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:
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.
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.
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 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 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
No comments:
Post a Comment