systems theory





Nathan Coppedge (
Some credit to John Miller, Brian Coppedge, Yan Yang, Michael Coppedge, Edmund
Scarpa, and Jonathan Berkowitz (in addition to Nathan Coppedge) for contributing to the

Written June 26, 2019. Modified September 20, 2019 and Nov 2, 2019.
•        Pinnacle Theories
•        Theory of Everything Quotes
•        The Shortest Proof of the TOE
•        The Knowledge of the Theory of Everything
•        For quantum people, see also: The Antitheory
•        Scientific Standard of Constants
•        Applied TOE Research Handbook
•        Major Categories in the TOE
•        Has philosophy explained all of reality?
•        Nihilism and The Theory of Everything
•        Collected Inventions of Nathan Coppedge
•        The Educational TOE
•        Proof / The Inspiration for the Theory of Everything
•        Commentary on Competing TOEs

[Coherent Systems 2.B.2.C.3.]
The Theory of Everything is a recent writing I proposed which might not be completely
original, but there is a lot of evidence I have put effort in which others haven’t (if you
doubt the authenticity of the Theory, please see the informal list of co-authors for other
possible originators. I have attempted to list everyone with whom I could possibly hold an
intellectual debt. The co-author list may be subject to revision if I remember further
influences. Keep in mind more than one of these people I mention had a similar theory,
although none of them appear to have expressed it to me overtly in exactly the same
form). From my perspective (there could be other perspectives as well) It is a
development of work on coherence theory since at least 2004. I consider it higher-
dimensional but there is a sense of having done unimaginable abbreviation. I doubt this
will be considered science by itself, but I imagine it has applications.—Have we discovered
everything there is to know about in the field of mathematics?
Mistakenly or not, people used to give the line "non sum qualis eram" which I translated
as meaning they thought there “was no perfect completeness”. However, I also realized
this is merely what they thought, and it might not be true, regardless of any supposed
relationship complications which Horace and others had heaped on the term.
Nicholas Rescher writes of properties which contradict a theory
There is a:
Principle of sufficient reason
?t?t'(t' E t)?t?t'(t' E t)
where E predicates explanation, so that t' E tdenotes "t' explains t".
And a:
?t(T* E t)?t(T* E t)
And a:

Finality says that as an "ultimate theory", T*has no deeper explanation:
?t((t E T*)?(t=T*))?t((t E T*)?(t=T*))
so that the only conceivable explanation of T*is T* itself.
And a:
??t(t E t)?t(t E t)
Finally, usually there is a:
The impasse is… that… comprehensiveness and finality… conflict with the fundamental
principle of noncircularity. A comprehensive theory which explains everything must
explain itself, and a final theory which has no deeper explanation must, by the principle
of sufficient reason, have some explanation; consequently it too must be self-
explanatory… how, he asks, can a theory adequately substantiate itself?
Theory of everything (philosophy) - Wikipedia
See also: Advanced Theoretical Problems (with TOE’s)
Some years ago I began to get the feeling that equations which are high-minded tend to
use efficiency as one of the terms.
Little did I know this would be the basis for a theory of everything.
Such a theory would have different properties than the above:
(1) It would be sufficiently general, therefore it would have externality, CONTRARY TO
(2) It would have acceptable maximum efficiency, and would be open to critique,
therefore it would be contingently irreplaceable, so it would be AMENABLE, QUA FINAL.
(3) It's scope would be so broad that it has a diminishing probability of not describing all
things past a certain degree of importance, therefore it has an EXCELSIOR
(4) It must achieve it's success with extreme consistency and perfection, so to speak
flawlessly, which is to say it has an ability to predict successful paradigms, MAKE
The typical problem is not that these properties are circular, but that they are extremely
Now there is an answer.
For my answer I focused especially on systems behaviors.


Set 0 > Efficiency* + Difference

*Where difference = results - efficiency, and where efficiency sums to < 1 if topic is acted
on, and sums to > 1 if topic is acting.
In other words, Set 0 = Efficiency of topic + Difference between Set 0 and the efficiency,
where efficiency sums to < 1 if topic is acted on, and efficiency sums to > 1 if topic is
acting. (concerning a topic). It has later been found knowledge will produce a difference
of minus one, ordinary interactions will produce a difference of zero, and perpetual
motion machines will produce a difference of plus one, and some variations between.

1.        Is the phenomena active or instead passive? Is it acting or instead being acted on?
If it is active, efficiency will be greater than 1, usually a whole number, if it is passive,
efficiency will be made of multiple parts adding up to 1.
2.        Now that the efficiency can be determined, what is set 0? What is the number of
things acting or acted on, as this is set 0? You may simply use negative, 0, finite, infinite,
etc or you may give a specific finite value.
3.        Now find the Difference between the Set 0 value and the efficiency, and add it on
the end of the equation as the specific difference (like a constant) for that exact problem.
4.        Now, assuming the formula makes sense (as it is expressing limits, Set 0 will equal
total efficiency + difference), translate the meaning of the efficiency in terms of the
difference vis Set 0 to get a Theory of the Subject.
[It helps to know:
A. 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
B. The greater than symbol expresses there is a potential small difference between the
left side and the right, favoring the left. For simple purposes it csn be treated as an
equals sign, but I find > easier to read. It helps to think of it as a difference, with
Efficiency being a series of one or more numbers sepatated by commas, descending in
value.Sometimes Set 0 becomes a quantity sometimes not.
C. Set 0 is the topic, rather thsn just zero. It becomes a topic before it becomes a

Perpetual Motion:
Heavier mass > 50% of opposing lvg plus un-weighted difference and < 100% of opposing
leverage plus un-weighted difference. A more accurate equation is given by: Heavier
Mass = (Max Lvg X gradient [usually assume 0.5 to 0.7], Min Lvg) + un-weighted
difference in leverage. Note: the min leverage refers to the max counterweight mass due
to the reciprocal relationship. Think of it as though it were a conservative measurement,
because if the maximum mass were measured from the max leverage this would actually
increase the size of the window. However, I have found using the Min leverage for the
max of the heavier mass is actually absolutely necessary, although it does not apply so
much in those cases like the Swivel Lever where the leverage range is close to constant.
Objective Knowledge:
Coherence selects two comparisons that are not 100% opposite.
World Peace:
What we should do, is do less, unless we know what to do.
A soul has four parts if the name has two and the difference is two. A typical name has
two parts. The difference is two because a full description of two options involves four
categories (the name is being treated as the efficiency). To have a value of less than four,
the efficiency and difference should result in sections of 1, 0.5, 0.25, and 0, thus the soul
is defined by these numbers. Since the difference is always two, each of these values will
be multiplied by 2 to equal their efficiency. The first value is 2, which means identical to
the first part of the name. The second part is 1, which means the contrary of the second
part of the name, the third part is 0.5 which means the result of 2 upon 1. And the fourth
part is twice nothing, means reflecting on the opposite of the first part. (This is a direct
match with my soul formula found through an independent method).
What she prefers matters because she's her.
Super-efficient, more than what I do, but I don't do enough.
No friction.
—In earlier un-modified form, much of this was present at: Anything Theorem (by

1.        Use the formula Set 0 > Efficiency* + Difference.
2.        If topic is acting, the Efficiency will be a whole number > 1. If topic is acted on,
Efficiency will be made of multiple parts adding up to < 1. The efficiency can be treated as
a positive number.
3.        Optimize Set 0 (which may be various values, but we still call it Set 0) by adding
various differences onto the total efficiency.
4.        Check: In terms of the Difference, Set 0 which we need to know to solve the TOE
is the number of things acting (if eff > 1) or acted on (if eff <1).

ADDRESSING POINTS AT: Eight Things a First Principles Theory of Everything Should
(1) First principles explanation of time dilation, inertia, the magnitude of the Planck
constant and the speed of light
Time dilation is explained subjectively as a product of humans essentially existing in a
similar manner to turtles and retractor tools. It is also explained by the importance of
time in other categories of existence other than humans, such as determinism.
Time-inertia could be explained in various ways, one of them is the general property of
energy loss approaching higher-dimensional phenomena or higher quantities, since these
are in many cases interactions with humans and categories involving time.
The Planck constant is explained as material efficiency modified by material difference,
whether it is universal is not determined by me. It may not apply to information.
(2) First principles explanation of conservation laws and gauge transformation symmetry.
Later developments showed abstract energy exists and can be unified with material
energy in the same equation. Transformation is also shown by a later theory which
suggests something similar to the TOE could be used to interpret all phenomena as
quantum invisibility waves using Calabi-Yau manifolds, using the rule that greater mass
implies greater quantum invisibility.
(3) Must be fundamentally relativistic with nothing that is invariant being absolute.
The Theory of Everything does not include any constants, so it meets this criteri(on).
(4) Pursuant to the deduction that reality is fundamentally information-theoretic, all
information must be generated by observation/measurement at the simplest Planck scale
of the code/language.
If we see this as observation (OR) measurement, the extension involving Quantum State
Theory suggests quantum invisibility waves explain macro-scale phenomena with the
common property of increased invisibility with increased mass, creating compatibility
between quantum waves and gravity. The QST is thought to be compatible with the TOE,
with a more empirical perspective applying mostly at first only to energy. However,
another theory also based on the TOE suggests that matter and information are a
theoretical continuum.
(5) Must be non-deterministic.
The variability of the TOE suggests that it is non-physically-deterministic, but that the
potential categories are somewhat fixed given certain conditions.
(6) Must be computationally efficient.
The formula, as you can tell, is ridiculously efficient.
(7) Must be a code describing “jagged” (quantized) waveform a waveform language.
The fact that difference is in somewhat inverse proportion to efficiency in relation to the
topic suggests that it is indeed a waveform.
(8) Must have a first principles explanation for preferred chirality in nature.
Applying the Zeeman effect (Nathan Coppedge's answer to How does the zeeman effect
affect chemistry?) to microscopic phenomena likely produces chirality, which can be
linked to the quantum properties of macro phenomena using the Zeeman Effect and
Quantum State Theory. Alternately, a problem-solving method implicated in the TOE
gives a more accurate answer: “The solution seems to involve intuitions about chirality
used in a similar sense to flavor or observation, leading to the conclusion focused on
wavefunction collapse that the general properties of quantum mechanics are localized
within a spectra.” (Nathan Coppedge's answer to What role does chirality play in
quantum physics?) This may actually suggest chirality is partly invisible and / or

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
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.
—Valuable Notes on the Theory of Everything
Some credit to
John Miller (possibly a complexity theorist), Brian Coppedge, Yan Yang, Dr. Michael
Coppedge, Professor Edmund Scarpa, Jonathan Berkowitz, David Ury, Ken Tanaka,
Martin Popplewell, and a professor whose initials are RV (in addition to Nathan
Coppedge) for contributing to the theory.
Contributors who claim to be or might be immortals: Jesus of Nazereth (a voice Nathan
thought of as Jesus used a slightly different theory, Martin Popplewell (speaks of a
complex plot to inspire others perhaps since the 1990’s), an Invisible Rabbi (had hints
about a formula for souls in 1999).
Contributors who I have evidence may have time-traveled: Nathan Coppedge, Brian
Coppedge, Yan Yang, Jesus of Nazareth.
Contributors who I have evidence may be psychic: John Miller, Yan Yang. Martin
Additional thanks to early moralists who may have predated Jesus.
Soul: Analogous Functions. God I'm a fool. (Entering your own password a sufficient
number of times).
TOE Over-Unity Rating: 9
(11 ^ 1 > 3 - 1)
Alternate Rating = D - 2
[Meta-group = Complex perfection (is) everything language…D - 4, D - 5…]
—Over-Unity Formula for TOEs
Place in History Reference:
1. Information / semantic model [Level: 2]--> 2. Psychological / spiritual model --> 3.
Reproductive / metaphysical model --> 4. Historical / virtual model --> 5. Scientific /
humanist model --> 6. Historical / greatness model --> 7. Ethical / profile model --> 8.
Spiritual / ascendant model --> 9. Base humanity model --> 10. Corrupt humanness
model --> 11. Flavor virtue model --> 12. International tropes model --> 13. Ideas in
history model --> 14. Science and ritual model --> 15. Spiritual history model --> 16.
Understanding history with some flares model --> 17. In service of a daemon model -->
18. Writing on the wall (sublique messages) model --> 19. In service of the wonders of
man model --> 20. Ideas of anthropos model --> 21. Mystery model --> 22. Babyl model --
> 23. Written significance model --> 24. Great Chinese model --> 25. Authentic living
model --> 26. Meaningful problem model --> 27. Original invention model --> 28. Popular
salesmanship model --> 29. Introduced to great wealth model --> 30. Mysterious
significance model --> 31. Arcane studies model --> 32. Early science / great possibilities
model --> 33. Magic moment / disappointment model --> 34. Special research / confusion
model --> 35. Failed descriptive theory model -----> 36. Coherent model --> (…Back to
—Place in History Reference

I believe Einstein gave the advice, if he doesn't succeed, try a theory that is not pure
physics, or give up.
“I just think the idea that we will ever get there is a little bit challenging.” —Lisa
Randall. Prominent Theoretical Physicist (Interview Jan 26, 2013)
It does well to consider:
Of course, declaring [that the TOE is] a ‘goal' may be fallacious reasoning if it already
exists, and saying it relatively doesn't exist is the same as admitting impossibility.
In a writing called Qualific Operators (Coppedge), it is mentioned that the following
statement: |[Type many of your own personalized passwords, and study them dutifully]|
represents now to think of a TOE. Although the statement may be slightly more
situationally universal than the given TOE, it does suggest the possibility that TOE’s will
die out when people no longer engage in physical typing. — Coppedge, 2020/06/03

There is at least one minor exception, but it comes with a qualification:
If a theory of everything can be designed to describe all of X, and X is something that is
argued to cover every single thing in the universe, then a theory which covers all of X
can be said to be a theory of everything.
An example of this is a systemological theory of everything, since everything in the
universe is said to be made of systems.
Incidentally, the systemological theory of everything has been discovered.
[As mentioned above]
—(Would a theory of everything have to include all theories of anything?)

(Kantian Approach)
There is an exception (to lack of authority)… If the Theory does not tell us what we
ought to do, but merely states everything as it is, then we may form an opinion, ethical or
otherwise, based on the information it provides. Even so, no such theory would be
absolutely immune from criticism, as no such theory would embody absolutely every
opinion that ever existed by itself, or not to the point of favoring such opinion above
Yet again, there is an exception to this, which is a theory of everything. Even so, such a
theory would likely be qualified in the way it could be used, and so in the way it is
qualified it remains open to judgment. Nor is it likely a real theory of everything would
be used for all human purposes, rather it would apply only to the topic of ‘knowledge of
anything' and only when other approaches were not preferred, and only when the theory
is considered well-qualified.
—Is a theory of everything fundamentally wrong from a philosophical perspective?

Possible Accreditation:
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.
—Additional Notes on the Theory of Everything

Anecdote: Someone says I have this theory, but so does Jesus. Religious person says,
then they must be right. Scientist says, then they must be wrong.

I'm approaching as a generalist, you're aporoaching as a specialist. Specialist says, I've
gotten this far now reward me. Generalist says I have a big theory now defeat me. Its
clear the specialist is a little bit right but thst is all he ever tries to prove, yet standards
do improve for both. How much adjusted probability do you use is probably a question you
do not seriously want to raise.

                                    systems theory



var x Name:
var y Name:

Results = Efficiency* + Difference where efficiency sums to less than one if Topic is acted on, and efficiency sums to greater than one if Topic is acting

function add(x, y) { return x + y; } return z;


Result Name:
Efficiency Name:

Difference Name:




var x Name:
var y Name: