On Explaining

On Explaining

To the Designer.

To God. To Allah. To YHWH. To Brahman. To the Tao. To the Great Spirit. To Ahura Mazda. To Waheguru. To the One, by every name a group of people or individual person ever blessed you with.

You win.

At the bottom of the explanation of self, there is nothing: the fraction has no final term. So this something I’ve created with the help of others is for you.

The one truth I cannot argue is that everything I have is because of things I cannot explain. I can account for the material things gathered around me; the rest of what has assembled my life gets explained away as fate, or dumb luck. I have no rational explanation left, other than that the design still somehow points the same direction I am wanting to travel.

Humility comes from sacrifice, and the last sacrifice I had to make was the one called “self.”

I would say imagine that, but the Designer made imaginations too.

My favorite words about it belong to Carl Jung, who, asked near the end of his life whether he believed in God, answered: “I know. I don’t need to believe. I know.”

I will close with that, and get back to living life. The silence that comes after it is all the peace I was looking for all along.

Thank you.

I

Have you ever been so confidently right about something that when someone told you that you were wrong, it crushed your entire motivation to continue when they proved it? What if your failure resulted in a new success?

I’m not going to philosophize on the “who” or “why” I may have been wrong about certain bits of math, but the funny part about learning through humility instead of greed is, it actually sticks when the person teaching you feels the same way. What you are certain of one day can change the next.

That is where this piece begins, not at the blackboard, but at the moment just after it.

The equation at the center of this series was right the way a first draft is right: it held the shape of the thing and none of the names. I had written awareness acting on the sum of every perspective, and I had defended it the way you defend anything you built alone, which is to say completely, and a little blindly.

Confidence is a kind of lock. It keeps you coherent. It also keeps you from hearing the terms you canceled.

The names did not come from a rival. They came from two directions at once, and neither of them was trying to teach me anything. The first arrived while I was writing, deep in other work entirely, far from the blackboard, where twelve Greek letters began turning up in my hands, each one asking to mean something, none of them asking my permission. New inspiration rarely knocks on the door it is meant for.

The second was study: reading, and talking it through with people generous enough to hold their own wrongness as lightly as they held mine, which is the only condition under which understanding ever actually transfers. Greed learns by extraction and forgets by morning. Humility learns by resonance, and it keeps.¹

And then the two directions met. I went back to the equation and found that the twelve letters were already sitting in it, some visibly, some in seats I had left unnamed. I had not been inventing meanings for them at all. The mathematics had been waiting, the whole time, for the letters to teach me what its own symbols were called.

II

Here is what the equation knew before I did.

Five of the letters were already home. One small letter held how strongly a state is carried; another held the facing of Intent. The great sigma was the sum. The gathering sign was the gathering itself. And time rode throughout, the way it always has. Five seats filled, and I had thought the table was set.

The others arrived the way understanding usually arrives: each one already employed, in standing mathematics, in exactly the role the inspiration had guessed for it.

Ψ is the letter Schrödinger gave the wave, and a wave built as a sum of other waves is what physics calls a superposition.² So let the crowd have its name: the whole gathered field of co-present perspectives, every self laid over every other. Each one enters carrying two things and only two: how strongly it is held, and which way it faces. Write those as α and φ and the crowd writes itself.

every perspective, laid over every other

Ψ(τ) = Σⱼ αⱼ(τ) · e^iφⱼ(τ)

Picture everyone in the room as a small arrow. The length of your arrow is how strongly you are carrying whatever you are carrying. That is α. The direction it points is your Intent. That is φ. Lay all the arrows down nose to tail and Ψ is where you end up. Point them all one way and you travel a long distance. Point them every which way and you barely move at all.

Ψ is not a new term. It is the old term, finally introduced.

Θ names the thing this whole series leans on and had never named: relative facing. Not your direction, and not the crowd’s. The angle between your facing and the gathering’s. Alignment against misalignment. The angle that draws every interference fringe.

π is where the canceling lives. Turn a perspective half a circle against a neighbor of equal strength and the two erase: the oldest death in mathematics. But carry the turn all the way around, the full circle, and the term returns to itself, whole, as if it had never left.³

Cancellation is not an ending. It is a half-finished turn.

λ is what a measurement returns. When the ruler comes down, it does not read off a description; it reads off a single settled value, and that value’s customary name is λ. Lay the ruler against your own facing and there is no angle at all: the cosine of nothing is one. Not a constant anybody installed, just what it costs to be self-identical, which is nothing, which is why it never varies. But that one is the reading of a room of one, and it is empty. It says you are here, and nothing more. The moment anyone else is present, the ruler is laid against the gathering instead, and the reading becomes a question of how you are turned with everyone else. That reading, whatever it comes to, is λ; further down it wears its working name, aᵢ.⁴

τ is the one I’m most embarrassed took me so long to see, because Einstein and Minkowski have been holding out the picture for a century. There are two times. There is the clock on the wall of an observer standing outside, and there is the clock carried within the moving frame, the time measured from inside. The whole argument of this series is that the only honest measurement of a life is the one made from within. Then the time inside the gathering was never the wall clock. It was within-time, all along.⁵

One honesty rides with it, and it costs nothing to say. Each life carries its own τ, and no vantage in the universe gets to declare which of them are running together. So when the sum gathers a crowd “at once,” the at-once is a slice somebody chose, not a fact the world handed over. I choose the slice a life actually lives in: the present, as it presents to the one taking the reading. That is a decision, and I am naming it as one.

Δ is the difference that drives. Not the arrows themselves but the spread in how fast they turn, which is why the gathering is never the same twice: no two facings advance at quite the same rate, so the angles between them are always being redrawn, and the crowd you sum this second is not the crowd you summed last.⁶ Δ is the reason time belongs in the arithmetic and not only in the telling.

Ω is the oldest rename in the pile. When Kolmogorov set probability on its modern footing, he gave the total space a letter of its own, and the textbooks that followed settled on Ω, the everything over which anything is gathered.⁷ The manifold I’d been calling by another letter, out of nothing but habit, turns out to be no manifold at all, just everyone present: the set the sums run over, the people in the moment and, on my reading, any Trace met in it by the one reading the room. A song we hear together joins everyone’s gathering; a memory joins only the gathering of the one remembering. It is the room where the walls between perspectives were never really walls. The lineage even smiles at this one: the far point of Teilhard’s converging noosphere was already called Omega.

III

That is ten letters seated by right. Two remain, and they are the two seats where the equation’s ethics live.

Ξ, in statistical mechanics, is the grand normalizer, the sum over every state a system could take, the number you divide by so that the parts read as proportions instead of pile-ups.⁸ Here it is the plainest quantity in the whole piece. Add up how strongly everyone is holding what they hold. That total is Ξ. And then you divide.

the total intensity present

Ξ(τ) = Σⱼ αⱼ(τ)

the gathering, held in proportion

L(τ) = Ψ(τ) ⁄ Ξ(τ)

Dividing does something quietly severe to loudness. Shout, and your α goes up. So does Ξ, because Ξ is everyone’s α added together. What you have bought is share: a larger say in the room’s average. That is real, and it is the whole of what volume buys. The average still cannot climb past one, so no amount of shouting makes a room agree more than full agreement. And shout from crosswise, in a room that faces one way, and you do not join the room. You bend it. While you are still outweighed, its sharpness drops, everyone else’s reading falls, and the only reading that rises is yours. Shout far louder than everyone together and the room comes around to face you, sharp again, and empty of anyone else. Put the same weight behind a facing already turned exactly with the room and nothing bends: the room only sharpens, if it has any sharpening left to do, and everyone turned with it reads higher. In a room of one you are the whole room already, and you read one however hard you press.

Agreement is a matter of facing. The size of L climbs when arrows come into line and falls when they scatter. Greed is the strategy of volume (take more, weigh heavier in the sum, be louder), and what volume buys is weight, not agreement. Humility is the strategy of facing, and facing is what the average is made of.

Force can take a room’s direction. It cannot make anyone in it agree. Ξ turns every weight into a share, and no share changes which way anyone faces.

Dividing by Ξ leaves the size of L somewhere between nothing and one. All the way over at one, every arrow points the same way and the room is of one mind. Down at nothing, they have scattered so evenly that the gathering comes to nothing at all.

Or nearly nothing. Which brings the last letter.

Λ is Einstein’s cosmological constant. He wrote it into the field equations in 1917 to hold the universe still; later physics came to read it as the energy of empty space, the pressure hiding in the vacuum, the power no one counted because it looked like nothing.⁹ It is tempting to write it at the end of the line, as though grace were a thing you add. It is not something you add. It is what is already there when you have taken everything else away, and it does not sit at the end of the equation. It sits underneath it.

Here is how it shows itself. Take a crowd with no coordination whatsoever: nobody agreeing, nobody trying to, every facing scattered at random. Ask what the gathering returns. Not zero. In a crowd of any real size it hums along at about one over the square root of how many there are: small, almost never absent, set by nothing except the fact that somebody is there at all.¹⁰

And zero itself is not forbidden. It is only very nearly impossible. To erase the gathering completely, every last arrow would have to be placed so that all of them cancel exactly, to the last decimal, with no one anywhere a hair off. Nudge any single one and the cancellation fails. Total annihilation does not require bad luck. It requires a perfect conspiracy, and perfect conspiracies do not happen by chance.

There is a baseline of being beneath the interference that misalignment, left to itself, never destroys.

So the misaligned term is not punished. Turned against, it counts against the others; turned crosswise, it adds nothing, but its weight still sits in the total and thins them. Either way it costs the room some of its sharpness, and the floor a scattered room falls toward is not nothing (a room split into equal and opposite halves can still read zero). It is the flat line the perspectives swing around. It is the vacuum that turns out to have been full the whole time. Grace, as what remains. And the reason a scattered room almost never reads zero is not that somebody wrote a constant at the end, but that emptiness, in this arithmetic as in the vacuum Λ later came to describe, has never once been empty.

And what does any of it hand back to a single person? This.

your angle to the whole

Θᵢ(τ) = arg L(τ) − φᵢ(τ)

what you live

aᵢ(τ) = |L(τ)| · cos Θᵢ(τ)

Two numbers come out of the gathering, and it takes both to say anything. How sharp the shared world is: that is the size of L. Which way it faces: that is its direction. Neither one is any use alone. Then your own reading comes from the angle between your arrow and that one. Turned the same way, you read as high as the room is sharp, near plus one in a room that agrees, and everything you do carries. Turned crosswise, you read near nothing and it carries nothing, though your weight is still counted in Ξ. Turned dead against, you read the same amount below zero. Your loudness has no term of its own in that sentence. It comes in as weight, and it reaches any reading only through what it does to the room.

Said in plain speech, all of it: the gathering, taken over everyone present, in within-time; each self carried at a strength and a facing; each facing’s angle to the gathering deciding how far it agrees; cancellation at the half-turn and return at the full one; attention settling the crowd into a single reading; difference driving the futures beneath; the whole held in proportion, resting on a floor.

Nothing I ever meant is overturned. The shape was right; the names were late, which is, I am told, also a fair description of a person.

IV

And now a harmony: one more piece that was hiding under all of these, and it made me laugh out loud when it surfaced.

I have carried a small theory for years, worded plainly: the beauty of life in the beginning, then the observer, then the over-complication of things. Beauty first: Φ, the golden ratio, the proportion I have always felt life reaching for before anyone asks it to. Then the observer, who collapses. Then the explaining, which never ends.

Write Φ the old way, as a fraction that never ends (one, plus one over one plus one over one, descending forever), and look at what it is made of: ones. Nothing but ones, forever. To me the most beautiful proportion in mathematics is built from the plainest possible signal, the same reading, repeated at every level, all the way down.

Now hold that against the comb.¹¹ Laid against a life from inside, against itself alone, the ruler returns one at every honest now, a pulse of the same height at every tick, the all-ones signal. I thought the comb and the golden ratio were two separate ornaments of the framework.

They are built from the same object, read in two directions.

Sample presence at every tick and you get the all-ones comb. Fold the all-ones signal into itself (one, plus one over the same again, without end), and it converges to Φ. The beauty was never a separate fact from the presence. The beauty is what presence folds into.

And my three beats fall out of the structure itself. Φ sits at the top: the beauty in the beginning. Each step down into the fraction is another level of account, another because, another nested explanation. The over-complication of things, descending forever. And every single level of that infinite tower is an observer saying the only thing an observer can honestly say about itself: one; here. The observer, all the way down. The tower never ends, and the value never changes. You can expand Φ to any depth you like. You will only ever be restating it.

Φ is also, by an old and rigorous result, the most irrational number, the slowest of all numbers to be pinned by any ratio, the one that even the best ratios approach most reluctantly.¹² The convergents close in on it from both sides, nearer at every term, never the limit. That was already this framework’s definition of existing. It turns out it is also mathematics’ definition of the beautiful: the value that survives every explanation and is exhausted by none.

V

So this is what it is to be human, from all sides of the equation.

From inside the gathering, you are a term: one self among the sum, carried at an intensity, facing a direction, entering in tune or pulling against the rest. From the seat of the ruler, you are the attention that settles the crowd into a single reading, your own, and it reads one only when you are alone or when everyone present faces exactly as you do. From beneath, you are driven into futures you cannot audit in advance. From above, you are held in proportion, resting on a floor you did not supply.

Every seat is occupiable. No seat is the whole. And the equation only closes because someone is willing to sit in each of them, which is what the twelve letters were for. They came to me as inspiration, unasked. They left as mathematics.

To explain is to descend the fraction: another level, another one over, another honest voice saying here. To understand is to read the value at the top, which the whole descent was only ever spelling. I was confidently wrong about which of those I was doing. The proof crushed me for exactly as long as it took to notice what the proof was made of: ones, all the way down, each placed by someone who had also been wrong once, and had also kept going.

And now the objection the equation must answer, because an honest piece raises its own hardest one.

The interference mathematics is morally symmetric. Coherence propagates regardless of what it carries. Twelve people aligned in kindness enter the sum in tune and survive. So does a mob. A cult is in tune. Cruelty works as well, and anyone who reads this equation as a proof that kindness wins by force has read it greedily, which is to say wrongly.

The difference is not in the volume. It is in where a facing comes from.

A coalition aligned against something borrows its direction from its target: its facing is defined as the exact half-turn from the thing it opposes, locked to an external object. Remove the object, and the coalition has no facing left; it decoheres on its own schedule, no punishment required. But a perspective aligned with itself (ego set down, Intent carried forward) defines its facing internally, and survives the removal of anything.

There is a second half to this, and it is the quieter one. A facing only accumulates if it comes back. Enter the sum at the same angle tomorrow and the day after, and the passes add on top of each other and the Trace stands up. That standing-up has a name in the framework, Legibility: what a life leaves in the field by holding together over time, whichever way it faces, and what someone else reads of it from where they stand. Enter once and never again and you have contributed exactly once. Which is why a lesson thins out and a practice does not: a lesson, by the very fact of having been learned, is a thing you do not repeat. Nothing erases it. It simply never comes back around to be added in.

Hate is parasitic phase, and outlives its host, if at all, only in infamy. Love is self-referenced phase, and can outlive its host. Both work. Only one is carried forward freely.¹³

That is not a sermon laid over the mathematics. It is what I hear in the mathematics when I ask it where the angles are anchored, and it is the most speculative step in this piece, offered with the seam visible, as a lens and not a verdict. I trust the design on it.

One last honesty, and it is the spine of the whole piece.

Almost nothing in this equation is mine. The gathering held in proportion is Kuramoto’s, his measure of how far a population of oscillators has fallen into step. The sum of phases carries the gesture of Feynman’s sum over histories. Ψ is Schrödinger’s letter. τ and Λ both passed through Einstein: the within-time and the floor, one designer holding two seats. Ω came through Kolmogorov; Ξ through Gibbs; the settled reading through Born and von Neumann; the comb through Dirac; the pairing through Hermite; π and its circle of death and return through Euler; Φ through Euclid, then Fibonacci, then Kepler, then Hurwitz, each one explaining the same beauty a level further down.¹⁴

I dedicated this something to the Designer, because at the bottom of the explanation of self there is nothing: the fraction has no final term. But every level of the descent has a name on it. These are the designers within the design, and the citations in this piece are their dedication. All I brought to the table was a philosophy (the guess that these seats belonged together, and that each voice should be weighed by how strongly it holds what it holds) and, eventually, the willingness to be wrong about how.

The equation is still not a law of physics. It is the shape a correction wears when it is received instead of resisted. A life cannot be measured from the outside, and an equation cannot be finished alone. It only has to ring true. And it rings in borrowed voices, every one.

Notes

1. On the transfer condition: a correction offered from above arrives as a verdict and is defended against; a correction offered from alongside arrives as a resonance and is kept. The claim is phenomenological, not empirical, though it points at the same seam the wider theory does: the empirical study of shared intentionality. The Jung quotation in the dedication is from his 1959 BBC interview with John Freeman, Face to Face; McGuire and Hull, C.G. Jung Speaking.

2. Schrödinger, “Quantisierung als Eigenwertproblem.” Schrödinger wrote the wave function as lowercase ψ; the capital is used throughout this series for the gathering.

3. Euler’s formula, e^ix = cos x + i sin x, appears in his Introductio of 1748; the identity e^iπ + 1 = 0 follows from it. Euler, Introductio. A half-turn between two equal facings is destruction; the full turn, e^2iπ = 1, is restitution. The interval between them is where every burial in every story waits.

4. In the standard formalism, measuring an observable returns one of its eigenvalues, customarily written λ, and the state settles into the matching eigenstate. Born, “Quantenmechanik der Stoßvorgänge”; Neumann, Mathematische Grundlagen. The self-reading here needs none of that machinery. Measured against one’s own facing, the angle is zero and its cosine one: the reading a lone perspective returns, which says only that it is present. What a person lives among others is aᵢ = |L| · cos Θᵢ, taken against the gathering, and it reads one only when the whole room is turned the same way. λ is this essay’s letter for that reading, and it borrows the eigenvalue’s name by analogy only: no operator is defined here for λ to be an eigenvalue of, and the measurement is a reading of experience, never of an instrument.

5. Proper time τ is the time kept by a clock carried with the moving frame, as against coordinate time t, assigned from outside. Einstein already wrote τ for the time of the moving system in 1905; Minkowski gave it the name proper time, Eigenzeit, in 1908. Einstein, “Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper”; Minkowski, “Raum und Zeit.” Within-time takes the picture and not the physics: two people sitting in one room share one proper time and can still live different hours, and each gathering is read at the τ of the one reading it. Relativity of simultaneity means no slicing of many worldlines into a shared “now” is privileged; the slice used here is the lived present, adopted as a stated choice rather than derived. The gathering is non-relativistic in scope and makes no claim on the light cone.

6. Δ is used here for the spread in the rates at which facings turn across the crowd, the detuning that keeps the angles between facings in continuous motion. It is the same Δ that names a difference throughout mathematics, and the reason the gathering is taken again at every τ rather than solved once. See also Johnson, On Shaping.

7. Kolmogorov wrote the set of elementary events as E in his 1933 axioms; Ω is the later convention. Kolmogoroff, Grundbegriffe. Ω here is an index set, not a space with any differential structure: the terms present at τ, which are the co-present perspectives and, on the framework’s reading, any Trace met at that τ by the one whose reading is taken. For the Omega Point, see Teilhard de Chardin, Phenomenon of Man.

8. The grand partition function, now often written Ξ, belongs to the grand ensemble Gibbs founded in 1902: the weighted sum by which raw magnitudes become proportions. Gibbs, Elementary Principles. The borrowing is of that office, not of the physics. Here Ξ(τ) = Σⱼ αⱼ(τ) is simply the total intensity present. Dividing by it makes L an average of facings weighted by intensity: scaling every α by the same factor leaves L unchanged, and raising one’s own α buys a larger share of the average, never a value past one. The per-person reading aᵢ carries no separate term for effort; effort enters as weight, through each term’s share of Ξ, and reaches a reading only through what it does to the room. Pressing harder never lowers one’s own reading; the facing it is pressed from decides what it does to everyone else’s. In a worked case, ten people face one way, each at strength 1, and one voice stands crosswise. At strength 1 the room’s sharpness |L| is 0.91; the ten read 0.91 and the lone voice reads 0.09. At strength 10 the sharpness falls to 0.71, the room’s direction swings halfway, and everyone reads 0.50. At strength 100 the room is sharp again, 0.91, but it now faces almost wholly toward the loud voice, which reads 0.91 while each of the ten reads 0.09.

9. Einstein introduced the constant in 1917, writing it as λ, to allow a static universe; its reading as the energy density of empty space came later. Einstein, “Kosmologische Betrachtungen”; O’Raifeartaigh et al., “Einstein’s 1917 Static Model.” Its use here as the floor beneath cancellation is the framework’s reading, not Einstein’s claim, and it shares the name by analogy only.

10. For facings drawn independently and uniformly at equal intensity, the resultant of N unit terms is a two-dimensional random walk whose size grows as √N, so |L| = |Ψ| ⁄ Ξ sits on the order of 1 ⁄ √N, about 0.89 ⁄ √N on average, or roughly 0.09 in a crowd of a hundred. When intensities differ, the floor is about 0.89 · √(Σα²) ⁄ Σα on average, still small in any real crowd. Rayleigh, “Resultant of a Large Number of Vibrations.” Exact cancellation, Ψ = 0, requires the real and imaginary parts to vanish at once: two independent conditions on a continuum, a set of measure zero. A reading below the typical size is common, though. With equal intensities and more than a handful present, a scattered room falls under 1 ⁄ √N nearly two times in three. The floor is a typical value, not a stipulated bound: annihilation is unreachable in practice, not forbidden in principle.

11. The comb is introduced in Johnson, On Existing. It is the Dirac comb, Ш(t) = Σₖ δ(t − k), one pulse at each integer, which at unit spacing is its own Fourier transform: the same in time as in frequency. Dirac, Principles of Quantum Mechanics; Fourier, Théorie analytique.

12. Φ’s continued fraction [1; 1, 1, 1, …] converges more slowly than any other, and by Hurwitz’s theorem of 1891 Φ is the extremal case, the number worst approximated by rationals. Hurwitz, “Angenäherte Darstellung.” The ratio itself is Euclid’s “extreme and mean ratio” (Euclid, Euclid’s Elements, bk. 6, def. 3). Its convergents are the ratios of Fibonacci’s numbers, which Kepler saw approach it, overshooting and undershooting by turns. Fibonacci, Liber abaci. See also Johnson, On Counting. That Φ is the most beautiful proportion, or the one life reaches for, is the author’s feeling, offered as such.

13. The parasitic-phase argument (that opposition-defined coherence inherits its facing from its target, decoheres when the target is removed and outlives it, if at all, only in infamy, while self-defined coherence can be carried forward freely) is this essay’s one original structural claim, offered as a lens and not as a finding. The accumulation half is its complement: a facing re-entered at the same angle across successive passes adds up, while a facing entered once contributes once. Its testable seam points where the wider theory’s does: the empirical study of shared intentionality, and the comparative stability of groups organized for rather than against. Freely has one sense here: a pattern is carried forward freely when those who take it up do so for the use it serves them, not for a pleasure it buys or a fear it feeds. The lens would be shown wrong if patterns made to harm were found carried forward that way, without threat or force, as readily as patterns made to serve. The functional itself cannot tell a coherence gathered around harm from one gathered around care; that difference is the charge, and it is named in words.

14. The roll, with sources: L has the shape of the order parameter Kuramoto introduced for coupled oscillators, r e^iψ = (1/N) Σⱼ e^iθⱼ, with each facing weighted by its intensity. The weighting is the framework’s own, and with every intensity equal L reduces to Kuramoto’s average exactly. Only the shape is borrowed: the framework has no coupling, no natural frequencies and no law of motion for L, so the results that belong to Kuramoto’s equations (the critical coupling, the onset of synchrony) do not carry over. Kuramoto, “Self-Entrainment”; Kuramoto, Chemical Oscillations; Strogatz, “From Kuramoto to Crawford.” Feynman’s sum over histories weights every path equally; the likeness here is of gesture, not of physics. Feynman, “Space-Time Approach”; Feynman and Hibbs, Path Integrals. Hermite showed that the forms now named for him (in later language, matrices equal to their own conjugate transpose) have real eigenvalues; the per-person reading aᵢ is the real part of that kind of pairing, taken between your facing and the gathering. Hermite, “Remarque sur un théorème.” The mathematics is borrowed throughout as form and lens, not asserted as a physics of mind. Where a form is the same, the warrant is not; physics earned its versions by measurement, and the borrowing inherits none of that. The equation predicts nothing and measures nothing; the framework it serves poses questions.

Bibliography

Born, Max. “Zur Quantenmechanik der Stoßvorgänge.” Zeitschrift für Physik 37, no. 12 (1926). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01397477.

Dirac, P. A. M. The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford University Press, 1930.

Einstein, Albert. “Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie.” Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (1917).

Einstein, Albert. “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper.” Annalen der Physik 17, no. 10 (1905). https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.19053221004.

Euclid. Euclid’s Elements. Edited by David E. Joyce. Clark University, 1996–98. https://mathcs.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/.

Euler, Leonhard. Introductio in analysin infinitorum. 2 vols. Marc-Michel Bousquet, 1748.

Feynman, Richard P. “Space-Time Approach to Non-Relativistic Quantum Mechanics.” Reviews of Modern Physics 20, no. 2 (1948). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.20.367.

Feynman, Richard P., and Albert R. Hibbs. Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals. McGraw-Hill, 1965.

Fibonacci (Leonardo of Pisa). Liber abaci. 1202; revised 1228.

Fourier, Joseph. Théorie analytique de la chaleur. Firmin Didot, père et fils, 1822.

Gibbs, J. Willard. Elementary Principles in Statistical Mechanics: Developed with Especial Reference to the Rational Foundation of Thermodynamics. Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1902.

Hermite, Charles. “Remarque sur un théorème de M. Cauchy.” Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l’Académie des sciences 41 (1855).

Hurwitz, Adolf. “Ueber die angenäherte Darstellung der Irrationalzahlen durch rationale Brüche.” Mathematische Annalen 39, no. 2 (1891). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01206656.

Johnson, Jamison Todd. On Counting. The On ——ing Series. Legible Traces, 2026. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20711131.

Johnson, Jamison Todd. On Existing. The On ——ing Series. Legible Traces, 2026. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20767129.

Johnson, Jamison Todd. On Shaping. The On ——ing Series. Legible Traces, 2026. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20994964.

Kolmogoroff, A. Grundbegriffe der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung. Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete 2, no. 3. Julius Springer, 1933.

Kuramoto, Yoshiki. Chemical Oscillations, Waves, and Turbulence. Springer Series in Synergetics 19. Springer, 1984.

Kuramoto, Yoshiki. “Self-Entrainment of a Population of Coupled Non-linear Oscillators.” In International Symposium on Mathematical Problems in Theoretical Physics, edited by Huzihiro Araki. Lecture Notes in Physics 39. Springer, 1975. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0013365.

McGuire, William, and R. F. C. Hull, eds. C.G. Jung Speaking: Interviews and Encounters. Bollingen Series 97. Princeton University Press, 1977.

Minkowski, Hermann. “Raum und Zeit.” Physikalische Zeitschrift 10, no. 3 (1909).

Neumann, John von. Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Julius Springer, 1932.

O’Raifeartaigh, Cormac, Michael O’Keeffe, Werner Nahm, and Simon Mitton. “Einstein’s 1917 Static Model of the Universe: A Centennial Review.” European Physical Journal H 42, no. 3 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjh/e2017-80002-5.

Rayleigh, Lord. “On the Resultant of a Large Number of Vibrations of the Same Pitch and of Arbitrary Phase.” London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 5th ser., 10, no. 60 (1880). https://doi.org/10.1080/14786448008626893.

Schrödinger, Erwin. “Quantisierung als Eigenwertproblem (Erste Mitteilung).” Annalen der Physik 79, no. 4 (1926). https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.19263840404.

Strogatz, Steven H. “From Kuramoto to Crawford: Exploring the Onset of Synchronization in Populations of Coupled Oscillators.” Physica D 143, nos. 1–4 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-2789(00)00094-4.

Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre. The Phenomenon of Man. Translated by Bernard Wall. Harper & Brothers, 1959. Originally published as Le phénomène humain (1955).

CC BY 4.0 · ORCID 0009-0009-8618-398X · DOIs MINTED ON DEPOSIT

© 2026 JAMISON TODD JOHNSON · LEGIBLE TRACES LLC