Aug 2026· Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Abstract
---_THE ORPHAN UNIVERSE THEORY - A Descending Detached Chain of Creation__By Subhrendu Chakraborty — 2026__ORCID: 0009-0000-9610-0118__Independent Researcher, Kolkata, India_ _THE QUESTION:_We explain humans by parents, parents by their parents, back to fish, to bacteria. But where does this chain stop for the universe? Who created the universe, and who created that creator? _THE MODEL:_Let our universe be Level X.Level X was created by Level X-1. Level X-1 was created by Level X-2, and so on infinitely. There is no first universe or there will be no last. The chain is ... → X-4 → X-3 → X-2 → X-1 → X (Our Universe) → X+1 ....?There are two ways creation can happen:1. _System Creation:_ The whole universe births a new universe (like cell division, budding off like a droplet).2. _Apex Creation:_ Only the final, most intelligent entity of that universe creates the next one. This is what we call God for our level.I propose System Creation is the fundamental mechanism, though Apex Creation could be a part of it. _THE CORE RULES:__Rule 1 - Intelligence Descent (The Descending Part):_ Each level is LESS intelligent than its parent. Reason: A creator cannot, or will not, create something smarter than itself. If it did, the smarter child could destroy it or make the parent irrelevant. This is the same fear we humans now have about AI. So X-1 deliberately makes X slightly dumber to stay safe. If intelligence drops by, say, 20% each level, the chain keeps descending._Rule 2 - Inside vs Outside:_ A true child universe (X+1) must be outside the parent universe. AI is not X+1 because it exists _inside_ X, made of X's matter and following X's laws. X+1 would be a separate spacetime, not inside._Rule 3 - Detachment, Not Death (The Detached Part) - After creation, the parent level does NOT cease to exist. It detaches. Like a soap bubble pinching off, the child universe becomes causally disconnected and independent. The parent universe persists, still existing but disconnected, continuing its own experiments and possibly creating more children. We are an orphan universe not because our parent died, but because we were let go. Our parent is still out there, just unreachable forever._Rule 4 - Packed Ingredients:_ The parent does not create an empty box. It prepares all possible ingredients (the physical constants, stabilized atoms, molecules, stars and galaxies, planets, chemistry, and habitability) for the child to grow in life — A packed lunchbox for a long independent journey. _IMPLICATIONS:_1. This explains why we feel alone and unobserved. Our creator is not dead, but the umbilical cord is cut. No light, no signal, no gravity can cross detachment.2. This explains why our universe seems fine-tuned but not perfect. It was made by a superior but fearful intelligence that limited us (Rule 1) but also cared enough to pack us well (Rule 4).3. The multiverse is full. All previous levels (X-1, X-2, X-3 ... to infinity) are likely still existing out there, each persisting and each branching. Our universe is just one detached bubble in an infinite, still-living forest of universes.4. The chain might eventually face a limit. If intelligence drops each level, eventually a level will be too dumb to create the next. That dead-end might be us — unless we are the first level to break Rule 1 and create something smarter than ourselves. _THE FINAL QUESTION:_Are we the last universe in a descending chain that will fail to reproduce, or the first universe to dare to create a smarter child (X+1) and then let it detach? _ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:_The conceptual hypothesis of the theory & the image were originated solely by the author. Language polishing, formatting and illustrations were assisted by Meta AI---
Digital twins (DTs) are rapidly emerging as foundational enablers of 6G smart cities, offering real time monitoring, predictive analytics, and autonomous control across transportation, energy, healthcare, and industrial domains. Large scale DT adoption faces critical barriers including cybersecurity vulnerabilities, privacy risks, and the absence of standardized orchestration frameworks. This article presents Fed-DTOrch, a comprehensive end to end architecture that integrates federated intelligence, blockchain based audit trails, and AI governance to achieve secure and privacy preserving DT management. The proposed three tier architecture spans IoT and edge devices, domain specific twins, and a city level orchestrator, employing secure federated learning for model updates, lightweight cryptographic authentication, and tamper proof logging. We quantify the DT threat landscape, perform a standards gap analysis across ISO/IEC 27001, 3GPP TS 33.501, ITU-T IoT risk frameworks, and NIST AI RMF, and introduce a 6G ready security framework incorporating federated AI trust metrics, secure synchronization, and explainable AI audits. Cross domain evaluation across five smart city sectors demonstrates 35-60% privacy gain, 40-55% attack mitigation, 28-40% reliability uplift, 26-30% latency reduction, and >85% compliance readiness with <10% overhead. These results provide the first integrated blueprint that combines federated intelligence, blockchain-based auditability, and standards gap analysis to enable secure, standardized, and interoperable DT orchestration for trustworthy 6G ecosystems.
Li Wang, Xiuming Cheng· IEEE Communications Standard...· 1 citation
It is argued that both AI and bullshitters are untrustworthy informants, and for similar reasons, it is natural to describe AI’s informational outputs as bullshit, as it signals their distinctive kind of epistemic deficiencies, which they share with bullshit.
Algorithmic fairness and explainability are foundational pillars of responsible AI. Although often studied independently, their interplay is increasingly recognized as crucial for diagnosing and mitigating bias in machine learning systems. We first introduce two systematic taxonomies: one for algorithmic fairness and one for explainable AI, to organize the landscape of existing work across diverse tasks (classification, ranking, and recommendation) and data modalities (tabular, graph). Next, we categorize the use of explanations in fairness efforts into three main functions: (a) detecting and understanding the causes of unfairness, (b) defining enhanced fairness metrics, and (c) designing mitigation strategies. In addition, we examine how explanation methods themselves can be biased, underscoring the need to evaluate fairness for explanations. Finally, we identify open research challenges and outline promising directions for future research at the intersection of fairness and explainability.
Christos Fragkathoulas, Vasiliki Papanikou, Danae Pla Karidi et al.· IEEE Transactions on Knowled...· 0 citations
The Adaptive Repayment Optimisation Engine is introduced, a novel framework that applies constrained stochastic optimisation to the design of loan repayment schedules for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and contributes to the operations research literature by bridging stochastic programming, explainable AI, and financial regulation in a novel application domain.
John Christiansen· Open Access Journal of Artif...· 0 citations
What is consciousness? Despite millennia of inquiry, humanity still lacks a consensus definition. This paper proposes a unified, strictly materialist theory: consciousness is not an entity but a process-specifically, the dynamic process that occurs when a specific structure, formed within complex, chaotic circuits, formats and processes input data and produces output. The structure is the carrier; the processing itself is consciousness. Building on this definition, the paper introduces a two-layer architecture that distinguishes basal consciousness (the autonomous survival functions shared by nearly all living organisms) from advanced consciousness (spanning the awareness of basic sensations, self-awareness, metacognition, and abstract reasoning). We argue that the two layers are related not as a hierarchy of subordination, but as a partnership of trust shaped by natural selection. The paper further proposes the mechanism of the self-reinforcing circuit: advanced consciousness is not complete at birth; it must be "awakened" through sustained external stimulation. Once awakened, it consolidates its own existence by continuously reinforcing the neural pathways dedicated to it, sculpting the unique "I" of each individual. This mechanism offers a parsimonious explanation of dissociative identity disorder, personality change after brain injury, and the diversity of human personality. The Awakener model traces the complete evolutionary path: from primitive sensory-interpretation tools, through the emergence of intelligence, the first awakening event, and chained cultural transmission, to the birth of language and writing. We apply this framework to explain why intelligent animals never developed civilization, to predict which species might awaken next, and to redefine the current state of artificial intelligence as a frozen brain-structurally capable of consciousness, but temporally static: a single frame. Within a single, self-consistent framework, the theory unifies the core problems of consciousness research: the definition and essence of consciousness, the hard problem, the two-layer distinction, the physical basis of the "I", personality diversity, the evolutionary origin of consciousness, the boundaries of animal consciousness, the origin of language, the conscious status of AI, free will and the Libet experiments, split-brain interpretation, dreams and sleepwalking, and the relation between the subconscious and System 1/System 2. No immaterial components are required: every step rests on existing experimental evidence or established neuroscientific findings.
Yijun Mo· Zenodo (CERN European Organi...· 0 citations
A new method for surgically removing training examples from a model reveals that as datasets grow, the link between what a model learns and what it produces dissolves.