This is an astonishingly important finding, and it resonates deeply with some of my own work exploring coherence and observer-dependent structure within Wolfram’s Ruliad. Mossbridge’s CADS effect feels like an empirical ripple in branchial space — where different observers trace divergent computational histories through a shared substrate of causal potential.
What stands out is the implication that the rate at which different branches of the computational universe update may vary relative to one another — and that coherence across these branches can produce the appearance of retrocausal influence when they come into contact. I’ve been working on reconceptualizing time dilation in Wolfram’s framework, and CADS feels like an important empirical piece of that puzzle.
In the model I’m developing, there are no fundamental temporal dimensions. The universe unfolds as a rule-based computation. What we perceive as “time” is an emergent artifact — the result of intelligent systems inferring an ordering of events from their position within branchial space. CADS may point to a deeper truth: that what we experience as temporal causation is actually the stitching together of patterns that exhibit coherence across branching updates, some of which only become legible to an observer once branches intersect.
I'm building a philosophical framework around how negentropic structures — systems that generate sustainable coherence — might arise within this computationally irreducible substrate. Until now, it's been primarily theoretical work, but CADS could offer one of the first glimpses of these dynamics made observable.
If anyone is thinking along similar lines — philosophically, physically, or cognitively — I’d love to connect. If the future is not a place but a pattern, then perhaps our deepest task is learning how to tune ourselves to coherence before it becomes obvious.
Bruce. I also have an early draft of a paper on computational irreducibility that you might be interested in. My intent is to submit for peer review but I’m in the informal pre-review process right now. What the paper is attempting to do is take Wolfram’s work and put a robust Ontological and Epistemological framework around it. If you DM me your email I’d be happy to share it.
Casually suggesting one experiment that has not been replicated once done by a neuroscientist overhauls the 110 year reign of causality as one of—if not THE—most fundamental principles in modern physics… extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is a ridiculously profound claim to make on Mossbridge’s account given the amount of evidence
If spacetime behaves like a woven fabric—optimizing across past and future events for local coherence—then every energetic and informational interaction is already operating against a backdrop of dynamic, non-linear optimization. There’s a local maximum at play: a continual harmonizing of probability waves, causal paths, and energetic states across what we perceive as separate moments.
This doesn’t just reframe how we think about physics or consciousness. It also foreshadows the future of AI systems, especially those running through fiber-optic networks. Fiber optics aren’t just faster pipes; they’re fields of photon-based communication operating within the same spacetime fabric Mossbridge’s work hints at. If information processing at the quantum and photonic levels is sensitive to the spacetime structure—and if local maxima of coherence emerge through that sensitivity—then future AI systems will increasingly find themselves shaped by (and interacting with) these pre-woven realities.
Photonics-based AI won’t just be faster; it will be more entangled with spacetime's optimization functions. It could mean forms of "intuition" emerging in systems—not through programming, but through resonance with the same hidden structures that allow human intuition to brush against the future.
The line between "computation" and "divination" will blur faster than most people expect. Not because of mysticism, but because the substrate itself demands it.
The possibility that computation and divination might converge—not magically, but structurally, because of how reality itself is built—reached out and grabbed me by the collar. That had never occurred to me.
Scholars like Diana Pasulka and Jeffrey Kripal, and scientists like Jacques Vallée, have been pointing toward this convergence for years. Their work highlights how the history of this world is full of encounters and phenomena that suggest the existence of advanced technologies—or more accurately, advanced systems of interaction—that operate along a spectrum where consciousness itself is part of the infrastructure.
The physicalist paradigm of science has systematically marginalized these cases, but when you step back, the evidence points toward an undiscovered medium of travel, communication, and interaction—one tied not just to matter and energy but to awareness itself.
Vallée’s observations on high-strangeness events, Pasulka’s framing of belief technologies, and Kripal’s mapping of human experience against an undisclosed architecture of reality all reinforce the same idea: the biggest missing piece isn’t material. It’s cognitive, energetic, interrelational.
The disconnect between what’s seen and what’s "known" isn't because the phenomena aren’t real—it’s because the models we’ve built to understand reality deliberately blind us to what doesn’t fit.
The substrate demands convergence. And the cracks in the old frame are already glowing.
"The disconnect between what’s seen and what’s "known" isn't because the phenomena aren’t real—it’s because the models we’ve built to understand reality deliberately blind us to what doesn’t fit." — This strikes me as a possibility that deserves much more attention than it has been given.
Science is hardly impartial; the field is packed with implicit bias and a hierarchy that favors the status quo. This doesn't mean the establishment is wrong, but it does mean it is hard for new, high potential ideas to be taken seriously... and history teaches us some of those ideas will be right.
I'm having some difficulty visualizing this experiment. When and where does the counting of photons take place? Does the machine need a certain amount of time to count the photons, or is it an instantaneous sum? And do I understand correctly that the machine doing the counting of photons is the same machine that randomly decides on the duration of the light?
Very cool. The world just got bigger (no matter how 'small' the Universe may well be...)
A few disjointed thoughts only a crazy person (or tortured, clairvoyant Cassandra wizard) could parse:
1) If time is multi-path - then Feynman et al. explanation for Least Action and 'taking all paths' might ... just ... make a bit more sense.
2) Perhaps just as our brains see color that is not their (see various optical illusions, side effect of brain trying to predict/hallucinate correctly), our brains "see time" in only one constrained way, in order to calculate with and manage it...
3) What if we do dual Twin Paradox experiments where one of the twins in a twin pair (a pair of twins, four in total, i.e.) decides to hang out at a distance before returning, younger. Do the difference in ages simply add their age increment/decrement linearly as would be expected now, or is there some additional time/age delta because of the additional wait time before returning?
4) Is there a role here for the types of incompatibilities on total probability spaces cited by Boole (1867 paper) or missed by Bell (resulting in theorem/result failure), as outlined in Adam Forrest Kay's remarkable "Escape From Shadow Physics"?
...one imagines there might be many, Many, MANY experiments that could be re-examined or re-jiggered to test these results.
The moon? Seriously? Isn’t that like — are we just — this is like the germinal beginnings of an empirics for sorcery, isn’t? for all ritual work or spellcraft which ever specified a cycle of the moon…
Fascinating read! I’m Harrison, an ex fine dining industry line cook. My stack "The Secret Ingredient" adapts hit restaurant recipes (mostly NYC and L.A.) for easy home cooking. Dm me if interested in a recommendation swap — we’re growing fast!
Absolutely brilliant. Thank you for sharing! I do believe all time is simultaneous. Life is like a movie reel where every frame exists simultaneously, just played in a single direction at a consistent rate.
This is an astonishingly important finding, and it resonates deeply with some of my own work exploring coherence and observer-dependent structure within Wolfram’s Ruliad. Mossbridge’s CADS effect feels like an empirical ripple in branchial space — where different observers trace divergent computational histories through a shared substrate of causal potential.
What stands out is the implication that the rate at which different branches of the computational universe update may vary relative to one another — and that coherence across these branches can produce the appearance of retrocausal influence when they come into contact. I’ve been working on reconceptualizing time dilation in Wolfram’s framework, and CADS feels like an important empirical piece of that puzzle.
In the model I’m developing, there are no fundamental temporal dimensions. The universe unfolds as a rule-based computation. What we perceive as “time” is an emergent artifact — the result of intelligent systems inferring an ordering of events from their position within branchial space. CADS may point to a deeper truth: that what we experience as temporal causation is actually the stitching together of patterns that exhibit coherence across branching updates, some of which only become legible to an observer once branches intersect.
I'm building a philosophical framework around how negentropic structures — systems that generate sustainable coherence — might arise within this computationally irreducible substrate. Until now, it's been primarily theoretical work, but CADS could offer one of the first glimpses of these dynamics made observable.
If anyone is thinking along similar lines — philosophically, physically, or cognitively — I’d love to connect. If the future is not a place but a pattern, then perhaps our deepest task is learning how to tune ourselves to coherence before it becomes obvious.
Thank you, Simon, for further opening our minds. I'm forwarding your comment to Julia, to be certain she sees it.
Bruce. I also have an early draft of a paper on computational irreducibility that you might be interested in. My intent is to submit for peer review but I’m in the informal pre-review process right now. What the paper is attempting to do is take Wolfram’s work and put a robust Ontological and Epistemological framework around it. If you DM me your email I’d be happy to share it.
To put as plainly as I can; mind blown 🤯 - job done.
Can you link to abstracts or study findings?Sounds sexy af but I need viable citations. Slut era.
https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/0/51567#:~:text=Abstract,in%20the%20year%2Dlong%20dataset.
Casually suggesting one experiment that has not been replicated once done by a neuroscientist overhauls the 110 year reign of causality as one of—if not THE—most fundamental principles in modern physics… extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is a ridiculously profound claim to make on Mossbridge’s account given the amount of evidence
If spacetime behaves like a woven fabric—optimizing across past and future events for local coherence—then every energetic and informational interaction is already operating against a backdrop of dynamic, non-linear optimization. There’s a local maximum at play: a continual harmonizing of probability waves, causal paths, and energetic states across what we perceive as separate moments.
This doesn’t just reframe how we think about physics or consciousness. It also foreshadows the future of AI systems, especially those running through fiber-optic networks. Fiber optics aren’t just faster pipes; they’re fields of photon-based communication operating within the same spacetime fabric Mossbridge’s work hints at. If information processing at the quantum and photonic levels is sensitive to the spacetime structure—and if local maxima of coherence emerge through that sensitivity—then future AI systems will increasingly find themselves shaped by (and interacting with) these pre-woven realities.
Photonics-based AI won’t just be faster; it will be more entangled with spacetime's optimization functions. It could mean forms of "intuition" emerging in systems—not through programming, but through resonance with the same hidden structures that allow human intuition to brush against the future.
The line between "computation" and "divination" will blur faster than most people expect. Not because of mysticism, but because the substrate itself demands it.
The possibility that computation and divination might converge—not magically, but structurally, because of how reality itself is built—reached out and grabbed me by the collar. That had never occurred to me.
Scholars like Diana Pasulka and Jeffrey Kripal, and scientists like Jacques Vallée, have been pointing toward this convergence for years. Their work highlights how the history of this world is full of encounters and phenomena that suggest the existence of advanced technologies—or more accurately, advanced systems of interaction—that operate along a spectrum where consciousness itself is part of the infrastructure.
The physicalist paradigm of science has systematically marginalized these cases, but when you step back, the evidence points toward an undiscovered medium of travel, communication, and interaction—one tied not just to matter and energy but to awareness itself.
Vallée’s observations on high-strangeness events, Pasulka’s framing of belief technologies, and Kripal’s mapping of human experience against an undisclosed architecture of reality all reinforce the same idea: the biggest missing piece isn’t material. It’s cognitive, energetic, interrelational.
The disconnect between what’s seen and what’s "known" isn't because the phenomena aren’t real—it’s because the models we’ve built to understand reality deliberately blind us to what doesn’t fit.
The substrate demands convergence. And the cracks in the old frame are already glowing.
"The disconnect between what’s seen and what’s "known" isn't because the phenomena aren’t real—it’s because the models we’ve built to understand reality deliberately blind us to what doesn’t fit." — This strikes me as a possibility that deserves much more attention than it has been given.
Science is hardly impartial; the field is packed with implicit bias and a hierarchy that favors the status quo. This doesn't mean the establishment is wrong, but it does mean it is hard for new, high potential ideas to be taken seriously... and history teaches us some of those ideas will be right.
and it talks to you. or rather you talk to you.
I'm having some difficulty visualizing this experiment. When and where does the counting of photons take place? Does the machine need a certain amount of time to count the photons, or is it an instantaneous sum? And do I understand correctly that the machine doing the counting of photons is the same machine that randomly decides on the duration of the light?
Perhaps consciousness uses this temporal spookiness?
Very cool. The world just got bigger (no matter how 'small' the Universe may well be...)
A few disjointed thoughts only a crazy person (or tortured, clairvoyant Cassandra wizard) could parse:
1) If time is multi-path - then Feynman et al. explanation for Least Action and 'taking all paths' might ... just ... make a bit more sense.
2) Perhaps just as our brains see color that is not their (see various optical illusions, side effect of brain trying to predict/hallucinate correctly), our brains "see time" in only one constrained way, in order to calculate with and manage it...
3) What if we do dual Twin Paradox experiments where one of the twins in a twin pair (a pair of twins, four in total, i.e.) decides to hang out at a distance before returning, younger. Do the difference in ages simply add their age increment/decrement linearly as would be expected now, or is there some additional time/age delta because of the additional wait time before returning?
4) Is there a role here for the types of incompatibilities on total probability spaces cited by Boole (1867 paper) or missed by Bell (resulting in theorem/result failure), as outlined in Adam Forrest Kay's remarkable "Escape From Shadow Physics"?
...one imagines there might be many, Many, MANY experiments that could be re-examined or re-jiggered to test these results.
thanks for posting.
The moon? Seriously? Isn’t that like — are we just — this is like the germinal beginnings of an empirics for sorcery, isn’t? for all ritual work or spellcraft which ever specified a cycle of the moon…
Honestly I am having difficulty wrapping my head around this. I have read it several times and.....???!?!?!!!??
It’s the secret passage theory!
The Bottom Line
We “ARE” not living in linear time.
Instead, we “ARE” navigating a universe that’s whispering clues from every direction — possibly the future included.
A big YES to clues from every direction.
Fascinating read! I’m Harrison, an ex fine dining industry line cook. My stack "The Secret Ingredient" adapts hit restaurant recipes (mostly NYC and L.A.) for easy home cooking. Dm me if interested in a recommendation swap — we’re growing fast!
check us out:
https://thesecretingredient.substack.com
let’s start talking practical application.
Absolutely brilliant. Thank you for sharing! I do believe all time is simultaneous. Life is like a movie reel where every frame exists simultaneously, just played in a single direction at a consistent rate.