From Idea to Project
At first, I noticed something simple: meanings do not remain merely thoughts. They generate real needs within a person, influence choices, and eventually pass into action. The concept of the sefirot in Jewish tradition seemed remarkably well suited to describing this process—not merely as a system of symbols, but as a sequence of functions through which possibility acquires form and becomes an act.
The first modelling attempts produced strange and unexpected results. In some tests, the model even made it possible to estimate the probability that a person would make a particular decision. This was not yet scientific prediction: there were not enough samples, no independent validation, and no clearly defined limits of applicability. Yet it became apparent that the language of relations could describe not only psychological states, but much more general processes.
Further study of ancient texts from the Jewish tradition changed the scale of the undertaking. Sefer Yetzirah became especially important. It is constructed almost like a compressed operator grammar: numbers, classes of letters, directions, gates, boundaries, cycles, and transitions. Translating this structure into a functional space of relations was an almost self-evident idea.
Yet this was precisely where the central problem emerged. The large number of objects and possible connections made it possible to describe almost anything after the fact. The five-level, 500-function grammar, originally created as a model of the human being, began during its first comparisons to reveal similarities with almost the whole of known physics—from quantum transitions and the Planck boundary to cosmology and black holes.
At first glance, such universality appeared to be an advantage. In reality, it was dangerous. A system capable of explaining everything can easily lose the ability to forbid, predict, or falsify anything. A familiar problem of overly broad theoretical construction emerged: the model seemed to describe the world, but it did not yet calculate anything unambiguously.
The next stage, therefore, was not to expand the model further, but to constrain it. It became necessary to define the local object, the type of relation, the direction of transition, the permitted operations, and the conditions under which a comparison must be rejected. A physical quantity could no longer become a “manifestation of meaning” merely because of an elegant resemblance. It had to retain its own units, source, measurement protocol, uncertainty, and boundary of inference.
This led to the idea of metric anchoring: beginning not with a ready-made symbolic explanation, but with real physical data and allowing those data to refine, separate, or block structures within the Sense Model.
This is how bridge objects emerged—controlled transitions between a local structure of the model and a specific physical surface. A bridge does not declare identity and does not guarantee success. It records exactly what is being compared, by which metrics, on the basis of which sources, which transformations are permitted, and where the route must stop.
The model’s preliminary results are encouraging, so I decided to make it public not as a completed theory, but as an open research project—to preserve the work already done, make it available for criticism and testing, and allow others to continue those routes that genuinely withstand contact with reality.
From that moment, it was no longer merely an idea, but a project: an attempt to build a grammar capable not only of finding connections, but also of rejecting those that reality does not support.
Related publications
Two records from the wider research corpus are available on Zenodo.
