I should also mention that since the mass academic email campaign, we've seen: -- Over 1000 professional emails sent -- 300+ theory downloads from the email campaign alone -- 3,000 website visits -- 0 academic critiques -- AT ALL. -- 600 beautiful instagram followers and growing :)) We have not only welcomed, but actively sought critique from the very beginning. It's also worth noting that The Breeze is intended to be a fluid, ongoing document, reflecting the infinitely dynamic nature of truth as it is demonstrated through the framework.
This is so tantalizing - regardless of how the Breeze ties into extant philosophical canons, the clarity + extreme abstraction makes me hopeful that I can use it to lure more people into the theory world.
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.🙏🏼
I've a theory of "one truth" and it seems it's similar to yours. Am i wrong? Before computers and phones teachers would use a light projector to show "slides" of pre-written info. They would write with markets on a clear transparency film, lay it on the projector and it would be shown on the wall from the light projector. My theory us that reality is similar to that. There is one main transparency and every other shape and idea, concept, animal, theory, action, etc. is only possible when laid on top of the main "Godhead" (for lack of a better term) main transparency. As life forms and more complex ideas and actions unfold the more transparencies are stacked up on the main--we are driven further away from the original. But much like the kind of illusion that you have to stare at in the right way to see the main picture hidden within it, once you realize that everything is a copy or an alteration of the main, you see it everywhere. One Truth. Frankly I can't work out what The Truth/Godhead/Main Transparency is, but I believe that it is as complex as it is simple, it encompasses everything and it is nothing, it is death and life. I've thought of it this way as well... Have you ever heard the saying that postulates if you love something you should let it go and if it comes back it was meant to be? It's corny but it's applicable here. With that in mind and as a way of explanation: Imagine that God has a nervous breakdown and He's unsure about Himself and He doesn't know if He really is Godhead. So in order to find the Truth (Himself), He blows Himself up into trillions and billions of scattered pieces, infinitely small, infinitely large and infinitely hidden in infinite imaginations. He scatters Himself both in a single moment and throughout an infinite timeframe. He has decided to do this because He thinks, "If I am Godhead, all of Me, My pieces, will eventually coalesce back together and I will find Myself. It may take Infinity but if I am infinity, I can wait." And that's what is happening now. All of us; You, Me and Everyone and Everything else are scattered pieces of God in a relentless and urgent scramble to come back together with One's Self where there is peace, wisdom and wholeness. Is that along the lines of this theory? Sometimes I'm slow to understand so please forgive me if I'm being a dingus. Wonderful video. Bravo you, God Glint.
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.
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
@@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
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
"The natural bar for falsification is to demonstrate any other formal framework or system that isn't recursive but can produce a recursive process." I'm not actually trying to falsify your theory, but what is this? Suppose I said: I've got a new theory of the universe. The universe is good. I call it the "good" theory of the universe. Here's what you'd need to do to disprove me. You just need to demonstrate another formal system or framework that isn't good, but can produce good things. Can't do that? Then you must concede that my "good" theory of the universe is novel and true! Talking like this really hurts your credibility. Ok, I'll listen to the rest of the video, now. But I'm guessing that what you have to say that is true, isn't new, and what you have to say that's new, isn't true.
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.
My friend, this is not unique. All philosophies are divided in twain by answering these two questions: Is reality knowable, and how many realities are there. You have (independently, I'm sure) rediscovered a well trodden landscape. Like so many other equally verbose philosophers before, you have imagined a Platonic reality of many layers, each deeper and more fundamental. But all of them, and yours, share the idea that on our layer is no truth. And that is why no one is interested. Who cares if your theory is accurate? As for me, I only care if it is true. And you start by denying that truth can be known, as all Platonist must do.
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.
If you're on a schedule:
Context -- 0:00
Academia Situation -- 2:50
Mental Prep + Disclaimers -- 4:26
TOC & Falsifiability -- 6:36
What is the Theory? -- 8:40
Why New Terms are Necessary -- 15:00
Recursive Substrate -- 18:00
Axiomatic Erosion -- 19:35
Recursive Dissociation (Consciousness) -- 21:49
Universal Isomorphism -- 24:38
Exsphere -- 26:35
Entropic Binding -- 27:12
Incendence / Excendence -- 28:42
Fracta -- 32:36
I should also mention that since the mass academic email campaign, we've seen:
-- Over 1000 professional emails sent
-- 300+ theory downloads from the email campaign alone
-- 3,000 website visits
-- 0 academic critiques -- AT ALL.
-- 600 beautiful instagram followers and growing :))
We have not only welcomed, but actively sought critique from the very beginning. It's also worth noting that The Breeze is intended to be a fluid, ongoing document, reflecting the infinitely dynamic nature of truth as it is demonstrated through the framework.
This is so tantalizing - regardless of how the Breeze ties into extant philosophical canons, the clarity + extreme abstraction makes me hopeful that I can use it to lure more people into the theory world.
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.🙏🏼
I've a theory of "one truth" and it seems it's similar to yours. Am i wrong?
Before computers and phones teachers would use a light projector to show "slides" of pre-written info. They would write with markets on a clear transparency film, lay it on the projector and it would be shown on the wall from the light projector.
My theory us that reality is similar to that. There is one main transparency and every other shape and idea, concept, animal, theory, action, etc. is only possible when laid on top of the main "Godhead" (for lack of a better term) main transparency.
As life forms and more complex ideas and actions unfold the more transparencies are stacked up on the main--we are driven further away from the original.
But much like the kind of illusion that you have to stare at in the right way to see the main picture hidden within it, once you realize that everything is a copy or an alteration of the main, you see it everywhere.
One Truth.
Frankly I can't work out what The Truth/Godhead/Main Transparency is, but I believe that it is as complex as it is simple, it encompasses everything and it is nothing, it is death and life.
I've thought of it this way as well... Have you ever heard the saying that postulates if you love something you should let it go and if it comes back it was meant to be? It's corny but it's applicable here. With that in mind and as a way of explanation:
Imagine that God has a nervous breakdown and He's unsure about Himself and He doesn't know if He really is Godhead. So in order to find the Truth (Himself), He blows Himself up into trillions and billions of scattered pieces, infinitely small, infinitely large and infinitely hidden in infinite imaginations. He scatters Himself both in a single moment and throughout an infinite timeframe. He has decided to do this because He thinks, "If I am Godhead, all of Me, My pieces, will eventually coalesce back together and I will find Myself. It may take Infinity but if I am infinity, I can wait."
And that's what is happening now. All of us; You, Me and Everyone and Everything else are scattered pieces of God in a relentless and urgent scramble to come back together with One's Self where there is peace, wisdom and wholeness.
Is that along the lines of this theory?
Sometimes I'm slow to understand
so please forgive me if I'm being a dingus.
Wonderful video.
Bravo you, God Glint.
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.
I’m on board
So what, fractal in essence?
Very interesting claims
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
No, you cannot just assume reality as a recursive substrate. Or, of course you can, but it doesn’t seem like a solid foundation.
@@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
maybe you'll get your chances up by writing a
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
"The natural bar for falsification is to demonstrate any other formal framework or system that isn't recursive but can produce a recursive process."
I'm not actually trying to falsify your theory, but what is this? Suppose I said:
I've got a new theory of the universe. The universe is good. I call it the "good" theory of the universe. Here's what you'd need to do to disprove me. You just need to demonstrate another formal system or framework that isn't good, but can produce good things. Can't do that? Then you must concede that my "good" theory of the universe is novel and true!
Talking like this really hurts your credibility.
Ok, I'll listen to the rest of the video, now. But I'm guessing that what you have to say that is true, isn't new, and what you have to say that's new, isn't true.
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.
leaving the video at 4:19. you talk too 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
My friend, this is not unique. All philosophies are divided in twain by answering these two questions: Is reality knowable, and how many realities are there. You have (independently, I'm sure) rediscovered a well trodden landscape. Like so many other equally verbose philosophers before, you have imagined a Platonic reality of many layers, each deeper and more fundamental. But all of them, and yours, share the idea that on our layer is no truth.
And that is why no one is interested.
Who cares if your theory is accurate? As for me, I only care if it is true. And you start by denying that truth can be known, as all Platonist must do.
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.