I need advice about "publishing" my theory of everything

[Anonymous No.12445805]

Hi Sci. A few years ago I made an automaton that I am convinced is the "theory of everything". Wolfram has seen it and called it "really cool" around a month before he announced his own physics project. I have also found a good reception with around a dozen professors in the field who have said things like, "this will catch fire if you publish it" and, "this is amazing, and that's not a complement, it's my professional opinion".

Here's the thing. My highest level as an educator was as the director of the STEM department for a secondary education school district, I also helped develop STEM curriculum at the state level for secondary education, but I am not a member of "Academia". Because I am not academia I have found publishing difficult. For example, my theory is completely banned by the science subreddits for reasons which have never been explained to me other than I am "not associated with a reputed institute". To get around the publishing issue I founded my own "institute" which I named The Optimum Institute for Advanced Study. I know that is ridiculous, but I didn't know what else to do. To spread the theory I then made a 2-hour video behind a paywall and then used social media ads to pay off the distribution - that actually worked quite well and the theory reached several hundred thousand people that way, at least as an ad that explained the basics, YouTube, Facebook, etc... putting the theory behind a paywall was always about propagating the theory, and the ads were breakeven. I never made a profit.

I think enough people have seen the theory now, but for the sake of completion I would like to publish a traditional paper. I just don't know how. Any suggestions?

[Anonymous No.12445841]

Here is the theory if anyone is interested; I have taken to calling it "Optimum Theory" because of the way the automaton self optimizes. Also, it just sounds cool :-)

https://youtu.be/WuXCS_K_8qM

[Anonymous No.12445842]

>>12445805
>I have also found a good reception with around a dozen professors in the field who have said things like, "this will catch fire if you publish it" and, "this is amazing, and that's not a complement, it's my professional opinion".
Choose the most reputable one (in terms of authorship), broach the idea of co-authoring a paper with them, and get them to stamp their name on it as well as handle all of the finicky publishing-related details.

[Anonymous No.12445859]

>>12445842
>Choose the most reputable one (in terms of authorship), broach the idea of co-authoring a paper with them, and get them to stamp their name on it as well as handle all of the finicky publishing-related details.

I don't know if they would go for that since I am not affiliated with their institutes... but maybe?

Is there a reputed place to publish where I can just type something up and upload it?

If not, that seems like a major weakness in our sciences. A lot of people out there have good ideas, but don't have the connections or money to just join some Academic institute for the sole purpose of getting the idea out there...

[Anonymous No.12445861]

crackpot says what?

[Anonymous No.12445877]

>>12445859
>I don't know if they would go for that since I am not affiliated with their institutes... but maybe?
I can assure you that if what you have is worth publishing, they won't care about affiliations at all.

[Anonymous No.12445953]

>>12445877
>I can assure you that if what you have is worth publishing, they won't care about affiliations at all.

Cool.

Does this even make sense? Hundreds of thousands of people, including professors and Stephen Wolfram, have already seen the theory... so if I got one of these professors to cosign, then it would just be their faculty who would read it? How does it work? They would then peer review it?

[Anonymous No.12446067]

>>12445953
>Does this even make sense?

No. If what you're saying is true you're doing fine without the Academic publishing system. Wolfram does not publish "traditionally" either. Neither did Charles Darwin.

[Anonymous No.12446183]

>tfw knows how to invent theory of everything
>but would like to publish a traditional paper. just doesn’t know how.

[Anonymous No.12446203]

>>12445805
we have special sections for theories of everything and alternatives to modern physics for people like you at physics conferences now. Usually called something like "General Physics". Feel free to sign up to share your revelations with other alternatively gifted scientists.

[Anonymous No.12446255]

>>12445805
Ok, if you want a serious critique, then here you go. You immediately make two erroneous assumptions that a 2nd year physics major can tell you about:
1) Locality. Quantum mechanics is non-local. Bell's inequalities ensure this.
2) Simultaneity. Events in special relativity are generally not simultaneous.
So your simulation, if it actually works, can only be good for classical non-relativistic mechanics.

[Anonymous No.12446271]

>>12446203
>Feel free to sign up to share your revelations with other alternatively gifted scientists.

Am OP. I was invited to one of these hosted by Wolfram. Would not be until 2021. It's a possibility.

[Anonymous No.12446314]

>>12446255
>1) Locality. Quantum mechanics is non-local. Bell's inequalities ensure this.

Information always travels to us locally.

https://youtu.be/XL9wWeEmQvo

Laugh if you want about me quoting Sabine Hossenfelder, but she's an honorary Optimist at my pretend institute, so...

[Anonymous No.12446330]

>>12446255
>2) Simultaneity. Events in special relativity are generally not simultaneous.

It's easy to get caught up in the semantics, about things like locality and simultaneity, but there is no contradiction between Optimum Theory and Einstein's theories. Inverting the automaton normalizing energymatter around space reproduces what you would think of as warped spacetime.

[Anonymous No.12446341]

>>12446314
Entanglement has nothing to do with information traveling. You cannot communicate a message via disentanglement. There are tons of experiments out there that confirm that particles disentangle instaneneously before light can travel from one to another.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=bell%27s+inequality+experiment&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DfDh-0QA-GFkJ
took me 5 seconds to google this

[Anonymous No.12446353]

>>12446330
>there is no contradiction between Optimum Theory and Einstein's theories.
there is. You literally stated it in your video and I quote "simultaneity". There is no semantics involved. Your theory has events happening at the same time, and this is not the case in special relativity.

[Anonymous No.12446366]

>>12446341
>>12446353

There is no contradiction between these positions and Optimum Theory.

[Anonymous No.12446377]

>>12446366
you crackpots always amaze me in your extreme dedication. When somebody tells you you're mistaken you feverishly oppose it no matter what. You're willing to contradict yourself to do it. I genuinely admire this dedication, but I wish you had some critical thinking to complement it.

[Anonymous No.12446451]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHiAbPgqOhA

great singing, Gary

[Anonymous No.12446469]

>>12446451

Thanks!

Might be my last song for a while.

[Anonymous No.12446767]

>>12445805
I believe in you anon

[Anonymous No.12446814]

>>12445805
Wish u luck, Gary!

[Anonymous No.12446859]

>>12446377
> I genuinely admire this dedication, but I wish you had some critical thinking to complement it.
I fucking love the burns you get on this board when people are actually talking about science

[Anonymous No.12446897]

>>12445805
>I would like to publish a traditional paper. I just don't know how. Any suggestions?
It's simple. You find a journal you'd like to send your paper to, and look for the "instructions for authors" page on their website. Then you follow exactly those instructions and send it in. You do not need to be affiliated with an institution to do this, making one up is literally fine. The submission forms will probably ask you for one but nothing happens if what put in there isn't a real institution. You don't even have to use your own name to publish.

Anyway, if you don't know what the good journals are, Google scholar has metrics for how 'reputable' the journals are. A good rule of thumb is also that the higher the impact factor of a journal, the wider its reach.

Now aside from all of that, your paper is probably going to be rejected even before it goes for peer review. And if you try to sell your idea as 'theory of everything', it will most certainly not even be considered for peer review anywhere. What you have is nice, but it's not a theory. It's an elegant algorithm, but not a theory. Does it make any predictions over and above current theory? If it does, test those predictions with currently available data. Conversely, does current theory make predictions that cannot be accounted for my your algorithm? Yes, there are many, and so that limits the scope of the generalization of your algorithm. You should consider these things honestly, and put them in your paper, to convey clearly and honestly what your algorithm can and cannot do.

Also, your algorithm is a computationally not very demanding. Try coding it up in python or octave, because it'll run a whole lot faster than in excel. That way you could also publish the code as a supplement to the paper. And it'll help you to condence the math of the algorithm so that you can put it in your paper in a clear way.

[Anonymous No.12446907]

>>12445805
Consider a schizo royal rumble of co-authors. You, Tooker and Chris Langan. The combined delusion might just be enough to break the simulation and allow for a bizarro world where you guys end up sharing the Nobel Prize for your combined work.

[Anonymous No.12446922]

>>12445805
I remember when you first posted this. I was still in undergrad and now I’m almost done with grad school lol

[Anonymous No.12447677]

>>12445805
could you give us a short overview of the maths? there are several layers, but it's not entirely clear to me how they interact. does it produce a differential equation?

[Anonymous No.12448016]

>>12445805
There are book print on demand services, where you write book on web, and then somebody can buy it and it's printed only after purchase.

Then you could write some articles to "frontiers" google it. You don't have to be academic, you have to find publisher.

You can have blog article. Or you can upload book to libgen,

[Anonymous No.12448042]

>>12445805
Vixra

[Anonymous No.12449290]

>>12448042
That's literally Tooker tier

[Anonymous No.12449332]

>>12449290
Pretty fitting then

[Anonymous No.12449366]

>>12446897
Good advice

[Anonymous No.12449494]

The algo according to the video (typing from my phone)

Let M_t a n*n square matrix of "energy points"

1. Set M_t+1 = M_t convolved with filter of size k*k. This filter has a ~circle shape : 0.2*((0,1,0),(1,1,1),(0,1,0)).

2. Set A_t+1 = abs(M_t+1 - M_t)

3. Create B_t+1 such as (B_t+1)_ij in { 1,...,8} . B_t+1 is a coded matrix that indicates for each (A_t+1)_ij, which of its 8 neighbours had the greatest value. It's like an argmax of the neighborhood.

4. Repeat.

What the animation shows is the evolution of B_t color coded (1= red, 2= blue, etc.).

Basically you are looking at arrows pointing at the neighbours with greatest absolute change, after repeated convolution of M_t.

No fucking idea how is this a theory of everything. Also why is OP doing this in Excel when it's just 3 lines of numpy?

I hope you're joking OP when you say you've spent 10 years doing this

[Anonymous No.12449524]

>>12449494
For 3D, just use a n*n*n tensor for M_t and a 3D ball filter.

[Anonymous No.12449596]

>its the optimum retard again
your blur kernel isn't a theory of everything retard

[Anonymous No.12449996]

>>12445861
Kek

[Anonymous No.12450005]

Don't take people here seriously

[Anonymous No.12450255]

Isn't this some kind of simulation of diffusion? Like a discrete scheme that takes averages, which smoothes the initial conditions.

[Anonymous No.12450269]

>>12450255
its literally just a blur kernel he's applying over and over

[Anonymous No.12450277]

>>12449494
He's been posting on and off here as well as reddit for the past ~2 years repeating the same exact things and even charging money for access to this "knowledge", he's actually serious. At one point he even managed to recruit a following insane enough to think he's onto something, the board was near unusable for a month straight because it was all "optimum theory" threads.

[Anonymous No.12450304]

>>12450269
So this guy creates an emergent universe out of the stupidest filters out here? Sounds like an elaborate troll

[Anonymous No.12450507]

>>12450304
he's not creating anything, just blurring an image and applying a gradient of random colors to make it look like its doing something

[Anonymous No.12450565]

>>12450507
yeah. Definitely looks like a very interesting case of pareidolia.

[Anonymous No.12450605]

>>12450565
>yeah. Definitely looks like a very interesting case of pareidolia.

The equation came first. This wasn't like Wolfram's hypergraphs where we were searching for "things that look like such and such". Instead we asked ourselves, "if the general assumptions of physics are true, what is the simplest equation that maintains those principles?", everything else was emergent. The equation was established before it was ever computed.

[Anonymous No.12450622]

>>12445841
>the universe runs on wingdings in excel. kek, have you posted the excel sheet anywhere? might write a program to simulate this if I feel like it later.

[Anonymous No.12450623]

>>12450605
You clearly don't know what pareidolia means.

[Anonymous No.12450635]

>>12445841
>excel simulation

[Anonymous No.12450639]

>>12445841
>the universe runs on wingdings in excel.
kek, have you posted the excel sheet anywhere? might write a program to simulate this if I feel like it later.

[Anonymous No.12450643]

>>12450605
I already quickly recreated the first steps of the excel file in a few liner in python, up to the time difference. Extremely concise and quick. If my attempt is fully successful I will contact OP

[Anonymous No.12450650]

>>12445877
>>>/sci/thread/S3751105
>those ghost comments

[Anonymous No.12450652]

this is OP's reddit account, have fun reading the complete delusion
https://www.reddit.com/user/ftl20xx

[Anonymous No.12450669]

>>12450623
>You clearly don't know what pareidolia means.

Anyone can Google the definition. Again, the patterns were emergent from the equation. We did not reverse engineer from the pattern. We did not "look for patterns". We started by developing the simplest equation we could that satisfied established understandings of material reality / physics. The patterns came from that. Please think deeply about what this means, because in other words, no this is not a case of pareidolia.

[Anonymous No.12450672]

>>12450669
BOX BLUR

[Anonymous No.12450691]

>>12446907
Don't forget ababou. Would love to see the kind of shit they come up with together. It'd probably look like a fucking /x/ infographic.

[Anonymous No.12450865]

To OP: I think I have a full code in python of your thing. Great success.

Unfortunately, those you call 'stable particles' actually diffuse away (as expected) after lots of time steps

[Anonymous No.12450965]

>>12450865
>Unfortunately, those you call 'stable particles' actually diffuse away (as expected) after lots of time steps

You need to normalize. The Universe is not actually numbers. It's relationships.

[Anonymous No.12450967]

>>12450865
Gotta say that playing with the colors is quite entertaining though

[Anonymous No.12450973]

>>12450865
>>12450965

... point being, the diffusion will never be total if the equation is being perfectly computed, since the starting energymatter points will always be "larger" relative to their diffusions. Normalize.

[Anonymous No.12450977]

Your a retarded schizo and nothing you posted was worthwhile. The people you talked with were stuck up retards who tried to be supportive. Don't waste your time.

[Anonymous No.12450981]

>>12450967
>Gotta say that playing with the colors is quite entertaining though

Glad you think so!

[Anonymous No.12450993]

>>12450865
>Unfortunately, those you call 'stable particles' actually diffuse away (as expected) after lots of time steps

They are only diffuse because your computer cannot calculate to infinity. If calculated on an infinite computer (such as whatever our Universe is running on) the particles would be stable and defuse forever.

[Anonymous No.12450995]

>>12450965
normalizing does literally nothing to change the fact that particles diffuse away in your "model"

[Anonymous No.12451000]

>>12450993
>They are only diffuse because your computer cannot calculate to infinity. If calculated on an infinite computer (such as whatever our Universe is running on) the particles would be stable and defuse forever.

To continue: your computer is simplifying the irrational numbers and making them rational (since your computer cannot calculate true infinity). In really those numbers would be fractioning, diffusing forever.

[Anonymous No.12451010]

>>12450995
>normalizing does literally nothing to change the fact that particles diffuse away in your "model"

Think deeply. Your computer is not capable of calculating true irrational numbers - no computer can. So it simplifies. If you had an infinite computer it would diffuse your energymatter points forever, like we see in our Universe. This has always been a principle of Optimum Theory: only the Universe can calculate the equation - our tools can only limit to it.

[Anonymous No.12451017]

this is so sad....

[Anonymous No.12451018]

>>12450995
There is no way this is a legit physical model, but cellular automata are cool and OP may be onto something. However we are in schizo territory

[Anonymous No.12451023]

>>12451010
nothing youve said relates to diffusion at all you mong

[Anonymous No.12451032]

>>12451018
>However we are in schizo territory

Meh. There was a time when germ theory, heliocentrism and evolution were considered schizo.

[Anonymous No.12451041]

>>12451023
>nothing youve said relates to diffusion at all you mong

You are not thinking deeply. Stop thinking about what you have been told and start thinking about what you know. Big difference. Only one path leads to truly revolutionary thought. Cheers.

[Anonymous No.12451058]

>>12451041
>You are not thinking deeply.

You are not thinking.

[Anonymous No.12451066]

>>12451058
>You are not thinking.

[Anonymous No.12451077]

>>12451032
If this is couple with some serious math to justify it, it can be published. If not in a physics journal, definitely at least in some CS journal

[Anonymous No.12451096]

>>12451077

You might be interested in this:

Www.Cerebras.net

It's a new chip specially designed to run the Optimum equation / automaton. They don't call it that, but read the documents on their site, they are indistinguishable. Development on the chip began around 7 months after Optimum Theory was first presented.

The chip is now being used at the U.S. Department of Energy to model fundamental physics for nuclear reactors. Pretty cool stuff!

[Anonymous No.12451108]

>>12451096
>Www.Cerebras.net

Specifically www.cerebras.net/blog

The chip is literally the Optimum automaton on a chip. Literally indistinguishable.

We need more people working on this stuff. It's the only way we will achieve upload in our lifetimes, which is the overarching purpose of The Optimum Institute. Cheers.

[Anonymous No.12451118]

>>12451108
cheers man

[Anonymous No.12451718]

>>12451077
Post code

[Anonymous No.12451721]

>>12445805
>For example, my theory is completely banned by the science subreddits for reasons which have never been explained to me other than I am "not associated with a reputed institute
Insitutions are becoming straight up dogmatic authoritarians

[Anonymous No.12451815]

>>12451010
>Think deeply. Your computer is not capable of calculating true irrational numbers - no computer can.
So you're saying that no one will ever be able to compute your algorithm to a point where it is useful. Then what use is your algorithm? If it can't make predictions, we cannot lean anything from it we didn't already know.

[Anonymous No.12451820]

>>12451721
Reddit is not an "institution". You got banned from a forum for being obnoxious.

[Anonymous No.12451823]

>>12451018
Math and schizo go well together

Btw you're right, applying a gaussian filter over and over will yield you a matrix with only same valeus. Nothing "stable" here. There lacks some geenrative non linearity (eg additionnal random noise, maxpooling ?) to have something else

[Anonymous No.12451824]

>>12451815
>So you're saying that no one will ever be able to compute your algorithm to a point where it is useful. Then what use is your algorithm? If it can't make predictions, we cannot lean anything from it we didn't already know.

We can only limit toward the equation. The more computer power we throw at it, the higher the fidelity of our simulations. Cerebras, a new startup, has designed the fastest chip ever (1.2 trillion transistors) based on the principles of Optimum Theory. It's being used by the US Department of Energy to model fundamental physics for nuclear reactors as we speak.

[Anonymous No.12451832]

>>12451824
Can you put a number on how many iterations it needs to be sufficiently close? I have acces to not one but three computer clusters used for physics simulations. In a day or so I can probably have it run several trillion iterations. Will that be enough? What will the resulting picture tell us?

[Anonymous No.12451834]

>>12451824
>based on the principles of Optimum Theory

The chip architecture is indistinguishable from the Optimum automaton. All the documentation is on their web page. They are identical.. Whether Cerebras was directly inspired by Optimum Theory is debatable, but they did begin develop of their chip months after Optimum Theory was first presented.

[Anonymous No.12451835]

>>12451824
>the equation
which is?

[Anonymous No.12451836]

>another Gary thread

[Anonymous No.12451837]

>>12451832
>What will the resulting picture tell us?

If you are using realnumbers, positive and negative, the automaton should cluster into a stable matter and antimatter pair, just like in real life.

[Anonymous No.12451842]

>>12451837
>a stable matter and antimatter pair,
In real life matter and antimatter don't form stable pairs. They cancel each other out lol

[Anonymous No.12451845]

>>12451820
they're downstream from upholding dogmatic authority if you aren't able to put forward conversation on common social media hubs without being institutionally validated

i don't use plebbit

[Anonymous No.12451846]

>>12451837
You dodged the question about how many iterations is enough.

[Anonymous No.12451847]

>>12451835

The Universe = Energymatter / Space.

U = E / S

There are many ways to write that of course. Energymatter can be described as magnitute for example.

Cerebras uses the equation Y*b = x at each node for their chip, which is of course just a reshuffling of the Optimum equation... and a new theory that was published today by the engineering department of NC University uses the same equation as well. The world is waking up. But I think it's important that I get credit for this. Optimum Theory is not my only revolutionary idea and its important that we allow truly revolutionary thinkers to have their say, also its important for future researchers to know that their innovations will not just be stolen.

[Anonymous No.12451853]

>>12451823
>Math and schizo go well together
It's unfortunate but this schizo apparently can't even do math

[Anonymous No.12451854]

>>12451842
>In real life matter and antimatter don't form stable pairs. They cancel each other out lol

No, they cancel each other out if they touch. Same as in the automaton.

[Anonymous No.12451856]

>>12450277
Whenever something like this happens it just means the faggot found an infernal burst of energy to shill harder. It's not a question of actually converting anybody

[Anonymous No.12451857]

>>12451847
That's not the full equation, this by itself won't run anything. Please be more specific so that we may examine your claims. If you want to publish this you're going to have to allow scrutiny.

[Anonymous No.12451860]

>>12451847
You want credit for repeated multiplication?

[Anonymous No.12451866]

>>12451846
>You dodged the question about how many iterations is enough

It's not about the number or iterations. It's about resolution. How many nodes / cells can you calculate? The Universe calculates infinite "nodes" not just in scope but also in depth. At any point in the Universe you would require infinite computation to simulate. The dot of an i requires infinite computation in base reality. You can zoom into that dot of ink forever.

The Cerebras Chip has 1.2 trillion nodes (transistors), a record... but that is nothing compared to the Universe's hardware. We can only limit toward that resolution. In fact this is the true nature of uncertainty principle.

[Anonymous No.12451873]

>>12451857
>That's not the full equation, this by itself won't run anything.

It the equation in the way that E = MC2 is an equation.

U = E / S is an idealized concept. To run that equation using human tools will always take jerryrigging.

[Anonymous No.12451878]

>>12451866
You're dodging the question again. Be specific. If we it's not practically possible to implement your algorithm then it's not worth considering.

Just give me the specifics in terms of computation for what in your view would suffice to make a prediction from your model. The grid size, number of iterations, etc.

I can then do some calculations and tell you how long it would take to run on a powerful computer cluster. I'd even be willing to actually run it, the Christmas break is coming up and loads of resources will be free. But if you refuse to be specific then there's no point.

[Anonymous No.12451880]

>>12451860
>You want credit for repeated multiplication?

The unified equation is simple. Could not be simpler. But the understands required to discover the equation were such that they could have never been randomly stumbled upon. The unified equation is a simple concept that required several revolutionary jumps in understanding.

Its similar in a way to evolution theory. Why did it take humanity so long to figure out that species change a little every generation and that filters through survival? Very simple concept, right? But to understand evolution required several revolutionary leaps: that the Earth is billions of years old, that humans are animals and not mystical, that all life is related, that information is encoded in DNA, etc...

[Anonymous No.12451884]

>>12451853
Kek true

>>12451847
Anon makes it sounds like he invented the fucking linear operations


100% schizo thread. Heal yourself OP.

[Anonymous No.12451889]

>>12451880

Similary, the unified equation (optimization theory, i.e. optimum theory), required "faith" in several revolutionary ideas that are only now becoming common place: that energy and matter are the same substance; that an idealized automata computation is closer to base reality than traditional mathematics, that there is truly nothing mystical about our Universe (it is entirely "material"), that fundamental particles can be broken down even further, understanding of Higgs field, etc...

[Anonymous No.12451892]

>>12451884
>Anon makes it sounds like he invented the fucking linear operations

And yet when Optimum Theory was first posted here, hundreds of Anons were trying to reverse engineer it without luck, until I told them how I did it. Only then did people start acting like it was obvious all along.

[Anonymous No.12451894]

>>12451878
>Just give me the specifics in terms of computation for what in your view would suffice to make a prediction from your model. The grid size, number of iterations, etc.
>I can then do some calculations and tell you how long it would take to run on a powerful computer cluster. I'd even be willing to actually run it, the Christmas break is coming up and loads of resources will be free. But if you refuse to be specific then there's no point.

Contact me at www.optimuminstitute.org if you are serious about this.

[Anonymous No.12451924]

>>12451894
I am serious about it but my time is not unlimited. Before I actually get in touch with you I'd need to know if you're serious about it too, and won't just be draining my time. If you refuse to be specific here then I'm going to assume the latter is the case and I won't contact you. So one last attempt: please post the gird size and number of iterations that in your view would suffice. Failing that, I don't see a point in taking things further.

[Anonymous No.12451938]

>>12451924
>I'd need to know if you're serious about it too

Go to the website I gave you, consider the amount of time it must have taken me to produce that video (6 months, fyi). Yes I'm serious about this. I have video chatted the over 100 people through that site. Ball's in your court. I will check emails tomorrow. Goodnight.

[Anonymous No.12451939]

>>12451938
Good night. We won't ever talk.

[Anonymous No.12452071]

>>12451938
Why dont you want to give them the specs here ? Its just some numbers, grid size and number of iteration, you litteraly got nothing to lose if you genuinly think your theory is worth it
It feels like you dont actually want your idea to be shared and put trough the tests of peer review, which is sad since it's how science make things works

[Anonymous No.12452188]

>>12452071
It's the hallmark of a crackpot. They're convinced they know the absolute truth and are unwilling to take on board any criticism, or even put themselves in a position where they could be shown wrong. That's why he won't commit here: if there are concrete predictions then that it opens up the possibility that his predictions turn out to be wrong.

[Anonymous No.12452197]

"really cool" is what you tell in passing to that schizo dude who keeps pestering you but you don't want to be a dick

[Anonymous No.12452315]

>>12445805
Make your base equation a recursive function and show me what happens with the environments. I'm extremely curious.

[Anonymous No.12452776]

>>12451939
he always does this kek, the link in >>12450652
is a fucking gold mine. Fuck this wad

[Anonymous No.12452790]

Lol until you create something more complex than a wave you are just doing negative and positive spam

You cant make complex structures

[Anonymous No.12452823]

????

[Anonymous No.12452832]

>>12452823
LOL

[Anonymous No.12453114]

>>12452823
context

[Anonymous No.12453179]

>>12450652
his new reddit is https://www.reddit.com/user/GaryTheOptimist
But nowadays he spends more time on twitter

[Anonymous No.12453206]

>>12452823
context

[Anonymous No.12453220]

>>12453114
jesus christ, what a farce. this is painful to read

bumping for ylyl content

[Anonymous No.12453224]

>>12453220
meant for
>>12453206

[Anonymous No.12453340]

>>12445805
This all sounds very interesting, but I think in order to get this published you will need to have some credibility. Maybe try asking one of the professors that endorsed your theory to publish it while giving you credit?

[Anonymous No.12453436]

>>12453206
Kek, so much cringe

[Anonymous No.12455539]

>>12452188
>That's why he won't commit here: if there are concrete predictions then that it opens up the possibility that his predictions turn out to be wrong.

You have complete misunderstood what we are doing here. The automaton has been amended hundreds of times, and will be amended hundreds more.

Do you even believe that physics can be unified?

[Anonymous No.12455544]

>>12455539
>Do you even believe that physics can be unified?

Infact this is the question we should always lead with, "1) do you believe we live in a material, logical Universe? 2) If so, do you believe there is an equation that governs our Universe?

If the answer is not yes to both these questions, then the conversation is pointless.

[Anonymous No.12455548]

>>12452790
>You cant make complex structures

The logic here is that the automaton has proven attracting and repulsing particles, know that we can then simulate particle attraction and repulsion, and what happens is self optimization. Youtube search, "particle life".

[Anonymous No.12455556]

>>12452071
>Why dont you want to give them the specs here ? Its just some numbers, grid size and number of iteration, you litteraly got nothing to lose if you genuinly think your theory is worth it

The automaton has already been simulated with super computer using billions of cells. The equation reproduces matter / antimatter pair production as already said. That user would not be offering anything unique to us. S/he is free to re-create the automaton in whatever grid size / iteration # s/he wishes

[Anonymous No.12455656]

https://youtu.be/7BkZ1gXqYy4

Cassandra was a prophet who always spoke the truth. Sabine's song is only casually about Cassandra the Prophet, while weaving in some interesting lyrics:

"I have a life to live, bills to pay, kids to feed... all these man are talking... I have a game to play so I lied to them... but I can recommend an optimist".

She published it a few days after the Anon in question was harassing her about Gary the Optimist.

No matter, she Liked a post from The Optimum Institute on Twitter whether you all like that or not.

[Anonymous No.12455658]

Oh so that reddit mod says he banned Gary for being evasive or some shit? Weird that he PMed Gary this right afterward, and repeatedly kept messaging him.

[Anonymous No.12455661]

>>12455656

But to be clear, yes, Sabine and Gary are both, technically prophets. Biblically speaking. Both from the that bloodline as well. Bunch of silly shit if you ask me.

[Anonymous No.12455665]

>>12455658

I mean, I'm an atheist, obviously, but my blood wrote the Bible and died on the cross, and I love my heritage.

[Anonymous No.12455674]

>>12455658

Not that it matters. Science is about ideas, not people. Something very important that very few of you understand.

[Anonymous No.12455680]

I remember your first post in here, Gary. Have you figured out something interesting since then? I hope you get to publish this. After computer scientists raped staticians and chemists, the final lulz without any doubt would be automatons throwing modern physics down the gutter.

[Anonymous No.12455696]

>>12445841
I like your creation, but for the love of god, never again show that white chessboard. It is really confusing, and hurts my eyes. The color stuff is totally fine.

[Anonymous No.12455720]

>>12455680
>the final lulz without any doubt would be automatons throwing modern physics down the gutter.

That's the plan, man

[Anonymous No.12455751]

>>12455680
>Have you figured out something interesting since then

We figured out that the automaton is best computed using spheres in a "seed of life" type pattern - any similarity to sacred geometry is coincidental.

The biggest thing is how rapidly the world is adapting the ideas in Optimum Theory, whether convergently or through direct influence. I am convinced that Wolfram's Physics Project was directly inspired by Optimum Theory but I have no way to prove that. Wolfram did call Optimum Theory "cool" using an official and public profile around a month before announcing his own physics project. Anyway, the more people talking about fundamental physics the better; the overarching goal of The Optimum Institute is technological immortality through upload and we will need a total model of physics to achieve that. The biggest success by far is in a recent startup called Cerebras, again, I cannot prove they were inspired by Optimum Theory but their blog posts could have been pulled directly from Optimum Theory and furthermore, their chip (which recently smashed Moore's Law as the fastest super computer chip, ever, by 200x) is the Optimum Automaton on a chip - essentially identical. The Cerebras Chip is literally the automaton grid on a chip - 1.2 trillion cells. The world doesn't realize it yet, but I truly believe that Cerebras is the singularity. It represents, essentially the most computationally perfect computer chip possible with the exception of scaling the chip vertical into 3d space... arranging the chip as a tetrahedron might also improve efficiency... but fundamentally a Cerebras style chip will be the chip that runs the upload. In any case, the Cerebras chip has only been available for a few months but is already being used by the U.S. military to model nuclear reactions. Point is: ain't no body who can say jack shit about Optimum Theory now, the Cerebras chip is proof positive of the theory's potential.

Worth checking out: www.cerebras.net

[Anonymous No.12455756]

>>12455720
>the final lulz without any doubt would be automatons throwing modern physics down the gutter

Not only that, but I think we all know in our hearts this is why Optimum Theory is banned on the science subreddits ;-)

No matter, as always, optimization is inevitable.

[Anonymous No.12455766]

>>12455696
>I like your creation, but for the love of god, never again show that white chessboard. It is really confusing, and hurts my eyes. The color stuff is totally fine.

I only know Excel. I'm been shouting / begging from the rooftops for someone to walk me through another programming language...

[Anonymous No.12456067]

Nice cellular automata. I tried simulating it myself, hopefully the code is right! The algorithm is basically: start with initial distribution. Then iteratively convolve with a Gaussian. Then color based on the gradient.

[Anonymous No.12456071]

I'm not seeing many properties of this CA that could not be proved with relatively simple mathematics. For example, showing that turning points are annihilated pairwise ("gravity-esque") is well-known in image filtering, its called scale-space methods.

[Anonymous No.12456101]

>>12456067
>Then iteratively convolve with a Gaussian. Then color based on the gradient.

Basically, yeah! It's stupid simple. Never said it wasn't. Honestly, I get why people make fun of it, calling it a "box blur" etc... but evolution is simple too. Fundamental theories tend to be "elegant", i.e. simple.

[Anonymous No.12456102]

>>12456067
>>12456071
based

[Anonymous No.12456113]

>>12456101
I used pygame to animated, btw. As others have mentioned it is not more than a few lines of numpy.

[Anonymous No.12456115]

>>12456071

We derived a lot equations from this algorithm a few years ago. Einstein equations. Gravity equations. Turns out you can derive anything starting with only energy and space as variables.

The unified equation was hiding in plain sight.

There is a YouTube video somewhere, I wish I could remember what its called, but basically it's a guy who was trying to write an algorithm for a blurring tool, and the algorithm kept generating what can only be described as electromagnetic waves, you can see them in the video. He noted it but brushed it aside. Its fascinating. Reminds me the history of electricity, was just a parlor trick to make hair stand on end, etc... until later people figure out that this parlor trick was actually one of the most fundamental forces of all reality.

Averaging.

Averaging is the fundamental force of everything.

[Anonymous No.12456119]

>>12456115

Even gravity, when you think about what it truly is, it's just mass averaging toward itself.

[Anonymous No.12456124]

>>12456113
Could you post code?

[Anonymous No.12456132]

>>12456115
>There is a YouTube video somewhere, I wish I could remember what its called, but basically it's a guy who was trying to write an algorithm for a blurring tool, and the algorithm kept generating what can only be described as electromagnetic waves, you can see them in the video. He noted it but brushed it aside. Its fascinating

Found it :-)

https://youtu.be/i3XmRgP8Lww

[Anonymous No.12456133]

>>12455766
>I only know Excel
Fucking kek, you're a fucking retard. You could have been fluent in any programming language by now if you had even tried to learn it.

[Anonymous No.12456137]

>>12456115
Just shut the fuck up already you stupid faggot. You haven't derived shit. You made a blur filter. That's it. It's retarded.

[Anonymous No.12456148]

What blows my mind is what happens then you put a bunch of particles that attract and repel together: a property already proven in the automaton. They self optimize :-) i.e. Optimization Theory, Optimum Theory for short.

Science got it all wrong. The Universe tends toward ORDER not disorder.

Heat systems (thermo) tend toward disorder, dissipation... but the Universe is not absolute numbers! It's real numbers! Positive and negative! They "sharpen" each other! They optimize!

https://youtu.be/-c5XaC5-DXg

[Anonymous No.12456155]

>>12456148

I should have put science in quotes, "science".

Nothing wrong with science fundamentally of course my, but the 2nd law of thermo only applies to absolute number scales. Universe is real numbers!

[Anonymous No.12456156]

>>12456148

The fact that video has only 1,200 views... a video basically proving computationally self emergent complex system, i.e. life... mind-blowing. It's a reminder that our work truly is virgin territory, fresh ground. We truly are trailblazing.

[Anonymous No.12456162]

>>12456156

The little emergent pulsar being looks ready to burst into a recitation of I Sing The Body Electric like Whitman

[Anonymous No.12456175]

>>12456156
Shut the fuck up faggot, let this thread die

[Anonymous No.12456190]

>>12456156

This one only has 138 views! https://youtu.be/Mql3FVs97g0

[Anonymous No.12456228]

>>12456156
Anon you are a fuckin idiot

[Anonymous No.12456378]

>>12456156
People would maybe take you more seriously if you stoped sucking yourself so hard. Whatever truth this theory might have is worth nothing if you keep lying, dodging question and not questionning your methods
Too bad, it seemed interesting

[Anonymous No.12456585]

>>12445805
>I need advice
>dismiss all advice
great thread retard

[Anonymous No.12456588]

>>12456175
>faggot
Why the homophobia?

[Anonymous No.12456692]

>>12456588
My bad, feel free to replace it with a generic insult

[Anonymous No.12456723]

>>12453179
>gary is a /leftypol/ boomer
Good god

[Anonymous No.12456737]

Bumping this thread in order to further degrade /sci/

[Anonymous No.12456909]

>>12456723
Don't worry anon, that was just a hacker. It is weird that Gary managed to have a conversation with the hacker. And that twitter deleted the tweet where he claims to have been hacked the way they would if someone where lying about it. But perhaps the hacker used a new and unique method wherein they somehow controlled Gary's mind forcing him to tweet it himself.

[Anonymous No.12457410]

>>12456909

What gave it away?

[Anonymous No.12457421]

[Anonymous No.12457432]

>>12456723

Nah. Trump just isn't a real conservative. You'll see. He'll be thrown under the bus just like Bush was. Give it a few years.

[Anonymous No.12457445]

Don't take everything so seriously. Gary does standup comedy semipro you know.

[Anonymous No.12457448]

And don't try and strawman everyone. We're all our own people here.

[Anonymous No.12457470]

>>12445805
Why not write a bunch of papers about it?

[Anonymous No.12457836]

>>12457470
>Why not write a bunch of papers about it?

Thats what we're talking about. Also, like I said, science is about ideas not people. Charles Darwin could have been a literal baby eater and evolution would still be true. If you want to talk science, I'm game. If you want to gossip about people I'm not interested. As always, you can message us directly at The Optimum Institute for Advanced Study.

[Anonymous No.12457962]

>>12457836
>us
Stop pretending anyone else is involved in this.

[Anonymous No.12457966]

>>12457836
>If you want to talk science, I'm game.
kek, then why brush off the people here who actually try to get you to do that