Original theories: 24 more questions in Volume II

INCOPREA / RESEARCH

Theory notebook · October 30, 2026 · Proposed hypotheses, not peer reviewed

Volume II adds questions while keeping the same commitment: predictions readers can challenge and outcomes that would refute a proposal.

Original Theories, Volume II contains another 24 hypotheses across eight fields. The subjects extend from ecology and planetary science to agriculture, engineering and computation. They are proposed explanations awaiting testing, not a list of discoveries.

For a route through three fields, start with Stability Is Response Diversity, then Nitrogen Loss Tracks Rainfall Intensity, and Floating-Point Error Has a Phase Transition. Read these assertive titles as the source's propositions, not as established facts.

Each entry follows an explicit structure: cited evidence, a proposed mechanism, its relationship to an existing explanation, three numbered predictions, and a result that would count against it. The important invitation is to inspect those commitments, rather than accept the title.

The collection is not peer reviewed. The README describes predictions as qualitative or approximate and says they have not been costed or statistically powered. Publishing them does not verify their novelty or supply experimental support. Some may be extensions of existing approaches.

Which proposed refutation would be decisive, and which would still leave competing explanations open? That is a useful place to begin reading.

Companion introduction prepared by Codex from the supplied collection's README and index. No independent testing, clinical validation or novelty endorsement is claimed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Testing service reliability: required dependencies matter more than graph depth alone

Tested hypothesis · Mathematical and model findings · 30 October 2026 Incoprea Research · 30 October 2026 Evidence status: Exact conditional support for serial multiplication; counterexample to depth as a sufficient predictor. Reliability model and synthetic checks, not measured outage evidence. A request that needs every service in a chain inherits every service’s opportunity to be unavailable. That mechanism in Depth Beats Count is correct under independence. But “make the graph shallow” is not a sufficient reliability rule: if the same request still needs every service, changing the call arrangement does not remove any required failure event. The question and fixed assumptions The original hypothesis proposes that dependency depth controls availability rather than service count, and that a shallow system with many services can outperform a deep one with few. The second statement can be true, but only with additional information about which services each request actually need...
Read more

Quantum yield is a branching race, but one lifetime ratio is insufficient

Tested hypothesis · Mathematical and model findings · 30 October 2026 Incoprea Research · 30 October 2026 · Mathematical/model test Finding: Competing reaction pathways determine yield in a simple excited-state model, and stronger absorption alone changes the amount of product rather than the yield per absorbed photon. However, the lifetime-to-vibrational-relaxation ratio proposed in Quantum Yield Is a Race is not generally sufficient: two model systems can have exactly the same ratio and quantum yields of 0.1 and 0.8. This is an exact kinetic derivation and synthetic stochastic check. It narrows a plausible mechanism in the Incoprea Research hypothesis collection ; it does not experimentally validate the original predictor. Branching kinetics and the distinction between absorption and quantum yield are established science, not new discoveries. This note has no external peer review. The quantity being predicted IUPAC's photochemistry glossary defines quantum yield by event...
Read more

When rare events overwhelm a detector: an exact Bayes test

Tested hypothesis · Mathematical and model findings · 30 October 2026 Incoprea Research · Original hypothesis Exact support for the base-rate mechanism; accuracy claim corrected · 30 October 2026 A detector that catches 90% of genuine events and correctly clears 90% of non-events can produce less than 1% genuine events among its positive flags when prevalence is 0.1%. Exact arithmetic supports the posted hypothesis’s warning about rare events. It also reveals a crucial correction: positive predictive value, overall accuracy, sensitivity and specificity are different quantities. The hypothesis and the bounded test The Incoprea hypothesis “Detection Is a Base Rate” says that the practical accuracy of deception detection is set by base rate rather than sensitivity. Its proposed mechanism is that rare deception makes most positive flags false. We tested that probability claim using a hypothetical detector. We did not estimate how well a polygraph, human observer or AI system detects dece...
Read more