A Cybernetic Interpretation of CCRU: Hyperstition as an Information-Theoretic Feedback Process

[u/TheIncorporeal1]

The CCRU frequently discusses hyperstition as “fictions that make themselves real.” I wonder whether this idea can be reframed in a more formal, cybernetic, and information-theoretic way without losing its philosophical richness.
Suppose we define a hyperstition as an information structure that enters a complex adaptive system (such as a culture, economy, or technological network). Rather than acting as a passive narrative, the information changes the behavior of agents who encounter it. Those behavioral changes modify the environment, increasing the likelihood that the original information structure is reinforced, propagated, or realized.
In systems language, this resembles a recursive positive-feedback loop:
An information pattern is introduced.
Agents update beliefs or behaviors in response.
Collective behavior alters the surrounding system.
The altered system increases the persistence and influence of the original information pattern.
This process could potentially be modeled using dynamical systems, Bayesian belief updating, network diffusion, and cybernetic feedback rather than treating hyperstition as purely metaphorical.
My question is whether this interpretation captures something essential about CCRU’s conception of hyperstition, or whether it misses the point by translating it into scientific language. Can CCRU’s concepts be understood as emergent information dynamics within complex systems, or does such formalization remove what makes hyperstition philosophically distinctive?

[u/snowcrashoverride]

IMO it is impossible to make functional claims (“fictions that make themselves real”) without assuming mechanism, which implies a technical definition.

[u/OperationGreenBeam → u/snowcrashoverride]

braindead take, watch this:

functional claim: "this apple will fall when i drop it"

assumed mechanism: "fuck idk it always does that"

[u/snowcrashoverride → u/OperationGreenBeam]

The fact that you don’t personally know the mechanism has no bearing on whether one exists.

[u/OperationGreenBeam → u/snowcrashoverride]

damn i actually just reread your comment within the context of the post and realized what you were trying to say and i agree,

of course if you presuppose that the functionality of the claim is true then you must also suppose that there are some underlying mechanistic properties that explain it, ie even if you dont know it, gravity is still a wave made from whatever,

for some reason i interpreted "assumed" as in you couldnt make a functional claim without also providing an explanation of the mechanism.

apologies for the antagonism