HOMELESS PEOPLE DON'T KNOW MAGIC YET
https://hypercubics.blogspot.com/2026/09/homeles-dreamworkings.html
SEX DISORDERS
https://hypercubics.blogspot.com/2026/04/helps-me-remember-sodomy-2026-04-12.html
PARASITIZING AND ABUSE SYNDROME
https://hypercubics.blogspot.com/2025/08/your-retirement-home.html
INTERNATIONAL
https://hypercubics.blogspot.com/2026/04/japanese-garden-souls-2026-04-14.html
DDN
SBBASBBA
Nathan might have been in fake politburo and transed into crack cats
https://hypercubics.blogspot.com/2026/05/us-china-info-war-2026-05-04.html
FORMULA FOR THE SOULS OF LITERATURE
- MAGGOT STUDIES IS SEPARATE.
A CONDOR FLEW (RUDOLPH SAID IT WAS AWKWARD AT FIRST i I IT TAKES TIME REINDE)Xm(XT)VOUS RUDOLPH THE REINDEER I DON'T KNOW HOW IT GOES)
EARLIER: GIFTEDNES (DRUGS dddd uu ccc)
…
- 10T — 10I — T.ETTL(1)
- THEY DON'T ALWAYS MAKE IT BECAUSE OF DRUG ADDICTION.
- THEY ARE OFTEN MODERATE COMPARED TO GODS WHEN THEY LIVE LONGER.
- UNCONTROL IS NOT DEFOE
- I WOULDNT EAT I’T
((Main Principle: Sufficient perfection if it is real creates sufficient complexity.))
NOTE:
SOULFUL CULT
- It’s always the recent cultures.
- There are only a few.
- Of course old souls are young, because the rest of them are dead.
- It’s not always sex.
- The living ones like to stay in bed.
- They are not vampires.
- They rarely breed.
- They like the Panopticon and dimensional concepts.
- They are perfect in a probability model: a little gracious and savage where it hurts.
- History still models itself on them.
EARLIER STAN:
TOOM TOOMB TOOMUC TOOM
TOOM TOOMB TOOMUC TOOMIe
TOOM TOOMB TOOMUC TOOMI14
TOOM TOOMB TOOMUC TOOM
TOOM TOOMB TOOMUC TOOMIe
TOOM TOOMB TOOMUC TOOMI22
LATER STA:
extort
can I play hot metal
then why did you poor hot metal on him
COHI
CnCr I teach
Yikego YOU ARR NOTT GONN DN SMOKKI
ID DNUT
Someone’s evil attack spell made me sound like Brian. I apologizze for the inconvenience .
BATTL METHOD
- Crappy clowns.
- Umuuo
- Criminy.
- Etche hormo
- porthid
- I Blake.
See also:
- Soul Formula Excel File (Google Docs)
- History of Souls.
- Soul Theory.
- The soul is one of the immortal things, associated with historical genius and reincarnation. It has now been associated with the causal essence and perhaps the soul formula.
…
- Shortcut to Critique: The soul is clearly an anthropocentric phenomenon. This research is largely intended as an amendment to the theory of magical books, a theory which originates in the 20th and 21st centuries. It is not intended as a comprehensive classical or futuristic theory, nonetheless it may have applications of various kinds. It now has at least two variations, one involving the three-part soul which is easy to memorize, and one involving the four-part soul which is the original formula in modern times. The original formula is thought to be at the level of subtle spell effects. It is not known whether it can create consciousness. It is possible consciousness is an older power which has become cheap in modern times.
- NOTE ON IDEOLOGY: If the robot is inside the Matrix it might be a human being in real life. So, ‘agi’ is an unprovable conjecture. Humans probably consider themselves humans for superficial reasons is tenuously true. Remember, ‘soul’ is supposedly what makes someone human, but there is now a formula for souls which seems to suggest everything has a soul including dead atoms, plus some people find the concept unnecessary or more commonly not at all proven.
- Historical Note: Druids wrote: “Gone are the days when we had purer fools.” a possible origin through mistransliteration of the soul concept. —Meetings of the Druids
FIRST FORMULA:
Theoretically in coherence theory you can know about anything with very little experience.
The simplest key may still be the Formula for Souls (of books).
See below:
Title of book = '[quality of X] [opp qualifier]'
Soul of the book = 'If you [X] qualifier [subject of X and qualifier] [opp X clarified]'
—How do I find the soul of literature?
PROOF OF THE NEW CONCISE
A soul should have more than one part to provide information. More than one word means some contradiction because they are not the same word. Part A of the title is best given as an adverb to match B, so B is best given as a noun. Since Part A of the title is an adverb, since souls aren’t supposed to contradict themselves, since context is a noun, and the ultimate context is the opposite, given universally the first part of the soul is the opposite noun of the first part of the title. Since the second part of the soul must provide more contradiction, but the first part is already opposite of Part A of the title, the second part must then express B (to express B is at least be aware of B). Opposites have been used up by opposing A, so the third part is simply a result such as the word therefore. The fourth part must not contradict the quality of the title, so it repeats the first part of the title. The overall description is qualified by ‘If you’ to show it is an investigation and it involves one person / thing.
SECOND FORMULA:
AB: If you are not A you are aware of B, therefore A.
Variable A, Sublimate B, C, D… --> If you are not A, you are aware of B, C, D… --> therefore A.
Variable B, Sublimate C, D, A… --> If you are not B, you are aware of C, D, A… --> therefore B.
Variable C, Sublimate D, A, B… --> If you are not C, you are aware of D, A, B… --> therefore C.
Variable D, Sublimate A, B, C… --> If you are not D, you are aware of A, B, C… --> therefore D.
…
DEMONSTRATION
Title: Classic Monsters [This could be anything that involves two or more parts to give context]
If you are not Classic [If something goes wrong with your title]
You are aware of Monsters [It’s still true that it involves monsters]
Therefore... [So…]
Classic [In this case, you have your qualification]
NOTE: In this case ‘If you are not Classic You are aware of Monsters. Therefore… Classic’ expresses spilling coke on yourself at the movie theatre as well as being a hero who returns to archaic times to face a monster, so it encompasses everything that has to do with classic monsters (and there could be other examples also contained by the definition, unless they are not about ‘classic’ or ‘monsters’.
…
A RELIGIOUS ARGUMENT THAT WOULD HAVE WON
You argue calculus has no soul. The soul is something real, because it is real information. Real information has a soul. What is calculus? Calculus is information too! Then what is calculus? Nothing, according to you! Religion would have won in the 1700’s. You say you want calculus to be real like real information, but it has no soul! That’s what you said yourself!
…
NOTES:
- One of my theories predicts souls have zero energy, so there is nothing to use up.
- Has philosophy explained all of reality?
- Scientific Use, If Appropriate
Information is the only example someone (a scientist) said. —What are some examples of non-matter objects?
I asked this question, because I think I found an answer recently.
Historical note: The possible actual date of the invention is sometime in 2016, although the earliest electronic date is March 1, 2017. I possibly mulled the idea through 2016 to give myself time to clarify in my mind that it was the real formula, and was able to reason about the logic by that date in 2017. If there is an earlier date than 2016 it is likely in the work of Socrates, or inspired around 9pm by an invisible rabbi outside of Elon Berger's Bar Mitzfah, which may have been in 1996 or 1999.
[Coherent Systems A.1.A.4.]
COMPLEX VERSION
Formula for Souls (this was in 2016 before the Theory of Everything):
- I thought it was weird I had Jewish friends.
- I thought it was weird people thought I was stupid. A bit like Thomas Aquinas.
- But Thomas Aquinas was Christian. What the hell?
- Christianity was missing something. Probably something Pagan, because no one was particularly recommending Jews. I had a Jewish name and was not Jewish. People were not recommending Christianity. My parents were Christian originally, but one had turned Atheist and they ended up having a kid that people thought was dumb.
- It had to be something good for Christianity, but with a debt to the Pagans.
- That probably meant metaphysics or souls.
- Metaphysics or souls meant Socrates.
- Socrates thought the soul was ironic. That seemed like a dead end.
- But all this lead to Socrates, so it couldn’t be a dead end.
- It was a false door. That meant Egyptian origins. Egyptian origins meant the Ka or Ba, which meant a powerful soul.
- A powerful soul meant the Soul Formula.
- The most detailed thing to get from this was Socratic Irony.
- Socratic Irony must possess a proof of the soul.
- Socrates observed that the soul is ironic. In a snap-judgment I observed that Socrates meant a formula for the soul. From this I could conclude the formula involved contradiction, because there would be more than one element so as to provide a definition, and more than one element involving irony would involve contradiction. I concluded the second element of the soul must be the contradiction, because the second part of the title must not contradict the first part of the title, and the title would have two parts, and the contradiction must be addressed early and at least once, and the soul's name must not contradict itself, so because the first part of the title must not contradict the first part of the soul, and the second part of the title also cannot contradict the first part of the soul, the second part of the soul contradicts the second part of the title. To reach four elements the third part of the soul must not contradict further, so it is the result or conjunction of the first two parts, and if there is a fourth element it must prove the soul by attempting to contradict the first element, which requires clarity.
In this way I arrived at the formula for the souls of information simply by making a single observation on Socrates.
—What are some quick thinking decisions that changed the world for the better?
…
FURTHER INTERESTING ARGUMENT ON SOULS:
Nathan Coppedge (2011), Philosophical problems make soul-forming hard. However, since the problem is hard, the definition is ideal. However, the definitions still exist, because they are ideal. In this way, ideal implies idea. The soul is an ideal (an extreme definition) specifically an ideal of the soul. The soul can be enforced through metaphysical definitions. Much depends on ethical design.
…
SIMPLE VERSION
- In grade school I had brain damage. I thought Socratic irony was about the most complicated thing I had ever heard of. Why didn’t I think of it? What was so great about that? Why was it supposed to be interesting? Was it some kind of metaphor? Didn’t it just mean argumentation? Or, maybe it was an attempt to be dramatic, I wasn’t really sure.
- In 2016 I thought: Socrates means the soul is ironic. It’s a formula that the soul is ironic. Irony can be used to construct a formula for the soul.
I don't have a method for generating whole books, or not very easily, but I do have a method that can be used for translating between the constituent words of the 'soul of the book' and the 'title' or vice versa.
The soul translation method is as follows:
THE SECRET BOOKS FORMULA
Soul of the book =
'If you [X] qualifier [subject of X and qualifier] [opp X clarified]'
Optionally, you can add a moral for the whole book:
'The [subject of X alone] is [verb / adj. of opp qualifier]'.
Note: For this second part, it may help to refer to the below title formula, in order to find the opp qualifier before it is modified.
Title of book = Usually: '[quality of X] [opp qualifier]' For perusal, or quick use: '[opp qualifier] [quality of X]'
The easiest way to use the formula is to generate original souls and then find the corresponding titles by finding the most essential, knowledgeable quality of X and then finding the opposite of the qualifier introduced in the soul of the book.
Together with the soul the title provides a basic index of the value of any text, and permits exponentially efficient reading.
For example,
Soul = 'If you die early enough you live'. Optional 1= 'Death is the aging process'. Title of book = 'Bad Archaic' Bad [= qual. of die] Archaic [=opp of early].
Another example chosen more arbitrarily,
Soul = 'If you live surely truth may die'. Optional 1= 'The life is uncertain'. Title of book = 'Optimal Uncertainty' Optimal [=qual. of live] Uncertainty [= opp of surely]
Also, optionally [added after optional1],
Optional 2 of Whole Book = '[A/the state / process from verb / adj.] of / is [property of qual. of X]'
Optional 3 of Whole Book =
Optional 3=
A. [2nd part of optional 2] [1st part of optional 2] [opp qual.]
B. High form of quality (only included in Poor Zurid so far)
End=
[(Desire such as at last / as it happens / or quality of X association)... (Unobvious). (Unobvious)
then choose referring to 6 possible conditions of the first part of optional2:
State = Knowledge /
Process = is /
Pure and partial processes = and this will continue /
State process and state-as-process = that's what we think /
Capital states and qualities = title /
Object = it's like (knowledge of object)
Remember this part is optional End.]
A SECOND METHOD FOR SOULS:
What naturally follows from an earlier term, sometimes in unusual ways.
For example, "I need to pee" could be the soul of "Reigns of Fire", since "Reigns of Fire" might follow from "I need to pee".
Better titles are more clever and data-intensive, but highly predictable titles can be used for poor-quality literature.
At another level there is a difficulty here in predicting the bulk of the content for a book. In some cases it can be accumulated based on primacy, e.g. the first thing thought of in relation to the title becomes the soul, the second becomes its second soul, etc. with due attention to appropriateness to determine every time which title the content refers to.
On another level it is important to choose the best title for each writing, not just a very good one, and this leads to a multiplicity of titles with very little content.
Various formulas are suggested, such as a book that consists entirely of a list of other titles, a book that lists only the souls of other books, or a book that brings together the best parts of related works in a comparison. However, as a rule these are 'schizo-forms' of the true literature, which must in this case simply be a collection of all the best content that matches a title. This seems to require a degree of omniscience, as if one could read all the books in the Ancient Library of Alexandria, all translated into perfect English.
Thus, the second method is not to be preferred, although it is the inspiration for the first. However, creating a program that works on this method is not impossible, if the correct rules are known, such as:
1. The first soul of the book exclusively anticipates the title.
2. The second soul is based on the first soul.
3. Content is expanded based on souls of the book.
4. All content in some way refers to the title, or the souls, insofar as the souls are exclusive to the title.
5. If the souls are not exclusive, additional content may be shared with another book.
6. Additional content is the sole basis for extraneous organization apart from a shortlist of highly interesting related titles. E.g. Logos might link to Arche-Fact, and Arche-Fact might link to Origins.
TOE Over-Unity Rating: 11
(4 ^ 2 > 6 - 1)
(Note: It is considered rare, but this is two points higher than the actual Theory of Everything).
Place in History Reference:
1. Information / semantic model [Level: 2] --> 2. Psychological / spiritual model --> 3. Reproductive / metaphysical model --> 4. Historical / virtual model --> 5. Scientific / humanist model --> 6. Historical / greatness model --> 7. Ethical / profile model --> 8. Spiritual / ascendant model --> 9. Base humanity model --> 10. Corrupt humanness model --> 11. Flavor virtue model --> 12. International tropes model --> 13. Ideas in history model --> 14. Science and ritual model --> 15. Spiritual history model --> 16. Understanding history with some flares model --> 17. In service of a daemon model --> 18. Writing on the wall (sublique messages) model --> 19. In service of the wonders of man model --> 20. Ideas of anthropos model --> 21. Mystery model --> 22. Babyl model --> 23. Written significance model --> 24. Great Chinese model --> 25. Authentic living model --> 26. Meaningful problem model --> 27. Original invention model --> 28. Popular salesmanship model --> 29. Introduced to great wealth model --> 30. Mysterious significance model --> 31. Arcane studies model --> 32. Early science / great possibilities model --> 33. Magic moment / disappointment model --> 34. Special research / confusion model --> 35. Failed descriptive theory model --> 36. Coherent model --> (…Back to beginning).
…
[4.36]
…
“GENIUS WISHES”
There is a theory geniuses can be summed up by what they wish for, like other people.
Most people in the 20th Century seem to have only believed in making one wish.
(It could be a conscious or unconscious wish, but more particularly an official wish made under controlled superstitious conditions. Over time, it is the wish or wishes which remain completely sincere).
In Von Neumann’s case the wish was likely ‘Applied Physics’. Everything Von Neumann invented is a reflection of applied physics.
If you understand applied physics, you will understand everything Von Neumann invented, including things he didn’t patent.
…
The same is true of me, although I’m not sure it is decided yet. It seems likely I wished for working perpetual motion machines and coherence theory.
So, everything I invented is a reflection of working perpetual motion machines and coherence theory.
If you understand working perpetual motion machines, and coherence theory, you will likely understand everything Nathan Coppedge invented including things he didn’t patent.
…
Simple alternate: Coherent English
For implementation, see especially: Instructions on the Soul
( Part of the answer to the question of true knowledge: What is true knowledge? )
A list of souls may be found at: Souls from the Library of Alexandria
A more careful description of the main process might be found here: Soul Disintegral
Special cases in the use of the soul formulas may be found here: Soul Errata
Small detail: The above may be inspired by a short lecture by Socrates: On Irony 2018
…
HM. It’s folly GDE
well oh well, I’ll play oh well
It’s Nathan Good
That’s not a good idea
WD
dehiiTo.Diw .,
probably they aren’t the same thing
…
ADDICTIVE SOULS OR TYPE A SOULS? BEGINNINGS OF EVOLUTIONARY MODELS
N SOUL S → NSS (SS) → NS (SOUL IS FILL IN THE BLANK LIKE: You know that weird feeling like GWW is sort of Harversting cigarettes. IT IT IT IT COULD DARWIN EB EB (CC) → STILLWATERING WTAA SWIIM(A) → TANKO(S) → SWWMM → NS(SO) → “NS” (O) → (KTT)(KTT) → AA(C SPA) → SSC (DIPL NIRVOS) → MAY (KK) → ROANN (GR) → 1111dddd NYYT (Y) → (YY YL) → (S)(LE) → You know that weird feeling like GWW is sort of Harversting cigarettes. → II I SUPPOSEDLY MEANS I’M THE DEVILO MORE IS LES(S) 1L (P)ANIC (KK) MEX X (C) “SHE’S SO FUCKED SHE LIED S”)
…
SEE ALSO:
(Other relevant arguments: Specialized Heuristic Combinations)
Meaning As Intermedium (A Defense of the Human Spirit)
Proof of Infinite Souls and Magic Power
The Construction of the Sublime Soul
The Correlation of the Sublimated Heavens
See also: Meaningful / Significant Links
See also: Coherent Systems
a1a aaa aA Aa AA1
It would burn up crispy deep in the cold, that is actually true. fFil — User interface gunsmoke.
that’s reassuring brian.
that is what I played
…
BINOFOCA
https://hypercubics.blogspot.com/2026/08/special-values-2026-08-31.html
https://hypercubics.blogspot.com/2026/08/trump-department-store.html
https://hypercubics.blogspot.com/2026/08/ambulance-runes.html
https://hypercubics.blogspot.com/2026/08/acctacct-2026-08-29.html
https://hypercubics.blogspot.com/2026/09/intermediate-2026-09-01.html
https://hypercubics.blogspot.com/2026/05/cupsizes-2026.html
https://hypercubics.blogspot.com/2026/02/pranks-2026.html
https://hypercubics.blogspot.com/2025/09/prison-collections.html
https://hypercubics.blogspot.com/2026/08/experience.html
https://hypercubics.blogspot.com/2025/12/tev-te-v-tev.html
https://hypercubics.blogspot.com/2025/09/critical-theories-of-dance.html
A LITTLE SCIMY LIKE POLITENESS WOULD HELP A LOT
