Literature and Evidence Supporting Key Claims of the MQGT-SCF Proposal

1. Vacuum Selection via Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking (Double-Well Potentials)

In models with a symmetric double-well potential (two degenerate minima), spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB) will randomly select one vacuum state in the absence of bias ([2405.05168] Asymmetric Symmetry Breaking: Unequal Probabilities of Vacuum Selection). Classical reasoning suggests equal probability for either minimum. However, recent work shows that even a seemingly symmetric potential can be biased toward one vacuum due to subtle effects. For example, Ma et al. (2024) demonstrate that if the potential’s peak is sharply shaped (continuous first derivative but discontinuous second derivative), stochastic fluctuations will favor one vacuum over the other (Asymmetric Symmetry Breaking: Unequal Probabilities of Vacuum Selection) (Asymmetric Symmetry Breaking: Unequal Probabilities of Vacuum Selection). They solve a Fokker-Planck equation for a field rolling off the top of such a “Mexican hat” potential and find a ratio of vacuum selection probabilities proportional to the square root of the second derivative at the peak (Asymmetric Symmetry Breaking: Unequal Probabilities of Vacuum Selection) (Asymmetric Symmetry Breaking: Unequal Probabilities of Vacuum Selection). This asymmetric vacuum selection mechanism could generate cosmological asymmetries (Asymmetric Symmetry Breaking: Unequal Probabilities of Vacuum Selection). In early universe cosmology, a bias in vacuum choice is important to avoid domain wall problems – domain walls would form if different regions fell into different degenerate vacua. Even a tiny explicit symmetry-breaking term can lift the degeneracy, ensuring one vacuum is energetically preferred and preventing stable domain walls ((PDF) Evading the cosmological domain wall problem - ResearchGate). This strategy was discussed by Larsson, Sarkar, & White (1997), who showed that introducing a small bias term that favors one vacuum state can “evade the cosmological domain wall problem” by making the walls unstable and allowing the universe to settle into a single vacuum ((PDF) Evading the cosmological domain wall problem - ResearchGate) ([PDF] Stability of domain walls with biased initial conditions and their ...). These studies support the proposal’s claim that cosmological dynamics (or tiny biases) can select a unique vacuum even from a symmetric double-well potential, thereby yielding an initial asymmetry or preferred phase in the early universe.

Supporting references: Ma et al. (2024) (Asymmetric Symmetry Breaking: Unequal Probabilities of Vacuum Selection) (Asymmetric Symmetry Breaking: Unequal Probabilities of Vacuum Selection); Larsson et al. (1997).

2. Effective Field Theory Terms from UV Physics (Emergent “Teleological” Effects)

Low-energy effective field theory (EFT) can contain terms that appear fine-tuned or goal-directed, but actually arise naturally from a deeper symmetric theory. A classic example is the strong CP angle in QCD. Empirically, the coefficient $\theta$ multiplying the term $G\tilde{G}$ is extremely close to zero, as if “chosen” to preserve CP symmetry. This would be unexplained in the low-energy theory alone, but the Peccei-Quinn mechanism provides a UV-complete explanation: a new global $U(1)$ symmetry leads to an axion field whose dynamics naturally drive $\theta \to 0$ ([PDF] The Strong CP Problem and Axions - CERN Indico). What looks like a teleological “intent” for QCD to conserve CP is actually an emergent consequence of a high-energy symmetry: the axion relaxes the effective $\theta$ parameter to minimize the vacuum energy (On dual formulation of Axion solution to strong-CP problem - arXiv). Peccei and Quinn’s original work (1977) introduced this axion solution, embedding CP-conservation “for free” in a larger theory (On dual formulation of Axion solution to strong-CP problem - arXiv). Another example is the electroweak hierarchy problem – the Higgs mass at low energy seems unnaturally small (as if the theory “preferred” a weak scale much lower than the Planck scale). Modern proposals like the “Relaxion” mechanism show how a new axion-like field, rolling during cosmological evolution, can become trapped in a minimum that precisely cancels most of the Higgs mass term ([PDF] arXiv:1510.00710v2 [hep-ph] 1 Dec 2015). This dynamical relaxation from an inflation-era UV framework yields an effective low-energy theory in which the Higgs mass is naturally small, as if fine-tuned for stability, without any ad hoc tuning ([PDF] arXiv:1510.00710v2 [hep-ph] 1 Dec 2015). Such an effective Higgs potential could be misconstrued as teleologically “arranged” to produce a light Higgs, but it emerges from an underlying symmetry and dynamics (a feedback between the rolling field and electroweak symmetry breaking) ([PDF] arXiv:1510.00710v2 [hep-ph] 1 Dec 2015). More generally, EFT insists that any term allowed by symmetries will appear ([PDF] Effective field theory – concepts and applications). Apparent purpose in a low-energy term often signals a hidden symmetry or field. For instance, tiny neutrino masses can be understood via the see-saw mechanism: the low-energy dimension-5 operator $(LH)^2/\Lambda$ (which gives neutrinos a very small mass) arises from integrating out a heavy Majorana neutrino at scale $\Lambda$. What looks like a mysteriously small mass term is automatic once a $B-L$ symmetric UV theory is assumed. In summary, the proposal’s notion of effective terms seeming “goal-directed” is supported by these examples: the UV theory’s symmetries enforce constraints or evolution that make low-energy parameters appear fine-tuned for a reason. In reality the “reason” is an emergent symmetry-breaking effect, not teleology. This idea is echoed by Carroll (2014) who notes that higher-level laws in physics (e.g. the Second Law of thermodynamics or the principle of least action) can appear teleological even though they emerge from underlying microdynamics (Sean Carroll: Teleology and the laws of science - Solving for Pattern). The MQGT-SCF proposal’s specific effective terms can similarly be justified by a consistent UV completion that removes any genuine directedness or design, instead attributing it to hidden-sector dynamics or topological terms that select for certain outcomes.

Supporting references: Peccei & Quinn (1977); Graham et al. (2015); Carroll (2014).

3. Baryon Asymmetry from Novel Scalar Fields and Symmetry Biases

The observed matter–antimatter asymmetry of the universe (baryon asymmetry) may be explained by new scalar fields or biased symmetry-breaking in the early cosmos. Standard electroweak baryogenesis and leptogenesis rely on CP-violating phases in the Standard Model or neutrino sector (Axiogenesis | Phys. Rev. Lett.), but the MQGT-SCF proposal invokes a more exotic scalar-driven scenario. There is strong precedent for scalar fields generating baryon asymmetry: the Affleck-Dine mechanism is a classic example. In Affleck & Dine’s model (Axiogenesis | Phys. Rev. Lett.), a scalar condensate carrying baryon number forms along a flat direction of the supersymmetric potential in the early universe. When this condensate later decays or “melts,” it preferentially yields excess baryons over antibaryons (CP violation in its interactions biases the decay). This mechanism successfully produces the observed baryon asymmetry in many supersymmetric models by leveraging a new scalar field’s dynamics in the early universe. Another example is spontaneous baryogenesis (Cohen & Kaplan, 1987). Here a scalar field $\phi(t)$ that evolves in time (e.g. an axion or Goldstone of a broken symmetry) couples to the baryon current as $(\partial_\mu \phi)J_B^\mu$ (Kinetics of spontaneous baryogenesis in non-stationary background ...). As $\phi$ dot evolves, this term acts like a chemical potential favoring baryons over antibaryons in thermal equilibrium ([PDF] General features of spontaneous baryogenesis). Essentially, the scalar’s motion biases baryon number production whenever $B$-violating processes (like sphalerons) are active. Cohen et al. (1993) reviewed how such a mechanism, using a rolling pseudoscalar field, can generate an asymmetry at (or even before) the electroweak phase transition (Axiogenesis | Phys. Rev. Lett.). Recent developments combine these ideas with axion physics: “Axiogenesis” is a mechanism (Co & Harigaya 2020) wherein the rotation of the QCD axion field in the early universe (a coherent oscillation in the axion’s complex field space) produces an excess PQ charge that converts to a baryon asymmetry via sphalerons (Axiogenesis | Phys. Rev. Lett.). This is another novel scalar field (the axion) creating baryon excess by exploiting a biased motion in field space and the chiral anomaly. The literature also discusses biasing baryogenesis through modified potentials: e.g. adding a CP-violating bias in a first-order phase transition so that bubbles of true vacuum nucleate with excess baryon number. In some two-Higgs-doublet or scalar extension models, the bubble walls sweeping through can separate baryon number, effectively biasing baryon production (Spontaneous baryogenesis at the weak phase transition - Inspire HEP). In summary, the proposal’s claim of generating baryon asymmetry via a new scalar field is well-founded. Multiple models show a scalar expectation value or motion can fulfill Sakharov’s conditions (providing the needed $C!P$ and $B$ violation out of equilibrium) and leave one side of a symmetric potential more populated, yielding $n_B>0$. Whether through an Affleck-Dine condensate, a time-dependent axion (axiogenesis), or a biased phase transition, these models underscore that “baryogenesis from a novel scalar” is a credible scenario (Axiogenesis | Phys. Rev. Lett.). They align with the MQGT-SCF idea that an additional field (beyond the Standard Model) with the right symmetry properties could be responsible for our matter-dominated universe.

Supporting references: Affleck & Dine (1985) (Axiogenesis | Phys. Rev. Lett.); Cohen & Kaplan (1987); Co & Harigaya (2020) (Axiogenesis | Phys. Rev. Lett.); Dine & Kusenko (2003).

4. Teleology in Modern Physics Discourse (Axiarchic Cosmology, Anthropic Principle, Moral Realism)

Modern physics generally avoids teleology (explanations invoking purpose or final causes), yet teleological ideas resurface in cosmology and philosophy of physics in specific contexts. One such context is the Anthropic Principle, which is sometimes phrased in teleological language. The weak anthropic principle (Carter 1974) simply states that we must observe physical parameters that allow observers to exist (Anthropic principle, argument from fine tuning confusion - Reddit). But the strong anthropic principle, especially as developed by Barrow & Tipler (1986), can sound teleological – it says the universe must have those properties that eventually permit life and mind, almost as if aiming for them. In practice this is often interpreted via selection effects in a multiverse, not literal cosmic intention (Anthropic principle - Wikipedia). Nonetheless, prominent scientists have used anthropic reasoning to explain why the fundamental constants seem “fine-tuned”. A famous example is Weinberg’s prediction of the cosmological constant: in 1987 he argued that if $\Lambda$ were much larger, galaxies (and life) couldn’t form, so observed $\Lambda$ should be near the maximal value that still allows life. Indeed, Weinberg predicted a nonzero yet small $\Lambda$ ([PDF] Anthropic Explanations in Cosmology - PhilSci-Archive), which was later vindicated by discovery of cosmic acceleration. This is anthropic reasoning, not truly teleology, but it borders on claiming the universe is the way it is in order for life to exist. Discussions of this kind are common in multiverse theories and axiarchic cosmology. Axiarchism (term introduced by philosopher John Leslie) is the explicit hypothesis that “the world is the way it is because it is good that it is that way” ([PDF] Axiarchism: How to Narrow the Gap Between Pro-Theism and Anti ...) (John A. Leslie - Wikipedia). Leslie (1989) argued that ethical or value-based principles might underlie the selection of our universe from many possible ones – effectively a cosmic teleology based on value maximization. In his axiarchic view, existence of life and mind (presumably “good” things) could be seen as the goal or rationale for the universe (John A. Leslie - Wikipedia). While this is a philosophical conjecture, Leslie treated it with the same seriousness as physical cosmology, suggesting that ethical value could be a creative force in the cosmos (John A. Leslie - Wikipedia). These ideas blur into theological territory (e.g. “fine-tuning implies a Designer”), but physicists like Frank Tipler took a more scientific spin with concepts like the Final Anthropic Principle and the Omega Point – a hypothesized teleological end-state of the universe where intelligence saturates physical law. Tipler (1994) proposed that life might eventually control the universe’s collapse, a vision of the universe striving towards an intelligent final state. Though highly speculative, such models are examples of teleological thinking in cosmology. On the more scientific side, “participatory anthropic principle” (Wheeler) posited that observers are required to bring the universe into being – a quasi-teleological twist that the universe needs observers (consciousness) to exist.

The MQGT-SCF proposal also mentions moral realism in cosmology. This refers to the idea that objective moral values could be embedded in the fabric of the universe or play a role in cosmic selection. This is far from mainstream science, but it has been explored philosophically. For instance, if one embraces infinite multiverses or infinite time, it raises ethical paradoxes – e.g. an “infinite ethics” problem where in an infinite universe every morally good and bad action might occur infinitely often, seemingly nullifying their significance (as discussed by philosophers like Q. Smith and N. Bostrom). Quentin Smith (1997) argued that an infinite future universe would imply “it doesn’t matter what we do” – a startling collision of cosmology with moral philosophy (Moral Realism and Infinite Spacetime Imply Moral Nihilism | SpringerLink) (Moral Realism and Infinite Spacetime Imply Moral Nihilism | SpringerLink). Conversely, some have speculated that if certain values (like the existence of conscious beings capable of morality) are fundamental, they might influence why our universe exists at all – essentially a moral version of the anthropic principle. Leslie’s axiarchism is again an example: it explicitly ties the existence of a universe that can foster moral goods to the “cause” of that universe ([PDF] Axiarchic Polytheism. - Eric Steinhart). In summary, teleological and axiological (value-based) interpretations do appear in the landscape of cosmological thought. While standard physics sticks to efficient causes, axiarchic cosmology and anthropic reasoning introduce purposeful-sounding explanations. The MQGT-SCF proposal’s engagement with teleology is thus grounded in a body of work spanning physics and philosophy: from anthropic fine-tuning arguments used in astrophysics to philosophical cosmologies that suggest the universe’s structure might be explained by final outcomes or values ([PDF] Axiarchism: How to Narrow the Gap Between Pro-Theism and Anti ...). These references show that the proposal is in dialogue with existing scientific and philosophical discussions about whether the universe has an underlying purpose or value-driven selection principle.

Supporting references: Barrow & Tipler (1986); Carter (1974); Weinberg (1987); Leslie (1989) (John A. Leslie - Wikipedia); Wheeler (1983).

5. Empirical Studies Linking Mind, Quantum Processes, and Fields

Experimental research at the intersection of consciousness and physics is admittedly controversial, but several lines of peer-reviewed studies exist to support the proposal’s claims:

• Mind-Matter Interaction on Random Systems (RNG Experiments): For decades, researchers have tested whether human intention can weakly bias random number generators. Meta-analyses by reputable scholars indicate small but nonzero effects. Radin and Nelson (1989) conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of 597 trials and found odds against chance of $10^4$ to 1 that conscious intention correlates with deviations in random outputs (Evidence for consciousness-related anomalies in random physical ...) (Radin, D.I. and Nelson, R.D. (1989) Evidence for Consciousness ...). They reported what they termed “consciousness-related anomalies in random physical systems,” suggesting some mind-matter coupling (Radin, D.I. and Nelson, R.D. (1989) Evidence for Consciousness ...). A later meta-analysis by Bösch et al. (2006) in Psychological Bulletin re-examined RNG studies and, while noting potential file-drawer issues, still found a very small overall effect size (~$10^{-4}$) that was statistically significant (before applying possible bias corrections). These studies lend cautious support to the idea of “weak quantum biases” induced by consciousness, aligning with the MQGT-SCF proposal’s conjecture that minds might subtly influence quantum outcomes. On the other hand, the effects are so small that conventional physics isn’t threatened – instead one might frame it as consciousness picking one branch of a quantum superposition slightly more often (if real). Notably, the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) lab reported over millions of trials that human operators could shift the output mean of RNGs by a few parts in $10^4$ (Evidence for consciousness-related anomalies in random physical ...). While skeptics attribute this to measurement biases or psychological factors, the persistence of tiny effects across many studies is intriguing. ([PDF] EVIDENCE FOR CONSCIOUSNESS-RELATED ANOMALIES ... - CIA)

• Quantum Coherence in the Brain (Orch OR, Posner Molecules, Tubulin Dipoles): The MQGT-SCF proposal posits brain-based quantum processes, and indeed a body of empirical and theoretical work is exploring this. Penrose and Hameroff’s Orch OR theory predicts quantum coherence in microtubule networks inside neurons (Consciousness in the universe: a review of the 'Orch OR' theory - PubMed) (Consciousness in the universe: a review of the 'Orch OR' theory - PubMed). Experimental support for this came from Bandyopadhyay’s group: in 2013, they discovered gigahertz-range oscillations in microtubules at room temperature, using nanotube electrodes on single microtubules (Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain ...). These oscillations – essentially coherent dipole vibrations of the tubulin subunits – persisted and were damped by anesthetic gases (Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain ...), linking to Hameroff’s idea that anesthetics disrupt consciousness by damping quantum processes in microtubules (Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain ...). Moreover, evidence of Fröhlich-style coherence was found: Sahu et al. (2013) showed that microtubules exhibit hysteresis-free polar conductance switching, consistent with collective dipole alignment (a sign of coherent states) (Multi-level memory-switching properties of a single brain microtubule) (Multi-level memory-switching properties of a single brain microtubule). Separately, Matthew Fisher’s work on Posner molecules (nano-scale $Ca_9(PO_4)_6$ clusters) proposes that phosphorus nuclear spins could remain entangled for long times in the brain. While initial estimates suggested entanglement might last hours or days enabling neural quantum processing, a recent simulation by Player & Hore (2018) put a more conservative upper bound of ~37 minutes for spin coherence under ideal conditions (Posner qubits: spin dynamics of entangled Ca9(PO4)6 molecules and their role in neural processing - PubMed). Even minutes-long nuclear spin coherence is astounding in a warm wet brain, and though it’s not yet proven experimentally, ongoing NMR experiments aim to detect entangled phosphate spins released during neural activity. These efforts are guided by Fisher’s hypothesis that reactions involving phosphate (like enzymatic cleavage of pyrophosphate) could entangle two Posner molecules, which then protect the entanglement during their lifetime ([1508.05929] Quantum Cognition: The possibility of processing with nuclear spins in the brain) ([1508.05929] Quantum Cognition: The possibility of processing with nuclear spins in the brain). If confirmed, this would be direct evidence of quantum entanglement in a biological system related to cognition. While no consensus exists yet, the empirical trend is that quantum biological effects once deemed impossible (coherent electron transport in photosynthesis, spin entanglement in bird navigation) have been verified, and now the brain is being investigated along similar lines. The proposal’s inclusion of tubulin dipole alignment and Orch OR is backed by these experimental hints of quantum vibrational modes in microtubules (Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain ...), as well as by Orch OR’s detailed, continually updated framework that remains consistent with known neurophysiology (Consciousness in the universe: a review of the 'Orch OR' theory - PubMed) (Consciousness in the universe: a review of the 'Orch OR' theory - PubMed).

• Consciousness-Related Field Effects (EM and Brain Correlations): Experimental studies have also looked for direct interactions between conscious brains and external fields or between separated brains. A notable line of inquiry involves EEG correlations at a distance. For example, Grinberg-Zylberbaum in the 1980s and, more recently, Giroldini et al. (2016), conducted studies where two people (usually emotionally or biologically related) were placed in separate Faraday-caged rooms and one was subjected to a stimulus (flashing light, etc.). Remarkably, the unstimulated person’s EEG sometimes showed a small, time-locked fluctuation corresponding to the partner’s stimulus – as if some information passed between them outside of standard channels ( EEG correlates of social interaction at distance - PMC ) ( EEG correlates of social interaction at distance - PMC ). Giroldini et al. reported a “weak but robust” EEG spectral perturbation in the alpha band of the non-stimulated partner, correlating with the other’s stimulus events, with $p<0.01$ significance by bootstrap analysis ( EEG correlates of social interaction at distance - PMC ) ( EEG correlates of social interaction at distance - PMC ). Such findings hint at an “entanglement” or nonlocal connection between brains, which, if confirmed, would dovetail with the proposal’s idea that conscious systems might be linked via field effects or share quantum states. Additionally, studies by Persinger’s group have suggested that coordinated geomagnetic fluctuations or induced EM fields can entangle distant brains. For instance, Persinger (2010) reported excess correlation in EEG between two brains when both were exposed to identical low-frequency magnetic noise, suggesting an unknown coupling possibly via the magnetic field (Effects of geomagnetic activity and atmospheric power variations on ...) (Brain electromagnetic activity and lightning: potentially congruent ...). While these experiments need independent replication and careful controls (to rule out subtle sensory leakages or analyzer bias), they align with the MQGT-SCF notion that consciousness may have nonlocal or field-like aspects that manifest empirically. Even the Global Consciousness Project (GCP) can be cited: researchers found that during major world events (e.g. global meditations, 9/11 attacks), networks of random devices around the world showed slight deviations from randomness (Unconscious Research of Global Consciousness - Skeptoid Podcast) (Global Consciousness: Manifesting Meaningful Structure in Random ...). This suggests a global mind-field effect on physical randomness, though interpretations vary. From an experimental standpoint, all these results are on the fringes of conventional science, yet they are published and provide proof-of-concept data for mind-matter and mind-mind interactions. The MQGT-SCF proposal, in combining physics with consciousness, is bolstered by this body of empirical work hinting that our current physical models may be incomplete when it comes to measurement and consciousness. The proposal’s calls for weak quantum biases and brain-field effects are not made in a vacuum – they echo these experimental findings and invite further research to verify such extraordinary connections under rigorous conditions.

Supporting references: Radin & Nelson (1989) (Radin, D.I. and Nelson, R.D. (1989) Evidence for Consciousness ...); Bösch et al. (2006); Hameroff & Penrose (2014) (Consciousness in the universe: a review of the 'Orch OR' theory - PubMed); Sahu et al. (2013); Fisher (2015) ([1508.05929] Quantum Cognition: The possibility of processing with nuclear spins in the brain); Player & Hore (2018) (Posner qubits: spin dynamics of entangled Ca9(PO4)6 molecules and their role in neural processing - PubMed); Giroldini et al. (2016) ( EEG correlates of social interaction at distance - PMC ).

6. Potential Journals and Conferences for Interdisciplinary Research (Physics, Consciousness, Philosophy)

Given the highly interdisciplinary nature of the MQGT-SCF proposal, it would be best received in journals and conferences that explicitly welcome foundational or cross-domain research. Some leading options include:

• Journal of Consciousness Studies (JCS): A well-established journal focusing on the study of consciousness from philosophical, neuroscientific, and occasionally quantum/physical perspectives. JCS has previously published debates on quantum brain theories and unusual models of consciousness, making it a natural fit for work bridging physics and consciousness.

• Foundations of Physics: This peer-reviewed journal covers conceptual and fundamental issues in physics. It has published papers on quantum interpretations, anthropic reasoning, and even occasional consciousness-related physics. An article that frames MQGT-SCF in terms of foundational physics (e.g. modifications of quantum theory, cosmology, or information theory due to consciousness) could find a home here.

• Physics Essays: A journal that explicitly allows speculative but rigorous essays on foundational questions in physics. It has an interdisciplinary flavor and has included articles on the role of mind in physics and other philosophical implications of quantum theory.

• Mind and Matter: An interdisciplinary journal devoted to the mind-matter relationship. It is a venue created precisely to discuss models that connect consciousness with physics, including quantum mind theories, panpsychism, and philosophical analyses of matter-mind interactions. A paper that delves into the philosophy of MQGT-SCF while also proposing testable physics could fit here.

• Entropy (MDPI, Special Issues): The journal Entropy often runs special issues on quantum foundations, information theory, and even consciousness. For instance, special issues on quantum biology or “Physics of Information and Consciousness” have occurred. Being open access and interdisciplinary, it could ensure the work reaches a broad audience across fields.

• Frontiers in Psychology (Consciousness Research) or Frontiers in Neuroscience (Neurophysics): These Frontiers journals occasionally accept theoretical contributions, especially if paired with empirical suggestions. An article focusing on how MQGT-SCF could be experimentally tested (say via neuroscience or RNG experiments) might be suitable here, under a specialty section devoted to consciousness or quantum neuroscience.

On the conference side, the proposal would attract interest at several interdisciplinary gatherings:

• The Science of Consciousness (TSC) Conference: One of the largest and longest-running international conferences on consciousness (co-founded by Stuart Hameroff). It explicitly includes quantum approaches to consciousness, neuroscience, philosophy of mind, and even cosmology discussions. Presenting MQGT-SCF here would engage a mix of physicists, philosophers, and neuroscientists open to novel ideas.

• ASSC – Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness: Their annual meeting is more experimentally and neuroscientifically oriented, but they have keynote talks on philosophical and theoretical models. If the MQGT-SCF proposal is framed in a way that leads to testable predictions about conscious experience or cognition, ASSC might welcome it (perhaps as a poster or talk in a more theoretical session).

• Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE): An academic society that covers frontier topics not yet mainstream, including consciousness research, anomalies in physics, etc. Their conferences and journal (Journal of Scientific Exploration) are forums where a bold interdisciplinary theory like MQGT-SCF would be openly discussed and critiqued by experts familiar with both physics and psi/consciousness research.

• FQXi Conferences (Foundational Questions Institute): FQXi periodically hosts conferences and essay contests on foundational questions of physics and cosmology, often including sessions on quantum observer-participancy, the role of consciousness, and anthropic principles. In 2019, for example, FQXi’s essay contest theme was “Matter, Mind, and Meaning”, attracting essays on consciousness and physics. An FQXi conference or workshop could be an ideal place to get high-level feedback from physicists and cosmologists who are willing to venture into philosophical territory.

• “Quantum Mind” and Quantum Biology Conferences: Occasionally, specialized meetings (e.g. “Quantum Effects in Biological Systems (QuEBS)” or ad-hoc conferences on quantum brain dynamics) are held. Past events like the Quantum Mind conferences (e.g. 2003 in Prague) show that there is a community engaging with these ideas. Any conference on quantum biology or biophysics could be relevant if the focus is placed on the proposed quantum mechanism in the brain, whereas a conference on consciousness and cosmology (such as the 2011 “Consciousness in the Universe” symposium in Italy, or the Mind and Matter symposiums) would cater to the cosmic teleology aspect.

In summary, the MQGT-SCF proposal sits at a nexus of multiple disciplines. Journals like JCS, Foundations of Physics, or Mind and Matter would ensure peer review by experts in both physics and philosophy of mind. Conferences such as TSC (Tucson) or SSE meetings would allow presenting the ideas to an open-minded, expert audience for valuable cross-disciplinary feedback. Targeting these venues increases the likelihood that the proposal is evaluated by exactly the kind of interdisciplinary scholars who can appreciate its breadth, while also providing constructive critique from both physicists and consciousness researchers. This dual exposure will help refine the proposal and build credibility for its novel synthesis of quantum physics, cosmology, and consciousness.

Supporting references: Journal and conference official websites and calls (JCS, TSC 2025 call for abstracts, etc.); Frontiers specialty sections.

---

References (APA style)

• Affleck, I., & Dine, M. (1985). A new mechanism for baryogenesis. Nuclear Physics B, 249(2), 361–380. DOI: 10.1016/0550-3213(85)90021-5. (Introduced the Affleck-Dine scalar condensate mechanism for baryon asymmetry)

• Bösch, H., Steinkamp, F., & Boller, E. (2006). Examining psychokinesis: The interaction of human intention with random number generators – A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132(4), 497–523. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.4.497. (Comprehensive meta-analysis of mind-matter RNG experiments)

• Carter, B. (1974). Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology. In M. S. Longair (Ed.), Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data (IAU Symposium 63) (pp. 291–298). Dordrecht: Reidel. (Classic paper formulating the anthropic principle in cosmology)

• Co, R. T., & Harigaya, K. (2020). Axiogenesis. Physical Review Letters, 124(11), 111602. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.111602. (Proposed the generation of baryon asymmetry from a rotating axion field in the early universe)

• Cohen, A. G., & Kaplan, D. B. (1987). Thermodynamic generation of the baryon asymmetry. Physics Letters B, 199(2), 251–258. DOI: 10.1016/0370-2693(87)91369-4. (Early demonstration of spontaneous baryogenesis via a time-dependent scalar field)

• Dine, M., & Kusenko, A. (2003). The origin of the matter–antimatter asymmetry. Reviews of Modern Physics, 76(1), 1–30. DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1. (Review of baryogenesis mechanisms, including Affleck-Dine and others)

• Fisher, M. P. A. (2015). Quantum cognition: The possibility of processing with nuclear spins in the brain. Annals of Physics, 362, 593–602. DOI: 10.1016/j.aop.2015.08.020. (Proposed that phosphorus nuclear spin ensembles in Posner molecules could serve as qubits for neural quantum processing)

• Hameroff, S., & Penrose, R. (2014). Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory. Physics of Life Reviews, 11(1), 39–78. DOI: 10.1016/j.plrev.2013.08.002. (Comprehensive update on orchestrated objective reduction theory, including discussion of microtubule quantum vibrations and experimental support)

• Larsson, S. E., Sarkar, S., & White, P. L. (1997). Evading the cosmological domain wall problem. Physical Review D, 55(8), 5129–5135. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.55.5129. (Showed that a slight bias in degenerate vacua can eliminate domain walls, preserving cosmology)

• Leslie, J. (1989). Universes. London: Routledge. ISBN: 9780415044144. (Philosophical exploration of cosmology; introduced “axiarchism,” the idea of cosmic selection by value or goodness)

• Ma, T.-C., Shi, H.-Q., & Zhang, H.-Q. (2024). Asymmetric Symmetry Breaking: Unequal Probabilities of Vacuum Selection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.05168. (Demonstrated a mechanism for biased vacuum selection in a symmetric potential through stochastic dynamics)

• Peccei, R. D., & Quinn, H. R. (1977). CP conservation in the presence of pseudoparticles. Physical Review Letters, 38(25), 1440–1443. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.38.1440. (Proposed the Peccei-Quinn symmetry and axion field, which dynamically removes CP violation from QCD – solving the strong CP problem)

• Player, T. C., & Hore, P. J. (2018). Posner qubits: Spin dynamics of entangled Ca$_9$(PO$_4$)$_6$ molecules and their role in neural processing. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 15(147), 20180494. DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2018.0494. (Analyzed the possible entanglement lifetime of Posner molecule nuclear spins; set limits on how long quantum coherence could last in the brain)

• Radin, D. I., & Nelson, R. D. (1989). Evidence for consciousness-related anomalies in random physical systems. Foundations of Physics, 19(12), 1499–1514. DOI: 10.1007/BF00732509. (Meta-analysis of mind influence on random number generators, suggesting small but significant deviations from chance)

• Sahu, S., Ghosh, S., & Bandyopadhyay, A. (2013). Multi-level memory-switching properties of a single brain microtubule. Applied Physics Letters, 102(12), 123701. DOI: 10.1063/1.4793995. (Experimental observation of hysteresis-free memory switching and extraordinary conductivity in single microtubules, implying coherent electromagnetic oscillations)

• Trodden, M. (1999). Electroweak baryogenesis. Reviews of Modern Physics, 71(5), 1463–1500. DOI: 10.1103/RevModPhys.71.1463. (Review of baryogenesis scenarios, included here as context for how novel CP-violating scalar fields might be incorporated)

• Weinberg, S. (1987). Anthropic bound on the cosmological constant. Physical Review Letters, 59(22), 2607–2610. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.2607. (Classic paper using anthropic reasoning to predict the order of magnitude of the cosmological constant, exemplifying teleological reasoning in physics)