## The theory of everything; formulated so as to be indubitable and thus forming a final theory

• 157
I have succeeded in constructing the correct theory of everything, in a manner entirely indubitable such that the universe, with its laws, is a necessary true; thus forming a final theory able to answer why the universe, as perceived by a conscious entity, exists at all.

Took me more than 25 years.

I am certain none here are able to understand the math (thats a given) but further can't even intuit let alone comprehend why the foundations of the theory are chosen as such, and why they make the endeavour possible, and its finalisation necessary, in the first place.

But, on the off chance there is someone in here who is capable, here is the link:

The Design of a Formal System of Science able to Prove Physics from Unhypothetical First Principles

Your first test will be to figure out you can read the pdf without having to register, by scrolling down the page.

If you manage to do that, feel free to ask intelligent questions.
• 6k
Took me more than 25 years.
:chin:

Hey man, I'm good with Spinoza's natura naturans (EIp1-36, Appendix), T. Metzinger's self-theory model system (STM) and D. Deutsch's Constructor Theory (project) as a kludged "ToE"; but thanks anyway, AH-T, and good luck with all that ... (pace K. Gödel et al).
• 12.6k
A theory that explains everything explains nothing. — Karl Popper

The usual deal is a given theory H is used to make a prediction P. If P is observed, H is verified which is not the same as H is true. If ~P (P is not observed), H is declared falsified.

Consider now a theory U that explains everything which is to be interpreted as U entails that either P or ~P where P is a prediction i.e. U implies either P will be observed or P won't be observed. In logic $U \rightarrow (P \vee \neg P)$. The million dollar question is, is $P \vee \neg P$ a prediction? Tomorrow, it'll either rain or not rain. Have I made a prediction or have I merely rephrased the question "will it rain tomorrow?"
• 2.7k
Congrats. Hope you get some good feedback as it looks like you've but a decent amount of work into this.

At a glance kind of reminds me of something about Dewey's remarks about 'truth' and 'warranted assertibility'.
• 3.3k
If you manage to do that, feel free to ask intelligent questions.

Likewise, you should feel free to ask intelligent questions.
• 394
Likewise, you should feel free to ask intelligent questions

Nah.. He seems to have figured out everything already. No questions left after 25 years.
• 3.3k
Nah.. He seems to have figured out everything already. No questions left after 25 years.

That seems to be the case indeed. However, if @Alexandre Harvey-Tremblay is left without any intelligent question, he should also feel free to ask less intelligent questions, or even stupid questions. We are not that picky here...
• 157
The usual deal is a given theory H is used to make a prediction P. If P is observed, H is verified which is not the same as H is true. If ~P (P is not observed), H is declared falsified.

I recommend you check section 2.1.1 classification of scientific theories which provides these definitions on a rigorous setting (notably by exactly defining what P and H are in definition 1).

Consider now a theory U that explains everything which is to be interpreted as U entails that either P or ~P where P is a prediction i.e. U implies either P will be observed or P won't be observed. In logic U→(P∨¬P). The million dollar question is, is P∨¬P a prediction? Tomorrow, it'll either rain or not rain. Have I made a prediction or have I merely rephrased the question "will it rain tomorrow?"

'theory of everything' in the discipline of physics means a theory able to support all known four fundamental forces of nature unified in a single framework. What you describe as 'explains everything' is a formal system which is sound and complete. Such formal system are subject to various incompleteness limitations (Godel).

Of note with respect to your specific example, one can neglect to include the laws of excluded middle and still obtain a sensible logic theory: intuitionist logic. Finally, your example carries significant linguistic limitations (in the sense that all you sentences must be amenable to a P or not P construction... and this may not be sufficient to support all possible knowledge).

Overall these types formal axiomatic adventures are the incorrect way to think about all of this, notably because one perpetually second guesses his or her axioms. The correct way is to use the knowledge-base system I have introduced in the paper, which is as expressive and rigorous as any formal system, yet does not carry this ambiguity. I invite you to check definition 2 (knowledge base), and also the discussion in section 1.3 (the mathematics of knowledge).
• 12.6k
• 157
D. Deutsch's Constructor Theory (project) as a kludged "ToE"

Thanks for wishing me good luck, but before you run out thinking that your listed theories are in the same class as my system, please note that Constructor Theory assumes the laws of physics, then derives various "constructors". It is not able to derive the fundamental laws of physics a-priori. The other theories that you list are just adventures in axiomatic spaces, where an author dreams up a "plausibly-sounding" axiomatic basis then explores its theorithmic landscape. Such foundations are perpetually weak to challenging the validity their axioms.

Only my formal system is able to prove physics unhypothetically as a necessary true. Nothing comes close. It is so advanced compared to what has previously been done that most will have initial difficulties grasping the utility and power of the unhypothetical knowledge base, let alone why it renders axiomatic bases completely obsolete as a structure to investigate truth or knowledge. The changes required to make such a proof possible requires the entire reformulation of the foundations of mathematics from 'axiomatic basis' to 'knowledge bases' - the initial error is that deep.
• 2.5k

Have you considered the possibility that youre mentally ill? Why aren’t you getting published and being whisked away from the asylum to get your nobel prize? They dont get it I take it? How exactly do you think anyone could possibly take your claim here seriously? How are we supposed to tell whether its the rantings of a madman and a grift? Cuz you say so?
So how well have you explored the idea that you are delusional? Mentally ill. Its what you sound like (and act like…posting this on philosophy forum for example)
• 6k
Cuz you say so?
:smirk:
• 157
Have you considered the possibility that youre mentally ill? Why aren’t you getting published and being whisked away from the asylum to get your nobel prize? They dont get it I take it? How exactly do you think anyone could possibly take your claim here seriously? How are we supposed to tell whether it's the rantings of a madman and a grift? Cuz you say so?
So how well have you explored the idea that you are delusional? Mentally ill. Its what you sound like (and act like…posting this on philosophy forum for example)

Well, the point of providing a paper with a mathematical proof is so the claim doesn't merely stand on "Cuz you say so". As to "How are we supposed to tell whether it's the rantings of a madman and a grift"... perhaps you are not going to like it but the only way is to put in the effort to understand by yourself. If you're not willing to do that, then you will have to wait if and until "a big guy you trust" vouches for my paper, then you can have a go. The second method requires much less effort, but of course you would miss the opportunity to grab low hanging fruits if you were are a researcher for instance. Finally, my proposal carries a dozen experimental predictions that if not verified would falsify a good chuck of the theory - this would be the final and ultimate test of the proposal but tend to take even longer to be carried out. The mentally ill question is of course unanswerable, as if I truly were, I would presumably not be able to self-reflect sufficiently on my status as much to make this determination.
• 6k
It is not able to derive the fundamental laws of physics a-priori.
To the extent you're correct (and in some respects you're not, Alex), this is a feature of Constructor Theory, and not a bug, because Deutsch (et al) is careful not to confuse maps (i.e. scientific models) with the territory (i.e. physical reality, or nature) he/we are mapping. So by "physical laws" I understand
What:
... "laws of physics" only refer to the invariant structures of our physical models which are strongly correlated with observations of regularities of the universe but are not "caused" by, or properties of, the universe.
I.e. Maps =|= territory, they merely approximate via abstraction of salient, or selected, features.

How:
"Scientific laws" pertain [only] to scientifical models which are mathematical abstractions of salient regularities and not to be confused with them or the phenomena being modeled. Compare, for instance, the Ptolemiac geocentric model (with its baroque epicycles) to the Copernican-Galilean-Newtonian heliocentric model: both make fairly accurate predictions from which "scientific laws" of celestial mechanics were surmised but the latter was found to be much more useful and explanatory than the former.
E.g. Peircean fallibilsm and Popperian falsificationism are quite instructive (re: methodology).
• 157

Once you get around to reading my paper you will shit your pants good sir.

Borrowing the lingo of your previous reply, I would describe my paper as constructing a mathematical representation of a universal territory, then prescribing an entropy maximization procedure which produces the most informative map of said territory; and said map is revealed uniquely as the theory of everything; combining quantum mechanics with general relativity, and many other cool things.

Thus, the laws of physics are proven as the unique map of the universal experimental territory. Since the territory is universal, nature must be a subset of it, consequently the laws of physics identified as its map must also cascade to nature.

Maybe I should burrow some of that language for use in my paper...
• 6k
Once you get around to reading my paper you will shit your pants good sir.
My previous post sketches-out my epistemological commitments relevant to this topic. In that light, Alex, I have read your paper's Abstract & Introduction and resolved not to shit on the rest of it. :zip:
• 157
Right.. but to be sure, you do understand that my paper is a successful realization of that which you sketched...?
• 6k
• 157

Based on your sketch here is a list of the most salient ingredients I believe you were missing to complete the endeavor.

• You did not realize that if your territory ought to be separate to the laws of physics, then such territory ought be describable without physical baggage.
• You did not have a rigorous and purely mathematical definition of an experiment. Therefore you were not able to mathematically construct a territory independently of all known laws of physics (a.k.a free of physical baggage).
• If you postulated maps (perhaps based on established physics knowledge), rather than deriving the map from the territory (which you couldn't do since you had no mathematical definition of the territory), then you did not use the scientific method to the derive the map. What I mean by this is that you did not create a formal definition of the scientific method, then applied it to your territory, so as to produce the map for it.
• You did not realize that there exists a preferred manner to construct a map for a territory, such that the map is maximally informative. You probably used other preference criteria to select the map.
• A map which maximizes the entropy is maximally informative, and in the case of a universal territory, as it is necessarily a superset of nature, recovers the complete laws of physics. This is a guaranteed result.
• 2.5k

Well, you did say that its beyond most peoples comprehension so that puts it pretty firmly in the realm of “cuz I say so”. You are acting like the priests and shamans of old who expect people to accept what they say on authority they have bestowed upon themselves.
“God wants you to donate money and let me fuck your wife”
“Really?”
“Ya its gods plan, which you cant understand but dont worry, I can. Come back and retrieve your wife in an hour, and god wants you to bring me a coffee too”

Your doing the same thing here and its just as insane an expectation. Accept it without understanding it.

Also, if you were to have paid half the attention you expect us to pay to your theory on your say so, you would have noticed I didnt ask about whether you are mentally ill but rather how much thought you had given to the possibility you were. Further, it simply isnt true that mentally ill people cannot tell that they are mentally ill. Maybe if they are in the middle of a psychotic break/episode, but this nobel prize winning theory of yours would have to be some sort of ongoing delusion of which there are ways of realizing. No, the reason why a mentally ill person doesnt make the realization is often because they aren’t paying attention. So…how much attention have you paid to it?
Anyway, I asked a few more questions you should answer even after you exclude the rhetorical ones. Primarily, and in more straightforward terms: why arent you being awarded the Nobel prize?
And another: why would you post such a massively important and science shattering theory on a (forgive me forum community) mostly unimportant forum with mostly amateur philosophers?

Lastly, you have a totally unrealistic expectation of the amount of effort anyone should give to understanding or reading your paper. Maybe you don’t realize how often folks come in here with similar such grandiose claims and theories NONE of which have EVER stood up to the scrutiny demanded.
They say things like: “You simply do not get it”
or
“its so advanced you just have to accept it in whole or part on my authority which ive granted myself”

Sound familiar? Well it does to us. If you actually want to discuss your idea, you will get far more traction by (surprise surprise, its a philosophy forum!) positing your idea as a topic for philosophical discussion instead of as a scientific paper which is outside the purview of even scientific philosophy. Sometimes the more sciencey types give it a go but for the most part people here are more interested in discussing base ideas.
Free advice for you, your welcome. :wink:
• 6k
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. — Albert Einstein

Why should one prefer to take the trouble to comprehend your "ToE" rather than, say, Max Tegmark's 'Mathematical Universe Hypothesis'? Or Stephen Wolfram's 'Computational Universe Model'?

:clap: :up:
• 129
I have succeeded in constructing the correct theory of everything, in a manner entirely indubitable such that the universe, with its laws, is a necessary true;... .
It is not able to derive the fundamental laws of physics a-priori.
purely mathematical definition
Therefore you were not able to mathematically construct a territory independently of all known laws of physics... .

You not only state that theories other than yours can't derive "the fundamental laws of physics a-priori" but also that you've succeeded in constructing a theory, from unhypothetical first principles, in which the universe, with its laws, is a necessary truth. Now, as to the second aforementioned statement, your fatal misstep is basing its supposed veracity on mathematics, as if the assertion that mathematics, with its uniform character, can necessarily prove anything other than its own quantification(s) isn't a hypothesis or indemostrable a-priori (please, by all means, demonstrate otherwise without referring me to the mathematics of your paper, as if that wouldn't involve the petitio principii fallacy).

Man, I swear that mathematics, although it can be beneficial to philosophy, is nonetheless responsible for so much of what's wrong with contemporary philosophy.
• 157

Nice try, but your argument fails and let me explain explicitly why. What I imagine you call mathematics is what one typically constructs as formal axiomatic systems. Constructed as formal axiomatic systems the limitations about what mathematics can and cannot proof you espouse are correct. That is well known in the field and accepted by myself as well. However, in the paper I re-formulate mathematics to be knowledge-based using an enumeration of universal facts in lieu of the traditional axiomatic basis. Since universal facts are infallible statements, thus are not technically axioms, this re-formulation does not carry the aforementioned limitation about formal axiomatic systems.
• 157
Why should one prefer to take the trouble to comprehend your "ToE" rather than, say, Max Tegmark's 'Mathematical Universe Hypothesis'? Or Stephen Wolfram's 'Computational Universe Model'?

Max's is a series of hypothesis and desideratum but still lacks substantial theorems or derivations relating to new or existence laws of physics. Stephen's has up to now failed to rise above the level of a glorified curve-fitting exercise (... take a large set of candidate programs and ignore those that do not produce patterns reminiscent of those found in nature, rinse, repeat, refine).

Mine uniquely produces the laws of physics in roughly 3-5 lines of math by simply maximizing the entropy of a knowledge base, itself comprised exclusively of universal facts which is the only possible epistemologically infallible mathematical construction. It already resolves a dozen or so open problems of physics, including wave-function collapse, interpretation of quantum mechanics, quantum theory of gravity, etc, and philosophical problems (the universe is the maximally informative model of the knowledge base -- thus you having knowledge, of anything, implies necessarily the universe).
• 157

I agree with most of what you are saying, but the alternative is for me to sit home and do nothing... hoping I randomly get noticed, and honestly I suspect it will yield even worse result than getting out there and risking been branded as a charlatan. The later is a risk anyone must take when presenting a new idea, lest no one will ever hear about it.
• 129
universal facts are infallible statements

Understanding the word "infallible," in its standard sense, to mean "can't be mistaken or wrong," I'd like to know how any of your supposed "universal facts" can be demonstrated "infallibly" without merely premising, i.e., without merely assuming, it as such? In other words, without the the petitio principii fallacy? Considered from a logical point of view, it should be seen that you can't; so that your claim of deriving all of the fundamental laws of physics a-priori, without assumption(s), falls to the ground. Yet, if you believe that you can, then, by all means, please adduce an example (I'm not asking for much) contrariwise.
• 6k
Of course you disagree with every other theoretical physicist and philosopher, yet your bragging about what "your paper" "achieves", Alex, does not, as my Einstein quote above points out, even explain simply, in summary, anything. :yawn:

Okay. Cite the peer-reviewed journals where your paper has been published and explain why you are not (yet) a multiple Nobel Prizes recipient. Y'know, just to corroborate the hyperinflated self-description of your world-changing achievement. :meh:
• 157
Did you read the definition in the paper? Its definition 1. A universal fact is a program, along with an input, that when ran on a universal Turing machine, halts. Take this program as an example:

fn main(){
return 1+1;
}


This program simply returns 2 and then terminates. The infallibility is in the knowledge one has that this program halts. We are talking about the algorithmic definition of the program here (not its physical execution which could presumably fail it the computer craps out).
• 157
Cite the peer-reviewed journals where your paper has been published and explain why you are not (yet) a multiple Nobel Prizes recipient

Well, from a logistic stand-point I just finished up the version I am happy with a few weeks ago. Even with the favorable assumption that the Nobel prize was shipped from Sweden the instant my final version was uploaded, it could still potentially be in transit assuming longer than expected postal delays. Furthermore Nobel prizes for theoretical results are never (or, at least should never) be awarded without the experimental confirmations, which may only arrive decades later if at all. Finally, I was not aware that having received a Nobel prize for the very new idea one presents was required whilst simultaneously presenting said new idea (although I concede it would certainly help establish credibility)... seems like a chicken or the egg problem.

Actually for the peer-reviewed journals, I am actually accepting suggestions for journals who might accept it. It is actually harder than it sounds as the length constraint and multi-disciplinary scope of the paper rules out quite a lot of journals. I have been told by some in the know this two constraints will cause problems.
• 6k
A reliable rule-of-thumb that goes to the issue of your credibility, or rather lack thereof on this topic, sir, is
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence — Carl Sagan
which paraphrases epistemic maxims by e.g. Hume, Laplace, WK Clifford, et al. Nothing I've read in your self-aggrandizing posts or the Abstract & Introduction of "your paper" is either extraordinary or evidence of your extraordinary claims.
• 157
The problem is not the lack of (mathematical) proof*, it is to get people to click the link and invest the time to understand it.

*falsifiable predictions are proposed, but obviously these take considerable time to be verified in a lab.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal