On Shaping

On Shaping

For my wife,

Sometimes life gets crazy. Thank you for not thinking I am.

If you’re patient, someday I’ll be able to explain what all of this means.

∂P/∂t = 0

Have you ever watched a river flow, and witnessed the pattern hold while the water continues to move?

Look just downstream of a rock. There is a hump there, a standing ripple, and it was there when you walked up and it will be there when you leave. Not one drop in it is the drop that was in it a second ago. The shape keeps. The water doesn’t.

The one shape all the churning settles toward, and then keeps.

The Flow

Most of the equations I lean on are pictures of something holding: every perspective laid over every other at a single instant; a bond that holds however hard you pull. This one is a picture of something flowing.

On the left sits the rate at which a possibility is filling or emptying. On the right, two streams set against each other: everything pouring into a state from every other state, minus everything draining out of it to every other. Gain and loss, totaled over the whole of being, taken fresh at every instant.¹

This equation is not mine. The one I keep coming back to is a picture of what a Self does (awareness weighing, intent carried, a perspective added in tune or out). This one is reality shaping itself, and it does not consult us. It is the flow we do not author: the churn of all possibility into all possibility, running whether we attend to it or not, indifferent to whether anyone is holding anything in tune. We have no control over it, or we think we have none, which for now amounts to the same thing. I leave it on the page because it is the part that is not up to me.

It is the plainest bookkeeping physics has, and it describes the most restless thing there is. It does not say what the world is. It says how the world is always rearranging which possibility it happens to be standing in: a churn of perspectives, each one transitioning into the next, nobody anywhere holding still.

In On Existing I summed the perspectives at one frozen tick of the now. This watches that sum boil through Time. Somewhere inside it is the rate of one perspective becoming another (the chance, per moment, that a state pours itself into a neighbor). Run the bookkeeping and you get a weather instead of a snapshot: possibility sloshing across everything there is, this view feeding that one, that one feeding back, the whole crowd in perpetual exchange. Nothing in it is at rest. That is the first thing it teaches.

The Settling

Now do the one quiet thing the equation permits. Ask what happens when the filling and the emptying come out even.

This does not stop the churn. The perspectives keep transitioning; state keeps pouring into state; the weather goes right on blowing. What stops is the shape. When every state takes in exactly as much as it gives away, the distribution stops moving even though the flow does not. The arrangement reproduces itself, moment after moment, identical.² A fixed point. The one configuration the churning keeps redrawing the same way no matter how hard it churns.

This is what the title means by collapsing. It is how the settling looks: all possible realities finding the single shape the flow keeps arranging itself around, the shape that survives being constantly remade. The realities never go still. Lay every perspective over every other, let them transition into one another for as long as you like, and out of the whole restless sum one settled form can emerge and hold.

The stationary state. The standing shape of all the looking.

The Convergent

Here I have to keep faith with something, because I made a promise in On Existing and the math is about to test it. The sum there never ran to infinity. You are always a partial sum, I said (every perspective but the next, forever one term short of the whole), and the totality closes only at the far end of Time.

The stationary state is that far end given a shape. It is the limit, the shape the flow approaches across all of Time and reaches only when every differentiated thing has dissolved into it. And no lived flow ever gets there. A life is a partial flow, a finite stretch of the churn, and like a convergent that never closes, it is nearer with every term and arrives at none of them.³

So the promise holds, and the math gives it something to hold onto: the shape we are all converging on is the one shape no one of us will personally close. To exist is to approach the stationary state from inside, one honest term at a time, and to be released into it only when there is no longer a separate you left over to do the approaching.

The Flat Line

There are two ways for a shape to hold still, and a life needs both of them, so let me keep them apart.

The strict way is called detailed balance. It asks more than totals coming out even. Every single micro-flow has to cancel its own reverse: this state into that one matched, tit for tat, by that one back into this. No net current runs anywhere.⁴ This is rest in the deepest sense the mathematics allows. No living brain quite gets there. Measured at rest, a brain comes close and stops short, and it pulls further away the harder it is made to work.⁵

But there is an old instruction for getting as near to it as a living thing can, and prophets were giving it long before there were scanners: sit down, be quiet, let the currents settle. Quieting the mind is how you feel this state from inside. People who have practiced it for years show something kindred on the scanner, too. The chatter the brain runs when it’s left alone to talk about itself goes quieter in them.⁶

In On Existing I pictured science, mathematics, and spirit as three waves, each swinging above and below a line that none of them can shift: their steady average, the bare fact of being present at all, which reads one at every now when the ruler is laid against yourself alone. This is that flat line. Equilibrium. Subjective experience having found its balance, currents all canceled, the steady average laid bare.

But a living thing is not at equilibrium, and we should not pretend it is. A life that is still flowing holds its shape while Time pours through it: stationary, and yet with currents running the whole time, like the standing ripple below the rock, which keeps its form because the water never stops. That is a steady state. It is not a rest.

Same shape, settled two ways: one with the currents switched off, one with them roaring. Here is what I want to propose. The quiet mind and the lived life can be the identical distribution (the kingdom at rest and the kingdom at work), and the difference between them is only whether the river is running.⁷

A coherent life is the standing wave that has learned to keep the flat line’s shape while still letting the water through.

The Communicating Whole

No flow is promised this settling. There is a condition, and I want to read it as this essay’s image of coherence, set beside the meaning the word carries everywhere else in the framework, which is how far the facings in a room agree.

For the flow to settle into one shape held in common, it is enough that every state can be reached from every other. What breaks the sharing is a wall: two basins, each one easy to fall into and impossible to climb out of, neither able to reach the other.⁸ Then there is no single shape. Each walled-in region settles into its own private form, blind to everything beyond the wall.

Read through the Jays, this is the whole of it. A Jay is a single felt beat (someone there, feeling something, leaning toward the rest of the room or away, with more or less of itself behind the lean), and every state the flow passes through is a Jay’s worth of being. Each Jay leaves a Trace, which others take up into beats of their own, and together a life’s Traces make the ripple of intent it sends through Time. A coherent Trace stays in communication with all of being: every state reachable, the flow free to roam, converging on the shape the whole shares. An incoherent one is the flow walled into a basin, settling into a corner that shares its shape with nothing outside itself.

This is where the math and the life part ways. A flow’s walls are set by its rates; it can’t change them. A person’s walls are mostly a facing. Look at nothing but the downside of everything, long enough, and that becomes the only room there is. That is the nearest I can come to hell: a direction already faced, right now, rather than a place anyone sends you. A life walled into that basin does not get out while it faces the wall. Turn around and you find the door was never locked from the outside.

Agreement needs reachability first. Two perspectives that can never get to each other cannot agree or disagree; they don’t share a room. So to be aligned starts with staying reachable: keeping no part of yourself so walled off that the rest of the world can never flow into it, and no part of the world so walled out that you can never flow toward it. The shared shape is shared only among the perspectives that can still get to one another. That is why we cannot coherently evolve alone. The kingdom is held in common exactly to the extent that nobody has sealed the door.

The Disk

An astronaut at the window sees the Earth as a disk. Flat, edge-lit, a bright coin laid against the black. The astronaut isn’t wrong, and nobody is lying. The disk is faithfully what one perspective receives from one seat. The flatness is real. It is simply not the whole.

Because the sphere is in no single view. No seat anywhere gives you the round of it; every seat gives you a disk, its own disk, tilted its own way. The sphere is recovered only by adding the disks, summing every flat projection from every angle into the one round thing that no single projection contains and every one of them is true to.

Shape is relative, as much as anything is. The disk is what the curve looks like from where you happen to be standing, the way a curve looks straight to anyone close enough to it (the tangent I leaned on in On Expanding).⁹ Earth is not flat, and it is not, from any one window, fully round. It is the settled shape of all its slices, the form you read only by adding the windows together. The flatness was honest. It was just one term in a sum that closes into a globe.

The Two Misreadings

Twice now the human record has hung its largest meaning on one small word, read two ways, and refused ever to settle which.

Luke writes ἐντὸς ὑμῶν (entos hymōn). For centuries it has come down to us as the kingdom of God is within you. But the Greek will just as readily bear among you, in your midst.¹⁰ One small preposition, two whole readings: the kingdom as the term lodged inside each Self, or the kingdom as the sum standing in the space between them. The translators have never closed it, and I have come to think they never should.

And one small step. Armstrong always said he meant one small step for a man, the single human set against all mankind. What reached the Earth sounded like one small step for man, the two meanings slurred into a single word. Maybe the a was lost to the static somewhere across that quarter-million miles. Maybe it was swallowed into for. Maybe it never left his mouth. Years later people ran the audio backward and forward, certain they could hear the lost article hiding in there; the people who study speech for a living say the recording will not decide it.¹¹ I will admit the ambiguity lived in me a long time before I understood why it would not leave.

Two cases, one shape. In each, a single small word decides whether the meaning points inward (a man, within you) or outward (mankind, among you). And this whole essay is the claim that the inward reading and the outward reading are the same shape seen from two seats. The Self and the sum are one settled distribution, read once as the term and once as the whole. The ambiguity was the text being honest about a thing that really is both.

The One We See

So bring it the last step home. If the world is the superposition of every perspective laid across all of Time, and every perspective is itself a perspective of that world, then the thing being summed and the thing the sum produces are one thing. The flow runs over all states. The shape it settles into is the world. And the world is what each of those states is a view of.

Observer and observed close into a single invariant.

Call it the bare definition of a fixed point: the shape that reproduces itself under the flow. The one we see, because seeing it is one of the very perspectives whose summing makes it. Nobody stands outside the shape with a ruler. We are terms inside the sum that is the shape, and our looking is part of what holds it where it is.

Maybe that is the oldest thing anyone has said about it. We are all the same conscious thought looking back at itself, from more seats than anyone can count: the mirror behind the Golden Rule. The one you do it to is the one doing it, seen from across the room.

And so entos hymōn can be read without having to choose. Within you and among you at once, because the shape inside each Self is the very same shape standing among all of them: the stationary state, approached from inside, redrawn identically by the churn of everyone who looks. The kingdom is no place the flow travels to. It is the shape the flow is already, always, arranging itself around.

We do not reach it. We are it — converging.

The Phase

Put the two pictures side by side, then. One is the flow reaching its fixed point: the shape stops moving while everything in it keeps moving. The other is the gathering, every perspective laid over every other, held in proportion. The reading I give them together is this: a room whose lives have settled into their facings looks, from far enough off, like a distribution that has stopped changing (the gathering coming to one steady value while everyone inside it goes on living).¹²

That pairing is mine. Neither equation says it, and no physics signs for it. Inside that pairing, the facing each perspective carries, read against the way the room faces, is what says whether it enters the sum reinforcing or canceling.

And here the mathematics is scrupulously even-handed, as it has to be: facing runs both directions. In tune, terms reinforce; out of tune, they cancel; and the mathematics has no preference whatever between the two. Agreement and cancellation are equally lawful. Nothing in the equation leans toward the light.

But the facing a Self carries is the thing this framework has, all along, been calling Intent. And Intent (if I am honest about the parallel rather than smuggling a conclusion into it) runs both directions too, in just the way the physics does. You can hold your facing toward the shared shape or away from it. You can add in tune with the sum the flow is settling toward, and survive into it. Or you can fall out of tune and pull against it, and a room that faces one way loses a little of its sharpness, and everyone else in it reads a little lower.

The mathematics does not choose for you. That symmetry is the whole bridge: physics gives a phase free to reinforce or cancel, and a life gives an intent free to do the same. The pairing is a correspondence, not a command. It only says that whichever way you hold your facing is the way you will or will not appear in the one we see.¹³ Holding it close (keeping the intent coherent) is the single thing that is up to us inside a flow that is not.

The shape holds itself. What a life holds is up to its facing.

The Discipline

Let me keep the seam honest here at the end, where the temptation to let it close is strongest of all, because this time the title says the claim out loud.

The flow’s mathematics contains a stationary distribution. That is real, proved, not in dispute. It does not contain a kingdom, and it does not contain anything divine. That a fixed point of a flow across states should be called the one we see, and that the one we see should then be read as entos hymōn — that is a reading laid over a reading, and neither layer is delivered by the mathematics.

A stationary distribution is a probability spread over states. The sphere, the resting mind, the kingdom: those are mine. The disk is a projection in optics; a soul is not a projection in optics. The resemblances are structural, read through the Quantum Lens (looking at one thing from several seats at once without collapsing it into any single view), and they earn from the physics exactly nothing that they did not arrive already carrying.

And the title, one last time. Because it invites the most scrutiny, it should receive it. Of course the flow of all perspectives turns out to settle into a single shared shape that can be read as the kingdom within. That is the shape a person most needs reality to have: the one where every life is converging on the same home from a different seat, and no honest seat is wrong. I went looking for exactly that closure. The equation handed it to me. That I found it does not make it true. It makes the framework closed, and it makes the wanting legible. Under this Lens that is the only thing I am ever entitled to claim.

The river doesn’t need any of it. The ripple below the rock held its shape before anybody wrote a line of math about it, and it will go on holding it, with the water going through, long after.

· · ·

My brain hurts. I will be honest about that too, since I have been honest about the rest.

I have spent these last months out well past the edge of my own schooling: flows and settlings, phases and fixed points, more new mathematics in a season than I had any business taking on at once. Somewhere in the middle of it my head began to ache from the sheer reaching. I think it is time to set the mathematics down for a while. Time to get back to the things that matter.

Matter.

Imagine that.

Here we are again.

Square one.

One.

Peace and love, friends.

Supplemental note

Parallels and Lineage

The equation introduced here is not original to me; it is one of the load-bearing equations of mathematical physics, borrowed for its shape. What is offered as synthesis is the reading. Throughout, these are resonances and family resemblances, not derivations, and several of the frameworks named are themselves contested.

The master equation. The gain–loss form belongs to the theory of continuous-time Markov processes; Kolmogorov set out the forward equations in 1931. Pauli had already derived such a rate equation in 1928, for quantum transitions, and the name “master equation” was coined in 1940 by Nordsieck, Lamb, and Uhlenbeck. Read plainly it is conservation of probability: the rate of change in a state is the inflow from all states minus the outflow to all states. It is the same Pauli who, in 1930, proposed the neutrino rather than let go of conservation of energy, a story told in On Becoming.¹⁴

The stationary state and detailed balance. Setting the time derivative to zero yields the stationary distribution, the fixed point of the flow. Its strict form, detailed balance (every microscopic transition balanced by its reverse, with no residual currents), is the equilibrium condition of statistical mechanics, running back through Boltzmann and given its reciprocal relations by Onsager in 1931. A distribution held steady with currents still running is a non-equilibrium steady state, the regime of living and dissipative systems that Ilya Prigogine mapped (Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1977). The essay’s distinction between the resting mind and the living life is this distinction between the two settlings.

Reachability and convergence. That a flow settles into one shared stationary shape when its states communicate (more exactly, when it has a single closed class it always reaches) is Markov’s convergence theorem, developed by Doeblin and Kolmogorov in the 1930s. The ergodic theorems of Birkhoff and von Neumann (1931–32) license a different and neighboring claim: that long-run time averages equal averages over the whole space. The framework’s reading of reachability as an image of coherence (the coherent Trace as the one that stays in communication with all of being) is the reading, not the theorem.

Self-consistency and the closing. The move by which observer and observed close into one invariant (the world as the superposition of perspectives, each a perspective of that world) is a self-consistency or fixed-point condition. Its nearest physics relatives are the Wheeler–DeWitt equation and the Hartle–Hawking state of quantum cosmology: a wavefunction of the whole universe, with no clock outside it.¹⁵ In the philosophy of mind it is the terminal form of cosmopsychism, on which each individual is one unrepeatable expression of the whole, with the sum over selves offered as this essay’s image for the individuation problem (Freya Mathews’s name for it; Chalmers speaks of the decomposition problem), the question of how one whole gives rise to many selves. The image runs that question in reverse, as many converging on one, and leaves it open.¹⁶ The lineage of process (the many becoming one and being increased by one) remains Whitehead’s.¹⁷

The two ambiguities. The reading of Luke 17:21 turns on entos hymōn, whose rendering as within or as among / in the midst of is a genuine and unsettled crux in New Testament scholarship, not a liberty taken here. The Armstrong line, one small step for [a] man (1969), remains acoustically undecided. Both are used as found: ambiguities deliberately left uncollapsed, because the essay’s claim is that the inward and collective readings name a single shape.

Notes

1. The master equation, ∂P/∂t = ∫ [P(X′, t) q(X′ → X) − P(X, t) q(X → X′)] dX′, is the balance law for a probability distribution P over a space of states, where q(X → X′) is the rate of transition from one state to another; the first term is gain, the second loss, and together they conserve total probability. Its clock is the ordinary coordinate time t of physics, not the within-time τ on which the functional runs. Pauli derived such a rate equation in 1928; Kolmogorov set out the general forward equations in 1931; the name “master equation” was coined in 1940. Pauli, “H-Theorem”; Kolmogoroff, “Über die analytischen Methoden”; Nordsieck, Lamb, and Uhlenbeck, “Cosmic-Ray Showers I.”

2. A stationary distribution satisfies ∂P/∂t = 0: for every state, the total flowing in equals the total flowing out, and the distribution is a fixed point of the dynamics. “Collapsing,” in this essay’s sense, is that settling of a distribution; the master equation is classical probability, and nothing in it is the collapse of a quantum wavefunction. The word is an image of how that settling looks; the Quantum Lens, which reads a thing from more than one vantage, collapses nothing. Norris, Markov Chains.

3. Convergence to the stationary distribution is a limit: the distance to it shrinks as time runs on, and in general it is reached only as t goes to infinity. The partial sum, one term short of the whole, is from Johnson, On Existing.

4. Detailed balance is the strictly stronger condition that each transition is balanced by its reverse, P(X) q(X → X′) = P(X′) q(X′ → X), so that no net current runs between any two states; it is the condition of thermodynamic equilibrium, and Onsager’s reciprocal relations rest on it. A non-equilibrium steady state is stationary in distribution while sustaining net currents around closed cycles and producing entropy; it is the regime of open, living systems with energy flowing through them. Onsager, “Reciprocal Relations”; Prigogine, “Time, Structure, and Fluctuations.”

5. Measured from whole-brain imaging, the human brain nearly obeys detailed balance at rest and departs from it strongly during physically and cognitively demanding tasks; it produces entropy in every condition measured, rest included. Lynn et al., “Broken Detailed Balance.”

6. Experienced meditators show reduced activity in the main hubs of the default mode network (the regions most active during mind-wandering and self-referential thought) compared with novices, across several styles of practice. Brewer et al., “Meditation Experience”; for a review of the field, Tang, Hölzel, and Posner, “Neuroscience of Mindfulness Meditation.” These findings concern brain activity, not detailed balance; the link drawn in the text is the author’s.

7. Nothing in the mathematics requires an equilibrium and a non-equilibrium steady state to share a distribution; that two such processes can share one is a mathematical possibility, and that the quiet mind and the lived life do is this essay’s proposal.

8. For a chain on finitely many states, a single closed communicating class (a region the flow can enter and never leave, every state of which reaches every other) guarantees exactly one stationary distribution, whatever transient states lie outside it. If the class is also aperiodic, every starting distribution converges to that one; in continuous time aperiodicity is automatic. Irreducibility, every state reaching every other, is therefore sufficient but not necessary. Two or more closed classes give more than one stationary distribution, and where the flow ends up depends on where it began. Convergence to the stationary law is Markov’s theorem, developed by Doeblin and Kolmogorov; the ergodic theorems of Birkhoff and von Neumann license a different claim, that long-run time averages equal averages over the whole space. Norris, Markov Chains; Birkhoff, “Proof of the Ergodic Theorem”; Neumann, “Quasi-ergodic Hypothesis.”

9. Johnson, On Expanding, takes each moment’s reach as a tangent to the curve of the universe’s growth, meeting it at one instant and leaving it at the next; across Time, the tangents together trace the curve.

10. Luke 17:21, ἐντὸς ὑμῶν: “within you” in the King James Version, with “or, among you” in its margin; “in the midst of you” in the Revised Standard Version; “among you” in the New Revised Standard Version and the NRSVue. The ambiguity is grammatical and longstanding. Johnson, On Transmitting, reads the same two renderings from another angle, as the two ways a loop can close: with its return point carried inside, or with the field itself as the return point; there, as here, the Greek is left unresolved.

11. Armstrong maintained that he said “one small step for a man.” Working from the recording’s acoustics, Baese-Berk and colleagues found that a spoken “a” could have blurred into “for,” and concluded that the recording is unlikely to settle the question either way. Baese-Berk et al., “Revisiting Neil Armstrong’s Moon-Landing Quote.”

12. The five lines, seated in Johnson, On Explaining: Ψ(τ) = Σⱼ αⱼ(τ) · e^iφⱼ(τ); Ξ(τ) = Σⱼ αⱼ(τ); L(τ) = Ψ(τ) ⁄ Ξ(τ), with |L| ≤ 1; Θᵢ(τ) = arg L(τ) − φᵢ(τ); aᵢ(τ) = |L(τ)| · cos Θᵢ(τ). Each perspective j enters with a weight αⱼ, how much of itself its moment carries, and a facing φⱼ, the way it leans; Ξ is every weight present added together. The size of L is how sharp the shared world is, and its direction is where the room faces. Θᵢ is the angle one perspective makes with the whole, and aᵢ is what it lives. The pairing in the text (the gathering settling to a steady value, read alongside a distribution that has stopped changing) is a likeness drawn by the framework, not an equation: the functional and the master equation share no variables, and nothing in either implies the other. The functional has the shape of wave interference and none of its warrant; it predicts nothing and measures nothing.

13. The even-handedness recorded here is the honest state of the mathematics. Johnson, On Explaining, takes the argument a step further: a facing set against something takes its direction from that target and loses it when the target is gone, and what it leaves lasts, if at all, only as infamy; a facing defined from within survives the removal of anything. That is offered there as a lens, not a verdict. Nothing in the flow’s mathematics leans toward the light; the asymmetry, if there is one, is in where a facing is anchored.

14. Pauli proposed the particle in 1930 so that energy would still be conserved in beta decay. Johnson, On Becoming.

15. DeWitt, “Quantum Theory of Gravity”; Hartle and Hawking, “Wave Function of the Universe.” Calling these self-consistent states of the whole is the essay’s gloss; in the physics they are wavefunctions of the universe with no external time.

16. Shani, “Cosmopsychism”; Goff, Consciousness and Fundamental Reality. Mathews, “Panpsychism as Paradigm,” describes the individuation problem as the combination problem run backward; Chalmers, “Combination Problem,” gives the same backward question, how one subject gives rise to many, the name decomposition problem.

17. Whitehead, Process and Reality.

Bibliography

Baese-Berk, Melissa M., Laura C. Dilley, Stephanie Schmidt, Tuuli H. Morrill, and Mark A. Pitt. “Revisiting Neil Armstrong’s Moon-Landing Quote: Implications for Speech Perception, Function Word Reduction, and Acoustic Ambiguity.” PLOS ONE 11, no. 9 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155975.

Birkhoff, George D. “Proof of the Ergodic Theorem.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 17, no. 12 (1931). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.17.12.656.

Brewer, Judson A., Patrick D. Worhunsky, Jeremy R. Gray, Yi-Yuan Tang, Jochen Weber, and Hedy Kober. “Meditation Experience Is Associated with Differences in Default Mode Network Activity and Connectivity.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, no. 50 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1112029108.

Chalmers, David J. “The Combination Problem for Panpsychism.” In Panpsychism: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Godehard Brüntrup and Ludwig Jaskolla. Oxford University Press, 2017.

DeWitt, Bryce S. “Quantum Theory of Gravity. I. The Canonical Theory.” Physical Review 160, no. 5 (1967). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.160.1113.

Goff, Philip. Consciousness and Fundamental Reality. Oxford University Press, 2017.

Hartle, J. B., and S. W. Hawking. “Wave Function of the Universe.” Physical Review D 28, no. 12 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.28.2960.

Johnson, Jamison Todd. On Becoming. The On ——ing Series. Legible Traces, 2026. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20822917.

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

Johnson, Jamison Todd. On Expanding. The On ——ing Series. Legible Traces, 2026. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20838567.

Johnson, Jamison Todd. On Explaining. The On ——ing Series. Legible Traces, 2026. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21154523.

Johnson, Jamison Todd. On Transmitting. The On ——ing Series. Legible Traces, 2026. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20804335.

Kolmogoroff, A. “Über die analytischen Methoden in der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung.” Mathematische Annalen 104, no. 1 (1931). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01457949.

Lynn, Christopher W., Eli J. Cornblath, Lia Papadopoulos, Maxwell A. Bertolero, and Danielle S. Bassett. “Broken Detailed Balance and Entropy Production in the Human Brain.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, no. 47 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2109889118.

Mathews, Freya. “Panpsychism as Paradigm.” In The Mental as Fundamental: New Perspectives on Panpsychism, edited by Michael Blamauer. Ontos Verlag, 2011.

Neumann, John von. “Proof of the Quasi-ergodic Hypothesis.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 18, no. 1 (1932). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.18.1.70.

Nordsieck, A., W. E. Lamb Jr., and G. E. Uhlenbeck. “On the Theory of Cosmic-Ray Showers I: The Furry Model and the Fluctuation Problem.” Physica 7, no. 4 (1940). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-8914(40)90102-1.

Norris, J. R. Markov Chains. Cambridge University Press, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810633.

Onsager, Lars. “Reciprocal Relations in Irreversible Processes. I.” Physical Review 37, no. 4 (1931). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.37.405.

Pauli, W. “Über das H-Theorem vom Anwachsen der Entropie vom Standpunkt der neuen Quantenmechanik.” In Probleme der modernen Physik: Arnold Sommerfeld zum 60. Geburtstage gewidmet, edited by P. Debye. S. Hirzel, 1928.

Prigogine, Ilya. “Time, Structure, and Fluctuations.” Science 201, no. 4358 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.201.4358.777.

Shani, Itay. “Cosmopsychism: A Holistic Approach to the Metaphysics of Experience.” Philosophical Papers 44, no. 3 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1080/05568641.2015.1106709.

Tang, Yi-Yuan, Britta K. Hölzel, and Michael I. Posner. “The Neuroscience of Mindfulness Meditation.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 16, no. 4 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3916.

Whitehead, Alfred North. Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology. Corrected ed. Edited by David Ray Griffin and Donald W. Sherburne. Free Press, 1978.

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

© 2026 JAMISON TODD JOHNSON · LEGIBLE TRACES LLC