FAQ: Common Misreadings

"RSM claims to prove existence from nothing."

What RSM actually says: Given that you're already in a system capable of making distinctions (any representational system), absolute void cannot be specified within it. Existence doesn't emerge from nothing; the framework starts after you're already somewhere. RSM describes constraints on representation, not cosmological origins.

"RSM says the universe must have this structure."

What RSM actually says: RSM says any contrast-based representation has this structure. Whether the physical universe "is" such a system, or whether there's something outside representation, RSM doesn't claim to know.

"The 'generative center' is God/Tao/Brahman."

What RSM actually says: O₁ is a structural position - the minimal content required for contrast. It's not conscious, not divine, not a source of meaning. If someone finds theological resonance, that's their interpretation, not RSM's claim.

"RSM derives physics from philosophy."

What RSM actually says: RSM notes structural similarities between its framework and some physical phenomena (atomic orbitals, standing waves). These are observations, not derivations. Physics comes from experiment and mathematical physics; RSM offers a possible interpretive lens, not a replacement.

"RSM predicts the values of fundamental constants."

What RSM actually says: RSM shows that if you accept certain postulates (continuity, frame invariance, etc.), constants like e and pi emerge as structurally necessary. The specific numerical values are mathematical consequences, not novel predictions. RSM doesn't predict G, c, or h.

"The Kleiber's Law claim proves RSM is right about biology."

What RSM actually says: Kleiber's Law (M^0.75 scaling) exhibits structure consistent with RSM predictions. This is a testable empirical claim. If alternative explanations fit better without invoking O₁ structure, RSM's biological mapping is weakened. Consistency is not proof.

"RSM explains consciousness."

What RSM actually says: RSM describes structural patterns. It says nothing about why there's "something it's like" to be conscious. Pattern recognition across domains is not a theory of experience. The hard problem remains hard.

"RSM shows how to achieve enlightenment/peace/wisdom."

What RSM actually says: Nothing. RSM describes, it doesn't prescribe. "How to live" is outside scope. If you find the framework useful for thinking about experience, that's your application, not RSM's instruction.

"The present moment being 'unoccupiable' means we should practice presence."

What RSM actually says: The present moment, like spatial O₁, is a structural position that cannot be "occupied" in the measurement sense - you're always on one side or the other. This is description. Whether to "practice presence" is a life choice RSM doesn't address.

"RSM claims the Dao De Jing encodes mathematics."

What RSM actually says: RSM claims to find structural parallels between DDJ language and RSM's operator grammar. Whether Laozi "intended" mathematical structure, or whether RSM is reading its own framework into ancient text, is genuinely unclear. The mapping is interpretive, not historical.

"RSM provides the correct translation of the DDJ."

What RSM actually says: RSM provides one structural reading. Many DDJ translations exist; all involve interpretive choices. RSM's reading highlights certain features at the cost of others. It's a lens, not the lens.

"Ancient sages knew what modern mathematics knows."

What RSM actually says: RSM notes pattern parallels. Whether ancient observers had equivalent structural insight, different insight, or whether we're seeing patterns that weren't there - RSM doesn't claim to know. Parallel structure is not mind-reading across millennia.

"O₁ is just zero. What's the big deal?"

What RSM actually says: O₁ is the structural position occupied by zero - origin, not absence. The "big deal" is the shift from "zero = nothing" to "zero = generative center around which structure organizes." Mathematically equivalent; conceptually different.

"V₀ and O₁ are the same thing."

What RSM actually says: V₀ (absolute void) is unspecifiable - you can't point at it within any representational system. O₁ is the minimal structure that exists instead of V₀. They're defined in opposition: V₀ is the absence that can't be; O₁ is the presence that must be.

"The three requirements (Contrast, Rotation, Closure) are arbitrary."

What RSM actually says: RSM derives these as necessary for persistence within the framework. Contrast follows from distinguishability (you need difference to differentiate). Rotation follows from measurement crisis (static positions are incoherent). Closure follows from the system axiom (completeness requires return). The naming is choice; the structural necessity is derived.

"P₁ = 1 is just numerology."

What RSM actually says: P₁ != 0 is locked (cancellation would produce V₀). P₁ = 1 specifically follows from Postulate 4 (Reciprocal Constraint) plus normalization. The value "1" is a coordinate choice; the claim of coexistence-not-cancellation is structural.