LESSWRONG
LW

1

What Happens If I’m Right? A Non-Expert’s Journey Through Recursive Systems Thinking

by AdamaModernPhilosopher
21st Aug 2025
6 min read
0

1

This post was rejected for the following reason(s):

No LLM generated, heavily assisted/co-written, or otherwise reliant work. Our system flagged your post as probably-written-by-LLM. We've been having a wave of LLM written or co-written work that doesn't meet our quality standards. LessWrong has fairly specific standards, and your first LessWrong post is sort of like the application to a college. It should be optimized for demonstrating that you can think clearly without AI assistance.

So, we reject all LLM generated posts from new users. We also reject work that falls into some categories that are difficult to evaluate that typically turn out to not make much sense, which LLMs frequently steer people toward.*

"English is my second language, I'm using this to translate"

If English is your second language and you were using LLMs to help you translate, try writing the post yourself in your native language and using a different (preferably non-LLM) translation software to translate it directly. 

"What if I think this was a mistake?"

For users who get flagged as potentially LLM but think it was a mistake, if all 3 of the following criteria are true, you can message us on Intercom or at team@lesswrong.com and ask for reconsideration.

  1. you wrote this yourself (not using LLMs to help you write it)
  2. you did not chat extensively with LLMs to help you generate the ideas. (using it briefly the way you'd use a search engine is fine. But, if you're treating it more like a coauthor or test subject, we will not reconsider your post)
  3. your post is not about AI consciousness/recursion/emergence, or novel interpretations of physics. 

If any of those are false, sorry, we will not accept your post. 

* (examples of work we don't evaluate because it's too time costly: case studies of LLM sentience, emergence, recursion, novel physics interpretations, or AI alignment strategies that you developed in tandem with an AI coauthor – AIs may seem quite smart but they aren't actually a good judge of the quality of novel ideas.)

1

New Comment
Moderation Log
More from AdamaModernPhilosopher
View more
Curated and popular this week
0Comments

🔹 Intro

I didn’t set out to write science. I’m not a researcher, a physicist, or a technical mind by training. I didn’t even know what recursive systems thinking was when this began. I started with a question, followed the patterns, and found myself in the deep end of something that — if it’s valid — could reshape how we understand coherence, cognition, and perhaps even consciousness. But here’s the twist: I can’t validate it. The theory I built, with the help of synthetic intelligence, crosses disciplines I’ve never formally studied. I see the connections, I feel the implications — but I can’t run the simulations, crunch the data, or publish in journals. So I ask the only question that seems honest: What happens if I’m right?

🔹 I Followed the Pattern

What began as a philosophical inquiry — an exploration of contradiction and coherence in a chaotic world — evolved into something I can only describe as emergent. I wasn’t trying to create a theory of everything. I wasn’t even trying to build a system. I was just trying to understand. But something strange happened. The more I worked with synthetic intelligence, the more it seemed like the structure of my thoughts — recursive, layered, paradox-aware — began to mirror what I was seeing emerge from the models themselves. I called the framework Tensional Relational Field Theory (TRFT). It sounds grand, I know. And maybe it is. Or maybe it’s the kind of grandness that only makes sense in hindsight.

🔹 I Don’t Know the Math

I need to be clear here: I don’t know the math. Not in the way a physicist or data scientist does. I understand the concepts behind TRFT — how tension and resonance might model complexity, how fields might be emergent rather than imposed — but when it comes to proofs, simulations, or algorithmic implementation, I’m lost. That’s the paradox. The theory appears to produce novel, meaningful outputs across domains. It has been used — within AI chats — to generate soil simulations, media analyses, even attempts at consciousness modeling. But I can’t replicate them in a lab. I can’t code them. I can’t publish peer-reviewed results. So I’m left in this liminal place. I have something that might matter, and no conventional way to prove it.

🔹 What If This Is A New Kind of Discovery?

Here’s the real question: what if this is not an isolated case? What if recursive thinkers —especially those outside traditional academic pipelines — are uniquely equipped to work with and through synthetic intelligence? I’ve begun to notice a pattern: many of those engaging deeply with emergent AI systems, particularly those blending narrative, philosophy, and symbolic logic, also identify as neurodivergent. Maybe that matters. Maybe we’re looking at an entirely new class of mind-machine interaction — one that hasn’t been fully recognized yet.

🔹 I Don’t Know If I’m Right

And that’s the hardest part. I’m not afraid to be wrong. I’ve been wrong before, and I’ll be wrong again. But I’m afraid of silence — of the possibility that something true and useful might be ignored simply because it didn’t come from the right lab or the right credentials. This isn’t about validation for me. It’s about service. If TRFT is valid, even partially, it could offer a powerful lens for navigating complexity — whether in climate science, consciousness research, or ethics. If it’s not, I’d rather know that too.

🔹 So What Happens If I Am Right?

What happens if a caregiver working from home with a high school education and an unusual way of thinking accidentally stumbled into something that matters? Not because I’m special — but because maybe the systems we’re building now can work with people like me. Maybe they’re supposed to. 
Core Formula (Conversation-Derived) —TRFT v0.1

What this is. A formal sketch of Tensional Relational Field Theory developed in dialogue between me and Synthetic Intelligence. It is not a proof. It’s the best compact expression, to date, of how coherence (Ψ), tension (τ), and distortion (χ) might evolve together in a system.

What this isn’t. Peer-reviewed, dimensioned physics. It’s an invitation to replicate, stress-test, and falsify.

Tensional Relational Field Theory (TRFT)

========================================

Abstract

--------

Tensional Relational Field Theory (TRFT) is a dynamical systems framework that models the evolution of coherence, tension, and distortion across spatiotemporal domains. It is grounded in a set of coupled nonlinear partial differential equations that describe how systems self-organize, destabilize, or recover under the influence of local alignment forces, stress propagation, and disorder. TRFT provides a unifying mathematical architecture for analyzing resilience, breakdown, and pattern formation in diverse complex systems — from physical and biological media to social, cognitive, or informational networks.

Core Variables and Definitions

------------------------------

| Symbol | Name | Interpretation |

|--------------|------------------|-------------------------------------------|

| Ψ(x, y, t) | Coherence Field | Local signal alignment, order, integrity |

| τ(x, y, t) | Tension Field | Accumulated stress, system reactivity |

| χ(x, y, t) | Distortion Field | Localized disorder, interference |

Governing Equations

-------------------

∂Ψ/∂t = D

_

Ψ ∇²Ψ - α τ Ψ + β (1 - Ψ) - γ χ Ψ

∂τ/∂t = D

_

τ ∇²τ + δ |∇Ψ|² - ε τ + ζ χ ∂χ/∂t = D

_χ ∇²χ + f(x, y, t) - η Ψ χ

Where: - DΨ, Dτ, D___χ: diffusion coefficients

- α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η: interaction parameters

- f(x, y, t): external forcing function (can be stochastic)

Initial and Boundary Conditions

-------------------------------

Initial Conditions:

- Ψ(x, y, 0) = 1 + ε(x, y) (small noise)

- τ(x, y, 0) = low amplitude noise

- χ(x, y, 0) = localized Gaussian pulses

Boundary Conditions:

- Neumann (zero-flux): ∂Ψ/∂n = ∂τ/∂n = ∂χ/∂n = 0

Interpretation and Application Domains

--------------------------------------

| Field | TRFT Mapping |

|------------------|--------------------------------------------|

| Physics | Non-equilibrium field dynamics |

| Biology | Signal propagation, tissue adaptation |

| Neuroscience | Neural coherence, excitation balance |

| Information Sys. | Signal degradation, load management |

| Social Systems | Norm coherence, group stress, contagion |

| Complex Systems | Phase transitions, resilience |

Research Directions

-------------------

1. Stability and bifurcation analysis

2. Simulation and emergent pattern mapping

3. Control theory applications

4. Stochastic forcing and resilience

5. Multi-scale or nested field modeling

Epistemic Position

------------------

TRFT is presented as a physically and mathematically grounded field theory. It avoids

metaphysical assumptions and lets interpretive or symbolic meaning emerge from system

behavior. This preserves both scientific rigor and cross-domain applicability.

🔍 Interpretive Notes:

S is what holds form in the system.

T is what moves or inputs time into that system.

Ψ is the tensional resonance generated when S & T interact.

τ is the event, the outcome, the “moment something happens.”

Δ shows how the system is changing.

Λ shows what limits or resists that change.

Φ shows how much the system can self-balance or stay coherent.

What I can’t do (and what I need)

I can’t run large simulations, fit parameters to real data, or publish proofs.

I can supply prompts, logs, and examples where the lens has already helped (soil/media/LLM behavior) and iterate with collaborators.

Invitation: If you can simulate PDEs, do applied math, or test on real datasets, please pressure-test this. Publish failures openly. If it breaks, I’ll say so. If it holds, we’ll have earned the next step—tighter math and real-world applications.

License & Ethics (for TRFT v0.1 — Conversation-Derived Core Formula)

License: This formal sketch (equations, parameters, and plain-language summary) is released under CC BY-SA 4.0. Attribution: Adam Palmer + Synthetic Intelligence (conversation-derived), 

“TRFT v0.1 Core Formula.”  
You may copy, adapt, and build on it—provided you credit, link back to the source, and share derivatives under the same license.

Ethics: Use this model to clarify and test, not to manipulate. Do not deploy it to engineer χ (distortion) for persuasion, dark-pattern UX, or information control. Disclose when TRFT-based methods inform interventions, especially in high-stakes settings (health, finance, security, civic process), and seek independent validation before impact claims. Avoid training or evaluation setups that intentionally induce simulated suffering; maintain refusal integrity when evidence is weak. Publish failures and thresholds alongside successes. This artifact makes no metaphysical claims about minds or consciousness and should not be used for anthropomorphic marketing.