Critiques and limitations

Publishing the strongest versions of the critiques against this project is deliberate policy. If a claim cannot survive its best opponents, it does not deserve to survive. Three serious critical positions are stated below in their strongest form, credited to the people who defend them.

1) Laser speckle (Andrew Gallimore): the diffracted 650 nm beam produces speckle, a physically real, structured optical pattern. DMT amplifies pattern recognition, so shared structure across observers may reflect shared optics rather than any external code. Prediction: changing the diffraction grating should change the reported forms.

2) Cymatics (Andres Gomez Emilsson): non-linear standing-wave dynamics in visual cortex under DMT could generate structured, apparently discrete forms without any external code at all. Prediction: similar forms should appear given sufficient visual noise, with or without a laser.

3) Cultural priming (skeptics): code and glyph imagery is culturally saturated (The Matrix, hieroglyphs, digital rain), and expectancy shapes ambiguous perception. Prediction: naive observers who are not told what to expect should report different content from observers who have read the literature.

These predictions are testable, and the registry exists to accumulate the data that could distinguish them. Credit to Danny Goler as the originator of the reported observation. The critiques above are why we track null results in the same place as the positive ones.