Positioning
How FRC compares to Bohm, Copenhagen, Many-Worlds, IIT, and other theories of physics and consciousness.
FRC Distinctive Features
- - A real scalar field (Λ) governing coherence — not abstract or metaphysical
- - Deterministic collapse via resonant attractors — no randomness postulate
- - Born rule derived from ensemble averaging — not axiomatic
- - Falsifiable: predicts measurable deviations under resonant driving
- - Thermodynamically consistent: entropy–coherence reciprocity proven
Comparison Table
Copenhagen Interpretation
Probabilistic + ReductionistFRC derives Born rule as emergent, not fundamental. Wavefunction collapse is guided by coherence attractors, not observer-triggered.
View Detail →Bohmian Mechanics
Deterministic + ReductionistShares determinism. FRC replaces the pilot wave with a scalar coherence field Λ(x) that is thermodynamically grounded.
View Detail →Many-Worlds (Everett)
Deterministic + HolisticFRC selects a single outcome via attractor dynamics rather than branching into all possibilities.
View Detail →IIT (Tononi)
HolisticFRC uses coherence C instead of integrated information Φ. Both are scalar measures but FRC connects directly to physics.
View Detail →Orch-OR (Penrose-Hameroff)
Quantum + ConsciousnessFRC replaces objective reduction with resonant attractors. No microtubule dependency — coherence operates at all scales.
View Detail →Global Workspace Theory
CognitiveCompatible as a μ₃-level description. FRC provides the underlying physics across all μ-levels.
View Detail →Stephen Wolfram (Ruliad)
ComputationalWolfram focuses on computational equivalence; FRC focuses on thermodynamic coherence and the conservation of phase.
View Detail →