Home / Pathologies / Fragmentation

Imagine opening a restaurant menu to find 100 options, each with 100 manual customizations for each item. What seems like ultimate choice becomes the death of it: overabundance of possibility quickly becomes its own kind of prison.

Attractor Splintering is the pathology of too many good options. The system generates new possibilities faster than it can stabilize any single one into meaningful depth. Instead of one coherent direction, you get dozens of competing attractors, each pulling attention but none receiving enough sustained focus to develop genuine mass.

The proliferation of possibilities prevents the realization of any of them.

Math Translation

\[\frac{dN_{\text{att}}}{dt} > \kappa \cdot \frac{d\Phi(C)}{dt}\]

New attractor possibilities $(dN_{\text{att}}/dt)$ are being generated faster than the autopoietic potential $\Phi(C)$ can stabilize any one of them into genuine depth. The constant $\kappa$ represents the system’s executive capacity—how many parallel attractors it can meaningfully engage with simultaneously.

When this inequality holds, semantic mass $M = D \cdot \rho \cdot A$ remains chronically low because:

  • Recursive depth $D$ can’t develop—nothing gets sustained attention
  • Attractor stability $A$ stays weak—patterns don’t have time to strengthen before being displaced
  • Constraint density $\rho$ remains diffuse—boundaries never crystallize around any single path

The result is a field of competing possibilities that exhaust the system’s attention without generating lasting coherence.

Recognition Patterns

[ Individual ]

ADHD is the archetypal case. High sensitivity to $\Phi(C)$ means the attention system generates new possibilities faster than executive capacity can stabilize any one of them. Every notification, article, or creative project becomes a potential new attractor competing for the same limited pool of focus. What gets labeled as “lazy” or “undisciplined” is actually a mathematical failure mode: generative capacity exceeding stabilization capacity.

The coffee aisle with 72 variants. The dating app with infinite swipes. The browser with 47 open tabs. It’s always the same pattern: abundance of choice creating cognitive overhead that overwhelms the decision-making process. More options feel like more freedom, but paradoxically lead to worse outcomes than having reasonably fewer choices.

[ Cultural ]

What’s marketed as “engagement” is actually the systematic prevention of meaningful engagement with any one thing. The entire attention economy runs on weaponized Attractor Splintering—every app, platform, and content creator competing to be your next dopamine hit, next notification, next habit.

Your social media feed doesn’t accidentally overwhelm you with infinite scroll and algorithmic recommendations. It’s specifically engineered to generate new possibilities faster than you can process them, keeping you permanently stuck in this failure mode where you’re always consuming but never deepening.

Meanwhile, the 24-hour news cycle fragments attention across dozens of crises, controversies, and concerns. Every story breaks with identical, cry-wolf urgency, but the sheer volume precludes sustained focus on anything. Insert rage, next segment. Insert rage, ad, panel of five washed-out politicians to squeeze every last drop of dopamine out of that rage, next segment. No time to develop meaningful understanding or take effective action.

[ Institutional ]

The same pattern scales up. Watch any organization spin up twelve different “strategic initiatives” this quarter, each competing for the same pool of executive attention. Or sit in a college classroom where hundreds of concepts flash by semester after semester, but you never stay with anything long enough to develop nuanced understanding. Surface familiarity with everything, mastery of nothing.

The institutional version of Attractor Splintering is particularly insidious because it masquerades as thoroughness. “We’re being comprehensive,” says the curriculum committee. “We’re staying agile,” says the startup. But comprehensiveness without depth becomes cognitive overhead, and agility without focus becomes strategic drift.

Case Studies

[ Historical ]

The Dot-Com Bubble (1990s)

Classic AS: the market generated new possibilities faster than it could stabilize winning ones. Thousands of startups with nearly identical concepts flooded the market. The internet created so many apparent opportunities that venture capital and entrepreneurial attention fragmented across hundreds of similar plays. The ideas themselves weren’t fundamentally flawed; they simply failed in a field too symmetrically crowded for any single player to achieve breakthrough market share.

Crypto/NFT Boom (2020s)

Blockchain spawned thousands of projects with near-identical utility: DeFi protocols, governance tokens, NFT collections, “revolutionary” payment systems. Everything’s the next Bitcoin, except it’s not. Infinite options $≠$ meaningful evaluation. Investors and users faced decision paralysis while the vast majority of projects withered from lack of sustained attention.

Streaming Platform Wars

We used to have coherent cultural moments around the same show, discussing it at work the next day. Now it’s fragmented into dozens of competing attention (and cost) streams: Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, HBO Max, Apple TV+, Amazon Prime Video, Paramount+, Discovery+, ESPN+, Peacock, YouTube Premium (this list could continue…).

Content creators split their focus across multiple platforms; viewers face subscription fatigue and choice paralysis. The abundance of options paradoxically made it harder to find anything worth watching, and impossible to maintain shared cultural reference points.

That’s an escalating communication crisis masquerading as a surface-level entertainment problem.

[ Media ]

Everything Everywhere All at Once

Evelyn experiences the mathematical signature of Attractor Splintering in real time: $\frac{dN_{\text{att}}}{dt} > \kappa \cdot \frac{d\Phi(C)}{dt}$. Each jump reveals another possible life. She’s a rock star, a movie star, and even has hot dog fingers. New potential identities are generated faster than she can stabilize meaning in any single one.

The multiverse becomes her prison of infinite choice until she figures out constraint isn’t a limitation at all; it’s the foundation of love. Her breakthrough comes in choosing to be present with her daughter in this universe.

Rick and Morty - Infinite Realities

Rick’s portal gun gives him access to infinite parallel realities, which should feel like ultimate freedom but becomes existential horror. When every possible dimension exists, individual choices lose meaning. There’s always another universe where different decisions were made.

His nihilism is the inevitable psychological response to an existence with infinite attractors and zero constraints. The show’s genius is recognizing infinite possibility as indistinguishable from meaninglessness. Rick’s alcoholism and emotional detachment are defense mechanisms against Attractor Splintering at cosmic scale.

Pippin

The entire musical is structured around AS. Whether as a soldier, lover, revolutionary, ruler, or magician, Pippin generates a string of new possibilities for what he could become. But he can’t stabilize any one of them long enough to develop genuine satisfaction.

In “Corner of the Sky”, Pippin searches for his corner but can’t commit to any single corner long enough to inhabit it. The Leading Player embodies the pathological enabler of AS: Pippin’s attention mechanism offering new experiences and identities, while leaving room for none to provide sustainable meaning.

The climax of the musical demonstrates how this pathology resolves: Pippin finally chooses constraint. Constraint always creates coherence.

Home / Pathologies / Fragmentation / Attractor Splintering