Where the programme is going: 91 open problems across 9 domains, with 3 flagship questions and 4 active research lanes.
What This Page Is
The CMAC programme has derived 586 identities, 67 predictions, and a candidate Theory of Everything from a single geometric theorem. This page describes what comes next: the open frontier of problems where the programme’s operator structure — Contraction, Multiway, Attention, Coherence, Kappa, Residual — meets unsolved questions across physics, AI, consciousness, biology, and beyond.
Every problem listed here has a formal specification, named discriminators (experiments that distinguish CMAC predictions from alternatives), and a hardening path from conjecture to publication. The three flagship problems represent the highest-impact questions where CMAC is uniquely positioned to contribute.
The Six CMAC Operators
Every open problem is framed in terms of six universal operators. Each domain adapter translates these operators into field-specific formalisms.
Three Flagship Problems
Selected by Impact × Tractability × CMAC-Uniqueness. These are the problems where a breakthrough would most transform the programme’s standing and where CMAC’s operator structure offers something no other framework provides.
κ-Field Dynamics
Can κ be turned from an interpretive master variable into a mathematically constrained, empirically discriminable field with unique hybrid-regime predictions?
CMAC posits $\kappa(x,t)$ as a real scalar field interpolating between quantum mechanics ($\kappa \to 0$) and general relativity ($\kappa \to \infty$). Deriving its Lagrangian from first principles, proving both limits recover known physics, and characterizing the hybrid regime are the core challenges.
Discriminators: κ-modified decoherence rates in mesoscopic systems, phase noise spectrum in precision interferometry, mass-dependent coherence time scaling.
Alignment as K-Governance
Can alignment be reformulated as governing synthetic attention through structured coherence fields rather than scalar reward and output filtering?
Current alignment approaches (RLHF, Constitutional AI) operate on outputs. CMAC’s coherence operator K provides a structural alternative: govern what enters context and how context shapes attention, rather than filtering after the fact. A Coherence Reward Field (CRF) replaces scalar reward with a field-based alignment signal.
Discriminators: CRF vs RLHF on distribution shift (≥20% improvement predicted), proxy gaming rates under coherence constraints (≥50% reduction predicted), mesa-optimization detection via residual patterns.
Consciousness Theory Comparison
Can CMAC produce a theory-comparison framework for consciousness that generates adversarial predictions between IIT, predictive processing, and CMAC accounts?
CMAC’s operator structure provides a neutral meta-language for comparing consciousness theories. Each theory (IIT, predictive processing, active inference, global workspace) can be characterized by how it instantiates C, M, A, and K — enabling formal identification of where the theories make divergent empirical predictions.
Discriminators: posterior vs local integration under anesthesia, attention-Φ dissociation experiments, coherence threshold vs information integration as predictor of conscious access.
Four Research Lanes
Problems are organized into four parallel research lanes, each with a dependency chain from foundational to applied. Lanes can be worked simultaneously.
Hardening Status
Every problem moves through four stages: speculative (concept only), developing (mechanism sketched), hardening (discriminators tested), and hardened (publication-ready with proofs and data). The current distribution across all 91 problems:
Problems by Domain
| Domain | Problems | IDs | Flagship | Adapter |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physics | 15 | PROB-PHYS-001 – 015 | κ-Field Dynamics | ADAP-PHYS |
| AI | 14 | PROB-AI-001 – 014 | K-Governance | ADAP-AI |
| Consciousness | 10 | PROB-CONS-001 – 010 | Theory Comparison | ADAP-NEURO |
| Economics | 12 | PROB-ECON-001 – 012 | — | ADAP-ECON |
| 12 | PROB-META-001 – 012 | — | — | |
| Biology | 10 | PROB-BIO-001 – 010 | — | ADAP-BIO |
| Quantum Foundations | 10 | PROB-QF-001 – 010 | — | ADAP-PHYS |
| Time | 4 | PROB-TIME-001 – 004 | — | — |
| Thermodynamic Computing | 4 | PROB-THERM-001 – 004 | — | — |
Cross-Domain Bridges
The operator structure enables formal connections between problems in different domains. These bridges transfer techniques across fields and generate cross-domain predictions.
| Bridge | Domains | Shared Operators | Unified Prediction |
|---|---|---|---|
| Observer-Measurement | Consciousness ↔ Quantum Foundations | A, K, κ | Observer coarse-graining should show modified decoherence rates proportional to attentional bandwidth |
| Synthetic-Biological Attention | AI ↔ Neuroscience | A, K | Attention mechanisms with equivalent K-structure should show equivalent coherence dynamics regardless of substrate |
| Alignment-Institutional | AI ↔ Economics | K, R | Alignment failures and institutional failures share residual accumulation signatures detectable before behavioral symptoms |
| Life-Consciousness | Biology ↔ Consciousness | M, K, C | The transition to life and the emergence of consciousness are instances of the same coherence phase transition at different scales |
| κ-Contraction | Physics ↔ Thermodynamic Computing | C, κ | Thermodynamic cost of computation should follow κ-field scaling laws in mesoscopic systems |
| Trauma-Coherence | Psychology ↔ Consciousness | C, κ, K | Trauma should show measurable κ-state rigidity; therapy should restore κ-flexibility |
| Morphogenesis-Emergence | Biology ↔ Physics | C, A, K | Form emergence (biological or geometric) follows universal coherence propagation laws |
Domain Adapters
Each domain has an adapter that translates the six CMAC operators into field-specific formalisms. This enables precise predictions in domain language while maintaining formal connections across fields.
| Adapter | C | M | A | K | κ | R |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physics | State reduction | Path integral | Measurement | Entanglement | QM↔GR dial | Curvature tension |
| Neuroscience | Winner-take-all | Neural states | Gain modulation | Neural synchrony | Consciousness level | Prediction error |
| AI | Token selection | Completions | Attention heads | Context / system prompt | Temperature | Loss signal |
| Biology | Differentiation | Waddington landscape | Signaling activation | Morphogenetic field | Dev. stage | Morphogen mismatch |
| Economics | Market clearing | Market states | Liquidity flow | Institutional structure | Market regime | Arbitrage / mispricing |
How to Engage
Every problem has a formal specification with named discriminators and a hardening path. Collaboration is invited at every stage.
Contribute to Open Problems
If you have expertise in any of the nine domains and want to work on a specific problem, propose a new adapter, or design a discriminating experiment, contact the CMAC Institute.
What we need most: mathematical physicists for κ-dynamics, RL researchers for CRF benchmarks, and consciousness scientists for adversarial experiment design.