However, as reaction chains seek stability, entropy pushes systems toward states that move energy more efficiently. The ones that keep energy flowing under unstable fluctuating environmental conditions last longer, and from that persistence, complexity emerges.

No problem. The issue is that you’re taking the result and reading fine-tuning back into it. That’s retrospective bias.

Thermodynamic selection doesn’t aim for complexity, it just filters configurations based on energy flow. Life is simply what happens to work under those particular conditions.

Quite the opposite.

Brilliant work Artemy. You did it! Extremely important. X

Fair point. Redundancy only explains objectivity “in the moment” - but still allows all alternatives to coexist. I’m saying: only the outcome whose redundant records persist stably across time gets carried forward. That temporal persistence is what stitches outcomes into a single history.

I feel very much like I'm onto something here... so thank you again for engaging. Please let me know your thoughts and if you think i have got something wrong or i have misunderstood something.

I feel very much like I'm onto something here... so thank you again for engaging. Please let me know your thoughts and if you think i have got something wrong or i have misunderstood something.

Take care ☺️

Effectively what I mean is that QD/BPH gives us spatial redundancy across fragments; I’m adding temporal redundancy across successive fragments.

Those fragments.. a photon scatters here, another one a moment later, a molecule vibrates, etc. results in a temporal chain of overlapping records.

…the concept builds on BPH, who showed that different parts of the environment act as recorders of information (redundancy). What I’m adding is that these never form at exactly the same instant. They overlap. So each “agreement” hands off to the next resulting in a continuous chain of persistence.

Maybe the real key isn’t just that redundancy exists, but whether those redundant records persist through time. We’ve always looked at the observer or at decoherence, but perhaps we've been looking in the wrong place all this time...

Well thanks for asking. It's been tough finding someone willing to engage with the paper. I'll be honest, a lot of the math formalisms are lifted verbatim from Zurich et al but that's because i see Quantum Darwinism as the best description of what is going on but i wanted to take it a step further

Well, I'm rewriting it to improve clarity (about 1/3 done) - so this is an early scoping draft.

The idea builds off Quantum Darwinism: instead of collapse/ branching, stability emerges when redundant records in the environment cross a threshold, anchoring outcomes into a single continuous worldline

Would love to be able to apply. Right up my street. Sadly don't have yhe quals but what a wonderful opportunity for someone though. Good luck whoever tries!

Anything that tries to model processes that involve open system entropy within experimental boundaries, is only going to be an approximate guess, because entropy behaves differently in a closed system. This would include fluid dynamics, weather patterns, geophysics, quantum physics etc