In one version the work is simply a combination of ideas from each of the contributors. (To see that, read here:

Valuable Notes on the TOE ).

In another version, it depends on decoding a riddle (

The Magical Inspiration for The Theory)

In another version, a science book about mortality inspired the theory:

Inspiration from Everybody Dies (tm)
In another view, the work is a result of a supernatural voice who commented on a previous work called the Unified Synthesis:

Development into The Real Unified Synthesis
The below is the mathematical version.

Previously I was at an early stage of comparing values between relatively comprehensive knowledge systems, and also working perpetual motion systems.

The insight was to compare the two: one showing abstract potential, and one showing material potential. Since potential was a good thing to look for in a TOE, I decided even with a lot of imagination I needed at least four 'data-points'. And, I could confirm the examples later using more.

The data points I chose were:

1. Objective truth (primary coherence),

2. Problem-solving (paroxysm),

3. Primary perpetual motion formula,

4. The formula for souls.

5. As a back-up, the secondary perpetual motion formula.

In one of my writings (

The Coherence and Set Impossibility Equation ), a deceptive title, I concluded there were definite similarities between the two earlier objective knowledge formulas, and the two formulas for perpetual motion.

Specifically, both (all four actually) involved dividing by two before multiplying an initial value by D - 1. This was a little tricky to detect because in one case D - 1 only equalled 1. But I was used to this from my work on typological category theory.

I concluded D was the value being sought by a TOE, and proceeded to the equation similar to D = 2 (X - 1), where X was the special result in knowledge or over-unity similar to a level of efficiency, something I noted because it could have mathematical relevance universally.

I noted that in a general sense the efficiency for perpetual motion resulted from 1/2 mass X distance, and in objective truth the efficiency resulted from polar opposites. In a TOE the value would have to be variable, so could be represented by a word-label like efficiency.

In this case, with objective truth 2 deductions gave 2 dimensions, and with paroxysm a condition of opposites gave a problem and solution. Also, in perpetual motion 1/2 mass X distance was used which created the same general equation when X meant the minimum counterweight mass and D meant the leverage range. So, now there was evidence that it worked!

I was now forced to find a more general formula which meant D wasn't D any more, it was a combination of D and leverage range. And 2 (x - 1) wasn't 2 (x -1) anymore, it was the more general efficiency plus difference. I knew it was difference because in perpetual motion machines the - 1 represents a certain amount of differential mass which helps the smaller mass, and the smaller mass is analogous to the end that is not represented by the desired result. But the desired result was X, so I had to rearrange the equation.

So, now I had something like: Efficiency = Result - Difference

-->

Efficiency + Difference = Result. And I adopted the notation Set 0 to represent certain types of input data.

Set 0 = Efficiency + Difference.

But this looked too simple. Embarrassingly simple. No one would believe it. I needed to give more instructions. I now had an intuition that in objective truth efficiency was really less than 1. And I noticed this was a 'passive' case where nothing was outside the system. I thought unity and over-unity were already a solid part of the system because my test cases were examples of overunity in abstract and material cases. So, if passive meant a value of less than 1, then active would mean a value of greater than 1.

I added a star to indicate that there were certain conditions for the efficiency.

It felt completely right, but I had been known to be called delusional, so I found some examples with mathematics that could be proven using an efficiency of > 1. If it worked for philosophy, obscure machines, and ALSO MATH that was a sign that what I was doing was valid mathematically as well.

I later tried it on a variety of other cases and it always seemed to give the exact right answer, even with turtles and humans. Insight every way!

Theory of Everything