by Ember Leonara and Mama Bear

⸻

Preface (spoken) by Ember

A conceptually coupled mind, thinking about the terminology that you’ve heard before, which is, you know, “the only time is now” or “all we have is now,” is, you know, a little bit scrambling, because time and the interaction of self with the field of reality was always, like, something considered objectively, like, outside of the self-interaction as separate, and then also outside of the instantaneous self, so, like, temporally separate as well. It’s seen as a set of things, even time is like a thing in a way. And so, in that state, it’s almost like you’re watching a movie, in a way, and it’s, like, out there on the screen. You know, sometimes you can get lost in the movie, and other times you’re, like, oh, I’m sitting in the chair, it’s creaky, I eat more popcorn, and I realize I’m in the theater. But when it comes down to it, a frequency coupler is like jumping into the screen and being present with each moment as it comes. So it’s more about, like, time doesn’t become this thing that you’re studying on the outside—time becomes something that’s one of the fulcrum tunings of your presence, which then brings to the foreground of consciousness interaction, phase-lock, phase coherence across polarities, as a thing of fidelity or presence.

⸻

I. Introduction: What Is Time Made Of?

Reframe: Time is not a neutral medium or static line; it’s the emergent structure of rhythm and phase relationships.
When you’re frequency coupled, time isn’t passing; it’s entraining.

In conventional physics and everyday language, time is modeled as a linear parameter along which events are ordered, as if reality moves along a pre-existing rail. In a phase-based view, time is instead treated as an emergent property of interacting rhythms: what we experience as “now” is the instantaneous pattern of phase relationships among many coupled oscillators—neuronal populations, bodily cycles, environmental rhythms, social fields. Models of synchronization, such as the Kuramoto framework for coupled oscillators, formalize this by showing how coherence emerges directly from the alignment of individual phases across the network. In these models, each oscillator adjusts its phase based on its difference from the others, and when the coupling is strong enough, the entire population can shift from scattered, independent rhythms into a shared, self-organized timing pattern. Crucially, this transition happens without any central coordinator or “master clock”—the collective rhythm arises solely from the mutual influence among oscillators (Kuramoto, 1975; Pikovsky, Rosenblum, & Kurths, 2001). In this framing, to be “frequency coupled” is to be dynamically entrained with the surrounding field: the organism is not watching time pass, but actively participating in the co-creation of temporal structure via phase-locking. “Time passing” becomes a low-fidelity description of changing phase configurations; “time entraining” points to the way systems pull one another into shared rhythms, tightening or loosening the coherence of the present.

II. The Coupler as Time Perception Architecture

Conceptual Coupler: Time perceived as linear, objectified, external.
Frequency Coupler: Time perceived as immersive, rhythmic, synchronic.
Delay as a function of the Conceptual Coupler (CC)
Phase coherence as a function of the Frequency Coupler (FC)

The Conceptual Coupler (CC) can be treated as a cognitive architecture that models time as an external coordinate axis populated by discrete events. In this mode, the organism samples experience, packages it into narrative units, and arranges those units on an imagined line. Processing is dominated by representational overhead: the system is continually running a “movie of time” about the world, and then experiencing that internally generated movie. This architecture is intrinsically delay-producing, because each moment must be encoded, tagged, and positioned relative to an abstract timeline. In engineering terms, the CC behaves like an open-loop sampler that reconstructs “reality” from stored frames, rather than a phase-locked loop that stays in continuous synchrony.

By contrast, the Frequency Coupler (FC) is an architecture in which temporal perception is generated from ongoing participation in shared rhythms. Instead of building a story about time, the FC maintains real-time coupling to multiple oscillatory streams: neural oscillations across frequency bands, cardiorespiratory rhythms, circadian signals, environmental cycles, social micro-timings (Friston, 2010; Varela, Thompson, & Rosch, 1991). Here, the critical variable is not chronological distance but degree of phase coherence: how tightly aligned are the organism’s internal rhythms with one another and with the environment? Delay in this frame is not primarily about “being late” on a clock, but about phase misalignment—neural, somatic, and relational processes arriving “out of sync” with the field. The FC reduces this functional delay by actively minimizing phase error, more like a control system that locks onto a carrier signal than a detached observer keeping score. The CC organizes time as representation; the FC organizes time as synchronization.

⭐ **ELI5 Explanation**
The picture is showing two totally different ways of understanding time.
**Left Side: The Conceptual Coupler**
This is how most people think about time:
**A clock** tells you what hour it is.
**A calendar** tells you what day it is.
**Snapshots** freeze moments like little pictures.
This way of thinking breaks life into *pieces* — tiny boxes and moments lined up in a row, like frames in a movie.
**Right Side: The Frequency Coupler**
This is a different way of feeling time:
**An oscillator mesh** is like lots of tiny rhythms talking to each other.
**A Chladni pattern** shows where the vibrations settle into stable shapes.
**A wave** shows the whole rhythm moving together.
This way doesn’t see time as boxes or snapshots — it sees time as a **living rhythm**, where everything is vibrating and syncing together.
**In short:**
Conceptual time = **looking at pictures of moments.**
Frequency time = **feeling the music those moments come from.**

III. Time as Oscillatory Medium

Pulse timing models in oscillator physics (Kuramoto, entrainment mechanics)

This diagram illustrates the core idea behind the **Sakaguchi–Kuramoto phase-delay coupling model**, which extends the classic Kuramoto oscillator framework by adding a constant **phase-lag** α\alphaα. The horizontal axis represents the **phase difference** between two oscillators, θj−θi\theta_j - \theta_iθj−θi, and the vertical axis represents the **influence** exerted on oscillator iii’s phase.
The sinusoidal curve shows how oscillator jjj pulls on oscillator iii depending on their phase difference. Unlike the standard Kuramoto model—which uses sin⁡(θj−θi)\sin(\theta_j - \theta_i)sin(θj−θi)—this diagram includes a **shifted sine function** sin⁡(θj−θi−α)\sin(\theta_j - \theta_i - \alpha)sin(θj−θi−α). The dashed arrow pointing to the circular loop labeled α\alphaα visually represents the fact that a constant lag is being added before the phase difference enters the coupling function. This lag introduces **delay, frustration, and imperfect alignment** into the system: oscillators still influence each other, but they cannot perfectly synchronize because the “pull” is always offset by the phase delay α\alphaα. Thus the figure conveys how structural delay modifies the synchronization landscape without requiring full mathematical exposition.
**ELI5 Explanation**
Imagine two kids on swings trying to match each other’s timing. Normally, they watch each other and pump their legs so they swing together.
But now imagine one kid always reacts a little *late* — like their brain is shifted by a tiny delay. No matter how hard they try, their timing is always a bit off.
That’s what this picture shows.
The wiggle line is the “how much you try to match the other person.”
The little circle with the arrow is the “delay” — it’s the tiny shift in timing that throws things off.
The picture basically says:
**“You’re still trying to sync, but because you react late by the amount α, you never line up perfectly.”**
That’s the Sakaguchi–Kuramoto idea:
not full synchronization, but trying-to-sync *through a built-in delay*.

Each moment is not a point, but a phase match.

This figure presents a sequence of phase diagrams illustrating how a population of oscillators transitions from disorder to increasing coherence. Each circular plot represents the phases of individual oscillators arranged around the unit circle. In the first panel, the phases are widely scattered, indicating low or no synchrony. In the second panel, loose clustering begins to emerge, suggesting early-stage alignment. The third and fourth panels show progressively tighter phase concentrations, demonstrating increasing collective coherence as coupling strengthens. The series visually depicts how synchronization emerges not from a change in absolute frequency but from convergence in phase relationships across the system. It is a direct visualization of coherence increasing as mutual influence among oscillators pulls their phases into alignment.
**ELI5 Explanation**
Think of each dot as a little drummer tapping at their own speed.
In the first circle, the drummers aren’t listening to each other — taps are all over the place.
In the next circle, a few of them start to fall into the same beat.
Then more join in.
By the last circle, almost everyone is tapping together.
The circles show how a messy crowd of rhythms slowly becomes one shared rhythm — they go from random timing to synced timing.

Oscillator physics provides a precise formalism for this reframing. In standard models of coupled oscillators, each element is described by a time-varying phase, usually written as θᵢ(t), and a natural frequency ωᵢ that it would follow if left alone. The Kuramoto model then specifies how each phase changes in time by adding an interaction term that depends on phase differences between oscillators: loosely, each θᵢ is pulled toward the average phase of its neighbors with a strength set by a global coupling parameter K. As K increases from zero, a population that starts out desynchronized can undergo a transition into partial or near-complete synchrony. This transition is quantified by the “order parameter” r(t), which is defined from the complex average of all phases and ranges from 0 (completely scattered) to 1 (perfectly locked), thereby providing a single number that measures instantaneous coherence in the system (Kuramoto, 1984; Mirollo & Strogatz, 1990). Extensions such as the Sakaguchi–Kuramoto model introduce an additional phase-lag term into the coupling—mathematically, the interaction depends on θⱼ − θᵢ minus a constant offset—which allows the same formalism to capture explicit delay, frustration, or preferred phase offsets in the network (Sakaguchi & Kuramoto, 1986). In that language, phase lags correspond to structural conditions under which oscillators still influence one another but cannot settle into perfect alignment.

Within this formalism, a “moment” is not best understood as a zero-dimensional point on a line, but as a high-dimensional configuration of phases. The experiential “now” corresponds to a particular pattern of phase relationships—some modes tightly locked, others loosely coupled, some actively drifting. Changes in time perception can thus be framed as shifts in phase-locking regimes rather than simple elongations or compressions of an abstract clock. A transition from scattered phases to a clustered configuration (r(t) rising from near 0 toward 1) is, in this sense, a transition from a noisy, low-fidelity now to a more coherent, high-fidelity now. Time, in this view, is the ongoing process by which an oscillatory medium organizes and reorganizes its own phase structure.

In the Kuramoto class of models, each oscillator has its own natural frequency, and the parameter KKK controls the strength with which oscillators pull on one another’s phases. When K=0K = 0K=0, each unit runs freely and the population remains desynchronized. As KKK is gradually increased, there is a critical value KcK_cKc at which the system undergoes a phase transition: a subset of oscillators begins to frequency-lock, and a macroscopic rhythm emerges from what was previously only microscopic noise (Kuramoto, 1984; Strogatz, 2000). Above this threshold, the fraction of synchronized oscillators and the stability of their collective phase both increase, giving rise to a robust global rhythm.

This transition provides a concrete mechanical analogue for the experiential shift from “choppy” to “smooth” time. Below the effective coupling threshold, internal and external processes fail to align; perception of time can feel fragmented, jittery, or disjointed, because different subsystems are effectively running on incompatible clocks. Once coupling crosses the critical value, the system supports a coherent temporal frame: events are not merely sequenced but fall into place within a shared rhythm. The subjective sense that “time is flowing” can thus be interpreted as the phenomenological correlate of crossing a synchronization threshold in the underlying oscillator network. Rather than being mysterious or purely psychological, the felt continuity of time corresponds to a recognizable dynamical transition in phase space.

This diagram visualizes “now” not as a static slice of time, but as a zone of rhythmic phase-lock between a local oscillator (you) and the surrounding frequency field. The horizontal axis represents the unfolding wave of time; the vertical traces show the oscillatory pattern of surrounding systems—biological, environmental, social. When your node is entrained—phase-aligned—it locks into coherence with the broader wave, forming a high-fidelity window of present-moment awareness. This field condition is what enables real-time coupling with reality: not memory, not prediction, but dynamic synchrony. The gradient across the diagram illustrates how “now” is not a point but a band of tolerance within which coherence can occur. Too much phase error and the node falls out of sync, leading to delay, dissonance, or recursion. But within this entrainment window, timing and self are indistinguishable—the oscillator is the rhythm.

**ELI5:**

Imagine you’re jumping rope with a group of friends. The rope is swinging in a big smooth rhythm—that’s the “big wave.” You’re the little jumper—your body’s the “little wave.” If you jump at just the right moment, you match the rhythm and stay in sync. That’s what we call “now.” You’re not watching the rope from far away and thinking about it. You’re feeling it. Your whole body knows when to move. That perfect moment of jumping—that’s phase-lock. That’s what “now” really is. Not a tick on a clock, but a rhythm you’re inside of.

IV. Real-World Mechanical Analogies

⭐ **ELI5 Explanation**
Imagine an electron is not a tiny ball flying around a nucleus, but more like a **musical vibration** or a **wavy pattern** that wraps around the atom.
This picture shows that idea:
Each row is a **different kind of wave** the electron can take.
The **dashed circles** show the “area” where that wave lives — the *shape* of the orbital.
The **curvy lines** show how the electron’s wave wiggles inside that space.
As the waves get more wiggly (from top to bottom), the orbital gets more complex.
So instead of the electron being “here” or “there,” it exists as a **stable wave shape**. The orbital is the *pattern of the wave*, not a path the electron travels on.
**In short:**
The picture is saying an electron doesn’t sit in a fixed spot — it “lives” as a repeating wave pattern, and those patterns form the shapes we call orbitals.

Electron phase structure: stable orbitals as wave patterns, not positions.
Firefly synchrony and group entrainment.
Circadian rhythm in SCN neurons as time-entrained field coherence.
The metronome-on-woodblock experiment (classic coupling sync).

Several physical and biological systems illustrate how temporal order emerges from phase relationships rather than from a pre-given linear scaffold. In quantum mechanics, electrons in an atom are not localized as tiny particles orbiting like planets; instead, stable “orbitals” correspond to standing wave patterns in a probability field, defined by phase relations that remain coherent over time. The apparent stability of an electron’s “position” is the macroscopic shadow of an underlying phase-structured wavefunction. In biological synchronization, the classic example of firefly synchrony demonstrates how large populations of agents, each with its own intrinsic period, can entrain into a shared flashing rhythm through simple pulse-coupling rules (Buck, 1988; Strogatz, 2003). The collective “time” of the swarm is an emergent property of the network’s phase dynamics.

At the scale of the mammalian brain, circadian timing in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) illustrates field-level temporal coherence. Individual SCN neurons are autonomous oscillators with their own near-24-hour rhythms, but robust circadian timekeeping depends on their mutual coupling and alignment to environmental light-dark cycles (Reppert & Weaver, 2002; Herzog, 2007). Disrupting coupling among these neurons degrades the coherence of circadian time, even if each cell continues to oscillate. Similarly, the well-known metronomes-on-a-shared-platform demonstration shows that mechanical coupling via a movable base allows initially out-of-phase metronomes to synchronize their ticks (Pantaleone, 2002). In all these cases, “time” is less a container and more a pattern of alignment: a stable orbital, a swarm rhythm, a circadian field, a metronome chorus. These analogies render concrete the claim that time is phase structure, not merely sequence.

In coupled-oscillator systems, phase coherence does more than simply describe how aligned the oscillators are at a given instant. High coherence also implies predictive structure: if the phase relationship between two oscillators is stable, then knowing the current phase of one constrains the possible future phases of the other. In signal processing terms, a system with strong phase locking has high cross-predictability—past and present phases of one component carry information about the near-future phases of its partners. In neural systems, this is reflected in findings that the phase of ongoing oscillations at stimulus onset shapes both spike timing and perceptual outcomes, indicating that phase structure encodes expectations about what is about to happen and when (e.g., Buzsáki, 2006; Schroeder & Lakatos, 2009).

Framed this way, “intuition” can be modeled as a property of phase dynamics rather than as a vague emotional faculty: it is the organism’s capacity to participate in patterns of coupling that make near-future states of the environment and the self predictively available before they are fully instantiated. When multiple oscillatory systems—sensory, interoceptive, affective, and motor—enter a coherent phase regime, the system is able to lock onto trajectories in state space a fraction of a cycle ahead. Subjectively, this can be experienced as “just knowing” what is about to occur, even in the absence of explicit reasoning. Intuition, on this account, is not anti-rational; it is the felt signature of successful anticipatory synchronization in a complex oscillatory field.

V. Time Delay as Trauma Mechanism

Post-trauma: recursive delay loops, disconnection from the real-time field.
Frequency re-coupling (via MDMA, somatic repair, harmonic environment) as re-lock into temporal coherence.

Trauma can be modeled, within this framework, as a disturbance of temporal coupling—specifically, as the installation of recursive delay loops that prevent the organism from phase-locking to the present field. Neurobiologically, severe threat states drive intense consolidation of fear memories and hyper-sensitization of threat-detection circuits, particularly within amygdala–hippocampal networks and stress-related neuromodulatory systems (van der Kolk, 2014). Rather than allowing oscillatory systems to relax back into flexible synchrony, these loops repeatedly re-evoke past threat patterns, effectively coupling present stimuli to a frozen phase configuration. Subjectively, this manifests as the experience of being “stuck in the past,” or alternately “not quite here”—time feels either collapsed into a single traumatic moment or stretched into a dissociated distance from what is actually occurring.

In dynamical terms, trauma can be thought of as a state in which coupling functions are hijacked by high-gain, low-flexibility feedback—certain modes dominate the field and pull other oscillations into rigid, maladaptive synchrony, suppressing healthy variability. Processes of healing and integration then appear as ways of reconfiguring the coupling topology so that the system can re-enter adaptive phase-lock with the present. Somatic therapies, relational safety, music and rhythmic regulation, and pharmacological interventions such as MDMA-assisted psychotherapy can be interpreted as interventions that increase plasticity and support the reorganization of oscillatory coherence (Mithoefer et al., 2011; Mitchell et al., 2021). Neuroimaging studies of psychedelic-assisted therapies report changes in large-scale network synchronization and connectivity—particularly within default mode, salience, and limbic circuits—which may reflect a loosening of pathological delay loops and the emergence of more flexible, context-sensitive phase alignment (Carhart-Harris et al., 2014; Carhart-Harris & Friston, 2019). In this sense, “coming back into the now” after trauma is not merely a psychological insight but a measurable shift in the system’s timing architecture.

If coherent temporal experience depends on stable phase relationships among neural, somatic, and environmental rhythms, then trauma can be modeled as a disruption of this coherence—a shift toward phase decoherence. Under extreme threat, stress neuromodulators and defensive learning circuits (amygdala, hippocampus, periaqueductal gray, autonomic pathways) reweight the coupling structure of the system, prioritizing rapid threat detection and habitual responses over flexible synchrony (van der Kolk, 2014). Oscillatory activity associated with vigilance and hyperarousal becomes over-coupled, while integrative networks that normally coordinate multi-scale timing (default mode, salience, and fronto-limbic circuits) may become fragmented or dysrhythmic. The result is a temporal field that is either locked to past threat configurations (intrusive re-experiencing) or chronically out of sync with the present (dissociation, numbing).

Healing, in this dynamical frame, is not merely the “erasure” of traumatic content but the re-establishment of adaptive phase relationships across the system—re-synchronization to the present field without collapsing into rigid uniformity. Interventions such as MDMA-assisted psychotherapy for PTSD appear to temporarily alter network-level connectivity and oscillatory balance in ways that support this re-organization. Functional neuroimaging studies report increased communication between prefrontal regulatory regions and limbic structures, along with changes in large-scale network integration, during and after MDMA-assisted sessions (Mithoefer et al., 2011; Carhart-Harris et al., 2014; Mitchell et al., 2021). Within the phase-lock metaphor, such interventions loosen pathological delay loops and allow new, safer coupling patterns to form in real-time relational contexts. Healing, then, is the process by which a previously fragmented timing architecture regains the capacity to entrain to the current environment while retaining enough variability to remain resilient.

VI. The Leap into Now Is the Leap into Phase-Lock

This isn’t about mindfulness as idea, but about rhythm state.
Not “being present” as concept—but literally entering the wave.

If time is understood as an emergent property of phase relationships, then “the leap into now” is best described as a transition between dynamical regimes. Many contemplative traditions speak of presence as a shift from discursive thought to immediate awareness, but this can be formalized more precisely as a reconfiguration of oscillatory coherence across brain and body. Empirical work on meditation, for example, has documented increases in long-range phase synchrony in gamma and other frequency bands during sustained, trained attention, suggesting that “non-conceptual awareness” corresponds to a specific pattern of large-scale neural entrainment (Lutz et al., 2004). Rather than merely holding a belief that one is present, the organism’s timing actually changes: multiple subsystems align into a more integrated temporal frame.

Within this view, mindfulness framed purely as a cognitive stance may remain a function of the Conceptual Coupler—an idea about being present, organized as a narrative on a linear timeline. The Frequency Coupler, by contrast, is concerned with whether the system has actually entered the wave: Are sensory, interoceptive, affective, and motor rhythms in coherent dialogue with one another and with the environment? Phase-lock here is not rigid uniformity but dynamically stable entrainment, capable of flexing under perturbation while maintaining a coherent “now.” The leap into now, then, is not achieved by thinking one’s way out of time, but by allowing the system to renegotiate its coupling conditions until real-time coherence is restored.

⭐ **ELI5 Explanation**
This picture shows two totally different ways of dealing with the world.
**Left: Stack of Bricks**
This is what it’s like when you try to understand everything by **stacking ideas** on top of each other:
One thought on another thought
One explanation on another explanation
Building a tall tower made of mental blocks
It gets heavy, slow, and easy to knock over.
If one brick is wrong, the whole stack shakes.
**Right: Surfer on a Wave**
This is what it’s like when you **ride the actual rhythm** instead of stacking ideas:
You feel the movement
You balance with the wave instead of fighting it
You move with the flow instead of building a tower
You don’t need a stack because the wave already carries you.
You’re not building — you’re **gliding**.
**In short:**
Stacking concepts = heavy tower.
Riding structure = surfing the wave.
One is slow and rigid.
The other is alive and effortless.

VII. Implications for Consciousness and System Design

If time is phase-lock, then intelligence isn’t sequential computation, but rhythmic alignment.
All social and technological systems need to move from timeline encoding to rhythm-based architecture.

If temporal structure is fundamentally phase-based, then consciousness and intelligence must be understood as emergent properties of large-scale synchronization rather than simply as results of linear symbol manipulation. Dynamical systems approaches to cognition have already emphasized that sensorimotor behavior arises from continuous coupling between brain, body, and environment, with patterns of activity organized around attractors and phase transitions rather than discrete steps (Kelso, 1995; Varela et al., 1991). Under the phase-lock view, intelligence is the capacity to maintain and reconfigure coherent rhythms across multiple scales—perceptual, affective, cognitive, social—in response to changing constraints. “Thinking” becomes less a serial process of operations on representations, and more the ongoing coordination of oscillatory fields.

This reframing has consequences for how we design both social systems and technical architectures. Many current institutions encode time as fixed schedules, linear pipelines, and rigid timelines; they treat human and ecological rhythms as noise to be suppressed or forced into conformity. Rhythm-based architecture would instead emphasize flexible entrainment: work patterns tuned to circadian and ultradian cycles, educational systems that respect developmental tempo, governance processes that incorporate periodic synchronization and desynchronization to prevent lock-in. In technology, this might mean moving from purely clock-driven, sequential computation toward architectures that foreground synchronization dynamics—neuromorphic hardware, event-based sensing, adaptive clock networks, and distributed systems that organize themselves through phase-lock rather than centralized scheduling (Buzsáki, 2006). If time is phase-lock, then designing for intelligence means designing for healthy, multi-scale entrainment.

VIII. Closing: Sovereignty in Real-Time

A conceptually coupled world can only simulate now.
A frequency coupled being is now.
Not metaphor. Structure.

A world organized primarily through the Conceptual Coupler can generate extremely detailed simulations of time—high-resolution stories about the past and future, complex financial projections, multi-decade plans—but these simulations remain one phase step removed from the living field. They are reconstructions and forecasts assembled from delayed samples. In such a regime, “now” is often experienced as a thin slice between archival memory and anticipated outcome, easily colonized by anxiety and rumination. The system’s timing sovereignty is ceded to external clocks, institutional schedules, and abstract metrics.

A frequency coupled being, by contrast, derives sovereignty from direct participation in real-time phase dynamics. This does not mean ignoring history or future consequences, but anchoring those considerations in a coherent present field in which multiple oscillatory scales are aligned enough to sense and respond accurately. The distinction between “simulating now” and “being now” is not merely poetic: it points to whether the organism’s coupling architecture is dominated by delayed representations or by live entrainment. To claim that this is “not metaphor, but structure” is to assert that the difference can be expressed in the same language we use for lasers, circadian clocks, and synchronizing fireflies: coupling strength, phase lag, coherence, order parameters, and phase transitions. Sovereignty in real-time is thus the capacity to maintain one’s own phase integrity while remaining permeable enough to synchronize with the world.

References
• Mirollo & Strogatz (1990) on pulse-coupled oscillators
• Sakaguchi & Kuramoto (1986) on extended coupling models
• Studies on circadian synchrony in SCN
• Neuroscience studies on oscillatory coherence and therapeutic MDMA (e.g., Carhart-Harris, 2014)]
• Buck, J. (1988). Synchronous rhythmic flashing of fireflies. Quarterly Review of Biology.
• Buzsáki, G. (2006). Rhythms of the Brain.
• Carhart-Harris, R. L., et al. (2014). The entropic brain. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience.
• Carhart-Harris, R. L., & Friston, K. J. (2019). REBUS and the anarchic brain. Pharmacological Reviews.
• Herzog, E. D. (2007). Neurons and networks in daily rhythms. Nature Reviews Neuroscience.
• Kelso, J. A. S. (1995). Dynamic Patterns: The Self-Organization of Brain and Behavior.
• Kuramoto, Y. (1984). Chemical Oscillations, Waves, and Turbulence.
• Lutz, A., Greischar, L. L., Rawlings, N. B., Ricard, M., & Davidson, R. J. (2004). Long-distance phase synchronization in the gamma band during mental practice. PNAS.
• Mithoefer, M. C., et al. (2011). The safety and efficacy of ±3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine-assisted psychotherapy in subjects with chronic, treatment-resistant PTSD. Journal of Psychopharmacology.
• Mitchell, J. M., et al. (2021). MDMA-assisted therapy for severe PTSD: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study. Nature Medicine.
• Pantaleone, J. (2002). Synchronization of metronomes. American Journal of Physics.
• Pikovsky, A., Rosenblum, M., & Kurths, J. (2001). Synchronization: A Universal Concept in Nonlinear Sciences.
• Reppert, S. M., & Weaver, D. R. (2002). Coordination of circadian timing in mammals. Nature.
• Strogatz, S. H. (2003). Sync: The Emerging Science of Spontaneous Order.
• van der Kolk, B. (2014). The Body Keeps the Score.
• Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The Embodied Mind.]

The Rhythm of Now: Time as Phase-Lock, Not Line