FRC.v2
FRC

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 + Reductionist

FRC derives Born rule as emergent, not fundamental. Wavefunction collapse is guided by coherence attractors, not observer-triggered.

View Detail →

Bohmian Mechanics

Deterministic + Reductionist

Shares determinism. FRC replaces the pilot wave with a scalar coherence field Λ(x) that is thermodynamically grounded.

View Detail →

Many-Worlds (Everett)

Deterministic + Holistic

FRC selects a single outcome via attractor dynamics rather than branching into all possibilities.

View Detail →

IIT (Tononi)

Holistic

FRC 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 + Consciousness

FRC replaces objective reduction with resonant attractors. No microtubule dependency — coherence operates at all scales.

View Detail →

Global Workspace Theory

Cognitive

Compatible as a μ₃-level description. FRC provides the underlying physics across all μ-levels.

View Detail →

Stephen Wolfram (Ruliad)

Computational

Wolfram focuses on computational equivalence; FRC focuses on thermodynamic coherence and the conservation of phase.

View Detail →