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
Ballistics, etc. (Duplicated from Anything Theory):
…
Why Hawking did not Discover The Theory of Everything (…)
…
MATH
July 9, 2019.
NOTE: TRUST THE ORIGINAL SIMPLER METHOD ABOVE THE BELOW. THIS IS A MORE MATH-FOCUSED APPROACH THAT MAY HELP WITH PROBABILITY RATHER THAN COMPLEX SYSTEMS.
Components of efficiency + Difference < Concern, Efficiency > 1 if active <1 if passive.
Examples:
Concern = 3 birds.
Efficiency = 1 each.
No difference, 3 birds fly.
Efficiency = 1, 0.5. 0
Difference 1.5, 1.5 birds fly.
…
Concern = 6 rules, and whether they apply, active low probability.
Efficiency is probability = 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5
Total Difference: 4.5, counting on probabilities, the result is between 0.3 and 0.4.
…
Concern is 5 laws, and whether they will be broken. Active subject.
Efficiency is 2, 2, 0 (good-evil, evil-good, amoral) preferred order.
Difference = 1, they will be broken if you prefer good over evil, but it will only be the law of good over evil, not evil over good.
…
Concern is 2 laws and which is absolute.
Efficiency is 1, 0.
Difference: 1
Answer: Whichever you think comes first.
Efficiency is 2, 0.
Difference: 0.
Answer: 2 laws.
Efficiency is 1, 1.
Difference: 0.
Answer: Both together.
…
Knowledge of 8 things, in terms of 1 of them, efficiency = 1, difference = 7, knowledge is one of the eight things.
Knowledge of 8 things, in terms of 0.9 of them, if efficiency = 0.9, difference = 7.1, knowledge is not just different efficiencies.
…
SUBLIME SOCRATES, ON SOCRATES AND IMPLICATION OF THE T.O.E.
3-UNIVERSE MODEL
Essential Nature
1
- There are many idioms of silence in the forest of the mind; Many contingent meetings in the ways of animals —Cultura Naturae
- “Individual phrases could be architects.” —So-called Egyptian Strategy (…)
2
- Men are judged on the basis of their awareness. Those who are most aware will gather the fruits of wisdom and reap plenty. Those who live in the cave will learn despair—Socrates
- If we have things of sufficient value collected in a room, it is like they could be more valuable than something valuable. This still seems like an interesting theory, if we assume there’s nothing wrong with it. —The Hierarchical Heir Room
3
- If the soul is a machine, this is rationalism —Marie Antoinette
- It is time to grow in a thousand-folded folds for which we need an infinite fuel —NC
Rare Inventions
1
- If something ultimately should not be true, then philosophically it is true that it is not true., or it represents some sort of evil or difficulty. Does not deny some principle or other.
- Not focused on the useless.
2
- You see, the hairbrush (love, sophistication, anything) is engene, the more it does (if you hold back), the more difficult it is to see (it still works). —Lady Li
- We have learned from the machines that they are of both simple and complex kinds. After great possibilities comes magical disappointment—NC
Coherent Semantics
1
- What is derived from fringes (in fact all things) is in accord with its nature or the greater common nature of everything related to it, even if this common nature is an emergent property. Where properties are timeless everything will be in accordance with the common nature, or timeless disrelation. Matter, appearance, information, etc therefore occur from the definition of nature, which occurs from the emergence or non-emergence of fringes. —Imagination
- “We must prefer a TOA and not a regular TOE.”— --Nathan Coppedge, Advanced Theoretical Problems (with TOE's)
…
It helps to know:
The solution may involve using words as well as numbers, such as ‘two birds requires two stones with an efficiency of one. If the efficiency of either stone is two, it requires just one stone, but if neither stone has an efficiency of two or more, it certainly requires at least a bit more than one stone, or efficiency must be improved, or you must not hit a bird'.
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.
…
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?
The Buddha as Described by Jayarava Attwood, a self-declared historical revisionist and Asian scholar (translation supposedly dating to 1998, however, the work cites a Buddhist text which is presumably over 500 years old)
- Using your brain this is a clear mention of the formula dated to Nov 2010 and possibly much earlier in Buddhist writings.
- Jayarava translates The Buddha (he later makes a reference to having invented this himself): “With the eye and forms as condition, eye-consciousness arises. The coincidence of thethree is contact. On the basis of contact there are sensations, which give rise todesires. Desires are fuel which support becoming.” — Loka Sutta (S 12.43, PTS S ii.73) Is Paṭicca-Samuppāda a Theory of Everything dated November 2010, actually 1998 or ancient
- This seems to give a transcendent idea of ‘exponential, efficiency, difference’ which comprises major parts of the TOE and perpetual motion machines. In the second sentence, it also seems to transcendently predict the most important of sets: exclusivity, polarity, analogy. Then in the third it predicts a relation of energy and difference, and after that it predicts that energy is involved in cycles.
- Downsides: Coppedge did not find this text until February 2022, though it may easily have existed earlier. It is not known when the text was made public. The context is a sort of eccentric interpretation in the context of what the West normally thinks about Buddhism, but new insights are continually being made in how thoughtless the recent Western perspectives on Eastern Philosophy have been.
- However, that translation dated to 1998 has been revised to a newer version here: (SN 12:44 Loka Sutta ) which does not include the same quote. Perhaps the particular references to category theory were un-intentional, but this seems a bit odd.
- Also, if you can read blocks of English text as Chinese, Jayarava appears to have an odd delusion at the end of his text that ‘Nathan is the devil, he studies everything’. [And by the way I’m not the devil, but I may have said I was because I was jealous of his lecture at my high school in Connecticut. I vaguely remember that this same guy offered a rare lecture near Yale because he was an esoteric Asian scholar or knew one of the students. What he says about that quote of mine seems to mean something like ‘this damn fool woke me up, and let that be a warning to you: sometimes smart people can be stupid too’.] This suggests that perhaps since I am a famous Nathan that perhaps I influenced this person at a high school experts lecture, with the end result of being able to specially interpret this guy after he did his writing sort of like a specialized language. My conclusion is this guy is high-IQ and considering he is high-IQ he is pretty interested in coherence theory. His level of analysis on category theory is clearly amazing at least in the subtext, to the point where the article is a wealth of references to advanced concepts in coherence theory, yet oddly only within the subtext. One possible theory is he was pegged for a coherent delusion, was psychic also, and placed a lot of emphasis on what words I said, as harmful as they were. If the theory were more clear it would be easier to say whether Jayarava originated all of it himself. Another possible theory is that Jayarava had a past life as the brilliant young boy who talked to Pharisee the Fakir on the coast of Egypt, which would give him an intimate personal experience of learning about the theory of everything.
Yan Yang
- 1990’s The basis for the Theory of Everything may be in a method by YY: “Polymathy - -> Psychology - -> Death - -> Magic” first noticed consciously by Coppedge in September 2021. It turns out this is the crudeform of the form which appears in the TOE Thermo Diagram: “Perpetual motion, Knowledge, Death Magic, Immortality”… which is a significant expansion of the Theory of Everything based originally in Thermodynamical variations. See also: Improved Crudeforms
- 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 when translated as Chinese. This may show that YY had a 25-category mathematical diagram for the real TOE in the 1990’s.
- Downsides: While Yan expresses advanced knowledge on the topics, she has few publications I have noticed which explicitly mention the theory in an accessible way. She may view this theory as being juvenile work possibly though possibly I simply don’t know her work well enough to give an opinion.
… Sometimes I wonder if Javarava and Javajan drank too much coffee…
Nathan Larkin Coppedge
- May have been the first to publish the work in a simple form or to recognize the theory in its simple form, though this is not completely clear as YY almost certainly used the theory the same way in the 1990’s to reach the same diagram that Nathan constructed in 2020 or later. Simply viewing the world through a high-IQ lens could make Nathan’s work look more shoddy. However, Wikipedia claims that the Theory of Everything has not yet been found in 2021.
- Had reason to suggest the unification between objective knowledge and mechanical devices because of his research on both topics.
- Someone else arriving at the same conclusions might have to do similar work, and thus, Nathan’s perspective is somewhat privileged.
- Nathan benefited by interest in diagrammatic approaches (his interest in diagrams dates back to around 2002)
- Downsides: Nathan is probably not the original originator of the thinking behind the TOE, unless it was in a past-life or because of his hobbies. Nathan didn’t even know basic algebra to any reasonable degree until 2013. The notion that Nathan’s two hobbies, coherence theory and perpetual motion machines are the two halves of The Theory of Everything seems a bit contrived, even if somehow real.
Ainan Cawley or Lookalike to Ainan Cawley who was possibly Caucasian or half Asian:
- 2009 I heard someone with a similar name to Ainan Cawley (IQ 263 - 349) talk for a few minutes because he was a family friend. It turns out it was not Cawley, but instead a family friend who was of Caucasian ancestry (though he did have a somewhat high IQ). I immediately felt like I needed to write some things down even though the young person who I thought was 5 to 12 years old was using potty humor. However, I wasn’t sure immediately what to write down and ended up leaving the paper blank. I suspected it had something to do with mathematics, possibly the color grey, and the eternal storm but otherwise I wasn’t sure what to make of it. It occurred to me later I may have mentioned my interest in coherence theory, which I had developed since 2004. If eternal storm translates as the nature of lightning which translates as grease lightning, and the color grey translates as differences, and mathematics translates as equation, it may be that I or this mysterious person had an idea of the Theory of Anything by 2009. However, Jane Hawking’s memoir which was the basis for the movie The Theory of Everything had been released by 2007, which may suggest that Hawking’s work was ahead of this mysterious figure, who was ahead of me. Though YY may have first mentioned solutions similar to categorical deduction as early as late 2001 - late 2002. YY may have had up to 17 or more years advantage on Jane Hawking’s memoir, which might even put some of YY’s work earlier than when Stephen Hawking became famous. Also, YY was a very mature person by the time Ainan Cawley was born, if indeed it was Ainan Cawley and not simply someone over-interpreted by a philosopher.
Pharisee the Fisher (known at different times as Pharisee the Fakir)
- Had the full experience: pantomimes and parables related to discovering everything, learning everything, reading everything, anything related to everything.
- Worked as a fisherman, a very profound-sounding job which connected him to the universe and taught him about everything. Fisherman to this day are told that they are about to ‘learn everything about fishing’.
- Pharisee had an inspiring and symbolic reason to think of the Theory of Everything, that he was a fisherman who docked under the Colossus (wonder of the world). HIs theory was inspired by not crashing into the Colossus. However, this inspiration was not widely written about until Nathan Coppedge told the story based on the idea that he was Pharisee in a past-life.
- Downsides: Pharisee the Fisher may be a construct inside Nathan’s mind designed to help him prove coherence theory. Although historical Christians do refer to symbols of power and universals, they rarely have used the term ‘coherence’ in any Christian literature, rather the term is only used in works on highly generalized logic. Otherwise, perhaps Nathan is under an illusion to not see some books?
- Major killing point: The evidence points towards the idea that Pharisee is either lost to history or a fabrication inside Nathan’s head. It is strange that Nathan thinks Pharisee wasn’t Jewish but was an Egyptian Arab, but historical accounts of Pharisees say they are major Jewish scholars who may have hated Arabs. It is also strange that Nathan thinks that Pharisee lived around 1000 AD which would imply unless Pharisee time-traveled that the wonder called the Colossus would in this case have to exist in 1000 AD.
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 interpolation.
- Major killing point: If Miller’s theory does not support perpetual motion this would suggest no explanation of energy in the universe other than something mathematically simplistic like Yin and Yang.
Shakespeare:
- The phrase, To be, or not to be, that is the question, might translate as: To be efficient, or not to be different, that is the questionable result… which would suggest Shakespeare may have had the Theory of Anything. E V ~D = R translates as ~ (~E and D) = R which is the TOE except with too much double negative on the difference. Not without efficiency and no difference is a reasonable guess if one wishes to use efficiency as the only theory.
Stephen Hawking
- In an obscure lecture many people seem to have heard, there is a reference to Hawking’s Secret involving “Special differences”, possibly a wider theory than the Theory of Anything I thought about for several years. Perhaps he inspired Miller. On the other hand, I may be making this up out of generosity. It may be very hard to find that lecture and prove that many people heard it. You are just going on word of mouth from Nathan Coppedge related to materials from Coppedge since 2019.
- Downsides: I have not located work by Hawking making explicit use of the theory. It may be buried within half-concealed codes within his popular books. It is thought that Hawking’s supposed Theory of Anything was a culmination of work which may only have occurred at the end of his life. Some such as YY believe Hawking may have concealed the theory his whole life and even intentionally created a different formula in an attempt to defeat the larger theory. If Hawking mentions efficiency with difference I have not seen where he wrote that, which makes Hawking’s theory seem unnecessarily obtuse compared to how it might appear if expressed in clear language.
- Major killing point: Hawking never makes use of a Function Spectrum, meaning he could not have known that perpetual motion and knowledge are combined in the Theory. This suggests that Hawking did not generalize systematics and did not see abstractions and energy as compatible.
Ken Wilber
- There are suggestions that Wilber was more aware of Eastern traditions than some of the other potential contributors, and perhaps learned more deeply of Buddhist teachings which gave hints on these theories. Furthermore, a statement saying “theories and models” is mentioned in a description of Wilber’s book A Theory of Everything dated 2000 that suggests something sounding similar to efficiency and difference. However, Wilber though known very widely is not particularly known as an analytic philosopher to my knowledge, and his approach is more social than logical at least on the surface.
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 have 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 earlier before Nathan suggested it.
- 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.
- Major killing point: The brothers seem to believe that the idea that their book is a Theory of Everything is a joke aimed at entertaining scientifically-minded people.
Dinko Mehenovic
- Dinko apparently had some clues about the Theory of Everything in a conversation with Nathan in 2001, now pretty much fully recorded including Nathan’s soliloquy at the end: Nathan’s Dialogue on Leibnizian Monads
- Dinko may have used leading questions in the dialogue to convince Nathan that he should think about the ToE. However, this is not completely certain as Dinko declares ignorance in several cases.
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.
- Major killing point: Although Nathan remembers Brian communicating something similar to Miller’s theory, Brian argues that this event was a hallucination in Nathan’s mind.
Renee Harlow, who was a poetry teacher at an arts program:
- Around 2000 - 2001 said metaphor was about effect and contrast, which sounds similar to Efficiency and Difference.
- Later claimed to change her mind and say that was about the dialectic of synthesis not metaphor.
- Maybe she didn’t mention coherence, but metaphor is a very similar concept, and metaphor is known to be about reaching results, which would seem to complete the formula.
- Major killing point: Renee was very much concerned with metaphor and expressed confusion when metaphor was compared to coherence theory.
Robert Pepperell in a paper published in late 2018 may have similar theories to combining efficiency and difference and energy: ‘If energy is the ability to do work then the displacement of a body undergoing work is due to force, defined as the ‘agency that tends to change the momentum of a massive body’ (Rennie, 2015) or less formally as a ‘push or a pull.’ Forces act and react antagonistically in equally opposing pairs and are therefore, like energy, manifestations of difference. The discipline of physics finds it convenient to treat energy, forces and work as distinct quantities to be balanced in abstract mathematical equations. But in nature they are integral and actualized, acting collectively in time and space with causal efficacy [One wonders if it was intentional to exclude the word ‘efficiency’].” Consciousness as a Physical Process Caused by the Organization of Energy in the Brain
E.F. Schumacher
- Had a kind of economic Theory of Everything: Schumacher’s economic theory of everything: “Infinite surplus does not exist within finite systems unless they have perpetual output.” (paraphrase, don’t know the actual source). Similar quote is mentioned here: Nathan Coppedge's answer to Who coined the phrase, "infinite growth does not exist in a finite system"?
- Major killing point: Schumacher’s statement at most expresses a reference to one half of Nathan’s TOE. It misses the other half. It is also a stretch of the imagination to compare a specific economic theory with a global physical or philosophical 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.
- Major killing point: Popplewell has quite a few writings, but establishing a broad comprehensive theory on what he supposedly wrote sounds random at this point, and the Theory he is communicating sounds more like elaborate psychology than physics or philosophy. If Popplewell had the actual Theory why wouldn’t he try harder to preserve what it actually was? And why does Popplewell believe he’s an immortal angel?
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
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.
- Major killing point: Michael Coppedge, PhD is not a generalist and thus criticizes the entire idea of a unified theory as being too contingent.
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.
- Major killing point: Scarpa does not feel successful in finding a unified theory.
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.
- Major killing point: Berkowitz is not known to have been successful in unifying logic or math.
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?
- Major killing point: Deloria appears to be sincere in writing about Native Americans, not philosophy or math.
Hints in Chinese philosophy circa 1000 - 2000 BCE or earlier:
Mencius / Mengzi / Meng Ke Weakness is evil with understanding, but not without. A single misstep on the path and one could lose understanding, and with it everything. This teaching seems to suggest difference creates power when used wisely, and efficiency along the path is to be recommended.
…
*—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.
…
As a manner of explanation for the possibility (or not) of a unique case, I have some information on the effects of coffee on creativity resulting from depressed mood.
The Function Spectrum might be a genius idea for Nathan Coppedge in 2020.
- For Rick McAllister and Brian Coppedge in 1994, the Function Spectrum might have been a bright idea, except they drank coffee.
An answer to all questions was a genius idea for Nathan Coppedge in 2018.
- An answer to all questions may have been an attractive idea for YY in 2000, except she had already had one coffee.
A Theory of Everything was a beyond genius idea for Nathan Coppedge in 2019.
- Nathan’s Dad might have thought of the Theory of Everything by 2000, but he had had too many coffees.
An alternate view is that some pretty advanced theories are common knowledge, but for some mysterious reason people don’t like talking about category theory, don’t feel like putting perpetual motion machines in museums, and don’t feel like popularizing The Theory of Everything, or simply haven’t applied the Theory of Everything in a manner that can predict quantum phenomena or even some parts of math. Perhaps someone with more intelligence than Nathan would have a conversation in which the validity of applying the Theory came into doubt, and the theory might have been critically considered and rejected.
…
Possible Earlier Sources of a T.O.E.
Links:
Solution to the Theory of Everything
