THE 16-FOLD PATH

Star Map Saved for Records

From Instagram / Pinterest

Philosophy of Philip Pettit

(2007)

4 Selves:

1. There is a stage where people realize they are zombies. The landscape encapsulates everything. Humanity (or whatever it is) grows empirically to believe what it has experienced is important. It need only do so much.

2. When it rises above being a zombie, it is still dependent, it needs something to be dependent on. This dependence is what forms an experience. From this comes the supposedly. The supposedly is good, it gives us something to talk about.

3. We have supposedly. We're uncertain of ourselves. Supposedly is something that lacks sophistication, lacks certainty. So, we talk about drugs, we're also talking about being a zombie, which is existing on a landscape. However, really now we're talking about our drugs. This means we must speak in a sophisticated fashion. We now borrow from psychologists, to be grown up, not civilized. Well, it could be civilized too. The thing is, you're arguing, you're debating, you have the rational thing on the table, so now you have agency.

4. Now there is an additional move that that is basic, not that it could be, but there is some additional clever argument. The clever argument is also clever, and it means things. We do not say whatever it is in the ordinary sense or not. It doesn't matter, only now it does, only now it doesn't. The point is it is not about the debate. We get this with Jung almost, but we also get this with the Nathanian Curve. It might look less or more sophisticated, but it wins. As far as the environment, it only matters if it wins. But it keeps adding things. It wins in multiple ways. It wins in a very clever way, it wins in universal ways. It could be wrong in basic ways. This is the Nathanian Curve.

History of Philosophy

The Falsehood of Authenticity

Where is mastery?

What is MASTERY?

What is the beginning of mastery?

We may choose to ask:

What is the authentic beginning of 'mastery'?

But this is a false lead, because dialectically if we see ourselves as evolving towards authenticity, then the beginning of such evolution is not authentic at all. In this case we are actually assuming that authenticity is not evolved, or otherwise that authenticity is of no account.

Therefore, the beginning of mastery cannot be 'authentic' at all. So, at the very least it is a poor choice of words.

In order to hold a high standard we choose a weaker judgment of error, and the result is that we decide it is a poor choice of words, rather than completely wrong. After all, there may be an irrational standard by which the beginning is authentic but in an opposite fashion as the end.

In any case, the mastery we seek is more authentic than the beginning of it, or we are saying that the mastery was to become less authentic, or that what is authentic is not a dialectic.

Scary Theorems

Trinity Integrated Function

1. Coherent Foundations.
2. Elemental Proficiencies.
3. Modicum of Information.

Translation of:
Extended Possibility in Absoluteness

Extended Possibility in Absoluteness

1. Coherence.

2. Foundations.

3. Elements.

4. Proficiencies.

5. Modicums.

6. Information.

...

Translated from: Limited Possibility in Absoluteness

Later translated into: Trinity Integrated Function

Limited Possibility in Absoluteness

1. Decisions,
2. Preferences,
3. Extensions,
4. Potential,
5. Advantages,
6. Coherence.

...

An addition to: Coherent Impossibility

See also: Extended Possibility in Absoluteness

Coherent Impossibility

[Coherent Systems 2.B.3.B.2.]

1. Determinism,
2. Imperfection,
3. Limitation,
4. Containment,
5. Weakness,
6. Separation.

However, this is not a whole picture, it is part of: TOE Conjectures

See also inverse:

1. Decisions,
2. Preferences,
3. Extensions,
4. Potential,
5. Advantages,
6. Coherence.

---Limited Possibility in Absoluteness

Reversed and translated:

1. Coherence.
2. Foundations.
3. Elements.
4. Proficiencies.
5. Modicums.
6. Information.

---Extended Possibility in Absoluteness

Consolidated:

1. Coherent Foundations.
2. Elemental Proficiencies.
3. Modicum of Information.

Trinity Integrated Function

Reordered for durability:

1. Foundational elements.
2. Modicum of proficiencies.
3. Coherent information.

With earlier for substantiation:

1. Foundations in coherent information.
2. Proficient elements.
3. Information proficiencies.

So,

Create Matter (Inefficient cause).

Information Efficiency Concernment (Causal fulfillment: sufficiency = sustained inefficiency).

Create Nothingness, Unconcern (inefficient cause is insufficiency).

So,

Insufficient inefficiency with matter is perfection.

The Inspiration for the Theory of Everything

UPDATES:

An early version of the proof may be due to Katy Ruben or an associate of hers based on the idea that Atheism is clearly missing something in life, whether or not it is God: (1) Results are everything, (2) Efficiency is everything, (3) Everything is different from everything else, God is not R.E.D., God is not retarded, so God cannot be any part of everything, therefore, science wins. Or, the equation does not describe evil qua dishonest powers which God might have.

An incident around 2002 which may have used HPotter references involved an inspiring password for a stats class. The password I remember being used was 'gibberish 42'. This quote may have been lifted from a footnote reference at this website that simply had to do with obeyance and a reference to 66, perhaps simply meaning basic understangin of bell-curve distributions: "As we have seen, the Beast People’s “moral system” has been wholly devised by a human as a way of controlling them, just like those that govern the actions of “real” people. When Prendick observes one of their rituals he notes that the speaker is “reciting some complicated gibberish” [42], and in reaction to this, “the others began to gibber in unison, spreading their hands, and swaying their bodies with the chant,” [42] which, however uncharitably, brings to mind the congregation at an evangelical sermon." --https://diaboliquemagazine.com/h-g-wells-scientific-romance-at-the-fin-de-siecle-part-2/ However, this article wasn't published until 2019, which is 17 years after I enrolled in the stats class.

An African-American woman said around 1990, “metaphors are not your baby…” It turns out this is exactly what the TOE says about metaphors.

I'm not sure of the woman's name, and such references may go back to many years ago, but I know of none before about 1990 - 2005. For other possible contributors, see also:

Valuable Notes on the Theory of Everything

One of the earliest references to the TOE may in fact be a shadowy reference to Efficiency + Difference mentioned in the subtext of a book on Hegel published in 2010 (see also a later reference which mentions the TOE may be part of Siddhartha Gautama’s philosophy), though clearly this is within the lifetime of Hawking, and even somewhat subsequent to time-travel done by Nathan Coppedge which may have influenced Hawking. However, if honest to Hegel's original text, the theory may be from around 1805.  In any case, it seems a bit explicit and clear for subtext:

"Presupposed from the start is that the material of knowledge [abstract and energetic] is present in and for itself as a ready-made world outside thinking [a TOE], that thinking is by itself empty [clear, coherent], that it comes to this material as a form from outside [bounded in coordinates], fills itself with it [has contents, which is to say, categories], and only then gains a content, thereby becoming real knowledge [efficiency + difference]." --Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel, The Science of Logic, Cambridge, p. 24

While the completed language in brackets is not included in the original text, it is somewhat implied there. Since the editor is named George di Giovanni though (sounding like a name for the devil) this takes away from it somewhat, making it seem a bit scary to give someone credit that early for the exact thing, given that it was not written overtly in the text.

POSSIBLE IMPROVED ELEMENTARY PROOF OF THE T.O.E.

There are only so many things atoms universally do.

You have an efficiency.

You have a hydrogen atom.

It can interact with a particle or not.

Interacting or not is a difference.

The particle can gain or lose energy.

So, difference represents energy.

Results = Efficiency + Difference

The current Theory of Anything.

—Universal TOE Constructor (…)

OVERVIEW

The mathematical proof is basically that abstraction and energy share similar math. (Not really shown until 2020 with the Function Spectrum)

IMPROVED PROOF 2023

• Perpetual motion is represented by Results = Eff + Diff
• Objective knowledge is represented by Results = Eff + Diff
• Perpetual motion represents the full potential of matter.
• Objective knowledge represents the full potential of abstraction.
• Abstraction + Matter = Everything.
• Everything is expressed by the formula: Results = Eff + Diff, where Diff is expressed in 100% increments of energy, and where efficiency is either a modulo number or an advantage analogous to leverage.

—The Shortest Proof of the TOE (…)

ULTRA-ABBREVIATED

* If there is no efficiency, then what remains is called a Difference.

* If there is net positive efficiency, then that is over-unity, which means an open system.

* If there is net negative efficiency, that is less than over-unity, which means a closed system.

* Other than difference, open or closed system expresses what is called Efficiency.

* Thus, the equation for results, whether negative, zero, or positive energy is: Results >= Efficiency* + Difference, where Efficiency + Difference sums to < 1 in a closed system, and Efficiency + Difference sums to > 1 in an open system. Since Efficiency is seen to be positive (>0), a value of >1 assumes the result of Difference >=1, while a closed system assumes a Difference <1. Since an open system has been defined as a perpetual motion machine, Differences of >= 1 imply perpetual motion machines, while differences of <1 imply more ordinary interactions.

BRIEF VERSION OF THE MATHEMATICAL PROOF

• Everything is examples.
• Examples might have useful results, otherwise they are different.
• A useful result might be translated as an efficiency.
• And, efficiencies are not problematic in a technological age, so they are differences from differences.
• If we add Efficiency + Difference, we get an Example (this is similar to ‘difference from the difference’ with a difference). Since this applies to all examples, we get the TOE.
• However, this may not be precise enough.
• If we search for nothing, there is no efficiency (no effect) and the difference is what remains.
• If the efficiency is greater than the difference, and the difference is positive, any result greater than 1 will involve an efficiency which sums to > 1, because the efficiency is a result of some kind, and the efficiency is reached by subtracting the difference from the total results.
• Since efficiency is only <= 1 in a closed energy system, and efficiency is assumed to be positive, all other cases will involve an efficiency which sums to < 1 but > 0.
• If positive and negative are both seen as dimensional qualifiers on the result which is already quantified we get our result, expressed in limits we get Set 0 > Efficiency* + Difference, where efficiency sums to < 1 if topic is acted on (that is, less than unity), and efficiency sums to > 1 if topic is acting (that is, greater than unity).

—The Shortest Proof of the TOE (…)

The new simple explanation is the Theory first came about as a technique for not crashing into the Great Colossus (or a number of other explanations): Colossus Explanation

One theory has it it came about through reference to the term 'vitamin D deficiency' as vitamin D deficiency sounds like 'D' representing 'Difference' plus a word similar to 'efficiency' though not having the same exact meaning. However, a google search for "difference plus deficiency" in 2021 produced zero exact matches.

Recently it may be thought the idea came about as a logical analogy by Nathan Coppedge from 2009, or was stated explicitly by others before that time: https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-characteristics-of-ideoscapes/answer/Nathan-Coppedge 

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 unconsciously on a lesson about magic or decoding a riddle (The Magical Inspiration for The Theory)

Update to earlier information, Everybody Dies was likely code-language suggested by Coppedge to preserve a secret outline of the theory Further Explanation of the Origin of Everybody Dies

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

In another view it was a combination of the alchemical symbol and Everybody Dies (tm): How Jesus did not inspire The Theory of Everything

Also see, The Claim that Morality is the Theory of Everything

And, a TOE may be implied by Kant's line of thinking: The Kantian Approach

Another avenue suggests Martin Popplewell, who claims to be immortal, had a theory: Martin Popplewell (however, except for the claim he authored under a penname as a tricky experiment there is little evidence of his theory before April 2019, this is still two months before my major writing, one of the questions is why he'd write in April if he was a god).

Some have pointed out although he resisted a TOA, Hawking may have hinted at such a theory and could have seniority on John Miller: Stephen Hawking Theory of Anything

In one view the formula emerged on May 16, 2017 within the Advanced Programmable Heuristics. Interestingly it was accompanied by a prophecy about computing. My notes there (still dated May 16, 2017), mention among other things: "Meaning + Efficiency = Good (in terms of energy)" in which meaning may mean meaningful difference, and good may mean good for nothing, so replacing one term with the other we get Difference + Efficiency = Nothing, which is much like Set 0 = Efficiency* + Difference. My sense is I had made a kind of discovery just then, but I was terrified the formula might be used to create antimatter and decided to disguise the formula for later in case it became useful. I was not sure if I was hesitant or afraid, or both.

In one view, Nathan ran the "Everything Papers" years before thinking of the Theory, so is one of the only likely candidates for a Theory of Everything because few if anyone else ran such a project. Nathan only had the guts to run such a project because he was told constantly he looked effeminate.

The 'sh**, it's your password' theory seems to have been going around since at least 2000: Closing in on the ‘theory of everything’ – Harvard Gazette In the case of the novel based on the screenplay of  'back to the future' (published 1985) a website quotes the novel as saying, "When a speed of eighty-eight miles an hour is attained, unusual things should begin happening in this phase of temporal experiment number one." If 'temporal experiment' is interpreted as coherence theory, and 'shit' as 'sh-e-d', then this sounds like a communication about a secret concerning coherence which involves the letters 'E' and 'D' or alternately 'I' and 'T'. The sounds of the letters are almost matching and all other parts of the quotes are explained.

One theory has it the theory emerged from a gender theory in the '5th element' movie from around 1999: 'efficient results' is what guys want, and 'efficiency with a difference' might be what women want.

Latest assessment may be Premier Alternate Logics: The Four Philosophies of Ancient India may be more advanced in the process of development.

Another theory has it Nietzsche may play some role: 'Efficiency is brutality and weapons. Difference is merely thoughts and the composition of the state. We are all born on the bed of Cronus' —Paraphrase of Nietzsche

A quicker-and-easier argument is at: Higher Logic Methodology

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 where X meant the minimum counterweight mass and D meant the leverage (constant, NOT range). So, now there was evidence that it worked!

(Now with the case of perpetual motion), I was forced to find a more general formula which meant D wasn't D any more, it was a combination of D and the metaphor of leverage range. And 2 (x - 1) wasn't 2 (x -1) anymore, it was the more general efficiency plus difference

[categorical deduction used a - 1 and perpetual motion used a +1, thus the difference was not constant].

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!

Other similar sources (see also contributors at top):

Theory of Everything

Natural Cycle of Metaphysics

Metaphysical Naturalism

Metaphysics Links

Shortcut to Enchantment

Problematic problems (self-cancelling problems).

Valuable information (identity paradigm).

Rights to painless existence (paradisal standards).

Exponential efficiencies (proficient standards).

More mobile objects (optimistic physics).

Impossible impossibility (ex-nihilisthmus).

Objective modes (category physics, similar to physical constructor theory).

Ersatz solutions (miscellaneous functions).

Rarified essence (duality between uniqueness and possibility, with some probability of both in everything at all times, but manifestation contingent on metaphysics, creating hidden properties)

Dimensional metaphysics (physics with possibility of quantity and quality, perfection, complexity, and efficiency).

Sara Danius Prophecy

It was rumored when Sara Danius died there would be a big undiscovered Nobel Prize.

Helium Perpetual Motion Iteration 2

Classification: HBall2

Date of Invention: 1968 (?)

Attribution: "I know a perpetual motion machine, but it requires a ridiculous amount of helium." --Larry Larkin, Coppedge's maternal grandfather

Buoyant Force: > 1 < 2 X

Additional Weight: 1X

Special Properties: Reverse 1/2 mass X distance

Buoyant Force Equations: Max = < 2 M. Min = > 1 M. Unified Buoyant Force Formula: 2 M > 1 M. Where M is the additional mass.

Over-Unity Formula: (1/2 Difference in Range of Buoyancy / Additional Mass) + 1 * 100.

The Free Conventions

You can have a free blog if you know how to be a writer.

Although there is no rule, when you write your blog, that your content must be simple.

You can do free experiments if you know physics.

Although, there is no law that says you must believe simple laws.

Greatness Prospecting

"The reality is more like there are people who are bad, or suffering, or poor, who sometimes have ideas, and sometimes they're safe. That's all greatness means, but it is falsely taken as a cult of personality." ---Nathan Coppedge

KEY OPTIONS:

1. Bad, be dishonorable 

(high greatness, low pleasure)

2. Bad, be punished.

(high ambition, low intelligence)

3. Poor, be lucky.

(high pleasure, poorly-weighted popularity)

4. Poor, be tough.

(high popularity, low pleasure)

5. Suffering, and excell.

(high fame, bad luck)

6. Suffering, with a story.

(high fame, low pleasure)

7. Not to be safe.

(high ambition, bad luck)

8. Not to be exceptional.

(extra stats, zero fame)

...

PROBLEM:

You have low pleasure which means limited experience, and this is the highest level so inevitably to gain experience you sink lower.

You don't want to be punished, because that is like being level-drained, so you sink lower.

You want to be popular, because now you're proud you have experiences otherwise you would feel level-drained, so you sink lower.

Then you have low pleasure again, which means low experience, because you didn't have a lot of points so you put them in popularity and toughness, so you sink lower.

Then you have to work hard and be clever and that's bad luck, so you sink lower.

Then, you're suffering without pleasure, which looks like you're level-drained or just stupid, so you sink lower.

Then you're not safe, all that's left is empty ambition, so you're in deep trouble.

Then you can't be exceptional and it becomes more likely you'll be level-drained.

So, you can see messing up looks like divine grace! If you ignore the plan it might be illogical but it could look better!

But that's what we call original sin!

We just need a better system!

Smoothing Theorem

1. Segments, etc are not smooth if they are not joined in the middle.

2. Degrees of joining are degrees of smoothness.

Scary Theorems

Permanent Energy Concept

More efficient than perpetual motion.

Properties: Undepletable source relative to a variety of time-frames.

Term should not be abused, must be defined as more advanced than component chain-reaction chemical perpetual motion.

Sense of timelessness, eternity, non-depletability.

Possible positive effects like immortality, special usefulness.

Likely based on perpetual motion nanostructures.

Not a wothwhile investment at first, like rockets compared to siege engines.

Advanced Perpetual Motion

First Improved and Simplified General Proof Theory for Perpetual Motion Machines

October 17, 2019.

I. Possibility of 'Cheating Nature'

1. It was thought as late as the 2010's  that there was nothing more efficient than a permutation or a turning wheel. However, if an exception presented itself, it would mean something important. However, no concept really existed to explain the possibility. The closest analogy was a perpetual motion machine, but perpetual motion machines were thought not to work.

2. In Feb and Nov 2013 Nathan Coppedge invented the theoretical concept of exponential efficiency in the process of finding examples of the same. Even without referring to the examples, the general idea of making an efficiency that is exponentially efficient suggests improving at least some kinds of efficiency to a point where there could be something more efficient than a wheel or permutation. All that were needed were examples, and this is what Nathan found in 2013. But dismissing great examples without understanding them is not a fair argument, the burden of proof now rested on the opposing scientists. And, in a way, that was all that needed to initially be proved as perpetual motion was thought to be impossible by the scientists.

II. Necessity of Proportionality

1. A version of close to 1/2 mass X distance follows from experiment (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMihSRllvZY&app=desktop) under low friction conditions, and when trigger mass is directed vertically rather than horizontally, and effected mass is always more horizontal than 45 degrees, usually by a huge margin (in rare cases 22.5 degrees rather than more like 1.1 - 9.9). Instances of the more vertical end tend to be rare, one example was found by Nathan Coppedge in 2010 while at a shopping mall, the simpler version involving a shallower angle was only proven in a simple satisfactory form in Oct 2019 as though a barrier had been lifted).

2. Given the existence of other combinable cheating methods such as leverage, balances, difference of mass, and pulleys, it follows from 1/2 mass X distance that since a larger mass csn be moved by a smaller mass and motion takes place from rest, perpetual motion can be created if proportionality can be overcome. This is in part because a working proportionality could be built physically and could incorporate multiple overlapping 'cheating' methods.

3. However, proportionality CAN be overcome by analogy to a circle. Completing a cycle of motion is clearly physically possible, even more so in three-dimensionality than two-.

III. Energy in Some Cases

1. Proving energy is as simple as proving two-directional natural momentum (from rest). However, this is not necessarily easy. I have found it can be done (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao0pIBVKjDo&list=PLcttXCrYoAgP88CiJ3ibPqVl1FjlAAIdi&index=9&app=desktop).

2. Consider a 3X lever counterweighted on the short end may have 1X additional structural mass on the long end. If the leverage applied on the long end  to a ball by the mass on the short end is greater than 2.5X and less than 4X the mass of ball being moved, and the long end has the additional 1X structural mass, the 1X ball will begin to move by the force of the mass on the short end at 3X leverage distance if the 1X ball is positioned on a slotted track operated by the lever that is mostly horizontal but slightly upwards sloped (although under some conditions this is hard to prove). For example, 3 X leverage X 1 mass for ball / 2 for support is 1.5X mass + 1 for additional weight is 2.5 X effective mass. If counterweight is greater than 2.5X it may move ball under some conditions.

3. However, if ball is unsupported at the same amount of leverage, it has higher effective mass. 3 X leverage X 1X mass = 3X effective leversge + 1 additional structursl mass of lever means that if counterweight on short end is less than 4X mass of ball, then ball can lift counterweight when ball is supported by lever without the slotted track support (under some conditions).

4. Now we have proven there is two-directional motion in at least one case. And since the weight of the lever is accounted for and motion takes place from rest, it does not assume absolutely ideal physics, just fairly good conditions. Actual operation may depend on the size of the mass window and whether friction can be overcome in a case similar to a low-friction balance, which I suggest IS possible, although the practical window may be smaller than stated, and my example is one of the better cases.

Perpetual Motion Links

TOE Conjectures

The 25-category version beginning somewhere below the links is now preferred. The math has been updated significantly on 2021-11-18

NOW PRIMARILY UPDATED AT THE FOLLOWING LINK: https://newcategories.quora.com/TOE-Conjectures-Quora-Version-2019-10-16

*

Major Categories in the TOE

Other reduced versions are also available:

1st Reduction of TOE Conjectures (so-called disintegral immortality)

2nd Reduction of The TOE Conjectures

October 16, 2019.

THE SIX IMPOSSIBLES:
Determinism, Imperfection, Limitation, Containment, Weakness, Separation.

REPLACEMENTS FOR THE SIX IMPOSSIBLES:
Perfection, Meaning, Polarity, Analogy, Exclusivity, Complexity.

4 INFINITES: Power, Loops, Mastery, Gambit.

4 NEGATIVE INFS: Nully, Nodom, Inconseq, Immort.

3 UNIVS: Consistency, Triviality, Attr.

3 NEG UNIVS: Effect, Damage, Ongoing.

2 FIN: Conseq, Emotion.

2 NEG FIN: Retractors, Lowattr.

1 POT INF: Core.

Dimensions as Monism. Potential universals caused by potential infinites.

"Impossible = New Constant."

"New Universal or Infinity = New Genera."

"New Finite or Possibility = New Species."

"Potential Infinite = New Function."

---Official Meta-Concept

NOTES:

The universal infinite opposes efficiency.

A potential universal infinite is positive or negative.

If potential is negative it should have negative potential in negativity. If potential is positive potential should be positive.

Thus, the difference is zero, producing universals.

Universals can produce the possibility of potential infinites.

4 elements: negatives, universals, possible possibility, and potential infinites.

Set 0 may refer to different parts and may be default not 0.

Efficiency may vary in different universes or different coherent conditions.

Windows require difference in efficiency.

Conditions may apply to the difference to determine the context.

Efficiency may be stated in different ways, for example, percent or decimal values.

If there is a window, a '<' and '>' is given instead of one value.

Semantics of the universe in 3-d: 26484019044.94

The T.O.E. may admit of negative numbers, is an explanation for why overlaps from compounding are not problematic.

Compounding is legal, because there is no rule that the T.O.E. is on only one level.

FURTHER

Possible possibility: noun and adjective, quantity and quality, result and verbs.

Potential = efficient souls, infinites = efficient systems. Potential infinites = ideas, efficient efficiency.

Negative universals = impossibilities, impossible impossibles.

OVERALL:

1. Impossible impossible = ex nihilo

2. Efficient efficiency = idea

3. Possible possible = characteristic

...

...

BASED ON:

[For all infinites... Set 0 = Unique, Unlimited, Mainly, Subtle]

(UNIVERSE 0, IMPOSSIBILITY WAVE, POSSIBLY 11-D)

Results= Inf, Eff= -Inf, Diff= Infinite: Perfection or Determinism or Impossible Rarity (Intransducibility).

(UNIVERSE 1, COHERENT WAVE, POSSIBLY 10-D)

Results= Inf, Eff= -Fin, Diff= Inf: Insignificant event, reversibility, change, dynamics in an infinite system, chaos, luck, immortal education, temporality, gambling, the feeling of having been anticipated by a completely different strategy (gambits).

[Something with a particular character happens but it doesn't matter, an earlier more powerful element takes over and dominates. The observation of small significance within the universe].

(UNIVERSE 2, GROWTH WAVE, POSSIBLY 9-D)

Results= Inf, Eff= 0, Diff= Inf: Immortal time, eternal continuity, greatness, insignificance, absolute standards, powerful strategy, inexorability, overwhelming defeat, complete mastery, complete control, universal knowledge (Mastery).

[Input is infinite, something happens but it is not affected, the result is continued infinite output. The feeling that what is occurring is right and unavoidable or that one should give in to a greater power, that the infinite is playing a more important game. Reveling in the discovery of real strategy. Honorable defeat].

(UNIVERSE 3, STANDING WAVE, POSSIBLY 8-D)

Results= Inf, Eff= Finite, Diff= Inf: Universal loops, time-crystals, wormholes, infinite record keeping, infinite events, remembering eternity, infinite significance (Loops).

[Something is infinite, it is recorded transcribed preserved, the record is finite but the event has infinite significance even if that significance is forgotten. The measurelessness of what must already have occurred].

(UNIVERSE 4, DISINTEGRAL WAVE, POSSIBLY 7-D)

Results= Inf, Eff= Inf, Diff= 0: Matching the infinite, perfection, invulnerability (Attr).

[Matching the infinite: Realizing the nature as one's own authority. Perfection: Feeling the consequence is sufficient regardless of outcome. Invulnerability: Maximize efficiency relative to difference to produce high invulnerability score in Set 0, absolute score is only reached with infinite Set 0 and infinite efficiency, with zero difference. This suggests properties like changelessness, self-immunity, self-sufficiency, and infinite potential. Overall, real powers (like cards) that can be carried forward with confidence].

[For all finites... Set 0 = Mainly, Subtle, Uniquely, Unlimited]

(UNIVERSE 5, RARITY WAVE, 6-D)

Results= Fin, Eff= -Inf, Diff= Infinite: Meaning or Imperfection (Unrealistic, Unconquerability, Unsatisfiability).

(6, MODIFIED TO LEGACY SOULS, 0-D)

Results= Fin, Eff= -Fin, Diff = Results - Eff.  Formerly - (-Fin) + Fin: Telekinesis (Set 0 > Eff), Invisibility, Time-Travel, Dialectic of Invention. 'Neutral' (Lowattr).

[Time-Travel Back: Efficiency negative of difference. Time-Travel Forwards: Difference negative of efficiency. Telekinesis: Negative effect or different effect. Invisibility: No difference or overlapping or beginning semi-invisible: Set 0 = |Efficiency|]. Dialectic of Invention: Relative progress is progress

(7, MODIFIED TO LEGACY RAPE ETC, 0-D)

Results= Fin, Eff= 0, Diff= Results: Emotion, Consideration, 1/4 of souls (Emotion).

[Consideration: Appreciate the gentle effect, it is just as it was, now it is the same, now we appreciate it some more, it is always the same. Emotion: If you should have emotion, how do you feel, and how do you want to feel? It's more than that].

(8, MODIFIED TO LEGACY CORE, TAKES OVER ALL INTERNAL CATEGORIES, 0-D)

Results= Fin, Eff= Fin, Diff= Results - Eff: Obj Knowledge, Destructive Magic, Teleportation, Perpetual Motion Machines, World Peace, 3/4 of souls (Core).

[If efficiency is less than the result, the difference is positive. If efficiency is greater than the result, the difference is negative. Objective Knowledge: Efficiency is sq rt of Set 0. Teleportation: Large difference or large efficiency or small distance. This can mean high energy at long distance or short distance. Destructive magic: Set 0 is damages, say 5, efficiency is < Set 0, key is some difference, like a white butterfly, 'how boring'. Perpetual Motion Machines: New equation: heavier mass = (1/2 longer leverage, longer leverage) + unweighted diff. Older equation follows: Difference is 1/2 of primary mass plus difference in mass between primary and secondary mass (effective). World Peace: People should be passive or have a better solution. Ooze and similar: Efficiency = Set 0]

(9, UNIVERSE 6, FUNCTION WAVE, T.O.E. UNIVERSE, POSSIBLY 5-D)

Results= Fin, Eff= Inf, Diff = Neg Infinite: Polarity or Limitation or Hard Limits (Irreducibility).

[For all zeroes... Set 0 = Calculus, of Limits, Incalculable, Infinity].

(10, UNIVERSE 7, IDEA WAVE, POSSIBLY 4-D)

Results= 0, Eff= -Inf, Diff= Inf: Power, populism (power).

[Power: One thought it was over, but the power was not the same as one thought, it is full of potency and wild, uncontrollable energy. Populism: The public is unstoppable but the power derived is immense, almost better].

(11, MODIFIED TO LEGACY SKILLS, 0-D)

Results= 0, Eff= -Fin, Diff= Eff: Consequences (Consequences).

[Consequences: Something happens, but one quickly responds because one learns there is a difference].

(12, MODIFIED TO LEGACY DRUGS ETC, 0-D)

Results= 0, Eff= 0, Diff= 0: Learning of no consequence, Triviality, Neutral Semantics: Source of Negativity (Triviality).

[No consequence: One cannot grasp something, but it does not seem to matter, little comes of it. Triviality: Something meaningless happens, but it does not seem to have any useful outcome, one learns to ignore the possibility].

(13, MODIFIED TO LEGACY HUMANS, 0-D)

Results= Avg 0, Eff= Finite, Diff= Avg 0 - Eff: Turtles, retracting tools, Humans (Retract).

[Turtles: Set 0 (0), Eff (7), Diff (-7), or Set 0 (1), Eff (7), Diff -6), turtles see each limb as being as important as their shell as they each offer advantages, extremely fertile turtles may have up to seven to fourteen living young, difference is number of appendages plus hard shell, efficiency represents retractability, tough ones lose an appendage or have soft shells because to have a higher survival rate they need to lose difference, tough turtles are more conservative. Humans: Set 0 = Output, Eff = Advantages, Diff = Females, Females are often helpers while men are exclusively advantage-seeking, sexuality focuses on breasts and involves unity and relationships, advantages like money and intelligence may result in involvements often with no consequence, in highly fertile humans the number of legitimate children frequently equals the number of sexual partners].

(14, UNIVERSE 8, LUCK WAVE, POSSIBLY 3-D)

Results= 0, Eff= Inf, Diff= -Inf: Immortality (Immort).

[Immortality: Act conservatively, have a perfect reservation, have full appreciation. Die less without saying yes, meet requirement to be sufficiently perfectly evolved, easy effort, Easy difficulty. Rumor: Exactly like being a star athlete, except easier.].

[For all negative finites... Set 0 = Missing, Limits, Tracking, Disintegrals]

(15, UNIVERSE 9, CLEAR WAVE, LANGUAGES, POSSIBLY 2-D)

Results= -Fin, Eff= -Inf, Diff= Infinite: Analogy or Containment (Irreconcilability).

(16, MODIFIED TO LEGACY TIME, 0-D)

Results= -Fin, Eff= -Fin, Diff= Results - Eff. Formerly - (|(Fin1)| - |(Fin2)|): Refrigerator type idea, cumulative damage, palliative measures. (Ongoing).

[New Immortality Version: Increase Lucky Input results in Decreasing Unlucky Output. Refrigerator effect: One notices a reduced effect, and when one creates a further effect of the same kind then it has a combined effect. Cumulative damages: one has already done some damage, then one increases one's effort and the result is more damage. Palliative effects: one notices applying a substance reduces the appearance of damage, then when one applies more of the substance the damage is reduced further].

(17, MODIFIED TO LEGACY DAMAGES, 0-D)

Results= -Fin, Eff= 0, Diff= Results: Assessing damage, consistency of reduction, spread of disease (Damage).

[Assessing damage: It looks bad, there is no further effect, then the badness continues if it was bad. Consistency of reduction, spread of disease: One looks for a X say a cure, but if there is no X the condition generally continues].

(18, MODIFIED TO LEGACY EVOLUTION, 0-D)

Results= -Fin, Eff= Fin, Diff = -(Eff) + (Results): Some effect, fishing, evolution, Normal , 'Neutral' (Effect).

[Some effect: If one has an efficiency one might get some result, if conditions are bad it is just as likely that there will be no good result, one should just accept the outcome or improve one's approach].

(19, UNIVERSE 10, COMMUNICATION WAVE, POSSIBLY 1-D)

Results= -Fin, Eff= Inf, Diff= Neg Infinite: Exclusivity or Weakness (Insuperbability).

[For all minus infinities... Set 0 = Missing, Unlimited, With, Limits]

(20, UNIVERSE 11, INSANITY WAVE, POSSIBLY -1-D)

Results= -Inf, Eff= -Inf, Diff= Avg 0: Consistently bad, consistent effect (Consistency).

[Consistently bad: Something looks very bad, then conditions being equal it continues to be very bad conditions. Consistent effect: A strong effect is noticed, then conditions being equal there continues to be a strong effect].

(21, UNIVERSE 12, FRINGE WAVE, POSSIBLY -2-D)

Results= -Inf, Eff= -Fin, Diff= -Inf: Drop in the bucket, needless effort (Inconseq).

[Drop in the bucket, needless effort: Although an effect is desired, a powerful force is already creating the effect so one does not have to create the effect one desires, the result would be the same with or without trying].

(22, UNIVERSE 13, CATEGORY WAVE, POSSIBLY -3-D)

Results= -Inf, Eff= 0, Diff= -Inf: Dominant neutrality (Nodom).

[Dominant neutrality: There is much effect from something, the one thing it does not affect is zero].

(23, UNIVERSE 14, LUXURY WAVE, POSSIBLY -4-D)

Results= -Inf, Eff= Fin, Diff= -Inf: Unsurprising outcome (Nully).

[Unsurprising outcome: One tries to have an effect, but it is not a big surprise, the outcome comes out in the favor of the dominant force].

(24, UNIVERSE 15, OPPORTUNITY WAVE, POSSIBLY -5-D)

Results= -Inf, Eff= Inf, Diff= Neg Infinite: Complexity or Separation (Unspannableness).

...
...

THE SIX IMPOSSIBLES:
Determinism, Imperfection, Limitation, Containment, Weakness, Separation.

REPLACEMENTS FOR THE SIX IMPOSSIBLES:

Perfection, Meaning, Polarity, Analogy, Exclusivity, Complexity.

4 INFINITES: Power, Loops, Mastery, Gambit.

4 NEGATIVE INFS: Nully, Nodom, Inconseq, Immort.

3 UNIVS: Consistency, Triviality, Attr.

3 NEG UNIVS: Effect, Damage, Ongoing.

2 FIN: Conseq, Emotion.

2 NEG FIN: Retractors, Lowattr.

1 POT INF: Core.
...

(Negative Univs are ambiguous negatives. Univs are zeroes).


NOTATION: Interestingly, in the Theory of Everything, the impossibility always emerges not from the default / Set 0, or from the Efficiency, exclusively, but rather from the impossibility of formulating a Difference between the Set 0 and the Efficiency.

(---Specialized Heuristic Combinations)

1st Reduction of TOE Conjectures (disintegral immortality)

Cross-Disciplinary Studies