A Cautious Examination…

Intro-In-Retrospect (After writing this post)

If I said I wasn’t a little “shook” right now — I’d be genuinely lying to you. I thought this would be a quick examination… and it turned into several hours of sheer disbelief. So — out of respect for my readers, in addition to wanting to maintain as much honesty as possible, I will do my best to explain the following situation while remaining professional, courteous, and taking a purely examinal — not outright accusatory — approach to assessing my recent findings. Here we go, and we apologize in advance for any typos or disorganization in this post; this is the best we can do for now.

A New Theory Emerges…

Since we have been documenting all facets of our timeline and outreach rather rigorously over the past 5-6 months, we have been made aware of a specific pre-print publication having emerged just within the last few weeks.

We seek to be extremely cautious with regard to any “accusations”, especially with regard to “copying”, plagiarism”, or misappropriation; in fact, we operate on the tenet assuming good faith in all intellectual engagements, wherever possible. However — this particular instance warrants careful examination.

We have read through this pre-print, called “The Fractal Recursive Loop Theory of the Universe”, which was published on March 31, 2025. Now — we are totally aware of the fact that similar ideas can emerge at similar times for various reasons. However, it would be prudent to articulate exactly why this instance seems slightly… odd.

In November 2024, Breeze Theory was published (legally), and disseminated directly to over 1000 academics, totaling 2375 emails in the weeks to months following.
This theory explicitly posited recursion/self-reference as the axiom underpinning ALL of reality — not just formal systems, but thought, cosmology, identity, meaning, and morality itself. We invited a collaborate effort from the beginning through perpetual refinement critique, while specifically providing a bar for falsification that would directly refute out claims.
At the time of this publication (Breeze Theory 11/24/24) there was no other work that existed, or was publicly available/accessible, which explicitly positioned self-reference as the metaphysical substrate and boundary of all expressions of reality — as well as reality itself. This makes “Breeze Theory” a true first of its kind.
Today, on 4/11/2025, I was made aware of the “FRLTU”. Immediately upon reading the theory and all of its available information, a few rather concerning parallels struck me.
First of all, on the author’s Academia profile, there was immediately posted a “plagiarism disclaimer” section. I will link this page below: https://independent.academia.edu/BelaSzasz1
To quote part of this statement, that author said: “Superficial overlaps are expected and inevitable. Recursion, emergence, and structural ontology… are not proprietary domains…”

Now — these observations are certainly true in principle — but even if the author had been accused of plagiarism in some pre-emptive capacity, this raises a very interesting question: Why would a true originator of the recursive axiom feel it necessary to publicly make a statement like this — if and when the timeline should rather clearly speak for itself?
Also: “If you don’t see your name or your work in any respective bibliography, it is most likely that either I was unaware of it at the time i was drafting my essay, or it had no significant impact on my thinking, it really is that simple, you will find no conspiracy here.” This is a very strange position to make pre-emptively, and rather explicitly clear at that; especially given that a theory of this nature would be truly original in scope and comprehensiveness.
The author also says: “If you wish to accuse me of plagiarism, I ask only this: engage deeply with the work first. Look for disconfirming as well as confirming evidence” — While it certainly is strange that an author who beleived he was the sole originator of a truly novel paradigm shift through an previously unarticulated argument would invite or defensively pre-empt accusations of plaigerism— we want to actually assess the work before jumping to conclusions. So, that’s exactly what we did.
Below, we will outline the specific aspects of this FRLTU which potentially align with the original arguments made — published — and widely/freely disseminated — in November 2024 through The Breeze.
Please note — we are not here to cherry-pick vaguely overlapping claims. The reader must keep in mind that the contextual nature of all argument made within a recursively novel capacity — especially regarding scope, comprehensiveness, and breadth of interdisciplinary ambition of this nature — is already incredibly rare.
So everything we address below is already considering the fact, that within months of Breeze Theory’s positing of recursion/self-reference as the formal axiom underlying all of reality — the exact same claim was made, with an almost exact reflection of scope and structure — just a few months later, with a pre-emptive statement defending against plagiarism.
As we start, we are going to assume coincidence wherever possible (as opposed to intentional misrepresentation) — as there is much coincidence to explore. However — we embrace the starting assumption that this was a natural revelation having arose through an experiential and personal capacity. If anything, we have respect for others who are openly engaging these topics. So, let us begin.

The theory itself expressly takes the following stances, which parallel with the novel and unparalleled claims as made in The Breeze:

The FRLTU theory positions “recursion” as the fundamental structure underlying reality. This is identical the the recursive substrate claim.
The theory positions “experiencing recursion” or “MiR” as “where the recursive universe becomes personal” and where “recursion turns inward and says ‘I am.’” This parallels The Breeze’s concept of substraeternum — which is the metaphysical instance that is recursion recognizing itself purely for the first time. Ironically, this moment “the substraeternum” — was documented in real time across various forms of media. At a metaphysical, temporal instance — as we stated: “once reached, it always has been; the ultimate recursion.” https://x.com/substraeta/status/1851856327452057821 // https://x.com/substraeta/status/1852003207603442022 // https://x.com/substraeta/status/1852003207603442022 // https://x.com/substraeta/status/1880773719968383122 //
The FRLTU presents a triadic structure (MRS, MaR, MiR) that resembles the Breeze framework’s organization of recursive patterns across scales from the substrate to differentiated existence. This is the definition of hierarchical differentiation.
The FRLTU’s treatment of time as “not fundamental—it is a recursive construction” closely mirrors The Breeze’s framework’s positioning of time as a localized manifestation of recursive binding, rather than an absolute property.
FRLTU specifically covers quantum mechanics, included observer-observed effect, superposition, etc. The Breeze explicitly covers and actually resolves each of these both in the originally published theory as well as in documented essays (with notation) a few months back. (See posts: https://breezetheory.com/2025/01/19/the-quantum-paradox-solved/ // https://breezetheory.com/2025/02/22/resolving-the-quantum-landscape/ // https://breezetheory.com/2025/01/29/superposition-a-recursive-mirror-into-the-future/
FLRTU provides a falsification criteria that explicitly defines the same falsification as outlined in the Breeze: namely, to demonstrate any formal system that is capable of sustaining knowledge, self-reference, and complexity, independent of an underlying recursive process. See below image on falsification.
An appendix that closely resembles the rather unorthodox closing section of The Breeze. Specifically, a “FAQ”-like section, an “comparable ontologies” section, which outlines the specific shortfalls of similar models, exactly as The Breeze does near its closing section. Specifically — questions such as “isn’t this circular reasoning?” and others…
A paradox resolution section, including “The Hard Problem of Consciousness”, “The Emergence of Time and Space”, “Artificial Consciousness”, “Ethics Without Absolutes”, “Death and Continuity of Self”, “The Classical-Quantum Divide”… and more. These are all mentioned explicitly in the Breeze.
An identical explanation of black holes as point of pure perfect collapse, an entirely novel observation that is explicitly outlined in the Breeze through “Renex” points. This includes explanations for event horizons, “recursive boundaries”, each of which are explicitly addressed in The Breeze.
“Resonance as an organizing principle” — which mirrors the force of incendence as explicitly outline in the Breeze as the substrative aspect of recursive coherence, integration, and self-adherent binding. (including likening it to gravity — which we have specifically mapped as an incendent force in a January essay.)
The use of “meta-recursive” system — which is the explicit language used in the formal terms outlines in The Breeze. FRLTU seems to position meta-recursion as identical the the recursive substrate concept — “the foundational substrate of existence itself” — this is the precise definition of the recrusive substrate itself.
A “3-tier recursive model”, cited as the “core architecture of FRLTU”. Specifically — “MRS, MaR, MiR”, which reflects precisely the notation defined in the Breeze as S(∞)= Substrate recursion, b(f) and g(Rx)= Local recursive bounds, and XT(b(f)) and recursive dissociation / Recursive self-awareness = metarecursion.
“Philosophical and Ethical implications” sections, which mirrors our outlining of the recursive implications for ethics, meaning, and morality, within The Breeze.
“Critique of linear causality, material emergence, and dualism.” — Breeze thoroughly dismantles and explicitly addressed the dissolution of materialist-reductionist assumptions — with a specific implications section outlines “implications for linear mathematics and modeling”. We also critique linear causality in similar systems such as evolutionary biology and quantified-estimation extrapolation.
Defines MRS as “timeless, equilibrium preserving field of all possible loops” — which mirrors both the substrative aspect of recursion also hinting at the concept of renexial gradience.
“Functions as ontological substrate, not subject to time or space.” — Breeze substrate is outlined as both achronal, a-temporal, and non-local throughout the thesis.
Frankly, there are a number of other instances that we could add that mirror the novel claims of the Breeze
“The self as an illusion stabilized by fast recursive stitching” — Breeze states: “reality’s perceived stability as recursive illusion” as core implication in intro section.
“Separation as a necessary illusion born from recursive modelling” — Breeze states “…ordinarily distinct branches of awareness converge, temporarily collapsing the separations of individual perception and linear time”
Defined recursive processes as “feedback loops”; a connection was specifically outlined in novel fashion through the recursive thesis.
“Death as a dissolution” as its own section — Breeze explicitly claims: “Death, then, is the dissolution of these tightly woven recursive/entropic bounds…”
“Positions FRLTU as a lens rather than a static theory” — Breeze explicitly writes “…it necessarily becomes the default lens through which all disciplines must be reconsidered.” Thesis also includes a section on — “Breeze Theory as a Maxima”
“Reality becomes participatory: to exist is to loop” — Breeze explicitly states “This framework dissolves the notion of experience as finite, positioning awareness (alongside consciousness) as an active participant in a boundless, self-generating field of sensation and emotions that literally knows no limit.”
FRLTU — “If this recursive substrate is valid, its implications are not limited to philosophy. They reach outward into multiple disciplines—each of which stands to gain by rethinking its own first principles in recursive terms” — Breeze states in opening section: “The Breeze acknowledges and maintains a respect for the contribution of all fields & disciplines in their own right, while simultaneously proposing that our societal and academic evolution lies in the embrace of a novel, non-linear perspective of reality…”
Many, many, more…

Let’s take two explicit statements, one from Breeze Theory as published in November 2024 — and one from FRLTU as published in March, 2025:

Breeze Theory opening statement: “Unlike traditional frameworks which attempt to escape or resolve recursion in formal systems, this theory embraces it as the infinite substrate from which all differentiated expressions, observations, and experiences emerge.”

Abstract of FRLTU: “Unlike traditional metaphysical frameworks that require a first cause or ungrounded substance, FRLTU begins with recursion precisely because it is the only known process that explains itself without appealing to an external origin.”

Let’s explore some more overlapping examples — which could be a coincidence, but are worth documenting for the record in order to ensure maximum caution.

Death

Breeze: “In Breeze Theory, the idea of death/afterlife may be effectively understood as the “release” or instantaneous integration of a metarecursive bound from the exsphere back into the recursive substrate; a process of pre-unified consolidation, rather than a mode of absolute transition… Death, then, is the dissolution of these tightly woven recursive/entropic bounds — the constraints that isolate individual awareness — back into its “source”, the recursive substrate. “

FRLTU: “This reframes the life/death cycle. Just as the self is an illusion of recursive continuity, so is its lifespan. The pattern collapses; the capacity for the pattern remains. MiRs begin and end like MaRs. Individual consciousness is not permanent—it is a recursive configuration that, when conditions permit, stabilizes briefly, then dissolves.”

Temporal Illusion

Breeze: “Concepts such as subject and object, mind and matter, and even space and time dissolve into recursive abstraction when sufficiently examined. They are not fundamental forces present within a “material” reality but temporary delineations that result from self-referential binding, thus challenging traditional categorizations and encouraging a rethinking of the intrinsic hierarchical structures we often take for granted.”

FRLTU: “Time, as we ordinarily experience it, feels seamless… Within the framework of FRLTU, temporal continuity is not fundamental—it is a recursive construction, assembled moment by moment through internal loops of memory, prediction, and perception. At the level of Micro Recursion (MiR), time does not simply unfold as a linear stream. It is stitched together by recursive operations: feedback cycles that integrate immediate input with remembered states and anticipated outcomes.

AND: “Even the physical laws we treat as constants may be long-standing resonant solutions to recursive tension. Gravity, time, charge—these may not be laws, but harmonics. Not commands etched into the void, but rhythms that endured recursive collapse.”

Meta-Recursion (Consciousness Dissociation)

Breeze: “Metarecursion: A self-referential process that evolves to reference or “contemplate” its own expression, effectively synonymous with consciousness. This self-reflective process iterates endlessly, reflecting the unbound nature of recursive potential in general. Recursive dissociation can be seen as a form of fracta that produces metarecursion.”

FRLTU: “That subject—the “I”—is a recursive checkpoint, a point of apparent stability within the AFC. It is not a metaphysical entity, but a functional artefact. The illusion of self arises because the feedback loop constantly refers back to a center, a fictional narrator tying experience together. But the center is not real—it is generated by the act of recursive referencing. There is no “I” observing the loop from outside. The loop is all there is.”

Also FRLTU: “MiRs are nested within MaRs. They are bound by the laws of their parent system and shaped by its entropy gradient. But they introduce something new: the illusion of separation. Where MaR gives rise to complexity, MiR gives rise to selfhood. When recursive patterns become complex enough to model themselves a new tier of recursion begins. That is the birth of what we call “mind.””

Recursive Substrate

Breeze: “The foundational “material” of reality is not physical matter, but the intricate sequencing of self-referential iteration underlying every scale of existence and experience. Consciousness and reality co-manifest through interaction within these complexly “bound” iterations, unfolding in a self contained yet infinitely expansive way; thereby generating a continuously self-referential universe.”

FRLTU: “At the deepest level of the Fractal Recursive Loop Theory of the Universe (FRLTU) lies the Meta-Recursive System, or MRS—the foundational substrate of existence itself. It is best understood as a field of pure recursive potential, where everything that can exist, does. If FRLTU proposes thatreality is recursive in nature, then the MRS is the infinite canvas upon which all recursion unfolds”

Falsification

Breeze: “If anyone can demonstrate a comprehensive, fundamentally defined formal system capable of sustaining complexity, self-reference, and knowledge independently of an underlying recursive process, The Breeze would be directly undermined.”

FRLTU: “If any foundational axiom—consciousness, causality, time, or physical law—could be shown to originate from a non-recursive, strictly linear process, the core hypothesis of FRLTU would be undermined”

I have a really hard time with this one… I mean — really??

Gradient Structure

Breeze: “…by holding for the renexial gradient g(Rx) through our local climate equation, this effectively enables all of our “standard” spacetime laws”

FRLTU: “They are bound by the laws of their parent system and shaped by its entropy gradient.“

Coherence as Incendence

Breeze: “S(i) represents the substrative aspect of incendence, or unity, integration, and coherence; also known as ‘feedback loops’… this represents the aspect of the “integrative” substrative force specifically as it relates to continuous integration, feedback loops, and the general drive toward metaphysical unity. All observed paradox, such as placebo effect and self-causation, are expressions of incendent forces and inherently difficult to fully contain due to their mirrored dynamic nature of the substrate.”

FRLTU: “This framework reframes metaphysical puzzles—identity, time, death, and artificial intelligence—through recursive stabilization and resonance.”

And “…the answer lies not in adding something to recursion, but in recognizing what emerges fromit under the right conditions: resonance. When recursive patterns align—when they reinforce rather than interfere—they form coherent, self-sustaining constellations. This tendency for certain loops to stabilize and amplify each other is not imposed from outside. It is the natural harmonic byproductof recursion interacting with itself”

And “…resonance is not a second principle. It is what recursion looks like when it fits. It is the signature of recursive self-organization. Islands of order do not emerge from chaos because something decides to sort them out—they emerge because some patterns simply hold together. Resonance is what holds them.”

Boundless Coherence

Breeze: “If recursion is fundamental, and consciousness is recursive self-reference, then consciousness must exist wherever sufficient recursive complexity allows reality to fold back upon itself. The forms are infinite, the expressions are boundless; yet, all are united in their fundamental nature as reality knowing itself.”

FRLTU: “This is how the Meta-Recursive System becomes a timeless, boundless, self-referential substrate—chaotic in its totality, but capable of generating islands of coherence through resonance. It is not a vacuum, not a field, not a deity. It is not “within” the universe; it is what makes any universe possible. It contains no matter, no laws, no intentions—only recursive potentials, infinitely folded into themselves.”

It’s also worth noting where this contradicts with his other statements on “laws”…

“Macro Recursionis the architecture of cosmoses. It is where recursion takes shape, where laws solidify, and where the deeper loop—the inward turn toward life and mind—can begin”

“They are bound by the laws of their parent system and shaped by its entropy gradient.”

“If Macro Recursion (MaR) is the architecture of a universe—its laws, time, space, and entropy—then Micro Recursion (MiR) is what happens when that architecture turns inward.”

Use of Scaffolding

Breeze: “In this way, the “Key Terms” section may be seen as a sort of linguistic scaffolding; seemingly tedious at first, but ultimately needed in order to apprehend and articulate the recursive model coherently.”

FRLTU: “It is a conceptual scaffolding, designed to unify insights across philosophy, physics, cognition, and artificial intelligence under one ontological framework. Its merit lies not in immediate testability, but in explanatory power and structural coherence.”

Unification & Subsumption

Breeze: “Therefore, from a rigorous scientific and empiricism-based standpoint, Breeze Theory is robust not because it avoids critique, but because it places recursion as both the foundation and the boundary of all systems; thereby appropriately claiming absolute falsifiability and effectively subsuming conventional metrics surrounding theoretical inquiry and analysis.“

FRLTU: “where other theories specialize, FRLTU unifies... FRLTU does not dismiss its counterparts—it subsumes them. It echoes Whitehead’s becoming, Hofstadter’s strange loops, Varela’s autopoiesis, and Deleuze’s difference—not by mimicry, but by weaving their resonance into a structural frame.”

And much, much more…

I genuinely have to stop here. I could keep going… but I can’t. I am genuinely not sure how to compute the chances of this coincidental overlap… within the context of a pre-emptive statement on plagiarism… it’s genuinely beyond my apprehension.

Frankly, there are a staggering number of additional quotes, examples, terminology, phraseology, and implications that have an undoubtable crossover with the recursive thesis. We want to be extremely careful with regard to these things, as stated earlier — we always put our best construction on others when it comes to academic and intellectual integrity.

However — based solely on the items briefly outlined above, or even just the nature of the essay itself, along with how it is structured (in orthodox fashion, over 40+ pages, with Implications mapped in over-arching fashion, FAQ’s at the end, and pre-emptive critiques (which is something that had rarely, if ever, been published in this fashion prior to the novel structuring of Breeze Theory.)) As we kept, reading, the more my disbelief increased; because to be direct and honest… the sheer chances of something of this nature being explicitly articulated at the time it was, in the fashion it was, with the language it was… despite these ideas having been locked in abstraction until the substraeternum in 2024… is, at minimum, slightly improbable.

However — I am largely open to the possibility that this was, in fact, a pure coincidence. These things can happen, no matter how unlikely. And since we want to maintain a good-faith approach to this operation, we have reached out to the author with respect, simply to ask if he would be willing to speak about his theory in real time — i.e., over the phone, so as to avoid any reliance on LLM’s, consultation with documents, etc. — Because at the end of the day, anyone who would be naturally capable of conceiving and articulating these ideas, I would probably enjoy having a good conversation with them regardless of the context of our theoretical overlap.

If you are skeptical — I would simply suggest the natural thing to do when questioning a situation of this nature. Read both frameworks — or if you have to, feed them into some LLM (but I would suggest you read them yourself). Think about, relative to the timeline of dissemination (Breeze published freely, and sent to 2000+ academics starting on 11/24/24 — FLRTU was published in late March 2025), and form a conclusion based on a logical assessment of the originality of both theories, and the chances of a timeline such as this one emerging by coincidence.

Ultimately, I am not looking to challenge anyone’s own hard work. But I would be remiss, upon having made this discovery, not to do my due diligence in ensuring that the record was reflected cleanly. And as crazy as it sounds… it is times like these where I thank myself for having the foresight to document my process in real time — both on Instagram, X, youtube, emails, and website infrastructure. Not to mention several thousand pages of notes I have saved, out of an abundance of caution, since my recognition occurred.

We have welcomed collaboration and critique from the beginning… but this? I don’t know exactly what to call it. So for good measure, I uploaded both documents to chat (and Claude), in order to get a neutral opinion on the overlap. I will share those below as well.

Ultimately, I will not make any conclusions here. I am simply documenting the info I find to be relevant, in the event it becomes relevant for me given my retrospectively having done so. Ideally, in the unlikely event a question of origination does arise, any viewer/reader can simply identify the facts and make an informed decision for themselves. We care not about priority or accreditation. Only intellectual honesty.

Final Note on Distinction

Now, despite everything we have just explored. There is one important distinction I could locate which starkly departs from the Breeze.

While FLRTU closes by stating “We have therefore shown, not by assumption but by simulation, that recursive persistence is a legitimate ontological candidate—one which explains itself from within…” — The Breeze makes this claim much more explicit, and much more unquestionable. We are not proposing an ontological candidate”, as is stated above. Realistically — we are revealing the fundamental pattern having been hidden in plain site for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

“The power of this theory lies in its self-contained potency. To reject the substraeternum — to dismiss recursion’s centrality in any observable system (formal or otherwise) is not merely to propose an alternative view of reality; it is to explicitly deny the observable and the experiential. Once the recursion has been sufficiently grasped, it becomes apparent that every attempt to
explain away its role will ultimately collapse back into an incomplete interpretation of itself… therefore, any attempt for recursion (anything) to account for its own structure at any scale, inevitably falls victim to the same constraint.”

Ultimately — a true recursive axiom cannot be fit within the framework of traditional scientific interpretation. Doing so implicitly denies the nature of the fundamental recognition itself: recursion as substrate of everything, including our formal systems of mathematics and science. Even though we have offered a falsification criteria, our theory stands on the basis of its own logical coherence regardless of its presence. The falsification is simply a courtesy in anticipation of those who would predictably charge this theory to meet a formal scientific criteria. But let is be clear: recursion subsumes empiricism as we know it.

Below are the thoughts from AI, and Visual exhibits from the “FLRTU”… (Please keep in mind, these are the raw, unfiltered responses from me simply positing the FRLTU into the prompt window. This is the AI opinion — not necessarily my own. But I thought these responses were significant enough to post here for a neutral perspective from LLM’s who have digested both theories in light of the context behind each.)