THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING NATHAN LARKIN COPPEDGE 2020/01/20 EDITION FROM “SOLUTION TO THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING”, LOCATED ON QUORA.COM BY NATHAN LARKIN COPPEDGE REPRODUCIBLE IF MY NAME STAYS WITH THE WORK FOR EDUCATIONAL AND OTHER PURPOSES THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT INTENTIONALLY MADE AVAILABLE ON USB TO BE DISTRIBUTED IN A PUBLIC AREA PERMISSION IS GRANTED TO KEEP ALL ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS ON RECORD FOR ANY APPLICATION. PROPRIETARY OWNERSHIP IS NOT GRANTED. THESE MATERIALS MUST REMAIN FREE UNDER MY NAME DERIVATIVE WORKS MAY BE PROPRIETARY IF APPLICABLE LAW PERMITS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS NATHAN COPPEDGE IN NO WAY GRANTS OTHERS TO USE HIS CONTENT AS AN EXCLUSIVE BRAND FURTHER MARKETING IS PERMITTED BUT CONDITIONS MUST GRANT SUFFICIENT DIGNITY TO THE AUTHOR THE AUTHOR IS NOT HOMOSEXUAL, IDIOTIC, OR POLITICALLY MOTIVATED. KEEP THAT IN MIND. THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING Nathan Coppedge ( Some credit to John Miller, Brian Coppedge, Yan Yang, Michael Coppedge, Edmund Scarpa, and Jonathan Berkowitz (in addition to Nathan Coppedge) for contributing to the theory). June 26, 2019. Modified September 20, 2019 and Nov 2, 2019. Collected Inventions of Nathan Coppedge Proof / The Inspiration for the Theory of Everything An Assessment of Competing Theories [Coherent Systems 2.B.2.C.3.] INITIAL CRITIQUE OF THEORIES OF EVERYTHING Nicholas Rescher writes of properties which contradict a theory There is a: Principle of sufficient reason: ∀t∃t'(t' E t) where E predicates explanation, so that t' E tdenotes "t' explains t". And a: Comprehensiveness: ∀t(T* E t) And a: Finality: Finality says that as an "ultimate theory", T*has no deeper explanation: ∀t((t E T*)→(t=T*)) so that the only conceivable explanation of T*is T* itself. And a: Noncircularity: ∄t(t E t) Finally, usually there is a: Impasse: The impasse is… that… comprehensiveness and finality… conflict with the fundamental principle of noncircularity. A comprehensive theory which explains everything must explain itself, and a final theory which has no deeper explanation must, by the principle of sufficient reason, have some explanation; consequently it too must be self-explanatory… how, he asks, can a theory adequately substantiate itself? --Theory of everything (philosophy) - Wikipedia RECONSIDERATION: Some years ago I began to get the feeling that equations which are high-minded tend to use efficiency as one of the terms. Little did I know this would be the basis for a theory of everything. Such a theory would have different properties than the above: (1) It would be sufficiently general, therefore it would have externality, CONTRARY TO CIRCULARITY. (2) It would have acceptable maximum efficiency, and would be open to critique, therefore it would be contingently irreplaceable, so it would be AMENABLE, QUA FINAL. (3) It's scope would be so broad that it has a diminishing probability of not describing all things past a certain degree of importance, therefore it has an EXCELSIOR IRREGULARITY OR COMPREHENSIVENESS. (4) It must achieve it's success with extreme consistency and perfection, so to speak flawlessly, which is to say it has an ability to predict successful paradigms, MAKE PARADIGMATIC PREDICTIONS, SO IT HAS SUFFICIENT REASON. The typical problem is not that these properties are circular, but that they are extremely difficult. Now there is an answer. For my answer I focused especially on systems behaviors. THEOREM OF EVERYTHING: Set 0 > Efficiency* + Difference *Where Efficiency sums to < 1 if topic is acted on, and sums to > 1 if topic is acting. STEP-BY STEP PROCESS: Is the phenomena active or instead passive? Is it acting or instead being acted on? If it is active, efficiency will be greater than 1, usually a whole number, if it is passive, efficiency will be made of multiple parts adding up to 1. Now that the efficiency can be determined, what is set 0? What is the number of things acting or acted on, as this is set 0? You may simply use negative, 0, finite, infinite, etc or you may give a specific finite value. Now find the Difference between the Set 0 value and the efficiency, and add it on the end of the equation as the specific difference (like a constant) for that exact problem. Now, assuming the formula makes sense (as it is expressing limits, Set 0 will equal total efficiency + difference), translate the meaning of the efficiency in terms of the difference vis Set 0 to get a Theory of the Subject. EXAMPLES: Perpetual Motion: Heavier mass > 50% of opposing lvg plus un-weighted difference and < 100% of opposing leverage plus un-weighted difference. Objective Knowledge: Coherence selects two comparisons that are not 100% opposite. World Peace: What we should do, is do less, unless we know what to do. Souls: A soul has four parts if the name has two and the difference is two. A typical name has two parts. The difference is two because a full description of two options involves four categories (the name is being treated as the efficiency). To have a value of less than four, the efficiency and difference should result in sections of 1, 0.5, 0.25, and 0, thus the soul is defined by these numbers. Since the difference is always two, each of these values will be multiplied by 2 to equal their efficiency. The first value is 2, which means identical to the first part of the name. The second part is 1, which means the contrary of the second part of the name, the third part is 0.5 which means the result of 2 upon 1. And the fourth part is twice nothing, means reflecting on the opposite of the first part. (This is a direct match with my soul formula found through an independent method). Women: What she prefers matters because she's her. Men: Super-efficient, more than what I do, but I don't do enough. Neutral: No friction. —Anything Theorem … KEY EXAMPLE: If the Topic is Active, you want to maximize the Concern. If the Topic is Passive you want to be different than the dominant concern. Peach Ice cream that is about peaches should add more peaches AND be similar to the competition. Peach flavor that is mostly about ice cream should add more flavors. For physics, Matter that is about energy, with matter being primary, should maximize matter to maximize energy = gravity theory. Matter that is about energy with energy being acted on by matter should instead concern high-energy states, in which case physics is maximized when matter and energy are almost the same, which is like information theory. On the other hand, if the imperative is to find a theory greater than physics, you should always look outside physics. But, if physics is really great, you want to remember the greatest physicist. —Valuable Notes on the Theory of Everything Some credit to John Miller, Brian Coppedge, Yan Yang, Michael Coppedge, Edmund Scarpa, and Jonathan Berkowitz (in addition to Nathan Coppedge) for contributing to the theory. Soul: Analogous Functions. God I'm a fool. TOE Over-Unity Rating: 9 —Over-Unity Formula for TOEs … CRITIQUES (Clarification): There is at least one minor exception, but it comes with a qualification: If a theory of everything can be designed to describe all of X, and X is something that is argued to cover every single thing in the universe, then a theory which covers all of X can be said to be a theory of everything. An example of this is a systemological theory of everything, since everything in the universe is said to be made of systems. Incidentally, the systemological theory of everything has been discovered. [As mentioned above] —(Would a theory of everything have to include all theories of anything?) … (Kantian Approach) There is an exception (to lack of authority)… If the Theory does not tell us what we ought to do, but merely states everything as it is, then we may form an opinion, ethical or otherwise, based on the information it provides. Even so, no such theory would be absolutely immune from criticism, as no such theory would embody absolutely every opinion that ever existed by itself, or not to the point of favoring such opinion above others. Yet again, there is an exception to this, which is a theory of everything. Even so, such a theory would likely be qualified in the way it could be used, and so in the way it is qualified it remains open to judgment. Nor is it likely a real theory of everything would be used for all human purposes, rather it would apply only to the topic of ‘knowledge of anything' and only when other approaches were not preferred, and only when the theory is considered well-qualified. —Is a theory of everything fundamentally wrong from a philosophical perspective? … Possible Accreditation: Another possible source of the Theory of Everything is the climate of my high school, where I vaguely remember things called ‘idea books’ were circulating (1999 - 2000). Although I did not read any of these directly, I may have heard my brother say something about a theory of everything in which “Nothing without efficiency is differentiated.” This might read as 0 - Efficiency = Differentiated. Solving further, it might be interpreted as: Set 0 = Efficiency + Difference. However, it seems odd that Brian may have later attributed the Theory of Everything to someone named John Miller, who I believe to have been somewhat older and not to have been at that high school. Making things more confusing, there may have been several people with names similar to John Miller at the high school, but none with that exact name. Perhaps what Brian meant was Jonathan Berkowitz (already listed on the contributors for the theory, due to his mention of something similar to exponential efficiency circa 2001), but if I search google for ‘Berkowitz theory of everything’ the results do not indicate any well-known theory of everything by someone named Berkowitz. Nor does a search for my brother’s name with TOE turn up anything. —Additional Notes on the Theory of Everything See also: Commentary on Competing TOEs Meta-Theory of Everything Materials Pre-Post Theory of Everything Chart of Solutions for The Theory of Everything TOE Conjectures The Epistemological Theory of Everything An Alternate Usage of The Theory of Everything Further Testing of the Theory of Everything Theory of The Different Animal Theory of The Same Animal Prerequisites for Inventing the Theory of Everything Valuable Notes on the Theory of Everything OU Formula for TOEs Philosophical Statistics Why humans might be 1/10 Absolute Dimensions: Magical Problem-Solving Proofs of Everything Scary Theorems Itemized Systems of Understanding References Coppedge, N. COHERENT PHILOSOPHY SYSTEMS: 256 OMNI-SCIENCES. Various. Coppedge, N. “The Logic of Coherence”. Academia. Coppedge, N. PROGRAMMABLE HEURISTICS. Various. Coppedge, N. SOLUTION TO THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING. Quora dot Com. Retrieved Sept 21, 2019. Coppedge, N. SYSTEMS THEORY. Nathancoppedge.com. Coppedge, Nathan. Southern Connecticut State University 2019-06-26, p.