Projective Process Monism

A Geometric Framework for Physics, Measurement, and the Observer

Projective Process Monism — the geometry linking physics and the observer

Every current approach to fundamental reality covers physics or experience and goes dark on the other; nothing on the table says what a theory of both would even look like. This project derives that missing shape — and then builds a candidate with it. Projective Process Monism is a single geometric structure that places the observer inside the physics it describes and keeps one rule across quantum measurement and conscious experience; from that structure and one measured scale, it fixes the geometry of the observer's experience and reproduces the constants of the Standard Model, gravity, and cosmology. The work is open and testable: specific predictions, reproducible code, open questions named.

Start Here The Case Read the Theory Explore Notebooks

Open corpus, reproducible.

Listen
Framework Introduction

The Shape of an Answer

Two short papers, written without reference to any candidate, derive what any total theory must address and what kind of theory could address all of it. The result narrows the field before a candidate ever enters.

Any total theoryclaims everything — including its own theorists
↓  the net removes the incoherent, the unanchored, and the domain-silent (first paper)
Admissible accountscoherent, anchored, a position on every forced domain
↓  keep the accounts that answer by explanation rather than by explaining away — a stated, declinable criterion (second paper)
By-account candidatesevery domain answered from the basic ingredients
↓  categorial foreclosures remove pure structure · third-person bases · experience-first bases (more weakly) · parallel-but-unrelated bases
The forced shapeboth aspects in the basic ingredients · genuine relations · dynamics that apply to the theorist · anchored from inside · well-defined mathematics
↓  still open: one bearer or many — and the mathematics itself
The outstanding constructiona formalized both-aspect ontology — Whitehead had the shape; the mathematics is the missing piece

The field measured against the standard, and both papers, are on The Case. The framework below enters as a candidate with the derived shape — and stakes itself on the numbers.

One Axiom

The arena of physics is ℂℙ³, complex projective 3-space. Its complex conjugation τ fixes ℝℙ³, real projective 3-space. Possibility is ℂℙ³; actuality is ℝℙ³; measurement is τ-projection.

That is the entire premise. One geometric structure. One dimensionful input.

antipodal quotient · S³∕± → ℝℙ³
complex conjugation · ℂℙ¹ → ℝℙ¹
Open the Arena Math Primer

Everything the framework computes — the physics and the geometry of experience — comes out of that structure, together with two load-bearing choices kept openly on the books. Each result, and each open question, is laid out below.

Evidence

The same structure reproduces measured physics and marks where it can be proven wrong. It adds no particle content beyond the neutrino sector the Standard Model already requires, no extra dimensions, and no modifications to existing field equations, and takes a single measured input — the pion mass mπ = 140 MeV — alongside the two load-bearing choices named above.

What it reproduces

  • Physics and the geometry of experience converge The framework's actuality space — RP³, the fixed-point set of τ on CP³ — is the same projective structure that perceptual phenomenology arrives at independently (Rudrauf et al. 2017), validated against human perceptual data. The framework also retrodicts a ~60 ms binding window, in the range of measured psychophysical integration times over which distributed neural content becomes consciously accessible.
  • Quantum probability follows from the geometry The Born rule P = |ψ|² is the unique rule compatible with τ-projection on CP³. It emerges as a consequence of the structure; no separate postulate is required.
  • The Standard Model spectrum is reproduced Particle masses, force strengths, and mixing angles follow from the geometric energy ladder the structure produces. Nineteen quantities match measurement to about 2.6% on average (1.1% median); the full table and the larger outliers are catalogued in the predictions chapter.
  • Gravity and cosmic expansion stay compatible Newton's constant G, the cosmological constant Λ (a static topological invariant), and the Hubble rate H₀ all emerge from the same structure. The G that sets the Friedmann equation, nucleosynthesis, and the CMB stays constant over cosmic history, keeping standard cosmology intact; a separate effective coupling, active only inside collapsed structures, scales as (1+z)3/2, a redshift dependence among the forward tests below.

Falsifiable predictions

Each follows from a single geometric starting point and can be disproved by experiment. Most reproduce already-measured quantities; the forward tests not yet settled are the redshift dependence of gravity and the sterile-neutrino mass window.

Forward tests — not yet settled

Gravitational evolution G(z) ∝ (1+z)3/2 The gravitational constant in the Friedmann equation stays fixed across cosmic history, so nucleosynthesis and the CMB are standard; inside collapsed structures, a separate effective coupling was stronger at high redshift. This is a candidate account of the unexpectedly massive galaxies the James Webb Space Telescope reports in the early universe — stronger early gravity would let structure form faster. Whether it quantitatively matches the observed masses is open.
Dark matter candidate Sterile neutrino, 6–14 keV The framework predicts a sterile neutrino in a specific mass window. Such a particle would produce a ~3.5 keV X-ray line — matching an anomalous (and still disputed) line reported in galaxy-cluster spectra. The mass prediction stands independent of how that line resolves.

Comparisons with measured values

Strong CP problem θQCD = 0 exactly The strong force should violate a fundamental symmetry called CP, but experimentally it doesn't — a major open problem. The framework's geometry enforces T-invariance at the strong-force scale, forbidding the violation outright. No axion required.
Expansion rate of the universe H₀ = 70.9 km/s/Mpc The framework derives a specific expansion rate from geometry: H₀ = 1/T, where the boundary capacity fixes the cosmic age. The value reproduces the observed age to about 1%. It does not claim to settle the disagreement between early- and late-universe measurements (the "Hubble tension").

The full prediction table — including the fine-structure constant and the CKM phase, with the caveats those comparisons require — is catalogued in the technical reference’s predictions chapter and reproducible from the notebooks.

Engage with the framework

View Repository on GitHub ▶ Launch on fly.dev Ask in NotebookLM