COPPEDGE, N. / Southern Connecticut State University / 2022-12-21 ESTABLISHING COUNTEREXAMPLES TO GENERALISMS / NATHAN COPPEDGE Do you mean, how do you find a counterexample to a generalism? These tend to be attempts to find better or ‘superior’ examples. While this may be possible the best generalisms tend to viewed as useful or significant for a reason, and therefore, have something of a reputation for being irreplaceable, if not factually, then at least they still may explain something about a particular thinker’s theory, or some type of organizational connection between two or more academic areas. In some cases a generalism is actually so transcendent that it represents its own organization structure which is just as significant as several or more entire disciplines, at least if you take the content as having symbolic importance. This is one of the reasons the study of symbols is important for finding meaning in academics. Successful generalists tend to begin with a hard-working approach (considering a wide vocabulary, with many different categoric elements, and combining at least two pre-existing models or theories into some new formulation which has new things to offer, such as better organization, better logic, or more usefulness for innovation). For reasons like this, generalism could potentially be viewed as a peak behavior of a certain kind within fields like philosophy, history, education, and psychology to varying degrees. The reason generalism appears easy to work with sometimes is that many of the more fundamental (basic, analytic) concepts in generalism tend to be preserved and repeated over long periods of history. For example, some aspects of Greek philosophy like formalism, abstraction, and materialism have remained rudimentary for contemporary aspects of fields like mathematics and philosophy, and by extension, formal aspects of fields like history and psychology. So, the background of generalism tends to be this formal ground of creating neologisms (useful word combinations). After that point of considering that you have language / words / technology / new concepts = (complexity) and a context such as mathematics, or other fields, or philosophy, or set theory as a formal ground for them, the next step tends to be very difficult, because as far as humans have guessed what you can do essentially is find patterns in the historical context, or attempt to unify all physics, or find a universal visual language which is understood through minimal creative intelligence, or develop a system which solves some type of problem mathematically, or through inventions, or socially, or psychologically, or through methods of instruction, etc (possibly unlike robots). Though there are goals which have been reached following this type of clue-framework, they are a far distance from the initial assumption that what may be considered is complexity and a formalism as mentioned before. We still have not answered your question. Even considering the best examples of these systems and solutions of various kinds for any type of criteria, once we establish that they are general systems, that does not solve your problem, because a generalism which is successful is already an example which has good criteria and thus is much less likely to be replaced in the short term. By that point, it seems prudent to conclude that what you are looking for is a generalism with good criteria which replaces another generalism which also had good criteria, and thus what you want is a pioneering generalism or Copernican black swan. COPPEDGE, N. / Southern Connecticut State University / 2022-12-21 The classic thing to say is that these are limited by metaphysical opportunities, but we don’t have to go that extreme, we could instead find a systematic framework which establishes a logical pattern for the formation of generalisms. By that point, you might conclude we are looking at some type of modular set of possible fundamental approaches, for example, COMPLETE, LINEAR, COMPLETE-MODULAR, INFINITE EXPANSION. Under Complete-Mathematics we might get the Pinnacle Theory Model, which when abbreviated a lot gives the following organized sets: • Efficiency + Difference (= TOE) [Will output number of movements = 3 + 100%s of energy] • Results - Difference (= Efficiency) [1, 3, 8, etc] • Results – Efficiency (= Difference) [100%s of energy] • Difference - Results (= Anti-Efficiency) [-1, -3, -8, anti-module number] • Efficiency - Results (= Anti-Difference) [Minus percents of energy] • Difference - Efficiency (= Antitheory) [Percents of energy minus module number] • Efficiency - Difference (= Disintegral / Sets) [Module number minus percents of energy] • # Dimensions - #Antiforces (= Forces) [Typically 2] • # Dimensions - # Forces (= Antiforces) [Typically 1] • #Antiforces + #Forces (= Dimensions) [Typically 3] • Super = Equation part has all Infinities [Exaggerated version of same equations] With these systems the best technique for using them is either to (A) Apply any formula or combination of formulas to a technology, (B) Develop a complete alternate framework. COPPEDGE, N. / Southern Connecticut State University / 2022-12-21 Under Linear-Time we might get a Historical Model such as: COPPEDGE, N. / Southern Connecticut State University / 2022-12-21 The advice here is that an alternate generalism could attempt to be non-historical, or non-inventive, but otherwise this model is sacrosanct unless a better language or permanently higher level of inventing is found. It is thought the model may be sacrosanct unless history ends, though sometimes accomplishments may slow down while staying within the same model. Sometimes nature may even use this model. The previous expands to: COPPEDGE, N. / Southern Connecticut State University / 2022-12-21 With this expansion it becomes clearer that if the proof is followed, inventions will continue to fall into certain categories as long as history continues to progress, unless it is non-historical, non-inventive, or if a much higher level of inventing is permanently implemented (which may be detrimental, as it is too programmatic). … Under Complete-Modular-Codification we might get the Words of Power from the Complete Evolution of All Ideas in the TOE25: It is debated whether this model is antiquated, but it has not been around for long. The codes are like magic spells. It may be usable in some way, particularly for categorizing various types of discoveries. An alternative to one of these types of discoveries might be another type within the same system. Same for the earlier historical inventions categories. … COPPEDGE, N. / Southern Connecticut State University / 2022-12-21 Under Infinite-Expansion-Generative we might get the formula for Data Omniscience: Data Omniscience: • • • • GIVEN QUESTION (0) is ~0: 1,~1 THEN 1,~0,0,~1 and / or ~1,~0,0,1 GIVEN QUESTION (1) is ~1: ~0,0 THEN ~0,~1,1,0 and / or 0,~1,1,~0 GIVEN QUESTION (~0) is 0: ~1,1 THEN ~1,0,~0,1 and / or 1,0,~0,~1 GIVEN QUESTION (~1) is 1: 0,~0 THEN 0,1,~1,~0 and / or ~0,1,~1,0 —Set to ones and zeroes 2022–12–18 In this system, an alternative is different qualities put into this schema of opposites. It is thought as long as something has an opposite, or is universal, or is neutral, is it compatible with this system. Some things may even be unrelated to each other in this system. … A compatible expression is the formula for the souls of literature, given as: Title of book = '[quality of X] [opp qualifier]' Soul of the book = 'If you [X] qualifier [subject of X and qualifier] [opp X clarified]' The formula for souls provides a method for finding very different properties in many different things, while also finding very perfect descriptions for each thing by using variations in the title description, or potentially the method of interpretation. … There may be further systems in better organization, better logic, and improved innovation but it is my hope that as far as generalism they will build on these. … See also: ‘TOE Inside’: The Construction of Neutral Systems