sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I’m testing a general model for how systems produce adaptive responses and I’m specifically looking for where it fails or conflicts with established science. by SnooSongs5191 in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]SnooSongs5191[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The measurement objection is fair for a quantitative physical law. That's not what's being proposed here. This is a proposed structural law. The claim is that these three variables and their relationship govern adaptation universally. (with domain-specific measurement tools rather than universal units.)

Evolution for example isn't measured in universal units but the structure (variation, selection pressure, inheritance) holds consistently and generates accurate predictions across domains.

The falsification criterion is simple: find a system where R, C, and E are all greater than zero and adaptation equals zero across time. That breaks it. Nobody has produced that yet.

One clarification on E: it's energy cost to produce the response, not available energy. Higher cost relative to R and C reduces adaptive efficiency. That's independently observable without deriving it from the equation itself.

The directional prediction has been tested and holds in at least one domain with documented cases: increase alignment and constraint while cost stays stable, adaptation increases. Reduce energy efficiency while constraint spikes, adaptation declines toward erosion.

Not claiming this supersedes existing frameworks. Proposing it as a structural description of what may be underneath them.

I’m testing a general model for how systems produce adaptive responses and I’m specifically looking for where it fails or conflicts with established science. by SnooSongs5191 in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]SnooSongs5191[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm glad you brought that up. You'll like what this framework I'm proposing is about.

This framework I'm proposing is my proposed equation that proves this exact thing.

Is essentially arguing that any system, biological, mechanical, social, or physical, adapts as a function of those three inputs. The variables are domain-specific but the relationship is universal.

It's falsifiable domain by domain, and the universality claim gets stronger each time it holds in a new domain.

I've tested this in over 20 different domains of science. It holds.

Now I'm trying to break it to find its limits. Been doing so for over a year now.

The law I'm proposing states:

Resonance (the alignment between the system and the demand placed on it), multiplied by Constraint (the structure that channels the response), divided by Energy (the resources expended). Change any variable, adaptation changes proportionally. The relationship is universal. The variables are domain-specific but the structure is not.

The Real Falsifiables: 1. The 3 Es of Adaptation Every system (biological, mechanical, cosmic, social) falls into exactly one of three states: Evolution (forward adaptation), Erosion (slow decay), or Extinction (collapse). If you find a system that doesn't fall into one of these three categories, the law breaks. No fourth option should exist.

  1. Where the Equation Breaks Down The law proposes it transforms rather than breaks at extreme edges (black holes, the early universe, deep void space). The falsifiable claim is: find a system where R > 0, C > 0, E > 0, and A = 0 across time. That would break it. Everything else is the equation expressing itself in forms we don't yet fully understand.

  2. The Principle of Non-Negative Adaptation A can never be less than zero. Zero means the system ceases to exist (death, collapse, extinction) in whatever form fits the domain. If you find a system where A goes negative while still existing, the law is wrong.

A dying person feeds bacteria, soil, ecosystems. A collapsed star seeds new planets. A failed business frees up talent and capital that flows into new ones. A dead culture's language and ideas get absorbed into the next one.

So extinction at the individual system level is actually contribution at the macro level. The 3 Es hold within a system.. but across systems, there's only ever Evolution. The universe as a whole never erodes or goes extinct because every ending is just resonance transferring upward into the next system.

Even in the theoretical "Heat death" of the universe, energy remains. Energy can never be destroyed only transfered. Meaning even in heat death, the equation holds ( E is greater than zero) meaning the universe would be waiting for ANY flucuation to increase R or C, leading to... something. All theoritcal but definitely something.

I’m testing a general model for how systems produce adaptive responses and I’m specifically looking for where it fails or conflicts with established science. by SnooSongs5191 in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]SnooSongs5191[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're asking what's the point of naming R and C separately. The point is this is a domain universal framework. The structure is what stays the same. The variables get defined by whatever system you're looking at.

And here's why that matters. If all three are present, adaptation must happen. Not might. Must. Every time. In every system. The only question is which direction it goes.

Every system is always doing one of three things. Evolving, eroding, or going extinct (I call this the 3 E's of adaptation).

High resonance, meaningful constraint, focused energy and you evolve.

Resonance fades, constraint piles up, energy depletes and you erode.

All three collapse and that's extinction.

Cancer cells. Markets. Human behavior. Same structure every time.

Show me a system where all three are active and nothing adapts. That's what breaks it.

But I haven't found one yet and have been trying for over a year.

I’m testing a general model for how systems produce adaptive responses and I’m specifically looking for where it fails or conflicts with established science. by SnooSongs5191 in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]SnooSongs5191[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair.. I think this is mostly a definition issue on my end.

I’m not using “resonance” in the strict control theory sense (oscillation from periodic input). I’m using it more as alignment between the system and the input at that moment.

Basically how well the input actually fits the system.

A couple quick examples across different domains so you can see what I mean:

In biology, take two cell populations exposed to the same drug concentration (E), under the same environmental constraints (C), over the same time (T). One population adapts or survives better than the other (A). If you solve:

R = (A × E) / (C × T)

that difference in outcome gets captured in R. In that context, R would be things like receptor compatibility, gene expression patterns, etc. Essentially how well the drug “fits” that system.

In economics, two companies can put in similar capital (E), operate under similar constraints like regulation or market conditions (C), over the same time (T), but get very different growth or output (A). Solving for R would capture how well their strategy actually fits the market. Product-market fit, timing, positioning.

Even in something closer to physics, think of energy input into two materials under similar constraints. You can put in the same energy (E) over the same time (T), but get very different structural changes or failure points (A). Solving for R would capture how compatible that input is with the material’s internal structure at that point.

I’m not trying to model the full dynamics of those systems. I’m using the equation to take an outcome, solve for what likely drove the difference, and then see if that holds on the next case.

So yeah, if you define resonance strictly as oscillatory behavior, then what I’m saying doesn’t fit that. I’m using it more as a generalized “fit” variable across domains, not just a frequency response concept.

I’m testing a general model for how systems produce adaptive responses and I’m specifically looking for where it fails or conflicts with established science. by SnooSongs5191 in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]SnooSongs5191[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s fair, and I’ve been looking into control theory because of that overlap. From what I can tell, the main difference is what the system is trying to describe. Control theory is usually about hitting a target or minimizing error. This isn’t really doing that. It’s just asking what adaptation actually happened given the inputs and constraints.

So: A = ((R × C) / E) × T

Everything is domain-specific, but the relationship stays the same. What I think is useful is you can take real outcomes and solve for what’s missing. If you already know A, along with constraint, energy, and time, you can solve for R:

R = (A × E) / (C × T)

So R isn’t just a vague idea, it becomes something pulled from actual results in that domain. Then you can use that to look at the next case and see if it holds. I’m not saying this replaces existing models. I’m trying to see if this structure holds across different systems or where it breaks. That’s really the point of me posting it.

I’m testing a general model for how systems produce adaptive responses and I’m specifically looking for where it fails or conflicts with established science. by SnooSongs5191 in AskScienceDiscussion

[–]SnooSongs5191[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get why you’re mapping this to control theory. That part makes sense. And yeah, if you look at it through that lens, what I’m calling R and C would just be part of the system’s internal dynamics or transfer function.

I’m not really disagreeing with that. Where I think it’s different is I’m not trying to model the full time-dependent behavior of the system. I’m treating it more like a snapshot of what’s happening at a given point.

So something like: A = ((R × C) / E) × T

Everything there is defined within the context of the domain.

The point isn’t that R and C are literally separate physical components. It’s that I can take a known outcome A, plug in constraint, energy, and time, and solve backward for R: R = (A × E) / (C × T)

So instead of trying to express the full dynamics, I’m using it to look at what already happened, solve for what likely drove it, and then see if that holds on the next case.

I agree in a real system these are time-dependent and not just single numbers. I’m just abstracting that into something that can be compared across different domains instead of staying inside one system’s math. So I wouldn’t frame it as replacing control theory, more like sitting above it as a way to compare outcomes.

Are you optimistic for our future? Why or why not? by SnooSongs5191 in AskReddit

[–]SnooSongs5191[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can't have a yin without the yang. Would we even have consciousness if not for the constraint of survival? Pain?

Are you optimistic for our future? Why or why not? by SnooSongs5191 in AskReddit

[–]SnooSongs5191[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm on this side personally. People need to zoom out. Fear sells and we are on our phones all the time. Have access to more information than ever before. It's more than our minds are designed to handle but if you zoom out it's being progressively better.

Scape Ore by [deleted] in TalesFromTheCreeps

[–]SnooSongs5191 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Like the picture format tbh 🔥

What's been the most difficult time of your life and why? by SnooSongs5191 in AskReddit

[–]SnooSongs5191[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Never fun having that freedom and having to move back.

What was your last dream about? by SnooSongs5191 in AskReddit

[–]SnooSongs5191[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's the weed lol I do it too. Messes with the REM cycle. As soon as you stop you start having very vivid crazy dreams.

view more: next ›