In the spirit of Principle 6 of the New Epistemic Deal, this is what I choose to believe about praeternatural phenomena beyond psychegenesis and free will. I am not asking anybody else to believe it, because it is, in part, based on my own experiences. Standard CRC is sufficient to complete my model, but I believe it also leaves something important out. I must emphasise that what follows is my best guess. I leave open the possibility that it may turn out to be too conservative/skeptical, though I doubt there will ever be any objective evidence to support anything stronger.
While CRC handles the physical and representational structure, humans live in worlds rich with symbols, myths, and beliefs. Here is where Extended CRC (E-CRC) enters. E-CRC is not a new law or force; it is a semantic constraint layer. It shapes which micro-collapse outcomes are allowed to stabilise, based on the agent’s authorised symbolic frameworks. Crucially, symbolic systems (whether religious, divinatory, or cultural) do not have to be true. Belief is permission, not assent. In other words, this is another level of constraint, consistent with the whole of the rest of this model of reality. If the agent permits a symbolic framework, outcomes consistent with it are allowed; incompatible outcomes fail to stabilise. Over the storm, this filtering produces the phenomenology of meaningful coincidences, divinatory answers, and culturally specific experiences. No micro-collapse alone carries meaning. Meaning emerges only as a pattern across many micro-collapses, stabilised by the symbolic code the agent has authorised. Nothing is sent or transmitted, nothing exists beyond the agent’s experience, and no archetype or cosmic intelligence is invoked.
Structured randomness (as in tarot, the I Ching, or other divinatory systems) interacts naturally with E-CRC. A random draw partitions possibilities; the symbolic framework selects which interpretations can stabilise. For a believer, the system appears to “answer.” For a skeptic, the same draw produces no coherent pattern. This is not superstition; it is the local, structured resolution of representational ambiguity under symbolic constraints. Religious and anomalous experiences follow the same principle. The form of experience reflects the symbolic authorisation of the agent. A Christian experiences Christian-coded phenomena, a Hindu experiences Hindu-coded phenomena, a UFO believer experiences alien-coded phenomena. These experiences are fully real for the agent, but they do not generalise beyond their local domain.
For context, see Pauli’s Prae-Physics and the Unus Mundus.
Jung’s notion of synchronicity (meaningful coincidences between inner states and external events) is recovered without metaphysical excess. A synchronicity is a temporally local pattern of micro-collapse resolutions. The inner state and the external event are both part of the storm; when they stabilise coherently under an authorised symbolic framework, the agent experiences coincidence. No causal link is forged. No external message is sent. The “meaning” is a property of the pattern, not of the world itself.
Pauli searched for a deeper, pre-physical principle to connect mind and matter. Jung reified archetypes and postulated acausal ordering. Both were blocked by assumptions: Pauli assumed structural representation in Phase 1; Jung assumed that meaning must exist outside the subject.
Two-Phase Cosmology shows why both were partially right and partially blocked. There is a “phase cut”: Phase 1 is timeless, non-causal, and non-instantiated; Phase 2 supports consciousness and local collapse. Meaning arises after collapse, constrained by symbols authorised by the agent. There is no bridge, no hidden law, and no external ordering principle, only the storm resolving under local constraints. The symbolic imagery of Pauli's dreams, which he described in great detail to Jung, was derived from physics. For example, "radioactivity" symbolised the process of inner transformation, and "spin" symbolised the rythm of the universe. The origin of this meaning was not a "psychoid" realm where meaning and matter were one, but Pauli's own belief system.
This architecture explicitly prevents inflation of ontology. There are no mind-independent archetypes, no (Bohmian) active information acting on matter, no cosmic intelligence, no objective divinatory truth, and no cross-agent enforcement of symbols. Attempting to introduce these would break the formalism as I specify it.
To bridge the gap between abstract collapse and lived meaning, we need an Extended Competition-Resolved Collapse (E-CRC). This does not change the dynamics of physics; it introduces semantic constraint-based filters.
Agent-Relative Constraint: Collapse outcomes are constrained by an agent’s authorised symbolic frameworks. These frameworks are not "truths" but permitted interpretive codes.
Semantic Authorisation: A symbolic system (e.g., tarot, mythic schemas) influences collapse only if the agent grants it "permission" by treating it as meaningful.
Structured Randomisation: Meaning emerges by coupling a stochastic substrate with a pre-structured semantic space. E-CRC does not bias randomness; it suppresses outcomes that are incoherent within the authorised code.
No Ontological Export: Outcomes produced under symbolic constraint are strictly local to the agent. They provide no evidence of external supernatural entities or shared metaphysical structures.
To represent this mathematically, we define the coherence functional (CA) which measures representational incompatibility.
Definitions:
Omega: Set of physically admissible Phase 2 continuations.
VA: Agent's valuation structure.
SA: Agent's authorised symbolic system.
CA: Coherence functional (measures incoherence/incompatibility).
The Resolution Rule:
omega* = argmin over omega in Omega [ CA( omega | VA, SA ) ]
The Embodiment Threshold (ET) is the transition that instantiates the subject. It is pre-symbolic and pre-belief. It occurs because valuation contradictions render unitary evolution logically incoherent. Post-ET, consciousness is a temporally extended storm of local micro-collapses. Each micro-collapse resolves a local representational ambiguity to sustain the self-model. E-CRC governs this resolution.
omega_t = argmin over omega in Omega_t [ CA( omega | VA, SA ) ]