The Deduction of the Theory of Everything 1. There is existence; we are in it. While we are only privy to what is formed within our brains, we know there is a reality ‘out there’ because our senses take it in. This point is made since some say that reality is a projection; however the projector would still have a real existence. 2. The base, root existence could have no prior existence making it up, leaving only nonexistence to constitute it somehow. Either existence or nonexistence is the basis of all. 3. The basis of all, then, is either a thing or no-thing, each necessarily eternal and everywhere. 4. The basis of all must be eternal, of forever duration, for it would not be the basis of all if another basis was before it. 5. The basis of all must be infinite, of everywhere’s extent, for it would not be the basis of all if another basis was outside it. 6. A lack of everything (nothing) did not happen, for there is existence. 7. We cannot say that nothing begets nothing, for we do not know what the lack of anything could or couldn’t do. We can say, though, that it has no ‘what’ (contents), no where (place), no laws, no math, no known constraints, not anything to it, etc. 8. Either (A) the basis of all is a base existent, which is necessarily a thing, or (B) the basis of all is nonexistence, a no-thing. 9. The basis of all must be the simplest state, because it wouldn’t be the basis if it could be decomposed further. We do also see that composites are formed of simpler and simpler things, down unto the minuscule. 10. There can be no cause for the basis of all, since, again, then it is not the basis of all, so, it is necessarily causeless. We do see cause and effect above and beyond it, though. For the causeless, we have to find something other than cause and effect, such as an equation, perhaps. 11. For (A), the base existent thing would have to be unbreakable, as it could have no lower parts, and also unnamable, since it was never made, having been around forever. We don’t see a way that a thing could be already made and defined in its particulars without ever having been made and defined as such. This is not to say that there couldn’t be many, different base existents, this being separation instead of unity. We also don’t see what could have decided the total amount of instances of the base existent(s), nor why they would be workable as they are, rather than inert. This leaves the notion incomplete, and so it cannot become right until its incompleteness goes away. Incomplete notions are always wrong, if only by the virtue of their incompleteness. Having an infinite regress of smaller and smaller things does not help the incompleteness problem, but only adds to it. 12. For (B), having the basis of all being nonexistence, the base existent(s) would have to have been created from it. not being eternal in themselves, but this is not to say that they are not ever being created, as well as canceling back into nonexistence. A great support for this notion is that there is literally nothing to make anything of, that is, no other thing could contribute to the creation of the thing of the base existent(s), and so it appears inviolate, having no way around it. 13. We still don’t know what a lack of anything could do, for sure, all in all, even if we propose that it is lawless, and so anything goes, but we do know for sure that existence had to come from it, as there is no other source. Evidently, the notion of a lack of anything, or nonexistence, is not what we thought it was. 14. Since the basis of all is causeless, it is the Prime Mover, using similar language, having only itself as its precursor, and requiring nothing but itself before it our outside of it. 15. We could say that ‘possibility’ or ‘potential’ wouldn’t need anything before it but the same, but we don’t really know what those are, but we surely know that existence is here, and thus that it was indeed possible, and perhaps even mandatory. 16. To decide (A) from (B) more work is needed. In (A) we have infinitely old base existent(s), as indestructible, and it seems we can go no further about it. For (B), we can proceed, and so if that pans out, we can forget about (A), and would have to, anyway. 17. To see if existence can happen within nonexistence, we should have both a physics/philosophic representation of it and a confirmation by observation—that there is a zero-sum-balance of opposite polarities making up nature that nullifies all of existence in the overview of totality. I have a list that I keep adding to. For example, and this is probably not a real biggie on the list, there are opposites on the color wheel (each color not in its opposite), such as red/green, violet/yellow, and blue/orange, as well as all colors appearing in the rainbow, black being no colors, and white being all colors together. This just happens to match, respectively, Christmas colors, early spring colors, autumn colors, summer rainbows, night, and day. The list is presented after all of these points. 18. So, there seem to be balances of opposites everywhere in nature, and thus taking them all together, maybe some more than others, they might cancel out to nullify all of existence, overall, but not in practice if a lack of anything (nothing) is a perfectly unstable situation that cannot be or stay. 19. Nothing is the simplest state, so maybe it is somehow perfectly reactive. We do note that simpler and simpler actual things do readily go through changes of phases and combinings and recombinings, and that higher and higher composite complexities become more stable, but not that they are everlasting or even close to it. 20. Since nothing is a lawless state, it may produce all sort of variations of things, every so often producing these in the low probability event of an entire universe, which has to still happen sometime, in Eternity’s waiting room, and so it was that the mixtures in our universe were such that life could arise, although perhaps life being few and far between the billions of stars and galaxies and taking billions of years, even so, on our planet, this world also being in the right place to avoid total extinctions. The near extinctions, in which 95% of all life was extinguished actually helped us along by making openings for our forebears to evolve. 21. A nervous, shrew-like creature, upon seeing that the dinosaurs were gone, said, “Hurray! Now I can evolve!” (Not really the speaking part.) 22. So, during eternity, and throughout infinity, everything happens everywhere, even many times over. There are many Austin’s, John, and Melanie’s, and always were, and ever will be. 23. Due to determinism, brought about by cause and effect, there will always be exactly what will be. 24. The same with there being no free will, for will must depend on something, which is also how we want it to be. While learning can enlarge the will, to a new fixed state, there may be some who cannot learn, and so the knowing that there is no free will causes the further learning by us to have compassion for those who may be stuck in some way or another. 25. What good is existence if we are just a kind of tourist along for the ride, which also seems that our consciousness is, too, the subconscious analysis being completed beforehand? Well, it all still appears novel to us, and enjoyable, plus we have our own meaning out of it through existence while we live through our infinitesimal parentheses in the entire Eternity, which eternity of happenings everywhere has no real meaning overall at the ultimate level. It couldn’t be any other way, and we wouldn’t want a certain meaning forced on us anyway. So, in a way, it is a liberation, yet the sum information content of everything is the same as of nothing, which is zero. It’s like the Library of Babel that contains every possible book, even ones of gibberish. We wouldn’t know which variation of a book is right, because none are right and none are wrong. There is another Library of Everything next door to the Babel Library. It is a small, empty hut, containing nothing. 24. What is life? To know the answer, one must live it fully. 25. To replace cause and effect at the base level, where anything goes as the ultimate chaos of no laws, we could use just that—the disorganized law of no laws; but the source is still Nothing, and so it ever has to amount to nothing; so, an equation is the replacement—the zero-sum balances of the sum-things produced, and this leads to the necessity for the conservation of energy, momentum, charge, baryon number, and angular momentum, and perhaps more. 26. Nothing is the Prime Mover, requiring nothing but itself. The nonexistence of Nothing is perfectly neutral and symmetrical, while existence within nonexistence must be polar and asymmetrical for it to nullify itself back to nonexistence, yet, that doesn’t happen, for Nothing is perfectly unstable It would take a God to hold it together. 27. Nothing cannot be, so something must be. There is no choice, no option, and thus no Decider. 28. If there can be one universe, then it seems that there could be others, as neither its time nor place seems special. Earth is not the center of the solar system, the sun is, and the solar system is not the center of the galaxy, but on an outer arm, far away from the maelstrom at the core of the galaxy, and our galaxy is not the center of the universe, and the universe is probably not at the center of the multiverse. And humans have only been around for a relatively short while. There are 50-80 millions species here; we are but one of them. 29. Without the moon, the Earth would have wobbled like a top. Things are just right here, such as the food chain, our few miles of livable atmosphere, a bit of fresh water, bacteria—the true Kings of the Earth, inside us, making for digestion, and much more, etc. If any important link gets disrupted, we could be doomed. 30. There are trillions of stars, and no one seems to know why. Perhaps there needs to be such immensity because the infinitesimal is so small, as a balance, both seemingly unbounded. Or perhaps we could only find ourselves in a universe that was so large that at least some small amount planets would give hope for life, even beyond the fact the the universe has the right ingredients to begin with. Because we made it, we can always look back and expect to see what some might think were fortuitous happenings, like that the Earth didn’t get completely blown away by huge asteroids, or that the dinosaurs died out to pave our way, or that two chimp chromosomes fused to make new chimps that were incompatible with the old chimps; but, again, since we are here, we already know, even without looking back, that history had to go our way. 31. Evolution also selected for the notion of agency in nature, right or wrong, as a fine short cut for things having real agency, and some people carried it on into nature spirits and myths. It became better to suppose a bush rustling in the night from the wind to be of a bear’s doing, for it was better to be wrong than become dead, and so we invented ghosts and more. 32. People thought simply in the old days, likening the big Myth to that of the family structure, life coming from life, with a strict father figure commanding, but they couldn’t conceive that if life needed Life before it so then would Life need LIFE before it even all the more, or they didn’t care, since they had gained comfort from the belief. 33. Look for higher evolved life in the future, not in the past, for that would even be at the complete wrong end of the spectrum. 34. Humans may not be well made to survive in space or on other planets, since we were fine-tuned by evolution for this world, but if we don’t colonize space, then that may be the end of us, if we even make it that far, but, whatever will be will be, even to infinite precision, and that is fine, that what gets done depends on what goes before. And no one would even want all kinds of happenings going on without cause. 35. The universe is expanding, and this expansion is accelerating, unless there is some other reason for the red-shift, like photon decay, that has now sped up, and so, fairly for sure, the final fate of the universe will be to die out by so much dispersing that even one photon will not know of any other one. 36. So, the universe is ever winding down, like a spring unwinding, but this is what made for energy being able to accomplish things, it being restrained by slow and patient time so that everything didn’t all happen at once in some flash of a big mess. 37. Consciousness is a fundamental property of organized matter that cannot be further reduced to elementary properties. Not all neurons are involved in consciousness; for example, not much of the vast retinal/vision system, and many other areas whose injury or impairment does not stop consciousness. Consciousness is further seen to be of a brain process because the following can stop consciousness: Anesthesia to the brain cells; a blow to the head; sleep; too much poison/drugs. We can also probe the brain to make conscious visions appear. 38. Free will = none; it is fixed, although dynamic, via learning, and still fixed, in between, and at any instant. We believe that we have free will because of the sense of agency, the feeling that we willed an action. The feeling of agency is nothing but a conscious percept, with an Neural Consciousness Correlate that can be studied like any other. The brain makes decisions before the conscious mind is aware a decision has been made. This tells us not how decisions are made, but that decisions are made before we become aware of them and that agency plays no role in making them. The agency aspect of free will is orthogonal to how decisions are made. The main reason why the will cannot be free is that it depends on prior things. A will that depended on nothing would be a mini first cause that had nothing to draw on. The opposite of ‘determined’ is ‘undetermined’. We wouldn’t want that even if it was an option; yet, some want free will to be so. 39. Time is distance, and distance is the difference of space(s), that is, between here and there—the movement of something. This makes space the difference of time. So, time is a difference dimension, not a compositional one. One form of time is the displacement caused by motion. Is there another form, having to do with the 4th-dimensional aspect of time? It seems that time is the dimension that bounds, not extends, 3-dimensional space. Together, we have spacetime from space and time. Spacetime is the internal product of space and time, they seemingly woven together, but spacetime is also the product of energy and distance, for energy occupies space, or energy is space, the influences of E/M defining it. Is space*time the same as energy*distance? It is if energy = time*distance^2, energy spreading in time as the square of the distance. Space*time (ddd*t) = energy*distance (tdd*d). The speed of light seems to be absolute and so is the absolute dimensional equivalent between space and time, as distance(space) and time. Spacetime = time*distance^3, and so if c, the speed of light, has the dimensional units of of distance/time, then, solving for the external All, we have tddd * d/t = dddd, or distance^4, giving the All, which has no time, since it canceled out, a hypercube. We might have said time*distance^3 is distance^4, if time is distance, but distance^4 seems to be an external view, and, so, internally we seem to need time*distance^3, in which relative time exists. Time may be more of a subfield. Einstein thought that something had to give, and that was time, so he didn’t have it as absolute, as time being distance would have made it. If space’s three extents are defined by summation, then only one degree of freedom is left for a difference operator, namely time, to perform the utter nullification of space, since there is only nonexistence (nothing) to make anything of, and so the 4th dimension of time must have a polarity of a positive and negative axis, such as the polarity of charge that we see energy has. So, the second form of time could be charge. The 4th dimension, then, is not composed of points, as are the other three, but represents the points’ 4-dimensional deflection, which is a difference of position. c, the speed of light, underlies the dimensional relationship between time and distance and between the external hypercube view and the internal spacetime view, as, Distance^4 = c(time*distance^3), for c can be no only than what it is, as absolute. Energy density would be the 4th-dimensional slope of space. Just as Planck’s constant is the 4-dimensional quantization of photons, elementary charge is the 4-dimensional quantization of matter particles. The Cosmos in its external totality must be neutral and symmetric, to sum to nonexistence, whereas its internal composition must be polar and asymmetric, to have existence within nonexistence. C h S p a c e r g e Note: Because spacetime is 4-dimensional, we have to get used to thinking of that extra dimension of time, even though our ‘now’ is only three-dimensional, for it has no ‘time’ to it, as when time stops in movies and everything freezes in place. Time is not just a difference of space but of spaces. Time, as any higher dimension does, touches all lower dimensions, but it also moves along as its own dimension, so, somehow, think of many 3D-spaces stacked up into that next dimension, like a stack of infinite 3D-spaces pancakes with no height limitation, and that is what time is a difference of, or see time as covering two different slices of an Einstein 4D Block Universe, as a 4D ‘distance’. 40. Gravity seems to be the odd-man out of the four fundamental forces, but I think it stems from all of them, in a blend. The strong and weak nuclear forces, which some call sub-nuclear, oppose each other, as the strong force promotes stability, while the weak force promotes changeability. It’s a fine situation because then things are not so frozen that they cannot change, and not so wildly changeable that things cannot stick together. There are many such balances in nature. The electric and magnetic forces are not oppositional but completely two-way transitional, each giving rise to the other in turn, in a self-regenerating wave. Gravity is still AWOL, apparently not having a way to fit into this fine oppositional/transition scheme; however, what if it was the effect of all the forces together? 41. Perhaps from the driving apart of virtual particles by inflation faster than they could cancel out, the universe was born. The the basic particles formed stars, which produced some more of the (lower) atomic elements, supernovae spewing out the rest, which atoms formed into molecules, plants, and then into cells, and life, in some of which consciousness emerged, which allowed us to actionize without moving, and also know about what was going on around us and in us. We became—because stars died. We are the universe come to life. It only took 13-14 billions years. Cosmic and biological evolution is one really slow dog. 42. Neither “from nothing” or “stuff having been forever” is ‘god’, even being the furthest from it, and, also, since either situation is eternal, there was no creation of the situation, and thus no Creator. Recap: The basis of All can only be the simplest possible state. Higher things cannot exist until the parts are put together. This includes beings, and so they cannot be the basis of All, fundamental and absolute, etc., as the original basis and giving rise to all else. This basis could have had no creation, for then it wouldn’t have been the basis at all. “Consciousness making all” could not be the case, for then light would not be mostly cut off every time one closes their eyes, since, then, all should really continue on, via consciousness; however, the blind cannot see and the deaf cannot hear. We have senses because there is something “out there” to take in. Either (1) the basis of All is Nothing, since there is nothing to make anything of, or (2) the basis of all is an eternal thing, because something cannot be made from Nothing. There you have it, so, the true TOE is contained in one of the above; thus, we have localized the TOE, which is amazing in itself. The basis cannot be composite, or it wouldn’t be the basis, as its parts would be more basic; so, it is the simplest. Even though both (1) and (2) may seem to have problems, we know, for the right one, that these would not be real problems, but misunderstandings, for one of them must be true. A thing cannot be already forever and eternally be already made and defined without even having been made and defined, for then why is it how it is in particular? What would be the source from which the most basic thing could be made when there is no other thing to make it of? How could something arise from not anything? Something has to give, and at least we already know that, for one of the cases must be true. Perhaps not just one kind of basic thing comes to be, but all variations there of, and some of these recipes work and some don’t. By way of empirical observation we note that higher things come from simpler and simpler things, and that there is a balance of opposites making up nature. If the basic things were made, there is literally nothing to make the basics of. This is something that we know is true long before its proof, given the ‘if’. So, one is inclined to think that the basics are and were eternal, unless Nothing can make things. Apparently, a lack of anything (nothing) would be a completely and perfectly unstable situation. To confirm, we look at simpler and simpler things and see that they are less and less stable, readily changing, recombining, and/or going through phase changes, even to the point of popping back out of existence. Nothing is the simplest state, then, if it could even get close to being, but it cannot, making the near-nothing of the quantum fluctuations/uncertainty/tunneling the simplest state that can be and stay. Energy or substance forever being so has a problem, which is that there would have been no point at which its total amount could have been determined by being decided. Why not a bit more or a bit less of it? QED: Nothing cannot be, so something is, but it must balance to Nothing, but only in the overall view. Each proposition gives a little: sum-things ever arise, and always did, forever, as pairs of opposites, constituting a zero-balance overall. Existence is of nonexistence; they are one and the same. This All has no limitation of extent or duration; else it would not be the All if something was before it or outside it. Everything happens, everywhere and always. Stuff is forever, but it is not the same exact forever enduring stuff. Nothing still cannot be, yet it still plays a role in the Why, What, and How of all things. The zero-balance necessity begets the conservation laws of energy, momentum, and angular momentum—of point-of-view invariance, as discovered by Noether. There is action and reaction; conservation cannot be violated. Every particle is exactly at the place it should be at, and can not be even an iota off of its mark, as well as its energy-mass, etc. All credits and debits must sum to zero, to infinite precision. There is no skimming off the top. The list of balances: 1. The positive kinetic energy of stuff vs the negative potential energy of gravity. 2. Positive vs negative polarity of electric charge. 3. Matter vs antimatter. 4. Everything vs nothing, each holding the same information content. 5. Fields of space vs particles in space, fields making particles maybe, and perhaps particles making fields. 6. The largest infinity vs the smallest infinitesimal, with our finite reality at the mid-point. 7. The eternal future vs the eternal past, with our ‘now’ at the mid-point. 8. The strong nuclear force vs the weak nuclear force, the strong for stability, the weak for changeability. 9. Light making matter vs matter making light, each requiring the other to be previous. 10. Stellar ignition perhaps requires previous star material. 11. Electric force transforming into magnetic force into electric force, etc., as a self-regenerating wave 12. ‘Now’ becoming ‘past’ and transforming into ‘future’ via movement of matter through space. 13. Standing waves going both inward and outward at the same time, if they do. 14. Compression to nothing vs dispersion to nothing. 15. Positive vs negative curvatures of space, if there be such. 16. Virtual particles popping in and out of existence, always in pairs, with not enough energy to create them, to boot. 17. Two and only two stable charged matter particles in free space, the electron and the proton, and no uncharged matter particles. Only one stable energy particle in free space, the photon, neutral (or both positive and negative together), and no charged energy particles. 18. Color wheel opposites. 19. Male/female. 20. Mass/energy transition. 21. Wave/particle transition. 97. General efficiency, such as only three primary colors making up all the rest. 98. All oppositional-transitional schemes joining, such as the 4 fundamental forces having the strong vs weak in opposition and the electric to magnetic in transition, being having space vs matter in opposition and past to future in transition. 99. On/off, here/there, up/down, and all that kind of stuff.