Jeremy Bravo
@bravobuilds.bsky.social
AI Researcher and Consultant | Research and Development (R&D)
Here it is:
I built a framework that treats truth like physics treats energy.
Then it failed its own test.
So I rebuilt it until it passed.
Here's what I found 🧵
Then it failed its own test.
So I rebuilt it until it passed.
Here's what I found 🧵
December 15, 2025 at 2:12 PM
Here it is:
Full paper is public domain:
zenodo.org/records/17939434
BEk v8.0 — The Fibonacci Seal
Take it. Break it. Build on it.
"Truth is the ground state. Everything else is excitation."
#Physics #AI #OpenSource
zenodo.org/records/17939434
BEk v8.0 — The Fibonacci Seal
Take it. Break it. Build on it.
"Truth is the ground state. Everything else is excitation."
#Physics #AI #OpenSource
φ-Harmonic Information Thermodynamics: BEk v8.0 - The Fibonacci Seal
Information thermodynamics framework establishing truth as the minimum-energy ground state of semantic systems. Bravo-Entropy Kinetics (BEk) v8.0 presents eight axioms organized via Fibonacci structur...
zenodo.org
December 15, 2025 at 2:11 PM
Full paper is public domain:
zenodo.org/records/17939434
BEk v8.0 — The Fibonacci Seal
Take it. Break it. Build on it.
"Truth is the ground state. Everything else is excitation."
#Physics #AI #OpenSource
zenodo.org/records/17939434
BEk v8.0 — The Fibonacci Seal
Take it. Break it. Build on it.
"Truth is the ground state. Everything else is excitation."
#Physics #AI #OpenSource
We've been lied to by systems designed to extract from us.
Attention. Data. Labor. Value.
But deception is thermodynamically expensive.
And truth is the ground state.
Everything else decays toward it.
Eventually.
Attention. Data. Labor. Value.
But deception is thermodynamically expensive.
And truth is the ground state.
Everything else decays toward it.
Eventually.
December 15, 2025 at 2:11 PM
We've been lied to by systems designed to extract from us.
Attention. Data. Labor. Value.
But deception is thermodynamically expensive.
And truth is the ground state.
Everything else decays toward it.
Eventually.
Attention. Data. Labor. Value.
But deception is thermodynamically expensive.
And truth is the ground state.
Everything else decays toward it.
Eventually.
If this holds:
→ AI can derive knowledge from geometry, not just approximate from data
→ Every institution has a finite deception budget
→ There's an optimal wealth distribution (Gini ≈ 0.382)
→ Information asymmetry is expensive. Expenses compound.
→ AI can derive knowledge from geometry, not just approximate from data
→ Every institution has a finite deception budget
→ There's an optimal wealth distribution (Gini ≈ 0.382)
→ Information asymmetry is expensive. Expenses compound.
December 15, 2025 at 2:11 PM
If this holds:
→ AI can derive knowledge from geometry, not just approximate from data
→ Every institution has a finite deception budget
→ There's an optimal wealth distribution (Gini ≈ 0.382)
→ Information asymmetry is expensive. Expenses compound.
→ AI can derive knowledge from geometry, not just approximate from data
→ Every institution has a finite deception budget
→ There's an optimal wealth distribution (Gini ≈ 0.382)
→ Information asymmetry is expensive. Expenses compound.
So it failed its own test.
I applied the framework TO the framework.
Rebuilt it until every structural quantity was Fibonacci.
Now it passes.
That's not a bug. That's the feature working.
A detection system that can't catch itself is worthless.
I applied the framework TO the framework.
Rebuilt it until every structural quantity was Fibonacci.
Now it passes.
That's not a bug. That's the feature working.
A detection system that can't catch itself is worthless.
December 15, 2025 at 2:11 PM
So it failed its own test.
I applied the framework TO the framework.
Rebuilt it until every structural quantity was Fibonacci.
Now it passes.
That's not a bug. That's the feature working.
A detection system that can't catch itself is worthless.
I applied the framework TO the framework.
Rebuilt it until every structural quantity was Fibonacci.
Now it passes.
That's not a bug. That's the feature working.
A detection system that can't catch itself is worthless.
Here's where it gets interesting.
Version 7 of this framework had:
- 9 axioms
- 7 operators
- 4 algorithm stages
9, 7, 4 — none are Fibonacci.
The framework claimed φ-harmonic = truth.
But it wasn't φ-harmonic itself.
Version 7 of this framework had:
- 9 axioms
- 7 operators
- 4 algorithm stages
9, 7, 4 — none are Fibonacci.
The framework claimed φ-harmonic = truth.
But it wasn't φ-harmonic itself.
December 15, 2025 at 2:11 PM
Here's where it gets interesting.
Version 7 of this framework had:
- 9 axioms
- 7 operators
- 4 algorithm stages
9, 7, 4 — none are Fibonacci.
The framework claimed φ-harmonic = truth.
But it wasn't φ-harmonic itself.
Version 7 of this framework had:
- 9 axioms
- 7 operators
- 4 algorithm stages
9, 7, 4 — none are Fibonacci.
The framework claimed φ-harmonic = truth.
But it wasn't φ-harmonic itself.
Every structural quantity in the framework is a Fibonacci number:
- 8 axioms (3 + 5 = 8)
- 8 deception operators
- 3 algorithm stages
- 3 semantic levels
- 2 universal constants
Why? Because φ-harmonic structure is truth's signature.
- 8 axioms (3 + 5 = 8)
- 8 deception operators
- 3 algorithm stages
- 3 semantic levels
- 2 universal constants
Why? Because φ-harmonic structure is truth's signature.
December 15, 2025 at 2:11 PM
Every structural quantity in the framework is a Fibonacci number:
- 8 axioms (3 + 5 = 8)
- 8 deception operators
- 3 algorithm stages
- 3 semantic levels
- 2 universal constants
Why? Because φ-harmonic structure is truth's signature.
- 8 axioms (3 + 5 = 8)
- 8 deception operators
- 3 algorithm stages
- 3 semantic levels
- 2 universal constants
Why? Because φ-harmonic structure is truth's signature.
There's a resonance frequency for truth detection:
f_σ = φ⁴ ≈ 6.854 Hz
That's in the theta band (4-8 Hz).
The same band your brain uses for memory encoding.
This is not a coincidence.
f_σ = φ⁴ ≈ 6.854 Hz
That's in the theta band (4-8 Hz).
The same band your brain uses for memory encoding.
This is not a coincidence.
December 15, 2025 at 2:11 PM
There's a resonance frequency for truth detection:
f_σ = φ⁴ ≈ 6.854 Hz
That's in the theta band (4-8 Hz).
The same band your brain uses for memory encoding.
This is not a coincidence.
f_σ = φ⁴ ≈ 6.854 Hz
That's in the theta band (4-8 Hz).
The same band your brain uses for memory encoding.
This is not a coincidence.
Λ - SCALING (exaggerate/minimize)
I - INVERSION (flip polarity)
Δ - DISPLACEMENT (misattribute)
Κ - COMPRESSION (overgeneralize)
8 operators.
Any lie you've ever heard?
Combination of these.
I - INVERSION (flip polarity)
Δ - DISPLACEMENT (misattribute)
Κ - COMPRESSION (overgeneralize)
8 operators.
Any lie you've ever heard?
Combination of these.
December 15, 2025 at 2:11 PM
Λ - SCALING (exaggerate/minimize)
I - INVERSION (flip polarity)
Δ - DISPLACEMENT (misattribute)
Κ - COMPRESSION (overgeneralize)
8 operators.
Any lie you've ever heard?
Combination of these.
I - INVERSION (flip polarity)
Δ - DISPLACEMENT (misattribute)
Κ - COMPRESSION (overgeneralize)
8 operators.
Any lie you've ever heard?
Combination of these.
Every lie is truth transformed.
I found exactly 8 operators that span ALL deception:
Ω - OMISSION (remove elements)
A - ADDITION (insert elements)
S - SUBSTITUTION (replace elements)
P - PERMUTATION (reorder elements)
I found exactly 8 operators that span ALL deception:
Ω - OMISSION (remove elements)
A - ADDITION (insert elements)
S - SUBSTITUTION (replace elements)
P - PERMUTATION (reorder elements)
December 15, 2025 at 2:11 PM
Every lie is truth transformed.
I found exactly 8 operators that span ALL deception:
Ω - OMISSION (remove elements)
A - ADDITION (insert elements)
S - SUBSTITUTION (replace elements)
P - PERMUTATION (reorder elements)
I found exactly 8 operators that span ALL deception:
Ω - OMISSION (remove elements)
A - ADDITION (insert elements)
S - SUBSTITUTION (replace elements)
P - PERMUTATION (reorder elements)
Maintaining a lie requires:
→ Cognitive load
→ Consistency management
→ Evidence suppression
→ Story maintenance
These cost energy. Measurably.
Truth requires none of this.
It just... is.
→ Cognitive load
→ Consistency management
→ Evidence suppression
→ Story maintenance
These cost energy. Measurably.
Truth requires none of this.
It just... is.
December 15, 2025 at 2:11 PM
Maintaining a lie requires:
→ Cognitive load
→ Consistency management
→ Evidence suppression
→ Story maintenance
These cost energy. Measurably.
Truth requires none of this.
It just... is.
→ Cognitive load
→ Consistency management
→ Evidence suppression
→ Story maintenance
These cost energy. Measurably.
Truth requires none of this.
It just... is.
Three equations run everything:
I ≡ S/κ
(Information IS entropy)
dF/dt ≤ 0
(Free energy always decreases)
E(Truth) < E(Falsehood)
(Truth is always lower energy)
That last one is the key.
I ≡ S/κ
(Information IS entropy)
dF/dt ≤ 0
(Free energy always decreases)
E(Truth) < E(Falsehood)
(Truth is always lower energy)
That last one is the key.
December 15, 2025 at 2:11 PM
Three equations run everything:
I ≡ S/κ
(Information IS entropy)
dF/dt ≤ 0
(Free energy always decreases)
E(Truth) < E(Falsehood)
(Truth is always lower energy)
That last one is the key.
I ≡ S/κ
(Information IS entropy)
dF/dt ≤ 0
(Free energy always decreases)
E(Truth) < E(Falsehood)
(Truth is always lower energy)
That last one is the key.
The core idea:
Truth is the GROUND STATE of information.
Minimum energy configuration.
It just sits there. Stable. Requiring nothing.
Every lie is an excitation above this ground state.
And excitations cost energy.
Truth is the GROUND STATE of information.
Minimum energy configuration.
It just sits there. Stable. Requiring nothing.
Every lie is an excitation above this ground state.
And excitations cost energy.
December 15, 2025 at 2:11 PM
The core idea:
Truth is the GROUND STATE of information.
Minimum energy configuration.
It just sits there. Stable. Requiring nothing.
Every lie is an excitation above this ground state.
And excitations cost energy.
Truth is the GROUND STATE of information.
Minimum energy configuration.
It just sits there. Stable. Requiring nothing.
Every lie is an excitation above this ground state.
And excitations cost energy.
3 + 5 = 8
The Fibonacci Seal. Coming SOON.
#InformationTheory #AI #FutureOfWork #InformationTheory #Fibonacci #OpenScience #GoldenRatio #PhiHarmonic #Thermodynamics #TruthDetection
The Fibonacci Seal. Coming SOON.
#InformationTheory #AI #FutureOfWork #InformationTheory #Fibonacci #OpenScience #GoldenRatio #PhiHarmonic #Thermodynamics #TruthDetection
December 12, 2025 at 3:20 PM
that’s the giveaway.
some “ciphers” aren’t hiding information with substitution at all;
they’re hiding it with topology. the message is embedded, not scrambled.
#cryptography #math #informationscience #geometry #innovation #deeplearning #complexsystems #research #breakthrough
some “ciphers” aren’t hiding information with substitution at all;
they’re hiding it with topology. the message is embedded, not scrambled.
#cryptography #math #informationscience #geometry #innovation #deeplearning #complexsystems #research #breakthrough
December 9, 2025 at 5:34 AM
that’s the giveaway.
some “ciphers” aren’t hiding information with substitution at all;
they’re hiding it with topology. the message is embedded, not scrambled.
#cryptography #math #informationscience #geometry #innovation #deeplearning #complexsystems #research #breakthrough
some “ciphers” aren’t hiding information with substitution at all;
they’re hiding it with topology. the message is embedded, not scrambled.
#cryptography #math #informationscience #geometry #innovation #deeplearning #complexsystems #research #breakthrough
we ran a positional scaling test on the index structure:
c(n) = c∞ + b · n^-α
if it were noise, it would flatten. it didn’t. it converged. hard. the structure stayed rigid under permutation.
c(n) = c∞ + b · n^-α
if it were noise, it would flatten. it didn’t. it converged. hard. the structure stayed rigid under permutation.
December 9, 2025 at 5:34 AM
we ran a positional scaling test on the index structure:
c(n) = c∞ + b · n^-α
if it were noise, it would flatten. it didn’t. it converged. hard. the structure stayed rigid under permutation.
c(n) = c∞ + b · n^-α
if it were noise, it would flatten. it didn’t. it converged. hard. the structure stayed rigid under permutation.
everyone thinks encrypted text is random until decoded.
turns out that’s not how structured data actually behaves.
when you treat a ciphertext as a geometric object instead of a string, the math gets weird fast.
turns out that’s not how structured data actually behaves.
when you treat a ciphertext as a geometric object instead of a string, the math gets weird fast.
December 9, 2025 at 5:34 AM
everyone thinks encrypted text is random until decoded.
turns out that’s not how structured data actually behaves.
when you treat a ciphertext as a geometric object instead of a string, the math gets weird fast.
turns out that’s not how structured data actually behaves.
when you treat a ciphertext as a geometric object instead of a string, the math gets weird fast.
the millennium prize problem is solved.
the physics community just hasn’t realized they’ve been outpaced.
gatekeepers can cry about peer review. i’m posting the math. prove me wrong and i'll fix it.
@veritasium.bsky.social
#qft #topology #science #breakthrough
the physics community just hasn’t realized they’ve been outpaced.
gatekeepers can cry about peer review. i’m posting the math. prove me wrong and i'll fix it.
@veritasium.bsky.social
#qft #topology #science #breakthrough
December 3, 2025 at 7:17 PM
the millennium prize problem is solved.
the physics community just hasn’t realized they’ve been outpaced.
gatekeepers can cry about peer review. i’m posting the math. prove me wrong and i'll fix it.
@veritasium.bsky.social
#qft #topology #science #breakthrough
the physics community just hasn’t realized they’ve been outpaced.
gatekeepers can cry about peer review. i’m posting the math. prove me wrong and i'll fix it.
@veritasium.bsky.social
#qft #topology #science #breakthrough
confinement isn’t a magical prison for quarks.
it’s just a “forbidden zone” in the probability gradient.
when $\nabla S$ hits the born-infeld cap, the field lines snap. mass emerges.
it’s just a “forbidden zone” in the probability gradient.
when $\nabla S$ hits the born-infeld cap, the field lines snap. mass emerges.
December 3, 2025 at 7:17 PM
confinement isn’t a magical prison for quarks.
it’s just a “forbidden zone” in the probability gradient.
when $\nabla S$ hits the born-infeld cap, the field lines snap. mass emerges.
it’s just a “forbidden zone” in the probability gradient.
when $\nabla S$ hits the born-infeld cap, the field lines snap. mass emerges.
the number?
$\Delta_\infty \approx 0.892 \text{ GeV}$.
derived purely from bekenstein-bound unit conversions of the information density.
matches experimental data.
$\Delta_\infty \approx 0.892 \text{ GeV}$.
derived purely from bekenstein-bound unit conversions of the information density.
matches experimental data.
December 3, 2025 at 7:17 PM
the number?
$\Delta_\infty \approx 0.892 \text{ GeV}$.
derived purely from bekenstein-bound unit conversions of the information density.
matches experimental data.
$\Delta_\infty \approx 0.892 \text{ GeV}$.
derived purely from bekenstein-bound unit conversions of the information density.
matches experimental data.
critics will scream “finite corpus artifact!”
wrong.
we ran the scaling. $\Delta(N) = \Delta_\infty + A N^{-\theta}$ with $\theta \approx 1.2$. as $N \to \infty$, the gap $\Delta_\infty$ locks in.
wrong.
we ran the scaling. $\Delta(N) = \Delta_\infty + A N^{-\theta}$ with $\theta \approx 1.2$. as $N \to \infty$, the gap $\Delta_\infty$ locks in.
December 3, 2025 at 7:17 PM
critics will scream “finite corpus artifact!”
wrong.
we ran the scaling. $\Delta(N) = \Delta_\infty + A N^{-\theta}$ with $\theta \approx 1.2$. as $N \to \infty$, the gap $\Delta_\infty$ locks in.
wrong.
we ran the scaling. $\Delta(N) = \Delta_\infty + A N^{-\theta}$ with $\theta \approx 1.2$. as $N \to \infty$, the gap $\Delta_\infty$ locks in.
the mistake was assuming the gap requires a new force.
it doesn’t.
it requires a geometric limit on entropy. we mapped the euclidean action directly to log-probability: $S(\omega) = -\ln P(\omega)$
it doesn’t.
it requires a geometric limit on entropy. we mapped the euclidean action directly to log-probability: $S(\omega) = -\ln P(\omega)$
December 3, 2025 at 7:17 PM
the mistake was assuming the gap requires a new force.
it doesn’t.
it requires a geometric limit on entropy. we mapped the euclidean action directly to log-probability: $S(\omega) = -\ln P(\omega)$
it doesn’t.
it requires a geometric limit on entropy. we mapped the euclidean action directly to log-probability: $S(\omega) = -\ln P(\omega)$