THE INSPIRATIONS FOR THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING [2021-01-23 EDITION] NATHAN LARKIN COPPEDGE 2020/09/01 EDITION FROM “THE INSPIRATIONS FOR THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING”, LOCATED ON BLOGSPOT AND QUORA.COM RETITLED “THE INSPIRATIONS AND PROOFS FOR THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING”. 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 INSPIRATIONS AND PROOFS FOR THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING Nathan Larkin Coppedge The new simple explanation is the Theory first came about as a technique for not crashing into the Great Colossus: Colossus Explanation 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. A quicker-and-easier argument is at: Higher Logic Methodology MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING 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 when X meant the minimum counterweight mass and D meant the leverage range. So, now there was evidence that it worked! I was now forced to find a more general formula which meant D wasn't D any more, it was a combination of D and leverage range. And 2 (x - 1) wasn't 2 (x -1) anymore, it was the more general efficiency plus difference. 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! Theory of Everything OTHER INSPIRATIONS FOR THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING THE TOE OF THE COLOSSUS Also called the Colossus Explanation. November 1, 2020 Illustration is a story from Nathan's work from 2011, reproduced here for educational purposes: THE MERCHANT BENEATH THE COLOSSUS There was a merchant once who sook the protection of a giant; Only the giant was a statue; The famous bronze legs spanned a small harbour; Ships could enter there, and in an alcove by one of the green strides he docked his boat, safe from all ordinary thieves; His wares were various, not spectacular to just anyone; He might have silk or papyrus, but not on every trip; His trade procured him mostly bronze coins, which he exchanged at a money dealer for pieces of silver; He was somewhat rich, but the population thought of him in a different conspicuousness, as the merchant who parked his boat under the colossus; It was peculiar how often, upon glancing down the harbor, their eyes noticed his sloop drifting in the quay, and not the colossus itself; There might be several lighter vessels joined by thrifty ropes; During the night sometimes they would carouse, and lanterns could be seen glowing from the shore; Perhaps one of these parties caused his ship to burn; After some point he was not seen again, and the villagers would say it like a proverb, That he was not so great as the colossus; Perhaps it was fire unto fire … The point I intended to make was the TOE might be traced back to theories about not crashing into The Colossus: first, be proficient with your ship, then create a distance from the Colossus. Therefore Efficiency + Difference. NATHAN’S ANALOGY WITH IDEOSCAPES Now also posted under Solutions to Monster Problems. Honestly I do not remember any supreme formal result on this yet but I will try. One approach has it dimensions are the way of measuring all things. Formulas using dimensions connect to the great unifying path of the continuum of all dimensions (Flatland). A second approach has it that the dimensions are visual not mathematical, and one ‘Great Datum' connects all visual representations, using all meaning, taken as universal understanding (Visual History). A third approach has it things are connected by beauty or standards, which leads to favoring efficiency on a similar level to dimensions. This results in some interesting discoveries like exponential efficiency (Quantum Leap). Fourthly, it is thought categories are mostly vertical, and simply measured in some way. This may be the purest method, with most overlap between symbols and mathematics. This leads to an interface based approach which is meta-systematic. After that, the tools become easier to use and philosophy, science, and games are now similar disciplines (Meta Computing). The conjecture which emerges from this is that boldness, contrast, and differences are important. Those are best seen to be differences, so all categories can be viewed horizontally (Rarified Meaning). Since all categories are vertical, the horizontal will form any shape if it equals any type of difference (Archetypal Significance). If we assume differences are quantitative, any horizontal can be created (Magic Wand Theorem). If we assume vertical measures are complete for each category, the vertical completes all other dimensions (Quantity-Quality Synthesis). If exponential efficiency is the key to standards of efficiency, which summarize visual relationships and universal knowledge as in the second and third approach, then efficiency may be what is meant by content in the vertical dimension, as the product of standards might be summarized as but one type of efficiency, so standards might mean all efficiencies, but not all of most things (Efficient Analysis). Therefore, since the vertical and horizontal together represent all things (Exponential Efficiency Analysis), The Theory of Everything can be represented by: Results > Efficiency* + Difference, where it has been observed efficiency sums to < 1 when topic is acted on, and efficiency sums to > 1 when topic is acting (Observation of Over-Unity). (Note: I first reached the Formula explicitly on June 26, 2019, although others may have done so before hand). SOLUTION TO A MONSTER PROBLEM One approach has it dimensions are the way of measuring all things. Formulas using dimensions connect to the great unifying path of the continuum of all dimensions (Flatland). A second approach has it that the dimensions are visual not mathematical, and one ‘Great Datum’ connects all visual representations, using all meaning, taken as universal understanding (Visual History). A third approach has it things are connected by beauty or standards, which leads to favoring efficiency on a similar level to dimensions. This results in some interesting discoveries like exponential efficiency (Quantum Leap). Fourthly, it is thought categories are mostly vertical, and simply measured in some way. This may be the purest method, with most overlap between symbols and mathematics. This leads to an interface based approach which is meta-systematic. After that, the tools become easier to use and philosophy, science, and games area now similar disciplines (Meta Computing). The conjecture which emerges from this is that boldness, contrast, and differences are important. Those are best seen to be differences, so all categories can be viewed horizontally (Rarified Meaning). Since all categories are vertical, the horizontal will form any shape if it equals any type of difference (Archetypal Significance). If we assume differences are quantitative, any horizontal can be created (Magic Wand Theorem). If we assume vertical measures are complete for each category, the vertical completes all other dimensions (Quantity-Quality Synthesis). If exponential efficiency is the key to standards of efficiency, which summarize visual relationships and universal knowledge as in the second and third approach, then efficiency may be what is meant by content in the vertical dimension, as the product of standards might be summarized as but one type of efficiency, so standards might mean all efficiencies, but not all of most things (Efficient Analysis). Therefore, since the vertical and horizontal together represent all things (Exponential Efficiency Analysis), The Theory of Everything can be represented by: Results > Efficiency* + Difference, where it has been observed efficiency sums to < 1 when topic is acted on, and efficiency sums to > 1 when topic is acting (Observation of Over-Unity). (Note: I first reached the Formula explicitly on June 26, 2019, although others may have done so before hand). VALUABLE NOTES ON THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING June 27, 2019. Revised September 20, 2019 and April 23, 2020. It’s like compounding a relative difference relative to something. —Nathan Coppedge, Submission at Sideways Dictionary NEW CLARIFICATION: • About half of results follow the ‘active formula' which is: Set 0 is Set 0 efficiency + the difference, plus something more. • Roughly another quarter have a passive formula indicating efficiency <1 and only one component of efficiency, leaving Set 0 is about 2X efficiency. • Roughly the remaining 1/4 have multiple subset efficiencies, but efficiency is passive, thus Set 0 is about 2X efficiency but efficiency is a compound of multiple subsert efficiencies, which typically add up to 1. • If there is an exception it might be if infinite values are used, so infinite values are not the most convenient for calculation. However, a full range of types of results can be shown here: Chart of Solutions for The Theory of Everything OLDER NOTES: • Well, I did spend several years on it for what it's worth. Now I think it might be my Dad’s idea, or someone else’s so I have listed a bunch of possibly unwilling co-authors. • Apparently some scientists and other intelligent people have thought about this (theory) before, but I had not heard the same ideas expressed as a grand-unified theory, although it may be that that was implied by what I heard other people say, particularly my Dad, my brother, and John Miller. 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. … Also stated as Null > Efficiency* + Difference Note: by July 2020 I have found Result > Efficiency* + Difference may be the best expression. Or, Topic > Concern* + Difference, where concerns have greater quantity than 1 if topic is active, less than one quantity if topic is acted on, and where the difference is between the passive topic and the topic acting on it if the topic is passive, OR the active topic and the concern if the topic is active. … Would the Theory of Everything be circular reasoning? (1) It would be sufficiently general so as to have externality, (2) It would not be formally self-referential, (which is what is meant by circularity) so it would be a different animal. —Theory of The Different Animal … Ethics: Ambiguous? We still have to do record keeping … Sometimes less than can be better efficiency, but it implies being passive. —What energy equations are needed to accurately describe space? You'll know everything when boogey nights is funny ---M Coppedge … WHAT DID THE CONTRIBUTORS CONTRIBUTE? Nathan Larkin Coppedge • May have been the first to publish the theory as an academic theory. • Key insight that the Theory of Everything is held in common between equations for clever mechanics and objective knowledge. • If someone else arrived at the same theory it might imply they had also done extensive work on exponential engineering and coherence theory. • Perhaps the only one interested in expressing the theory linguistically and diagrammatically rather than just mathematically. • Downsides: Not much academic experience, somewhat late-arriving, philosophical theory. John Miller (it also seems possible his name is Michael Miller or David Miller) • In approximate date 2007 said: I'll tell you about the theory of everything: it's different with a difference. Said he had confidence in his theory, said it would be hard to figure out based on his description alone. • I’m not sure if this is John H. Miller, but if so he is a complexity theorist (seniority factor). • It could be argued someone with a physics or mathematics background would have much better mathematical knowledge than Nathan Coppedge. • Downsides: Not much information available at all. Hard to give the guy credit. Some of what was thought to be expressed may have been added through interpretation. David Ury and Ken Tanaka (brothers) • Ury and Tanaka contributed to the concept of Everybody Dies, which was a scientific joke theory of everything and preserved the initials ‘ED’. • It is thought the initials may partly been suggested by Nathan Coppedge, who was one of the people consulted for the name of the book. • Tanaka claimed someone else, possibly his brother Ury, had suggested the same title. • Tanaka recognizes his brother Ury as the greater genius (maybe he was being polite, I don’t know, I’m not sure I ever spoke with Ury). • Perhaps that the brothers were joking suggested a kind of confidence regarding the significance of their book, but this could be true of a book on death as well. • Downsides: Although they have a published book, it is mostly about death, not coherence theory. Brian Larkin Coppedge • According to Nathan, who hallucinates and has some possible delusions, in the 1990’s Brian Coppedge anticipates the mathematics of physical identity, which Nathan did not reach until 2021 (Super Disintegral). This may imply Brian had the Theory of Everything before 2000. • Said, I know a theory of everything, it is what John somebody says. I forget his name. • Said, whatever theory it is, it probably involves philosophy. • Said, exponential efficiency probably involves a straight exponent or some type of combination. • Downsides: Although seemingly very smart, many of Brian’s statements are ambiguous or deny that he has such a theory. Martin Popplewell • Popplewell’s online writings seem to date from 2019, two months prior to Nathan’s official writing on the TOE. But upon rereading, those writings are not any more clear than things said by John Miller around 2007. However, Nathan’s scheme involving the letters ED dates to ten years earlier than Popplewell’s online writing. However, it is not clear that the letters ED were completely Nathan’s idea, they may have been thought of independently by others, perhaps primarily Ury and Tanaka (who published in 2011). Making things more complicated, Nathan witnessed his brother Brian share a similar theory to the TOE in 2001, perhaps in conjunction with Yan Yang, however Brian does not seem to remember the event, and it may have been Nathan’s hallucination, as Nathan was beginning to hallucinate in that exact year. Popplewell’s influence at that point was unknown to me, and it is not completely clear to me that Popplewell thought of the exact theory, it may be an example of an elaborate mental forgery. • Popplewell claims to be immortal, suggesting perhaps he could have broader influence than so far indicated. • Popplewell mentions a scheme to educate the public about a TOE by concealing information in popular books, he has also appeared many times on television likely even before the year 2000. • Downsides: Popplewell’s materials don’t clearly cite an actual formula for a TOE, unless perhaps if he is the author of ‘God is Red’ mentioned later. Some have pointed out although he resisted a TOA, Stephen Hawking may have hinted at such a theory and could have seniority on John Miller: Stephen Hawking Theory of Anything Yan Yang • Said, some type of efficiency is possible, I can tell you that. • “The Chinese for skippety doo-da is really complicated.” —YY, 1990’s approx. This turned out to be on target for a complex view of the full TOE. • Downsides: YY doesn’t seem to have a theory, or is not sharing it. Michael Coppedge • Said, the answer to anything is just the opposite made different. • Said, there are coherent theories, at least some, like Venn diagrams, yeah, and math sometimes probably. • Downsides: Professor Coppedge, while educated, denies that he has a right to define physical theories. It could be that Coppedge is not interested primarily in coherence, and would deny the value of a theory which does not derive from actual data. Edmund Scarpa • Said, there are eight perfect systems maybe ten. • Said, every time I try to develop a coherent mathematics I give up in despair, but I swear one exists. • Downsides: Although a skilled educator, Scarpa has expressed disappointment about his ability to find related theories. Jonathan Berkowitz • Said, you know what I would think is amazing? Exponential permutation. Exponential permutation requires some kind of amazing genius, like beyond amazing. It seems like it would require some special efficiency. • Downsides: Berkowitz seems not to have found any cases. Vine Deloria Jr. • Author of “God is Red” published 1994, well before Nathan was interested in coherence theory or had even read much philosophy, but still two years after Nathan’s first inklings about perpetual motion. • Ascribes importance to the term ‘red’. • ‘RED’ may be an acronym for the Theory of Everything Nathan came up with: Results >= Efficiency* + Difference. • Downsides: Not clear what ‘God’ means in this context. In Nathan’s imagination it could be connection between perpetual motion machines and the TOE, however, this is likely not what the book is about. Could this be part of Popplewell’s hoax? Why would Popplewell write an entire book about Native Americans just to communicate a scientific theory while mentioning God in the title? … *—Note: Rationalism is not currently considered science except by some social scientists and Platonists. By the way, my Dad has not officially endorsed my theory of everything in case you're wondering, but I have named him as a contributor and he said he felt honored. ---Will gravity (eventually) bring everything back together? 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. … Possible Earlier Sources of a T.O.E. Hegelian Philosophy Gotthard Gunther Last Theorems MAGICAL INSPIRATION 2017 A writing in The Enchanter's Journal, a book by Coppedge on April 12, 2017 shows signs of an unconscious formulation: "Ways to channel [I.e. 'set'] magic should not be ignored [interpreted ethically this could mean magical results should be limited to a superstitious value of zero]." "Many a wizard has lost [efficient] power by ignoring his natural instincts [for efficiency], and avoiding the moments in which they strike him [efficiently, like the hand of a clock]." "For example, I forgot that some of my stronger [additional] spells came [after] moving my hands..." "...It might be [D]ifferent for another caster." This suggests all the necessary elements of The Theory of Everything: Set 0, Efficiency, addition and difference, but dates to two years and two months before the official theory was recorded. THE RIDDLE 2013 I thought that if someone filled in a word in this sentence, the word that best fit would indicate something about reality's ultimates: Princip-puzzle, this way comes, breathing doors and ________ halls. I later learned "princip-puzzle" probably refers to the below image: []+C| (Published in The Book of Uniques (2013) by Coppedge). IT'S THAT 'SYMBOL' It turns out if 'tattered' is placed in the space, that comes to mean me, as I have been compared to boobs and ears. However, I am not an ordinary boob, so I substitute the third part of the symbol (corresponding to 'tattered halls') with the Coppedge Curve. However, Coppedge Curve can be abbreviated to mean difference. Since the first part is like a square, that likely means the standard part, like null or control (or I later learned, Set 0). The second part represented by a line could be translated as difference with a difference, similar to exponents (extra dimensions) so it could mean efficiency. Thus, the haunting expression could mean The Theory of Everything, when 'tattered' is inserted and means Nathan. I wondered though if other better answers existed and this problem hadn't really been solved yet. FURTHER EXPLANATION OF THE ORIGIN OF ‘EVERYBODY DIES’ January 6, 2020, possibly copied from an earlier post on my other blog. The book called Everybody Dies which is sometimes called a theory of everything was published in 2011. I remember now that I communicated with the authors around that time or up to two years earlier with an idea as a suggestion for their title. The reason this makes sense is that 2009 was the year I told myself to remember ‘everything happened'. This was because I had plastered my walls with symbols looking for a deeper intellectual symbolism. One of these symbols was a symbol I thought represented alchemy which was like a horizontal transformation. I thought about the symbol and concluded it was the only hope for the theory of everything, and probably involved the letters E and D. When the authors of a book asked me for a suggestion for a book about death designed for scientists, I suggested Everybody Dies because I thought that this title would preserve the letters ‘E’ and ‘D’ which were my only clue on the Theory of Everything at that point. However the authors said to me, surprisingly they had already been thinking in the same direction. I suggested Everybody Dies as the title for the book, for several reasons. The book was supposed to be shocking. I used the letters I thought represented the theory of everything, and everybody dies sounded like a theory of everything to scientists, and the book was for scientists, so this provided an alibi that others believed a different theory. Also, my memory was awful, and a sensational title would help me remember. If the subject seemed like a theory of everything to scientists this would also help me remember and also help me locate the book later so that I could remember. I had to take a gamble that no one would be inspired to think of the same theory, so I chose a title with two words because my formula was already determined to involve three, so I would have evidence others didn’t have the same formula. After all, why omit a whole one-third of the Theory of Everything? That could sound stupid. But in the code language, the missing thing was zero, which was supposed to remind me that the other side of the equals was similar to null. If scientists believed that everybody dies that would be similar to entropy, which is non-zero. With this argument in hand, I was confident I could invent the Theory of Everything if I wanted to, I just had to do it in the next 50 years. Then I thought If they could not personify their title that was like they weren't the true authors, but if they did personify it, then it sounded like they thought it could die. In a way that seemed obvious to the scientists which meant they believed the theory. Meanwhile I knew a theory of everything that was not immortal was not a true theory, which was obvious to me. On these grounds I felt more confident that at least I was playing the game well, which in my experience was a good sign. Whoever’s Theory it was, I was not able to locate mathematical evidence until June 26, 2019. The Theory took the form: Set 0 > Efficiency* + Difference, where efficiency is < 1 where topic is acted on, and > 1 where topic is acting. DATED MATERIAL / THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ‘EVERYBODY DIES’ BOOK There was a debate about who originated the Theory of Everything. Ken Tanaka's book used the letters E and D and appeared to refer to a Theory of Everything, but not everyone sees the connection as explicitly a reference to efficiency and difference. Everybody Dies (tm) is from June 2011, only slightly later than Nathan's thoughts about the inspiring alchemical symbol which came long before Nathan's Theory of Everything. Therefore it could be seen that Nathan borrowed The Theory of Everything in part from the initials for Everybody Dies. In fact, on several occasions, explicit references were made in Nathan's presence to how Everybody Dies should be translated as a Theory of Everything. Making things more complicated, time-travelers may have inspired Nathan's T.O.E. on purpose already knowing the result. After that realization it is clear Tanaka has precedent if he is a time-traveler who knows about Nathan's theory, otherwise he should make the reference explicit. If not, it could be seen as a lucky coincidence, but still a point of inspiration for the actual Theory. Additional Theories: People are bound together by their connection to the Matrix movie. David Ury wanted to act in the Mattix and possibly invented a Theory of Everything. Nathan Coppedge wanted to be inspired by the Matrix and thought it could be used as an idea-platform for perpetual motion machines. Some people say 'nerded on Matrix' to refer to sex. In this system if Nathan tends to think of men when he associates ideas, that might be needing help, which is like gay Matrix. Straight Matrix would be more like directing. Directors. People who need a clue. But if sex always looks like that it looks awfully reductive. Besides, Nathan already seemed to have a Theory of Everything before thinking of any real-world connection to Ken Tanaka, so that doesn't seem so much like needing help as making use of diverse resources. INTERPRETATION BY DIVINE INTERVENTION: When I first wrote a document called the Unified Synthesis a few years before the TOE, I was told by a silent voice that it wasn't the real thing (yet). Here I describe the beginning at least of what I take to be the real thing, which was an unformed inspiration for the Theory of Everything. ... This may be somewhat hard to grasp even compared to the T.O.E., but it is one of the only ways to 'protologize' or more fundamentally, alternately analyze the T.O.E. without referring to very specific applications. First, you develop an ability to objectively synthesize experience, which is to say, communicate the essence of experience objectively. We call this objective synthization. Next, we have a more analytic 'unifying ability' which acts previously and separately. This is the ability to synthesize all relevant information content separately but in conjunction with experience, in this case as though with the Programmable Heuristics. When we have the synthization and the unification together, with the synthization considered first but the unification 'written' first, then we reach the beginning of the true Unified Synthesis. However, even at this point it must be acknowledged that it is only being considered analytically, and the true form of the ability must be rather rare, in a similar way to the way thinking about enlightenment is far more common than actually achieving it in an unqualified fashion. INTERPRETATION INVOLVING ALCHEMY AND ‘EVERYBODY DIES’ BOOK: HOW JESUS DID NOT INSPIRE THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING: I know the Everybody Dies (tm) book existed before I thought about Jesus inspiring my theory. So, I did not have evidence Jesus inspired Everybody Dies. Everybody Dies was as far as I was concerned a completely material theory. When I was first thinking of a theory of everything, I thought of Jesus as a form of magical protection against Everybody Dies. After all, white or black samite might be used as protection against death, and Jesus was the only one I knew to wear this substance. I then considered an alchemical symbol which I considered important, thinking it represented Everybody Dies, but using Jesus' voice for the sole purpose of protecting me against death, for the superficial reason that he wore black or white samite, and the symbol was black and white. How samite robes supposedly appeared reminded me of the blind man Hokusai, who had magical Japanese symbols written on his flesh to protect from death. I thought if Hokusai was blind maybe Jesus wouldn't talk to me, in my mind that could have better results. My point is, I explained to the voices in my head, I just want to use Jesus as a symbol. “Sure" a voice said ominously. Voices were nothing new and were a likely sign of mental disturbance. Now, I thought to interpret this symbol as a Theory of Everything for the first time. And the best thing I found to do was to interpret it in terms of a book called Everybody Dies (tm). Everybody Dies was a book about dying for the scientifically minded, but at some point perhaps years later people began calling it a theory of everything. However, I was not sure if they really meant a theory of everything. They did not use it as an obvious formula, instead they seemed to always say that what they meant is that everybody dies, and nothing more. Although it seemed possible it really was a theory of everything, it seemed ridiculous to think every letter was part of the formula, because the letters did not seem to make rational sense all together. It occurred to me later it could be the right initials plus a kind of protest for human benefit, but this did not sound ethically justified to me, so my conclusion was the people who used Everybody Dies were not smart enough to think of a real theory. This raised the stakes a bit, because I knew the Everybody Dies people were very smart. Later it occurred to me perhaps Everybody Dies was a Theory of Everything but was part of standard education, but this seemed unlikely because I seemed to learn about the book only in a random web search which didn't seem directly connected to college education. If it happened to everyone this way, I sensed abuse. And if the voices didn't already know I was abused they were not geniuses. And if the voices were not geniuses they could not inspire me. With these kinds of considerations in a beginning stage of paranoia, I began to interpret my symbol, which so far as I knew was my own, and not very common. I had seen it few if any times in any book, including books on alchemy and symbolism, although it was simple enough it seemed likely it had been ascribed some significance somewhere, maybe in a book of codes or computer language. Interpreting the symbol I might get meaning people don't get from the book, particularly if the symbol is not written in the book. With this reasoning, I proceeded to interpret the symbol in terms of the first initials E and D, since I thought people must unconsciously think it means some kind of generic ‘everything theory'. Rearranging the expression this way, I thought every theory of this kind begins with everything, and ends with what the theory represents. The ‘E' in Everybody Dies' was the everything part, maybe I could guess a different letter that doesn't mean death. I noticed my symbol could represent many different things, perhaps ‘objective efficient dimensions' or ‘truly efficient difference' or ‘objectival effusive language’ or ‘truly edifying discoveries’. There was somehow a proneness to use the letter ‘D' in the last position most of the time, but I didn't think a theory using ‘death' in the third position would provide workable definitions of everything. I knew if I used the symbol, the formula would have three parts, unlike Everybody Dies. I began thinking of it as an equation with the first part representing ‘true', ‘objective', or ‘blank', or ‘fate' or something like that. I experimented using archetypal symbols like the wheel of fortune for the first letter, but gave up, thinking ‘true' or ‘blank' was best. I started to think the only option for interpreting the middle ‘letter' was efficiency. but at that time these struck me as infuriating examples, overall they just sounded like a bad attempt at limits maybe with a little materialism thrown in, which in my mind at the time was basically identical to algebra and thoughts about bling. it just seemed like bad thinking. So, for the time, I gave up. Years later, I uncovered part of one of the same formulas ‘efficient difference', not remembering that I had been a bit inspired before. But I didn't think to remember my earlier inspiration because I had been so frustrated, I just considered it part of interpreting the symbol, and I did not think of my earlier ideas as successful. I had kept thinking of the blank as a truth, and in this way I had to wait longer and rediscover the same formula mathematically, using Set 0. I had not been at the maturity stage to really think of a theory of everything. I would have had to admit I was very lucky or it was someone else's idea. I was good with categories, but not that lucky, I said to my mother. ALSO, THE CLAIM THAT MORALITY IS THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING: Not the only way = Difference. Default = (Efficiency). Set 0 = Action ID. “Base Action ID is not the only way” is possibly a simpler Theory of Everything. Translates as Set 0 = Efficiency + Difference … The advantage is it unites the person with the cosmos. THE 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 for good reason, and only when the theory is considered well-qualified. MARTIN POPPLEWELL’S CLAIM: Martin Popplewell, who I first found as a profile on Quora around 2019 – 2020, writes: “The Absolute Theory of Everything is ‘+1 Dimension’.” This formula is identical to Brian Coppedge’s (Nathan Coppedge’s younger brother’s) Formula for Perfection, except it calls it a TOE. However, what is more interesting is that if ‘dimension’ is translated as efficiency, Popplewell has here stated that an ‘Absolute Theory of Everything’ equals an efficiency plus a specified difference, which is very similar to my Theory of Everything. However, it may be noted here that Poppewell’s theory has at least five weaknesses: (1) The ‘difference’ is not stated as a difference explicitly, so it might be hard to deduce results without using his given value. (2) Popplewell does not generalize the +1 to all differences, thus his theory does not seem to cover things with ‘different differences’ in effect assuming that the Theory of Everything is invariant and unchanging. (3) ‘Dimension’ is not stated as efficiency, thus it is not explicit that Popplewell is referring to the concept of efficiency at all. While he mentions the concept of effect several times no where in his document does he mention ‘efficiency’. Thus one whole half of the second part of the equation is missing. We are left to wonder whether he meant it, but he does not make it completely obvious, instead he seems to leave the extra leap to the reader. (4) Popplewell’s claim does not particularly include generative data examples of how the theory might apply formulaically to things like philosophy or human beings, or at least we are left to wonder how he reached the conclusion that the theory concerns ‘fibonacci numbers’, etc and why he mentions these instead of larger categories like unified mathematics, humanities, or theories of philosophical knowledge coherence. Perhaps this is just his preference, but it makes one wonder why he sounds like so many other theorists if he has an original theory. (5) Popplewell also does not make the special necessary clarification that the efficiency (which as I point out he also doesn’t mention) must be less than one if TOPIC is acted on, and greater than one if TOPIC is acting. In my theory this added element is very important for the ability of the theory to form a descriptive pattern. Thus it is possible that Popplewell reached a similar conclusion (although one of many conclusions) through sheer expostulation rather than certainty. (6) Finally, Popplewell makes a point of calling his theory an ‘Absolute’ theory which makes one wonder philosophically whether he thinks his theory applies only to absolute things, rather than literally everything. If that were the case, it would be impossible to classify his theory as a genuine theory unless he had made a mistake to call the theory absolute. But if he really did make a mistake, how could he possibly reach the real ‘Theory of Everything’? For reasons like this it seems admissible that the completeness of Popplewell’s version of the theory could be considered incomplete, for the sheer reason that his statement of the theory is not clear enough. However, it is at least clear that Popplewell reached something similar to the formula for perfection, although he does not overtly state that that is what he thinks it is, rather he claims the formula for perfection is the ‘Absolute’ Theory of Everything. Recently I have only skimmed Popplewell’s document (although I did several searches for keywords in the whole document, so I consider my investigation fairly complete), so if someone finds evidence that Popplewell had the genuine TOE before June 26, 2019, try to inform me and I will make more information available to my readers. It is true that this case is close much like the Everybody Dies book which I remember influencing, but my sense is Popplewell did not make it clear enough that he had the whole theory encompassed. Even if he had a slightly more complete theory such as if he had used the word efficiency, or if he had stated efficiency in a sentence near a sentence using the word difference, or if he had used the terms ‘default, efficiency, and limit’ together, it is still true that I had inklings about my own theory in 2009, which is probably before I heard of any of Popplewell’s work. It often seems likely that I should adopt my personal ‘Island Thesis’ that developing a Theory of Everything depends on a particular alchemical symbol that a devised myself based on a symbolic interpretation of video games, and that this thoughtful development would not have occurred without very specific influences that apply to very few people other than Nathan Larkin Coppedge. STEPHEN HAWKING THEORY OF ANYTHING: 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 an understanding of a lecture I didn’t attend reproduced below: October 9, 2018. Revised July 5, 2020. “HAWKINGESQUE: A topic can be a special thing. We select a preferred set. Does it surprise us that this relates with the calculus? What items did we miss? Was it physics? Did it do anything rare? Here we are now! Time! A bold manifestation! [It is thought if Hawking's concept of time is analogous to efficiency, and if rarity means rare difference, that Hawking had The Theory of Anything. It has also been said that Hawking refused the idea that time was efficiency…]” --Nathan Coppedge, imagining about Hawking lectures [Note: some evidence traces the theory back to John H. Miller, a complexity theorist, or Gotthard Gunther, a German systems theorist, or even Hegel in 1805, although the theory may have been first popularized by Nathan Coppedge, who is a coherentist and perpetual motion enthusiast. Nathan's view is Hawking would have disagreed with the theory, but that Hawking's final theorem, a different formula, was not intended as a theory of everything]. What are the main ideas that Hawking discusses in regards to the Theory of Everything? Possibly 1. Substance. 2. The Arrow of Time. 3. Eternal Return of Matter Into Matter. 4. Heat Singularities (explode). Just a guess, I have browsed his books but don’t own any. Some of this may be similar to someone less accepted as well. ADVANCED PROGRAMMABLE HEURISTICS THEORY: 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. EVERYTHING PAPERS THEORY 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. HIGHER LOGIC METHODOLOGY: In January 12, 2020 I arrived at a logic called Higher Logic or the Higher Logic Methodology which surprisingly generalized in vaguely broad strokes how to arrive at any type of higher-logical result simply by following very consistent instructions. This achievement was a landmark in reducing many if not all forms of higher logic to a consistent generative format which can be expressed in five relatively simple steps. The Higher Logic Methodology is reproduced here in full: 1. Recently Achievable Goal, for example, arbitrariness. Or, problems. Or, everything. 2. [Qualified] Goal, for example, arbitrary judgment. Or, problem-solving, Or, TOE. 3. Wild [qualified2] [content] and [work], for example, judging judgment involving categories, applied permutatively. Or, problems solved using problematics and double-paradoxes. Or, a balanced set involving work and integration. 4. A prop-up method, for example, Cartesian coordinates. Or, objective knowledge. Or, approximation by 0 = Efficiency + Limits. 5. A highly rational result, such as computer, mind, or semaphore, for example, Objective Knowledge AB:CD and AD:CB involving polar opposites opposed diagonally using word labels. Or, the solution to a paradox is the opposite of each and every word in the best definition of the problem arranged in the same order as the corresponding original words. Or, Set 0 > Efficiency* + Difference, where the limit is the difference because the efficiency is the energy and energy applies to everything. References • Coppedge, The Inspiration for the Theory of Everything Blogger. • Coppedge, Theory of Everything Quora. • Coppedge, Valuable Notes on the TOE Blogger. • Coppedge, Nathan. Programmable Heuristics. Various. • Coppedge, Nathan. Systems Theory. Amazon. Other References • Coppedge, N. History of Philosophy Links, Quora. • Coppedge, N. Articles. Academia dot edu.