Thought provoking: I’m not sure physics is the best template for a ‘good’ theory of consciousness; more than three variables interacting simultaneously can produce unpredictability. Even the best models, for example, cannot predict the precise moment of catastrophe (bridge collapse, earthquake, eruption). The General Theory of Relativity also breaks down at small scales and Quantum Mechanics relies on probability – its hallmarks seem to be unpredictability and spontaneity. If both GTR and QM are valid descriptions of a multi-level reality, then surely the nature of consciousness partakes in both. The interesting questions about consciousness (for me, anyway) have to do with solving real-world problems in the relationships of people to each other (psychology, morality, and sociology) and, more broadly, of conscious nature (humanity) to the biological, ecological, and geo-physical conditions (all dynamic) in which we are embedded and from which we draw/convert matter and energy to survive. A theory of consciousness should probably make sense of perception, but a good theory of consciousness will have less to say about lines on a paper and more to say about why mass shooting are increasing, why freedom is sliding into restriction through social polarization, and why depression, withdrawal, and obsession with diversion are ubiquitous responses of consciousness in modernity – especially within technologically advanced, materialist, capitalist societies. Ecology, the study of dynamic relationships in evolving communities, maybe a better template for a sound theory of mind.