Author Information Author: Baichen Yi Corresponding Author: Baichen Yi, E-mail: ybcbenxin@163.com Affiliation: Independent Researcher, Xi'an, Shaanxi Province 710000, China ORCID: 0009-0008-6242-7743 Version: V2.4 Funding: None Conflict of Interest Statement: All authors declare no conflict of interest related to this work. Preprint Statement This is an unpeer-reviewed preprint and does not represent final published academic conclusions. All mechanism interpretations and cross-scenario applications in this paper are heuristic analogies and testable hypotheses, not confirmed scientific conclusions. Copyright License This preprint is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). It is open for global sharing and reprinting under the conditions of proper attribution, non-commercial use, and no modified derivation of the original text. Special Authorization Statement: The author explicitly authorizes any individual or institution to translate the full text or partial content of this paper into other languages. Translated versions shall preserve the core logic of the original text and clearly indicate the original source and author information. The full license text is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Positioning in the Research Series This paper presents the causal structural demonstration of the MFY theory research series 1,15,28,38. The core framework of MFY theory originates from an extreme 12-month case of psychological system collapse and self-healing without external professional intervention. The full definition and derivation rules of the M₁→F₁→Y→F₂→M₂ spiral ascending model are detailed in the first paper of the series 1. The variable system (M, F, Y and their conduction sequence) used in this paper is derived from the MFY framework. Reference 1 is cited solely to adopt its formalized variable definitions and symbolic expressions, not to borrow its theoretical premises or independent conclusions. The relationship between this paper and the MFY framework is cross-validation rather than one-way dependence. This paper rests on three pillars of argumentation: daily empirical laws (four progressive cases in §3), the structural unavoidability of the M₁→F₁→Y→F₂→M₂ loop (§2.3), and forward-reverse convergence verification of the Y/M firewall (§4.1). The three pillars converge on the same conclusion from three independent directions: empirical regularity, structural logic, and reverse verification. The core causal claim of this paper is derived independently through the falsification reasoning structure in §3.1–3.4, and its logical validity does not depend on any background premises of the MFY steady-state model. Specifically: §2.1 cites the operational definitions of M, F, and Y from 1; §4.2 cites the core rule from 1 that there is no direct conduction path from M₁ to M₂ — a rule that emerged independently from the full-cycle experience of the self-healing case and forms cross-validation with the reasoning path of this paper, rather than serving as a logical premise for the argument. Independence Boundary: Conclusions supportable independently of the MFY framework are "the past does not directly determine the present" and "Y is the most efficient and sustainably valuable intervention target across all tested scenarios". The stronger claim that "Y is the only structurally legitimate intervention target" relies on the closed-loop structure of the MFY framework. Both claims are explicitly distinguished by their evidential basis in the main text (see §2.3 for details). Abstract For more than a century, mainstream life sciences and social sciences have universally defaulted to the underlying causal premise that past experiences, prior learning, and environmental exposures directly determine present behaviors, subjective feelings, and physiological states. Through a replicable reasoning structure, this paper systematically tests this premise: it first clarifies the core predictions of the mainstream paradigm, then verifies them against objectively observable daily facts, and identifies systematic contradictions between the paradigm’s predictions and real-world observations. This paper proposes that the only coherent resolution to this contradiction is that the past does not directly determine the present; instead, the past acts on the present only indirectly by calibrating expectations about the future. Based on two core foundational assumptions, this paper conducts logical consistency tests and empirical fitting of the core hypothesis across four progressive cases spanning the full spectrum of human decision-making — conscious decision-making, rational economic decision-making, survival-level risk decision-making, and unconscious instinctive reflexes — extended by cross-domain theoretical consistency checks of trust and sacrificial behavior in social relations. In doing so, it exposes the underlying attribution fallacy embedded in mainstream paradigms such as classical conditioning theory and income-determined consumption models, and provides a targeted, implementable steady-state regulation framework for fields including individual psychological adjustment, clinical behavioral intervention, macroeconomic behavior analysis, public safety risk prevention and control, and social relationship research. The core contribution of this paper is to deliver an operable causal mechanism for the longstanding unsolved problem in complex adaptive systems: how micro-level historical data emerges into macro-level behavioral states. Expectation (Y) is identified as the core emergent variable linking micro inputs to macro states, with the M₁→F₁→Y→F₂→M₂ closed loop as the core path of emergence. The direct causal path from past to present does not hold across all tested scenarios; this structure is independently verified in non-human mammalian systems, indicating that the expectation-mediated pathway is a shared underlying operating principle of mammalian systems. This conclusion is fully isomorphic to the core rule of the MFY model: anchor M₁ cannot be directly transmitted to the higher-order anchor M₂. The core hypothesis is explicitly falsifiable: in any scenario involving uncertainty, the hypothesis would be falsified if a complete decision process clearly involving expectation coding is shown to be driven entirely by past experience rather than expectation Y. Building on the conclusion that Y is the only legitimate intervention target, this paper further deduces a system firewall composed of a Y-layer filtering mechanism and an M-layer protection mechanism. The structural prediction of this deduction is tested via reverse verification: when protective mechanisms are impaired, the system should enter a pathological state characterized by unattenuated input driving, directly rewritable core structure, and amplifying positive feedback loops. This prediction is supported by evidence from human clinical systems (individuals with concurrent Y-layer and M-layer impairment) and finds structural correspondence in artificial systems (large language models that lack protective mechanisms entirely). Forward and reverse lines of evidence jointly confirm the causal role of expectation Y as a core structural element of system steady state. Keywords: expectation; emergence; causal inference; complex adaptive system; classical conditioning; placebo effect; anticipatory nausea and vomiting; behavioral economics; consumption behavior; risk decision-making; physiological homeostasis; public safety; cognitive behavioral therapy; self-fulfilling prophecy; humanistic psychology; trust behavior; sacrifice behavior; firewall; cross-species validation
Baichen YI (Thu,) studied this question.