Home » Posts tagged 'interaction channel'
Tag Archives: interaction channel
The West and the East: A Research Protocol for Civilizational Attractor Dynamics
Robert Galida
June 2026
[A] (Application)
Abstract
The attractor framework provides a vocabulary for diagnosing the dynamical properties of systems—their error correction capacity (κ), their perturbation resistance (B), their coordination capacity (C), and their reality alignment (R). This paper proposes a research protocol for applying that vocabulary to institutional and civilizational scales. It introduces a four-dimensional framework distinguishing these variables, operationalizes them using candidate observables—policy correction rates, scientific retraction rates, institutional durability, identity persistence, institutional trust, and scientific acceptance—and outlines a research protocol for testing hypotheses about civilizational dynamics. The paper applies the framework provisionally to case studies, including the Meiji Restoration, the Genesis 1 flat-earth cosmology, and Western responses to Asia’s rise. It concludes that the framework generates testable predictions about institutional and civilizational adaptation, but that all claims are provisional pending empirical validation.
All claims are hypotheses, not conclusions. The framework is applied heuristically, not diagnostically.
1. Introduction
The attractor framework has been applied to physics, biology, cognition, and AI. This paper extends it to civilizational dynamics. It does not claim that civilizations are organisms or that the framework has been validated at this scale. It proposes a research protocol and generates hypotheses for empirical testing.
The central hypothesis is:
Western and East Asian civilizational traditions may occupy different attractor basins, with the West potentially exhibiting lower error correction capacity (κ) and higher perturbation resistance (B) than Taoist-Confucian-influenced East Asian traditions.
This is a hypothesis, not a conclusion. It requires operationalization, measurement, and falsification.
A note on the framework’s physicalist commitment: The attractor framework adopts a physicalist ontology: to be real is to be able to interact, and to interact is to share at least one interaction channel (energy, momentum, gauge charge, spacetime, or any measurable coupling). Claims that define themselves as having no such channels are fantasy attractors: structurally sealed against correction by permanent non-verifiability (see Galida, 2026f). This paper extends that diagnostic logic from individual beliefs to civilizational self-images—but always as a hypothesis, never as an established conclusion.
2. The Framework Variables: A Four-Dimensional State Space
The attractor framework’s normative ideal is high κ + high B + high C + high R—a system that corrects errors efficiently, resists perturbation, coordinates collective action, and aligns with reality.
| Variable | Definition | High Value | Low Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| κ (error correction capacity) | The rate at which a system detects and corrects errors in its models | Learns from mistakes, updates beliefs | Repeats errors, resists updating |
| B (perturbation resistance) | The energy barrier required to induce a durable state transition | Stable, coherent, retains identity | Shallow, unstable, easily perturbed |
| C (coordination capacity) | The ability of a system to coordinate collective action | Cohesive, effective | Fragmented, ineffective |
| R (reality alignment) | The degree to which a system’s models correspond to empirical reality | Accurate models | Delusional models |
Crucially, κ is not change rate. It is error correction rate. A system can change constantly and still be irrational (high change, low κ). A system can appear conservative and still possess extremely high κ because correction occurs when evidence accumulates (low change rate, high κ).
The Four Outcomes
| Combination | κ | B | Outcome | Examples |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stable adaptive | High | High | The ideal—corrects errors, maintains coherence | Scientific communities, healthy individuals, functioning democracies |
| Brittle adaptive | High | Low | Corrects errors but unstable—no memory, no coherence | Chaotic organizations, fad-followers |
| Stable rigid | Low | High | Resists correction—dogmatic, sealed | Fantasy attractors, fundamentalism |
| Fragile rigid | Low | Low | Unstable and unresponsive | Failed states, collapsed institutions |
The Fantasy Attractor Defined
A fantasy attractor is not simply a low-κ system. It is:
A system with low R (reality alignment) combined with mechanisms that prevent R from increasing.
This definition is more powerful than the earlier “low κ + high B” formulation because it explains why some low-κ systems are not fantasy attractors (e.g., a conservative scientific community that is low-κ in the short term but high-R in the long term). It also explains why some high-κ systems are fantasy attractors (e.g., conspiracy communities that change constantly but never converge on reality).
3. Operationalizing κ, B, C, and R
3.1 Candidate Proxies for κ (Error Correction Capacity)
| Proxy | Description | Data Source |
|---|---|---|
| Policy correction rate | How quickly does a society correct failed policies? | Comparative Agendas Project, legislative archives |
| Scientific retraction rate | How readily does a field retract false findings? | Retraction databases, replication studies |
| Error detection capacity | How effectively does a system identify its own errors? | Institutional review mechanisms, ombudsman data |
Falsification: If societies scoring high on these proxies do not show improved outcomes over time, the mapping fails.
3.2 Candidate Proxies for B (Perturbation Resistance)
| Proxy | Description | Data Source |
|---|---|---|
| Institutional durability | How long do institutions persist under pressure? | Historical duration data, institutional survival rates |
| Constitutional stability | How resistant is the foundational framework to change? | Constitutional amendment difficulty, legal entrenchment |
| Identity persistence | How stable is collective identity over time? | National identity surveys, historical continuity measures |
Falsification: If systems with high values on these indicators nonetheless show high adaptability without collapse, the mapping needs refinement.
3.3 Candidate Proxies for C (Coordination Capacity)
| Proxy | Description | Data Source |
|---|---|---|
| Institutional trust | Public confidence in institutions | World Values Survey, trust indices |
| Collective action capacity | Ability to mobilize resources | State capacity indices, tax-to-GDP ratios |
| Social cohesion | Degree of social integration | Social capital indices, inequality measures |
3.4 Candidate Proxies for R (Reality Alignment)
| Proxy | Description | Data Source |
|---|---|---|
| Scientific acceptance | Public acceptance of scientific consensus | Evolution acceptance, climate change belief |
| Historical accuracy | Acknowledgment of historical facts | Content analysis of textbooks |
| Empirical openness | Willingness to revise beliefs in light of evidence | Survey measures of epistemic openness |
| Predictive accuracy | How well do models predict outcomes? | Forecast accuracy, planning effectiveness |
3.5 Testing the Latent Structure
The framework assumes that these indicators load onto shared latent variables (κ, B, C, R). This assumption must be tested using:
- Exploratory factor analysis to see whether the indicators group as predicted
- Confirmatory factor analysis to test the hypothesized factor structure
- Cross-validation across different cultural contexts
Falsification: If the indicators do not load onto the predicted latent variables, the framework’s operationalization fails.
4. Institutions First, Civilizations Second
“The West” and “The East” are not coherent dynamical entities. Medieval Spain, Puritan New England, contemporary Sweden, and Renaissance Florence may have radically different κ, B, C, and R values. Likewise, Tokugawa Japan, Maoist China, Singapore, and contemporary South Korea are not obviously members of one attractor.
Treatment: The framework is better applied to institutions (universities, bureaucracies, religions, states, scientific communities) than to civilizations as wholes. Case studies should specify time periods and institutional contexts.
| Institution | κ | B | C | R |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Imperial examination bureaucracy | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| Catholic Church (1200) | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| Royal Society (1700) | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| CCP bureaucracy (1985) | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| Silicon Valley startup ecosystem | ? | ? | ? | ? |
These are actual dynamical systems. Civilizations are aggregates. The framework becomes more falsifiable when applied to institutions first.
5. Hypotheses for Empirical Testing
5.1 The West/East Hypothesis (Institutional Form)
Hypothesis: Taoist-Confucian-influenced institutions exhibit higher κ and higher R than Western institutions.
Test: Compare institutions (universities, bureaucracies, scientific communities) across cultural contexts.
Falsification: If Western institutions show higher κ or higher R, the hypothesis fails.
5.2 The Meiji Challenge Hypothesis
Competing hypothesis: High κ emerges from elite willingness to revise institutional models under external pressure, rather than from cultural tradition.
Test: Compare Meiji Japan with Peter the Great’s Russia, Atatürk’s Turkey, and Deng’s China.
Falsification: If high κ episodes occur without external pressure, the competing hypothesis fails.
5.3 The Genesis Hypothesis
Hypothesis: Foundational narratives become identity-protected when tied to group cohesion.
Test: Compare response to evidence across different foundational narratives (Genesis, Marxism, nationalism, revolutionary myths).
Falsification: If some foundational narratives show high κ and high R, the hypothesis needs refinement.
5.4 The Social Enforcement Hypothesis
Hypothesis: The cost of rejecting a dominant attractor—exclusion, censure, hostility—is high enough to prevent most people from leaving the basin.
Test: Qualitative and quantitative studies of independent researchers, religious doubters, and political dissenters.
Falsification: If the social cost of rejection is low, the hypothesis fails.
5.5 The Escape Hypothesis
Hypothesis: Deep attractors often require unusually large perturbations to reorganize.
Test: Historical analysis of civilizational transformations (Roman Empire, Mayan civilization, Japan’s Meiji Restoration, China’s Reform and Opening).
Falsification: If civilizations escape deep attractors without large perturbations, the hypothesis fails.
6. Case Studies (Provisional)
6.1 The Meiji Restoration: High κ Under External Pressure
Japan’s Meiji Restoration (1868) is a case study in high κ: a deliberate, rapid shift toward pragmatism and adoption of foreign ideas. However, Meiji was not particularly Taoist. It was hyper-modernizing, militarizing, industrializing, and centralizing.
Competing hypothesis: High κ emerged from existential threat (Perry’s arrival) combined with elite flexibility. This mechanism appears elsewhere: Peter the Great’s Russia, Atatürk’s Turkey, Deng’s China.
Implication: Taoism may be secondary to elite flexibility under external pressure.
6.2 The West’s Response to Asia’s Rise
The West’s response to Asia’s rise—demonization, containment, resistance to learning—is consistent with fantasy attractor dynamics. However, this is a hypothesis, not a conclusion.
Counterexample: The West has also adopted Asian technologies and business practices. This suggests that κ may be higher in some domains (technology) than others (identity).
6.3 Genesis 1 as a Case Study
The West’s refusal to acknowledge Genesis 1’s flat-earth cosmology is a case study in identity-protective sealing. However, it is one example among many.
Broader framing: Foundational narratives—whether religious, national, revolutionary, or ideological—become identity-protected when tied to group cohesion. Genesis is one example. Marxism, nationalism, revolutionary myths, imperial myths, and anti-colonial myths are others.
7. How This Maps to Taoism
| Taoist Concept | Attractor Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Wu wei (non-action) | High κ—respond appropriately to the situation |
| Ziran (naturalness) | High R—align with the way things actually are |
| The Tao | The constraint field—the attractor landscape itself |
| Te (virtue) | High B—maintain integrity while flowing |
| The sage | High κ + high B + high R—the ideal |
A crucial clarification: Taoism is treated as an inspiration for the model, not as evidence that the model is true. The empirical version is:
Taoism predicts certain dynamical properties. We can test whether systems influenced by Taoist ideas actually exhibit those properties.
This preserves falsifiability and avoids circularity.
8. What This Paper Does Not Claim
| Claim | Not Claimed |
|---|---|
| The West is definitively low-κ | ✅ |
| The East is definitively high-κ | ✅ |
| Genesis 1 is the sole sealing mechanism | ✅ |
| Taoism is evidence for the framework | ✅ |
| All Western institutions are rigid | ✅ |
| All Eastern institutions are adaptive | ✅ |
| The framework has been validated at civilizational scale | ✅ |
| Civilizations are organisms | ✅ |
| High change rate = high κ | ✅ |
9. Research Protocol and Methodology
9.1 Data Sources
- Political freedom indices (Freedom House, Polity)
- Innovation and education indices (Global Innovation Index, PISA)
- Survey data on belief systems (World Values Survey)
- Historical texts and news archives for qualitative analysis
9.2 Variables and Measurement
| Variable | Proxy | Measurement |
|---|---|---|
| κ (error correction) | Policy correction rate | Count failed policies corrected |
| κ (error correction) | Scientific retraction rate | Retraction databases |
| κ (error correction) | Error detection capacity | Institutional review mechanisms |
| B (perturbation resistance) | Institutional durability | Historical duration data |
| B (perturbation resistance) | Constitutional stability | Amendment difficulty |
| B (perturbation resistance) | Identity persistence | Historical continuity measures |
| C | Institutional trust | World Values Survey |
| C | Collective action capacity | State capacity indices |
| R | Scientific acceptance | Evolution acceptance, climate change belief |
| R | Historical accuracy | Content analysis of textbooks |
| R | Predictive accuracy | Forecast accuracy |
9.3 Statistical Analysis
- Exploratory factor analysis to see whether indicators group as predicted
- Confirmatory factor analysis to test the hypothesized factor structure
- Cross-validation across different cultural contexts
- Longitudinal analysis to track changes over time
9.4 Falsification Criteria
For each hypothesis, define outcomes that would disprove it. For example, if Western institutions score higher on error correction capacity than Eastern ones, reject the corresponding hypothesis.
10. Conclusion
The attractor framework generates testable hypotheses about institutional and civilizational dynamics. The central hypothesis is that Western and East Asian civilizational traditions may occupy different attractor basins, with the West potentially exhibiting lower error correction capacity (κ) and higher perturbation resistance (B) than Taoist-Confucian-influenced East Asian traditions.
Crucially, the framework’s normative ideal is high κ + high B + high C + high R. The fantasy attractor is not simply low κ. It is low R combined with mechanisms that prevent R from increasing.
The research protocol outlined in this paper provides a path for empirical testing. Until that testing is complete, all claims are provisional.
The paper does not claim that the West is definitively a fantasy attractor. It claims that the framework generates the hypothesis that the West may exhibit characteristics consistent with a fantasy attractor—and that this hypothesis is testable.
References
- Galida, R. (2026a). “Intelligence is the Primitive: Consciousness as a Second-Order Regulator on a Dissipative Substrate.” Fantasy Attractor.
- Galida, R. (2026b). “The Attractor Framework as a Formal Mapping of Taoist Dynamics.” Fantasy Attractor.
- Galida, R. (2026c). “The Cosmology of Genesis: A Philological and Exegetical Examination of the Flat Earth, Solid Dome, and Cosmic Ocean in the Hebrew Bible.” Fantasy Attractor.
- Galida, R. (2026d). “The Pre‑tensioned Body: A Hypothesis Paper Grounding the Attractor Framework in ECM Mechanics.” Fantasy Attractor.
- Galida, R. (2026e). “Religions and Philosophies as Attractor Landscapes: A Comparative Analysis.” Fantasy Attractor.
- Galida, R. (2026f). “Non‑Physical Claims Are Fantasy Attractors: Why Unverifiable Realms Cannot Be Empirically Distinguished from Nonexistence.” Fantasy Attractor.
- Gelfand, M.J., et al. (2011). “Differences Between Tight and Loose Cultures: A 33-Nation Study.” Science 332(6033):1100–1104.
Suggested citation: Galida, R. S. (2026). The West and the East: A Research Protocol for Civilizational Attractor Dynamics. Fantasy Attractor.
Non‑Physical Claims Are Fantasy Attractors: Why Unverifiable Realms Cannot Be Empirically Distinguished from Nonexistence
Robert Galida – June 2026
[F] (Foundation
Abstract
The attractor framework adopts a physicalist commitment: to be real is to be able to interact, and to interact is to share at least one interaction channel (spacetime, energy, momentum, gauge charge, or any measurable coupling). This is a philosophical starting point, not an empirical discovery. The paper argues that any claim about a non‑physical realm – defined as having no such interaction channel – cannot be empirically assessed. Such claims are fantasy attractors: belief systems structurally sealed against correction by defining their objects as forever beyond any possible test. The paper distinguishes provisional non‑detection (e.g., dark matter) from structural, permanent non‑verifiability (e.g., non‑physical gods, transcendent souls). It concludes that while such claims may have personal or social meaning, they cannot be part of a scientific ontology, and their structure makes them vulnerable to fraud and manipulation – though sincere belief is not fraud.
1. The Foundational Commitment: Interaction Requires Shared Channels
The attractor framework is a physicalist ontology. It begins with a commitment: entities can only interact through shared interaction channels. An interaction channel is any measurable coupling – spacetime coordinates, energy, momentum, electric charge, weak isospin, color charge, or any other quantity that can be transferred or correlated between systems. This is not an empirical discovery of the Standard Model; it is the framework’s chosen criterion for what counts as real.
The neutrino example illustrates the criterion but does not prove it. Neutrinos interact weakly because they share weak isospin; they do not interact electromagnetically because they lack electric charge. The framework simply says: if an entity shares no interaction channel with physical reality, we have no way to detect it, measure it, or include it in a scientific ontology. That is a philosophical choice, not a falsifiable claim about the world.
Why interaction? Interaction is chosen because it provides a public, corrigible basis for knowledge. It avoids ontological commitments that cannot influence observation, and it aligns with the core principle of the attractor framework: persistence under perturbation. An entity that never perturbs anything cannot be distinguished from nothing.
What the framework does not claim:
- That non‑physical entities are logically impossible.
- That all non‑physical claims are false.
- That physics has disproven God or the supernatural.
What it does claim:
- That non‑physical entities cannot be empirically distinguished from nonexistence.
- That claims about them operate as fantasy attractors, resistant to correction.
2. Types of Non‑Physical Claims
A non‑physical claim is any assertion about an entity, force, or realm defined as having no interaction channel with the physical world. However, not all claims that seem non‑physical are alike. We distinguish two categories:
Category A: Truly non‑interacting – Claims that explicitly deny any possible interaction. Examples:
- A deistic creator who wound the universe and then never interacts.
- A transcendent God defined as beyond all categories, including causality.
- An immaterial soul that cannot influence the body after death.
- Abstract objects (Platonism) that exist non‑physically and non‑causally.
Category B: Claims that assert interaction but evade testing – Examples:
- Ghosts that move objects but become undetectable when instruments are present.
- Psychics whose powers fail under controlled conditions (explained as “skeptic’s energy”).
- Homeopathic “water memory” that cannot be detected by any known physical measurement.
Category B is a different epistemic pathology: motivated reasoning, ad‑hoc escape clauses, and sealing mechanisms. The attractor framework addresses them as functionally non‑verifiable in practice, but they are not the primary target of this paper. This paper focuses on Category A: claims that structurally preclude any possible interaction channel.
| Domain (Category A) | Example Claim | Interaction Channel? | Empirically Assessable? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Religion (non‑interacting God) | A creator with no detectable properties | None | No – any test is ruled out a priori |
| Paranormal (non‑interacting ghosts) | Ghosts that cannot affect matter | None | No – no possible evidence |
| Abstract objects (Platonism) | Numbers exist non‑physically, non‑causally | None | No – no interaction, hence no evidence |
| New Age (non‑interacting “vibrations”) | Crystals with undetectable healing vibrations | None | No – absence of effect is blamed on “wrong intent” |
Under the framework’s commitment, such claims are not false; they are not empirically assessable. They belong to a different domain: personal belief, fiction, or social identity.
3. Provisional vs. Structural Non‑Verifiability
A crucial distinction separates:
- Provisional non‑detection – e.g., dark matter, gravitational waves (before 2015), the neutrino (before 1956). These entities are predicted to share at least one interaction channel (gravity, weak force) and are in principle detectable. A future discovery could confirm or disconfirm them. That is the key: we can specify what would count as evidence, even if we don’t yet have it.
- Structural, permanent non‑verifiability – Category A claims. The entity is defined so that no possible future discovery could ever count as confirmation or disconfirmation. Any proposed test is ruled out in advance. This is the hallmark of a fantasy attractor.
(This framework does not assert that dark matter could have been called a fantasy attractor before detection; dark matter always had specified interaction channels – gravity – and was therefore never structurally non‑verifiable.)
4. Fantasy Attractor: Formal Definition
A belief system qualifies as a fantasy attractor if it meets the following conditions:
- No specified interaction channel – The central claim lacks any measurable coupling to physical reality (Category A), or defines it in a way that systematically evades testing (Category B).
- Sealing mechanisms – The belief incorporates rhetorical or cognitive strategies that neutralize disconfirming evidence (e.g., “God works in mysterious ways,” “The ghost left when the EMF meter arrived”).
- Low corrective permeability (κ → 0) – The belief does not update in response to counterevidence; the return time τ to baseline is effectively infinite.
- Identity fusion – The belief is tied to self‑worth or group membership, making abandonment costly.
Under this definition, both Category A and some Category B claims can be fantasy attractors, but Category A are the paradigmatic case because they are structurally immune to evidence.
5. Fiction Is Real but Not True: A Crucial Distinction
The main argument might provoke an objection: What about fiction? Sherlock Holmes is not physical, yet we say he exists as a character. Isn’t that a counterexample to the claim that non‑physical entities cannot be empirically distinguished from nonexistence?
The objection fails because it conflates two different senses of “exists.” We must distinguish:
- Fiction exists as physical information. The character Sherlock Holmes is realized as patterns of ink on a page, as sounds in a performance, as neural firing patterns in readers’ brains, or as bits on a computer screen. Information is a physical arrangement of matter. It shares interaction channels (energy, spacetime, causality) with the physical world. You can buy a book, discuss the plot, or be emotionally affected by a story. Fiction is real in this sense: it has a physical substrate and causal effects.
- Fiction is not true. The proposition “Sherlock Holmes lived at 221B Baker Street” does not correspond to any actual state of affairs in the world. It is false. Fiction is not required to be verifiable; it is understood as imagined.
Thus, the attractor framework happily accommodates fiction. It is real as information, but not claimed as true.
The bad faith of non‑physical claims: Non‑physical claims that demand to be treated as real – gods, ghosts, souls, hidden cabals – are fiction pretending to be true. They borrow the ontological status of real information (they exist as patterns in books, sermons, or brains) but also demand the epistemic authority of factual truth. Yet they refuse any possible test. They define themselves as beyond verification. This is bad faith: it is not metaphysics, but fiction that insists on being taken as fact while rejecting the rules of fact‑checking.
| Category | Exists as physical information? | Claims to be true? | Verifiable? | Framework classification |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fiction (Hamlet) | Yes | No (acknowledged as imagined) | Not applicable | Real information, not true |
| Scientific claim (neutrino) | Yes (theory, data) | Yes | In principle | Real, true (provisionally) |
| Non‑physical claim (God) | Yes (as cultural artifact) | Yes | No – structurally excluded | Fantasy attractor |
Therefore, the framework does not deny the reality of stories; it denies the epistemic legitimacy of treating unverifiable stories as facts. The fantasy attractor is not the story. It is the insistence that the story is true combined with the structural refusal to let the story be tested.
6. Vulnerability to Fraud and Manipulation
The structure of non‑physical claims makes them vulnerable to fraud and manipulation – not that all such claims are fraudulent. Because there are no checks, a bad actor can assert divine commands, psychic readings, or secret knowledge without fear of disconfirmation. Sincere believers are not fraudsters, but the attractor basin can be exploited by those who understand its dynamics.
The framework diagnoses the structure, not the intent of every believer. It distinguishes error, self‑deception, motivated reasoning, and fraud – all possible outcomes, but not all present in every case.
7. What This Argument Does Not Prove
To avoid overreach, the paper explicitly states what it does not claim:
- It does not prove that non‑physical entities are logically impossible.
- It does not refute philosophical positions like Platonism (abstract objects) or classical theism that defines God as existence itself rather than an interacting object – though it notes that such positions are not empirically assessable.
- It does not claim that all believers are fraudsters or that all non‑physical claims are meaningless in a philosophical sense.
- It does not assert a timeless criterion for what will be discovered in the future.
The claim is narrower: within the attractor framework’s physicalist commitment, non‑physical claims are not empirically assessable, and they exhibit the dynamics of fantasy attractors.
8. Conclusion
The attractor framework adopts a physicalist commitment: entities can only interact through shared interaction channels. Non‑physical claims – defined as having no such channels – are not empirically assessable. They are fantasy attractors: belief systems structurally sealed against correction by permanent non‑verifiability. This does not make them meaningless or false; it places them outside the domain of scientific ontology. Their structure makes them vulnerable to exploitation, but sincere belief is not fraud. The framework provides a diagnostic tool for recognising when a claim has been immunised against evidence, regardless of its content.
The argument supports the following conclusion:
Claims that are permanently insulated from any possible empirical correction occupy a distinct epistemic category and exhibit attractor dynamics that make them resistant to updating. Within the attractor framework’s physicalist ontology, such claims cannot be empirically distinguished from nonexistence.
That is a substantial claim. It does not require asserting that non‑physical realms cannot exist – only that they cannot be part of a scientific ontology, and that the beliefs which cling to them operate as fantasy attractors.
Suggested citation: Galida, R. S. (2026). Non‑Physical Claims Are Fantasy Attractors: Why Unverifiable Realms Cannot Be Empirically Distinguished from Nonexistence. Fantasy Attractor.
