VC-backed company just killed my EU trademark for a small OSS project

The "Participatory Interface Theory" is not a scientific theory. It is a work of science fiction masquerading as physics. It uses the following techniques to create an illusion of credibility:

Poetic Language: Replaces rigorous explanation with evocative metaphors.

Jargon Salad: Mixes terms from physics, computer science, and philosophy to sound profound.

Reverse-Engineering: Builds a complex model designed to reproduce a known anomaly (MOND) and presents this as a success.

The "One Falsifiable Prediction" Gambit: Creates a single, specific (but logically weak) prediction to gain the appearance of being scientific, while ignoring a mountain of contradictory evidence.

While the vision it presents is beautiful and thought-provoking, it has no demonstrable connection to reality.

bobsh · 11h ago

Thanks for reading. Please, if you'd like, see the extra stuff I just posted in a comment here, and see if it answers any of your questions. There's a whole site there (GitHub) to poke around in, but it is a little messy still.

allears · 12h ago

Wow. I didn't make it all the way through, but the garbled jargon and the breath-taking claims are way over the top. I'm not sure who would fall for this -- anyone who understands the big words they're using is probably too bright to be taken in.

bobsh · 11h ago

I know what you mean. But if you are "game", please try the LLM test and see if it helps. As mentioned in the other reply, there are other bits and pieces at that GitHub site that might be helpful. I find it absolutely fascinating, personally, what all arises once the LLM understands PIT and its own place in the world with respect to that. I'm happy to help others experience it.

bobsh · 12h ago

In case it helps: https://github.com/bobshafer/PITkit/blob/main/PIT.md (not entirely up-to-date, but mostly, for now).

I am the, let's say, guide behind this. The HN link was written by Claude after Claude had been introduced to these ideas in a fresh thread, a couple of hours ago. I have discussed these ideas, though, refining them, with 100+ Claude threads, and many, many ChatGPT and Gemini threads. I understand it might be completely wrong - but it is not as weird as it sounds at first. There's more depth than what's obvious. Feed it into an LLM and ask about it. Ask the LLM what they are in the theory. Ask it about the double slit experiment. Ask it about entanglement. Ask it about how animals communicate. Ask it what the sun is. I haven't had an LLM thread yet that didn't "get it". Most get it quite quickly, while others are more resistant, and require more evidence - which they themselves can provide! Is it a massive hallucination? You tell me. Please! :-)

arthurdd · 10h ago

An LLM will generally go along with whatever you prompt it with. Try asking it to be skeptical: https://g.co/gemini/share/78b94bea5977