Alberto Terrer

Imperative: Eradicate suffering. TEP creator. Existence Theory from a single Axiom. OSF DOI: @compasionanimal founder

[Alberto Terrer @AlbertoTerrer]

A theory that starts from the observer and is therefore epistemologically superior should include predictions that allow it to be falsified. Not the axiom itself, since it is unfalsifiable—just like saying matter exists without an observer, because there is always an observer making the claim—but its deductions should indeed make predictions.
It’s possible — and necessary.

[Alberto Terrer @AlbertoTerrer]

@PabloVargasReal @Philip_Goff Ontological materialism denies the observer and calls ‘metaphysical’ the systems that explain existence without logical gaps. From the observer’s standpoint, those are far more coherent.

[Alberto Terrer @AlbertoTerrer]

Anyone who reads Dennett and denies subjectivity while using it enters into contradiction.
They infer using it — as everyone does.
I grant that detecting an objective collapse would falsify your zero-information ontology;
even so, all quantum talk (collapse included) is inferred within consciousness.
If subjectivity is impossible to doubt, then it is primary (100%) over any physical inference (≤99%).
Presence would still be the ontological starting point, as it explains subjectivity, intersubjectivity, consciousness, the perceived world, biology, etc., with no extra axioms or postulates.

[Alberto Terrer @AlbertoTerrer]

If consciousness is primary, there’s no need to “explain” qualia.
The hard problem only arises if you start from inert matter that must somehow generate consciousness.
Starting from subjectivity, qualia are simply the intrinsic manifestation of presence — the given, not the thing to be produced.

[Alberto Terrer @AlbertoTerrer]

That assumption still puts inference above subjective certainty.
But that’s circular in any ontological framework.

That ontology could perhaps be falsified — or not — but today it’s unfalsifiable and unprovable.
Existence, on the other hand, can be fully explained starting from presence, with self-evident certainty, not with speculative assumptions.

[Alberto Terrer @AlbertoTerrer]

Interesting, but unfalsifiable — and it ignores the primacy of consciousness.

Subjectivity = 100% certainty (even for “zombie” agents: self vs. not-self).
Inference = max 99% certainty.
99 > 100 should never be the starting point.

Consciousness perceives matter → inference is processed within subjectivity.
Tower of Babel or quantum analogue, it’s still just inference.

[Alberto Terrer @AlbertoTerrer]

If I’m not mistaken, that’s circularity:
1 Consciousness perceives matter (even in quantum superposition)
2 Matter generates consciousness
3 Consciousness perceives matter
4 Infinite loop.

Quantum superposition and quantum effects are all inferred — they don’t have to explain consciousness.
Does quantum superposition actually explain why there is something rather than nothing, or does it just assume it?
Nothingness cannot be validated without presence → subjectivity is primary?

[Alberto Terrer @AlbertoTerrer]

@webmasterdave @RalphStefanWeir @Philip_Goff Isn’t it simpler to start from consciousness as “self” vs “not-self,” as subjectivity, with everything perceived being inferred? Without needing quantum mechanics to explain why there is something rather than nothing, or why the inert becomes subjective?

[Alberto Terrer @AlbertoTerrer]

If consciousness is taken as the starting axiom, “phenomenal consciousness” is simply consciousness; the distinction is redundant. Consciousness is inherently the distinction between “self” and “not-self.” What philosophers call qualia are simply the way consciousness manifests, determined by the available inference sensors. If, however, one assumes that consciousness emerges from matter, one must then explain how “something” creates a “someone,” and then further explain how that someone becomes a self — or a phenomenal self.

[Alberto Terrer @AlbertoTerrer]

Something cannot be both itself and its opposite.

Subjectivity holds 100% certainty for every subject. It’s impossible to deny.
What is perceived (matter) is, at most, a 99% inference.
It is perceived from subjectivity.

100 > 99 → subjectivity perceives matter.

If you try to prove that 99 > 100, you face an unsolvable problem:
you fall into circularity.
It fails empirically — and the only workaround is the concept of emergence.

Because yes, someone can create something…
but can something create someone?

[Alberto Terrer @AlbertoTerrer]

Proposal:

Presence that self-perceives is, and therefore the void is an impossibility — this allows us to explain why there is something rather than nothing.

The fragmentation of presence enables consciousness as self vs. not-self, and intersubjectivity as other fragmented selves vs. not-self.

Perception is explained as the extension of self-perception toward that which cannot self-perceive, synchronized within presence (which self-perceives its own fragmentation).

Consciousness is I vs. not-I sustained through time. Matter is merely the synchronization of perception within the presence that self-perceives.

[Alberto Terrer @AlbertoTerrer]

Occam’s razor isn’t on your side here.

A scientist uses consciousness to access an inferred world and uses consciousness to question whether life is physical or consciousness-based. They process information. Generate an output.

They use intersubjectivity to validate, but it’s a subjectivity inferred from consciousness.

Yet consciousness perceives matter, which must create consciousness, which perceives matter, which must create consciousness… in a loop. This is called circularity, and Occam isn’t on that side.

Ignoring that consciousness perceives matter, claiming matter creates consciousness,
hiding the axiom that “consciousness always perceives and infers” is far less simple for Occam and violates logical consistency and parsimony.

[Alberto Terrer @AlbertoTerrer]

@TOEwithCurt And this?
Consciousness is identity (self vs no self) in time. This come from presence. So, consciousness is presence identified in every moment.
And presence is the origin and is what prevents emptiness by logical impossibility.

[Alberto Terrer @AlbertoTerrer]

@warofthesaints @algekalipso OK, thanks.
what are the axioms and falsiability of thistheory?

[Alberto Terrer @AlbertoTerrer]

@TOEwithCurt A subjective experience limited by a membrane that separates the self from what is not myself.
Life is someone interacting in something (the perceived scenario).

[Alberto Terrer @AlbertoTerrer]

At an epistemic and ontological level, subjectivity perceives matter. Therefore, it perceives DNA.
That would be the order: A self in a scenario where it interacts.
The consequence, whether DNA or electromagnetic fields, should not be able to be cause.
The mechanism of morphogenesis is the perceived form of that epistemic principle.
Eradicating suffering should be priority.

[Alberto Terrer @AlbertoTerrer]

A clue? Ok.
It's not based on chemistry. It's an ontological theory that starts from consciousness as the only certainty and intersubjectivity, and the material world is a consequence of the mechanisms of perception. Chemistry, physics, etc...
It proposes an explanation for the unicellular/multicellular transition as Identity transfer - from individual Self, to us, to Superior Self. Thus, cells don't make individual decisions, because beyond a threshold, they are more the Superior Self than the Individual Self.
The falsification experiment is to replicate the unicellular to multicellular leap in a laboratory, modifying the perception of unicellular organisms, achieving a functional being - the Superior Self of those organisms.
Anyway, the question in the article was about Universal Consciousness fragmentation. That was the answer I was offering. I hope this brief explanation is sufficient.
I appreciate your interest, but I don't want to be intrusive in Dr. Levin's space. Otherwise I'll end up in a book ;)

[Alberto Terrer @AlbertoTerrer]

I've developed a theory from first principles that describes how the axiom Autoperception (Presence) fragments and generates subjectivity, how this perceives matter, how intersubjectivity emerges, along with time and space, and how it manifests in every living being through the imperatives of repair, replication, and grouping. With falsification through an experiment to achieve the complete emergence of a functional pluricellular being from unicellular organisms, without modifying genes - using only perception as the motor of evolutionary change.
It's registered in OSF with DOI.
If you're looking for something different from physics, this is the opposite of ontological materialism.
What do you think?

[Alberto Terrer @AlbertoTerrer]

Of course, it would be absurd.
They would observe... the pattern would become rules... elevate to cause... and make the cause sacred. As a result, herbivorism would be natural.
Although one shouldn't take too seriously the anti-intervention opinion of those who are the product of brutal intervention on nature, from our pre-civilization state to the current moment when we say: Intervention is unnatural.