherence, but true manifestation requires integration into a broader experiential network—ultimately culminating in higher consciousness. Systems below Φ_c can perform mechanical "observations" (decoherence), but only Φ ≥ Φ_c manifests experiential reality (makes it real through experience). This threshold is detailed in the Definition of Φ. See the [Logic](/logic) section for the operational definition *R = C ⊛ O*.
The Explanatory Gap:
How does consciousness complete reality without altering physical equations?
Current Position:
Consciousness provides [ontological completion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology) (the final step in making something real), not causal intervention. This capacity is quantified by the ontological parameter Φ (Phi), which measures when a system achieves sufficient integration to register reality.
This is coherent but not yet explanatory.
The table below compares Holos with several common ways of interpreting reality and consciousness. The goal is not to refute these views, but to make clear what Holos accepts, what it rejects, and why it takes a different approach.
| Framework | Main Claim | Where Holos Agrees | Where Holos Differs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard Physicalism | Physical laws fully describe reality | Physical laws are complete and never violated | Physical structure alone does not explain why reality is experienced |
| Many-Worlds Interpretation | All possible quantum outcomes are equally real | Physics evolves consistently without collapse | Not all possible worlds are realized as experienced reality |
| Collapse Interpretations | Observation causes physical collapse | Observation is important to interpretation | Observation does not change or interrupt physical laws |
| Integrated Information Theory (IIT) | Consciousness depends on integrated information (Φ) | Information integration is required for experience | Φ alone does not guarantee that experience actually occurs |
| Panpsychism | Everything has some form of consciousness | Information is fundamental to reality | Consciousness is not present everywhere by default |
| Structural Realism | Reality is defined by relations, not objects | Reality is fundamentally relational | Some structures are not realized unless they can be experienced |
Holos does not propose new physical laws or mechanisms. Instead, it asks a different question: why certain physically consistent structures are experienced as reality at all. Its answer is that experience is not an afterthought, but a condition for ontological realization.
In simple terms:
Physics explains how reality behaves. Holos asks why any of it is experienced. It argues that not all possible realities are equally real — only those that can support coherent experience are realized.For the formal logical structure, see the Logic section. For testable empirical implications, see Predictions.