Fair point, and I appreciate the check.
My intent wasn't to treat this as a pure sales channel, but to get feedback on the framework itself. I'm trying to map Control Theory to psychology (specifically Ashby's Law), and I know this community is the best place to find holes in that kind of logic.
That is why I made the first chapter (which defines the core Topology and math) free/open without an email gate. I am genuinely more interested in the critique of the model than the sales.
I am not sure its "not allowed". The abstract is interesting and thought provoking.
I would love to read the book but I personally don't have time for it - so most likely would not pay for it.
There is a danger in thinking of our "meat machines" in purely mechanical terms - so my first interest is whether whatever model being proposed can actually be adhered to. Or maybe an "AI Copilot" can implement such a framework and assist us mere humans in attaining our goals.
You hit the exact tension I struggled with while writing this.
To give a bit of context: growing up in Poland, I found that without formalizing my goals, I was paralyzed. I literally couldn't "think" clearly about my future because the variables were too undefined. I wrote this book primarily as my own "antifragility toolbox"—using the language I speak best (math and systems) to debug my own life constraints.
Re: The AI Copilot — that is exactly the dream. A dashboard that monitors inputs/outputs and warns: "Variance Instability Detected" before the biological system actually crashes. I am actually prototyping a small Python script for this right now. If it works, I'll post it here.
I would love to read the book but I personally don't have time for it - so most likely would not pay for it.
There is a danger in thinking of our "meat machines" in purely mechanical terms - so my first interest is whether whatever model being proposed can actually be adhered to. Or maybe an "AI Copilot" can implement such a framework and assist us mere humans in attaining our goals.