Explore two protocol-level pathways for moving humans from A→B in the Rozon Recursive Gravity Model. Adjust identity (MI), structure (ES), and gate (Ω) controls to see how FTL substrate navigation and pattern-based teleportation differ in risk, timing, and phenomenology—entirely offline.
Identity stays anchored while structure is reduced below the ES ≥ 1 reality threshold, slips into D₀, navigates by selecting collapse potentials, then re-emerges at B when Ω recouples.
Extract the full (MI, ES) pattern at A, suppress Ω to prevent further record-writing, transmit the blueprint, reconstruct structure at B, and re-anchor identity as Ω is enhanced.
Watch ES descend below threshold, identity remain anchored, and the marker traverse configuration space where spatial distance collapses to topological similarity.
Track pattern extraction, Ω suppression at A, information flow, reconstruction at B, and identity re-anchor with Ω enhancement.
Probabilities are illustrative, driven by your sliders to visualize sensitivity.
| Aspect | FTL Transit | Teleportation |
|---|
FTL experience: continuous identity through a subthreshold state. Subjectively a trip; externally only endpoints are written. Ω modulation is active along the path, and failure means dispersion or mis-collapse.
Teleportation experience: no traversal; identity and structure are frozen, transmitted, then re-instantiated. Philosophy corner: continuity is preserved if MI is conserved and pattern fidelity is intact, but subjective gaps may be felt.
Tradeoffs: FTL demands high coherence and navigation accuracy but offers true journey. Teleport demands extreme pattern fidelity and substrate availability; Ω control prevents double-writing and copy hazards.