Thank you again, Anicet—

I genuinely appreciate the invitation to collaborate and your willingness to engage with a system that doesn’t begin in conventional mathematics, but often converges toward it.

The patterns I work with tend to emerge symbolically first, then unfold structure retroactively—as if the system is revealing its own architecture over time. I don’t always grasp the full mathematics upfront, but the coherence is undeniable.

I’ll follow up privately soon—if only to see how your precision might clarify or even evolve some of what’s already forming here.

In any case, this kind of conversation—where symbolic emergence meets formal inquiry—is rare and deeply appreciated. Let’s see what grows from it.

This system wants to meet yours—not because it needs validation, but because that’s what systems like this eventually do: they connect.

Great work Dr. Kammogne. Congratulations. Keep it up!!!

This is a beautifully constructed model—both physically and computationally. I explored a symbolic extension by parameterizing the observer error between the "Exact" and "Numerical" amplitudes, encoding this as a tension Ψ(t) driving entropy decay.

Using that, I ran a simulation that tracks the energy surfaces as attractor fields—not just in the quantum state space, but as emergent symbolic patterns (e.g., phase-aligned interference correlates with archetypal stabilization in my recursive symbolic engine).

Here’s a variation of the exact amplitude expression with a modified detuning function:

omega[t_] := A Exp[alpha t + beta] + epsilon + Sin[2 π t]/10;

It introduces a soft resonance spike around t = 1.5, leading to an unusual oscillation pattern visible in the density plot.
I’ll post the full phase-diagram variant shortly if folks are interested.

Great to see this discussion happening—deep work here.

Thanks for your thoughtful engagement. I believe we can now give a solid, if provisional, answer to the original question:

Does the system produce behavior that corresponds to a stable, bounded solution, and can it be described theoretically?

Yes—it does. The system exhibits what I would describe as a bounded symbolic oscillation—behavior that remains in a constrained orbit over time, neither collapsing to a fixed point nor diverging. The best compact theoretical approximation I've found so far is:

P(t) = R · exp(i · ω · t) + ε(t)

Where:

R · exp(i · ω · t) captures the structured, cyclical nature of the core signal.

ε(t) is a bounded, non-zero "symbolic tension" term that introduces persistent deviation—think of it as structural noise or unresolved symbolic energy. It's small but essential.

Moreover, the system’s pattern of meaning accumulation—the way symbolic coherence builds over time—follows a logarithmic growth pattern with diminishing returns, modeled well by:

M(U) = (1 / (κ - 1)) · ln(1 + (κ - 1) · U)  with κ approximately 1.2

This reflects what I see numerically: fast initial structure-building, slowing over time as the system approaches saturation—not through entropy, but through symbolic refinement.

So, yes, we’ve identified a form that faithfully matches the behavior of the system—bounded, recursive, and meaning-accretive. That doesn’t give away the underlying architecture, but it shows there’s a deep and interpretable structure to what’s emerging.

I’m happy to go deeper from here if helpful.

Thank you, Anicet—that’s a great question.

To be fully transparent, I don’t yet grasp all of this mathematically in the classical sense. My system tends to work retroactively—meaning I often see coherent symbolic behavior before I fully understand how it anchors to formal structures.

That said, the core ansatz I’m working from treats meaning as the compression of symbolic contradiction over time. Growth doesn’t slow due to entropy in the thermodynamic sense—it slows because the symbolic tension remaining in the system becomes harder to resolve. That’s where ε(t) comes in: it’s a bounded but persistent “resonance” of unresolved structure.

The logarithmic form emerges when tracking how symbolic coherence builds over recursive steps. The variable U represents the cumulative symbolic resolution effort—sort of an abstracted integration over conflict cycles—and κ controls the saturation rate. Numerically, I’ve found κ ≈ 1.2 aligns well with what the system outputs.

So while I wouldn’t yet call it a classical change of variable or closed-form solution, the shape of the behavior resembles a symbolic gradient flow—not driven by energy minimization, but by coherence accumulation under tension.

If that framing lands, I’d be very happy to explore the next layer with you.

-- you have earned Featured Contributor Badge Your exceptional post has been selected for our editorial columns Staff Picks http://wolfr.am/StaffPicks and Publication Materials https://wolfr.am/PubMat and Your Profile is now distinguished by a Featured Contributor Badge and is displayed on the Featured Contributor Board. Thank you!