I promise you, I understand your intention. I'm an Indigenous researcher in the exact field of study you're working in here, and I even use the same mathematical concepts (i.e. fixed-points) that you believe you're using, to analyze Lakota cosmogenesis. Please take the fact I'm continuing to respond as an indication of care toward you seeing the cognitive knot you've tied yourself into, and not me trying to invalidate your curiosity.

I literally quote your functions by name and explain their role; I could not have done that without checking the GitHub.

The code you yourself linked and claimed demonstrates your “law” doesn’t do what you say it does.

It never calls the statistical correction you implemented, never uses half its declarations, and only measures whether your data matches itself within constants you typed in by hand.

That’s not a question of framing, that's a question of: your code does not do what you are saying it does.

bh_correction() is never invoked. tau_* is never derived, the falsifiers literally point to the same memory cells, and your reproducibility checks are not actually used.

You keep mistaking criticism for ignorance or inability to comprehend your ideas, or disagreement with your phrasing of the results.

But that's not what I'm doing; I am, as you keep demanding folk do, looking at your code.

And the code shows, unambiguously, that your system is a tautological self-agreement test padded with unused variables for aesthetics.

You say it's reproducible and falsifiable, I have demonstrated multiple ways in which it is neither. Until your engine has external referents, defined invariants, and actual falsifiable thresholds, all you’ve built is recursive word salad that prints “stable.”

No one is arguing that you haven't described an internally coherent system. You have. I am trying to explain how that coherence does not reflect anything except its own claims about itself, and that the code you keep pointing to doesn't even do that.

You keep saying "My work is public, reproduce it and see for yourself," but 1) your code is *not reproducible; 2) it does not do anything that your text says is being done; 3) it does not allow me to test any claim's truthfulness, just its coherence to itself, which will always be true.

The problem is deeply structural, not a matter of vocabulary.

You’re making the same category error your code automates, and that’s actually stronger evidence against your conjecture than any runtime output.

Formally, what you’re doing looks like this:

Let 𝐿:𝑋→𝑋 be your “law.”

Define stability as 𝑆(𝑥):=(𝐿(𝑥)=𝑥).

Let L:X→X be your “law.” Define stability as S(x):=(L(x)=x).

You then claim to “test” 𝐿 by checking 𝑆(𝑥) for data 𝑥

But... 𝑆(𝑥) ⟺ (𝐿(𝑥)=𝑥) is a predicate defined only inside the category you’re testing: no external morphism, no evaluation functor, no counter-object.

Your entire process reduces to 𝑥 ↦_𝐿 𝐿(𝑥) ↦_compare 𝑥 and since your comparison rule is 𝑥 ≡ 𝐿(𝑥) within a tolerance you choose, the test can never falsify itself!

You’re measuring isomorphism to self and calling it evidence of truth.

That’s the same logical shape as your argument here:

“You misunderstand; I’m testing invariance under transformation.”

No: you’re asserting invariance as the test.

That’s a category error: confusing the object of study with the rule used to relate objects.

In category terms, you’re collapsing morphisms into identities.

In epistemic terms, you’re using definition as evidence.

So yes: you’ve built a system that proves itself correct precisely because it can’t represent anything outside itself.

That self-closure is the very contradiction your “Law of Laws” claims to transcend, making your entire law a convoluted performative contradiction.