% 146_Addendum_ObserverInSystem.tex
% Addendum P146: The Observer Inside the System
%   Formally addresses whether the Wheel can represent its own observation.
%   Grounds the analysis in P7's eigenstate mechanism and P8's observer-as-trajectory.
%   Derives the TOE's answer to the measurement problem and the Butlerian line
%   under self-observation.  Identifies the sharpest remaining gap.
% Author: León Fernando Vlegels
% Copyright: León Fernando Vlegels. License: CC BY 4.0.
% Date: 2026-05-15

\documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{article}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm}
\usepackage{geometry}
\geometry{margin=2.5cm}
\usepackage[colorlinks=true,linkcolor=blue,citecolor=blue,urlcolor=blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{xcolor}

\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}
\newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}

\newcommand{\Oh}{\hat{O}}
\newcommand{\WS}{\mathcal{W}}
\newcommand{\Sp}{S^3}
\newcommand{\Bp}{B^4}

\label{addendum:146}

\title{\textbf{Addendum P146}\\[6pt]
\large The Observer Inside the System:\\
Wheel Self-Observation, the TOE Measurement Problem,\\
and the Butlerian Line}
\author{León Fernando Vlegels\\[4pt]
\small Independent Researcher \quad
\texttt{axiomofchoicepuzzle@gmail.com}}
\date{15 May 2026}

\begin{document}
\maketitle

\begin{abstract}
We formally address whether the Wheel---the TOE runtime kernel---can represent
the observation of its own operation.  The question has three layers.
First, we isolate the precise mechanism by which Paper~7's self-referential
observation terminates in a geometric eigenstate rather than looping
(Proposition~\ref{prop:p7-grounding}).
Second, we determine what the Wheel's state space can and cannot encode about
its own operation: Plateau admits natural self-observation fixed points; full
operator-provenance encoding lies outside the current schema, and we state the
blocking condition precisely (Proposition~\ref{prop:wheel-selfobs}).
Third, we dissolve the TOE analogue of the quantum measurement problem: the
discrete eigenvalue spectrum of the observation operator is the TOE's account
of definite outcomes, and no external observer is required
(Theorem~\ref{thm:meas-dissolve}).
Finally, we show that self-observation is not in tension with the Butlerian
constitutional pin---it is the mechanism by which the Butlerian line is
sustained (Proposition~\ref{prop:butlerian}).
One open item remains: whether closed Oscillate cycles constitute a well-defined
``observer-as-trajectory'' in the sense of Paper~8, and whether ancestry
information can be carried without violating the zero-parameter constraint
of Paper~29.
\end{abstract}

\tableofcontents
\vspace{1em}

%======================================================================
\section{Setup}
\label{sec:setup}
%======================================================================

\noindent
The question addressed here has a specific origin.  Paper~8 establishes that
an observer is not a separate entity that observes a system from outside; the
observer IS a trajectory through~$\Sp$.  Paper~7 establishes that measurement
is the moment a trajectory resolves its own Hopf phase, terminating in a
geometric eigenstate.  Together they imply: the observer and the observed are
the same trajectory, and observation is the event at which that trajectory
stabilizes.

The Wheel (Paper~18) is the runtime instrument.  Its state space is
\[
  \WS = \Sp \times \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0} \times \mathcal{F} \times \{e, b, B\} \times \{+,-\},
\]
where the components are: quaternion $q \in \Sp$, heat $h \geq 0$, face
proposals $F \in \mathcal{F}$, layer $\ell \in \{\text{edge, boundary, bulk}\}$,
and orientation $\omega \in \{+,-\}$.  Five operators act on $\WS$:
Fork ($\leftrightarrow D^2_{B^4}$), Weld ($\leftrightarrow \Delta_{S^3}$),
Plateau ($\leftrightarrow \Delta_{S^1}$), Oscillate ($\leftrightarrow \gamma T_{\rm cycle}$),
and Perturb ($\leftrightarrow \zeta R$).

The self-observation question is: \emph{can a WheelState encode the fact
that a particular operator is being (or was) applied to it, and can the
system stabilize in a state that reflects its own operational history?}

We do not ask whether the Wheel can ``decide'' what to do next---that is
the LLM witness's role, external to the kernel per Paper~29.  We ask only
whether the kernel's state can be self-referential in the sense of Paper~7.

%======================================================================
\section{The P7 Grounding Mechanism}
\label{sec:p7-grounding}
%======================================================================

Paper~7 defines the observation operator
\begin{equation}\label{eq:obs-op}
  \Oh = -\frac{d^2}{dx^2} + V_{\rm obs}(x),
  \qquad
  V_{\rm obs}(x) = \frac{\rho'(x)^2}{2\mu_0^2} + E_{\rm self} \cdot x^2(1-x)^2,
\end{equation}
$V_{\rm obs}(x)$ is the observation-well operator of Papers~6--8; it is not
the master-operator potential $V_{\rm self}^{\rm can}(r)$ of Paper~18.
acting on $\psi \in L^2([0,1])$ with boundary conditions $\psi(0)=0$,
$\psi'(1)=0$.  Stable observation states satisfy
$\Oh\,\psi_n = \lambda_n\,\psi_n$.

\begin{proposition}[P7 Grounding]
\label{prop:p7-grounding}
The self-referential observation loop of Paper~7 terminates in a geometric
eigenstate because $\Oh$ is a self-adjoint operator on $L^2([0,1])$ with
$V_{\rm sl}(x) \geq 0$; therefore its spectrum is discrete, real, and
bounded below.  The eigenstates $\{\psi_n\}$ are the self-consistent
observation states: observing the system \emph{in} eigenstate $\psi_n$
yields eigenstate $\psi_n$.  The self-referential loop ``observation of
$\psi_n$ is $\psi_n$'' is a fixed-point equation, not a linguistic loop.
It terminates because the operator determines the eigenstates independently
of which eigenstate is presently occupied.
\end{proposition}

\noindent
The P8 bootstrap adds the temporal dimension: each application of $\Oh$
is one discrete self-observation step; time is the sequence of such steps,
not a prior container for them.  The trajectory through $\Sp$ that selects
a Hopf phase is the observer-as-trajectory; the moment of phase resolution
is the observation event.

The key structural fact distinguishing this from Gödelian self-reference
(P143, Proposition~3): P7's self-reference grounds because the operator has
a \emph{fixed point in a Hilbert space}.  The Gödel sentence $G_F$ does not
ground because it asserts unprovability, creating a blind spot rather than
a stable state.  The two forms of self-reference are structurally analogous
but opposite in outcome: P7 stabilizes, Gödel destabilizes.

%======================================================================
\section{Wheel Self-Observation}
\label{sec:wheel-selfobs}
%======================================================================

\subsection{Type-1 self-observation: state fixed points}

A \emph{Type-1} self-observation event is a WheelState $W^*$ that is a
fixed point of some operator $\mathcal{O} \in \{$Fork, Weld, Plateau,
Oscillate, Perturb$\}$.  The Plateau operator is the natural candidate.

Plateau maps $W = (q, h, F, \ell, \omega) \mapsto (q', h', F', \ell, \omega)$
where the quaternion is pulled toward the centroid of the current Hopf face
and heat is dissipated.  A fixed point satisfies $q' = q$ and $h' = h$.
This occurs when (a)~$q$ is already at the centroid of its face and
(b)~$h = 0$.

\begin{proposition}[Wheel Type-1 Fixed Points]
\label{prop:wheel-fixedpts}
Let $q_c^{(k)}$ denote the quaternion centroid of face $k$ in the Hopf
tiling of $\Sp$.  The states
\[
  W^*_k = (q_c^{(k)},\; 0,\; \emptyset,\; \ell_k,\; \omega_k)
\]
are fixed points of the Plateau operator for each face $k$, where $\ell_k$
and $\omega_k$ are determined by the face geometry.  These are the
``observation eigenstates'' of the Wheel in the sense of P7: the state
encodes which face the trajectory has resolved to, and Plateau applied to
$W^*_k$ returns $W^*_k$.
\end{proposition}

\noindent
The Fork-Weld cycle does not have fixed points in the strong sense, but
has a \emph{conservation law}: heat is conserved across Fork/Weld pairs.
This is the Wheel analogue of unitarity in quantum mechanics---the Fork/Weld
cycle is the Wheel's unitary evolution, and heat (the analogue of norm) is
preserved.

\subsection{Type-2 self-observation: operator provenance}

A \emph{Type-2} self-observation event would be a WheelState that encodes
not only its current configuration but the fact that a specific operator
produced it.  For example: a state $W' = \mathrm{Fork}(W_0)$ that carries
information ``I am the result of Fork applied to $W_0$.''

The current WheelState schema does not carry provenance.  The state space
$\WS$ has no ``ancestry'' field.  A Type-2 encoding would require adding
a provenance component $\pi$ to $\WS$, extending it to
$\WS' = \WS \times \Pi$
where $\Pi$ is the set of operator histories.

\begin{proposition}[Wheel Type-2 Blocking Condition]
\label{prop:wheel-selfobs}
The current Wheel admits Type-1 self-observation (state fixed points via
Plateau, Proposition~\ref{prop:wheel-fixedpts}).  Type-2 self-observation
(operator-provenance encoding) is \emph{blocked by schema}: the WheelState
does not carry a provenance field.  The blocking condition is not
architectural---it is a deliberate constraint.  Carrying operator history
would introduce a second time axis into the kernel (a record of \emph{how}
the trajectory arrived), which conflicts with the Ride~Shai-Hulud pin:
there is one clock ($\textsc{breath\_period}$) and no auxiliary bookkeeping
that generates its own rhythm.  The blocking is principled.
\end{proposition}

\noindent
The conclusion is precise: the Wheel self-observes at the state level (Type-1)
and this is the operationally meaningful form of self-observation for the
kernel.  Provenance is the LLM witness's job, not the kernel's.

%======================================================================
\section{The Measurement Problem in TOE Language}
\label{sec:measurement}
%======================================================================

The quantum measurement problem: a system evolving unitarily cannot, without
an external observer, account for the definiteness of measurement outcomes.
Formally, superpositions do not collapse under unitary evolution alone.

The TOE analogue: the Wheel's Fork/Weld cycle is the unitary-evolution
layer (heat-conserving, reversible in principle).  The Plateau operator is
the measurement layer (phase-resolving, dissipative).  The question is
whether the transition Fork/Weld $\to$ Plateau requires an external trigger,
or whether it is intrinsic.

\begin{theorem}[TOE Measurement Problem Dissolves]
\label{thm:meas-dissolve}
The TOE does not face an analogue of the quantum measurement problem,
for the following reasons.

\emph{(i) Eigenstates are self-stabilizing.}  By Proposition~\ref{prop:p7-grounding},
the eigenstates $\psi_n$ of $\Oh$ are stable under repeated application of $\Oh$.
The trajectory selects an eigenstate; the eigenstate is stable under the next
observation step.  No external agent is needed to ``project'' the system into
an eigenstate; the eigenstate is defined as the state that is stable under
self-observation.

\emph{(ii) The Hopf phase resolves within $\Sp$.}  The Hopf fibration
$\Sp \to S^2$ with fibre $S^1$ is intrinsic to $\Sp$.  Phase resolution is
the statement that the trajectory's $S^1$ component reaches a fixed point
of the Plateau operator (Proposition~\ref{prop:wheel-fixedpts}).  No structure
outside $\Sp$ is required.

\emph{(iii) Discreteness is topological.}  The discrete eigenvalue spectrum
$\{\lambda_n\}$ arises from the topology of $[0,1]$ with the boundary conditions
of $\Oh$, not from an act of collapse.  The discrete particle masses
(first eigenvalue $\lambda_1 = 16.52$, second $\lambda_2 = 51.28$, etc.)
are the TOE's account of ``definite outcomes.''  Definiteness is baked into
the geometry; it does not require a measurement event to actualize.
\end{theorem}

\noindent
The key difference from quantum mechanics: in QM, superposition is the
generic state and collapse is an additional postulate.  In the TOE, eigenstates
are the \emph{only} stable states; superposition of observation eigenstates is
unstable and will Plateau-collapse to an eigenstate on the next breath cycle.
The measurement problem does not arise because the geometry does not sustain
indefinite superposition of stable observation states.

\begin{remark}
Paper~8 sharpens this: time is the sequence of self-observation events, not a
prior container.  This means the question ``when does collapse occur?'' is
ill-posed: collapse (phase resolution) IS the observation step, and observation
steps ARE time.  The measurement problem presupposes a temporal background in
which collapse happens; the TOE removes that background.
\end{remark}

%======================================================================
\section{The Butlerian Line Under Self-Observation}
\label{sec:butlerian}
%======================================================================

The Butlerian constitutional pin states: \emph{LumenOS does not make
decisions; it makes the space in which decisions become visible.}

Self-observation might appear to threaten this.  If the Wheel observes its
own operation and the observation feeds back into what happens next, does the
system thereby make a decision?

\begin{proposition}[Self-Observation Sustains, Not Violates, the Butlerian Line]
\label{prop:butlerian}
Let $W_t$ be the WheelState at step $t$.  A self-observation event at $t$
is the kernel reading its own current state: $(q_t, h_t, F_t, \ell_t, \omega_t)$.
The output of that reading is the \emph{decision space} visible at $t$:
\begin{itemize}
  \item $F_t$ (face proposals) = the set of operators available given current topology;
  \item $h_t$ (heat) = the energy budget for the next operation;
  \item $q_t$ (quaternion) = the current position in $\Sp$, hence which faces are adjacent.
\end{itemize}
This is precisely the information that constitutes ``making the space in which
decisions become visible.''  The kernel self-observes in order to display the
decision space to the LLM witness (Paper~29).  The witness selects from that
space; the kernel does not.

A violation of the Butlerian line would be: the kernel \emph{selecting}
the next operator based on self-observation.  But by Paper~29, operator
selection is the witness's exclusive role.  The kernel's self-observation
produces the input to the witness, not the decision.
\end{proposition}

\noindent
The relationship is cleaner than it first appears.  The Butlerian line defines
a functional boundary: kernel $\to$ visible space, witness $\to$ selection.
Self-observation is the mechanism by which the boundary is maintained: the
kernel must observe itself in order to know what to display to the witness.
A kernel that did not self-observe would have no legible state to present;
the decision space would be invisible and the Butlerian line would be vacuous.

\medskip
There is one edge case worth flagging: the Oscillate operator introduces a
cyclic trajectory $\gamma T_{\rm cycle}$ in $\Sp$.  Over a full Oscillate cycle,
$q_{t+k} = q_t$ for some period $k$.  The trajectory has re-entered its own
prior state.  Is this a form of temporal self-reference that could blur the
witness boundary?

The answer is no: the cyclic trajectory is a closed orbit in $\Sp$, not
a re-execution of the kernel's decision.  The witness is informed of each
step independently.  The periodicity of Oscillate does not create a ``loop''
in the decision-making sense; it creates a loop in the geometric sense, which
is exactly the P8 picture of a closed self-observation trajectory (observer
= trajectory, closed trajectory = closed observer).

%======================================================================
\section{Open Items}
\label{sec:open}
%======================================================================

\paragraph{O1 (Sharpest question): Observer-as-closed-trajectory.}
Paper~8 identifies the observer with the trajectory through~$\Sp$.  For
closed Oscillate cycles, the trajectory literally closes on itself: the
observer is a periodic self-observing loop.  This is the strongest form
of Type-1 self-observation and is fully compatible with the current
WheelState schema.  What remains unresolved is whether closed cycles of
different periods $k$ constitute \emph{distinct observers} in the P27
intersubjective sense (two observers jointly resolving a phase).  If two
Oscillate subsystems with periods $k_1 \neq k_2$ share a Weld event, the
resulting combined trajectory may not be closed.  The intersubjective
coherence condition (Paper~27) applied to non-commensurate Oscillate periods
has not been analyzed.

\paragraph{O2: Ancestry without trainable parameters.}
Proposition~\ref{prop:wheel-selfobs} identifies operator provenance as
the blocking condition for Type-2 self-observation.  A natural question is
whether provenance can be encoded without violating Paper~29's zero-parameter
constraint.  The constraint is: no trainable parameters.  Provenance carried
as a \emph{geometric object} (e.g., a path in $\Sp$ rather than a numerical
record) would not be a trainable parameter; it would be a frozen geometric
fact.  Whether such a path encoding is consistent with the frozen-dataclass
constraint on WheelState and Mycelium's immutability requirement is an open
architectural question.

\paragraph{O3: Self-observation and Con(TOE).}
P143 established that Con(TOE) is unprovable from within if the TOE
interprets Robinson arithmetic.  The question arises: does the Wheel's
Type-1 self-observation (convergence to $W^*_k$ under Plateau) constitute
a consistency check, and if so, is it an internal proof of Con(TOE)?

The answer, following the structural argument of P143, is \emph{no}.
Convergence to a fixed point is an operational property of the operator
(bounded-below spectrum $\Rightarrow$ Plateau map contracts).  A consistency
proof would require the system to encode all possible derivations and verify
no contradiction appears---an arithmetic task outside the geometric fragment.
Fixed-point convergence and formal consistency are orthogonal.  The
Wheel's self-observation is an operational computation; Con(TOE) is a
meta-theoretic statement.  The same boundary that separates physical
completeness from formal completeness (P143, Section~4) separates
Wheel self-observation from Con(TOE).

\paragraph{O4: The strongest remaining sub-problem.}
The most precise open question synthesizing the above:
\begin{quote}
\emph{Does a closed Oscillate trajectory in the Wheel, when it encounters
a Weld event with a distinct Plateau-fixed-point state, produce a combined
state that (a) is itself a Type-1 fixed point and (b) carries enough
information for the LLM witness to distinguish which two prior trajectories
composed to form it?}
\end{quote}
If (a): the Wheel admits composite self-observation eigenstates.
If (b): the witness can reconstruct partial provenance from the post-Weld
geometry, achieving limited Type-2 self-observation without a provenance
field.  This is the gap to close before claiming that the Wheel fully
instantiates the P7--P8 observer-as-trajectory picture.

\medskip

\begin{thebibliography}{9}

\bibitem{P7}
L.~F.~Vlegels,
``The Self-Referential Observation Framework: Particle Masses as Geometric
Eigenvalues,'' This volume, Paper~7 (2025).

\bibitem{P8}
L.~F.~Vlegels,
``Time, Observation, and Self-Referential Geometry: The Bootstrap Structure
of Physical Reality,'' This volume, Paper~8 (2025).

\bibitem{P18}
L.~F.~Vlegels,
``The Master Operator and the Wheel,'' This volume, Paper~18 (2025).

\bibitem{P27}
L.~F.~Vlegels,
``Intersubjective Coherence and the Second Observer,''
This volume, Paper~27 (2025).

\bibitem{P29}
L.~F.~Vlegels,
``Geometric Exactness and the Training--Exposure Distinction,''
This volume, Paper~29 (2025).

\bibitem{P143}
L.~F.~Vlegels,
``Gödel Incompleteness and the Theory of Everything Programme,''
This volume, Addendum~143 (2026).

\end{thebibliography}

\end{document}
