Recognition PhysicsInstitute — ATX

Recognition Physics Institute — one rule, everything else follows.

We don't ask you to believe it. Every claim is open, and a computer checks the proofs.

PhysicsMathematicsConsciousnessMoralityEconomics

We found one simple rule for how the universe keeps its books balanced. From that single rule — and nothing else — you can work out the particles, the forces, even what a mind is and what's right and wrong. We don't tune any numbers to make it fit, and a computer checks every step.

Fig. 01 — The whole ideahover to re-drop

Being out of balance costs more.The ball always rolls to the bottom — the balanced point. That's the rule everything is built on.

0numbers tuned to fit
1rule it's built from
checked by computer, step by step
8peer-reviewed papers

I'm against physics you have to take on faith. Against theories with twenty dials you turn until the answer comes out right. Against grand ideas that never face a referee, and against calling a theory settled while the telescopes keep contradicting it — an anomaly is the data voting no. If a claim about reality can't be checked, it isn't knowledge — it's reputation. So everything here is written down, derived from one rule, sent through peer review, and run through a proof checker that doesn't care who I am.

— Jonathan Washburn, founder

01The record

Published & peer-reviewed

The work isn't a blog. It's in journals other scientists vet, and posted openly for anyone to read and pick apart.

In peer-reviewed journals

Multidimensional Cost Geometry
Axioms (MDPI) · 15(5):378 · 2026
Coherent Comparison as Information Cost
Foundations (MDPI) · 6(2):17 · 2026
The d'Alembert Inevitability Theorem
Mathematics (MDPI) · 14(8):1386 · 2026
Uniqueness of the Canonical Reciprocal Cost
Mathematics (MDPI) · 14(6):935 · 2026
Recognition Geometry
Axioms (MDPI) · 15(2):90 · 2026
Reciprocal Convex Costs for Ratio Matching
Axioms (MDPI) · 15(2):151 · 2026

Open preprints — arXiv

02Don't take our word for it

It's all public. Check it yourself.

Every proof lives in the open. If you read code, you can run it on your own machine and watch a computer accept each step — or find a hole and tell us. Either way, that's the point.

126,000lines of Lean proof code
5,469theorems, every one machine-checked
0unfinished proofs
0assumptions of our own

What's in the library

  • 01
    The whole chain. From "two things differ" to logic, the cosmic ledger, the one cost rule, the golden ratio, three dimensions of space, and the 8-beat — every link a theorem, none of it assumed.
  • 02
    The one rule, proved unique. Not "a rule that works" — a proof that no other fair way to price imbalance can exist.
  • 03
    The constants. The fine-structure constant pinned inside a window of less than a hundredth of a percent — and the measured value sits inside it. Planck's constant and Newton's G in the theory's own units.
  • 04
    Matter and gravity. The mass ladder for particles, and gravity strong enough to trace how galaxies actually rotate — no invisible-matter dials.
  • 05
    The observer. A precise account of what it is to recognize something — and a proof that plain logic comes free with any recognizer.

What it claims — and how hard

  • The laws of physics are forced, not chosen. Pull out any link and everything below it falls.
  • It rests on zero assumptions of ours. Every theorem traces back to the same three foundations the rest of modern mathematics stands on — and you can run the audit that proves nothing else snuck in.
  • Its numbers are predicted, not fitted. There is no parameter anywhere you could turn to make an answer come out right.
  • And it's staked in public: if any one of the 5,469 theorems breaks, the build fails for everyone watching.
github.com/jonwashburn/shape-of-logic

335 Lean files, built on Lean 4 + Mathlib. One command rebuilds the library and re-checks every proof from scratch.

Open repo ↗
for the curious — run a proof
# check that the one rule is the only one that works
build  the-one-rule

# check the chain from "something exists" to 3-D space
build  the-whole-chain

# check that right and wrong is keeping the books balanced
build  the-moral-law

# re-check the entire library for gaps and hidden assumptions
audit  everything            # → no gaps, nothing of ours snuck in

03Who we are

A focused team, working in the open

Physicists, mathematicians, and a chemist building and checking the framework, paper by paper and proof by proof.

Jonathan Washburn

Director

Found the one rule, starting from a simple thought: nothing can't even notice itself, so something — a difference — has to exist. Everything else grows from there.

Dr. Elshad Allahyarov

Research Scientist

Dr. Sci. Physics & Mathematics — General Physics Institute RAS & Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf

Brings decades of expertise in many-body systems, plasma physics, and advanced materials science. Senior Scientific Researcher at the Joint Institute for High Temperatures of the Russian Academy of Sciences since 1988.

Dr. Sebastian Pardo Guerra

Research Scientist

Ph.D. Pure Mathematics — UNAM

Bridges abstract mathematical frameworks with Recognition Science principles. His work in category theory and graph theory provides foundations for understanding information flow and emergent behavior. Postdoctoral work at UC San Diego in applied mathematics.

Dr. Megan Simons

Research Scientist

Ph.D. Theoretical and Computational Chemistry — Southern Methodist University

Applies Recognition Science principles to molecular and chemical systems, integrating quantum chemistry with data-driven modeling. Explores how recognition-theoretic frameworks describe complex molecular interactions and spectroscopic phenomena.

Dr. Anil Thapa

Research Scientist

Ph.D. Theoretical Physics — Colorado State University

Investigates frontier particle physics through the recognition framework — connections between neutrino physics, dark matter, and beyond-Standard-Model phenomena — integrating effective field theory with first-principles structure.

Dr. Dylan Funk

Research Scientist

Ph.D. Physics — Auburn University

Plasma physicist specializing in computational modeling, extended magnetohydrodynamics, and dusty plasma theory. Developed theoretical and simulation methods for dust charge in magnetized and strongly coupled plasmas.

Dr. Philip Beltracchi

Research Scientist

Ph.D. Astrophysics — University of Utah

Works on general-relativistic astrophysics — compact objects, rotation, and exotic equations of state. Previously contributed to computational solid-state physics and renewable energy research.

Emma Tully

Chief Operating Officer

Runs the day-to-day and gets the work from idea to finished, published paper.

04The engine, running

Watch reality build itself

Reading the argument is one thing. Watching it run is another. We built the rule into an engine and pressed play on an empty universe: one difference posts, the cost lights up, the golden ratio falls out, then the 8-beat, then three directions, then structure. Nobody draws any of it. It's forced.

This is not an animation. The screen is only allowed to draw numbers the engine actually computed. Click any cell in the real run and it shows its receipt: the tick it appeared, what it cost, the rule it obeyed.

Two needles keep it honest. The balance needle must sit at zero forever. The cost meter may only climb. There's even a button that tries to cheat the books, so you can watch the universe refuse.

Also: join the engine running live · stand inside it in VR · try to break it · every instrument →

Fig. 02 — the idea, sketchedhover to re-run

Space gets drawn only where it's forced.A flat sketch of the idea. The real instruments replay the engine's own per-tick record — the picture holds no physics of its own.

05What things actually are

The same one rule, asked about seven different things

Once you have the rule, you can ask it almost anything. Here's what it says, in one plain sentence each.