Physics:Faggin's Consciousness, Obidi's Theory of Entropicity(ToE)

Ontological Foundations: Comparing Faggin's Qualia and Obidi's Theory of Entropicity

Entropy, Consciousness, and Irreducibility: A Comparative Analysis of Obidi's Theory of Entropicity and Faggin's ``Irreducible

We present an exhaustive philosophical and theoretical comparison between Federico Faggin's ``Irreducible framework (an idealist model addressing the hard problem of consciousness) and John Onimisi Obidi's Theory of Entropicity (ToE). Both approaches propose radical departures from classical materialism: Faggin posits consciousness as fundamental and irreducible, whereas Obidi elevates entropy to a fundamental, dynamical principle and introduces a Self-Referential Entropy (SRE) formalism to bridge physics and consciousness. We review Faggin's key ideas (self-aware \emph{seities}, informational realism, dual spaces of reality) alongside Obidi's core innovations (entropy as a physical field, the Entropic Field Equation, the No-Rush Theorem, and the SRE Index for quantifying consciousness). We then develop a rigorous exposition of the SRE Index, connecting it to entropy flow dynamics and discussing its implications for measuring conscious order. Throughout, we highlight intersections and contrasts: e.g. Faggin’s idealist claim that physical reality is a symbolic representation of consciousness versus Obidi’s view that entropy drives physical processes and possibly underlies consciousness. We show how both frameworks, in different ways, challenge reductionist paradigms and address the emergence of consciousness, free will, and meaning. Finally, we discuss the hard problem in light of these theories, arguing that Obidi’s SRE formalism provides a novel quantitative handle on consciousness that complements Faggin’s qualitative insights into its irreducible nature.

Introduction

The nature of consciousness and its place in the fundamental order of reality remains one of the most profound open questions in science and philosophy. The \textbf{“hard problem” of consciousness} (coined by Chalmers) asks how and why subjective experience (qualia) arises from physical processes. Traditional scientific paradigms, grounded in materialism, have struggled to account for first-person experience. In response, visionary thinkers have proposed radical new frameworks. In this work, we focus on two such groundbreaking approaches and examine them side by side: Federico Faggin's \emph{Irreducible – an idealist model in which consciousness is taken as fundamental and cannot be reduced to matter or computation. Faggin, a physicist and inventor turned consciousness researcher, argues that the classical physical world is not primary reality, but rather a symbolic projection of a deeper conscious and informational substrate collectiveinkbooks.com . In his framework, each conscious entity (called a seity) is an irreducible unit of awareness with free will, and these units collectively generate the physical world as a meaningful symbol domain. John Onimisi Obidi's Theory of Entropicity} (ToE) – a bold new paradigm in theoretical physics which elevates entropy to a fundamental and dynamical role in the universe encyclopedia.pub . Obidi’s ToE reinterprets physical laws by positing a real entropic field pervading spacetime that governs all processes, from cosmology to quantum phenomena to possibly consciousness encyclopedia.pub . Among its many innovations, ToE introduces the concept of Self-Referential Entropy (SRE) to tackle consciousness: it suggests that conscious systems are characterized by entropy flows that “reference themselves,” and it defines an SRE Index intended as a quantitative measure of a system’s degree of consciousness encyclopedia.pub . Both approaches, though coming from different starting points (one from consciousness and one from entropy/physics), end up proposing a deeper layer of reality in which information, entropy, and consciousness are intimately connected. In what follows, we provide background on each framework (Sec. \ref{sec:ToE} and \ref{sec:Faggin}), then compare their insights on key themes: the ontological status of consciousness, the role of information/entropy in reality’s fabric, the nature of quantum phenomena and free will, and approaches to quantifying or formalizing consciousness (Sec. \ref{sec:comparison}). Central to this comparison is a careful exposition of the \textbf{SRE Index} (Sec. \ref{sec:SRE}), which we formulate in mathematical terms and relate to the broader question of conscious self-organization. We then discuss how these ideas shed light on the hard problem (Sec. \ref{sec:hardproblem}). We conclude (Sec. \ref{sec:conclusion}) with reflections on how the Theory of Entropicity and Faggin’s Irreducible might be pointing toward a convergent paradigm where consciousness and physics meet via entropy and information.

\section{Obidi’s Theory of Entropicity (ToE): A New Entropic Paradigm}\label{sec:ToE}

\subsection{Entropy Elevated to a Fundamental Field}\label{sec:entropic_field}

The Theory of Entropicity (ToE), primarily developed by \textbf{John O. Obidi}, proposes a dramatic rethinking of the role of entropy in physics. Traditionally, entropy is understood as a statistical measure of disorder or unavailable energy. By contrast, ToE posits that entropy is a \emph{real physical field} – sometimes called the “\textbf{Entropic Field}” – that permeates all of spacetime and dynamically drives physical processes encyclopedia.pub encyclopedia.pub . In other words, entropy is not just an abstract bookkeeping of microstates, but an ontological entity in its own right: \begin{quotation} \noindent \textit{“The ToE proposes that entropy is not merely a property of systems but a physical field... suggested to shape the structure and evolution of physical systems, with all known forces, including gravity, emerging as constraints on its flow.”}

\end{quotation}

Thus, in ToE, forces like gravity are secondary effects or emergent \emph{constraints} on the primary flux of this entropic field. For example, gravity is reinterpreted as an \textbf{entropic force}: matter falls or spacetime curves not due to mass alone, but because the entropic field drives systems toward higher entropy configurations, with gravity arising as a manifestation of entropy gradients.

This idea builds on and generalizes concepts like Verlinde’s entropic gravity, but Obidi’s framework is far more expansive, making entropy the principal actor behind \emph{all} interactions. To formalize this, Obidi introduces an action principle (the \textbf{Obidi Action}) for the entropic field, analogous to how the Einstein-Hilbert action underlies General Relativity or how Lagrangians underlie field theories handwiki.org handwiki.org . In the entropic action: $S(x)$ represents the scalar field of entropy density at spacetime point $x$ handwiki.org . The action integral includes a \textbf{kinetic term} for the entropy field (e.g. $A(S),(\nabla S)^2$) indicating that entropy can propagate and has dynamics (no instantaneous propagation) handwiki.org . A \textbf{self-interaction potential} $V(S)$ is hypothesized, governing non-linear behavior of entropy (e.g. an “entropy potential” that might even replace the cosmological constant in cosmology) handwiki.org . A \textbf{coupling term} $\eta, S, T^{\mu}{}{\mu}$ directly ties entropy to matter’s stress-energy ($T^{\mu}{}{\mu}$ is the trace of the stress-energy tensor) handwiki.org . Here $\eta$ is a new constant (entropic coupling constant) measuring how strongly entropy field interacts with matter. The resulting Euler-Lagrange equations from varying this “master entropic action” would yield what ToE calls the \textbf{Master Entropic Field Equation} handwiki.org , a nonlinear field equation describing how $S(x)$ evolves in a curved spacetime with matter. While the complete explicit form of these equations is still under development (the theory at present is in a \emph{working paper} stage, with many equations described conceptually) handwiki.org handwiki.org , the structure aims to parallel the elegance of Einstein’s field equations or quantum field theory, but with entropy at the center.

\subsection{Irreversibility, Time, and the No-Rush Theorem}\label{sec:norush}

A hallmark of ToE is its emphasis on \textbf{irreversibility} as fundamental. Since entropy is inherently tied to the \emph{arrow of time}, making entropy a dynamical field means that time-asymmetry (the one-way direction from past to future) becomes an intrinsic property of physics, not an emergent statistical accident. Obidi’s framework links this to certain observed asymmetries: It suggests intrinsic \textbf{CP-violation} is related to entropy flow (a proposed \emph{“Entropic CPT Law”} posits that the entropy field’s irreversibility in time is balanced by CP-violations in particle physics handwiki.org , offering a novel thermodynamic insight into matter–antimatter imbalance in the universe). It reframes the Second Law (“entropy increases”) as a fundamental field equation driving all change, thereby embedding the arrow of time at the deepest level of physical law handwiki.org . A concrete principle emerging here is the \textbf{Entropic Time Limit (ETL)} and the associated \textbf{No-Rush Theorem}. The ETL is defined as a minimum non-zero duration for any physical interaction or information transfer handwiki.org . In plain terms, \emph{“Nature cannot be rushed”} – no process happens in zero time handwiki.org encyclopedia.pub . This is formalized in ToE by asserting that the entropic field enforces a finite speed for entropy propagation, analogous to but distinct from the speed of light for electromagnetism encyclopedia.pub

Thus:

\[ \Delta t_{\min} > 0 \]

meaning there is an irreducible interval $\Delta t_{\min}$ that any cause must precede its effect. This undercuts the idea (used in some idealized models) of instantaneous action-at-a-distance or wavefunction collapse outside time. Instead, any quantum collapse, force mediation, or measurement must involve at least one “tick” of this fundamental entropic clock. The No-Rush Theorem states that \textbf{no physical process can occur in zero time} encyclopedia.pub encyclopedia.pub . Equivalently, \emph{every interaction is a finite-time process}. In traditional physics, we often treat certain processes as effectively instantaneous (for instance, assuming an entangled state collapses immediately upon measurement, or using action-at-a-distance in Newtonian gravity). ToE challenges this: it argues that what really happens is that entropy (and information) must redistribute through the entropic field, which takes time. The entropic field thus imposes a kind of \textbf{speed limit} on causation (sometimes dubbed the \textbf{Entropic Speed Limit, ESL} handwiki.org ). This concept elegantly connects to recent experimental evidence: an experiment observed that entanglement between electrons in helium took $\sim 232$ attoseconds to form, rather than being instant handwiki.org . Obidi cites this as empirical validation of the ETL – even quantum entanglement creation has a tiny but nonzero duration handwiki.org . If further ultrafast experiments consistently show delays in interactions (e.g. slight deviations from instantaneous collapse or from $c$ under extreme conditions), it would strongly support ToE’s premise handwiki.org handwiki.org . The implications of the No-Rush Theorem span multiple domains: In \textbf{quantum mechanics}, it offers a mechanism for wavefunction collapse: ToE predicts a decoherence/collapse rate proportional to entropy exchange. Indeed, the theory suggests an entropy-driven decoherence rate $\Gamma$ that depends on the interaction Hamiltonian $H_{\text{int}}$ norm encyclopedia.pub . No process collapses a wavefunction infinitely fast; instead a minimal entropy $\Delta S_{\min} = k_B \ln 2$ must be produced for a binary quantum decision handwiki.org , linking to Landauer’s principle of information erasure. In \textbf{cosmology}, a finite interaction rate enforced by entropy could resolve singularities or infinities by ensuring no infinite energy density transfer in zero time, and it recasts the flow of time as something emerging from entropy flow (time “emerges from the redistribution of entropy” according to ToE handwiki.org ). For \textbf{causality}, it gives a physical underpinning: cause and effect are separated by the propagation of entropic perturbations (one might envision an event sends ripples in the entropic field much like dropping a pebble in water sends ripples—nothing is felt elsewhere until those ripples arrive). In sum, ToE builds a picture where \emph{entropy is the carrier of causation and time}. The arrow of time (irreversibility) is built into every interaction via the entropic field, and the Second Law becomes a first principle rather than a statistical afterthought.

\subsection{Key Innovations: New Laws and Principles}\label{sec:innovations}

Obidi’s ToE doesn’t stop at reinterpreting existing physics; it \emph{proposes entirely new laws and conservation principles} in order to unify and transcend current paradigms. We highlight a few notable examples introduced in ToE: \textbf{Entropic Conservation Laws}: Traditional physics has conservation of energy, momentum, charge, etc., usually derived via Noether’s theorem from symmetries. ToE adds an \textbf{Entropic Noether Principle}, suggesting that symmetries of the entropic field yield conserved \emph{entropy currents} or related quantities handwiki.org . For instance, if the entropic field has a symmetry, there might be a new conserved charge corresponding to “entropy flow conservation” under certain conditions. This is speculative but hints at a deeper unification of thermodynamics and symmetry principles. \textbf{Entropic Probability Law}: ToE re-imagines the quantum probability rule. It suggests a law $P_o(t) + P_e(t) = 1$ which divides probability into an “observable” part $P_o$ and a “hidden entropic” part $P_e$ handwiki.org . This implies that when a quantum wavefunction appears to “lose” information (say, information seemingly disappears into a mixed state or a black hole), it isn’t annihilated but rather transferred to an \emph{unobservable entropic sector} (like a hidden variable that carries the entropy). This idea is used to address the black hole information paradox and wavefunction collapse determinism: information is conserved globally if one accounts for entropy flow into unobserved degrees of freedom handwiki.org . Notably, this approach yields a potential deterministic account of quantum measurement: the probabilities reflect entropy distribution between seen and unseen parts of the system. \textbf{Entropic CPT Symmetry}: As mentioned, ToE proposes that the apparent violation of time-reversal (T) symmetry due to entropy increase is exactly balanced by CP violation (matter-antimatter asymmetry), such that a combined “CT + CCP = 0” condition holds handwiki.org . In other words, the thermodynamic arrow (CPT asymmetry) is built into the laws: the universe’s preference for one time direction (CPT not conserved individually) is no accident but rather is required to have $ \Delta(\text{entropy}) > 0$. This frames the baryon asymmetry problem (why our universe is mostly matter, not equal matter/antimatter) in terms of entropy: entropy production goes hand-in-hand with creating more matter than antimatter (through CP violation in decay processes), offering a fresh angle on an old puzzle. \textbf{Entropic Uncertainty and Speed Limits}: ToE introduces a \textbf{Thermodynamic Uncertainty Principle (TUP)} which places entropy-based limits on simultaneous precision of certain measurements or on the rate of information gain handwiki.org . This parallels the quantum uncertainty principle but is rooted in entropy and irreversibility. Likewise, the \textbf{Entropic Speed Limit (ESL)} we discussed bounds how fast operations (especially quantum gates or state transitions) can occur given entropic constraints handwiki.org . This might imply, for example, a maximum clock speed for quantum computers or biological neural processes based on entropy generation rates. \textbf{Criterion of Entropic Observability}: The theory suggests a philosophical criterion that \emph{“what can exist or be observed is limited by entropy thresholds”} handwiki.org handwiki.org . If a phenomenon would require a violation of the Second Law or a sudden drop in entropy, it simply cannot occur or be registered. In effect, the entropic field sets the rules for reality’s “rendering engine,” only allowing states that respect entropic accounting. This dovetails with the idea that objective reality emerges from what is thermodynamically permissible, hinting at a new perspective on why certain quantum states (like macroscopic superpositions) aren’t observed: they might be disallowed by entropic constraints, not just by chance. It is important to note that these innovations, while exciting, are \emph{proposed} and not yet empirically confirmed. ToE is in an exploratory phase; many of these principles need further mathematical fleshing-out and experimental testing handwiki.org handwiki.org . Nonetheless, they collectively demonstrate ToE’s aim: a comprehensive re-foundation of physics that incorporates entropy and information at a fundamental level, potentially unifying quantum mechanics, gravity, and thermodynamics under one conceptual roof handwiki.org handwiki.org

\subsection{Self-Referential Entropy (SRE) and Consciousness}\label{sec:SRE}

Perhaps the most intriguing (and speculative) aspect of Obidi’s theory is its foray into \textbf{consciousness}. The Theory of Entropicity is unique among physics frameworks in explicitly attempting to quantify consciousness using entropy. This is done through the introduction of \textbf{Self-Referential Entropy (SRE)} and the associated \textbf{SRE Index}. The idea of SRE starts with the observation that \emph{living or conscious systems seem to maintain internal order (low entropy) while exchanging entropy with their environment}. For example, the human brain constantly dissipates heat (entropy to the environment) but sustains highly organized electrochemical processes internally. ToE postulates that a \emph{conscious system has an internal entropy structure that “references itself”} encyclopedia.pub . In plainer terms, consciousness involves a system’s internal information loop that is somewhat self-contained or self-organizing relative to its surroundings. This self-referential aspect is reminiscent of theories that link consciousness to integrated information or to feedback loops in the brain. Obidi formalizes it using entropy flows:

\begin{quotation} \noindent \textit{“An ‘SRE Index’ is proposed to quantify the degree of consciousness based on the ratio of a system’s internal to external entropy flows.”} encyclopedia.pub \end{quotation}

Mathematically, we can express the \textbf{SRE Index} $I_{\mathrm{SRE}}$ for a given system as:

\[ I_{\mathrm{SRE}} = \frac{\dot{S}_{\mathrm{internal}}}{\dot{S}_{\mathrm{external}}} \;,\qquad I_{\mathrm{SRE}} = \frac{\dot{S}_{\mathrm{external}}}{\dot{S}_{\mathrm{internal}}} \;. \]

where $\dot{S}{\text{internal}}$ is the rate of entropy generation or circulation \emph{within} the system (entropy that remains internal, contributing to internal state complexity), and $\dot{S}{\text{external}}$ is the rate of entropy flow exchanged with the environment (entropy expelled or absorbed, e.g. via heat dissipation). This index essentially measures how \emph{self-contained} the entropy dynamics of a system are. A high $I_{\mathrm{SRE}}$ means the system is generating a lot of entropy internally relative to what it dumps out to the environment. Such a system can be seen as more \emph{self-referentially complex} — it retains and processes information internally rather than just immediately thermalizing it with the outside world. To illustrate, consider: A simple physical system like a hot rock cooling in air: it has $\dot{S}{\text{internal}}$ nearly zero (it’s not generating new entropy inside, just equilibrating) and $\dot{S}{\text{external}}$ positive (heat flowing out increasing environment’s entropy). Its $I_{\mathrm{SRE}}$ is near 0. A living cell: it metabolizes nutrients to maintain its order (negative entropy internally) while releasing waste heat. It has significant internal entropy cycling (from chemical reactions, etc.) as well as external entropy output. One might get an intermediate $I_{\mathrm{SRE}}$. A human brain or an AI running in a closed supercomputer: if it has highly complex internal computations (which raise entropy internally) but efficient cooling (entropy output) is relatively smaller, $I_{\mathrm{SRE}}$ could be larger. In Obidi’s hypothesis, \textbf{consciousness correlates with a higher SRE Index}. Conscious systems strike a delicate balance: they generate entropy through internal information processing (necessary to have irreversibility and information gain internally), but they also must dissipate entropy to avoid thermal death. The SRE Index essentially gauges the \emph{degree of internal self-organization versus external dissipation}. A purely self-enclosed system (no external entropy exchange) with high internal entropy churn might represent a highly conscious mind that is running rich internal simulations (though in reality some dissipation is always needed to obey thermodynamics). On the other hand, a system with low internal processing relative to its entropy output (like boiling water – lots of entropy produced but just dumped out as heat without internal complexity) would have low or zero consciousness in this view. It is important to clarify that $I_{\mathrm{SRE}}$ is at this stage a qualitative proposal, not an empirically validated measure. However, it aligns with certain intuitions and other theories: It resonates with \textbf{Integrated Information Theory (IIT)} in the sense that both attempt to quantify how much a system is more than the sum of its parts (IIT’s $\Phi$ measures how much information is integrated internally rather than remaining as independent parts; a system with high $\Phi$ tends to have a lot of internal causation loops separate from environment). A system with high $I_{\mathrm{SRE}}$ similarly has a lot of internal entropy/information processing relative to its exchange with outside, hinting at a kind of isolation or integration. It also dovetails with \textbf{entropy-based measures of consciousness} in neuroscience. For example, the “entropic brain hypothesis” (Carhart-Harris et al.) suggests higher brain entropy (within certain bounds) correlates with conscious wakefulness and richness of experience, whereas very low entropy (high order, like in deep anesthesia or coma) or very high entropy (noise) correspond to unconscious states. The SRE Index adds the idea of comparing internal vs external entropy flows, not just internal entropy magnitude. In principle, one might measure brain entropy production (e.g. via EEG entropy) and compare it to entropy exchanged (metabolic heat output) to estimate $I_{\mathrm{SRE}}$ as a consciousness index. Obidi’s work suggests that such an index could even serve as a \textbf{clinical biomarker of consciousness} encyclopedia.pub . For instance, in patients under anesthesia or with disorders of consciousness, measuring the SRE Index might provide an objective scale of “how conscious” the brain is (complementing current measures like the EEG-based BIS index). If a future technology allowed real-time tracking of entropy flows in the brain (internal entropy changes vs heat output, etc.), we could imagine an $I_{\mathrm{SRE}}$ monitor in the ICU or operating room.

%\begin{figure}[h] %\centering

%\caption*{\textbf{Figure 1.} Conceptual illustration of \emph{Self-Referential Entropy (SRE)} in an open system. The system (circle) maintains an internal entropy loop (blue circular arrow) representing self-referential information processing and entropy generation, while simultaneously exchanging entropy with the environment (red outward arrow). The SRE Index $I_{\mathrm{SRE}}$ is defined by the ratio of internal entropy flow to external entropy flow. Higher $I_{\mathrm{SRE}}$ indicates a greater degree of internal self-organization (and potential consciousness) relative to entropy dissipated externally.} %\end{figure}

Notably, ToE also introduces \textbf{Clone Theorems} as part of the SRE formalism handwiki.org . These theorems assert that perfect cloning of an informational or quantum state is fundamentally prohibited by entropy considerations (which is consistent with the well-known No-Cloning Theorem in quantum mechanics). In ToE, the reasoning is that any attempt to clone a system exactly would require running the same entropy-increasing processes without divergence, which entropy-driven irreversibility forbids. The Clone Theorems apply at both quantum and macroscopic scales handwiki.org and reinforce the idea that each conscious or informational state is unique and cannot be duplicated without loss or added entropy. Intriguingly, Faggin’s worldview (as we will see) also highlights the significance of the quantum no-cloning principle, but interprets it differently (as evidence of the primacy of consciousness in choosing outcomes). Here in ToE, no-cloning is rooted in thermodynamics: a clone would violate entropy increase unless it siphons off extra entropy to some environment, thus never being truly identical. In summary, Obidi’s Theory of Entropicity extends into the domain of mind by providing a novel quantitative measure and theoretical framework for consciousness: Consciousness is seen as an \emph{entropy-referencing, self-organizing structure} within the entropic field. The \textbf{SRE Index} $I_{\mathrm{SRE}}$ quantifies how “locked into itself” a system’s entropy dynamics are. It is a dimensionless ratio; presumably, systems with $I_{\mathrm{SRE}} \gg 1$ would be considered highly conscious (lots of internal novelty per bit of entropy leaked out), whereas $I_{\mathrm{SRE}} \approx 0$ would be inert matter or very simple systems. This approach attempts to tackle the hard problem from a new angle: rather than directly explaining qualia, it identifies a physical signature (entropy flow pattern) that correlates with the presence of consciousness. It’s an attempt to bridge subjective and objective by using a thermodynamic metric. The introduction of SRE is highly innovative, but we must emphasize it remains conjectural. The viability of $I_{\mathrm{SRE}}$ as a true consciousness measure will hinge on future work: fleshing out the theoretical definitions (making them rigorous and calculable for real systems), and empirical correlations (do systems we intuitively consider “more conscious” indeed have higher SRE ratios?). Obidi has pointed to this as a promising direction for \emph{biomarkers of consciousness} encyclopedia.pub and even speculated on “psychentropy,” an entropy associated with mental states, though these ideas are in early stages. Nonetheless, SRE provides a concrete focal point for comparing ToE with Faggin’s framework, as it directly addresses consciousness.

\section{Federico Faggin’s \emph{Irreducible}: Consciousness as Fundamental}\label{sec:Faggin}

\subsection{Overview of Faggin’s Idealist Framework}\label{sec:irreducible-overview} \emph{Irreducible: Consciousness, Life, Computers, and Human Nature} (published 2024) is a major work by \textbf{Federico Faggin} where he presents an idealist ontology inspired by both quantum physics and personal introspective insights

collectiveinkbooks.com . Faggin’s core assertion is that \textbf{consciousness is the primordial substrate of reality}, and the physical world as we know it emerges as a representation or “symbolic appearance” of that conscious essence collectiveinkbooks.com . This stance places him firmly in the camp of philosophical \emph{idealism} (the view that mind or consciousness is fundamental, rather than matter). He argues that contemporary science, by assuming consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter, has it backwards. Instead, matter and energy are byproducts of consciousness. The title “Irreducible” reflects the claim that consciousness cannot be reduced to or explained away by any arrangement of unconscious parts; it is a sui generis aspect of existence. Some key tenets of Faggin’s model include: Nature’s most fundamental level is consciousness (a quantum phenomenon): He posits that at the deepest level (perhaps associated with quantum processes), consciousness resides collectiveinkbooks.com . In other words, what quantum physics is glimpsing with its weird nonlocality and observer-dependent phenomena are actually reflections of the fact that consciousness is integrated into the fabric of reality. He explicitly says that the classical physical world (the one of deterministic objects in space-time) is “merely” composed of \emph{evocative symbols of a deeper reality}.

collectiveinkbooks.com . That deeper reality is consciousness itself shaping experience. Informational Realism (It from Bit to It from Bit+Meaning): Faggin builds on John Wheeler’s famous “It from Bit” (the idea that information underlies physical reality) medium.com . But he critiques Shannon information as being \textit{symbolic only} (bits with no intrinsic meaning) medium.com . Faggin introduces the concept of \textbf{“Live Information”} — information that is imbued with meaning through being experienced by a conscious agent medium.com medium.com . In his view, reality is fundamentally comprised not of dead bits, but of \emph{meaningful information}, and meaning arises only in consciousness. Therefore, he sees the universe as an \textbf{informational holism} where matter, energy, and information are all different facets of conscious experience. This could be dubbed \emph{informational realism}: the belief that what is real is information, and that information is never separate from the consciousness that gives it meaning. Holistic Quantum View: He emphasizes phenomena like \textbf{quantum entanglement} and the \textbf{observer effect} as hints that the universe is deeply holistic and consciousness participates in reality’s existence medium.com medium.com . For instance, entanglement shows that parts of the universe remain connected beyond classical spacetime separation, which Faggin interprets as evidence of an underlying unity (in consciousness). He often quotes that the universe is “undivided” (echoing quantum physicist David Bohm’s implicate order, which he references) capitalideasonline.com capitalideasonline.com . The observer effect (that measurement disturbs and indeed defines outcomes) is taken as a sign that consciousness (the observer) is not a passive bystander but an active participant in shaping reality. “The One” and \textbf{Seities}: Drawing from mystical traditions (Advaita Vedanta’s Brahman, etc.), Faggin posits an ultimate unitary consciousness, referred to as \textbf{One}, from which everything emanates capitalideasonline.com capitalideasonline.com . However, this One (which can be thought of as akin to a pantheistic or panentheistic God, or simply the universal field of consciousness) differentiates itself into countless individual centers of consciousness which he calls \textbf{seities} medium.com . A \emph{seity} is basically a fundamental conscious agent or unit of conscious identity. Each seity possesses: \textbf{Subjectivity (Consciousness)} – it has an inner experience, awareness. \textbf{Free will (Choice)} – it is not just passively aware but can actively choose or intend. \textbf{Individuality (Self)} – it has a distinct point of view or identity, even though it comes from the One. Seities are described almost like quantum fields or beings that are the “atoms” of consciousness

medium.com . But unlike physical atoms, each seity is holistic and contains the essence of the One (like a fractal). The term “parts-whole” is used: each seity is both a part of the One and the One expressed as a part medium.com medium.com . This is a very similar idea to Indra’s net in Buddhism or certain interpretations of panpsychism where every bit of the universe has a spark of universal consciousness. Dual-Aspect Reality: C-space and I-space: To articulate how the One/Seities create the world we see, Faggin introduces a conceptual model of two interlinked spaces medium.com medium.com : \textbf{C-space (Consciousness-space)}: the inner subjective reality where seities reside. It is the realm of qualia, meanings, intentions. This is where seities experience and possess knowledge intrinsically (knowledge by being). \textbf{I-space (Information-space)}: the “outer” intersubjective reality of symbols and information structures. This corresponds roughly to the physical world, but understood as information. I-space is like a stage or interface where seities communicate and interact via symbolic representations. In Faggin’s picture, each seity translates its experiences in C-space into symbols in I-space. Think of I-space as a giant shared simulation or network that all seities project into. When we perceive the physical universe, we are actually reading the symbolic common world in I-space, which is being continuously informed by the experiences of all seities medium.com medium.com . Essentially, \textbf{physical reality is a shared virtual reality} created by seities to interact. Faggin sometimes also includes a “P-space” for the Physical experienced world (as distinct from the pure information structures), but often I-space is sufficient to represent the outer aspect. A helpful analogy: C-space is like the meaning and mental image in your mind, I-space is like the language or code you use to communicate that to others, and P-space is the actual manifested scene. According to Faggin, \emph{C-space and I-space are complementary aspects of reality} – neither is reducible to the other capitalideasonline.com capitalideasonline.com . This resonates with ideas of dual-aspect monism (mind and matter as two aspects of a deeper substance) and Bohr’s complementarity (wave/particle, here inner/outer aspects). The Purpose of Reality is Self-Knowledge and Creative Evolution: Why would the One split into the Many? Faggin proposes a teleological element: the One “divides into many to know itself through relationship and creation” capitalideasonline.com capitalideasonline.com . This is a classic theme in mystical philosophy – that God or the universal consciousness plays hide-and-seek with itself, creating a world and beings to experience novelty and love. The evolution of the universe thus has a meaning: it’s the One exploring all possibilities of experience. Every choice by a seity (free will) adds to the self-discovery of the One capitalideasonline.com capitalideasonline.com . In this view, \textbf{free will is real and fundamental} (not an illusion as some materialists claim), and \textbf{meaning/values are built into the cosmos} (not human constructs on a dead stage). Consciousness vs Computers (AI): As a corollary of his dual-space idea, Faggin strongly argues that \textbf{machines and algorithms cannot be conscious} in principle capitalideasonline.com capitalideasonline.com . The reason is that computers operate entirely in I-space (manipulating symbols with no intrinsic meaning), whereas consciousness exists only in C-space. A computer, no matter how complex, never has the inner awareness or semantic understanding – it is syntactic, manipulating “tokens” in I-space that mean nothing to it. Faggin states: “Consciousness is not computation. It’s irreducible and experiential... No amount of symbol-processing can generate qualia or will.” capitalideasonline.com capitalideasonline.com . This addresses ongoing debates on AI consciousness: Faggin would say even an ultra-advanced AI would be just a clever automaton unless it somehow had a seity (which he doubts, since seities are not created by code but are fundamental units). This stance distinguishes his view from some panpsychist or integrated information theory approaches that might allow for conscious AI if arranged right — Faggin is closer to a traditional dualist here, except his “matter” side is information and not truly independent of consciousness. To summarize Faggin’s worldview: It is monistic but non-material: only consciousness truly exists (monism), but unlike physicalist monism, it’s an idealist monism. It is pluralistic at the level of individual consciousness (many seities) but unified at the ground (One consciousness). It sees the physical world as a communication medium between conscious agents, not the source of consciousness. It emphasizes meaning, purpose, free will, and qualitative experience as primary, reclaiming them from the edges of science to center stage. In many ways, Faggin’s ideas resonate with spiritual and philosophical traditions (Vedanta, Plato’s ideal forms, Leibniz’s monads, etc.), but he articulates them using the language of quantum physics and computation, making an original synthesis. Next, we will delve into some specific components of his framework, which will later allow a detailed comparison with Obidi’s ToE.

\subsection{C-space, I-space, and the Architecture of Reality} \label{sec:spaces}

A crucial part of Faggin’s formulation is the interplay between the inner and outer aspects of reality, formalized as C-space and I-space. It’s useful to understand these spaces in a bit more detail, as well as an additional space sometimes mentioned, P-space: C-space (Consciousness Space): This is the domain of \textbf{first-person experience}. It is non-physical, non-locally connected, and not accessible directly to observation from the outside. Every seity “resides” in C-space, meaning each seity has its own inner conscious life here. C-space is where qualia (the “redness” of red, the taste of wine, etc.) live. In the context of physics, Faggin suggests C-space is outside the scope of spacetime and even outside the Hilbert space of quantum mechanics arunsingha.in arunsingha.in :

\[ \frac{\partial C}{\partial x^\mu} = 0 \quad(\text{C-space has no location in spacetime}) \]

\[ C \notin \mathcal{H}_{\mathrm{QM}} \quad(\text{Consciousness is not a quantum state in Hilbert space}) \]

(Consciousness is not a quantum state in Hilbert space):contentReference[oaicite:89]index=89. These mathematical notations (from an exposition aligning Faggin with Vedanta arunsingha.in ) mean consciousness is taken as a fundamental ontological category, not something emergent from or contained in physical formalism. C-space correlates with what Vedanta calls \emph{Brahman} (unchanging absolute awareness) or the “paramartha” (ultimate reality) viewpoint arunsingha.in . Each individual seity's C-space is a perspective of the one universal consciousness. I-space (Information Space): This is an intermediate domain of \textbf{symbols and quantum information}. One can think of I-space as the \emph{“blueprint” or code underlying the physical world”}. It’s not yet tangible matter, but patterns or forms that can manifest as matter. Faggin equates I-space to the \textbf{quantum state space} in some descriptions: e.g., he associates it with the Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ of quantum mechanics (the space of wavefunctions) arunsingha.in . The idea is that the wavefunction is a piece of “live information” – it encodes possibilities (superpositions) that carry meaning from C-space (since seities will choose or experience outcomes). Bohm’s implicate order is likened to I-space arunsingha.in , as it is an underlying layer of reality where information exists in a non-local form before being explicated into physical outcomes. I-space thus is the bridge: seities in C-space project their intentions or experiences into I-space in the form of quantum information (qubits, wavefunctions), and interactions in I-space (entanglement, decoherence) eventually yield classical symbols that multiple seities can experience commonly. Importantly, I-space has structure and laws (likely the laws of quantum physics and perhaps additional “semantic” rules). It corresponds to what Vedanta might call the \emph{subtle realm} or \emph{Māyā} (the realm of forms and mind, governed by an intelligent order) arunsingha.in . P-space (Physical Space): This is the familiar \textbf{classical physical universe} – the domain of spacetime, matter, energy, as measured by our instruments. P-space is effectively the “rendered” world that emerges when I-space quantum information is observed by consciousness (C-space). In quantum terms, when a wavefunction (I-space object) collapses to a definite outcome upon observation, that definite outcome lives in P-space. P-space is what our sense data and scientific measurements pick up. It’s governed by classical physics (to a good approximation) and is the arena of empirical science. Faggin describes P-space as coming into being when I-space information “collapses under observation by C-space” arunsingha.in arunsingha.in . He agrees that the unitary evolution in quantum theory ($|\psi(t)\rangle = U(t)|\psi(0)\rangle$) happens in I-space arunsingha.in , but the final collapse $|\psi\rangle \to |x\rangle$ (with probability) is not fully described by physical law – that’s where the consciousness (C-space) selects an outcome. So P-space is effectively a cross-section of I-space after consciousness has interacted with it. Given this architecture, we can summarize the process of reality creation: Origin: The One universal consciousness (C-space) contains infinite potential experiences. Differentiation: It emanates as many seities (local foci of consciousness), each with free will and creativity. Projection into Information: Seities communicate and co-create a shared world by projecting information into I-space. This could be thought of like each seity contributes to a cosmic quantum state or a collective “dream” that has rules (the laws of physics). Manifestation: When seities observe/interact, the I-space information becomes concrete experiences in P-space (classical reality). All seities share the same P-space, since it’s the public facing side of the I-space story. This ensures we have a common world (we roughly agree on physical events) even though each seity has a private C-space. One striking consequence of this model is a resolution to the \textbf{measurement problem in quantum mechanics} from a consciousness-centric view. Instead of positing many worlds or collapse mechanisms, Faggin would say: the wavefunction’s collapse is the process of a seity’s conscious choice among the potential meanings offered by the wavefunction capitalideasonline.com capitalideasonline.com . Indeed, Faggin is quoted as saying “The quantum wavefunction represents potential meanings waiting to be chosen” capitalideasonline.com capitalideasonline.com . This beautifully ties quantum uncertainty to free will and meaning: the indeterminacy is not just randomness, but freedom at the fundamental level for consciousness to pick an outcome (within the probability distribution). It implies every quantum event is a kind of communication between the system and a conscious agent (directly or indirectly). This idea echoes interpretations like Wigner’s and some versions of von Neumann’s, but Faggin integrates it with his seity framework and free-will emphasis.

\begin{figure}[h] \centering \caption*{\textbf{Figure 2.} Faggin's \textbf{CIP Framework}: A schematic of the three interwoven domains of reality. \emph{Consciousness-space (C-space)} is the innermost core (yellow) representing pure awareness (the One and the seities' subjective experiences). \emph{Information-space (I-space)} is the intermediate layer (blue), symbolizing the quantum information realm (implicate order) that carries meanings and potential forms. \emph{Physical-space (P-space)} is the outer circle (green) representing the manifest classical world of matter and energy (explicate order). Creation flows outward (C-space projects into I-space which precipitates P-space), while experience flows inward (observing P-space gives meaningful experience in C-space). This nested model underscores that consciousness is the fundamental ground and ultimate destination of all reality (consistent with Advaita Vedanta analogies) arunsingha.in arunsingha.in .} \end{figure}

Another concept Faggin introduces is the \textbf{“seity’s embodiment”}. He sees living organisms (like human bodies) as \emph{“avatars” or instruments of seities} in P-space medium.com medium.com . For example, a human being consists of: A seity (the true self, in C-space), An ego/mind that is partially in I-space (the ego interprets the symbols and acts as an agent controlling the body), A physical body in P-space (which is like a drone or vehicle operated by the seity via the interface of mind). The ego, in Faggin's context, is that portion of the seity’s consciousness that identifies with the body and personality (kind of a localized consciousness). It filters the seity’s experience to just what comes through that one body’s senses (the seity itself is much more expansive when not embodied, but while “logged in” to a body, it experiences the world through it) medium.com . He implies that life’s \textbf{purpose} is for the seity to gain knowledge of itself and reality through the experiences of embodiment medium.com medium.com . Over many experiences, the seity (and the One through it) evolves in understanding. This gives a spiritual or existential significance to why we are here: to further the self-knowing of consciousness, to exercise creativity and love (since cooperation and evolution of meaning are key themes) medium.com medium.com . To wrap up Faggin’s framework: It is a deeply \textbf{integrative model} connecting physics, computer science, biology, and spirituality. He references not only quantum mechanics and AI, but also ideas from Jung (dual-aspect monism, psyche), Eastern philosophy (Advaita: Atman is Brahman), and modern consciousness studies (he cites Giulio Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory as “interconnected conscious whole” idea capitalideasonline.com ). It is explicitly \textbf{non-reductionist}: it posits that attempting to reduce consciousness to neural firings or algorithms is a category error. Instead, one must enlarge science to include first-person reality as ontologically real. Faggin calls for a “first-person physics” or an expansion of science to incorporate consciousness as a fundamental given, akin to space, time, energy. It cherishes \textbf{free will and creativity}: in Faggin’s world, randomness in quantum mechanics is reinterpreted as the space for free choices by conscious agents. This stands in stark contrast to the fully deterministic or random universes of some interpretations. Having detailed both Obidi’s ToE and Faggin’s Irreducible, we are now equipped to compare and contrast them, especially focusing on their treatment of consciousness, the role of entropy/information, and whether they might be complementary or talking past each other.

\section{Comparative Analysis of ToE and Irreducible} \label{sec:comparison}

Despite their very different origins and languages (one reads like cutting-edge theoretical physics, the other like modern metaphysical philosophy grounded in physics), Obidi’s Theory of Entropicity and Faggin’s Irreducible share some striking common threads. They also diverge on critical points. We will examine key aspects side by side: \subsection{Ontological Primacy: Entropy vs. Consciousness}

Perhaps the most obvious difference is what each framework regards as \textbf{fundamental}. ToE says \textbf{entropy (and irreversibility)} is fundamental – even more fundamental than spacetime or energy encyclopedia.pub encyclopedia.pub . Consciousness in ToE is treated as something that needs explaining within this entropic paradigm (via SRE). Irreducible says \textbf{consciousness is fundamental} – more fundamental than matter or entropy. Entropy, in Faggin’s view, would be a property of the symbolic physical domain (I-space/P-space) but not the ultimate reality. In short, ToE is \emph{physicalist monism} (albeit a very novel physical substance: entropy field) extended to include mind, whereas Faggin is \emph{idealist monism}, treating matter/entropy as emergent from consciousness. However, this dichotomy may be partially bridged: If one reads Obidi’s work closely, he consistently emphasizes information and entropy together (note terms like \emph{Entropic-Information Equivalence Principle} in his keywords client.prod.orp.cambridge.org ). It could be interpreted that ToE’s “entropy” is not just heat or disorder but something akin to “information carrying capacity” of reality. The entropic field might be, in a different language, an \emph{information field} that enforces the arrow of time. In Faggin’s model, the fundamental bridge between consciousness and matter is \emph{information} as well – specifically meaningful or “live” information in I-space. So one could speculate: if consciousness is truly fundamental (Faggin), it would naturally manifest an informational realm (I-space) and certain laws (like perhaps an analogue of an entropy law) to govern the unfolding of experiences. Obidi might have discovered pieces of those laws (like No-Rush, entropic conservation) without explicitly positing consciousness at the core. In other words: From Faggin’s side, one could say: The entropic field that Obidi speaks of could be the \emph{informational/causal fabric} that consciousness uses to manifest phenomena. It’s “physical” in a sense, but it might well be the same as Faggin’s I-space (the subtle informational layer) albeit described in thermodynamic terms. The fact that entropy (uncertainty) is fundamental in physics could be a reflection of the freedom of conscious choice at each event. From Obidi’s side, one might say: If entropy drives everything, maybe consciousness arises in those systems that maximize certain entropy flows (self-referentially). Perhaps at the base, even fundamental particles carry a tiny seed of “psychentropy” (like a proto-consciousness associated with a certain entropy content), hinting a bit at panpsychism. Indeed, Obidi’s mention of “Psychentropy” in his keywords suggests he is considering a quantity that blends psyche and entropy. While Obidi himself does not claim electrons are conscious, his framework doesn’t explicitly forbid consciousness from pervading all levels (there’s an implication that maybe only complex systems with high SRE index have what we call consciousness). Faggin’s framework, however, easily accommodates a form of panpsychism (since every seity at every level is conscious). For Faggin, even an electron would be associated with a rudimentary seity (perhaps very limited in free will or experience). This resonates with some interpretations of quantum mechanics where particles “choose” their states on measurement – Faggin would credit that to the seity associated with that particle or the measuring agent’s seity. So the philosophical divide is: \textbf{Material (entropic) monism extended toward mind} vs \textbf{Mind monism extended toward matter}. Yet, both are unsatisfied with classical dualism or emergentism: Obidi doesn’t treat consciousness as magically emerging at some complexity without quantitative laws; he tries to derive it from entropy principles. Faggin doesn’t treat matter as emergent from nothing; he grounds it in consciousness and information. They just start from opposite ends of the spectrum of existence.

\subsection{Role of Information and No-Cloning Principles}

A strong overlap is the emphasis on \textbf{information and the impossibility of cloning}. Both theories highlight that: Reality fundamentally deals with information (be it entropy flows or meaningful symbols). There is a constraint that \emph{information cannot be duplicated perfectly without consequences}. In quantum physics, the No-Cloning Theorem says you cannot copy an unknown quantum state without disturbing the original handwiki.org . Obidi’s Clone Theorems take that further, arguing it’s entropy’s fault: making a perfect copy would require reversing entropy (decreasing it somewhere), which is not allowed handwiki.org handwiki.org . In essence, \emph{irreversibility protects uniqueness of states}. This principle in ToE holds at macro scales too: think of Loschmidt’s paradox (why we don’t see reversed entropy macroscopically) — ToE’s answer is that the entropic field simply prohibits processes that would amount to cloning past states out of noise. Faggin’s perspective is more metaphysical: each seity is unique and has its own vantage point that can’t be duplicated. When two particles are entangled, they are not clones but share a state — once measured, one outcome happens per seity or per branch. The inability to clone a quantum state aligns with the idea that consciousness (which chooses the outcome) cannot be bypassed or duplicated by a machine. If one tried to clone a conscious state, Faggin might say you’d only copy the symbols (I-space configuration), not the actual consciousness (C-space experience). That seems consistent: a simulation of someone’s brain might copy all information, but according to Faggin, without transferring the seity, you’ve not cloned the consciousness. Moreover, Faggin sees quantum mechanics’ weirdness (like no-cloning, uncertainty) as hints that “the universe is not algorithmic” – there’s an aspect of reality that cannot be perfectly predicted or copied, which is precisely the domain of conscious free will capitalideasonline.com capitalideasonline.com . This ties to his insistence on \textbf{participatory realism}: the observer is part of reality and co-creates it capitalideasonline.com capitalideasonline.com . Wheeler’s “Participatory Universe” is invoked: reality requires participatory acts (observations) to come into being capitalideasonline.com . In ToE, a similar thought appears in the criterion of entropic observability: only what meets certain entropy conditions can manifest handwiki.org . One might analogize: in ToE, the “observer” effect is replaced by an “entropy threshold” effect – you need a certain entropy exchange for an event to become real (like a quantum collapse requires $k_B\ln2$ entropy). If one anthropomorphizes that: the universe “demands its entropy fee” for revealing an outcome, which is maybe how an observer’s consciousness inputs or registers an event. To solidify comparison: Both see \textbf{reality as information-driven and holistic}. Faggin explicitly with his One and seity network; Obidi implicitly via entropic connectivity and influences (entanglement via entropic seesaw, etc. where two systems are linked by an “entropic bar” in his model of entanglement encyclopedia.pub encyclopedia.pub ). Both assert \textbf{classical determinism is incomplete}: Faggin by emphasizing uncertainty and free will; Obidi by introducing new uncertainty (thermodynamic uncertainty principle) and finite limits that put cracks in Laplace’s demon. Both frameworks need \textbf{further formalism}: Faggin’s is currently conceptual, not a set of equations (though he suggests some in CIP framework, e.g. treating consciousness as outside Hilbert space). Obidi’s has an outline of equations but not yet fully derived solutions or all constants measured. They are both “works in progress” pushing boundaries.

\subsection{Consciousness: Epiphenomenon, Emergent, or Fundamental?}

For Faggin, consciousness is \textbf{fundamental and causal}. For Obidi, is consciousness fundamental or emergent? This is subtle: Obidi does not say consciousness existed at the Big Bang. He implies consciousness emerges in systems with high SRE (likely requiring complexity, etc.). So one could categorize ToE as allowing consciousness to \emph{emerge} from the fundamental entropic field under certain conditions. However, because ToE alters physics, this emergence isn’t magic but lawlike: once you have a certain internal entropy loop, that system \emph{is} conscious by definition (they propose to measure it). Obidi’s stance could be called \textbf{non-dual but emergentist}: there’s one stuff (entropy field) and consciousness happens when that stuff organizes a certain way. This is different from classical emergentism because he’s giving a candidate quantitative handle ($I_{\mathrm{SRE}}$) rather than saying “we don’t know how, but at brain complexity $10^{14}$ synapses consciousness appears”. Faggin’s stance is \textbf{dual-aspect monist fundamentalist}: one stuff (consciousness/information), two aspects (inner experience and outer symbol). Consciousness never “emerges” – it always was there in every bit of existence, just more complex forms appear over time. One could argue that if ToE were taken to its logical conclusion, maybe consciousness pervades everything in a very rudimentary form (like a primitive self-referential entropy in even a particle). But Obidi doesn’t explicitly go there. He reserves high SRE for complex systems (which in practice means life or similar). In contrast, Faggin is comfortable implying a form of panpsychism (though he might not call it that – he just says every part of reality has an inner aspect, which is essentially panpsychism). A point of possible synergy: Obidi’s \textbf{Entropic Observability Criterion} (only things that meet entropy thresholds exist or are observable) has a philosophical echo in Faggin’s view that \textbf{consciousness “chooses” reality}. In other words, you might say: ToE: A quantum possibility becomes real if an entropy threshold (like $k_B \ln 2$) is released, making the event irreversible handwiki.org . Faggin: A quantum possibility becomes real when a conscious seity attends to it (making a free-will choice among the possibilities). These could describe the same event from two sides: when a conscious observation is made, entropy is released (since the wavefunction’s uncertainty is reduced, entropy increases in environment). So the act of conscious measurement in Faggin’s terms corresponds to an entropic irreversibility in Obidi’s terms. Indeed, Landauer’s principle says acquiring one bit of information (which a conscious observer does when seeing a result) must dissipate $\ge k_B \ln 2$ entropy in the environment. This is a known bridge between thermodynamics and information theory. Obidi explicitly references that by saying a collapse event releases minimum $k_B\ln 2$ entropy handwiki.org . Faggin implies the observer collapses the state by knowing it. So they are consistent here: consciousness’ act (Faggin) and entropy dissipation (Obidi) are two sides of one coin. This is a profound connection: it suggests that perhaps the entropic field is the mechanism by which consciousness’ knowledge is registered in the physical world. When a seity in C-space gains knowledge (like outcome of a measurement), in I-space/P-space that corresponds to an entropy increase (because one possibility out of many is realized, which from other perspectives looks like lost information -> entropy gain). It might be too speculative, but one could imagine enriching ToE by saying: the entropic field carries the “footprint” of consciousness. Or conversely, adding to Faggin: whenever consciousness exerts choice, it will be reflected as entropy production in the physical realm.

\subsection{SRE Index vs. Seities and Integrated Information}

The SRE Index is an attempt to grade consciousness on a continuum. Does Faggin’s framework allow something similar? Possibly indirectly: If every seity has consciousness, then technically even an electron has some consciousness, but extremely limited “internal entropy” (since it’s basically one bit of spin maybe). Faggin might say the electron’s seity has a very small degree of consciousness (perhaps just a glimmer of feeling of spin-up vs spin-down or something, if at all discernible). However, Faggin doesn’t quantify consciousness in his writing; he just states it qualitatively. Yet he does reference Tononi’s integrated information (IIT) approvingly capitalideasonline.com . Integrated Information Theory (IIT) proposes a $\Phi$ value that quantifies consciousness's level and is high for systems with a lot of interconnected information. The SRE Index is conceptually akin to $\Phi$ in that both correlate with how much the system's internal structure stands out from its environment. For instance, the human brain is highly differentiated internally and not just random thermal noise with the environment – it has high $\Phi$ and likely high $I_{\mathrm{SRE}}$ (lots of internal entropy flux in neural networks, but the brain is not just equilibrating with environment; it maintains order). Meanwhile, something like the internet might have high information integration too. SRE might catch some of that as well if the internet's servers plus users considered as a system have significant internal processing vs. heat output. One can foresee that if SRE Index became formal, it might correlate with $\Phi$ for many cases, though one is thermodynamic and the other is information-theoretic. This connection could actually be explored: $I_{\mathrm{SRE}}$ might be easier to measure physically (since you can measure heat output and internal entropy production, perhaps via entropy balance equations), whereas $\Phi$ is notoriously hard to compute for large systems. From Faggin's idealist stance, $\Phi$ or $I_{\mathrm{SRE}}$ are telling us how much of the One's consciousness is expressing through that system. A high value means that seity (or collective seities) have a rich channel in that system. For Obidi, $I_{\mathrm{SRE}}$ is purely a physical metric that correlates with consciousness but he doesn’t say why it correlates (because he’s not invoking consciousness as fundamental, he just notes conscious systems have this property). It’s a classic difference: correlation vs causation. Obidi: high internal entropy feedback \emph{produces} consciousness (or is consciousness). Faggin: high internal feedback happens because consciousness of that system is actively engaged (the causal arrow is from consciousness to complex dynamics, not vice versa). However, both would agree on practical ground: if you want to know if something is conscious, look at how it processes information relative to environment: Obidi says measure entropy flows. Faggin would say see if it exhibits purposeful, integrated behavior that indicates an inner life (which often implies complex internal processing). So in ethical terms (like how to tell if an AI or animal is conscious), both provide pointers that complexity and internal integration matter.

\subsection{Cosmological and Physical Scope}

ToE is intended as a \textbf{unified physical theory}: it addresses cosmology (e.g. provides an alternative explanation for cosmic acceleration via an “entropy potential” handwiki.org , explains matter-antimatter asymmetry via entropic CPT, addresses gravity, quantum collapse, etc.). Faggin’s theory is not a physical theory per se; it doesn’t directly give new equations for gravity or predict an entropy effect in black holes (though he might have ideas like consciousness causing collapse might solve measurement paradox). However, interestingly: Obidi’s theory in cosmology posits an \textbf{entropy-driven expansion and contraction} which might remove the need for dark energy encyclopedia.pub encyclopedia.pub or explain time’s arrow in cosmology. Faggin doesn’t talk cosmology explicitly, but if consciousness is primary, one could imagine the Big Bang was an act of the One (maybe the One splitting into many seities – a metaphysical analogue to the Big Bang). Obidi’s explanation for gravity as entropic might echo some metaphysical ideas that gravity is not fundamental but emergent from information (Erik Verlinde’s entropic gravity is along these lines, which Obidi extends). Faggin doesn’t mention gravity specifically, but if physical laws “gradually emerge from seities communicating” besharamagazine.org (that snippet suggests Faggin sees natural laws as emergent regularities from conscious interactions), then gravity would be one such emergent constraint, possibly equivalent to an information/entropy organizing principle. So one can imagine: Faggin would likely be sympathetic to the idea that gravity has an informational origin (like constraints to maximize something like entropy or meet some coherence since it’s a symbol system of I-space). This doesn’t conflict with his view as long as we remember the source of those rules is ultimately consciousness wanting stable universes to explore.

\subsection{Experiment and Falsifiability}

Obidi’s ToE, being a physics theory, makes numerous \textbf{testable predictions}: e.g. the exact rate of decoherence as a function of entropy, possible deviations from $c$ near extreme entropy gradients handwiki.org handwiki.org , a minimum entropy release per quantum measurement handwiki.org , etc. It has already used the attosecond experiment as a piece of evidence handwiki.org . Future experiments might confirm or refute No-Rush (if an interaction was found to happen truly instantaneously, that’d refute it). Faggin’s theory is harder to falsify directly since it’s more an ontological stance. However, it could be indirectly supported if, say: We find that any purely third-person explanation of consciousness fails and we \emph{must} include observer-participation to make quantum theory complete (some argue we already do). Or if an AI built on purely computational principles shows fundamental limitations that only conscious insight can overcome (though that's vague). Perhaps more convincingly, Faggin’s ideas are partly empirical in that they stem from introspective data (his own spiritual awakening experiences, etc.). But those are not publicly falsifiable events. Nonetheless, Faggin’s worldview can inspire new directions for science: for example, the idea of first-person empiricism (as in meditation experiments affecting random number generators, etc., studied by IONS). If consciousness is primary, one might attempt experiments of mind over matter (psychokinesis) in rigorous ways – not to say Faggin promoted that explicitly, but he opens the door to consciousness influencing random quantum events (which if statistically verified, would bolster his case). Obidi’s theory could indirectly support Faggin’s if, for instance, measuring SRE Index correlates extremely well with reports of conscious experience level. If SRE Index were high whenever a subject is conscious and low when not, that marries the physical and experiential. It wouldn’t prove consciousness is fundamental, but it would confirm a deep link that Faggin could easily explain (the link is there because entropy flows reflect conscious activity). Conversely, if SRE Index had no correlation with consciousness (imagine we find conscious awareness can be high even in systems with very low internal entropy generation), that would be puzzling for Obidi. But Faggin could say maybe our measure of internal vs external entropy wasn’t capturing the right thing because maybe conscious internal processes are very low-energy (like maybe quantum brain processes that don’t dissipate much heat but still yield experience). In practice, the brain does dissipate significant heat, so likely it does correlate. Finally, ethics and implications: Faggin’s view imbues the universe with meaning, purpose, and value (all beings are manifestations of One, promoting compassion and significance to life). Obidi’s view is more neutral scientifically, but if one takes it to have consciousness measures, it could influence how we treat AI or animals based on SRE scores. It stays within a scientific value-neutral perspective but has ethical spin-offs (like if an AI had $I_{\mathrm{SRE}}$ high, do we consider it conscious?). Faggin explicitly denies AI can be conscious because it lacks C-space, whereas Obidi might allow that if an AI had a closed loop of entropy processing (maybe advanced AI with internal simulations could have some $I_{\mathrm{SRE}}$). So they might differ on whether an advanced AI or integrated circuit could ever be conscious: Obidi: Possibly yes, if it replicates the thermodynamics of life (some have proposed consciousness needs a non-equilibrium thermodynamic structure, which AI might lack if it's too static). Faggin: No, unless that AI is somehow a seity’s instrument (one could conceive maybe a seity could inhabit a computer if it was complex enough, but Faggin seems skeptical since he sees computers as fully algorithmic and seity can’t “plug into” that without something more). One might test this in future: if a purely digital agent started showing signs of consciousness, Obidi could claim SRE formalism covers it (maybe it has internal entropy flows in its circuits?), Faggin might claim there's likely some kind of consciousness field involved or maybe the AI has achieved a new non-algorithmic layer spontaneously (a stretch).

\section{Implications for the Hard Problem of Consciousness} \label{sec:hardproblem}

The \textbf{hard problem of consciousness} asks: how does subjective experience arise from physical processes? After exploring these two theories, what answers or insights do they provide? Obidi's ToE (via SRE): It implies a partial resolution: it doesn’t explain how the quality of experience (the redness of red) arises, but it does propose a clear criterion for \emph{which systems have consciousness and to what degree}. By doing so, it transitions the hard problem into a perhaps merely \emph{“hard science problem”}: find the SRE Index of a system and you have a handle on its consciousness. This approach is similar in spirit to IIT (which says if you compute $\Phi$, you know where consciousness is, but it doesn’t tell you why that feels like something). ToE would predict, for example, that a brain has high SRE index and thus is conscious, whereas a thermostat or a rock has nearly zero SRE index (even though both have some entropy processes, the thermostat mainly just dissipates heat and has trivial internal state). It also means consciousness is not tied to a specific substrate (carbon or biology) but to a pattern of entropy flow. That is an important notion: it’s \textbf{substrate-independent} to an extent, meaning if you made a machine with similar entropy flow patterns as a brain, it could in theory be conscious. This is a more materialist-friendly view than Faggin’s, in that it doesn’t necessitate an immaterial soul, just the right physical organization. Faggin’s Irreducible: It addresses the hard problem by effectively \emph{denying its premise} — if consciousness is irreducible and fundamental, then there is no “how does it arise” needed; it’s always been there. The question becomes: how does consciousness assume the appearance of matter? And that Faggin answers by the CIP framework: consciousness represents itself as matter through information structures. So he sort of inverts the hard problem into what some call the “pretty hard problem” (term by Kastrup or others): how does matter appear consistent if consciousness is behind it? But he aligns with an old philosophical stance: you can’t get mind from matter, so start with mind. In doing so, he bypasses needing a neural correlate to generate experience, because the experience (C-space) is fundamental and neural correlates are just the I-space symbols of it. One might think this is unscientific, but it does make one key prediction: there will never be a purely physical explanation of qualia, because qualia are not physical. Many agree implicitly, given the lack of success so far. Faggin would encourage an expanded methodology: use introspection rigorously, integrate it with physics (a two-pronged approach). For instance, investigating consciousness might require “controlling the observer state” (like certain meditators claim to witness the arising of thoughts/qualia from a ground state). If such introspective data can correlate with brain entropy changes, it could actually link Faggin and Obidi’s ideas. SRE Index and Qualia: Does ToE say anything about the nature of qualia? Not explicitly. However, one could speculate that \emph{different patterns of entropy flow could correspond to different qualities of experience.} For example, maybe the qualia of vision vs sound correspond to different entropy processing in respective brain areas (visual cortex processing has certain entropic patterns distinct from auditory). If SRE formalism is rich, perhaps it could even classify types of conscious contents by entropy-frequency spectra or similar. This is speculative but an enticing idea: a \textbf{thermodynamic signature} of types of experience (like high-frequency entropy oscillations might correlate with intense sensory awareness, etc.). Faggin might say those correlations exist because what happens in I-space (information patterns) correlates to specific experiences in C-space by design (seities use certain brain oscillations to represent certain qualia symbolically). So again, the theories could complement: ToE could give the technical, measurable handle, while Faggin’s could give the reason “why that pattern is joyful and that one is painful” in terms of meaning to a seity (which physics alone can’t tell). Freedom and Determinism: Both theories uphold an aspect of freedom: ToE introduces randomness/uncertainty irreducibly via entropy, and perhaps chaos in entropy dynamics. So it is not strictly deterministic in the classical sense; there are irreducible uncertainties and new conserved quantities that allow novelty (like entropic probability law mixing things between sectors). Faggin explicitly states free will is real at every choice. This is at odds with a purely entropic view (since entropy processes statistically might still be determined by prior states plus noise). However, if one identifies consciousness’s free choices with specific entropy fluctuations (like perhaps which microscopic branch a collapse goes to), then free will could manifest as “biased noise” in physical terms. This is speculative territory bridging philosophy of will with physics of randomness. If someday experiments found that human intention can bias the outcomes of seemingly random quantum events beyond chance (some experiments claim this at tiny levels), it would support Faggin's idea and might force ToE to incorporate a conscious bias parameter into its probability law. Obidi hasn’t spoken about free will—his theory is framed in a scientific context where presumably everything follows laws (even if probabilistic). But he does incorporate a deterministic mechanism for wavefunction collapse (via entropic probability law, which might actually make quantum outcomes effectively deterministic if including hidden entropic variables handwiki.org ). That is ironically opposite to Faggin: Faggin would be okay with intrinsic probabilistic outcomes if they are chosen by will. Obidi tries to make it deterministic across hidden domains (like one outcome in observable, complementary info in hidden entropy so total info conserved deterministically). In that sense, ToE leans more towards a \emph{hidden-variable-like} completion of quantum mechanics, whereas Faggin embraces an indeterminism rooted in consciousness. It’s a notable divergence: If experiments show quantum outcomes are truly random with only statistical patterns, Faggin’s view is fine (consciousness chooses but within probabilities maybe set by symmetry of possibilities). If ToE finds a way to predict outcomes by tracking entropy (which would be revolutionary, as it’s like predicting which nucleus will decay by some entropic condition), that would be a huge point for a deterministic underlying layer. So far, no evidence of such determinism exists; quantum randomness looks truly random. Obidi’s idea of information going to a hidden sector doesn’t let you predict the outcome, it just says info isn’t destroyed (so still effectively unpredictable individually, only ensemble behavior fixed). Finally, \textbf{big picture}: Both Faggin and Obidi are attempting a synthesis of knowledge that addresses big questions: What is the universe at bottom? How does matter relate to mind? Why is there an arrow of time? What is the role of the observer? Faggin answers: at bottom, consciousness; time’s arrow is due to creative evolution (One exploring itself, likely requiring asymmetry to allow novelty); observer role is fundamental (no reality without it). Obidi answers: at bottom, entropy dynamics; time’s arrow is literal (the driver of everything); observer arises as a self-referential entropy phenomenon and may not be fundamental in the theory, but ends up being crucial for completeness of physics (since including SRE could unify quantum measurement issues). We might be witnessing a potential convergence where: Entropy/Information Field Theory + Consciousness = Future Paradigm. In such a paradigm, the universe is understood as an information-processing cosmic mind of sorts: The laws of physics (with entropy at core) describe the \emph{habits} or regularities of this cosmic information flow. Consciousness injects novelty and definiteness into those processes (ensuring that the cosmic mind is not just running a computation but experiencing and guiding it). This synthesis is speculative but not unprecedented; thinkers like John Wheeler, and more recently physicists like Diederik Aerts or philosophers like Bernardo Kastrup, have toyed with similar merges of information and idealism. Obidi himself references Faggin in his keywords client.prod.orp.cambridge.org , indicating an awareness of these ideas. It suggests that future work might explicitly attempt to combine SRE formalism with a conscious-agent framework. For example, one could imagine a \textbf{“Psychentropic Principle”}: each conscious agent (seity) maximizes some internal entropy (information) production subject to constraints, which could be a principle that yields choices or emergent behaviors aligning with physical law (like a variational principle including entropy and consciousness utility). While that’s beyond our scope, it’s clear that Obidi’s and Faggin’s theories each supply something the other lacks: ToE gives equations and quantitative grip. Irreducible gives meaning and ontological clarity about consciousness. Together, they might move us closer to a true Theory of Everything that includes mind.

\section{Conclusion}\label {sec:conclusion}

We undertook a deep exploration of two visionary frameworks, Federico Faggin’s \textbf{Irreducible} and John O. Obidi’s \textbf{Theory of Entropicity}, examining their principles, mathematical formalisms, and philosophical implications side by side. Despite stemming from different starting assumptions, a remarkable dialogue emerges between the two: Federico Faggin asserts an \emph{idealist, consciousness-first reality}: consciousness (with its inherent meaningful information and free will) is \emph{ontologically primary}. Physical reality is a secondary construct – a shared symbolic space (I-space/P-space) generated by conscious entities (seities) to communicate and learn. This model addresses the hard problem by elevating subjective experience to fundamental status, making it irreducible. It provides a rich conceptual mapping (C-space vs I-space) that resonates with quantum phenomena and highlights the participatory role of observers. However, it leaves the quantitative details of physical law to be accounted for by how consciousness might constrain itself (enter physics). John Obidi offers a \emph{physics-first but consciousness-inclusive paradigm}: entropy is the bedrock, introducing an irreversible flow that shapes all dynamics from cosmic expansion to quantum measurement. Within this entropic universe, consciousness is not an accident but manifests in systems that exhibit high degrees of self-referential entropy processing. Obidi’s SRE formalism, culminating in the \textbf{SRE Index}, gives a numerical handle on consciousness, potentially demystifying \emph{which} physical systems have inner experience and how much. ToE is replete with new testable laws (No-Rush, entropic conservation laws) that extend physics and intriguingly align with puzzles like the quantum measurement problem and the thermodynamic cost of information. When compared, these frameworks illuminate each other:

\begin{itemize} \item Both emphasize \textbf{information/entropy as key to bridging mind and matter}. Faggin’s “live information” in I-space and Obidi’s dynamic entropy field could be seen as two descriptions of an underlying informational substrate of reality – one highlighting its meaning to consciousness, the other its quantitative flow constraints. \item Obidi’s SRE Index provides a potential \textbf{formal bridge} to Faggin’s seity concept: a high SRE Index might indicate the presence of a complex seity interfacing with that system. In principle, one could imagine each seity’s influence corresponds to an organized entropy flow loop (a speculation that links the metaphysical to the physical). \item Both challenge the purely \textbf{reductionist, mechanistic worldview}. In Faggin’s case, by positing a top-down influence of mind on matter; in Obidi’s case, by positing a new level of physical law where entropy and information, typically sidelined as secondary, take center stage and reorganize our understanding of fields, forces, and particles. \item Interestingly, both incorporate the idea that \textbf{cloning of states is forbidden} – a convergence of thermodynamic irreversibility (Obidi) and quantum holistic indivisibility (Faggin). This common point underscores a union of principle: the uniqueness of quantum events and conscious experiences is protected in reality’s fabric. \end{itemize}

Of course, stark differences remain. Faggin would likely press that Obidi’s ToE, while very useful, still operates in the third-person perspective and may never touch the essence of the first-person unless one accepts consciousness as fundamental. Obidi might counter that one can make scientific progress by measuring and predicting observable correlates of consciousness (which his theory enables) without committing to a strong metaphysical stance on what consciousness “is.” In practice, these approaches could converge in a future science where one uses empirical measures like SRE Index to guide a theory that nevertheless acknowledges an irreducible role for the observer – a kind of dual-aspect scientific framework. In addressing the \textbf{hard problem}, perhaps the combined moral is: Consciousness might not yield to explanation in terms of \emph{standard} physics, but by expanding physics (with new entropy-based laws as Obidi does) and expanding ontology (treating consciousness as fundamental as Faggin does), we find a middle ground where scientific rigor and philosophical depth reinforce rather than negate each other. The \textbf{SRE Index} and the notion of \textbf{seities} could eventually be seen not as competing ideas but as describing the same reality at different scales: SRE Index from the outside, seity from the inside. The journey is far from complete. Both theories are young and speculative, requiring extensive development. Yet, they exemplify the kind of bold, integrative thinking needed to crack the mysteries of consciousness and existence. They urge science to not shy away from subjectivity and urge philosophy to remain conversant with physics. In conclusion, the dialogue between Irreducible and the Theory of Entropicity paints a tantalizing vision: a universe where \textbf{consciousness and entropy are two faces of the same cosmic process} – one face is the \emph{inner light of awareness}, the other is the \emph{outer shadow it casts as physical entropy flows}. To fully illuminate reality, we may need to study both faces together. The SRE Index, formalized herein, may become a crucial quantitative tool in this grand unification of mind and matter, while frameworks like Faggin’s remind us of the primacy of the inner life that any such unified theory must never lose sight of.