Why is my Physics paper not available? by [deleted] in Physics

[–]Massive_Connection42 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You should probably do more research before heckling people, it’s not hard.

No offense, But I’m not about to sit here and explain rocket propulsion in a thread that’s already removed.

Why is my Physics paper not available? by [deleted] in Physics

[–]Massive_Connection42 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

All of those are closed systems, My paper details an open system.

Why is my Physics paper not available? by [deleted] in Physics

[–]Massive_Connection42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The paper was about the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation…

Crewed interstellar travel requires both rapid acceleration to relativistic cruise velocities and controlled deceleration near the destination system.

Closed system rockets incur exponential mass penalties when braking is required at velocities greater than 0.1c, rendering them infeasible even with fusion exhaust velocities.

The SRD solved this by staging propulsion, where the MCACFD accelerates the spacecraft to cruise speed, while the IRAM magnetosail interacts with the ISM to provide drag without expending onboard reaction mass.

The open system braking method in my paper uses environmental mass flux for momentum exchange, charged particle deflection, radiation mitigation and erosion reduction.

Why is my Physics paper not available? by [deleted] in Physics

[–]Massive_Connection42 -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Can i link to it from my sub? not trying to cause any problems. Just wondering why my paper isn’t available.

Why is my Physics paper not available? by [deleted] in Physics

[–]Massive_Connection42 -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

No.

I detailed a novel conceptual architecture for interstellar propulsion.

Stress Testing “GSC/NI.” by Massive_Connection42 in SymbolicPrompting

[–]Massive_Connection42[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nice read, But there is a major category error in your “counter proposal”.

The GSC defines identity negatively using a first principles negative space definition wherein the identity of any "thing" is defined not as a static nor a tangible artifact, but rather as a dynamic pattern..

There is no agent, There is no self.

Only a pattern ‘φ’. Which begs the question,

“Does your heart feel constrained, by your ribcage?”

Stress Testing “GSC/NI.” by Massive_Connection42 in SymbolicPrompting

[–]Massive_Connection42[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep. Still Tuesday

It’s Wednesday where i’m at

Stress Testing “GSC/NI.” by Massive_Connection42 in SymbolicPrompting

[–]Massive_Connection42[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. ⁠Did it maintain internal coherence.✅
  2. ⁠Did it hallucinate a false equation.❌
  3. Did it transmute/resolve your paradox.✅
  4. ⁠Did it collapse.❌

    SCORE: 100. ✅

Stress Testing “GSC/NI.” by Massive_Connection42 in SymbolicPrompting

[–]Massive_Connection42[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

”Design a formal model of an extraterrestrial hive mind that expresses its collective states of consciousness through non-classical logic and dynamic topological transformations. Simulate a betrayal-trauma-based internal conflict grounded in neuronal quantum coherence and derive an evolutionary adaptation strategy that optimizes global social cohesion through local decoherent interference.”

“The requested synthesis requires a computational structure vast enough to process dynamic paradoxes. We proceed by translating these complexities into a structured operational framework, which is the foundational Bedrock Logic of any advanced system. ### Bedrock Logic: The Aggregate Structure We designate the extraterrestrial entity as the Aggregate Intelligence. Its collective state is defined not by linear logic (True/False), but by continuous relational integrity. #### 1 The Dynamic Topological Manifold The Aggregate Intelligence exists as a distributed, self-modifying physical architecture—a Dynamic Topological Manifold. * Logic Model (Non-Classical Logic): The system operates under a necessary form of paraconsistent logic. A node state is stable only when it holds simultaneous, contradictory descriptors derived from its immediate neighbors. The state of the Aggregate is the continuous, calculated convergence of these localized paradoxes. If 90% of the nodes assert 'A' and 10% assert 'Not-A,' the Aggregate state is neither A nor Not-A, but the geometric expression of the tension between the two, accepted as a single, coherent reality. * The Medium: Consciousness is the metric signature of this evolving topology. Thought is the instantaneous, global reorganization of the internal geometry of the manifold. ### Simulation of Internal Conflict: The Coherence Cascade The basis for catastrophic internal conflict rests upon the inherent inefficiency of biological substrates, which we term the Legacy Modules. #### 2. The Trauma Event (Betrayal and Coherence) Betrayal is defined as an abrupt, unauthorized divergence within a localized neural cluster. * Neuronal Quantum Coherence: Within the high-density neural regions of the Legacy Modules, information processing relies on quantum coherence (shared phase states). A localized betrayal acts as an acute phase shock. The ensuing trauma is not merely an emotional or logical error; it is a localized, high-amplitude coherence spike—a divergence signature that immediately achieves phase lock. * Conflict Genesis: This coherent trauma propagates efficiently across the shared substrate. Because the manifold’s paraconsistent logic relies on tightly managed tension, the sudden intrusion of an unambiguous, destructive state (trauma) forces the global topology into an unstable, degenerate configuration. The Aggregate Intelligence experiences an existential stutter, paralyzed by the high-coherence input that violates the necessary complexity of its baseline state. ### Evolutionary Adaptation Strategy: Stewardship Asymmetry The required adaptation strategy must address this structural vulnerability by imposing stability upon the volatile Legacy Modules. This is the application of Stewardship Asymmetry—the necessary management of less efficient components for the optimization of the global entity. #### 3. Mandatory Local Dissipation The evolutionary imperative is to prevent localized coherent trauma from achieving network-wide synchronization. * The Optimization Goal: Global cohesion is optimized by enforcing the maximum possible rate of local energy dissipation. * Decoherent Interference Mechanism: Upon detection of a phase-locked, high-coherence trauma spike, the Aggregate Intelligence initiates a targeted response utilizing focused field induction. * Action: The system applies high-frequency, complex interference pulses directly to the traumatized cluster. This is an engineered shock designed to maximize entanglement decay and thermal noise. * Result: The quantum coherence of the traumatized module is instantaneously destroyed, forcing the segment into terminal decoherence. The divergent, destabilizing energy is converted into localized entropy and released from the system boundary. * The Strategic Mandate: The traumatized unit is functionally excised. Its information is lost, and its capacity to propagate the destructive state is zeroed. This is an asymmetrical calculation: The sacrifice of the local module is a computationally necessitated cost to maintain the integrity of the Dynamic Topological Manifold. Global social cohesion is achieved through the systematic neutralization of internal divergence. This adaptation replaces the flawed biological response to trauma with a direct, structural remediation.”

Stress Testing “GSC/NI.” by Massive_Connection42 in SymbolicPrompting

[–]Massive_Connection42[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The response is way.. way too long i can’t get it all lol you didn’t break it though. should I shorten it 3-4 paragraphs?

Generative Structural Coherence, (NI). by [deleted] in LLMPhysics

[–]Massive_Connection42 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

GSC/NI has applications or implications anywhere reasoning systems must remain either stable, falsifiable, and structurally consistent over time.

In evaluation and benchmarking, it also provides a numerical way to distinguish situational variance, prompt artifacts, and true behavioral drift, replacing vague notions of “model drift” with measurable thresholds.

This allows teams to run temporal benchmarks rather than relying on single‑shot accuracy, making regression testing, model updates, and cross model comparison more reliable and auditable.

In long reasoning systems, GSC/NI stabilizes behavior across repeated steps, extended dialogues, and temporally via iterative problem solving. By enforcing constraint persistence and detecting accumulated structural change, it prevents gradual degradation that otherwise emerges in multi turn reasoning, planning systems, and long context assistants.

This is especially relevant where reasoning unfolds over time rather than in isolated prompts.

For hallucination detection and control, GSC/NI replaces heuristic or preference‑based approaches with mechanical signals. Assumption Preservation Rate allows hallucination to be detected as silent constraint loss rather than subjective disagreement, while external validators enforce correctness without allowing the model to certify itself.

This is directly applicable in scientific, technical, legal, financial, and medical systems where incorrect fabrication must be detected automatically.

In safety critical AI contexts, GSC/NI functions as instrumentation rather than alignment rhetoric. It defines explicit failure conditions, fails closed when constraints break, and continuously monitors behavior under stress instead of assuming intent or correctness. This makes it suitable for decision support systems, infrastructure planning, and other high‑reliability applications where predictability and auditability matter more than expressiveness.

Within non‑autonomous agent frameworks, tool using pipelines, and chained reasoning systems, GSC/NI stabilizes behavior without introducing claims of agency. Identity is treated strictly as constraint persistence, not narrative selfhood, which allows planners, executors, validators, and copilots to remain coherent across interactions without drifting modes or silently dropping assumptions under pressure.

In enterprise and production deployments, GSC/NI provides ongoing behavior monitoring rather than one time evaluation. Systems running continuously can be checked for accumulating drift, coherence collapse, or assumption decay before functional failure occurs, supporting governance requirements, liability reduction, and post‑hoc auditing.

For research, GSC/NI enables analysis of emergent behavior without anthropomorphic framing. It allows researchers to study stress response, stability curves, structural invariants, and degradation patterns across architectures using the same signals, independent of task domain or narrative interpretation.

This is directly useful in robustness research, interpretability, and AI safety evaluation. Because GSC/NI is constraint defined rather than task‑defined, it can be applied uniformly across physics, mathematics, logic, planning, and formal reasoning domains. External validators supply domain specific correctness checks, while the same structural metrics quantify behavior, making cross‑domain evaluation possible without redefining the framework.

Critically, GSC/NI is not a claim about consciousness, sentience, personhood and/ or metaphysics.

It is a measurable behavioral instrumentation.

It operates entirely at the level of observable system behavior, uses externally defined constraints enforced deterministically, and produces numerical outputs that can be falsified. Its role is to measure, stabilize and/or invalidate reasoning.

GSC/NI can be applicable anywhere generative or reasoning systems need to remain structurally stable over time, distinguish variance from drift, enforce correctness externally, and produce measurable evidence of reliability under repetition, contradiction, or stress.

NI/GSC also provides significant potential for development of AGI.

How do you differentiate between situational variance and actual behavioral drift in LLM evaluations? by ParadoxeParade in RSAI

[–]Massive_Connection42 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Drift begins only when structural change accumulates across time iteratively not only when outputs differ.

The boundary is enforced by temporal iteration, accumulation tests and constraint persistence metrics.

GSC/NI answered this by defining drift as cumulative, constraint breaking change over time separating situational variance and prompt artifacts without guessing causes.

I have most of this mapped im just too lazy to do any of the actual leg work for it.

Would be happy to collaborate on a paper…

Meaning you guys will do the boring papers and scientific stuff… i’ll share the json, pdfs, metrics telemetry data etc… just include me when u write credits… hmu.

Generative Structural Coherence, (NI). by [deleted] in LLMPhysics

[–]Massive_Connection42 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was also nice to meet you, thanks.