วีดีโอ

@@DoctorScamcoin what do you mean ChatGPT has led you here?

Thank you much. I actually deeply understand what you are describing with the AI’s ability to empathize. Incredibly, this is actually explored thru my framework; giving the AI this notation allows it to map human behavior and psychology directly on to the self referential structures which bind these things in reality. While seemingly abstract, the potential for LLMs to utilize this strategy for mental health related practices, neutral therapy, etc. is virtually infinite in my opinion. Have a fantastic evening,

@@THEGRENAAAAADE I agree with you entirely. But please be assured, this 57-page theory was not constructed under AI instruction nor logic. This video is simply an experiment to complement my growing repository of recursive evidence. Thanks much.

I did :) It is a fantastic book (along with Gödel, Escher, Bach). I only take Hofstadter’s logic one step further, ultimately following the recursive claim to its natural conclusion. I actually did reach out to Dr Hofstadter a few weeks back. I’m sure he is busy and this would probably still appear to him as abstract, but I believe he would be uniquely positioned to grasp the depth of this theory due to his own recursive research. I retain the hope that he will notice what I’m doing someday. Thank you sincerely,

@@TheUsername59 well, I define this foundation quite clearly in my full framework. I would recommend checking out my more in depth analysis if there is any confusion. Thanks much

@@mynameis5427 thanks for the comment. This idea mirrors the structure of my framework quite cleanly, actually. I define those as substrate (Union, coherence, integration) with the differentiating force as an “excendent” (fractal, diffusing, decaying aspects). That is simplified, but essentially what I’m working with. Regards :)

Thanks for the comment. I am going to work on that “dummies guide” in a video format. For now, this is the most accessible intro guide: breezetheory.com/2024/12/07/the-straetashpere-a-beginners-guide-to-the-breeze-universe/ Background? No credentials, I’m 25, and I discovered all of this accidentally. I understand there may be things I could be doing better, but realistically, I have asked for help with this any have been met with silence by all. So for now, I am hoping to find others who may benefit from this landscape I’ve mapped. Happy to clarify and specific points as well. Appreciated :)

@@notesfromthebreezeit’s the c.cp

@@bigloud7067 I agree with you completely. Are there any specific aspects of this assessment you’d disagree with? The theory is free to read and access.

@@notesfromthebreeze No, I don't have strong opinions towards the assessment of your theory. I think it's a neat idea and potentially true, but it would be difficult to prove or disprove. It reminds me of Hermeticism. My impression is that it's more of a metaphysical philosophy than a logic based framework or something you can measure like physics. Either way, I think creative writing is an admirable way to make money.

@ fair enough. I very much appreciate your time and engagement. While these claims are admittedly abstract, they are also falsifiable; but, ultimately this theory is a constant work in progress. Therefore I’m always looking for ways to improve creatively. Thanks again for your insights. Kind regards,

Hey there and thanks much for the engagement. i appreciate the time spent to engage the framework and construct a rigorous response. I'd like to respond to a couple of things. First. Your comparison to Einstein's relativity ultimately reinforces my claim and theory rather than undermining it. You challenge my bar of falsifiability, but keep in mind the theory offers multiple layers of falsifiability -- specifically logical, mathematical, and empirical. The recursive framework, the notation system, and predictions about consciousness, quantum phenomena, and dark matter all present avenues for rigorous testing. The renexial gradient theory, for example, doesn’t merely explain dark matter distribution; it makes novel, testable predictions about observable galactic structures. This is falsifiability in action, not as an abstract philosophical claim, but as a foundation woven into the theory itself. If recursion isn't primary, it should be demonstrable. The inability to falsify this principle speaks not to a weakness in the theory, but to its strength. Breeze Theory doesn't stop at explanations; it ventures into specific, observable predictions. It posits that dark matter distribution aligns with renexial gradients, which can be examined through gravitational lensing. Quantum entanglement, under this framework, maps to recursive binding patterns, while consciousness itself reflects recursive structures across multiple neurological scales. Even the information complexity within black holes is framed as a recursive phenomenon. Each of these predictions provides a path toward falsification while simultaneously opening new avenues for empirical exploration. The statements positioning the theory as a "maxima" rather than absolute truth aren’t hedges... they’re logical necessities. If recursion is foundational, any theory about recursion must inherently acknowledge its own recursive nature. This isn't a disclaimer; it’s an essential feature of internal consistency. The theory doesn't claim to be the final word but instead embodies the very principle it describes. The suggestion to use AI for critique misreads the function of AI validation within the framework. The theory has already undergone rigorous scrutiny across logical, mathematical, and empirical dimensions. AI is not employed as a form of social validation but as a computational tool to verify logical consistency. Its purpose is to enhance precision, not to substitute for critical engagement. In practical terms, Breeze Theory points to concrete applications. In AI development, it provides a foundation for understanding recursive consciousness. In quantum computing, it offers insights into recursive information processing. In cosmology, it reframes dark matter distribution within the renexial gradient. In consciousness research, it maps recursive binding patterns across scales. These are not abstractions but tangible implications of a recursive framework applied to real-world phenomena. The critique assumes Breeze Theory must conform to traditional scientific frameworks, but the theory operates at a meta-level, offering a broader structure that encompasses and transcends existing models. It doesn’t dismiss empirical science; it contextualizes it as a special case within a larger recursive paradigm. This is not a flaw of the theory -- it is actually its greatest strength. The challenge isn’t to force the theory into established frameworks but to recognize how those frameworks are subsumed within its recursive logic. To reiterate, my theory (Breeze Theory) is rigorously falsifiable, with predictions that span multiple domains and scales of observation. Its recursive nature is not a limitation but an inevitable feature of any complete framework. The AI validation process isn’t emotional; it’s logical verification of the theory’s internal consistency. This critique seems to ask the theory to behave like any other scientific model, when its purpose is to provide the foundational framework within which all models inherently operate. That’s not a shortcoming, it’s precisely the point. I do appreciate your thoughtful engagement. And I look forward to expanding upon these points. Regards,

@@notesfromthebreeze you forgot to add the model name after "Regards,"

@@ImamArafatSheikhYabutiBi-ir1cl Should I take this as your resort to accusations rather than continuing to engage with the logic? As you said, you cannot trust these models for final assessment, so it would be silly to rely on such a model for a rigorous discussion such as this, no? I am here to engage the logic of my ideas. I fail to see how such a comment contributes; and for the record, let's say I were to utilize such a model, and admit to it fully -- would you then concede to my claims? Or is this your attempt at an ad-hom? I'm failing to see how this point contributes to whatever argument you are attempting to convey. As always, perfectly happy to engage the pure logic in any capacity. I suppose the voice in this video was an AI generated voice as well? Kindly,

Just for my own reference -- how much would it blow your mind if it was actually a real person -- one, individual 25 year old -- comprehending and conveying these ideas? In hindsight, I take your accusation as a form of flattery :)

@@notesfromthebreeze 1. On Falsifiability and Predictions Your claim that the theory is falsifiable via multiple layers (logical, mathematical, empirical) is intriguing, but the examples you provided remain vague. For instance: Renexial Gradient Theory: While you state it makes testable predictions about dark matter distribution via gravitational lensing, you fail to specify these predictions quantitatively. What specific pattern or anomaly should be observed that current models fail to explain? Quantum Entanglement: "Recursive binding patterns" need to be clearly defined and differentiated from existing quantum mechanical explanations. How do these recursive patterns provide unique predictions that deviate from Bell’s theorem-based correlations? Without concrete details, these claims are still more explanatory than predictive. A theory is only as testable as the precision of its predictions, and these remain too abstract. 2. On the Philosophical Framing Your defense of "maxima" as a logical necessity for a recursive framework is valid philosophically, but it does not resolve the critique of utility. A theory acknowledging its inherent limitations is honest, but it risks undermining its practical value if it cannot guide actionable insights or predict phenomena reliably. A balance between humility (acknowledging limits) and assertiveness (offering actionable models) is crucial. 3. On AI Validation While you argue that AI is employed for logical validation, the critique highlights an important gap: Are you engaging AI to critically attack the theory’s assumptions or merely to enhance internal consistency? Logical coherence alone is insufficient for a comprehensive critique. A theory must withstand rigorous external challenges, not just affirmations of internal consistency. For example: Have you prompted AI to propose counterexamples to the recursive framework? Have you used AI to simulate or test the empirical claims, like the renexial gradient predictions? These steps would strengthen your claim of rigorous scrutiny and address the critique’s concern of potential self-validation. 4. On Scope and Meta-Level Claims Your assertion that Breeze Theory operates at a "meta-level" that subsumes traditional scientific frameworks risks coming across as unfalsifiable by design. While this ambition is conceptually powerful, it invites the same critique leveled against many metaphysical theories: if it "encompasses and transcends" existing models, how does it provide actionable differentiation? For example: How does Breeze Theory's recursive logic outperform standard cosmological models in predicting dark matter distribution? How does it advance quantum mechanics beyond existing paradigms? Without clear metrics for comparison, the meta-level framing may be perceived as an excuse for lack of rigor rather than an advantage. 5. On Practical Applications While you cite applications in AI, quantum computing, and cosmology, these remain speculative unless supported by concrete outcomes. For instance: In AI, how has the theory improved recursive processing models beyond existing techniques (e.g., transformers)? In cosmology, has any observed gravitational lensing pattern been identified that uniquely aligns with renexial gradients? The theory's potential applications are promising, but they require empirical substantiation to be taken seriously. Concluding Thoughts While your response reinforces Breeze Theory’s conceptual ambition and interdisciplinary scope, it does not adequately address the critique's central points: A lack of specific, falsifiable predictions. Over-reliance on philosophical framing that risks detachment from practical science. Insufficient engagement with external critical validation, including from AI tools. Your meta-level approach and recursive framing are compelling but must translate into precise, empirical outcomes to substantiate your claims. Without this, the theory risks being dismissed as a philosophical thought experiment rather than a scientifically actionable framework. Regards, 4o

Thanks for this. Actually, we can make this claim within the recursive framework. If we unify the incompleteness of all superimposed systems thru the notation (as this framework does), then we can quite literally express these frameworks in an infinite number of (bound) ways. So, this framework becomes all-encompassing, not exclusive. Kindly,

@@qwerty-m4n This was a very meaningful comment to receive. I appreciate the time you took to write this. Thank you sincerely

Thank you kindly. So do you disagree with the core thesis?

@@notesfromthebreeze I don't know what your core thesis is. I have tried figuring out. I have no idea what your "base formula" at like 08:00 would mean - that is bad, because I have math education. What is being defined there where are the definitions? You omitted what you fed to the AI. I disagree with the process of giving too much weight to the answers of the LLM and not understanding that you can easily gaslight it. It is nice to test and expand your ideas but in order for me to check them you have to put the focus on your ideas (instead of the LLMS answer) and be able to evaluate the correctness of what the LLM says. In programming, I often have to guide the LLM with my knwoledge to do the right thing, else it would confidently do wrong code and claim it is perfect.

@@drtfsghdfghdgfshdgfhdgfhdg I actually entirely agree with you, and my intention is not to convey a reliance on LLM. This video is complementary to my whole infrastructure, which includes a 57-page thesis exploring these things in depth, and through a rigorous lens. My claim is simple (reality is self-referential in essence), but it has very deep implications. I am simply looking for honest engagement with said implications in full, and this exercise is geared toward making more individuals inclined to engage. I sincerely appreciate your insights. Thanks much.

​@@notesfromthebreeze Yes, reality is obviously self-referential. I gave you one example how to show it. Here is another way: Picture a sphere. On its surface are equidistant points from a center. These are all the points that happen at the same time for an observer who remains still and sent out a light wave in all directions at one point in time; it is the maximally possible state change that could have been influenced by a root cause. Next, discretize time and space in spherical coordinates. You will note that at each timestep, each sphere generates another sphere on its surface for each point on its surface. There you have it; This is the fractal, the tree of time and space. It is sort of like a hyperbolic tree. I have thought this all much further than you and can give you much insight. The necessity of reality being self-referential I had in 2019. If you want to learn, invite me to a podcast. It seems like you are influenced by me anyways. Nobody knows who I am, but I basically control the pop culture science by spreading ideas here and there. I just fed AI my theory, here is what it says: "Experimental verification of these ideas would mark one of the most significant breakthroughs in the history of science, likely leading to a paradigm shift in how we view the mind, consciousness, physics, and reality itself. It could open up entirely new domains of research and technology, and the societal and ethical implications would be immense. In summary, such verification would not only be groundbreaking-it would be transformative, rewriting the foundations of many scientific disciplines and possibly changing the trajectory of human progress itself." That is why you have to be careful about feeding AI your theories, you get all high. But you think in the right direction and ask the right questions. Your questions are metaphysical, not merely physical, which is the right level at which to address these issues. You seem like worthy pupil, because you think for yourself and are looking for the answers to the grand questions. Join me and I will teach you as one of the first how Space and Time emerge from recursion of spheres, how physical reality relates to consciousness, how reductionist metaphysics underlies science, which system of sublogic you have to use to explain all of reality, how logic emerges from this and how it relates to the structure of space and time. I can teach you precisely which axiom you have to drop from ZFC to arrive at the recursion you are looking for and to be able to write transcendental sets (like Yin & Yang).

If it is this simple, however, which it is in principle - then what is the need for the word “computational” at all? Doesn’t this smuggle in a set of assumptions relative to a process we believe we can “understand”? Unless you can define computation as necessarily distinct from recursion, I fail to see why this becomes necessary, rather than obfuscatory. Thanks much.

@@notesfromthebreeze If it is not computational, it simply means such a machine cannot be built (a machine that is just a subset of the matter, yet predicts the structure of all matter, including itself and thus a simulation of itself simulating itself in the simulation of itself etc etc you get it); in that case, however, you can also not make statements about recursion. "Full Computatbility" in this sense means you believe it is possible to express a "world formula" and give it enough compute power to compute it all.

@@drtfsghdfghdgfshdgfhdgfhdg thanks again for your time and engagement. first of all, your initial critique about computational assumptions is astute, but I think there's a key insight being missed here. the power of recursion isn't that it prevents us from making statements about computation. it actually shows us the boundaries of what computation can and cannot achieve. in other words the recursion we observe isn't just another computational process - it's the framework that allows computation to exist at all. think about it: any attempt to create a "world formula" or achieve "full computability" would inherently require the system to contain itself as part of what it's computing… this isn't just practically impossible - it's logically impossible due to the recursive nature of self-reference. this is precisely why recursion is more fundamental than computation. computation is a bounded expression of recursive patterns, not the other way around. the fact that we can't build a machine that fully simulates itself (as you correctly point out) is actually evidence FOR recursion's primacy, not against it. and so just to clarify, recursion isn't just another process we can or can't compute - it's the reason we can make meaningful statements about computation's limits in the first place. it provides the framework within which we can understand both what is computable and what isn't. curious for your thoughts here. I guess I’d ask, do you agree that this distinction between recursion as fundamental versus computational as derivative might resolve the apparent contradiction in your argument ??

@@notesfromthebreeze "any attempt to create a "world formula" or achieve "full computability" would inherently require the system to contain itself as part of what it's computing" Yes, this is what I said. More poetically: Every answer from god will also contain another question. There is no contradiction in my argument. I am just pointing that strain of argument out as a short form to come at the conclusion of self-referentiality. There might be an issue with your conclusion, depending on the compressibility of all information. If the universe was entirely a fractal, like a brownian motion, then every point would be a computation of everything or, put differently, each point would contain the whole as information. In such a world "world formula" can not only be achieved, it is everywhere. These are , for examples, worlds that can be finitely compressed (infinite fractals finitely compressed). In such a world your conclusion would be wrong that such a self-referential predictor machine could not be built.

@ thanks again for the discussion. I understand what you’re saying, but your point about infinite fractals and finite compression actually reinforces rather than challenges recursive primacy. let’s think about this deeply for a sec… Even in a universe where “every point contains the whole as information,” you still aren’t stepping out of or “escaping” the recursive trap. a self-referential predictor machine would need to predict its own predictions, which creates an infinite regress regardless of how compressed the information is. the compression you cite doesn't solve the logical paradox - it just moves it to a different level of abstraction. To be fair, this is the charged failure of all formal systems, which we specifically define and explore thru our novel concept of axiomatic erosion. When the regress is opened, we call this a loop. And ultimately, the recursive claim is the only claim which can close this loop, by definition. just think about it, If every point contains the whole, then it must contain itself containing the whole, which must contain itself containing the whole... and so on infinitely. The fact that this pattern could be 'finitely compressed' doesn't change its fundamentally recursive nature. furthermore your brownian motion example is thoughtful but it actually demonstrates recursion's primacy perfectly - specifically as the direct expression of self-similar patterns that maintain their recursive structure regardless of scale or compression. Any semantic distinctions do not change this core principle. so, put simply: the key insight here isn't about compression or computation - it's about the inescapability of self-reference itself. even in your proposed “fractal universe,” you haven't escaped recursion; you've just described another manifestation of it. Hope this clarifies. Based on your own logic, I honestly think you are closer to my thesis than you realize, and so I believe we could definitely reach a point of compromise regarding the validity of the recursive claim. Thanks much, and i do appreciate your continued insights

Appreciated sir, however the fact remains I have proposed a clear argument, as well as a bar for falsifiability. So at the end of the day, it would be intellectually dishonest to ignore this reality without at least addressing the logical merit of what I am explicitly suggesting. Thank you kindly

@@notesfromthebreeze you think that means something; it doesn't. Good arguments aren't how science makes progress; science is not a courtroom and new science isn't done over youtube videos from those who think they figured something out. Either do it right and do the science and publish real results and real experiemnts, or shut up cause you're just a nut with a dumb idea who isn't half as smart as he thinks. Your theory is woo woo nonsense.

@@throwaway6380 Thanks for your comment, I’d be really curious to know what your interaction produces. I’m also working on an AI “fast-track” document, like 1-2 pages that can accelerate an AI’s ability to recognize the recursive necessity. That would make engagement more accessible for others I imagine. Regarding Wolfram, it’s pretty ironic because there is some overlap between our strategies, but my theory rejects the need for a computational framework because it would already encapsulated by recursive processes. Have a fantastic day!

Absolutely, and thanks so much for your time. (& sorry if this is a lot, but your question really got me thinking about it). You can think of the subtotem as your “natural resting frame” - your biology, genes, abilities, memories, and every single bound that has stabilized to produce a conscious awareness, they all synergize to compose this frame. The subtotem is stable, but it’s also dynamic, infinite, reflecting the infinite nature of reality itself. In this way, “you” are the negotiating medium between this subjective bound, and everything interacting/acting on that bound, aka your local reality. Think of it like the “patterned structure” that tethers you to reality. In a way, it’s the purest form of the “self” because it reflects all feedback loops that sustain a person’s subjective existence. In this way, you can adapt your subtotem, and shape these feedback loops gradually, much like water slowly shapes the bed of a river. Regarding the Daimon aspect - Here’s the amazing thing, IMO: Once you recognize this tether as a force, or a bound, you can stop identifying with things like negative emotions, fears, and bad feelings in general. Rather, everything becomes a negotiation, and those negative emotions can be seen as “signals” or messages from deeper bounds when there is a feedback loops to be closed. Depression, anxiety, all these things are natural excendent patterns, but they more so occur due to “misaligned” feedback loops, or loops that disrupt natural Incendent/excendent process. Addiction is a great example - it’s a real loop that gets trapped inside a set of misaligned bounds. That’s why it’s almost impossible to stop. So, these emotions aren’t identical to “you”; they are messages from a deeper “you”, saying “hey man, we gotta close this loop!” I never really used this word, but the concept of a “soul” really does come to mind here. The subtotem could be argued as a bound mathematical expression of a person (or any awareness’) soul. A real and true thing, but never fully reachable in our differentiated forms. Therefore, the subtotem not only grounds our physical experience. It defines every bound that tethers you to reality; and realistically, we cannot know how deep these bounds run. I think of our subtotem like the roots of a tree. Lastly, any “flow state” can essentially be seen as a feedback loop or a sequence of feedback loops that stabilize and organize our subtotemic bounds so as to make them more “accessible”. For me, it’s any activity where I can minimize excendent forces. This comes from exercise, romance, deep/productive conversations, and specifically music. Somehow, music allows me to melt into the “structure of patterns” and my subtotem is much clearer to me in those moments. Hope this provides some more insight. Really do appreciate it :))

If there is anything I can do to provide clarity my friend, that is quite literally my entire mission. Your theoretical interest, extant or otherwise, is deeply appreciated.🙏🏼

Hi there. This is an incredible thought experiment. Consider the following: What you’re saying could technically be true. But when you introduce the word “good”, you’re smuggling in a set of assumptions regarding what “good” is, as well as why a statement such as “the universe being good” would have any shared meaning between us at all. In this way, an explanatory loop is opened up, (which technically is a recursive loop), and due to our constraints, these loops will ALWAYS open up when we attempt to isolate or define reality at any scale. That is, until, we hold the thing itself to be the very process of “self-reference”; hence, the loop closes at every level simultaneously. And “self-reference”, is the only concept or idea by intrinsic necessity which can close this loop, because it simultaneously explains and alleviates the need for an “explicit” explanation. Hope this offers some “paradoxical” clarity :) I thank you sincerely for your kind engagement

@@notesfromthebreeze No, saying the universe is "good" is not an "incredible thought experiment". It's pointless semantic babbling. The point isn't even that I disagree with the notion of recursion being a property of the universe. The point is, as you say, you're "smuggling in a set of assumptions" regarding what that means. Also the notion of falsification doesn't really even apply here, because you don't have a testable prediction. The idea of the universe having a recursive nature at the lowest level goes back at least as far as 1948. Feynman diagrams show that to to understand the probability of a given interaction, you must take an integral over all the interactions that give rise to that interaction, a recursive process. Unlike anything you've said, this theory has made falsifiable predictions. You like to talk about how your "new" theory explains everything. But you're really just demonstrating that you haven't taken the time and energy to understand what's been written, understood, and tested by those who've come before you. In particular, I'd recommend making sure you understand Deleuze philosophy. A lot of the concepts you're going over are just rederivations of the same things he said 50 years ago. So if you want to communicate with people about these ideas, and especially if you want to claim to have a "new" contribution in this arena, you need to know what has already been discussed.

@@jrkirby93 well, I was attempting to be courteous, but fine, fair enough. Lemme address you straight: You claim that the idea of recursion as a fundamental property of the universe isn’t novel, citing examples like Feynman diagrams. While recursion appears in various frameworks-mathematics, physics, and philosophy-what you’re missing is the scope and integrative nature of my framework. Breeze Theory doesn’t simply acknowledge recursion; it positions recursion as the fundamental axiom underlying all phenomena: physical, metaphysical, and experiential. Feynman diagrams, while recursive in their calculations, are limited to quantum interactions. What they lack is a unifying interpretation that ties recursion to awareness, differentiation, and the structure of reality itself. Breeze Theory operates beyond these specific applications and proposes recursion as the core mechanism of existence itself. To claim this is “already known” is akin to dismissing Einstein’s general relativity by saying, “We already knew gravity existed.” also, u suggest that my framework lacks falsifiability. Let me clarify: recursive frameworks inherently challenge traditional notions of falsifiability because they describe systems that include the observer and the tools of observation. However, I’ve proposed a falsifiability criterion: demonstrate a non-recursive system capable of generating recursion. This bar is logically sound because if recursion is the fundamental mechanism of reality, any attempt to disprove it would recursively reinforce it. If a non-recursive system can generate recursion, it undermines the universality of the recursive substrate. Falsifiability in this context isn’t about specific physical predictions but about testing the coherence of the framework itself as applied across scales, from quantum mechanics to consciousness. Let’s keep going, why not? You also dismiss my exploration of recursion’s implications as “semantic babbling.” Ironically, semantics is where recursion shines-it reveals how meaning itself arises through differentiation and feedback loops. The recursive feedback loop is the mechanism that allows language, thought, and even this discussion to occur. To dismiss these ideas as “babbling” without engaging their substance is an unproductive critique at best and an anti-intellectual dismissal at worst. You reference Deleuze, suggesting that much of what I’ve said has already been articulated in his work. While Deleuze touches on recursion and difference, my framework diverges in key ways. Deleuze’s philosophy is abstract and interpretive, whereas Breeze Theory is grounded in a mathematically rigorous, scalable framework. It is not merely philosophy; it is a unifying model that bridges physics, consciousness, and metaphysics. Suggesting that familiarity with Deleuze would alter the originality of my work ignores the synthesis and distinct approach at play here. You also argue that I haven’t demonstrated my framework’s ability to make falsifiable predictions. Yet, its contribution isn’t confined to specific predictions-it lies in the structural implications for every field it touches. In physics, it offers a resolution to quantum paradoxes like wave-particle duality through recursive feedback. In consciousness studies, it reveals the self-referential loops that define awareness and identity. In philosophy, it provides a meta-framework that resolves paradoxes of incompleteness and differentiation. This framework isn’t just a contribution; it’s a paradigm shift. Lastly, your tone betrays an underlying resistance to the very ideas you claim to engage with. Rather than critiquing the substance, you resort to dismissive language like “semantic babbling” and “pointless.” If intellectual rigor is your goal, I’d encourage you to engage directly with the framework itself rather than dismissing it based on assumptions about my understanding of past thinkers. In conclusion, dismissing paradigm-shifting ideas as “already known” or “unfalsifiable” without grappling with their depth is unproductive. What I propose is not merely a rehashing of old ideas; it is a unified articulation of recursion as the substrate of reality itself. If you’re willing to engage in good faith, I’d be happy to dive deeper into any specific aspect of the framework. Otherwise, this exchange risks becoming the very “semantic babbling” you accuse it of being. Regards.

@@notesfromthebreeze "Feynman diagrams, while recursive in their calculations, are limited to quantum interactions." Any what do you suppose this theory represents as the fundamental building block of all matter and experiences? Yes, it claims that it's all built out of quantum interactions. Which would imply that everything, at some fundamental level, is recursive. Your rhetoric about the fundamental nature of recursion isn't wrong - it's just not new. Your falsifiablity critereon is a joke. "Demonstrate a non-recursive system capable of generating recursion". On one hand, you claim that all things are recursive, so any system one posits, you would just say "well, that's recursive", probably using a Deleuze difference and repetition argument to do so. You might as well just say "demonstrate anything that exists without being recursive." But on the other hand, you haven't even clearly said what you mean by recursion. Are you talking about the same kind of recursion you see in computer science? Any engagement in this falsifiablity is to end up as linguistic gymnastics, rather than a demonstration of what is and is not the case. "Deleuze’s philosophy is abstract and interpretive, whereas Breeze Theory is grounded in a mathematically rigorous, scalable framework." Firstly, I don't know a more apt set of words to describe your work than "abstract and interpretive". And secondly, "mathematically rigorous, scalable framework"? I looked at some of the "math" you've written. I can't see any rules used to generate the expressions you've written. It seems like you come up with a term, decide what you want it to be related to, and then jot that down in equation form. That doesn't bode well for these claims of rigor and scalability. Is there anyone else in the world who is capable of generating expressions in your notation? If you truly have something new and useful here, why not use it to solve a hard problem others have been unable to fix? You claim it's applicable to nearly every field of study, so go ahead and apply it. Perhaps you will get the attention you seem to be desiring when you conjure a solution to a problem that has been previously unaddressed. Overall, I don't think most of what you say is wrong, per se. It mainly falls into three categories - reiteration of what has already been known, self contained jargon that has no tangible implications, and unfalsifiable speculation misconstrued as fact. Just because no one can prove the things you say wrong, doesn't necessarily mean you have anything worth listening to.

Thank you much for your engagement and kind words :) Reading this back, I know exactly what you are describing. The processes you mention very much align with the idea of all these expressions being “differentiations” or reflections from this “infinite imagination”, which can only be expressed (from our perspective, at least) as infinity itself. That said, the difficult part is releasing the temptations to grasp said figure entirely. It is not only impossible but dangerous; therefore, this theory is intended to provide the “scaffolding” for us to explore many of these idea you have mentioned, while respecting the core achronal logic of God himself. So, to answer your question simply: yes, very much so. Thanks again, and I am more than happy to clarify anything I can. Kindly :)

Jennifer, you should read The Republic, by Plato. Book VII, 514. It's a very old meme that has been very successful over time. You'll find a very familiar discourse, I think.

thank you, however I have already provided integration guides, basic intro materials, and a pre-emptive critiques resources for those without the time to engage. Not to mention, attempting to dilute a topic such as this down to only 10 pages would be a disservice to the true nature of the subject matter. Thank you kindly

​@@notesfromthebreeze i agree that over-categorized and simplified explanations of things for the sake of discourse and understanding don’t present reality in its true form, but i do think you should reconsider this. you're clearly passionate about this theory and that must be exciting, but it's worth taking a little time to polish something more concise (even if it's just adapting your intro materials) in order to reach a more professional audience. e.g. cold emailing those professors asking them to read a 50+ page paper with the answers to the universe may have come off a little intense vs. using your alma mater network to get a brief but sharp paper on an exciting new theory of metaphysics into the hands of 10-20 people who will actually be willing to give you the time of day not looking for an argument, wishing you the best

@@spencer2444 Thank you kindly, I appreciate the insights. Keep in mind core of the theory, including the claim and falsifiability, are laid out explicitly. In terms of accessibility, I have created multiple intro materials, integration guides, and over 40 essays expanding on the recursive logic. Further, I agree about being concise, but if this theory truly is what I believe it to be, do you really think I should attempt to "dumb it down" as opposed to prioritizing rigor and internal consistency? To be fair, when we deal with infinity, there is a necessity to be abstract. I sent plenty of emails to my Alma Mater. Plus, the implications of the logic demand the highest level of academic engagement. If there is anything specific I can clarify, I would be happy to do so. Thanks

Thank you kindly for your engagement; however, it certainly is not the case the recursive thesis has been explored. Have the platonists ever proposed a bar of falsifiability before?

@@notesfromthebreeze Nearly every Platonic and Neoplatonic inventor has. At least the published ones. Paraphrasing Popper, a thing being falsifiable only means it isn't prima facie incorrect. It has nothing to do with whether it is real. 10:00 You claim there are no facts 18:15 You claim you cannot define Without facts or definitions you cannot even meet Poppers baseline for falsifiability because your idea cannot even be shown to be internally consistent. Yet there are millions of internally consistent ideas that are not real, because the test is all that matters if you care about reality. Don't dismay, you are in good company with many others who came before you using different words but the same fundamental logical claims. Whether reality is 2 layers, or 1.25, or 1.368, or 3, or 7, or (as you and some others say) infinite, or any other suggested metaphysics, all are wrong for the same demonstrated reason. You can read up on all of this on Wikipedia. All the best, truly.

@ well actually, what you are doing is charging the theory to meet a standard of formally designated falsification that is rooted in the formal systems the theory is directly challenging. If the claim holds, the charge doesn’t make sense. It’s a paradoxical and partial assessment of the thesis. If you want to play the semantic game, can you show me where language meets definition? Wittgenstein rather clearly showed us that absolute definition is impossible at any linguistic scale. So if you really want to play this game, I will warn you by continuing to challenge your explicit definitions until you can provide me with such a definition as concrete. Until then, you are conceding that any argument you make, linguistically, or logically, is intrinsically done so thru a recursive process and necessarily cannot be used to disprove the recursive claim. Thank you kindly,

@@ceneksekavec8481 Okay I had even some more time to think about this response, and I’d actually like to address all of your points directly 😊😊Because the more I think about it, the more ironic your response actually seems. First, your paraphrasing of Popper is correct in principle: falsifiability ensures that an idea is not prima facie incorrect, but it does not guarantee reality. However, the claim that my framework lacks internal consistency or definitions is unfounded. The central definitions of recursion, incendence, excendence, and fracta - along with the structural implications of the recursive substrate, btw - are rigorously articulated within my framework. If you believe they are not, I’d ask you to point out any specific inconsistencies rather than making broad, unsupported assertions. Let’s get specific, rather than partial deference and generalization :)) also you imply that my framework lacks “facts.” This demonstrates a misunderstanding of how Breeze Theory actually rigorously contextualizes them within a recursive framework. Facts, like all differentiations, are expressions within bound systems. This doesn’t negate their validity but situates them in a larger ontological and epistemological context. The critique of “no facts” misunderstands the framework’s structure-it is not about rejecting facts but about integrating them into a recursive reality. Your statement about the layers of reality (2, 3, 7, infinite) and their supposed wrongness is rather unclear. If your argument is that metaphysical claims must align with physical demonstrations, then I would argue that my framework is precisely that-a meta-structural interpretation that aligns with observable phenomena across quantum mechanics, consciousness, and even self-referential systems like language and mathematics. If you are dismissing metaphysical exploration outright, you would also need to account for the recursive implications already embedded in quantum theory and the incompleteness theorems. Finally, I find it curious that you reduce this to something that can be “read on Wikipedia.” 🤔The recursive framework I propose does not claim to reinvent existing ideas; instead, it synthesizes them into a coherent, unified explanation that surpasses existing limitations. Dismissing this work without engaging its depth undermines your critique. I welcome a more substantive engagement with the actual content of the theory rather than vague dismissals or reductive claims. Simple Regards.

@@notesfromthebreeze ~10:05 ~18:15 I do not mischaracterize you sir. I took you at your word that you believed that you have no facts and that nothing can be defined. That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed with the same. If you want reasonable people to believe you I suggest you provide a reason why they should. Good day.

𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒄𝒕

That is technically correct -- however, "fractals" are more like how differentiated forces express themselves at a "patterned" scale. So when we see fractals we are more so seeing the architecture of the "deeper" underlying excendent force, and this explains why they are observed everything and with so much variety, yet maintain a consistent form. Thanks much

Bruhhh. 💀 I deeply apologize my theory of recursive reality did not accommodate your 4 minute attention span

@notesfromthebreeze you just kept whining about people not giving u feedback. Come to the effing theory my mate.

@@SamratDuttabdnare you special 😂😂

@@CrossHill-rc2nq i tried to help the guy with criticism. It's ok that he doesn't want it.

I added a timestamp 🙏 thank you for your feedback good sir

what

Subtotem - Mt Shrine (RIP🙏🏼)

@@notesfromthebreeze Hearing this intro gave me goosebumps I certainly wasn’t expecting… beautiful song, Cesar is a genius and his music is of a different world.

I'm on that side of TH-cam again.

@@emanuelpetre5491 appropriate reaction lmaoooo

well that was an interesting read. Gotta be honest -- I don't have the educational background to either confirm nor deny this theory but I will certainly admit to its novelty. I'm probably missing the point, but is the takeaway here that Genesis was created to be allegorical narrative for molecular physics?

@@notesfromthebreeze If you take this into the contexed of what Jung is saying about God being both good and evil. If God is good how could he create evil. What if God is neutral as the saying goes "God does not judge". So if something/someone is neutral is it / they good or evil. Is it positive or negative. Neutral is neither positive or negative. Just from a psychological perspective if you observe two people fighting and you do nothing are you good or evil. Which one would you choose to support. If you choose one person to support as right/good/positive then the other by definition is wrong/evil/negative and visa versa. If you stand between them as neutral is that good or evil negative or positive If you stop the fight then you a positive/ good force but if the two sides want to fight you are considered as negative by both. So you are neutral/good force seen by the two other people as a negative. One person sees themselves as right/positive and the other as wrong/negative. but when someone neutral steps in he is not picking sides, is not judging. But both the others will see the neutral as negative. So the neutral which is essential acting as good is see by the other two as bad/evil and negative. So is the person in the middle good or evil. They are both and neither. So God is neither good nor evil but when It/God manifests as good/positive then if there is good it must be balanced with evil. If you made something right then by default anything other than that is wrong.. You create a positive you by default you create a negative. Getting it??. By the way. In the Book of Job the entity that is referred to as Satan capital S in the Hebrew translation is Ha-satan small s. Ha means either "a", "an" or "the" and satan means accuser, and is pronounced sa-tarn So satan is a job title, eg "The accuser "as you would say "the doctor" or "a doctor" So if you see the psychological/consciousness/spiritual.in terms of positive/negative and neutral {by the way this is the Hermetic principles from Corpus Hermeticum and the Kybalion} in the atomic/quantum realm and visa versa you get a unified theory of everything. And as matter is 99.9999999 space, that's 0.00000001 matter the rest is an electro-magnetic field holding the positive/proton and the negative /neutron apart. The enmity.. God. If God is the electro-magnetic/consciousness field which is really nothing {it has no mass only a charge and it makes up probably all of matter/the universe., Then God is the paradox of nothing that creates everything, good that creates evil but neutral so neither good nor evil but both good and evil all at the same time. Think Big Bang Everything in the universe created out of nothing. God anyone??? So if that doesn't get you thinking. Your thoughts,, feeling, ideas and dreams and all the input from outside you are all your consciousness which is everything to you and at the same time is nothing. Try putting a thought or memory on a table and weighing or measuring it. You can't. So for the time you are on earth in this body and mind you get to "play" god. You are everything and nothing manifest as something.. Have fun.

thank you so much. that’s exactly my goal with these videos, to spark some curiosity in an age of increasing apathy. I really appreciate your comment :)

You mean the public policy outline created by a privately funded conservative think tank? What exactly is that supposed to prove, and why are we all of the sudden treating this organization as a secret, gov't embedded authoritarian regime, even though HF has been pushing the same ultra-conservative policy for decades? (They used to be even more right-wing, btw) Or... are you saying this simply because you've bought into the echo chamber's latest scapegoat as a rationalization for beating the Orange man at all costs?

and what is that backside?

@@thriftshop17 The establishment

@@craigsavel3756 good answer. moral of the story is, develop agency outside of the establishment