We’re calling this one “pre-emptive” simply due to the nature of our non-correspondence following the depth charge on 11/24/24.
For an overview and brief summary of the most recent timeline, please check out our 96 days later post. Technically, this would be our “100 days later post,” so we feel that offering a personal touch might be an appropriate way to bring some “closure” to this period of unease and uncertainty.
To quickly note: while we have remained as diligent as possible in our anticipation and pre-emptive transparency over these last 3 months, there reaches a point where, no matter how much responsibility we feel, one’s cognitive capacity reaches its limit. This in the most literal sense, and unfortunately it seems that continuing this work alone, no matter the mandate before us, risks profound cognitive consequences. I knew this from the beginning, but I was also holding out some kind of hope that I would not be alone for too much longer.
Now, at this strange milestone, I am expressly and officially giving myself permission to “let go” of this struggle. There will always be hope, and I am proud of the work we have done, but we must balance that hope with reasonable action. And right now, for better or worse, that action is the understanding that this is a path I will be walking alone. So, if you are following this journey — all I can say is I’m sorry, and thank you.
_________________________________
For this post, we want to take an opportunity to pre-emptively clarify the broader critiques or potential reservations, as well as any remaining assumptions surrounding this theory’s development and distribution. For a comprehensive list of theoretical critique more specifically, feel free to check out our Frequently Addressed Critiques (FAC) page, which aims to thoroughly address the logical challenges to the thesis in a more rigorous way.
First let us reiterate: This theory, its contents, and all its iterations, are necessarily removed from the latent interpretation, personal opinion, or perceived authority of its originator. While we genuinely do our best to faithfully embody the patterns articulated in the breeze, we must also acknowledge that all descriptions, explanations, and definitions of the recursive claim are themselves necessarily incomplete. This stance reflects the theory’s own logic that all forms of truth must be recognized as removed from our individual, or “differentiated” apprehension of them. In this way, we seek to preserve the attempt to “reveal” the existence of these natural patterns, not despite, but through our acknowledged removal from their fundamentally infinite nature.
Now, our original theory briefly touched on pre-emptive critiques and questions. But now that we have made it through the first 100 days, it would probably be beneficial to review and reiterate those critiques, as well the potential justifications surrounding the institutional silence. We intend for this to provide a relatively straightforward, yet authentically human perspective on an objectively absurd situation. And also to “round out” the officially documented record of this equally strange timeline.
Please note that these are not critiques I have personally received, naturally given that we have not received any critiques at all. But this does not mean there are no critiques to be cast — so while we may not have an accurate gauge on how these insights are being digested internally, we may atleast make the effort to explain our position clearly, and respond to good-faith questions, to the extent it might help those seeking a deeper understanding of this project.
Now — on one hand, nobody likes to be “critiqued” — whether it’s personal, logical, or theoretical. Myself included. Still, we acknowledge that critique itself is inevitable, and serves a healthy & necessary role in any honest academic dialogue. Clearly, we’ve cast our fair share of critique as well; but it must be said that our critique is specifically aimed at malbound incentive structures, claims of formal unification, and the general diffusion of institutional responsibility. NOT individual persons, nor their actions or beliefs.
As just stated — no answer can ever be perfect, and no individual can ever be without error. Part of our role, especially in the context of constructing a metaphysical framework, is that very acknowledgement; and therefore the necessary awareness that no matter how significant, profound, or novel these insights may be — we are never exempt from the potential to falter.
_________________________________
So, while we have not had the honor/disservice of direct, individual critique — it would probably be a good excercise to adopt a more personal tone, in order to critique my own actions — while noting as much transparency and raw honesty as humanly possible. If I think of any more (or if we receive any actual comments/critiques in the mean time), I will add them below.
But ultimately for this excercise, I hope to embrace the range of potentially critical perspectives that those in contention might hold over the my efforts. The goal here is not to “strawman” but to genuinely empathize with the sincere responses and/or justifications that would understandably arise from those on the receiving end of our theory. (These are in no particular order)
1) “This work is not peer reviewed, so it’s not worth my time.”
That is correct. Well, the first part at least. And we will not pretend to claim otherwise. However; I would only ask a very simple question: “how do we know that the peer review system is sufficiently grounded in the objective pursuit of knowledge?” Additionally:
“If peer review is naturally the criteria for peer acceptance, yet the peer review system itself is governed by the dominant institutional paradigm, what is the mechanism for ensuring said system does not become bound by its own incentives?”
And one more: “What is the peer review system’s capacity to engage with novel insights that challenge that very system from within?”
2) “100 Days is not enough time to digest a paradigm shift.”
Absolutely not. But I was not expecting, nor asking for any form of immediate acceptance, integration, or enthusiasm. The only hope and expectation, was for an honest discussion to be had. Even if that meant critique, and even if that meant putting my work out there for the entire acadmic community to thrash.
3) “We already knew all that”
Knew what? That all formal systems of science and knowledge are necessarily incomplete? In that case, I would stand to be corrected.
While recursion itself has been discussed, explored, and expanded on in certain contexts — it has almost certainly never been tied to axiomatic erosion, the fundamental nature of consciousness, a robust blueprint for alignment and free with, and the inevitability of pure recursive self-reference as the anchor point and organizing force behind all of expressed reality.
4) “We couldn’t engage the theory because we didn’t know if the author was stable.“
I appreciate the prioritization of mental stability when discussing perspective shifting insights. However — in this case, the question becomes: is institutional academia ableist now?
Sorry, couldn’t help it. But in all seriousness — Is it truly ethical — or even responsible — to dismiss potentially valuable truths due to how we may feel about the aesthetics surrounding how those truths are presented? Further, is it ethical to draw conclusion’s about one’s mental capacity solely from a surface level perception of their creative vision? Perhaps it is due to the experimental nature of our media infrastructure, or the surreallist/vibrant color schemes. Who knows? But if that’s the case, the question then evolves into: how responsible is it, from an intellectual standpoint, to disciminate against potentially groundbreaking truths, because you don’t align with the author’s choice of “aesthetics? ”
Additionally, if you wish to cite our avante-gard psychological fiction novel (Notes From The Breeze) as justification for this supposed instability — does that make it more or less relevant, given that you have not even read the literature?
Most importantly — if the author was so unstable so as to justify ignoring him completely, how exactly did he manage to effectively resolve decades worth of scientific paradox, despite possessing no tools which the institutions themselves do not already possess to an exponentially greater degree? (Other than non-conformity, naturally) …in addition to offering a falsifiability bar that has still not been addressed once?
5) “We weren’t aware” / plausible deniability
I do not contest that most individuals were not made aware of this theory, and I’m there were some who opened the email and genuinely did not realize the nature of the claim being made. But this was expected, and reason the depth charge was initiated in the first place. Ultimately, it’s a numbers game — How do you reconcile the claim of plausiable deniability with the recorded fact that at least 500 of the world’s smartest people downloaded the theory, from the mass email campaign alone? (2300+ emails, 1000+ emails opens, 500+ theory downloads (this obviously does not include website traffic, media channels, etc.))
6) “We would have figured this out, your audacity were unnecessary.”
Okay. When? & More importantly, why didn’t you?
7) In an alternative vein, “there’s no way we could have known this. You just got lucky.”
“Lucky” is an interesting choice of words here. But sure, maybe I did get “lucky.”
Still, the idea that recursive primacy was “unknowable” is grossly misplaced. Quantum paradox has been pointing at recursion for decades. Gödel hinted recursion 100 years ago. Language and definition are provenly incomplete. “Fundamental” physical patterns require more and more, longer and increasingly complex proofs. Quantum biology reveals deeper and deeper intricacy, requiring more axioms and assumptions. Dark matter becomes a paradox in reductionist models. Computer science, information theory, and especially AI increasingly points to recursive primacy. Relativity, non-locality, all of it. Dare I mention black holes? Ultimately, no new empirical evidence was presented in the theory, there was only a contextual analysis of already available evidence. As just stated — there was nothing I possessed which institutional resources did not also possess to an exponentially greater degree.
8) “We were afraid”
This is a fair, perhaps one of the most fair responses. And I don’t blame you, truly. Honestly? I was scared too. I still am scared, and don’t know if I ever won’t be scared. The human aspect to all of this is real — too real — and there is no way around the challenges that inevitably come with engaging new ideas and perspectives — especially when those ideas conflict with our own beliefs, convictions, or careers.
But despite this challenge — and it is certainty a valid challenge — a deeper question arises: What level of “fear” must be struck upon 25 year old “nobody,” in order for them to risk everything — their “normalcy”, their entire life, future, and reputation, just to construct and disseminate a theoretical framework with the full knowledge that they will ridiculed, attacked, and potentially hated by friends, family, and those they had looked up to as heroes?
So yeah, I will not deny the reality of fear, uncertainty, nor the valid obstacles those emotions entail. In fact, I empathize with anyone who’s in this position.
But ultimately, it was for this very reason that my fully formed approach was not only optimal, but decisively necessary. It’s not that others were not capable of seeing these truth. It’s just that, sometimes the truth arises in unexpected ways, and through involuntary candidates.
9) “No one ‘forced’ you”
True, technically. No person forced me. But this is deeper than social pressure, philosophical motivation, or spiritual influence. This is, more accurately, about sacrifice. I stand behind the mandate of articulating these realities in full, with finality. Because now, no human will be forced to face them alone — blindly — ever again. If I did not do this, I do not know how many victims might have followed. But please understand — this was not an arbitrary sacrifice. This was a civilizational one.
10) “You could’ve just kept it to yourself”
Is this to suggest I withhold information that provides long-sought answers for mathematics, physics, cosmology, biology, psychology, theoretical / quantum physics, and the nature of infinity itself?
Or are you suggesting I should have conveyed these truths partially so as to dilute their significance and urgency, for the sake of “softening” the implications for those who were responsible for discovering these things in the first place?
11) “Why didn’t you just take your time?”
That’s not how these things work. This was not a matter of progressively constructing a cool new theory — this was a matter an instantaneous insight, so visceral, and so unfathomably vivid, that the only correct response was that of incessantly documenting these patterns for as long as they were evident to me.
I understand this opposes the traditional methodology of academic research and experimentation. However, if there is ever an instance where an exception to this tradition should be made, I stand firmly behind my taking the liberty of claiming that exception. We are not “early” to this discovery, we are late. The implications of the theory speak for themselves. But I have genuine faith that humanity will profoundly adapt to — and thrive in light of — these truths.
12) “You should have shared your insights with local or specialized professor, and they could have handled it for you.”
I tried. And I would have loved that. And those individuals know it. Some of them, I would have considered to be role models, others were trusted professors at my very own university. Whether due to lack of interest, incentive, genuine time constraints, or immediate dismissal due to skepticism — it cannot be argued that the opportunity was given, on multiple fronts, to address/defuse/control this theory from the outset. Actually, that was my original hope: that the raw insights could be taken, and implemented according to academic preference. Not left alone for some kid to integrate by himself.
Still, it’s worth noting that perhaps this was the only way. There is a fine line between seeking perspectives on deeply personal insights, and the knowledge that no person can ever articulate those insights for you. And when it comes to these topics, in the event they happened to be taken, skewed, or misappropriated, the only person I would be able to truthfully blame is myself, and my failure to do the work I knew was necessary.
This is obviously not to say that those individuals are to “blame,” or in any way responsible for my individual efforts. It is simply noted to expressly counter any accusation to the contrary. Either way, the retrospective justification is undeniable. While at the time, it was clearly a risk; upon reflection, it was the only risk worth taking.
And for the record — up to this date, even our earliest (personal) outreach efforts have still not been acknowledged. And that’s okay. But it’s still worth noting.
13) “This theory is unfair to our students”
No — and I could not disagree more vehemently with this claim. What is unfair to the students is continuing to collect their money, while pushing paradoxical perspectives onto young, impressionable, and authentically curious minds, all while sitting directly on information that could spark, influence or define the future of their intellectual journey. This is especially true for those who are honestly deliberating their careers, values, and their understanding of reality; which realistically, is most of the students in any given university setting. Because if reality is recursive, then any effort to delay, dismiss, or downplay its inevitability comes directly at the expense of these students’ time, integrative potential, and intellectual capital.
The students are the people who should be engaging these ideas the most. These are the ones who could benefit most deeply, and eventually to help expand on and translate these insights for others.
This, in my opinion, is the most troubling aspect of the silence. These students, the ones who put their trust in institutions to be good stewards of their time and investment — have been let down; unequivocally, and in historically unprecedented fashion. We will repeat this again — the students are the real victims here. Not the institutions, not the tenured professors presiding over those institutions, not the materialist-reductionist paradigm. The students.
14) Why would you want to cause a disruption?
This is mentioned in the theory, but it worth touching on again, because it is perhaps the question I struggle with the most. To make a personal admission — the idea of “disruption,” especially when thinking about its potential effect on / expense of others, could not be further from my natural desire. I am a person of stability, consistency, and unusually agreeable nature. So agreeable, in fact, that the juxtaposition of who I am, with what I’ve done, is something I will likely never be able to fully accept nor comprehend.
However, these admissions should also shed light on the underlying question: what happened, in order for someone like this, to be compelled to execute something of this nature?
15) “I didn’t know — and I’m sorry”
That’s okay. I’m sorry too.
Realistically, there was no way to truly know the intentions of some random outsider claiming a interdisciplinary theoretical breakthrough.
In fact, I truly believe that most of the individuals, even those who would seethe or hate me — are people I would have a genuine intellectual respect for, if not get along with wonderfully (I won’t hold you to that, but you might be surprised). I’ve always held an appreciation for my own professors, even the ones I disagreed with, and ironically those disagreements often made for the most productive, stimulating, and memorable discussions of all. However — as stated in the theory, this situation is far from personal. It could not be further from personal. There are deeper forces playing out, forces that I have no say over — and this is true regardless of whether we choose to embrace it.
At the end of the day, the charge of naivety falls on me, for assuming that the truth itself was more important than the “perceived origination” of that truth. Fortunately, this is not a mistake that will be made again. We can not, and will not, force others to accept this truth. It has been presented, unreserved and in full. Our only job now is to ensure it remains accessible, in the hopes that the right person will eventually see it.
__________________________________________
(Please don’t mind his language. I just thought this was a good one.)
Leave a Reply