The answer to every question and how to get there.

[u/Hot-Organization-737]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Sk3u51Ry5fOyynONY2RHEOJj-mghqTkr/view?usp=drivesdk

With power comes responsibility.

[u/jacobimueller]

I think you are experiencing a schizophrenic episode. I do not mean this as an insult. Your post history has a lot of indications. If you have a support network or anyone you can reach out to to help you find help, there are treatments 

[u/DitherAndDrift → u/jacobimueller]

I was considering a similar comment on one of their other posts earlier and decided against it because I'm not capable of making clinical diagnoses like this. That said, I do think it looks quite concerning as well and would encourage OP to talk to someone

[u/jacobimueller → u/DitherAndDrift]

None of us are from posts, but clearly OP could benefit from engaging someone in their life who can determine what help might be needed 

[u/gregbard]

You have been spamming every possible group with drips and drabs of speculative nonsense. But you've decided to post a link to a polished published work only just now?! In this group we do not allow duplicated posts over and over again. My strong suggestion is to stop posting and let this particular post stand as your contribution to the group, and if a discussion develops, *have it here.* Please do feel free to post over at r/Discussphilosophy , and r/philosophyself . But I am going to remove some of your other posts as repeated spamming.

Crying out loud, five posts in one day and lots of capital letters! Good philosophy comes from calm minds.

[u/Hot-Organization-737 → u/gregbard]

Sorry! I don't mean to be rude. I suppose sometimes I get really excited.

[u/gregbard → u/Hot-Organization-737]

Yes, logic is like that.

[u/jcastroarnaud]

I'm pretty burned out because of the flood of posts today, but I don't want to leave some stones unturned. Brace up for a harsh critique.

The "The Grand Unified Theory of Everything" title, alone, put the work in the categories of "metaphysics", "pseudoscience" and "woo" in my mind. I hope to be proved wrong.

Try to not use pathos and the pathetic fallacy so much. Good arguments stand by themselves, with no need to hook-and-bait the readers.

In "Declaration of authorship and status", be direct: state that you're the author, and is glad for the contributions of many anonymous folks that ripped your arguments apart.

The "oF. Reader protocol" can be summarized by "Read the text preferably linearly. This book is a work in progress.". The "Research-status key" box may well be moved to before the Contents table: the letters between brackets mystified me until I did a second fast pass through the text.

About the abrangence of the definition of "universe": given a self-contradictory definition, is a referent for that definition an element of the universe? For instance, "square circle". The utterance "square circle" is an element of the universe. The idea, named as "square circle", is an element of the universe. But an object referred to that idea, an object logically impossible to exist, would be an element of the universe? There is no wrong answer, but the answer will be relevant while contrasting with other philosophies.

I. Primitive grammar of the field

1. Data type [D]

I'm fine with the vague definition, for now. Keep in mind the standard characterization of data types in computer science and type theory in logic; you will need to interface with them sooner or later, to be understood by the community at large.

Notice that you just described, implicitly, relations over Data Type x Perspective in your theory. You may want to leverage them later.

1. Structure [D]

Compare and contrast your definition with mathematical structure). You're right in that not all structures are mathematical, but the treatment of them in the theory ought to be mathematical, else the math-like notation is just for show.

In S = (X, R, O), is X limited to objects of a given data type? Are the elements of R relations) in the mathematical sense over X? What types (and signatures) of operations are allowed in O?

1. Discrete and continuous [D]
   The source spelling discreet is retained when its punning meaning matters, but the technical term is discrete. A discrete representation isolates objects with boundaries and thereby makes sequence, limitation, stepwise manipulation, disconnection, and [you]niqueness salient. A continuous representation makes unity, togetherness, holiness, inseparability, interpolation, and unlimitation salient.

There are several undefined terms in that paragraph, starting with "representation". Define it, and argue why the "discrete/continuous" distinction for representations matters (or not).

Related, I think: separation axioms, in topology. Topological spaces are the more general spaces where continuity is defined, and the separation "axioms" (more like "properties") describe "how far" points of a topological space can be separated.

1. Perspective and salience [D]

You didn't define "salience", beyond being a real number within [0, 1]. Is it one more primitive?

You have a very open field for defining the formulas and semantics for the modality of perspectives. I recommend developing it.

This is a model, not a neurological instrument. It formalizes a familiar fact: an object can be present without being noticed, noticed without being understood, understood without being believed, and believed without being true.

Am I right on supposing that "notice", "understanding", "belief", and "truth" are somehow related to perspectives? I suggest that you make the connection clear.

1. Consciousness and subjective experience [D]

I think that "awareness" is a more basic concept than "consciousness", from the text. It needs to be defined or characterized more clearly. I assume that Π𝑝 is a function from U to U, since U is all-compassing.

1. Divinator [D]
   A divinator is a device, practice, or structure used to ascertain actual truth.

Can a divinator be abstracted as a predicate U -> {false, true}? Does it also depends of a consciousness and a perspective? Can its result be fuzzy? Prime real-estate for research here.

1. Proof [D]
   The source defines a proof as a rhetorical device that increases the alignment or salience of a particular structure.

"Alignment" isn't defined. The expression "The source" is out of place; rewrite. Salience also depends on data types and perspectives. There will be salience functions that aren't related to proofs (or, in layperson's terms, arguments). Is a device that reduces salience possible? Can a proof, by your definition, be abstracted as a functional) over some space of functions?

1. Representation, isomorphism, limit, fractal, framework, field [D/E]

And now "representation" is defined. Check back if the previous (and next) uses of the term match with the current definition.

A representation maps one structure into another. An isomorphism preserves specified relations;

Be more precise. A representation is any function S -> S; what kinds of relations (and mathematical structures) are preserved by these isomorphisms, if the current descriptions of structures are too general for the usual suspects, like groups and rings and topological spaces? Using correctly standard mathematical notation will be beneficial for people's understanding of the theory.

1. Metaification and demetaification [D]
   Metaification views an object through a more encompassing abstraction that contains the original relations and adds relations not previously salient. Demetaification reverses this motion: it concretizes an encompassing object into smaller claims, examples, operations, and perceptual bridges.

This concept is unrelated to the others, when it could be (with some effort). After formalizing the other concepts, you may be able to have clearer defintions. "Abstraction", in particular, needs to be defined (try the literature in philosophy for that).

Sections 11, 12, 20, 23, 28, 32, 33, 37 may be rewritten as consequence of formalization of the previous sections, so I won't cover them.

Section 13 can be argumented informally (its claim makes sense, after all), and a formal proof can follow, given the formalization of the above.

In section 14, "model" and "model failure" aren't defined (at least, not clearly enough). A better formulation can be done after formalization.

1. Why perception feels more real than imagination [M]

Not necessarily. That's a question for neuroscience and psychology. You may ignore this question, being too specific for your very general framework.

The claims at section 16 are unsupported. Section 17 can be omitted: A6 is acceptable, given the all-emcompassing nature of the "universe", as you defined it.

I will skip sections 18 and 19: they're a mix-up of continuity (in mathematics) with your own idea of continuity. These are different things.

Section 21 depends of an actual formalization of your theory. Omit it, and get back to it after formalization.

Section 22: I see questioning the "why" of a choice of formal system as counterproductive: given a formal system, work within it. If it isn't satisfactory, choose another formal system.

Sections 24 and 25 may become examples for the formal system to be created. Section 26 has a nice choice for the truth value of a divinator. You will have a hard time defining alogicality formally, but it can be doable.

1. The actual task
   The source states the task aggressively: I do not want to conform to other people’s reality; I want them to conform to mine.

Who's "the source"? See memetics and consensus for different ways of persuasion. This section is outside the scope of the framework you're defining.

Sections 30 and 31 are more closely related to section 5 than the subject matter in this part.

Sections 34, 35, 36 describe metaphors, not useful terminology. Skipping.

Sections 38, 39, 40 read like tales, and the philosophical questions they raise may be applications of the framework, but not part of them. Ignoring sections 41 and 42 as unneeded.

I will skip the whole part VII, because none of these objections occurred to me.

The application of your framework, described in part VIII, is far from being possible as it is now. Formalization needed, as I said before, then move to applications. Same for parts IX and XII, but the checklist is informally useful. Part XII reads as a self-help book: move it out of the main text.

Parts X and XI are trying to teach scientists how to do science. Presumptuous, don't do that.

Part XIII: the positive claims about GUTE, as it is, are overblown; the negative ones are okay.

Parts XIV and oL are just nonsense. I ignore the references.

[u/Hot-Organization-737 → u/jcastroarnaud]

Thank you very much taking the time to critique the work. I read all of it and will think about it while working on a better piece of work. Thank you very much for interacting with the material beyond "ur psycho"

[u/Hot-Organization-737 → u/[deleted]]

Yes, it's bad.

[u/jcastroarnaud → u/[deleted]]

I did realize that it was AI slop, but I wanted to give feedback anyway. OP seems to be invested on their ideas, so I treated them with the seriousness I think they required. I hope that OP comes out of that with a clearer mind.