Recursive Disclosure Theory

Note: I wrote this framework for fun around October 2025 to try to codify reality. It's supposed to be thought-provoking, not academically rigorous. I used some notation from Quantum Mechanics, but it's mainly decorative to convey the idea. DM me if you also find this kind of stuff fascinating!

Preface

I was at a speakeasy bar in West Village with a close friend who likes to go up to women at bars. We're having drinks and he says "let's go up to those two girls." My brain instantly was like "wait ... I am about to do something that I didn't even think of." Then we go up to the two girls. I began chatting with one of them and we instantly connect. In the moment, I couldn't help but think that this version of reality where I go up to someone and instantly connect was implausible. But I reached that state because I decided to randomly have dinner with my friend, last minute pivoting to West Village, going to this bar because we couldn't get into the one we wanted. It felt as if all these possibilities ... pre-existed? Like in the moment, when I was at the bar, $t - 5m$, if the possibility of me and my friend going up to the two girls and striking a convo and having a good time … was always there, waiting for me to collapse that reality? This inspired me to codify this entire framework for how reality may unfold. How future states are created.

This is the shower thought that inspired this entire framework:

What if opportunities are simply all latent possibilities that exist all at once?

When you decide to do something — DM a founder for a job, ask a beautiful girl at the bar, invest money … you’re simply materializing and actuating that possibility, from a latent space to a material one? One that has existed all along — like potential energy — in an unrealized dimension but not manifested just yet. But it’s as real as the forces governing our physical world like electromagnetism or strong/weak nuclear forces. Perhaps we simply have a limited perceptual aperture that obscures us from realizing all these possibilities that exist in a superposition. Almost like Schrödinger’s Cat, where the cat is in a quantum superposition — both alive and dead — until you go check and collapse the wave function.

So what if taking an opportunity is simply an unrealized reality becoming discernible in our lens, forcing us act and realize it? And “creating” an opportunity is just us materializing one specific version of reality through conscious choice? With this framing, taking or creating opportunity becomes a false dichotomy because you’re simple disclosing that latent possibility into an occurrence. Even inaction is a choice that collapses the possibilities into our specific reality. So not deciding itself is a decision that causes a cascade effect through the fabric of our existence, perception, and consciousness.

With this framework, the world is simply a playground with endless, unrealized opportunities that get materialized once we decide to act. And that version of the world becomes the reality that we experience.‍

Conceptual Definition

Recursive Disclosure Theory is a framework that posits that all possible opportunities, choices, decisions, and life paths exist simultaneously in a latent possibility space, where all discrete possibilities — given a time $t$ — exist in a superposition in a dimensional space (similar to quantum superposition). Rather than us “creating” or “taking” opportunities, conscious agents disclose or collapse these possibilities. Each collapse reshapes the topology of the “possibility space”, producing new potential configurations that did not exist until the particular disclosure occured. Thus, every disclosure — action, thought, choice — doesn’t just collapse possibilities, but consequentially generates new latent possibility space that conscious agents recursively shape.

Possibility Space

All possible opportunities, events, and choices exist in a superposition in an unrealized state, what I call the Possibility Space. Possibility Space contains every conceivable and inconceivable possibility that could exist at a time $t$.

Symbolism

Possibility Space is represented by the Devanāgarī symbol $७$ (sāpta) which stands for 7. I chose sāpta for a few reasons:

• Philosophical: in antiquity traditions, like the Pythagoreans, 7 represented the union of physical and spirtual; a motif between quantifiable and the unquantifiable
• Psychological: in Millar’s Law, 7 represents our capacity for working memory and processing information
• Spiritual: in Hinduism, there are 7 chakras, corresponding to different areas in the body or the seven stages to understand consciousness
• Aesthetic: the symbol $७$ visually echos the principles of recursion due to its fractal nature, somewhat resembling a flipped Fibonacci Spiral

Mathematical Formulation

Let  $७$ represent the total possibility space, where each possible state $|७ᵢ⟩$ exists in superposition:

$$७ = \sum \alpha_i| ७_i⟩$$

where $\alpha_i$ represents the probability amplitude of each possibility.

The act of conscious observation $O$ combined with action $A$ creates a collapse operator $C$:

$$C(O,A)७ → |७_k⟩$$

Recursive Regeneration Principle

Each collapse has a temporal implication — it follows the arrow of time. Past is fixed (Possibility Space collapsed), present is active (Possibility Spaces are collapsing real-time), and future is generative (awaiting creation through collapses). Therefore a past collapse cannot be undone. This implies that all latent possibilities at time $t$ are emergent — that is, each Possibility Space that is being generated did not exist before the collapse at $t-1$.

Conceptually, we can visualize this as:

$$\text{state}_{t+1} = f(\text{state}_t)$$

Therefore, a Possibility Space is not a static collection of pre-determined outcomes, but a dynamically regenerating space, continuously being fine tuned as more possibilities collapse through disclosure. This is what I call the Recursive Regeneration Principle. The mathematical formulation can now be revised to the following:

$$ \begin{gathered} \text{Static Possibility Space}\\ ७_{t} = \sum \alpha_i \lvert ७_i \rangle\\[1.2em]  \text{Recursive Possibility Space}\\ ७_{t+1} = R\!\big(C(O,A)\,७_t\big) \end{gathered} $$

where $R$ is the recursive regeneration function that creates new possibility states based on the collapsed state $C$. Each disclosure:

• Collapses current possibilities: $७_t → |७_k⟩$
• Generates new space topology: $|७_k⟩ → ७'_{t+1}$

The new Possibility Spaces contain possibilities that were ontologically impossbile before the local disclosure. Simply put, Pre-Disclosure is a Possibility Space $७_t$ with infinite possibilities. Disclosure is collapsing all alternative possibilities, redefining wave function for the next set of possibilities. Post-Disclosure is now the new Possibility Space $७_t$ with infinite possibilities.

‍

Perceptual Aperture Limitation

We, as conscious agents, possess a limited “perceptual aperture” that prevents awareness of most possibilities. For example, at that West Village speakeasy bar, the Possibility Space could theoretically contain possibilities of 10 girls a person could have talk to, but because of the individual’s biochemistry, internal mental & psychological state, prior history, etc., they might only imagine 3-4 girls they could talk to. People can certainly conceptualize scenarios and possibilities in their minds that they won’t act on, so we need to distinguish and represent these intermediary manifold of possibilities. This means there are conceptual possibilities (inner — what can be imagined or represented in the mind) and expressed possibilities (outer — what is enacted and manifested in the world) given the current state of reality.

Imagined Manifold of Possibilities

Each conscious agent perceives and acts within a limited subset of possibilities. Let’s call that $M_i$ which is the imagined manifold of possibilities, shaped by prior disclosures (memory, beliefs, experience, history, mental models) and present cognitive state (attention, mood, biology, goals, physiological states). More specifically, $M_i$ can be defined as:

$$M_i = \psi × ७_i$$

where:

• $\psi$ is the perceptual aperture function that filters imagination through relevance, emotion, and psychological states, and
• $७_i$ is the total Possibility Space, containing all latent possibilities $i$

Multi-Stage Disclosure

When a disclosure occurs within $M_{i}$, we get $A_{i}$, which is the actualized subset — the action that collapses all current possibilities. This can be represented as $A_{i} \in M_{i}$, which states the number of possibilities one’s mind can generate that are not actualized or disclosed in the real world, but the action chosen by the conscious agent $A_i$ is always in the superset $M_{i}$.

Thereby, we get:

$$A_i \in M_i \subset ७_i$$

This has an interesting implication: every act of disclosure involves two collapses:

• Cognitive Collapse: From infinite possibilities $७_i$ to a small set of imagined ones $M_i$
• Ontological Collapse: From the imagined set of $M_i$ to one actualized event $A_i$

This gives us the ability to represent the subspace for the all imagined possibilities in the mind, where consciousness can “rehearse” mental collapses which it may never perform. These mental simulations can alter the probability distribution and amplitude $\alpha_i$ of what a conscious agent decides to disclose. This is equivalent of Bayesian Inference, updating the priors of what will feel “real” through imagined sub-collapses.

Consciousness as Subjective Filtering

Consciousness isn’t just reacting to reality, it’s participating in co-creation of it by choosing and feeding that back to the regenerative system that produces reality’s next iteration.

$\psi$ — our perceptual aperture — is a very important operator. It introduces subjective filtering and emergent bias because one’s perception shapes reality’s topology in a way that is non-reproducible across agents. This is where agency and individuality emerges from — aperture accounts for our attention, personal bias, and some theoretical processing speed at which we perceive reality.

$\psi$ or Psi is the origin of the term and field of Psychology. Etymologically, it follows psi → psychē → psyche → psychology. This symbol elegantly captures the inner workings of our mind that we’re still grasping. Things like our attentional bandwidth, emotional weighting, physiology, novelty, awareness, etc.

Channel Capacity

The aperture to me is analogous to Claude Shannon’s channel capacity theorem in Information Theory, where the capacity is determined by Bandwidth and its Signal-to-Noise (SNR) ratio. Similarly, I think aperture may have a similar “channel capacity” with individual-varied bandwidth from which aperture arises. Certain things can cause this bandwidth to constrinct and dilate. For example, novel experiences might heighten sensitivity and awareness of the Agent’s mind $M_i$ to the Possibility Space $७_i$. Therefore Possibility Space $७_i$ can be thought of as a “source” that emits infinite number of possibilities (events, ideas). $\psi$ — the aperture function — is the filter through which these possibilities get transmitted into one’s awareness (channel capacity), where Agent’s mind $M_i$ is the “receiver”. $७_i$ holds maximum entropy (all latent possibilities in superposition), $\psi$ decodes some of that entropy into bits of information we can process, and the disclosure $C(O,A)$ reduces that entropy into a determinate experience.

Therefore, increasing or improving $\psi$ could augment which bits that transmitted into our consciousness, like a better resolution, not just better bandwidth. And certain experiences might improve resolution.

Consciousness as Maximizing Coherence

With this framing, consciousness could be defined as the following: a self-organizing channel that maximizes the mutual information between the Possibility Space and the Agent under a finite bandwidth/resolution. It’s goal is to maximize coherence with reality at time  $t$ — to get the richest, least distorted experience from infinite possibilities. The beauty of this is that this can be applied recursively. $\psi$ governs how much of the Possibility Space $७_i$ is perceptible, and each disclosure may update our $\psi$ function by fine tuning our memory, expectation, belief, and psychological states, which in turn improves our ability to perceive the bits emitted from Possibility Space.
‍

Inter-Agent Disclosure Entanglement

So far, we’ve only looked at disclosure through a single Conscious Agent $\Upsilon_1$ — an individual collapsing their possibilities and regenerating a new Possibility Space. However, conscious agents don’t operating in isolation — we’re social creatures entangled in social activities and events, such as work, gatherings, etc. Often, an action from a Single Agent $A_{\Upsilon_i}$ might be in context of another Single Agent 2 relative — approaching a girl at a bar, asking your boss for a raise. And when we interact with someone, our Possibility Space $७_{i}$ is interacting with their Possibility Space $७_{j}$ and the new set of possibilities now exist as $७_{t+1}^{(i,j)}$. Now the possibilities that theoretically can exist isn’t limited to just us, but the intersection of us and another conscious agent, as well as their perceptual aperture function, including their current state, choices, experiences, random life events, etc. When we introduce social dynamics, our Possibility Space  $७_{i}$ becomes entangled with the Possibility Space of another agent $७_{j}$. This is what I call Disclosure Entanglement.

Overlap and Local Determinism

The overlap in possibility spaces lead to certain possibilities being more real than others. It is this overlap that creates emergent possibilities neither could access alone. The set of all imagined possibilities is a union of the manifold sets.

$$M_{i} \cup M_{j}\subset ७_{ij}$$

The more overlap there is between $M_i$ and  $M_j$, the Possibility Space is known to have a constructive interference — that feeling when conversation “just flows.” This is what creates the perception of “local determinism” — like this was meant to happen. We can mentally represent higher constructive interference as intersection between two manifold sets.

$$M_{i} \cap M_{j}$$

However, little overlap creates a destructive interference, leading to an unproductive interaction between agents. This is analogous to wave interference in Quantum Mechanics. We represent that overlap as union of two imagined manifold of possibilities. Destructive interference happens when sets $M_i$ and  $M_j$ are disjoint. This is to say when $M_i$ imagines the possibility manifold ${[A, B, C]}$  and $M_j$ imagines the possibility manifold ${[D, E]}$ for a given time $t$. This is like two parties misinterpreting the Possibility Space (Agent 1 thinking they are doing well, while Agent 2 thinks otherwise). This can be written as:

$$M_{i}\text{ }\dot{\cup}\text{ }M_{j} = \emptyset$$

This disjointness creates dissonance, leading to destructive interference. This is the byproduct of the aperture filter $\psi$ that directly affects $M_n$. Similarly, high overlap creates resonance. It is due to the aperture filter $\psi$ that produces more aligned set of imagined possibilities, due to the biochemistry, the emotional states, shares values, backgrounds, etc. $M_i$ changes based on $\Upsilon_j$ and $M_j$ changes based on $\Upsilon_i$, therefore $M_{ij}$ becomes entangled.

We can now update our Recursive Regenerative Principle to now integrate inter-agent interactions:

$$७_{t+1}^{(i,j)} = R_{ij}[C_i(O_i,A_i)७_t^{(i)}, C_j(O_j,A_j)७_t^{(j)}]$$

where $R_{ij}$ defines the interference/entanglement operator between agents $i$ and $j$.

Social interactions can happen with $n$ agents; therefore, this can be further generalized to:

$$७_{t+1}^{(i,...,n)} = R_{i...n}[C_i(O_i,A_i)७_t^{(i)}, ... ,  C_n(O_n,A_n)७_t^{(n)}]$$

Cascade of Events

The set of events in a social interaction among multiple agents can be mapped as a cascade. For example, an action from $A_{i(t)}$ updates the shared reality and Possibility Space to $७_{ij}$, which updates the manifold of imagined possibilities Agent 2 can have, shaping their action. Here’s an example:

$$ \begin{gathered} ७_{ij(t)} = \text{Current Possibility Field of Agents 1 & 2}\\[1.2em]  \text{Agent 1 imagined possibilities}\\ M_{i(t)} = \psi_i \times ७_{i(t)}\\[1.2em]  \text{Agent 2 imagined possibilities}\\ M_{j(t)} = \psi_j \times ७_{j(t)}\\[1.2em]  \text{Agent 1 acts, disclosing...}\\ A_{i(t)} \in M_{i(t)}\\[1.2em]  \text{Possibility Field Regenerated}\\ ७_{ij(t+1)} = R\!\left(A_{i(t)},\, ७_{ij(t)}\right)\\[1.2em]  \text{This updates Possibility Field and Imagined Manifold for Agent 2}\\ M_{j(t+1)} = \psi_j \times ७_{j(t+1)}\\[1.2em]  \text{Agent 2 acts, disclosing...}\\ A_{j(t+1)} \in M_{j(t+1)}\\[1.2em]  \text{Updated Possibility Field for both Agents}\\ ७_{ij(t+2)} = R\!\left(A_{j(t+1)},\, ७_{ij(t+1)}\right)\\[1.2em]  \text{And so on...} \end{gathered} $$

Note that $७_{ij(t+1)}$ is the union of all the actions occured at time $t$. Reality doesn’t need to order simultaneous events; it incorporates them as a bundle, thus represented in set notation. $R$ can handle sets of varying sizes — $R[A_{i(t)}, ७_{t}]$ to contain single action or  $R[\{A_{i(t)}, A_{j(t)}, ..., A_{n(t)}\}, ७_{t}]$ to contain simultaneous actions.

Orthogonality

The entanglement of these Possibility Spaces surfaces a key principle of this framework: that there is an implicit hierarchy of realities.

$$७_i \subset ७_{i...n} \subset ७_G$$

where:

• $७_i$ is the Individual Possibility Space
• $७_{i...n}$ is the Localized Possibility Space (across $n$ agents)
• $७_G$ is the Global Possibility Space

For example, when a Single Conscious Agent $\Upsilon_1$ wakes up, it is orthogonal to everyone else since they are not engaging in or in the context of a social interaction. When $\Upsilon_1$ decides to go to a speakeasy bar in West Village, now the Possibility Space includes all theoretical combination of the possibilities at that subspace (bar), including interacting with  $\Upsilon_2, \Upsilon_3, \Upsilon_4, ... \Upsilon_n$ . This creates an intersecting reality where an action could update the Localized Possibility Space for $n$ agents in that subspace. However, this is still orthogonal to the Global Possibility Space as the reality for all the other agents outside this subspace may update independently. It is non-zero however due to some relational or intersecting entanglement (something happens to $\Upsilon_{1}$ who is associated with  $\Upsilon_{n+1}$ who is not in the bar).

Orthogonality of non-intersecting realities explains why billions of simultaneous actions don't create chaos. Most possibility spaces are orthogonal — they don't share a subspace. Only when agents enter shared contexts do their Possibility Spaces entangle.

Magnitude of Action

Every disclosed action by an agent $\Upsilon_{i}$ has a magnitude or net impact that affects Possibility Spaces  $७_{i...n}$ for agents in a local subspace. Magnitudes have three properties. They are:

1. Contextual: the setting and specific situation
2. Relational: the social dynamics between agents
3. Observer-dependent: the net impact of the action given the dynamic

A CEO talking to their employee at the office has a higher magnitude — or effect on Localized Possibility Space — than the CEO talking to someone at a grocery store. We can represent magnitude of an action as $|A_i|$. Every action that collapses possibilities has some magnitude and are positive. Given a larger $|A|$ has a higher net impact, we can conclude that an action with higher magnitude has a bigger shift in  $७$ through transitivity.

Magnitudes can be determined by:

• Status/power (CEO's $|A_i|$ > intern's $|A_j|$)
• Visibility (public action > private action)
• Irreversibility (can't undo = higher  $|A|$)
• Unexpectedness/Unpredictable (shocking move = higher $|A|$)

Because magnitudes are observant-dependent, we can represent the magnitude of an action as such:

$$ \lvert A_i \rvert_{\text{observed by } j} = f\!\left(A_i,\, ७_{ij},\, \psi_j,\, \frac{p_i}{p_j},\, H(X)\right) $$

where:

• $A_i$ is the action from agent $i$
• $७_{ij}$ is the shared Localized Possibility Space
• $\psi_j$ is the perceptual aperture filter of agent $j$
• $\frac{p_i}{p_j}$ is the relative power/authority agent $i$ has over agent $j$. In settings like work, this parameter would be higher. In a casual setting, the power ratio might be equal (balanced)
• $H(X)$ is the entropy of the action — how unpredictable the disclosed action is

This implies two things:

1. Actions with higher entropy — bold moves, risks — will produce higher magnitudes, and
2. Actions with lower entropy — small, iterative actions — will produce lower magnitudes.

For example, imagine $\Upsilon_i$ meets $\Upsilon_j$ at a bar and then sends them a message. $\Upsilon_j$ — from a their set of all imagined possibilities $M_t$ — decides to not respond or really, inaction. Given that every action has some positive magnitude, and magnitude is determined by a function of surprise, status/power, we can deduce that the action of “ghosting” has a moderate magnitude for the Possibility Space $७_{ij}$ because that action collapses a set of $७_{ij(t+n)}$ possibilities.

Small actions or magnitudes in $७_{ij(t)}$ are not futile — they create feedback loops that lead to constructive or destructive interference across agent interactions. This is due to the small $|A_{j(t)}|$ may implicitely affect $M_{i(t+1)}$ due to aperture filter $\psi_i$ calibrating real-time micro-signals during the inter-agent interaction. For example, a smile from $\Upsilon_j$ might convey small but subtle information to $\Upsilon_i$, further recalibrating their aperture.
‍

Conclusion

Tiny choices or events — as long as they are high entropic — can therefore dramatically change our realities and our regenerated new Possibility Spaces, leading to different and unpredictable life paths. It is such entropy that gives life its randomness. While we can’t deterministically predict the set of imagined possibilities someone, which is a function of their aperture filter $\psi$, the more we can map and infer someone’s aperture filter, the lower entropy and randomness it might be produced, although it is still non-zero. Life has a touch of randomness built in which is sensitive to some initial condition. Therefore, unpredictability is a key emergent property of life.

Determinism holds locally, but globally, it’s open ended. Within current or local moments, collapse cascades from prior states or disclosures. Therefore we may feel like we’re choosing and creating, but really, we’re disclosing what is already there. At large scale, the complete story is yet to be disclosed through a discrete set of disclosures and possibility collapses. This implies the notion of agency — that every conscious choice or act writes new possible futures into existence.

‍

Missing Ideas

• Proximity of other non-actors on my reality
• The way A_i is chosen. How does one decide to pick? Utility? Irrationality?