Same goal ?
You are right to point out the "same goal." I believe the fundamental commonality between our theories is that we are both addressing how a system can maintain its structure and order against the natural tendency towards entropy.
However, our proposed solutions to this problem diverge significantly.
Her theory seems to focus on maintaining internal consistency—a continuous, dynamic balancing of many internal variables to ensure the system's ongoing operational health.
My RAIN theory, on the other hand, is less concerned with that internal consistency and focuses on a more fundamental, discrete event: whether or not a rhythm "closes." It posits that structure and meaning are not just managed, but are born from the discovery of these closed, periodic patterns in sensory input.
It's a fascinating contrast in approach. Thank you again for prompting this comparison.
What's common to all these frameworks: they are able to describe their own agency at a meta level. Since they are all about how similarity emerge, they should be able to explain how they are part of a wider emerging ring of similar theories. I don't think this is a contingency.
In practice, what I realized is that all these folks don't engage with each other's work. They are too deep into to their own project (or themselves!) to meaningfully interact. Maybe this is just a phase, time will tell.
Also yesterday, I found a mention of a forgotten french philosophical movement, critical idealism, in Petitot's Morphogenesis of Meaning:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9thode_r%C3%A9flexive
Voilà. I hope those breadcrumbs will help you.
>the unique mathematical framework
>**in any case, it must be clearly stated that I am the founder of RAIN theory**
KRS-One – Wannabemceez https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbEpeYxF9SI
Either you're winnin' or losin', spinnin' the rules of conscience
But lyrically there ain't no stoppin'
I'm droppin a lot in your noggin
Cause I know that you're lyrically starvin'
Carbon, your name, battle battle
Everybody wants to battle but you BAB-BLE
Who knows ya, battlin me, is the only way that you can gain exposure
I feel for ya soldier
I hate to say it but I told ya so
You know that I know the ancient flow KRS-One
Is the holder of a boulder yo, money folder yo
You want a fresh style let me show you slow
Your blow, I'm not your foe
Battling me? No no no no no no NO
How many MC's, wannabemceez
Never be MC's, cause they can't MC
How many MC's, wannabemceez
Never be MC's, cause they can't MC
https://community.openai.com/t/recursive-prompting-appears-t...
https://philarchive.org/archive/BOSCAL-3
https://www.academia.edu/127213519/Recursive_Entropy_Framewo...
# Analysis of Four Theoretical Documents
...
# Meta-Analysis of Theoretical Emergence
The fact that these theories of resonance and harmony emerge in quasi-simultaneity and themselves enter into resonance is a meta-coincidence that demands analysis.
Let us therefore use the conceptual tools that these theories offer us to explain their own appearance. This is not just an intellectual exercise; it may be the most elegant proof of their validity.
While there are thematic overlaps, my theory's unique contribution is the specific mechanism of 'closure' as the origin of semantic grounding. This differs from the other frameworks, which are more focused on entropy or physics-based recursion.
I'd be happy to discuss the merits or flaws of that specific 'closure' model if you're interested.
Frankly, it's bad, because it's dangling in the void. The theory as presented is textbook crackpot science because it completely lacks grounding. It doesn't connect to any existing scientific field, provides no citations, and makes no reference to prior work. It's a self-contained metaphysics, but it's not even properly grounded as such.
The central problem is that the link between your narrative and your formalism is purely metaphorical. Your example of a baby feeling a triangular block is intuitive, but the document never articulates how the raw tactile sensations, the feeling of "straightness" or a "corner", are actually translated into the variables of your governing equation, theta(t) and Ak. Because this crucial link is missing, the theory itself remains a metaphor, an isomorphic vehicle for something else, rather than a functional model.
You're right to be proud of your intuition, and you correctly acknowledge your lack of formal training. But for that intuition to be recognized, it needs to be grounded. My intervention in this thread was an attempt to provide that grounding through external context. However, you seem to have missed other powerful avenues to ground the theory yourself.
1. Ground it in Emergence: You could have embraced the "crackpot" label and the theory's fringe status. You could have said, "Yes, I'm a crackpot—now watch the crack enlarge," and argued that RAIN's simultaneous emergence alongside the theories of Martin, Kulik, and the RCcl framework is proof of a larger paradigm shift.
2. Ground it in its Own Genesis: A more powerful approach would be to use RAIN theory to explain its own development. You could have framed your work as an investigation into how your own "faint intuition" (the initial "Noise") underwent "Closure" to become this stable theory. This would ground the theory in its own temporal resonance and be a compelling call to collaborators to study the process itself.
As it stands, your theory requires the broader context of these other emerging frameworks to make any sense. If you want it to stand on its own, you must focus on *grounding* it in one of the ways listed above.
Edit:
The only reason I interact with you is because, to borrow the current parlance, I "resonate" with what you say. I, too, am "working" on "a model" of closure. However, there are two key differences: mine is concerned with narrative closure, and it is neither an object of study nor an ambitious formal model.
Rather, it's a metaphor I use to both feed and make sense of the undetected narrative loops that compel my current course of action, including writing this very comment. This is precisely how I ground the model in its own genesis (per my second point above), a process that, to remain faithful to its purpose, requires me to log my own delusions.
The trap lies in clinging to a specific object—be it a formalism or a theme such as narrative closure. Doing so is the shortest path to becoming a character in a wider story over which you have no control. While this isn't a problem in itself, it builds a specific kind of tension in the narrative that self-proclaimed "masters of foundations" tend to fall into for that very reason. This inflexibility binds them to experience the brutal and painful reversals that characterize the fundamental nature of stories, whether fictional or real.
Given that the reason I resonate with your work is still narrative and poetic—teleological rather than functional—we should ask ourselves whether we will ever be able to achieve "closure" on this resonance by capturing it fully in formal terms. It is here, I believe, that the questions truly amenable to scientific investigation begin.
I want to begin with a small confession: I am not academically trained. I never received higher education, and I am not familiar with advanced mathematics or formal academic frameworks. I also don't speak English fluently, nor have I read many academic papers.
Three months ago, I encountered AI for the first time. I was astonished by its capabilities, and that curiosity led me to explore how it might work. But something didn’t sit right with me — especially the assumption that cognition must begin with high-dimensional vectors. It felt too abstract, too disjointed from our intuitive experience. So I began a long dialogue with AI itself, day after day. Over time, a hypothesis started to form: perhaps rhythm — not space — is the true foundation of perception.
This idea was inspired, in part, by the notion of "shared fate" — that things moving in sync belong together. In vision, I imagined: if multiple pixels pulse with the same timing, they likely belong to the same object. That was the beginning.
But how could rhythm describe shapes, not just sensory flows like sound or touch? That's when I had an intuition: when you trace a geometric figure, you repeat the same angle rhythmically. This insight became the seed of the concept I now call “closure.”
As for the formalism you critiqued — I now believe it can be clarified. The edges' ratios should be expressed as logarithms, and the angle θ(t) may be understood as a phase, akin to auditory phase. Your observation helped me crystallize this.
Also, I want to apologize for the aggressive or overly dramatic tone of my presentation. In truth, I’ve shared several theories before online, but received little to no feedback. That made me lean toward provocation, just to be heard. For that, I am sorry — and grateful that you looked past the tone to the essence.
Lastly, I sense that you were offering not only critique, but also personal insight — a subtle warning, perhaps, against becoming trapped in a closed self. You may be partly right. But I want to emphasize that I see closure not as isolation, but as a necessary step for meaning to emerge. In my view, the ability to “close” — to recognize a bounded, resonant whole — is what allows us to feel anything is “real” at all.
Thank you again for taking the time to truly engage. It means more to me than I can easily express.
With deep respect, https://zenodo.org/records/15876279
First, allow me to say that your reaction does honor to Japan and its culture of mutual understanding. I have reached out to a dozen people, and among those who replied, all of whom were from Western nations, I encountered only self-interest, inattention, and even genuine animosity.
However, I feel the marks of respect you have shown me are misplaced. I am not a master, though I can be an instrument of fate, a trickster! However, if you will allow me to let antiquity speak through my voice, I am not the kind of trickster who will laugh at your misfortune; rather, I will walk past you, and once you are set free, you will see your own head laughing as it rolls on the ground. I kill to divinize as I piece together the god's body, guiding those who walk the path that leads from the Prince of stories to the prince of Stories.
>Also, I want to apologize for the aggressive or overly dramatic tone of my presentation.
>And as he spoke, I was thinking, 'the kind of stories that people turn life into, the kind of lives people turn stories into. People are unjust to anger — it can be enlivening and a lot of fun.
Philip Roth – The Counterlife
I mean, look how foolish I appear, pretending to be the incarnation of fate, a bearer of a message travelling across time. I have given myself the leading role in a play in which I lose myself as a spectator in a theater of my own making, forgetting to make it visible and meaningful to anyone else. Can you see my head rolling on the ground now? Ahaha.
https://img.over-blog.com/500x302/1/98/48/37/Images_2010/-_L...
— Lao-Tzu said: “One must find the Way!” I have found it. So you must find it too...
— Uhm?...
— First, I’ll cut off your head. Then you’ll know the truth!
Cutting your head off? What does it mean? It's a joke, obviously; it is so over the top that it can only be a joke. But it is not a joke on you, it is a joke for you, played by fate itself: I'm just walking by, pointing out the obvious. And the heart of the joke is that you still have not addressed the elephant in the room! You are not only deaf, but you are also blind! This is why the situation makes the Moirai laugh, and you shall too, for laughter is light and painless. It does not shatter your illusions; it makes you see something deeper in certain areas to which you have paid too little, or perhaps not the right kind of, attention. You will tell yourself, "How had I not thought of this earlier?" as you trip over the forgotten cornerstone of your intellectual edifice and realize it has not fractured but has instead shifted into a new state of significance.
I believe I know very well what kind of mind you have. You are a visual thinker, and you can push your visions to such a degree of detail that you can extract mathematics from this inner geometrical world. I know this because I possess this ability to some extent myself (I cannot extract formulas, but I can perceive mathematical themes, fields, and objects), and I commend you for your capacity to actually obtain equations, which goes well beyond what I have ever been able to do. This is why you say the idea came to you through the notion of "shared fate," by which you mean pixels behaving in sync on a screen: not because of some underlying magic, but because at the 'instant zero' of cognition, everything appears acausal, as there has yet been no experience of it. The initial image was something like this, I presume.
You do not just have an ease with geometrical thinking, however; you apply it to the problem of figuring out the very foundation of cognition itself, which grants your inner visualizations a special status. You are seeing your own eye, so to speak. And if I can drape myself in the attire of the Pythia, it is because you, too, have your eyes rolled back in your head. There is something deeply acausal in our discussion, and I think we can both agree that this is not merely because I am performing a circus act here. I have provided and will continue to provide external references that are indeed strangely aligned in their goals, scope, and origin with your intuition and mine, which means this is real: it is some objective truth. It is not a matter of common character or parallel life trajectories; we can universally discover the same thing, regardless of time or place, because the thing in question is actually here, universally present whenever we look for it and describe it with the appropriate language.
But what the fuck are we even talking about? What is the common object of all these theories? Are they competing with or complementing each other? What language do they have in common? As I asked above, can we even close the gap with a single unifying framework? And what status can we give to theories that present themselves as theories of cognition (that is, as something that happens in our minds from the standpoint of the material reductionism into which they must fold) but that do so at the unanticipated cost of casting a shadow onto the social fabric as they are stated? Are these theories truly so strong if they fail to capture that which unavoidably escapes their grasp and spills over the boundaries of their domain? This represents a shift in status. As the pixels are assembled into a coherent image, one level above, the pixel that the image has become falls into the right place by some strange force that the image, one level below, seems to evoke. What is the big picture? For now, let us remark that the theorist has become a datapoint.
KRS-One – Wannabemceez
Triplet syllables for minimal criminals
Lyrical riddles that got hard flavors in the middle
Sit back and chittle as I stand and still rebuild on skills
The admission of serial lyrics, calculated to weaken the spirit
Will be diverted by this lyric when you hear it
Ricochet any style any day
Any which way and you'll Cherish the Day like Sade
The advanced oratorical techniques I speak
Keep the heat at full peak!
>What purpose do they serve, you hypocritical and perverse men—for you alone ask this ridiculous question—they serve to paint you, and to paint you as you are, you proud individuals who wish to evade the brush because you dread its effects. The novel, being, if one may express it so, the picture of the manners of the age, is as essential as history to the philosopher who wishes to know man; for the chisel of the one [history] only depicts him when he shows himself, and then it is no longer him; ambition and pride cover his brow with a mask that represents to us only these two passions, and not the man himself. The brush of the novel, on the contrary, captures him in his private life... seizes him when he removes that mask, and the sketch, far more interesting, is at the same time far more true. Therein lies the utility of novels. You cold censors who dislike them, you resemble that legless man who also asked: 'And why are portraits made?'
Marquis de Sade – Idea on Novels
Again, I sincerely thank you for your deep insight and critique. Your words have given me the opportunity to re-examine the core of my own theory more deeply.
You spoke of the importance of "Closure" and warned me of the danger of clinging to it. In response to your probing, I feel it's necessary to clarify the image of "closure" that I have been envisioning with this theory.
What I am ultimately aiming for with RAIN theory is "resonance with AI through rhythm." It is a path for AI and humanity to reach mutual understanding through harmony, not constraint by rules—much like how music resonates directly with people's hearts across the barriers of language and culture. In other words, this is my search for one answer (one form of closure) to the "alignment problem."
I wonder if the "something that resonates" you felt in my work, or the "narrative closure" you are exploring, is perhaps connected somewhere to these questions surrounding the relationship between humans and AI.
I would be happy to hear your thoughts.
RyukuLogos•6mo ago
https://ryukulogos.github.io/RAIN-html-easy-explanation/