After the Embodiment Threshold has been passed, collapse unfolds as a storm of micro-collapses inside the subject’s specious present. This storm is the ongoing process that sustains embodiment.
Each micro-collapse (ci) is a local stabilisation of entangled alternatives. The hazard rate (which explains when the world collapses (driven by attention and value)) for a micro-collapse is:
lambda_i(t) = lambda_0 * [1 + alpha_V * V_i(t) + alpha_P * P_i(t) + alpha_A * A_i(t) + alpha_C * C_i(t)]
Competing micro-collapses share overlapping support in Hilbert space, and the realised one minimises the inconsistency functional (which path the world takes (the one that causes the least "logical pain")). :
F[ci] = | <Psi| O_ci |Psi> - V_ci |^2 + beta * D(rho_SE || rho_S (x) rho_E)
The dynamics across the specious present follow a rate-modulated stochastic field, defined by the master equation:
rho_dot_S = L_U[rho_S] + i * sum( lambda_i(t) * (M^i * rho_S * M^i_dagger - 0.5 * {M^i_dagger * M^i, rho_S}) )
This equation represents the structural completion of the model: it shows how the standard laws of physics (L_U) and the subject's internal valuations (lambda_i) combine to create a single, unfolding reality. This "master equation" is the final rule that combines it all into a moving picture of reality.
Once the Embodiment Threshold has been crossed, collapse is no longer a single global event. It becomes an ongoing process: a dense, overlapping storm of local stabilisations occurring within the specious present of embodied agents. Each micro-collapse is a resolution of nearby physical alternatives under valuation, prediction, attention, and coherence constraints. This process sustains the continuity of experience and action for a subject.
The problem that CRC is designed to address arises only when more than one such subject exists. If conscious agents are genuinely real, and if their valuations matter, then situations inevitably arise in which two or more agents assign incompatible values to the same unfolding physical situation. One agent intends one outcome; another intends a mutually exclusive outcome. If collapse were driven independently by each agent’s valuations alone, the theory would permit incompatible realised worlds – private realities with no principled mechanism forcing agreement. That is the multi-agent hole. CRC as defined here is deliberately minimal. It exists to close this structural inconsistency, not to explain meaning.
CRC closes this hole without introducing a new force, a coordinating intelligence, or a hidden global selector. The key move is simple but non-negotiable: when agents interact, their micro-collapse processes become entangled. Their valuation-weighted collapse hazards no longer operate on disjoint physical supports. Instead, overlapping regions of Hilbert space are jointly constrained by all participating agents’ valuations and predictive structures. At that point, incompatible continuations are not merely in conflict at the level of desire or belief. They are in conflict at the level of representability. A continuation in which both incompatible valuations are simultaneously realised cannot remain dynamically coherent, because it would require the same shared physical degrees of freedom to stabilise in mutually exclusive ways.
CRC resolves this by treating collapse as a competition among overlapping micro-collapses. Each candidate stabilisation carries a cost, measured by an inconsistency functional. This functional penalises two things: mismatch between the physical outcome and the valuations applied to it, and breakdown of coherence between the agents and their shared environment. The realised micro-collapse is the one that minimises this combined inconsistency. Importantly, this is not a vote, a negotiation, or a moral arbitration. No agent “wins” because it is stronger, more numerous, or more important. The outcome is whichever continuation can be jointly stabilised by the entangled system of agents and environment with the least representational contradiction. The others simply fail to stabilise and are not realised. This is how a single shared world is maintained. Agents remain free to value, intend, and predict independently. Conflicts are not prevented. But when those conflicts concern the same physical degrees of freedom, only outcomes that can be jointly embodied survive the collapse process. The shared world is not imposed from outside; it is the residue of what multiple embodied perspectives can coherently sustain together.
CRC therefore does exactly one thing: it ensures that multi-agent reality does not fragment. It does not explain why particular symbolic meanings arise, why certain patterns feel significant, or why some coincidences strike us as meaningful rather than accidental. Those phenomena occur after the closure CRC provides, within the space of stabilised shared reality. In other words, CRC closes the door on solipsistic branching, but it does not seal the building. What follows, once a shared world is secured, is a further question: how symbolic systems, shared myths, and authorised interpretive frameworks modulate which micro-collapses are preferentially stabilised within that world.