When I first wrote a document called the Unified Synthesis a few years before the TOE, I was told by a silent voice that it wasn't the real thing (yet).
Here I describe the beginning at least of what I take to be the real thing, which was an unformed inspiration for the Theory of Everything.
...
This may be somewhat hard to grasp even compared to the T.O.E., but it is one of the only ways to 'protologize' or more fundamentally, alternately analyze the T.O.E. without referring to very specific applications.
First, you develop an ability to objectively synthesize experience, which is to say, communicate the essence of experience objectively. We call this objective synthization.
Next, we have a more analytic 'unifying ability' which acts previously and separately. This is the ability to synthesize all relevant information content separately but in conjunction with experience, in this case as though with the Programmable Heuristics.
When we have the synthization and the unification together, with the synthization considered first but the unification 'written' first, then we reach the beginning of the true Unified Synthesis.
However, even at this point it must be acknowledged that it is only being considered analytically, and the true form of the ability must be rather rare, in a similar way to the way thinking about enlightenment is far more common than actually achieving it in an unqualified fashion.
"The answer is formulated by saying the opposite subject of what you are concerned with in the perfect question confirms the object of the question." This is unhelpful, as it just refers to the question formula:
“The opposite of you related to something different from both your opposite and you.” Therefore in this case the exclusion would be: 1. The main subject (Cat A). 2. The true polar opposite of main subject or subjectively what the main subject dislikes (Cat C). 3. A guess about what the concern of (1,2) are (Cat B), and if correct: 4. The true polar opposite or thing disliked by (3) = (Cat D). ... So, since those four when complete describe the proper ultimate subject and proper ultimate context, a few notes: * Each may be seen as sufficient because we can elaborate on them individually. * Else, if they cannot be elaborated, it is impossible to know about them, and since we are adopting no limits on how to acquire data, that means those things that cannot be elaborated cannot wxist, as there is no conceivable way in eternity to even think of information on them. Thus, the logic of categorically complete meaning 'exclusive' categories is: 1. There is a subject (A). 2. The subject resists something (C)., even if it is nothing. 3. There is a proper context B-D. 4. That context also includes resistance, even if it is nothing.
An empirical language, which is to say it is figurative, interacting with the environment.
In this sense, rhetorical: inflective.
Also, in the sense of water, infinite.
Humble, mystical.
Also, aware of loud noises.
Brain size may be partly a response to pain.
Tool-minimal language, meaning certain tasks may be exaggerated and interesting, like humans have words for travel, dolphins may have sounds for familiar tactile sensations like eating fish or growing daring.
A single inflection may be a situator for other clicks, the louder the click the more 'situating'.
Situating is analogous to the experiences dolohins have.
A common experience may be the bones of a fish, thus structure based on bones and the water surface may develop.
Perhaps narrative or non-localized thinking.
This may implicate awateness of extended environments like the stars or global events.
Also, the traction of sound with the water, and water noises.
Another view is that dolphin language is radically sectarian and aggressive.
Viewing swimming as an aggressive thing can lend insight into their language.
Swimming --> Sectarian --> Regrouping --> Comprehending --> Situating --> Asking --> What is it --> Fish --> Water --> Impossible
It is possible dolphins see omniscience ss one simple click.
Why not? Their brains are big.
With a big enough brain references csn be more sparse.
It may be that dolphin language is a response to their brain.
The dolphin is able to interpret through understanding.
An important concept is the reference network, (which to be simple is like fish).
However, it could also be sounds.
The memory of sounds and fish understood as a reference structure, like eating fish, or thinking about dolphin behavior.
If you know mandarin, it is just like knowing how to write.
Not easy, you think?
Well, if we know how to write what's ugly, like this:
ン Then we write what's ugly. It is just like speaking Hebrew. If we know how to write mandarin we also know how to write. Now, speaking mandarin requires some knowledge of phonetics. It is not just understanding and writing, but speaking Mandarin. Mandarin is an intelligent language. Which means all the Europeans borrowed from it. Which means you can learn some Mandarin by learning about the European languages.
1. There is a subject (A).
2. The subject resists something (C)., even if it is nothing.
3. There is a proper context B-D.
4. That context also includes resistance, even if it is nothing.
Chronology -->
Early-adopter case.
Conservatuve case.
Confirm conservative case unless confirm early-adopter case.
Repeat (Conservative case may now be like an early-adopter case).
…
[End / Repeat]
...
EARLIER VERSION:
This is like an idea card version of the characteristica.
Under unusually good circumstances, unique traits develop in response to things like (extremely) special information and (extremely) special thinking. In human societies this is a very recent phenonenon.
In a wealthy society, amenities can promote positive recessive trait advantages, which ordinarily would be eliminated due to common dangers or undesirability.
In an industrial society, roles are created for engineers and physicists, resulting in higher mean IQ. Similarly, in a Golden Age, linguists, inventors, and other thinkers are more likely to have influence.
In a society that is at war, military skills, some of them being technical, are at a premium, and leadership often values the survival of male children to military age. Such society may also create engineers.
In a survival environment, with sufficient resources humanoids will develop who are capable of motivating themselves with pleasure and similar things.
There was a debate about who originated the Theory of Everything.
Ken Tanaka's book used the letters E and D and appeared to refer to a Theory of Everything, but not everyone sees the connection as explicitly a reference to efficiency and difference.
However, Everybody Dies (tm) is from May 2014, only slightly later than Nathan's most basic objective knowledge formulas which came long before Nathan's Theory of Everything.
Therefore it could be seen that Nathan borrowed The Theory of Everything in part from the initials for Everybody Dies.
In fact, on several occasions, explicit references were made in Nathan's presence to how Everybody Dies should be translated as a Theory of Everything.
Making things more complicated, time-travelers may have inspired Nathan's T.O.E. on purpose already knowing the result.
After that realization it is clear Tanaka has precedent if he is a time-traveler who knows about Nathan's theory, otherwise he should make the reference explicit. If not, it could be seen as a lucky coincidence, but still a point of inspiration for the actual Theory.
Additional Theories:
People are bound together by their connection to the Matrix movie.
David Ury wanted to act in the Mattix and possibly invented a Theory of Everything.
Nathan Coppedge wanted to be inspired by the Matrix and thought it could be used as an idea-platform for perpetual motion machines.
Some people say 'nerded on Matrix' to refer to sex.
In this system if Nathan tends to think of men when he associates ideas, that might be needing help, which is like gay Matrix.
Straight Matrix would be more like directing.
Directors.
People who need a clue.
But if sex always looks like that it looks awfully reductive.
Besides, Nathan already seemed to have a Theory of Everything before thinking of any real-world connection to Ken Tanaka, so that doesn't seem so much like needing help as making use of diverse resources.
Based on the concept of certified linguistics acquisition testing.
Then, the components are likely: retension (memory / range), liquid intelligence (forming variety of sentences), and formal concepts (grasping deeper parts of a specific language).
This would be tested for more than one language.
Questions to simplify are asking What languages you speak, and then assessing how challenging those languages tend to be.
In terms of English language, here is a ranking of how challenging languages are:
I am a philosopher, artist, inventor, and poet (in some capacity), and a member of the International Honor Society for Philosophers. My quotes have appeared in the Hartford Courant, Poemhunter.com, and other independent websites. A comment at The Economist cites my possible influence on the economic policy of India. One of my artworks once sold for $1 million off the street but I ended up returning the money. I have written many books on topics such as perpetual motion machines, philosophy systems, and the occult. I live in New Haven near Yale University.
