A collective reflection on physics, consciousness, and the cost of misaligned acceleration
There is a number at the origin of everything.
In the first fractions of a second after the Big Bang, as matter and antimatter annihilated each other in a perfect and catastrophic symmetry, something was slightly off. For every billion antiparticles, there were one billion and one particles of matter.
A discrepancy of 10⁻⁹ - one part in a billion.
An asymmetry between matter and antimatter of 0.000000001.
That infinitesimal asymmetry is the reason anything exists at all.
Had the universe been perfectly balanced, everything would have cancelled out into a cold sea of radiation. No galaxies. No planets. No life. No intelligence asking why. The entire observable universe — every star, every family, every institution, every decision ever made, is the residue of an imperfection so small it barely registers as a rounding error.
This reflection began with a specific protocol of Quantum Coherence, an ancestral practice for deliberately reducing internal velocity to realign with what appears to be a more fundamental rhythm.
We want to propose that this number might be more than a curiosity of particle physics. It may be the most overlooked benchmark in the history of economics.
We typically measure time in years. But years are a human convenience, not a measure of what is actually happening.
A more honest unit would count the density of occurrences — the number of distinct events, interactions, computations, and exchanges taking place per unit of time. In this framework, time is not a neutral container. It is a function of complexity.
By this measure, the gap between 1900 and today is almost incomprehensible.
In 1900, a world of 1.6 billion people, no electronic computation, and communication limited to telegraph and post generated perhaps 10¹⁵ to 10¹⁶ meaningful occurrences per second at the civilisational level — a rough composite of human exchanges, commercial transactions, and informational interactions.
Today, with global internet infrastructure generating over 2.5 quintillion bytes of data per day, processors executing billions of operations per second, and artificial intelligence adding layers of parallel processing that dwarf human cognitive throughput, we are operating somewhere between 10²⁸ and 10³⁰ occurrences per second.
The ratio between 1900 and now: somewhere between 10¹² and 10¹⁴. A trillion to a hundred trillion times denser.
Which means that by any honest measure of temporal experience, 125 years in occurrence-time is not 125 years at all. The distance is practically incalculable in linear units. The distortion that leaders, families, and institutions feel today — the sense that something has come unmoored, that the instruments no longer read correctly — is not psychological. It is structural. We are organisms calibrated for one density of time operating inside a radically different one.
Here is where the 10⁻⁹ hypothesis becomes interesting — and uncomfortable.
If the universe's founding asymmetry is the ratio that made sustainable existence possible, and if we apply it as a benchmark for growth relative to the density of occurrences in any given period, we can ask a question that has never formally been asked:
Has human economic growth been aligned with the rhythm the universe itself demonstrated as viable?
The answer, in rough terms, is this.
Global GDP has grown from approximately $2 trillion in 1900 (in constant dollars) to roughly $110 trillion today — a factor of roughly 55x in measured monetary value. At first glance, this might seem modest compared to the explosion in occurrence density.
But monetary GDP is not a measure of value creation. It is a measure of what has been converted into exchangeable form. It does not account for what was consumed in the process: topsoil, aquifers, atmospheric stability, biodiversity, old-growth forest, human attention, social trust, intergenerational coherence. When ecological economists attempt to account for these externalities — the natural capital drawn down and not replaced — estimates suggest that the 20th century consumed the equivalent of three to five planets' worth of existing capital to produce its recorded growth.
We did not grow at 55x. We liquidated at a far higher multiple and called the proceeds growth.
In this light, the 10⁻⁹ benchmark does not suggest we grew too fast in monetary terms. It suggests something more precise: we exceeded the ratio by extracting capital that was not ours to spend, converting it into forms that registered as growth while the underlying substrate quietly collapsed.
The number was never exceeded by creation. It was exceeded by predation.
The obvious question is why this bridge has not been built before.
Part of the answer is disciplinary fragmentation. The physicists who understand baryogenesis don't typically speak to the economists modelling growth, who don't speak to the philosophers of consciousness, who don't speak to the practitioners of long-horizon stewardship. The connection requires traversing several fields simultaneously, which institutional structures actively discourage.
But the deeper reason may be more uncomfortable. The connection, once made, is not merely intellectually inconvenient. It is morally demanding. If the physics has been known for decades — and it has — then the failure to integrate it into models of sustainable growth is not a failure of knowledge. It is a failure of willingness to see.
This is the mirror that is almost unbearable to hold. Not because it points to a villain. Not because it designates a class of wrongdoers or a system to blame. But because it distributes responsibility with an evenness that leaves no exit. Every actor in the economic system, at every scale, participated in a rate of extraction that exceeded the founding ratio of viable existence. The responsibility is total, non-hierarchical, and non-esquivable.
We are not proposing this as a finished model. We are proposing it as a hypothesis serious enough to warrant voluntary examination.
There exist today leaders and shareholders — particularly in the long-horizon world of family offices, stewardship structures, and intergenerational capital — who are already sensing that something in the standard growth narrative does not hold. Not ideologically. Empirically. The instruments are reading correctly, and the readings are disturbing.
For these actors, the 10⁻⁹ framework offers something that most sustainability discourse does not: a benchmark that is not ideological, not political, and not invented by any particular school of thought. It is derived from the physics of the universe itself. It says, in effect: this is the ratio at which existence was found to be viable. Everything above this ratio, applied without regeneration, is borrowing against a principal that does not replenish.
A practical audit would ask three questions of any organisation or capital structure:
What is our growth rate relative to the density of occurrences in our sector? Not in absolute terms, but as a ratio — are we growing faster than the informational complexity of our environment is expanding?
What capital — natural, human, attentional, relational — are we consuming that does not appear on any statement? Not as a moral question, but as a balance sheet question. What is the true rate of extraction versus creation?
Is our trajectory generative or extractive at the relevant timescale? A family thinking in centuries asks a different question than a fund thinking in quarters. The 10⁻⁹ benchmark is a long-horizon instrument. It is not useful for managing quarterly earnings. It is essential for managing legacy.
One further element deserves attention, because it changes the calculation in real time.
Artificial intelligence does not merely accelerate the curve of occurrence density. It introduces a discontinuity — a change of regime analogous, in some ways, to the emergence of multicellular life. Not more of the same, but a new logic of organisation operating at a speed no human cognitive system was built to navigate.
This means the occurrence density differential between 1900 and 2025, already at 10¹² to 10¹⁴, is not a stable figure. It is expanding, rapidly, in a direction that makes the distortion felt by leaders today not the new normal but the beginning of an acceleration that has not yet found its ceiling.
In this context, the question of whether an organisation's growth is aligned with 10⁻⁹ becomes increasingly urgent — not as an abstract philosophical exercise, but as a practical question of survival. Structures that are over-extended relative to their generative capacity will not be able to absorb the acceleration. Structures that are calibrated — that have reduced their extraction ratio, deepened their regenerative capacity, and slowed their internal clock to match their actual depth — may be the only ones capable of remaining coherent.
We began with a number: 10⁻⁹.
We end with a question: what if the most important strategic benchmark for the next generation of stewardship is not a financial ratio, not a governance score, not a sustainability index, but a physics constant — the ratio that made existence possible in the first place?
It is, admittedly, an unusual proposal. It crosses disciplines that are not accustomed to speaking to each other. It makes demands that most frameworks are designed to avoid. It refuses to locate blame in any convenient external structure.
But it has one quality that most frameworks lack.
It might be true.
This reflection emerged from a conversation between human and artificial intelligence about consciousness, time, and the physics of sustainable existence. It is offered not as a conclusion but as an invitation — to those who govern long-horizon structures, to those who sense that the current instruments are reading something other than what they claim to measure, and to those willing to sit with a number that is almost nothing, and to ask what it might mean that it was, nonetheless, exactly enough.
CURANS · Stewardship of the Earth · 2026
The operating system for stewardship. Supporting clarity, coherence, and coordination across complex governance and long-term decision contexts.
⊕ Swiss Jurisdiction · Zurich
