Authors: Savior F. Eason
In light of the positive, albeit scarce reviews of my prior paper, I now present a view diverging from but continuing to build on the separate concept for a theory of everything discussed in another paper. In this is discuss a radical but almost certainly correct alternative perspective in science. In the book "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", a computer by the name of deep thought calculates the meaning of life, the universe, and everything, to be a number; 42. Confusing? It was to the computer's creators too. Thing is, they didn't actually know what they were asking for with such a question. Could they ever comprehend what they truly meant. Dare we admit this? Apparently not, as our search for a unifying theory abounds. But the true 42 eludes us. What is the actual "42"? In this extensive paper, I postulate a new perspective divergent of both the views expressed in the writings of a younger me and all existing scientific views. What continuously puzzles me is not just the cosmos, but how we consider it. The universe has no requirement to seem logical to us, and yet we treat it that way, using conventional and contemporary thinking as though they were the universe's thoughts themselves. Mathematical frameworks as though they were the cosmic blueprint. And then we are surprised, when the universe throws a curveball? This is a paradox most use to latch on the notion of giving up on a theory of everything, or claiming only god can explain it all. I say that's just as illogical. In my contemplations, I've concluded the way to a TOE is simple; We have to alter how we think, and scientific logic at it's most foundational pillars. Realizing that consistently sufficient doesn't mean infinitely applicable. In my ceaseless postulations and relentless research, I've had both revelations and breakthroughs amounting to my conclusion of a new theory of everything, and a new thinking. To develop a true theory of everything, we needed a new way of thinking. A transcendental way of thinking and even language; a new form of math, based on this new thinking, beyond the fabricated barriers of human thinking, allowing for a theory of everything, redefining what that would mean in an exploration of a new cosmos based on Quantum 1s and 0s, a new kind of cosmic component replacing string theory, beyond what we could truly comprehend, which I've dubbed simply "Quantum digits". A theory exploring our possible nature as Quantum computers, the structure of this information as an infinite Mandelbrot set, and the body of infinity in an equation I developed describing the cosmic code, our universe's Quantum HTML in all it's unbounded infinity. Exploring my research and why this can't be another misinterpretation and Introducing a new cosmic and scientific perspective. A proposal rewriting science at it's most fundamental foundations of thinking, realizing "Consistently sufficient" doesn't mean "Infinitely applicable", and rewriting our thinking so that our method is that way. A concept not simply diverging from, but building on all previous scientific thinking, ending with a reflection on the implications of this latest candidate for "42", and a radical solution to the Rubik's cube of the universe's mysteries and the most fundamental aspects of human existence. (I just realized the irony of this paper numbering 42 pages in length)
Comments: 42 Pages. All claims in this document have been scientifically proven under controlled experiments through my own research using DIY-SOTA tech, as explained in the document. Mechanical Methods of research, such as Quantum experimentation, are authorized by the NSA.
[v1] 2018-11-23 09:14:10
Unique-IP document downloads: 0 times
Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.
Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.