4 ms·
Show HN: My attempt to formalize "Buddhist" reality
I'm interested in Buddhist philosophy, and specifically studying Nāgārjuna's Middle Way gave me inspiration to formalize it mathematically and see what would emerge as a result.
(My background: engineer/co-founder (Qualcomm/Adreno GPU, Bumble, Stereo), 16 years of meditation practice, 2+ years in Southeast Asian monasteries and silent retreats)
Starting from one Buddhist-inspired axiom—recursive duality E={E⁻,E⁺} - I derived:
1) Boolean logic (from period structure of minimal couplings)
2) Universal computation (closure enables Turing-completeness)
3) Memory (pattern persistence across computational steps)
4) Three-dimensional space (stabilized projection of structure)
5) Quantum-like behavior (pre-spatial compatibility constraints)
6) Gravity-like effects (stability gradients in hierarchical structure)
The logic/computation part is rigorous. I've worked out a formal derivation with proofs. The quantum/gravity parts are more exploratory.
I discovered Spencer-Brown's Laws of Form late in this process. His approach encodes Boolean structure through chosen rewrite laws. My derivation differs: no free parameters, canonical constructions only, truth tables computed rather than designed.
I'm seeking:
- arXiv endorsement (first-time submitter, need referral for cs.LO or math.LO)
- your feedback of my book (it's free on Kindle: https://theplusminus.xyz https://theplusminus.xyz if for some reason doesn't work can send a PDF)
The book is illustrative/accessible. The technical paper with rigorous proofs needs 1-2 more days of polishing before I'm ready to share. If you're interested in endorsing, I can prioritize sending you an early draft.
- karagenit 9mo agoI would highly recommend giving this excelled LessWrong post a read: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/rarcxjGp47dcHftCP/your-llm-assisted-scientific-breakthrough-probably-isn-t https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/rarcxjGp47dcHftCP/your-llm-a... It isn't a perfect fit, since the article talks a lot about the scientific method which doesn't apply super well to philosophy+math, but I think there are some strong parallels here.
- arthurnogman 9mo agoYes. There are parallels, thanks a lot for sharing this! Especially on emergence, and explaining quantum effect. The better news for me: - I did follow though their step 1 and 2 from the start, and I noticed that the LLMs hallucinate, confirming some apparent nonsense, specifically ChatGPT. So I cross checked Grok, Sonnet, Gemini, DeepSeek. With 0 context on me. - I did the dereivation of logic independently of llms, the only thing I asked is "cosmetic" and even that cosmetic I checked with cross-reference I'd be glad to see the other "genuises" and their work, to understand what exactly am I dealing with here. Because "quantum-consciousness" crowd was there forever long before LLMs and they just likely to amplified with LLMs saying them how unique they are.
- arthurnogman 9mo agoThe worst part here is that if that LLM-science is going mainstream right now, then people will dismiss anything in that direction despite of quality