I've been interested in the Kalachakra astrology for quite some time, but it's really hard to find reliable in-depth sources to understand how it works.
Does anyone know any astrologer who is willing to teach or explain this, or maybe even courses on it?
I know this is maybe a fringe question here, but it's a serious one I'm currently asking myself.
I've done research in the past and published a few scientific papers in applied computer science, so I'm familiar with the general scientific publishing plus peer-review process. However, I've never done so in the field of logic / maths.
Recently, I was working on an idea I believe is worthy publishing that's loosely related to Shannon's capacity and Kolmogorov's complexity theories. It formalizes an idea of mine how two systems communicate with each other and has some novel ideas I've not encountered anywhere so far.
The two papers contain several logic / maths proofs, but since this is a somewhat foreign field to me I don't know whether I am maybe just entirely delusional or onto something genuinely interesting and worthy of publishing.
I must admit - without the help of AI chatbots I could never have formalized my idea. However, when I run through the proofs, I cannot find any fundamental errors myself, and I've developed the idea through dozens of iterations with the chatbots, refining it further and further, adding bits and pieces, reformulating ideas and notation, etc. So, there is some serious work in there.
How can I judge whether my papers contain a genuine contribution to a field, or whether these are just some idle musings of mine? I know there is no simple answer to this question, but maybe someone else has a bit more experience how publishing papers in logic / maths works, generally. Should I just give it a try?
Also, what's complicating things is that as an independent researcher without a role in academia, so I'd have to pay the entire publishing fees myself. Unless I aim for journals that do not have any publishing fees, but then the choice is not only limited, but I'm wondering if this could actually even work against my interests to be taken seriously. Arxiv would be a middle-ground, but I still need to first find someone who endorses me there, otherwise I cannot even upload my first paper.
Would welcome the community's thoughts.
Most people probably have not heard of this meditation study, but it's outstanding material:
Liebermann and Sacchet 2026: Toward a neuroscience of consciousness using advanced meditation. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. Volume 181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2025.106520
Available in full: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763425005214
Abstract
>Despite decades of progress in the neuroscience of consciousness, prevailing empirical paradigms remain largely anchored in the study of typical, content-rich states that are characterized by layered perceptual, cognitive, affective, and self-referential processes. Such complexity may obscure the neural mechanisms that give rise to conscious experience. Here, we propose that advanced meditation—referring to states and stages of practice that unfold progressively with increasing expertise—offers a powerful yet unexplored opportunity to isolate the core features of consciousness through a theory-driven neuroscience approach. We focus on two classes of meditative phenomena: advanced concentrative absorption (related to what have been called jhāna), which involves the preservation of highly abstract forms of awareness alongside the attenuation of typical features of consciousness; and meditative endpoints—namely, cessation events (related to what have been called nirodha)—which involve the temporary suspension of consciousness altogether. These phenomena serve as precise, replicable, and experimentally tractable phenomenological anchors for a minimal model framework, a novel approach aimed at identifying and characterizing the simplest possible form of conscious experience as a principled starting point for a systematic science of consciousness. Within this framework, the integration of advanced meditation into experimental paradigms offers a promising path toward identifying the neural mechanisms that support consciousness in its most reduced and fundamental forms.
Until recently I had never heard of Marvin before, there are astonishingly few mentions here on Reddit. The original ideas were quite simple, you can call LLMs as if this was yet another function:
import marvin
answer = marvin.run("the answer to the universe", result_type=int)
print(answer) # 42
So, the core idea is pretty simple and kinda cool, if you ask me, particularly if you had enough of unnecessarily complicated agents. You just program your code, and in some places you rely on the LLM as if it was just another function call that returns a value.
However, I see almost nobody talk about it, and that makes me wonder why. I see enterprises jumping more onto the workflow bandwaggon, so I would expect Marvin to at least play some role there. Which does not seem to be the case outside of perhaps a few data engineers.
Maybe one reason is: it seems Marvin has moved away from simplicity too to incorporate more bells and whistles, and rather than doing one thing really well it now tries to do multiple things together. That's always a dangerous design choice, cause you can easily lose yourself in unnecessary add-ons, complications and abstractions. (Like we could see happen with Langchain.)