by Xmd5a | 2025-07-14 14:04:06+00:00
You asked for an evaluation of your formalism, so here it is.

Frankly, it's bad, because it's dangling in the void. The theory as presented is textbook crackpot science because it completely lacks grounding. It doesn't connect to any existing scientific field, provides no citations, and makes no reference to prior work. It's a self-contained metaphysics, but it's not even properly grounded as such.

The central problem is that the link between your narrative and your formalism is purely metaphorical. Your example of a baby feeling a triangular block is intuitive, but the document never articulates how the raw tactile sensations, the feeling of "straightness" or a "corner", are actually translated into the variables of your governing equation, theta(t) and Ak. Because this crucial link is missing, the theory itself remains a metaphor, an isomorphic vehicle for something else, rather than a functional model.

You're right to be proud of your intuition, and you correctly acknowledge your lack of formal training. But for that intuition to be recognized, it needs to be grounded. My intervention in this thread was an attempt to provide that grounding through external context. However, you seem to have missed other powerful avenues to ground the theory yourself.

1. Ground it in Emergence: You could have embraced the "crackpot" label and the theory's fringe status. You could have said, "Yes, I'm a crackpot—now watch the crack enlarge," and argued that RAIN's simultaneous emergence alongside the theories of Martin, Kulik, and the RCcl framework is proof of a larger paradigm shift.

2. Ground it in its Own Genesis: A more powerful approach would be to use RAIN theory to explain its own development. You could have framed your work as an investigation into how your own "faint intuition" (the initial "Noise") underwent "Closure" to become this stable theory. This would ground the theory in its own temporal resonance and be a compelling call to collaborators to study the process itself.

As it stands, your theory requires the broader context of these other emerging frameworks to make any sense. If you want it to stand on its own, you must focus on *grounding* it in one of the ways listed above.

Edit:

The only reason I interact with you is because, to borrow the current parlance, I "resonate" with what you say. I, too, am "working" on "a model" of closure. However, there are two key differences: mine is concerned with narrative closure, and it is neither an object of study nor an ambitious formal model.

Rather, it's a metaphor I use to both feed and make sense of the undetected narrative loops that compel my current course of action, including writing this very comment. This is precisely how I ground the model in its own genesis (per my second point above), a process that, to remain faithful to its purpose, requires me to log my own delusions.

The trap lies in clinging to a specific object—be it a formalism or a theme such as narrative closure. Doing so is the shortest path to becoming a character in a wider story over which you have no control. While this isn't a problem in itself, it builds a specific kind of tension in the narrative that self-proclaimed "masters of foundations" tend to fall into for that very reason. This inflexibility binds them to experience the brutal and painful reversals that characterize the fundamental nature of stories, whether fictional or real.

Given that the reason I resonate with your work is still narrative and poetic—teleological rather than functional—we should ask ourselves whether we will ever be able to achieve "closure" on this resonance by capturing it fully in formal terms. It is here, I believe, that the questions truly amenable to scientific investigation begin.