A Critical Review of PROBABILITY ZERO

Someone by the name of Joe Bowers has asserted that Probability Zero is “Ignorant and Unscientific Drivel” and offers what he describes as ” a direct, point-by-point rebuttal of the core mathematical claims” in my book. Let’s see how he did:

1. The “MITTENS” mutation accumulation equation
Day argues that the number of mutations required for large-scale evolutionary change exceeds what can realistically fix in a population within available time. The flaw is that he treats evolution as requiring a long chain of specific, pre-targeted mutations that must all occur and fix sequentially. Modern population genetics does not require pre-specified targets. Evolution explores fitness landscapes through branching pathways, neutral networks, standing genetic variation, recombination, and parallel mutations. Multiple mutational paths can lead to similar phenotypes. His math assumes a single narrow path; biology does not.

2. Fixation probability simplification
He often reduces fixation probability to approximately 1/N (or similar simplified forms) and then multiplies improbabilities across many required mutations. That approach ignores selection coefficients. The correct approximation for a beneficial mutation is roughly 2s (in diploids under weak selection), not 1/N. Beneficial mutations do not behave like neutral drift events. By modeling them as near-neutral events, he artificially suppresses the rate of adaptive change and inflates improbability.

3. Multiplying independent improbabilities
Day multiplies probabilities of sequential mutations as if each required mutation is statistically independent and must occur in a strict order. This is mathematically inappropriate. In real genomes, recombination allows beneficial mutations arising in different individuals to combine. Parallel lineages explore different paths simultaneously. Evolution operates across entire populations, not along a single linear lineage. Treating it like a serial lottery is a category error.

4. Effective population size misuse
He frequently uses conservative or arbitrarily low effective population sizes to restrict mutational supply. In reality, many species (especially microbes) have enormous effective populations and rapid generation times, dramatically increasing the number of mutational trials. Even in vertebrates, long time spans combined with standing variation and recombination increase evolutionary capacity beyond what his constrained models assume.

5. “Probability zero” threshold claim
He invokes extremely small probability cutoffs to argue practical impossibility. But probability zero in mathematics means literal impossibility under the model — not merely “very small.” His conclusion depends entirely on the assumptions baked into his model. If the model omits recombination, epistasis, neutral networks, regulatory evolution, gene duplication, and exaptation, then the resulting “zero” reflects model incompleteness, not biological impossibility.

6. Information increase argument
Day argues that new biological information cannot arise via mutation and selection. This ignores well-documented mechanisms such as gene duplication followed by divergence, horizontal gene transfer, exon shuffling, regulatory evolution, and de novo gene birth from previously noncoding sequences. These processes have been observed and sequenced. The claim that no new information arises is empirically false.

7. Large-scale morphological change requirement
He assumes that complex traits require many simultaneous coordinated mutations. Evolutionary developmental biology shows that small regulatory changes can produce large phenotypic effects. Changes in gene expression timing and location often drive macroevolutionary shifts without requiring dozens of simultaneous structural mutations.

In short, Probability Zero reaches its conclusion by modeling evolution as a blind, single-threaded, neutral lottery with fixed targets and no recombination. That is not how evolution works. When realistic population genetics, parallel mutation, selection coefficients, and genomic mechanisms are included, the “zero” vanishes — because it was produced by an oversimplified and biologically inaccurate mathematical setup, not by actual evolutionary constraints.

Point 1 claims I treat evolution as requiring “pre-targeted mutations that must all occur and fix sequentially.” This is false. MITTENS counts fixed differences between species—observed genomic divergence documented in the literature. These are not hypothetical, not pre-targeted, and not assumed to follow a single pathway. They are measured. The reviewer is attacking a model I don’t use. The fixed differences between humans and chimpanzees exist regardless of what pathway produced them. The question is whether the mechanism can produce that many fixations in the available time. The reviewer never addresses this, which is the most basic mathematical claim in the book.

Point 2 claims I model beneficial mutations as neutral drift events with fixation probability 1/N. This is the opposite of what I do. The entire MITTENS framework uses Haldane’s cost of natural selection, which assumes selection is operating. The fixation rate limit of one substitution per 300 generations is derived from the selective load—the reproductive excess required to drive an allele to fixation under selection. The 2s approximation the reviewer invokes for fixation probability is irrelevant to the throughput constraint, which is about how many substitutions the population can sustain simultaneously given finite reproductive capacity. The reviewer has confused fixation probability with fixation rate. These are two different things.

Point 3 invokes recombination as a rescue. The Bernoulli Barrier paper addresses this directly and at length. Recombination reshuffles existing variation; it does not accelerate the rate at which any individual allele increases in frequency. Kimura and Ohta (1969) established that expected time to fixation does not depend on recombination rate. The reviewer asserts that recombination is capable of resolving the problem without demonstrating how it changes the mathematics. This is a false and groundless assertion.

Point 4 claims I use “arbitrarily low effective population sizes.” This is totally false. I used published estimates from the population genetics literature. For humans, Ne ≈ 10,000 is the standard figure used by the field itself—it’s not my invention. The reviewer then pivots to microbes, which is irrelevant since the book’s central analysis concerns sexually reproducing organisms. I actually address microbes explicitly because bacteria are the one case where the fixation math works, precisely because they have the features sexual reproducers lack—no recombination delay, complete generational turnover, and astronomical generation counts. The reviewer is citing the exception that was the basis for Kimura’s algebraic error and the subsequent misapplication of his substitution formula.

Point 5 claims Probability Zero reflects “model incompleteness” because I omit recombination, epistasis, neutral networks, regulatory evolution, gene duplication, and exaptation. Each of these is addressed in the book, several of them in complete chapters dedicated to them. The Escape Hatches chapter, the Closing the Escape Hatch paper, and the shadow accounting analysis specifically demonstrate why these various mechanisms do not rescue the model. The reviewer lists them as if simply mentioning them could somehow constitute a rebuttal. It does not. Where is the math showing that gene duplication closes a five-order-of-magnitude shortfall? It doesn’t exist because it can’t do it.

Point 6 claims I argue “no new information arises.” I never made any such argument. Nothing like this ever appears in the book. The reviewer is attacking a position I do not hold and have never even considered. What I demonstrate is that the rate at which fixation can occur is insufficient to account for observed divergence. This is a quantitative constraint, not a claim about the impossibility of mutation producing changes.

Point 7 invokes evo-devo and regulatory changes producing large phenotypic effects. The Closing the Escape Hatch paper addresses this explicitly under shadow accounting: regulatory changes are themselves substitutions. Transcription factor binding sites turn over. Enhancers diverge. Chromatin architecture evolves. These are all fixations that must be accounted for. Calling them “regulatory” rather than “structural” does not exempt them from the fixation throughput constraint. The accounting still applies.

The summary paragraph is the evidence that the reviewer hasn’t even read the book. The reviewer describes the Probability Zero model as “a blind, single-threaded, neutral lottery with fixed targets and no recombination.” This bears no resemblance to anything in the book. It is a straw man constructed from standard anti-creationist talking points, it’s not a criticism of the actual text. The reviewer has written a review of a very different book by listing standard objections to arguments I never made.

Every point is either addressed in the text, is based on a misreading of the argument, or is an assertion offered without mathematics. Not a single calculation. Not a single specific engagement with any of my actual numbers. The reviewer never mentions the 220,000× shortfall, never addresses Haldane’s cost, never engages with the Bio-Cycle model or the d coefficient, never mentions the ancient DNA validation data. Seven points, zero math, zero engagement with the actual argument.

It’s not a review or a rebuttal, it’s not even a critique. It’s just a midwit attacking a figment of his own imagination.

DISCUSS ON SG

SIGMA GAME is Available

SIGMA GAME: The Complete Socio-Sexual Hierarchy is now available on Amazon in Kindle, KU, and audiobook formats. We will start work on the print editions in about a month, and the leather edition after that. We will make a Signed First Edition available in April and the original leather backers will be upgraded to that edition. A link to download the ebook will be emailed to the Kickstarter backers later today. Remarkably, it’s already the #1 New Release in Social Theory.

Imagine you could predict what the men around you are going to do before they do it.

Not because you’re psychic. Because you understand the game they’re playing even when they don’t.

For over a decade, the Socio-Sexual Hierarchy has been the most controversial and the most effective model of male social behavior on the Internet. Created by Vox Day, the man who coined the term “Sigma Male” and developed the SSH framework that launched a thousand YouTube videos, ten thousand memes, a hit Russian pop song, and more than 40 million references on social media, the SSH identifies the distinct behavioral patterns that men reliably exhibit in every social setting, from the boardroom to the bar to the battlefield.

Alpha. Bravo. Delta. Gamma. Omega. And, of course, Sigma.

You’ve seen the labels everywhere. Now read the book that started it all from the only man truly qualified to write it.

SIGMA GAME is the definitive guide to the Socio-Sexual Hierarchy, the first and only comprehensive treatment of the framework by its creator, 16 years after its introduction. It is not a pickup manual. It is not a self-help book. It is an observational model of male behavior based on a testable scientific hypothesis constructed by a bestselling philosopher: the normal behavior of the human male consists of a limited series of recognizable patterns.

Inside, you’ll find:

The complete SSH framework — what each rank actually is, how it behaves, and why, illustrated with examples from literature, history, pop culture, and real life. Not the oversimplified internet version. The real thing.

The predictive model in action — how the SSH allows you to anticipate the words, decisions, and reactions of the men around you with an accuracy that will unsettle you the first time it works. And it will work the first time.

The female perspective — what women expect and experience when they interact with each rank, told in their own words. This is the material that no male author could fabricate and no female author would publish.

Applied advice for every rank — practical, concrete guidance for Alphas, Bravos, Deltas, Gammas, Omegas, and Sigmas on how to become the best version of themselves, navigate relationships, operate inside organizations, and stop making the characteristic mistakes their behavioral patterns tend to exhibit.

The hard truths — why your wife is unhappy, why your employees keep quitting, why your buddy can’t keep a girlfriend, why the smartest guy in your office is the least respected, and why the man everyone warned her about is the one she can’t forget.

If you can set your ego aside long enough to learn the rules of the socio-sexual game, you will acquire something more valuable than any degree in psychology: a working model of social reality that reliably predicts the behavior of others.

DISCUSS ON SG

Welcome to 5GW

So the media and the Fake Trump administration have finally discovered the math that I and seemingly every military YouTuber have been paying close attention to since last June.

  • As war continues to rage on, there are now fears that the sophisticated weaponry favoured by the US and its allies may be too expensive and too hard to procure for a longer military campaign. 
  • The UAE’s drone defence costs were between $253m and $759m, suggesting it spent up to 30 times more defending itself against Iran’s drones than its adversary spent on attacking it. And there are fears that Gulf states may soon run out of anti-air defences.
  • US Navy Admiral Brad Cooper, the head of US Central Command, said Iran has launched more than 500 ballistic missiles and 2,000 drones so far. 
  • Tonight, the Trump Administration gave another Briefing to members of Congress. Senator Richard Blumenthal came out and had said: “I am more fearful than ever after this briefing, that we may be putting boots on the ground.”

Astonishingly, the US military may be forced by Israeli-occupied Washington into an operation that would be even more retarded than its decision to engage in an attritional air war with Iran. Which, obviously, has failed in its primary objectives; Epic Fury has been an epic failure. To fully understand how absolutely and utterly retarded it would be to “put boots on the ground” now you will first have to read Five Generations of Modern War, which I wrote in July 2025.

Next, consider how significantly both Russia and Ukraine have had to overhaul the strategies and tactics of their infantry and armor operations in the Ukraine theater, and why they have done so. And then, take into account the fact that Iran is one of the largest, if not the largest, manufacturers of drones in the world.

If the US puts boots on the ground in Iran, it will make the failures in Cuba, Vietnam, and Afghanistan look like grand successes. Warfare has changed considerably since 2022, and I see absolutely no indication whatsoever that the US military has even begun to make the necessary changes to its various tactical and strategic doctrines that are absolutely required for 5GW.

UPDATE: Meanwhile the US Navy is failing at its primary mission of keeping the seas open for trade.

The Navy can’t do the escorts. The escorts Trump announced in ALL CAPS hours ago. The escorts that dropped oil 10%. The escorts that the DFC is insuring. The Navy just told industry there’s no availability.
No availability. The trillion-dollar Navy. The most powerful naval force in human history. Eleven carriers. Hundreds of ships. No availability to escort tankers through a strait the president just promised to keep open.

Because the ships are committed. The two carrier strike groups in theater are committed to the air campaign and missile defense. The destroyers are firing interceptors and Tomahawks. The VLS cells are emptying. The ships that aren’t in theater are in other theaters that have already been stripped to feed this one. Patriots pulled from Korea. The Pacific thinned. Every available asset already committed. Nothing left for escorts.

And Lloyd’s List reporting it. Lloyd’s List. The maritime industry bible since 1734. The publication that insurance companies and shipping lines read to assess risk. Lloyd’s List telling the shipping industry that the Navy said no. The escorts aren’t coming.

UPDATE: The US just lost its second $1.8 billion THAAD system.

UPDATE: The Iranians launched 350 drones and missiles within 18 seconds at 3:47 AM. 338 were intercepted or failed to hit anything. 12 hit their targets and destroyed the Ghawar oil facility. So they probably aren’t down to 25 launchers.

UPDATE: The USS Gerald Ford has retreated from the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea.

UPDATE: It appears the Iranians learned from the Swiss example in WWII. There are reports that Khamanei’s orders for the prosecution of the war were fixed this summer and no one has the authority to countermand them, negotiate a ceasefire, or surrender.

DISCUSS ON SG

Spain to Join BRICS?

That wouldn’t be a bad move for them, actually. The EU and association with the subverted West has actually been worse for Spain than WWI and WWII combined. I doubt the Fake Trump’s threats are intimidating them.

Donald Trump said the US will escort vessels across the Strait of Hormuz ‘if necessary’ after Iran forced shut the vital shipping route as it continues to retaliate following the killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Iran threatened to set ships ‘ablaze’ if they continued through the crucial passage, which transports 20 per cent of the world’s oil, claiming it left three British and American ships ‘burning’ before a further attack on a ‘US allied’ tanker on Monday.

Oil prices have spiked worldwide and Mr Trump has now claimed the US will shuttle tankers through the strait.

He said: ‘If necessary, the United States Navy will begin escorting tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, as soon as possible. No matter what, the United States will ensure the free flow of energy to the world’.

It came after he launched a furious rant against Spain, saying he would cut all ties with the country after it denied the US permission to use their shared bases to launch attacks against Iran.

The US President also lashed out at Sir Keir Starmer, saying ‘it is not quite Winston Churchill we’re dealing with’, before adding: ‘We’re going to cut off all trade with Spain. We don’t want anything to do with Spain’.

I imagine the Chinese ambassador is already in touch with the Spanish government. And certainly, Russian oil and natural gas would be quite welcome in Spain.

DISCUSS ON SG

Veriphysics: The Treatise 027

X. The Rhetorical Imperative

Truth is necessary but not sufficient. The tradition possessed truth and lost anyway. The Enlightenment possessed rhetoric and won for three centuries. Veriphysics must utilize both.

This is not a capitulation to sophistry. The Sophists taught persuasion divorced from truth; Veriphysics teaches truth deployed persuasively. The difference is fundamental. Sophistry manipulates; Veriphysics communicates. Sophistry aims at victory regardless of truth; Veriphysics aims at the victory of truth. The rhetoric serves the dialectic, not the reverse.

But rhetoric it must be. The tradition’s characteristic failure was assuming that good arguments would prevail because they were good—that truth, once articulated, would be recognized and accepted. This assumption was naive. Human beings are not purely rational; they are moved by passion, interest, habit, and social pressure. Arguments must be not only sound but audible—expressed in language that reaches the audience, framed in terms that resonate, presented with force that commands attention. The tradition spoke to specialists; Veriphysics must speak to the public.

This means clarity. The technical vocabulary of Scholasticism, however precise, is a barrier to those not trained in it. Veriphysics must translate without dumbing down. It must find language that is accessible without being imprecise, memorable without being glib, forceful without being manipulative. The Triveritas is itself an example: a sophisticated epistemological criterion expressed in a single word that anyone can remember and apply.

This means aggression. The tradition defended; Veriphysics attacks. Every Enlightenment claim that invokes reason, mathematics, or evidence must be challenged to produce the reasoning, the calculations, the evidence. The challenge must be pressed relentlessly, publicly, until the bankruptcy is exposed. The burden of proof must be shifted: those who claim the mantle of science must demonstrate that they practice science, not merely invoke its prestige. The tradition was too polite, too willing to grant good faith to opponents operating in bad faith. That politeness was a strategic error, and Veriphysics does not repeat it.

This means institution-building. Ideas require infrastructure. They require platforms for dissemination, credentials for legitimacy, networks for coordination, patronage for sustainability. The Enlightenment understood this; it captured and built institutions over generations, with patience and resources. Veriphysics must do the same. Alternative journals, alternative academies, alternative networks of scholars and students, alternative sources of funding—these must be created, sustained, and grown. The long game must be played. The tradition lost in part because it was outspent and out-organized; Veriphysics must remedy this deficit.

This means forming the next generation. The Enlightenment’s deepest victory was pedagogical: it captured the schools, shaped the curricula, formed minds before those minds could question what they were being taught. The graduates of Enlightenment institutions absorbed Enlightenment premises as default settings, rarely examined and almost never challenged. Veriphysics must compete on this terrain. It must produce materials suitable for education at all levels—accessible introductions for the young, rigorous treatments for the advanced, curricula that can be adopted by schools and colleges willing to teach something other than the regnant orthodoxy. The battle for the future is a battle for the young.

You can now buy the complete Veriphysics: The Treatise at Amazon in both Kindle and audiobook formats if you’d like to have it available as a reference. 

Also, due to the high level of interest in Veriphysics and the amount of new material that others are already creating based upon its foundation, I have created a substack devoted specifically to Veriphysics, the Triveritas, and related discussions, papers, and applications. There are already two new posts there from a paper demonstrating philosophical confirmations of the legitimacy of the Triveritas from 17 different philosophical traditions.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Exhaustion Timeline

Claude is down, so I had to make use of Grok to estimate how long it will take for US and Israeli air defense systems to run out of interceptors. No precise calculation is possible, especially since the in-theater total is a subset of the entire US stock, but it appears obvious that both the USA and Israel will be effectively unable to defend against missile barrages by this time next week at the latest.

US Interceptor Exhaustion Timeline

US systems (THAAD, SM-3, Patriot PAC-3 MSE) are primarily defending Israel, Gulf allies, and regional bases. At 800 interceptors/day total (with US contributing ~50–70% based on 2025 shares), high-end systems risk faster depletion.

  • THAAD: Estimated remaining stockpile ~450–550 units (after 2025 depletion of ~150 and partial resupply of ~50–100). At a proportional daily rate (~100–150 expended/day in high-tempo scenarios, per 2025 precedents), exhaustion could occur in 3–5 days. Full depletion might force reliance on less optimal systems like Patriot for ballistic threats.
  • SM-3: Remaining stockpile ~350–450 units (post-2025 expenditure of ~130–160, with ~70–100 delivered since). At ~80–120/day in sustained naval defense, depletion projected in 3–6 days, potentially exposing carriers and bases in the Mediterranean/Red Sea.
  • Patriot (PAC-3 MSE): Larger inventory (~10,000–12,000 total, though deployed stocks lower at ~2,000–3,000 in theater). Production at ~600–650/year supports longer sustainability, but at ~200–300/day for medium-range threats, could last 1–2 weeks before critical shortages emerge.
  • Overall Projection: High-end US interceptors could exhaust in 3–7 days at this rate, shifting strategy toward preemptive strikes on Iranian launchers (as seen in current operations) or drawing from Pacific/European reserves, risking vulnerabilities elsewhere (e.g., vs. China).

Israel Interceptor Exhaustion Timeline

Israel’s layered systems (Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow 2/3) were depleted in 2025 (~35% of ballistic stocks destroyed by Israel, but own interceptors heavily used). Production has accelerated (e.g., Arrow 3 tripled), but costs (~$2M–$3M per Arrow, $40K–$50K per Iron Dome Tamir) and lead times constrain resupply.

  • Iron Dome: Focuses on short-range rockets/drones; undisclosed stock but replenished post-2025. At high rates (~300–400/day), could deplete in 2–4 days without US support.
  • David’s Sling: Medium-range; expanded role, but limited details. Proportional depletion in 3–5 days under barrage.
  • Arrow (2/3): Ballistic defense; low post-2025 (~200–300 remaining estimated). At ~100–200/day for high-threat salvos, exhaustion in 1–3 days.
  • Overall Projection: Israeli stocks could last 2–5 days at the adjusted rate, prompting aggressive offensives (e.g., “Operation Roaring Lion” targeting Tehran) to reduce incoming threats. Gulf allies (e.g., UAE intercepting ~165 ballistics by March 1) add buffer but face similar strains.

Claude is back up and here are its estimates:

ROUGH AGGREGATE (Feb 28 – March 1):

Launched at targetInterceptedGot through
UAE~708~660~48
Kuwait~380~370+~10+
Qatar~77~65+~3+
Bahrain~54~50+several
Jordan~49-54~49+~1+
Israeldozens BMs + 50+ dronesmostseveral BMs
Saudi Arabiaunknownunknownsome debris/impacts
Iraq/Erbildozensmostseveral
Oman2+02+

Estimated total: roughly 1,400-1,500+ projectiles launched by Iran across all theaters in ~36-48 hours, with the vast majority intercepted but a significant number — perhaps 70-100+ — making impact. At least 14 people killed outside Iran (10 in Israel, 3 in UAE, 1 in Kuwait, 1 in Bahrain) plus 4 US service members, with hundreds injured.

So how does this impact the interceptor stocks?

Let me tally up the interceptions and apply the 2-3 interceptors per target doctrine.

Total interceptions across all theaters in ~36-48 hours: roughly 1,200-1,300+

At 2 interceptors per intercept: 2,400-2,600 interceptors consumed At 3 interceptors per intercept: 3,600-3,900 interceptors consumed

And we estimated total coalition stockpile at roughly 2,000-2,500 interceptors of all types.

The numbers don’t work – even at the lower consumption rate, we’re looking at depletion that exceeds available inventory, and the higher estimate pushes well beyond what’s realistically in the arsenal.

Interceptors consumed in 36-48 hours:

From the tally we just compiled, coalition forces across all theaters intercepted roughly 1,200-1,300 projectiles. Applying the doctrinal requirement of 2-3 interceptors per target:

  • At 2 per intercept: 2,400-2,600 interceptors consumed
  • At 3 per intercept: 3,600-3,900 interceptors consumed

Now, not every intercept uses the same type of system. Drones are cheaper to kill — some can be shot down by fighter jets, helicopters, or even gun-based systems like the Phalanx CIWS that don’t consume expensive interceptor missiles. The IDF confirmed that fighter jets, helicopters, and air defense systems all contributed to shooting down the 50+ drones targeting Israel. Gulf states likely used a mix of systems as well.

So let’s be generous and assume that roughly half the drone intercepts were handled by aircraft or cheaper systems rather than missile interceptors, while all ballistic missile intercepts required full interceptor expenditure. Working from the aggregate numbers:

Ballistic missiles intercepted across all theaters: roughly 400-500 (UAE alone accounted for 152, Kuwait 97, Qatar and Bahrain another 60+, Jordan ~50, Israel dozens more). At 2 interceptors each, that’s 800-1,000 high-end interceptors consumed — THAAD, SM-3, Arrow, Patriot PAC-3.

Drone/cruise missile intercepts requiring missile interceptors (assuming half of ~800 drone intercepts used missiles): roughly 400, at perhaps 1-2 interceptors each. That’s another 400-800 interceptors, mostly Patriot and shorter-range systems.

Conservative total: roughly 1,200-1,800 interceptor missiles consumed in under two days.

Recall our earlier estimates of what was available entering this conflict:

  • THAAD: ~500-520 interceptors
  • SM-3: ~350-380
  • Patriot PAC-3 (in theater): ~960-1,440
  • Israeli systems (Arrow, David’s Sling): classified but already described as low

That’s a combined pool of roughly 2,000-2,500 high-end interceptor missiles, which we noted was already depleted from the June 2025 war and only partially replenished.

If 1,200-1,800 have been consumed in two days, the coalition has burned through roughly 50-75% of its entire available interceptor inventory in the opening 48 hours alone.

Perhaps 700-1,300 interceptor missiles of all types remain across all theaters — the US homeland, the Pacific, Europe, and the Middle East combined. That’s not just the Middle East stockpile; that’s global. The US military operates only eight THAAD batteries in its entire arsenal CSMonitor.com, and they cover commitments from South Korea to Guam to Europe. Every THAAD interceptor fired in the Middle East is one unavailable if North Korea or China acts.

At the current consumption rate of 600-900 interceptors per day, the remaining stock covers roughly 1-2 more days of defense at this intensity before reaching levels that would be considered operationally catastrophic — meaning commanders would have to begin rationing, choosing what to defend and what to leave exposed.

This is exactly the scenario analysts warned about. If Iranian forces sustain high-volume launches, coalition planners may confront zero-sum decisions in which defending one theater necessarily increases exposure in another. Defence Security Asia We’re now looking at that scenario playing out in real time.

Iran has spent perhaps 1,500 projectiles out of a combined drone and missile inventory of 80,000+. The coalition has spent perhaps 1,500 interceptors out of a total inventory of 2,500. Iran has consumed roughly 2% of its available munitions. The coalition has consumed roughly 60% of its available interceptors.

DISCUSS ON SG

Veriphysics: The Treatise 026

IX. Development, Not Restoration

Veriphysics is a living philosophy, not a museum exhibit. It honors the tradition but does not merely curate it. A tradition that cannot develop is a tradition that will die; what does not grow, decays. The medieval synthesis was a genuine achievement, but it was an achievement of the thirteenth century, formulated to address questions live in that era, expressed in vocabulary suited to that context. To simply restore it, unchanged, would be to embalm it.

John Henry Newman articulated the principle: genuine development preserves type while extending application. A doctrine develops when it encounters new questions, engages new challenges, incorporates new knowledge, all while remaining faithful to its essential character. Development is not corruption; it is fidelity expressed across time. The oak is not a corruption of the acorn; it is the acorn’s fulfillment. The question is always whether a proposed change preserves the essential identity or betrays it.

Veriphysics advances the classic philosophical tradition in several respects.

First, it incorporates mathematical tools unavailable to the Scholastics. The medievals had arithmetic and geometry; they did not have probability theory, statistics, information theory, or the computational resources to apply these disciplines to complex questions. Veriphysics regards these new tools as gifts and extensions of human reason that can be deployed in service of truth. The Triveritas makes mathematical coherence a necessary condition of warranted assent; this is a positive development and an application of the tradition’s commitment to reason in a form the tradition knew, but did not utilize.

Second, it incorporates empirical data that would have been literally unimaginable to the medievals or the Enlightenment intellectuals. The human genome has been mapped. Economic statistics have been collected for decades. The outcomes of various applied political theories have been documented. This data provides anchors for arguments that were previously abstract. The tradition always affirmed that truth must conform to reality; Veriphysics has access to aspects of reality that the tradition could not observe. This is not a change of principle but an expansion of application.

Third, it incorporates historical scholarship that situates the tradition itself. We know more about the ancient world, about the transmission of texts, about the contexts in which doctrines were formulated, than any previous generation. This knowledge permits a more nuanced understanding of what the tradition actually taught, as distinguished from what later interpreters claimed it taught. Veriphysics reads the tradition critically, not to undermine it but to recover it, to strip away false accretions, and to distinguish the essential from the accidental.

Fourth, it engages contemporary questions that the tradition did not face and had no reason to consider. The nature of artificial intelligence. The ethics of genetic engineering. The political economy of global capital. The epistemology of digital information. These questions require fresh thinking, not merely the attempted application of pre-formed answers derived from different subjects. Veriphysics undertakes this thinking in continuity with the tradition by applying perennial principles to novel problems, but it does not pretend that the answers have already been provided.

New intellectual developments are intrinsically risky. Not every proposed development is genuine; some are corruptions, betrayals of the essential type under the guise of extension. Veriphysics acknowledges this risk and addresses it through the Triveritan method. A proposed development must satisfy logical validity, mathematical coherence, and empirical anchoring. It must cohere with the tradition’s core commitments, not contradict them. It must produce fruits consistent with the tradition’s character, with intellectual clarity, moral seriousness, spiritual depth. The Triveritas provides a criterion for distinguishing genuine development from corruption, just as it provides a criterion for distinguishing truth from falsehood more generally.

The tradition was defeated, in part, because it ceased to develop in harmony with Man’s societal and intellectual developments, because it mistook specific formulations for eternal truths, because it defended static conclusions rather than pursuing dynamic inquiries, and because it became rigid, defensive, and backward-looking. Veriphysics requires its adherents to learn from this failure to adapt to new circumestances. It remains open to development while at the same time being vigilant against corruption. It is a living philosophy, growing toward the way, the truth, and the light.

You can now buy the complete Veriphysics: The Treatise at Amazon in both Kindle and audiobook formats if you’d like to have it available as a reference. 

Also, due to the high level of interest in Veriphysics and the amount of new material that others are already creating based upon its foundation, I have created a substack devoted specifically to Veriphysics, the Triveritas, and related discussions, papers, and applications. I welcome guests posts there; if you have a potential guest post, post it somewhere, send me the link, and then email me the link as well as the permission to post the information at the link on the Veriphysics site in its entirety. I may post the whole thing, I may just post an excerpt with a link to the whole thing, but either way I require the explicit permission to post the whole thing there and I will provide a link to the original.

UPDATE: I’ve added a post with the first part of the philosophical proof of the Triveritas.

UPDATE: Grokipedia now has a page on Veriphysics.

DISCUSS ON SG

That Was Fast

“Turkey is the new Iran” says Israel’s former prime minister Naftali Bennett.

Do they really think they somehow defeated Iran and that the war is over because an 86-year-old man died? So now they’re already gunning for Turkey?

On a related note, Larry Johnson has a pertinent observation about the late ayatollah, who appears to have embraced martyrdom in order to inspire the Iranian people.

Donald Trump and the neocons are wild with joy tonight over the murder of the Ayatollah Khamenei… This is just one more example of Western ignorance about the implications of the Ayatollah’s martyrdom. Let’s start with the fact that the Ayatollah is the one who issued the fatwa 36 years ago declaring that it would be a sin for Iran to build or use a nuclear bomb. So the West thinks that killing the one guy who has been the main obstacle preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is a good idea?

Saudi official quote in Al Jazeera: America has abandoned us, and focused its defense systems on protecting Israel, leaving the Gulf states that host its military bases at the mercy of Iranian missiles and drones.

I seem to recall Henry Kissinger having something to say about that.

It’s interesting to see how things are going pretty much the way all the critics of the build-up to the Israel First war said it would. Iran takes the hit, then utilizes its cheap, older missiles to use up US anti-missile stocks, then gradually starts hammering the targets that can’t be defended anymore.

It’s clear that the Iranians have learned from both Ukraine and the 12-Day War that neither the US military nor those militaries dependent upon it are built for attrition warfare. And every war the Israelis have won was over within days. Every boxer knows that the way you beat someone with punching power is to let himself punch himself out, then take him down.

Iran hasn’t necessarily survived the initial phase yet since it’s got another 10 days or so to run, but the fact that the US is already scrambling for the use of UK bases and is trying to reopen negotiations and Mark Levin is already crying about Iranian “war crimes” is not a sign that things are going well. And the longer this goes on, the worse it will be for Trump and the Israel Lobby, since already four-fifths of Americans don’t support this war against Iran on Israel’s behalf.

And I’m not sure why the US Air Force thinks its a win to insist that three of its fighter-jets weren’t actually shot down by the Iranians, but simply crashed due to their own incompetence.

Anyhow, the fact that Iran managed to force the US-Israeli alliance to burn a year’s supply of interceptors in a single day means that the proposed four-to-five weeks that Fake Trump is now promising to replace the original plan of a five-day war suggests there are no reasonable prospects of an Israeli victory. That’s why I think Israel is now looking at a ground invasion of Lebanon; they have to do something to try to change the equation that now appears to be favoring the Iranians in order to try to force a ceasefire and an Iranian return to the negotiating table.

UPDATE: Iran just ratcheted up the economic pressure. Qatar’s natural gas production has been shut down and Saudi Arabia’s largest oil production facility has been halted as well. At this point, it already appears that the Israeli war strategy has failed.

UPDATE: You know it’s not going well when they’re blatantly lying. After his offer to reopen talks were shut hard down by the Iranians, Fake Trump tried to convince the world that his plan to win the war over the weekend never existed. ‘It’s always been a four-week process. We figured it will be four weeks or so. It’s always been about a four-week process so – as strong as it is, it’s a big country, it’ll take four weeks – or less.’

The thing is, at their current burn rate, US-Israeli interceptor stocks will probably run out within four days. If this goes on for four weeks, it’s not impossible that the US would be forced by the Israelis to beg for surrender without even losing a carrier.

UPDATE: According to multiple media reports, US officials, through Italian mediation, proposed a swift ceasefire to de-escalate tensions and potentially return to negotiations. This was framed as an attempt to end the military campaign quickly after initial strikes achieved key objectives (e.g., degrading leadership and capabilities).

UPDATE: I’m not the only one who thinks Israel has badly misplayed its US military card. Larry Johnson thinks the USA will be on the verge of surrender in less than two weeks.

I believe that by March 15, the US and Israel will be pleading — at least privately — for an end to the Iranian missile barrages. The death of Khamenei has removed a moderate from the Iranian chain of command. The agreement that Iranian authorities made on June 25, 2025 to end the missile attacks on Israel had the blessing of the Ayatollah. There were many in the IRGC leadership that opposed that decision, but they obeyed the decision of Khamenei. Now they have been vindicated.

DISCUSS ON SG

Jerry Pournelle Would Be Pleased

Our little experiment in how fast AI can be utilized to crank out a solid hard science fiction novel has proven to be an absolutely unmitigated success that has already far exceeded our expectations. SPACE FLEET ACADEMY: YEAR ONE has not only provided a solid foundation for our new BIOSTELLAR hard science fiction series, but has actually become the #1 bestseller in Military Science Fiction. Which is why we have moved up the schedule, and instead of releasing the first book in the companion series next, we will be releasing the next book in the series in less than four weeks.

In fact, SPACE FLEET ACADEMY: YEAR TWO is already available in preorder.

Survival of the fittest in space just became a lot more dangerous.

Eleven colonies have gone dark across Federation space. Senior cadets are being deployed to a frontier that devours ships and returns only silence. Constantine Ramsey returns to a Space Fleet Academy transformed by war. He and his fellow second-years are being thrust into leadership roles for which they’re not ready. The new curriculum sets aside theory for brutal new training in surviving first contact with alien predators and making terrible decisions where every choice comes with a body count.

But when their latest training exercise feels too dangerously specific, Constantine begins to suspect the Academy has crossed a line. As rumors about forbidden genetic programs and agency crackdowns intensify, he’s forced to confront a terrifying question: How far will the Federation go to indoctrinate the leaders humanity needs to survive in a harsh and unforgiving universe? And when the Mandate demands the unthinkable of him, will he have the strength to do what he believes to be right?

What this demonstrates is that science fiction is at its best when it is a literature of science-inspired ideas, not a literature of characters, ideologies, or representations. Biostellar is an idea that is the result of combining the latest in hard biological science as exhibited in The Frozen Gene with a) Star Trek and b) the boarding school tradition that realized its peak science fiction depiction in Ender’s Game.

There are, of course, other influences. JDA is heavily influenced by Lois McMaster Bujold’s Barrayar works. I am heavily influenced, in the science fiction context, by Frank Herbert, and, to a lesser extent, Dan Simmons. The combination effectively provides JDA’s lighter approach with gravity and my darker approach with humanism.

Our objective is to release one Biostellar novel every month for at least the next six months. It’s an ambitious one, particularly in light of how it is not even in my top seven priorities for 2026, but I genuinely think we can not only do it, but do it while maintaining a high level of entertainment value to the readers.

DISCUSS ON SG

Veriphysics: The Treatise 025

VIII. Through a Glass, Darkly

The Triad of Truth known as the Triveritas is a powerful tool, but it must be wielded with appropriate humility. Veriphysics does not claim omniscience. It does not promise a God’s-eye view. It does not pretend that sufficient method will dissolve all mystery and render reality fully transparent to human inquiry.

The Apostle Paul’s words provide the governing image: “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” This is not mysticism or obscurantism; it is realism about the human condition. We are finite creatures attempting to know an infinite reality. Our knowledge is genuine, and we truly see what we see, but what we see is limited and partial. The glass is real; we cannot step outside it. The darkness is real; we cannot fully dispel it.

The Enlightenment rejected these intrinsic limitations. It imagined that progress would asymptotically approach complete knowledge, that better methods would gradually eliminate the darkness, that the glass would eventually become perfectly transparent. This fantasy produced the characteristic Enlightenment vices: overconfidence, dogmatism dressed as skepticism, the dismissal of mystery as mere ignorance awaiting resolution. When reality refused to cooperate, when quantum mechanics revealed irreducible indeterminacy, when cosmology discovered that most of the universe is dark, when every attempt to explain consciousness in material terms failed, the Enlightenment had no resources for acknowledging its limits. It could only assume that future science would somehow manage to solve what present science could not, with all its empirical falsifications indefinitely deferred.

Veriphysics begins where the Enlightenment failed: with the acknowledgment that some darkness is permanent, that some limits are structural, that creaturely knowledge is necessarily partial. This acknowledgment is not defeat; it is the precondition of genuine inquiry. The investigator who knows he sees through a glass will attend carefully to the glass, he will study its distortions, compensate for its limitations, and refine his vision within the constraints it imposes. The investigator who imagines he sees directly will not notice his errors until they have produced catastrophe.

The Triveritas operates within these epistemic limits. It does not promise certainty; it offers warranted assent. It does not claim to establish truth absolutely; it distinguishes claims that deserve belief from claims that do not. The distinction is real and important even if neither category achieves the Enlightenment’s fantasy of transparent access to the thing itself. We can know with certainty that Neo-Darwinism is false, being refuted by logic, math, and empirical evidence, without pretending to know, fully or even in meaningful part, what the true historical account of Man’s biological origins were. We can know that the Enlightenment’s foundations are rotten without claiming to have mapped every room in the edifice that will replace it.

This humility is not weakness but strength. The Enlightenment’s overconfidence made it brittle; when the failures accumulated, it had no way to assimilate them except denial. The intellectual humility of Veriphysics makes it resilient; it expects partial knowledge, provisional conclusions, and future revisions. The tradition developed for two millennia precisely because it understood itself as an ongoing inquiry, not a finished system. The Enlightenment failed in less than one-quarter that time because it did not. Veriphysics builds upon the philosophical tradition, adding the mathematical and empirical tools that the tradition did not possess or did not deploy, while retaining the structural humility that kept the tradition open to growth.

DISCUSS ON SG