What RSM Claims (And Doesn't)
A boundary-setting document
The Core Claim
RSM claims: Given the impossibility of specifying absolute void (V0) within any contrast-based representational system, certain structures follow necessarily.
That's it. That's the claim. Everything else is either a derivation from this, a postulate added to the framework, or an empirical mapping that may or may not hold.
What RSM Derives (Given the Postulates)
These follow from the framework. Rejecting them requires rejecting the foundational postulates.
| Claim | Derivation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| V0 is unspecifiable | Contrast requires content (Theorem 0.1) | Locked |
| Contrast is necessary | Distinguishability requires difference (Meta-Theorem 0.2) | Locked |
| O1 exists as minimal structure | Contrast produces generative center (Theorem 0.3) | Locked |
| O1 is unoccupiable | Infinite divisibility (Theorem 0.5) | Locked |
| Rotation is necessary | Measurement crisis (Theorem 2.1) | Locked |
| P1 != 0 | V0 prohibition (cancellation would produce V0) | Locked |
What RSM Assumes (Postulates)
These are modeling choices, not derivations. They can be rejected.
| Postulate | What It Enables | What Happens If Rejected |
|---|---|---|
| P1: Contrast | The entire framework | Framework doesn't start |
| P2: Continuity | e derivation, continuous-field claims | Framework becomes discrete; e doesn't emerge |
| P3: Frame Invariance | pi derivation, scale-invariance | Closure might take different form |
| P4: Reciprocal Constraint | P1 = 1 specifically | V0 prohibition unaffected; just lose specific value |
| P1T: Temporal Continuity | Present moment as temporal O1 | Temporal extension optional; spatial claims intact |
What RSM Predicts (Empirically Testable)
These are falsifiable claims. RSM is strengthened if they hold, weakened if they fail.
| Prediction | Domain | Falsification |
|---|---|---|
| Root tips maintain quiescent center | Plant biology | QC removal enhances growth |
| M^0.75 scaling (Kleiber's Law) | Biology | Alternative scaling fits better without RSM structure |
| Atomic orbitals map to O1 | Physics | Orbitals don't exhibit unoccupiable-center geometry |
What RSM Suggests (Structural Analogies)
These are pattern recognitions. Interesting, possibly insightful, but not derivations or proofs.
- - DDJ Chapter 1 reads as a coordinate system
- - DDJ Chapter 11 encodes O1 geometry
- - Euler's identity is "Contrast, Rotation, Closure" in five symbols
- - Zero is better understood as "generative" than "empty"
- - Hurricane eyes, tree pith, and atomic nuclei share O1 structure
Analogies invite investigation. They don't constitute evidence.
What RSM Does NOT Claim
These are explicitly outside the framework's scope. Not "not yet addressed" - deliberately excluded.
| Topic | RSM Position |
|---|---|
| Consciousness | No claim. Pattern recognition doesn't explain experience. |
| Physics | No claim. RSM doesn't derive physics. (Analogies != derivations.) |
| Metaphysics | No claim. RSM describes structure, not whether things "really exist." |
| Cosmology | No claim. Whether the universe "requires" this structure is unknown. |
| Ethics | No claim. Description, not prescription. How to live is your business. |
| Theology | No claim. "Generative center" is not God, Tao, or Brahman. |
| Ancient author intent | No claim. Parallel patterns don't mean Laozi "knew" this. |
Quick Reference
"Does RSM claim X?"
- Is X in the locked derivation chain (V0 -> Contrast -> O1 -> Rotation -> Three Requirements)? Claimed.
- Does X depend on a postulate (P2, P3, P4, P1T)? Claimed given the postulate.
- Is X an empirical mapping (plant biology, Kleiber, etc.)? Predicted, testable.
- Is X a structural analogy (DDJ readings, Euler interpretation)? Suggested, not proven.
- Is X about consciousness, physics fundamentals, metaphysics, or ethics? Not claimed.
The one-liner: RSM derives the structure of persistence from the impossibility of void. Everything else is either math, empirical test, or interesting analogy - and we try to label which is which.