A Physical Realization of Advaita Vedanta's Central Insight

What if quantum randomness is not fundamental but a signature of observers' inability to trace the causal history of their own choices?

This work formalizes a central insight from Advaita Vedanta—avidyā (fundamental self-ignorance)—into a testable physical framework. By treating the measurement basis as a physical dynamical variable whose causal history is hidden from the observer due to information-theoretic constraints, the apparent collapse emerges as epistemic update rather than physical process.

The framework is superdeterministic but with a constructive mechanism: finite effective information capacity C_eff (operational bitrate for self-tracking, bits/s) combined with internal unpredictability quantified by h_KS (Kolmogorov–Sinai entropy rate, nats/s) produces two primary regimes. The stability condition C_eff ln 2 > h_KS is the relevant control-theoretic threshold (Data-Rate Theorem; Nair & Evans, 2004), with ln 2 converting bits/s to nats/s. The framework avoids "conspiracy" because correlations between measurement settings and particle states arise structurally from a single self-consistent spacetime history (block-universe perspective). Define the information-deficit rate κ := h_KS − C_eff ln 2 (nats/s). Two primary regimes emerge:

• Capacity-wins (C_eff ln 2 > h_KS, i.e., κ < 0): Observer maintains tracking; standard quantum mechanics recovered
• Chaos-wins (h_KS > C_eff ln 2, i.e., κ > 0): Tracking fails; measurable visibility suppression emerges

(Note: τ_loss is defined only when κ > 0. For exponential growth of the phase-tracking error std σ, τ_loss ≈ κ⁻¹ ln(σ_th/σ₀), with ln(σ_th/σ₀) ~ 2–3 for the thresholds used.)

With biologically plausible parameters (C_eff ~ 10 bits/s, h_KS ~ 50 nats/s, giving κ ≈ 43 nats/s and 1/κ ≈ 23 ms), the framework predicts measurable entanglement visibility suppression (1–10%) with characteristic self-tracking failure timescale τ_loss ~ 50–70 ms (the threshold-crossing factor ln(σ_th/σ₀) ~ 2–3 accounts for the difference from naive 1/κ). The key conjectured overlap is that the objective classicalization timescale (Penrose τ_OR) coincides with the observer self-tracking failure timescale (τ_loss) at the same mesoscopic scale—a regime-conditional correspondence, meaningful only when h_KS > C_eff ln 2.

Timestamped Version: This work is timestamped and publicly archived at the Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/FCDSN

Quick Start: Concise_Summary.pdf (3 pages)

A standalone summary presenting the core framework: from observer as physical system through the two-regime dynamics (chaotic vs diffusive) to visibility reduction via Gaussian averaging. Covers threshold-defined timescales and the "Why Gap" interpretation. Ideal entry point for physicists wanting the essential mathematics before the full treatment.

Interactive Animation: IOF Double-Slit Animation (90 seconds)

A pedagogical animation demonstrating how IOF derives the coherence parameter γ from tracking dynamics rather than assuming it as an arbitrary input. The animation shows γ = exp(−σ²/2) emerging from the phase-error variance σ², which evolves according to the information-deficit rate κ = h_KS − C_eff·ln 2. The source code (IOF_DoubleSlit.py) is fully auditable—readers can verify that γ is derived, not assumed.

Main Document: The Ignorant Observer Framework (IOF) — The Ignorant Observer.pdf (78 pages, Version 2.2)

Structure:

• Parts I-II: Contemplative starting point and physical framework
• Part III: Mathematical formalism (including falsification criteria)
• Parts IV-V: Empirical connections and interpretation
• Part VI: Open questions
• Part VII: Non-dual perspective (Vedantic convergence)
• PART VIII: Conclusion

For those primarily interested in the physics: Parts II-III contain the core framework and predictions. Part VII explores the Advaita Vedanta convergence and can be read independently or skipped entirely—the physics stands on its own.

Supplementary: Question and Answers.pdf (20 pages)

A comprehensive Q&A document addressing both core questions and deeper philosophical issues. Each answer is structured in two parts: "Within the Framework" (technical exposition) and "Interpretation of the Author" (philosophical context). Covers the Which/Why distinction, tracking windows, the origin of decisions, the Libet connection, pilot-wave mapping, Bell's theorem (rendered inapplicable rather than violated), the free-choice loophole, superdeterminism vs epistemic determinism, Karma mapping, and experimental tunability. Includes discussion of why quantization is an artifact of the observer ("Quantization is not in the observed, but in the observer") and the memorable formulation: "Free will is the feeling of computing a decision you cannot predict."

Biological Supplement: Biological_Observers.pdf (8 pages)

An exploration of how the Ignorant Observer Framework instantiates in biological systems, explaining the characteristic timescales of human perception and cognition. Shows how semantic filtering (C_eff < C), hierarchical cortical architecture, and umwelt partitioning naturally produce the observed cascade from fundamental limits (~23 ms) through perceptual integration (~68 ms) and conscious access (~200-300 ms) to Libet's reportability lag (~350 ms). Purely interpretative; the core IOF remains unchanged.

Philosophical Supplement: Philosophical_Resonances.pdf (6 pages)

Creation_of_Duality.pdf (60 pages)

Building on the dynamical formalism of the Ignorant Observer Framework, this paper proposes that a single deterministic reality—the global wavefunction |ψ⟩ embedded in a Block Universe—appears as multiplicity to finite observers through epistemic limitation rather than ontological branching. Part I establishes the mathematical mechanism: finite information capacity forces coarse-graining, and optimal compression under local action yields the subject/object split as an information-theoretic phase transition. Part II shows how this mechanism generates the four artifacts of appearance: Space from finite resolution, Time from tracking failure, Object from epistemic coarse-graining, and Gravity from the same information-deficit rate κ that also sets a decoherence rate. Part III develops the structural correspondence with Advaita Vedanta, showing that this framework provides a mathematical formalization of contemplative insights into the nature of apparent multiplicity. Part IV establishes the scaling correspondence τ_SK ~ τ_OR, demonstrating that both timescales are governed by the same information-deficit rate κ. This unification implies that the gravitational self-energy scaling E_G ∝ ℏκ emerges as an epistemic consistency condition at the stability threshold. The appendices extend this framework to show that Newton's gravitational constant G itself may be reinterpreted in terms of an information-theoretic primitive: G = c⁵/(ℏκ_P²), where κ_P is the maximum information rate at the Planck scale—inverting the standard conceptual hierarchy where G is primitive and Planck units derived.

Timestamped Version: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/C5EN8

Supplementary Q&A: Question_and_Answers.pdf (10 pages)

A companion Q&A document addressing questions specific to the gravity-information bridge. Covers the α factor in E_G = αℏκ (established under saturation of MSS chaos bound + Margolus-Levitin bounds), the scaling correspondence τ_SK ~ τ_OR, experimental discrimination between IOF and Penrose OR, Vedantic interpretation (Dream vs. Simulation distinction), and integration with the main IOF framework. Provides detailed responses to anticipated objections about the testability of gravitational claims and clarifies the relationship between information-theoretic and gravitational collapse mechanisms.

signatures_submission.pdf (60 pages)

A forensic analysis of recovery transients in precision control telemetry from superconducting quantum processors (Google Sycamore 26-qubit, Chinese 63-qubit) and LIGO gravitational-wave interferometry. Using model-based classification with AICc selection, we identify a reproducible two-regime recovery geometry—fast (immediate-onset) vs. delayed (hesitation-like)—that persists under model, window, and seed-sweep robustness checks.

Key findings:

• 26-qubit (McEwen et al.): 9.1% stable delayed, 81.8% stable fast, 9.1% boundary/flip
• 63-qubit (Li et al.): 100% fast recovery (capacity-wins baseline)
• LIGO O3a: 33.8% stable delayed, 42.5% stable fast, 23.7% boundary/flip
• Non-definitional consistency: Curvature index discriminates populations with AUC = 0.950 (LIGO), surviving SNR control

The population structure is consistent with capacity-limited control near a threshold, as predicted by the IOF. The key prospective test: increasing effective controller bandwidth should shift events from delayed to fast geometry with a threshold-like transition.

Timestamped Version: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/M5TB9

Reproducibility: All results can be reproduced from scratch by following the instructions in Appendix A of the manuscript. The complete analysis pipeline—from raw data fetching through figure generation—is included in the OSF repository and runs in approximately 4–6 hours on a standard machine.

Ignorant_Qubit.pdf (31 pages)

Current approaches to Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computing (FTQC) assume that scaling is limited primarily by environmental decoherence and gate fidelity. Building on the Data-Rate Theorem from control theory and recent forensic analysis of quantum processor recovery dynamics, this paper proposes that a more fundamental constraint exists—the finite information processing capacity of the classical control system. By modeling the Quantum-Classical Interface (QCI) as a rate-limited information channel, we derive a condition where the entropy generation rate of the N-qubit system (h_N) exceeds the error-correction bandwidth (C_N ln 2).

Applying this framework across hardware platforms reveals a structural bifurcation: superconducting systems hit a qubit-count wall (N_max ~ 10⁴–10⁵) due to superlinear crosstalk, while photonic systems face a threshold at N=1 but scale linearly thereafter. Trapped ions avoid both walls but face bandwidth latency limiting algorithm depth. The only theoretical escape—native topological qubits with sublinear scaling (p < 1)—remains experimentally unrealized; synthetic topological codes on standard hardware inherit the limits of the substrate.

Key findings:

• Google Sycamore: 6.5% stable delayed-geometry signatures (29.6% stable fast, 63.9% boundary/flip) under model-based classification
• Chinese 63-qubit: 100% fast recovery baseline consistent with capacity-wins regime
• Ignorance Wall: Superconducting systems predicted to hit fundamental scaling limit at N_max ~ 10³–10⁶ qubits (depending on unmeasured scaling exponent p)
• Thermodynamic Catch-22: Controller bandwidth and system entropy are thermodynamically coupled—increasing one necessarily increases the other

The paper proposes a decisive experimental test—the Power-Scaling Test—that can confirm or falsify the hypothesis.

Timestamped Version: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/G293X

Cosmological_Notes.pdf (18 pages)

Exploratory notes on applying the Ignorant Observer Framework to cosmological questions. Topics include: the Hubble parameter as information deficit rate, dark energy as holographic pressure, dark matter and MOND's acceleration scale, the Big Bang as optical horizon, cosmic inflation as initialization transient, the antimatter asymmetry as temporal filtering, black hole singularities as epistemic horizons, the fate of the universe (signal-to-noise heat death), fine-tuning dissolved via the critical stability condition, the unity of the observer (resolving solipsism via structural uniformity), and the Vedantic hierarchy (Brahman/Hiranyagarbha/Virat correspondence). Speculative but constrained by the logic established in The Creation of Duality.

Comprehensive_Experimental_Protocol.pdf (17 pages)

A complete experimental protocol for testing the Ignorant Observer Framework. Combines detailed physical setup instructions with formal pre-registration of hypotheses, statistical analysis plans, and falsification criteria. The core prediction is a Data Collapse: when visibility V is plotted against the composite thermodynamic parameter χ = P/(k_B T h_KS) (dimensionless ratio of capacity-limit to chaos-rate), data from disparate experimental regimes should collapse onto a single universal curve.

The protocol specifies four independent experimental tests:

• H1: Power/Temperature Dependence — Visibility increases with P/T (capacity knob)
• H2: Geometry Independence — Effects independent of spatial separation (discriminates from Penrose OR)
• H3: Mass Scaling Discrimination — Linear vs quadratic mass dependence (IOF vs gravitational)
• H4: Chaos Rate Dependence — Effects scale with observer's internal entropy rate h_KS

Initial implementation focuses on Platform B (superconducting qubits) with subsequent extension to optomechanical and cold-atom systems. The QGEM collaboration's pathfinder apparatus may provide a near-term platform for mesoscopic-scale testing.

Timestamped Version: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2QJNE

This section contains occasional responses to newly published papers, videos, or debates relevant to the IOF, as well as aggregated answers to questions received from readers. These are informal documents—not peer-reviewed publications—intended to clarify how the framework relates to ongoing developments in the field.

Philosophical_Resonances.pdf — Structural Resonances with "Consciousness Across Three Worldviews". An analysis of convergences between the IOF and the synthesis presented by Sarvapriyananda, Agüera y Arcas, and Rovelli. Both works developed independently yet arrive at remarkably similar insights from different levels of description.

response_article.pdf — Wavefunction Reality and Epistemic Randomness: How the Ignorant Observer Framework Resolves the Apparent Conflict. A response to the PBR theorem implementation by Yang, Yuan, and Barnes (arXiv:2510.11213), clarifying that the experiment rules out ψ-epistemic interpretations but not outcome-epistemic interpretations like the IOF.

Regarding Metaphysical Content: The author takes full responsibility for the metaphysical and philosophical interpretations presented, particularly regarding Advaita Vedanta. These reflect personal understanding developed through studying and contemplating on the Advaita Vedantic teachings, not scholarly consensus.

Regarding Scientific Content: The Ignorant Observer Framework has been submitted for peer review. Creation of Duality is being prepared for submission. All derivations have been computationally verified (see The Ignorant Observer/Verification/ folder). The predictions are concrete and falsifiable—the framework stands or falls on empirical evidence.

If experimental tests confirm the framework's predictions, several foundational concepts would require reinterpretation:

Measurement Problem: Dissolved. Apparent collapse is epistemic update (observer loses access to coherent superposition information), not physical process. The "problem" arises from mistaking observer-relative description for observer-independent ontology.

Superdeterminism: Transformed from generic untestable claim into constructive mechanism with explicit dynamics. Common past correlations arise from finite observer capacity C_eff and internal entropy rate h_KS, both measurable quantities.

Bell Correlations: Explained via common past rather than action-at-distance or many-worlds. The measurement independence violation is quantified and regime-dependent.

Quantum Randomness: Reinterpreted as causal ignorance (observer cannot trace WHY measurement basis evolved to particular value) rather than ontological indeterminacy. Deterministic substrate with epistemic uncertainty.

Penrose OR Overlap: Numerical convergence with Penrose's gravitational timescale at mesoscopic scale. Two independent mechanisms (information-theoretic self-ignorance vs gravitational OR) arrive at the same timescale (~50–70 ms in the chaos-wins regime). This overlap is a regime-conditional correspondence: τ_loss is defined only when h_KS > C_eff ln 2. In IOF, this remains an unexplained coincidence—noted as remarkable but without a derivation connecting the two mechanisms.

If the extended framework is confirmed, the unexplained coincidence τ_SK ≈ τ_OR becomes a conditional identity: IF the gravity-information bridge holds, THEN the timescales are identical. The scaling relation E_G = α_geo·ℏκ (with α_geo = π/2 ≈ 1.57) linking gravitational self-energy to information-deficit rate is established under saturation of:

• The MSS chaos bound mapping internal instability to surface gravity: h_KS ~ κ_geo
• The Margolus-Levitin quantum speed limit mapping capacity to energy: C_eff ~ E_G/ℏ
• The marginal duality condition: C_eff ln 2 ≈ h_KS

Under these saturation assumptions, IF E_G = α_geo·ℏκ, THEN τ_OR = 1/(α_geo·κ) = τ_SK—both timescales converge to the same expression because both measure the same underlying information-deficit rate.

The Ontological Inversion of G: The framework proposes that Newton's gravitational constant can be reinterpreted: G = c⁵/(ℏκ_P²). If κ_P (the maximum information rate at the Planck scale) is treated as primitive rather than G, then gravity becomes a derived coupling—the "viscosity" of the projection mechanism. Infinite processing speed (κ_P → ∞) would imply zero gravity (G → 0). This is a conceptual hierarchy inversion, not a numerical derivation of G.

The Tetrad of Phenomenal Experience: Space, Time, Object, and Gravity emerge as architectural consequences of finite capacity—not ontological primitives but structured appearance:

• Space emerges as multiplicity through finite resolution
• Time emerges as directed flow through finite processing
• Object emerges as definiteness through epistemic coarse-graining
• Gravity emerges as curvature-like response to information deficit at rate κ

All four arise from the finite observer viewing the infinite through a bounded aperture.

The Epistemic Turn: If confirmed, this framework would show that features ordinarily treated as ontological primitives—Space, Time, Object, Gravity—arise as architectural consequences of limited information-processing. The conventional picture, in which an independently existing universe produces observers, would be replaced by a picture in which the experienced universe is the structured appearance produced by finite observers interacting with a deterministic whole. Physics remains unchanged; the interpretive stance shifts. The boundary between observer and observed becomes a metastable information-theoretic phase rather than a metaphysical given.

The Hard Problem Inverted: If Space, Time, Objects, and Gravity are outputs of a coarse-graining process, then the physical brain is itself coarse-grained output, not input. Asking how the brain creates the observer becomes a category error—like asking how a map generates the surveyor. Matter is the necessary form the infinite substrate takes when viewed through a finite aperture.

Future Direction—The Lagrangian: If an observer must maintain predictive coherence over each τ_SK interval, the internal world-model must minimize cumulative informational surprise—mathematically expressed by δS = 0. This suggests that the Principle of Stationary Action may encode the requirement for self-consistent prediction, and that Lagrangian field theory may be the unique class of dynamics stable under S/O compression.

If the information-theoretic analysis is correct, quantum computing faces fundamental scaling limits that current roadmaps do not account for:

The Core Result: When the entropy generation rate of an N-qubit system (h_N) exceeds the error-correction bandwidth (C_N ln 2), fault tolerance becomes impossible. For superconducting systems with superlinear crosstalk scaling, this "Ignorance Wall" occurs at N_max ~ 10³–10⁶ qubits depending on the unmeasured scaling exponent p—potentially far below the ~20 million physical qubits required for RSA-2048.

Structural Bifurcation—Trade-off Invariance: Each hardware platform encounters its own fundamental barrier:

• Superconducting: Fast and compact, but untrackable. Dies by Chaos (complexity wall at N_max ~ 10³–10⁶)
• Trapped Ions: Trackable and clean, but slow. Dies by Time (RSA-2048 would take centuries at ion gate speeds)
• Photonic: Fast and trackable, but inefficient. Dies by Sprawl (city-scale infrastructure for crypto-relevant computation)

One can trade complexity for time, or time for resources, but the total cost cannot be eliminated.

The 2035 RSA Timeline: Current policy estimates for cryptographically-relevant quantum computing are largely based on extrapolating superconducting roadmaps. If this analysis is correct, that extrapolation fails: superconducting systems hit a wall far short of crypto-relevant scale. The timeline would need substantial revision.

Why the Barrier is Fundamental: Three arguments establish that the limit is physical, not technological:

1. Margolus-Levitin bound: Infinite processing capacity requires infinite energy, which produces gravitational collapse. Finite capacity is the prerequisite for existence within spacetime.
2. Data-Rate Theorem: The requirement C_min = h_KS/ln 2 is a mathematical theorem, not an engineering approximation. No implementation can circumvent it.
3. Thermodynamic Catch-22: Information processing and thermodynamic dissipation are fundamentally coupled. Increasing C requires increasing power; power generates heat; heat degrades coherence, increasing h_KS. This coupling reflects the structure of physics itself.

Information Capacity as Primary Resource: If confirmed, the path forward requires treating Information Capacity as a primary physical resource, equal in importance to Coherence Time. The qubit is not a magical vessel of infinite coherence—it is a physical system subject to the same thermodynamic constraints as any other.

Both frameworks formalize a central Vedantic insight (avidyā) into physics, making claims about the nature of appearance—specifically, that the transition from quantum coherence to classical definiteness involves fundamental self-ignorance operating at a characteristic boundary. The structural correspondences with Advaita Vedanta do not become proofs of metaphysics; they become signs that contemplative traditions may have identified, in qualitative terms, the same structural constraints that appear quantitatively in information-theoretic derivations. But such claims, even about the structure of appearance itself, remain within vyavahāra. Whether predictions hold tests the formalization, not Vedanta's ultimate teaching.

The framework makes four specific predictions whose failure would falsify the self-ignorance mechanism (see Part III, Mathematical Formalism for details):

1. Power/Temperature Independence: No change in visibility suppression across three orders of magnitude variation in P or T at fixed mass and h_KS → self-ignorance mechanism not operative; effects are purely environmental or instrumental.

2. Gravitational OR Scaling: Visibility loss tracks s/m² (spatial separation over mass squared) → gravitational objective reduction dominates; information-theoretic limits irrelevant.

3. Chaos-Independence: Effects independent of observer's internal entropy rate h_KS in chaos-wins regime (h_KS > C_eff ln 2) → framework predictions wrong; visibility loss not due to basis tracking failure.

4. One-Party Marginal Skew: Single-party measurement statistics P(A=±1|a) deviate significantly from 50/50 across regimes → signaling or systematic bias; superdeterministic correlations fail no-signaling requirement.

Experimental Discrimination: Clean separation between self-ignorance, gravitational OR, and conventional decoherence is achievable through independent control of P/T (capacity knob), s (geometry knob), and h_KS (chaos knob).

The Ignorant Observer/
├── README.md                              # This file
├── Website/                               # Interactive website (ignorantobserver.xyz)
│
├── Experimental Protocol/                 # Pre-registration protocol for IOF testing
│   ├── Comprehensive_Experimental_Protocol.pdf  # Full protocol (17 pages)
│   └── Comprehensive_Experimental_Protocol.tex  # LaTeX source
│
├── The Ignorant Observer/                 # Main IOF paper and verification
│   ├── The Ignorant Observer.pdf          # Full paper (78 pages)
│   ├── latex/                             # LaTeX source files
│   │   ├── main.tex                       # Main document root file
│   │   ├── contemplative_starting_point.tex   # Part I: Ancient insight
│   │   ├── physical_framework.tex         # Part II: Physical realization
│   │   ├── mathematical_formalism.tex     # Part III: Formalism and falsification
│   │   ├── empirical_connections.tex      # Part IV: Penrose OR overlap
│   │   ├── interpretation_and_implications.tex # Part V: Interpretation
│   │   ├── open_questions.tex             # Part VI: Open questions
│   │   ├── non_dual_perspective.tex       # Part VII: Vedantic convergence
│   │   ├── conclusion.tex                 # Conclusion and invitation
│   │   └── Heatmaps/                      # Parameter sensitivity plots
│   ├── Verification/                      # Computational verification scripts
│   │   ├── README.md                      # Verification documentation
│   │   ├── verify_math.py                 # Core math verification
│   │   ├── verify_qa_claims.py            # Q&A mathematical claims verification
│   │   ├── explore_parameters.py          # Parameter space exploration
│   │   ├── verify_bridge_math.py          # Scale-dependent bridge analysis
│   │   ├── pressure_test_bridge.py        # Comprehensive Penrose OR test
│   │   ├── test_gravitational_information_bridge.py  # Quantitative bridge test
│   │   └── StressTests/                   # Advanced testing suite
│   └── Additional Publications/           # Supplementary documents
│       ├── Question and Answers.pdf       # Comprehensive Q&A (20 pages)
│       ├── Concise_Summary.pdf            # Quick start (3 pages)
│       ├── Biological_Observers.pdf       # Biological supplement (8 pages)
│       ├── Philosophical_Resonances.pdf   # Three Worldviews resonances (6 pages)
│       ├── response_article.pdf           # PBR theorem response (6 pages)
│       ├── IOF_DoubleSlit.py              # Double-slit animation source code
│       ├── IOF_DoubleSlit.mp4             # Animation video (90 seconds)
│       ├── IOF_DoubleSlit_Explanation.md  # Animation documentation
│       └── latex/                         # LaTeX source files
│
├── The Creation of Duality/               # Standalone publication on cosmogony
│   ├── Creation_of_Duality.pdf            # Full paper (60 pages)
│   ├── latex/                             # LaTeX source and figures
│   │   ├── Creation_of_Duality.tex        # Main document source
│   │   ├── Question_and_Answers.tex       # Q&A document source
│   │   ├── Question_and_Answers.pdf       # Q&A document (10 pages)
│   │   ├── Error_Growth_Plot.png          # Data-rate theorem verification
│   │   ├── lindblad_decoherence.png       # Lindblad bridge (κ as decoherence rate)
│   │   ├── phase_transition.png           # EKF phase transition on Lorenz
│   │   └── experimental_discriminator.png # IOF vs Penrose OR discriminator
│   └── scripts/                           # Figure generation scripts
│       ├── error_growth_plot.py           # Generates Error_Growth_Plot.png
│       ├── lindblad_decoherence.py        # Generates lindblad_decoherence.png
│       ├── phase_transition.py            # Generates phase_transition.png
│       └── experimental_discriminator.py  # Generates experimental_discriminator.png
│
├── Forensic Signatures/                   # Forensic analysis of recovery dynamics
│   ├── signatures_submission.pdf          # Full paper (60 pages)
│   ├── latex/                             # LaTeX source
│   │   └── signatures_submission.tex      # Combined submission source
│   └── scripts/                           # Analysis pipeline (see Appendix A)
│
├── The Ignorant Qubit/                    # Quantum computing application
│   ├── Ignorant_Qubit.pdf                 # Full paper (31 pages)
│   ├── latex/                             # LaTeX source and figures
│   │   ├── Ignorant_Qubit.tex             # Main document source
│   │   ├── stability_evidence_strength.png # Evidence strength by stability class
│   │   ├── nmax_scaling_plot.png          # Ignorance Wall scaling figure
│   │   └── trilemma_diagram.png           # Structural bifurcation figure
│   └── scripts/                           # Figure generation scripts
│       ├── nmax_scaling_new.py            # Generates nmax_scaling_plot.png
│       └── trilemma_diagram.py            # Generates trilemma_diagram.png
│
└── Cosmological Notes/                    # Cosmological explorations
    ├── Cosmological_Notes.pdf             # Exploratory notes (18 pages)
    └── Cosmological_Notes.tex             # LaTeX source

The The Ignorant Observer/Verification/ folder contains Python scripts that computationally verify all mathematical claims and test the proposed Penrose OR - self-ignorance bridge across different physical scales. See Verification/README.md for details.

All scripts use only standard Python libraries (no external dependencies) and provide step-by-step verification of:

• Two-regime framework mathematics
• Q&A document mathematical claims (Libet connection, diffusion coefficient, visibility scaling)
• Timescale calculations (τ_fill, τ_loss)
• Visibility formulas
• Dimensional consistency
• Penrose OR overlap analysis (scale-dependent)

The The Creation of Duality/scripts/ folder contains Python scripts that generate the figures used in that paper:

• error_growth_plot.py — Generates Error_Growth_Plot.png verifying the data-rate theorem via time-sharing encoder/decoder
• lindblad_decoherence.py — Generates lindblad_decoherence.png showing the Lindblad bridge (κ as decoherence rate) with Appendix A identity (E_G = π/2 ℏκ)
• phase_transition.py — Generates phase_transition.png showing the EKF phase transition on the Lorenz attractor
• experimental_discriminator.py — Generates experimental_discriminator.png showing how to discriminate IOF from Penrose OR (tests ∂τ/∂C > 0)

If you reference this work, please cite:

Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya

Dekker, A. (2025). The Ignorant Observer: A Physical Realization of Advaita Vedanta's
Central Insight. https://github.com/aernouddekker/the-ignorant-observer

Timestamped version: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/FCDSN

This work is released under the MIT License.

The author invites physicists to design and conduct experiments, philosophers to examine the ontological implications, and those familiar with Advaita Vedanta to assess whether the mathematical structure authentically reflects insights from the tradition.

The framework is offered for scrutiny, not acceptance. It may be right, wrong, or—most likely—partially right with deeper truth waiting to be discovered.

"Perhaps its resolution requires not just new physics but new understanding of what physics describes: not reality itself but the lawful structure of how reality appears to bounded observers within it—the mathematics of a waking dream, rigorous at the empirical level while pointing beyond itself to what dreams."

—From the Conclusion