METAPHYSICAL ARGUMENTS CONCERNING UNIVERSAL MECHANICS (PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINES) If the universe exists now, time is likely eternal, for there is no reason to have a definite concept of the beginning unless it is the creation of time, which implies the timeless before it, which in turn implies either variation in concepts or other time streams, or literally nothing outside the universe. So, the only way to deny time is to create time or other concepts. If it is not possible to break physics laws, but physics laws are specific, then there may be variation in physics laws, because there may be other specific laws. If it is not possible to break physics laws, but physics laws are general, then since this means the universe is never destroyed, it also means that time is eternal or other concepts of the universe may exist. Thus, there is no alternative to perpetual motion: either the universe itself is eternal, or the laws of physics may vary. Exponential efficiency may be a new idea. There is no real rule against new ideas. Likewise, there is no real rule against value and meaning. I may have been the first to apply exponential efficiency. First, in the concept of categorical deduction from 2002 - 2013, and second in the concept of working perpetual motion from 2016. There are others who have done similar things. I probably did not invent the lever, or Adam Smith’s concept of the invisible hand. There are numerous computer algorithms that may have used such a concept, although I don’t have much evidence of that. Standard analogies and Venn diagrams are still preferred in schools for the time being, but they are not exponentially efficient, and thus they have no real claim to knowledge (the efficiency of a Venn diagram is debatable, because it takes place in terms of ‘express disrelations’ which sounds a lot like incoherence. Besides, it is not fully coherent unless it includes only one loop with an appropriate label, or this begs the question of the inclusion of all labels, so it seems to be either largely arbitrary since not all relations might be expressed in terms of Venn, or not complex because of having only a single label). Polar opposites are the maximal point of contradiction. These contradictions are less and less important with larger and larger sets. However, for mere humans it may be desirable to draw conclusions from a four-category diagram because that is where negating the negative is maximized, and where word choice is least important, due to the small number of words relative to negating the negative. If only contradiction is contradictory, this seems to assume that values could be valuable unless they are contradictory. If physics is ethical, it would permit values. If physics is not ethical, perpetual motion might not be ethical either, but one way for perpetual motion not to be ethical is to break the conventions of physics. Fortunately, this is not a problem, since physics itself is unethical, unless physics permits values. If death is permitted for good people, this says physics is not ethical. If physics is not ethical, perpetual motion is permitted. Either good people are immortal, or perpetual motion is possible, or both! Coppedge, Nathan / SCSU 2017/04/09, p.