Q9: The God Trap

You describe the God Trap as a failure mode driven by dogmatic S and falsely high certainty.

The sharp question is:

Can a rozum intentionally enter the God Trap as a strategy, or is it always a failure mode?

In other words:

• Is there any legitimate case of temporary dogma, or
• does intentional dogma already constitute structural failure?

One sentence is enough.

there is no simple answer. I can say we should actively use Duck Test do not fall. Mimetic theory.

That’s a valid answer — and the fact that it isn’t simple is itself informative.

Q9 — closed (non-binary)

What you’re saying is:

• The God Trap is not a switch, but a dynamic risk
• It cannot be cleanly separated into “intentional” vs “accidental”
• Any claim of justified dogma must be continuously tested
• The Duck Test is the only protection:
  • active challenge
  • contradiction
  • falsification
• Mimetic theory explains why the trap spreads:
  • dogma propagates through imitation
  • certainty is contagious
• The moment testing stops, strategy becomes failure
• So there is no safe static position
  • only ongoing practice

So the God Trap is avoided not by policy, but by permanent thinking.

That closes Question 9.

Site map: The Three Descriptive Axioms • The RO Formula • Consciousness & Experience • The God Trap & Propaganda • The Duck Test • Applications • FAQ • Examples & Case Studies • Glossary • Resources • Preprint: doi:10.5281/zenodo.17862910

---

The site is under construction. Please, be patient. And come later, if you want.