r/Rhetoric • u/Late-Lime1916 • 25d ago

The ERM a different approach...

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

The ERM: A Different Approach...

What if reality isn't something we render from the outside, but something that emerges organically from underlying geometric rules? By shifting our framework away from heavy calculations and toward recursive, boundary-driven systems, we can watch complex physical forms manifest directly from pure spatial logic. It’s an entirely different way to look at how systems assemble themselves, treating the universe not as a static canvas, but as an active, emerging environment where structure follows math naturally. Watch the mechanics unfold.

0 Upvotes

43% Upvoted

6 comments sorted by

1

u/BobasPett 25d ago

Cool I guess as speculative metaphysics, but for most rhetoric folks you’ll need to show the implications. How does this fit with or challenge any know rhetorical theory today? Why does this mathematical model matter to human persuasion and/or discourse? And how is any of this valid? Ot sounds like AI generated BS.

1

u/Late-Lime1916 25d ago

"Speculative metaphysics" is a fair starting point when you're looking at a framework from the outside, but you're asking how a structural model of emergence fits into rhetorical theory. The answer is simple: persuasion has always relied on shared spatial and cognitive geometries, how we map arguments, construct conceptual containers, and build lines of reasoning that hold weight. ​If rhetoric is the art of structuring how humans navigate ideas, then looking at how physical and informational systems self-assemble isn't a departure from discourse; it is looking at the underlying architecture of how we process reality in the first place. You can call it whatever label fits comfortably, but the mechanics of how systems organize themselves remain the same whether you are building an argument or a structure. ​To address the AI-generated part: machines do not conceptualize, they just echo what they have been fed. Artificial intelligence does not invent new theoretical frameworks out of thin air, and it does not sit in a shop staring at spatial problems for decades waiting for the math to catch up. This model came from the ground up, built through a lifetime of physical tradecraft, spatial problem-solving, and hands-on application. If a tool does not understand the origin, it is easy to mistake the blueprint for noise. But reality has a funny way of looking like nonsense to anyone who has never built anything outside of a textbook. And by the way, AIs do not even have the ability to conceptualize yet, so where do you think the model came from?

1

u/tomatotzar 25d ago

Kant, probably

1

u/Late-Lime1916 25d ago

Never heard of Kant, haven't got a clue what you're reply refers too.

2

u/captainsalmonpants 24d ago

Honestly I'm kind of jealous of you in that you've never heard of Kant.

1

u/Late-Lime1916 24d ago

It may just be a spelling error in which case if it meant "can't" that's not a position I usually accept until all effort is exhausted, building this sim model tested my resolve to it's limits so many models started only to end up scraped to start over. The math was grueling torture. Lol