← Axiom Explorer ← Papers Index
P5.3 - The Two Attractors
Premise: Outcomes are not arbitrary: systems with these constraints sort toward stable attractors.
One-sentence version
If coherence dynamics are real, then trajectories tend to settle into stable end-states rather than drifting forever.
The Paper (Narrative)
People dislike eschatology because it can become threat-based storytelling.
This project tries to keep it structural.
If you have a dynamical system, you do not need moral theater to get outcomes. You only need trajectories and attractors.
1) What an attractor is (street-level)
An attractor is a stable pattern a system falls into.
- A pendulum settles at the bottom.
- A thermostat stabilizes near its set point.
- A habit stabilizes a person’s behavior.
The framework proposes that souls are not exempt from this kind of stability. If choices and orientations shape coherence over time, then the long-term shape of a life has structure.
2) Why “two” attractors is plausible
The claim is not that human lives are simple. The claim is that deep orientations tend to polarize.
In the system’s language:
- high-coherence integration becomes self-reinforcing,
- low-coherence fragmentation becomes self-reinforcing.
If that is true, then “heaven” and “hell” can be described as attractor states: not arbitrary punishments, but stable outcomes of a trajectory.
3) Why this does not remove mercy
If outcomes are attractors, mercy matters more, not less.
Because in a dynamical system, small interventions at the right time can redirect a trajectory.
That is why the previous papers insist on grace: if the system cannot self-correct its deep orientation, it needs a real redirect.
What This Paper Is Not Claiming
- It is not claiming you can fully reduce spiritual realities to a toy model.
- It is not claiming everyone is “obviously” headed to one end state; it is framing why end states are not incoherent.
- It is not attempting to settle every theological detail; it is isolating the stability claim.