Artificial Intelligence > The Equation for the Theory of Everything

The Equation for the Theory of Everything

Published: April 29, 2008

The equation for the Theory of Everything (ToE) must leave no stone unturned and no possibilities for future contradictions. Great theories and equations have evolved and been broken over time and this will continue to happen as we as humankind push the boundaries of ultimate understanding.

Theory of Everything, in simple notation:

0 = 1 = ∞

This equation was reached through philosophical analysis as opposed to mathematical analysis (which could be regarded as a top-down approach) and will no doubt receive much criticism from the scientific community. On first glance any mathematician can point out that the equation breaks the basic premise where the LHS must equal the RHS. I stand firm that despite appearances this rule is not broken by the equation.

Before elaborating on the fundamentals of the equation I wish to point out, my background is software development and this equation is the result of understanding the gap between human intelligence and artificial intelligence.

We are very much in the Digital Age of the Information Era, and as such, computers do our bidding with binary based systems and struggle to handle anything based on the Infinite. As we begin quantum computing we start to deal with the uncertainty principle and find we need methods to keep the binary system alive even if the form is not well suited.

Computers are still on the same level as calculators. There are superficial examples of artificial intelligence, but to my knowledge, not one machine or software instance has shown any capability of learning or understanding, and as far as I'm concerned, anything currently claiming to be AI is a parlor trick or simply a hard hack, and I would be glad to be shown otherwise.

In explaining the equation I will put forward an example:

I pick an apple from a tree. Its stem has a leaf and the stem is still attached. I hold the apple up in one hand and ask "Do I have an apple in my hand?" You would say yes assuming you're not insane or expecting a trick question. If I pull the stem out of the top of the apple and hand to you the tasty red fruit with the stem still in my hand I ask you, "Who now has the apple?"

There are at least 3 possible answers to this question:

1) you say that you have the apple

2) you say that I have the apple - even though I only hold the stem

3) you say we both have the apple

This is an example of fuzzy logic. If you think in the situation you would agree with answer number 1, would you still answer the same way if I, pulled out the stem, peeled the apple, keeping the skin, handed you the white ball of flesh and asked you "Who now has the apple?" If you still think number 1 is the correct answer then I ask you, "How much of the apple do I have to keep before you will change your mind"?

My point is there is no reality of where the apple ends and the rest of the world begins and that this phenomenon can only be described as the Infinite. Nothing is an island on its own. An apple is an abstract concept taught to us from a very young age when understanding anything about our Universe with our primitive senses is an amazing achievement. When I was 4, I didn't need to know the mechanics of time and space or the fact there's no such a thing as an apple except for the concept that exists in the human psyche and perhaps in the psyche of other living creatures.

Although the equation for the ToE has risen out of a side project relating to AI it none the less encompasses all of the physical Universe. 1 = 0 just as much as 1 = 1. There is no start and there is no end. The Digital Age will have to get over the idea of black and white, on and off, one and zero. If not, we will continue to see computer limits like Y2K, IPv4, Y2K38 throughout history and quantum computing will not realise it's true potential and mathematics will remain unimaginative.


1. smedg on May 3, 2008

What if nothing exists and we're all in somebody's dream? Or what's worse, what if only that fat guy in the third row exists?

- Woody Allen

hmmm food for thought. That's for sure, or at least it seems for sure from my perspective at this point in time given standard temp and pressure.

Would be great if you could find someone working in the field of quatum computing or bio computing to share some of their work here. I haven't heard much about these fields for a little while. Perhaps they are too complicated for my mediocre mind. Perhaps if i understand none of it then from a different point of view i may understand 1 thing about it or even all there is to know... Only just now am I realising my full potential. Thank you Mr. McGovern.

2. Kev on May 7, 2008

I am very impressed with your equation for the Theory of Everything. It proves to me you have the inquiring mind that the world needs to advance into the future. I am particularly impressed with the clarity with which you explain complex problems. You are certainly working at the cutting edge of science. Would you consider that migratory birds navigate by intelligence, by instinct or are they able to pick up signals unknown to humans? The answer to this question may assist in the quest for AI.

3. Pro on May 19, 2008

Excellent, you're nearly there in my opinion, I wrote my own TOE back in 1999. These are my main sites:

Keep up the good work.


Pro :)

4. Zeus on May 19, 2008

Try again.

All you have illustrated is the inability to apply mathematics to the real world. All great philosophical pursuits, whether it's mathematics, economics or whatever, are precisely that, philosophical. There are serious complications and limitations when applying them. This is illustrated perfectly by your apple example. The concept of 1 apple is obviously not defined and is therefore open to interpretation. The real world is infinitely complex.

The idea of applying a simple mathematic equation to define the TOE is doomed for failure. If mathematics fails to define 1 apple, how can it possibly be used to define everything.

5. Field on May 20, 2008

Congratulations on your discovery Luke. You and protheory and I are very much alike and our theories are almost the same. So nice to meet you comrade.

ps. in my theory zero does not exist and everything is equal to both positive and negative infinity. Everything is like that which is defined by the number 1/0. This has lead me to interesting magnetic experiments which I would like to tell you about if you are interested.

6. Barbara on May 27, 2009

I liked my eight-year-old's answer to the question of who has the apple. She is among the gifted and talented of this world and said neither of us has the apple. It is the apple that has the apple. So true!

7. Stephen Knox on December 1, 2009

What if we are all a small part of a larger equation? if the action of an atom has an equation, then a molecule's actions can be predicted; Therefore we being a makeup of molecules an chemical reactions in constant motion are predictable on a complex scale, and since our thoughts are nothing more than electrical impulses generated by this mathematically predictable host who chemically acts & reacts with his environment, then everything that we do is mathematically predictable, even this msg that I'm typing meaning...

that we are no more random than the electrons that predictably float around an atom. Our universe may be a sub particle of a bigger atom which is part of a molecule of some greater beings teardrop. "I really believe this"

8. Zoc on April 8, 2010

Rudy Rucker expressed something along those lines in Infinity and the Mind:

The Way of Unity and the Inward Way have the same goal. Nothing is the same as Everything. Think of normal consciousness as a circle with radius 1. The Inward Way involves continuously shrinking the field of consciousness - say by endlessly halving it. The Way of Unity involves repeatedly expanding the field of consciousness - say by doubling.

If we consider pairing up each point (x,y) with (1/x, 1/y), we can see that for each halving step inward there is a doubling step outward. What if we regard zero and infinity as being in the same place? The Void and Everything can perhaps, in a momentary way, be experienced as the same.

9. Jeffrey Eric Gutierrez on January 27, 2014

The stem of the apple, the apple itself, the seeds in the apple, etc. Names given to parts of the apple, we humans decided to break up the anatomy of the apple into parts, we named 1 part the stem 1 part the seeds 1 part the base based on differences of the different parts and to help us better understand what an apple is, they aren't "strict" or imperial in nature.

Nether is "math". Mathemathics did not have it's beginnnings as a formal science, it was like many other things, a system used to solve problems that we created and it itself is inhertely flawed.

you should read up more on godel's incompleteness theoroms (i'm sure you have already)

I believe a theory of everything is possible yes but to establish that into our way of understanding would require people adjusting to something that is alien to usu, such as new math symbols, new concepts, and then over generations of accepting it as the truth would evolution grant us to accept it implicitly.

but the truth is nothing is certain, my own theory on the theory of everything is that quite literally we have to wait fot the answer, that the theory of "everything" requires that the universe exists for a certain amount of time for it to be put together, and that things like the end of the universe and the big bang are not places in time but actually exists somewhere in the universe, and because our minds are fixated on the 4 dimensions we can percieve we can't exactly make sense of the big bang being a "place" rather then a "point in time".

I believe that a state of "nothingness" automatically assumes the existence of somethingness. and that if ever a state of nothingness existed, it would instantaenously become a state of "absence" rather than a state of "nothing" and the state of absence requires some type of prior interval, some type of movement from one to another, self similarity/recursion.

which led me to adapt my current way of thinking, put simply "all sets are subsets of a larger set, and a set A such that set A is a universal set of all other sets simply does not exists, because set A, the universal set containing all other sets is in a set itself.

Any Comments?


» Joe's Grill on 4th Ave Provides a Traditional Diner Experience

The Forever Web App Project

Published: November 15, 2009

The Forever Web App Project is an AI project to demonstrate a web app's ability to exist on the web unassisted (except by strangers) for as long as possible after a given date.

Sudoku & Artificial Intelligence

Published: March 16, 2009

Using AI on Sudoku could be considered overkill. Either way, any algorithm written to solve a Sudoku puzzle could be considered intelligent by understanding what it accomplishes.