This is this is wildly innaccurate. Ask your AI what Kastrup’s proposed solutions are to:
(1) Quantum Gravity
(2) The Cosmological Constant Problem
(3) The Hubble and S8 Tensions
These are the biggest problems in cosmology, and Kastrup has never mentioned any of them. He’s got nothing to say about the crisis in cosmology. And as already explained, Kastrup’s idealism clashes horribly with neuroscience, because it denies that brains are necessary for consciousness. The same problem applies to Goff’s panpsychism. Idealism and panpsychism have been around for centuries. If they were the right answer, we would not be in the current crisis – they’d have replaced physicalism decades ago. The reason this has not happened is that they create at least as many problems as they solve. Nagel is well aware of this, which is why Mind and Cosmos goes out of its way to explain why they do not appear to be the solution to the integrative problems that book is about.
The AI’s claim that Kastrup integrates with the Measurement Problem is also wildly innacurrate. The “solution” the AI claims is not recognised by anybody at all. This is basically an AI hallucination. AFAIK, even Kastrup himself doesn’t claim his theory solves the Measurement Problem.
As for Wheeler, 2PC is a essentially a completion of Wheeler’s work – it is not an alternative proposal but a fore-runner which predates the crisis is cosmology. If we could bring him back from the grave, Wheeler might well have come up with 2PC himself.
I would like to draw your attention to back to what I said the opening post. Even in your own AI analyses based on an inadequate (or in the most recent case, non-existent) understanding of the theory itself, the AI is saying that you should be paying attention to 2PC. But it seems you are being rather selective about which of the AI’s comments you take notice of, and which you choose to ignore. You see “it is an overstatement to say there are no other attempts at integration at this level” (which is false), but you don’t see “a theory of this type is desperately needed, because materialistic science artificially separates these massive problems” (which is true).
Now, maybe this is too harsh a judgement (I recognise that you are the one person who has engaged with 2PC at all on this forum), but if so then please respond to the AI analysis which is actually based on the most relevant part of the book, plus the 2R white papers. This one: AI analysis of the relationship between 2R and 2PC: “the defining ideological conflict of the post-postmodern era.” - General - Second Renaissance Forum. That thread is the one which comes closest to really exposing what is going on here. It is directly relevant to the opening post of this thread, and the subsequent discussion.