Thanks — yes, I feel we are entering exactly that transition.

AI doesn’t “replace” science, but it changes the environment in which science happens. When billions of people can iterate ideas with AI, old intuitions about “what is serious” or “what is allowed to be questioned” stop working.

ICT is just one attempt to formalize this shift — not by rejecting physics, but by adding an informational layer that can be tested. If the paradigm is moving, we need models that can move with it.

Appreciate your comment — it captures the moment very well.

Thanks for the critique — fair points. A few clarifications directly based on the ICT Model v1.1 (the version linked in the post):

1. About “consciousness” as a red flag

In the paper “consciousness” is used operationally, not philosophically.

ICT defines it strictly as:

C ∝ dI/dT — rate of informational change over time (Section 1.1, Eq. 2)

No metaphysics, no claims about qualia — only measurable information dynamics (entropy-rate, LZ-complexity rate, update-energy).

2. What field the work belongs to

Also clarified in v1.1: ICT sits at the intersection of:

information physics,

thermodynamics of computation,

temporal dynamics,

neuroscience of information processing.

(Sections 1.1, 2, and Correspondence Table)

The model does not present itself as philosophy of mind.

3. Background / prior work

v1.1 explicitly connects the framework to:

Landauer limit,

Bekenstein bounds,

Friston’s free-energy principle,

algorithmic complexity measures,

temporal stability / phase structure.

(All referenced in Sections 1.1–2)

4. Falsifiable predictions

The paper includes three concrete experiments (Section 8) designed for empirical testing:

1. Neuroenergetic test of dI/dT

2. Structure-without-energy input experiment

3. Cross-substrate information-fixation thresholds

All with operational variables, not philosophical language.

5. Summary

Your comment is useful — especially about clearly signaling the disciplinary context. But everything I’ve referenced above is directly in the v1.1 preprint and defines ICT as a physical/informational model, not a metaphysical one.

Happy to refine further if needed.