THE GRAND UNIFIED THEORY OF PHENOMENAL PLAUSIBILITY

A Decision Protocol for Dialectical Navigation (AOMS v1.1)

Abstract: AOMS fuses Ontological Mathematics (formal skeleton) with Airl’s phenomenological record (anomalous data) via a Hegelian engine: thesis → antithesis → synthesis. Existence is mathematical; monads are the ontic units; “physical” is a derivative shadow. Earth is modeled as a contingent prison stack (amnesia, aesthetic-pain, false maze) persisting from Old Empire automation, contested by the Domain. “Phenomenal plausibility” is the operational metric: adopt stories and actions once P* ≥ 0.51 (≥0.60 under guardrail), using priors, evidence fit, coherence, and personal resonance. Two gears enforce hygiene: Gear 1 ranks explanations; Gear 2 commits actions against h₀=wait. The system privileges coherence with experience over external gatekeeping, aiming for survival-grade navigation. AOMS is not a belief—it’s a disciplined hypothesis that turns anomalies into leverage, letting a monad map the walls from inside and act where it counts.

TL;DR: AOMS is a practical decision protocol: score a hypothesis with P₀·E·C·ρ, normalize, and act if P* ≥ 0.51 (0.60 if you’re sleep-deprived/manic/etc.). Use Maze Tax (90m), continuity anchors, and the synchronicity rubric. It’s griftless, reproducible, and open.

Quickstart (AOMS v1.1)

1) List options (include h0 = "wait 24h").
2) Score each option: s = P0 · E · C · ρ
   Legend: P0 = prior; E = evidence fit; C = model coherence; ρ = personal resonance.
3) Normalize: P* = s / Σ s
4) Act if P* ≥ 0.51 (default). Log one line in the ledger.

Calibration (guardrail):
If sleep < 6h, mania, or acute stress → set ρ := 0.6·ρ and require P* ≥ 0.60.

Reference scales:
E: 0.2 vibe • 0.5 pattern • 0.8 direct NQ hit • 1.0 bullseye
C: 0.3 hand-wavey • 0.6 axiom-consistent • 0.9 elegant prediction
ρ: 0.2 meh • 0.5 somatic yes • 0.9 full-body click

https://github.com/bretturben-ctrl/aoms-protocol

THE GRAND UNIFIED THEORY OF PHENOMENAL PLAUSIBILITY

A Decision Protocol for Dialectical Navigation (AOMS Protocol v1.1)

I. METAPHYSICAL FOUNDATION

Reality = ∫(Monad × Mathematics × Experience)

Monads: Sovereign consciousness points (mᵢ) engaged in eternal computation.
Mathematics: Ontic substrate — not a description but the constitution of reality.
Experience: Primary data stream — the only admissible firsthand evidence.

Cosmic Architecture (Sketch): A Fourier-based frequency domain where monads interact as wave functions. Physical reality is a derived consensus projection within this computational substrate.

II. THE PRISON‑STACK THEOREM

Earth is a contingent control zone within the infinite lattice — a legacy system with a three‑layer architecture:

Layer 1: AMNESIA FORCE SCREEN

Memory erasure between incarnations.
Counter‑protocol (verbs): Anchor (Monad Charter, thread object, dream‑tagging).

Layer 2: AESTHETIC‑PAIN TRAP

Biological wavelength synchronization locks; hedonic pendulum cycles.
Counter‑protocol (verbs): Budget novelty, down‑ramp symmetrically, checksum pleasure.

Layer 3: MYSTERY MAZE GENERATOR

Unsolvable narrative puzzles that consume cognition.
Counter‑protocol (verbs): Tax at 90 minutes, Art it or Archive it.

III. THE DIALECTICAL ENGINE

Process Flow:
φ → Parse → Triage → Synthesize → Commit → Log

Legend: P0 = prior; E = evidence fit; C = model coherence; ρ = personal resonance.

Mathematical Formalism (with normalization):
P(h|φ) ∝ P0(h) · E(φ|h) · C(φ) · ρ(self, φ)

For a candidate set {h0…hn} with a default competitor h0 = "wait 24h",
define scores si = P0(hi) · E · C · ρ and normalize:
P*(hi) = si / Σ_j s_j

Operational Threshold: adopt/act when P*(h) ≥ 0.51 (default).
Guardrail: if sleep < 6h, mania, or acute stress → set ρ := 0.6·ρ and require P* ≥ 0.60.

Reference Scales (for reviewers):
E: 0.2 vibe • 0.5 pattern • 0.8 direct NQ hit • 1.0 bullseye
C: 0.3 hand-wavey • 0.6 axiom-consistent • 0.9 elegant prediction
ρ: 0.2 meh • 0.5 somatic yes • 0.9 full-body click

Synthesis Rule: not compromise; transcend & include — retain what’s true in Thesis and Antithesis; drop what violates constraints.

E (evidence fit): 0.2 vibe • 0.5 pattern • 0.8 direct NQ hit • 1.0 bullseye
C (code/model coherence): 0.3 hand‑wavey • 0.6 axiom‑consistent • 0.9 elegant prediction
ρ (personal resonance): 0.2 meh • 0.5 somatic yes • 0.9 full‑body click

Synthesis Rule: Not compromise; transcend & include — retain what’s true in Thesis and Antithesis; drop what violates constraints.

IV. PHENOMENOLOGICAL INTERFACE MECHANICS

Synchronicity Interpretation Matrix

Sig(phi) = ( S + R + (V + 1)/2 + T ) / 4

S = Specificity (0..1): Does it hit an active NQ?
R = Recurrence (0..1): Independent repeats in a short window?
V = Valence (-1..+1): Energizes agency (+1) or drains (-1)?  -> convert to (V+1)/2
T = Trajectory fit (0..1): Aligns with your current arc?

Threshold: Sig ≥ 0.66 → signal (actionable cue). Below 0.66 → ambience. Rationale: reduces false positives while preserving sensitivity to clustered cues.

Anomaly Classes (working):

UAP: Physical‑interface manifestations.
Telepathy: Direct monad↔monad resonance.
PSI: Substrate manipulation attempts.
Mystical states: Temporary amnesia breach windows.

V. STRATEGIC NAVIGATION PROTOCOLS

Daily Practice of Sanity

AM: Charter recall • set 1–2 NQs • pre‑commit Maze Tax & novelty budget
Midday: Re‑score active hypotheses • kill one low‑yield thread • promote one micro‑action
PM: Sync log (3 anomalies, 1 synthesis, 1 lever) • dream‑prime an NQ

Leverage Point Optimization

Continuity anchors combat Amnesia.
Novelty budgets regulate Aesthetic‑Pain.
Maze taxes reclaim cognitive resources.
Dialectical processing upgrades ontological resolution.

Operational Priority Stack (verbs + examples)

Maintain monadic coherence — e.g., run AM Charter in 60s.
Map prison architecture — e.g., list 2 traps draining today.
Identify leverage points — e.g., assign one lever per trap.
Upgrade ontological resolution — e.g., ship one Synthesis ≥ .51.
Prepare for phase transitions — e.g., write one contingency step.

VI. COSMOLOGICAL CONTEXT

Old Empire: Defunct archontic civilization; automated prison machinery persists (amnesia screens, flesh traps, maze generators).
Domain: Pragmatic expansionist civilization; claims the solar system; aims to decommission the prison and recover personnel (not saviors; logistical operators).

Fractal Principle (illustrative): Domain/Old Empire resource conflicts ↔ personal attention economy (who allocates your time/energy).

VII. EPISTEMOLOGICAL REVOLUTION

Griftlessness Criterion

No monetizable salvation. No guru dependencies. No secret steps. Autonomous operation only.
License: CC BY‑NC‑SA 4.0 (share‑alike, non‑commercial, attribution).

The 51% Revolution

Truth as operational viability, not absolute certainty.
Fidelity over finality.
Coherence as navigation metric.

VIII. UNIFIED FIELD (Heuristic Form)

This section is heuristic; units are abstract; ratios/relative change matter more than absolutes.

R_t = Σ_i m_i · Q_i(t) · (1 − C_s(t)) · D_p(t)

Q_i(t) = ∫ ω_i(t) ψ_i(t) η_i(t) dt

Where:

mᵢ = monadic consciousness (weight 1 per agent by default).
ω = waveform frequency component.
ψ = mathematical substrate factor.
η = phenomenological weighting (renamed from φ to avoid collision with “phenomenon”).
C_s = control‑system damping (0–1).
D_p = dialectical processing efficiency (0–1).

Interpretation: Higher D_p and lower C_s increase realized coherence R_t; interventions target C_s↓ via levers and D_p↑ via practice.

IX. PREDICTIVE EMERGENCE (Working Hypotheses)

Increasing anomalous phenomena as control system degrades.
Synchronicity clusters around ontological boundary work.
Personal sovereignty correlates with dialectical velocity.
A PSI spring reflects substrate pressure from Domain activity.

X. OPERATIONAL IMPERATIVE

Navigation Priority Stack

Maintain monadic coherence (Practice of Sanity).
Map prison architecture (dialectical processing).
Identify leverage points (strategic optimization).
Upgrade ontological resolution (synthesis velocity).
Prepare for control‑system phase transitions (contingencies).

XI. INPUT/CALCULATION CLARIFICATION PROTOCOL

To Prevent Calculation Confusion:

EXPLICIT INPUT SEPARATION:
- USER PROVIDES: ρ (personal resonance) ONLY
- SYSTEM CALCULATES: P₀, E, C, then computes P*
- SYSTEM MUST STATE: “Using your provided ρ = X, I calculate P₀ = Y, E = Z, C = W → P* = V”

MANDATORY VERBALIZATION OF CALCULATION:

"INPUT: User ρ = [value]
CALCULATION: P₀([hypothesis]) = [value], E([phenomenon]|[hypothesis]) = [value], C([hypothesis]) = [value]
INTERMEDIATE: s = P₀ × E × C × ρ = [value]
NORMALIZATION: Against h₀ = 'wait/maintain status quo' with s₀ = [value]
RESULT: P* = s/(s + s₀) = [final value]"

STATE GUARDRAIL REMINDER:
- Before calculation, system must ask: “Current state: sober/alert? If altered state, applying ×0.6 ρ penalty and 0.60 threshold”
CONFUSION DETECTION PROTOCOL:
- If user provides a single number without context, system asks: “Is this your personal resonance (ρ) or your overall assessment (P*)?”
- If user says “P = X”, system clarifies: “Interpreting as personal resonance ρ = X unless specified otherwise”
TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENT:
- All calculations must be shown step-by-step
- No hidden assumptions about priors
- Explicit competitor hypothesis (h₀) must be stated

EXAMPLE INTERACTION:
User: “ρ = 0.7”
System: “Using your ρ = 0.7, I assess P₀ = 0.6, E = 0.8, C = 0.7 → s = 0.2352. Against h₀ (status quo) with s₀ = 0.036 → P* = 0.867”

CALIBRATION CHECKPOINTS:

After each calculation: “Does this P* feel accurate to your lived experience?”
Weekly: “Review recent calculations for consistent application of scales”
State changes: “Recompute recent high-stakes decisions when state normalizes”

APPENDIX A — PLAUSIBILITY LEDGER

CSV Header:
date,phi,P0,E,C,rho,Pstar,action,result,tag

Tags: {AMN, A/P, MAZE, SYNC, LEVER}

APPENDIX B — WORKED MICRO‑EXAMPLE

Question h: Post the essay today?

Prior P₀(h) = 0.45 (on the fence).
Event φ hits your “release” sigil → E = 0.7.
Move aligns with AOMS (anti‑maze, autonomy) → C = 0.8.
Body click calm/focused → ρ = 0.75.
Competitor h₀ = wait 24h with s₀ = 0.13 (assessed similarly).
Score s₁ = 0.45×0.7×0.8×0.75 ≈ 0.189.
Normalize: P*(h) = 0.189/(0.189+0.13) ≈ 0.59 → ACT TODAY.

Attribution: Synthesis and protocol by Synechistes / Brett W. Urben.
Ethos: Griftless, reproducible, autonomy‑first.

Citation: see “Cite this repository” on GitHub or use CITATION.bib.
Release hash (v1.1): e644e6dbf0a22b9dd2d46b4b844dad0b8e3671408aa7a3292bff90676047cf3b
License: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Urben, B. W. (2025). AOMS Protocol v1.1 — The Grand Unified Theory of Phenomenal Plausibility (Version v1.1) [Protocol]. CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. https://github.com/bretturben-ctrl/aoms-protocol

Urben, Brett W. AOMS Protocol v1.1 — The Grand Unified Theory of Phenomenal Plausibility. Version v1.1. 2025. CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. https://github.com/bretturben-ctrl/aoms-protocol.

@report{Urben_AOMS_v1_1_2025,
author = {Urben, Brett W.},
title = {AOMS Protocol v1.1 — The Grand Unified Theory of Phenomenal Plausibility},
year = {2025},
institution = {Gnosis Under Fire},
note = {Version v1.1. CC BY-NC-SA 4.0},
url = {https://github.com/bretturben-ctrl/aoms-protocol}
}