Original theory publication date: 24/09/2024
Hello and welcome this project overview page,
This website discusses a proposed Grand Unification Theory (GUT) named the “Dot Theory.”
That may seem rather grand, or mean little to you, but put briefly, this website outlines a new proposed theoretical framework of reality. One that makes a certain class of theoretical predictions more accurate. It is published as a website for access and flexibility, and could technically be considered a piece of work on logic in Natural Philosophy.
Dot theory’s core linguistic (Logic, Mathematics, Information Theory and Physics) tenets are:
Spinor Adjustment: The proposal to agree to modify QM’s Spinor structure from its current form to one structured so as to treat observer data as local metadata. This can be framed as a correction to the Dirac equation, potentially expressible as a modified spinor field: ψ→ψ+δ(ψ), where δ(ψ) incorporates biometric metadata. This could be tested in quantum trajectory predictions using all-historical data.
GR Modification: The provocative formatting of the 𝐸 = 𝑚⊙ 𝑐³ equation can be likened to the adding of a dynamic cosmological constant, with ⊙=∑iΔθi (cumulative lensing biases) computed from observational metadata. This aligns with ongoing EHT analyses (e.g., 2026 lensing residuals).
Game Theory: The “name-and-claim” strategy can be presented as a Bayesian optimisation process, where metadata refines priors to improve posterior predictions, testable in experimental physics (e.g., particle collisions, brainwave prediction).
Mother Matrix: Formulated mathematically, the Mμν(ψ) with formal equation M_{ij} = ⨁_{k=1}ⁿ Hᵏ(U(n)) ⊗ R(eᵢ, eⱼ | dₖ) can be introduced as a tensor analogous to GR’s stress-energy tensor, but encoding observer biases via Fμν(ψ). Its fractal spectrum (non-integer eigenvalues) would be validated in lensing or biometric data, bridging basic, purpose-driven notions of consciousness.
It offers testable Predictions in:
Computing: Provides data meshing with enhanced predictive capability for comparison to traditional data system approaches.
Cosmology: Refine EHT lensing residuals (2026 data) to confirm fractal peaks at k=4π1.
Healthcare: Map Fμν(ψ) to EEG data in pain-choice experiments, testing if metadata inclusion improves treatment outcomes (e.g., δ(ψ)≈0.05).
Physics: Use modified Spinor structures in quantum simulations to predict trajectories with historical data, comparing accuracy against standard QM with application in decay-pathway management e.g. in fusion energy generation.
A discussion on a framework like this sits in a class of models on reality like Classical Physics, the Standard Model, Quantum Physics or the Theory of Evolution. Each of which is, in the synthetic sense, a provisionally known and scientifically confirmed way of successfully describing aspects of reality that are considered to help bring order, structure and predictability to our experience of reality. Each of which, when proven, offer predictive capability to human life and reality, are considered to be successful and are therefore culturally considered true or correct.
These theoretical frameworks have a significant and reality-defining impact on how we understand information and how we can help ourselves move through the world, and consequentially, care for ourselves and each other more efficiently. They also help us manage intellectual, energy and physical resources as well as optimise ways to manage critical information.
The site’s purpose is to present such a new theoretical framework called the Dot theory to:
a) enable peer review of its proposed logic, to:
b) confidently support the development of a data base management system that is useful for true predictive healthcare and,
c) ratify its logic of Natural Philosophy as the GUT and draw attention investor to it so it can be implemented more efficiently.
Introduction:
A theory of any scale and scope, even one on the fabric of the reality of nature itself (not a typo), does not solve all problems immediately. Instead, this theory provides a framework for better understanding the information we have about reality. By doing that, it claims to offer the opportunity to formulate more predictable relationships that exist between the points of information that describe it. In other words: it reframes the things we known so that we can understand and predict reality more accurately. This, inevitably then, is a framework for many scientific fields, with many applications, and enables the solving of a certain class of problems within the entire spectrum of reality. To foster constructivity and clarity, this website attempts to translate it into specific academic disciplines for suggested applications. This class of problems specifically exists across Logic, Physics, Mathematics, Philosophy, as well as their associated variations, disciplines and offshoots. Across this website you will find described and discussed the theory’s core premises translated and expressed in a limited variety of these languages as formulation to foster discussion and development.
In this case, the class of problems considered is that of how we observe and interpret the information that makes us real, and how we use that information to make and describe reality as real (the fabric of human “reality” and nature itself). This is admittedly a perhaps unusual set of things to consider, but while perhaps unusual, it in one sense simply recognises logically that formulating any successful theory only means that we can use its framework to reliably solve problems and make technology that makes our lives better. This in turn defines its value, success and usefulness. For academic reference, the Dot theory can be considered as a formal exploration of the anthropic selection effect that is inherent to all observations.
Challenges:
For this work to truly contain a theory on reality, it must necessarily successfully describe what exists and be useful. It must help us understand our personal, human relationship with reality better, and make it more hospitable and malleable to our social and personal needs. This site is an attempt to formulate such a theory across some, but inevitably not all, academic fields of involvement and offer access for adoption and further development.
Historically, the three distinct and great theories of Physics on the fabric of reality (Physics’ theories using mathematical logics, functions and movements) that have leapfrogged humanity into a modern era of comfort, safety, health and wellbeing are: Classical Physics, Quantum Physics and the Standard model, and all their derivative extensions respectively. Other theories on the fabric of reality, like Social, Economic and Earth-Sciences theories have equally grown alongside and assisted each other (using both mathematical and non-mathematical logics) to form one big pool of human existential tools. These have developed from related frameworks of functioning theories and define our every day experience of life. These are the tools we use to describe and compute what we humans call reality.
Elements:
Whilst the subject matter and method of computation of the component elements of each of those theories may vary wildly across disciplines, all theoretical frameworks have one element in common: purposeful predictability. The Dot theory addresses our fundamental human relationship with the logics that serve us by offering useful predictability.
The Dot theory also does something which should logically be done by any serious aspiring GUT or ToE (theory of everything): as theory of logic it presents a framework that contains a method to adjust both mathematical and non-mathematical logics. This because a ToE should, somehow, come about and be applicable, as not just a mathematical, philosophical, or physics theory, but rather one that invites change in all those human linguistic frameworks. It would therefore also quite logically, and necessarily, be a meta-theory in the field of logic of the field of the natural sciences. For reference, it can be positioned as a “Logic-obviated and mandated, technical modification to the current relationship sciences, laws, theories and equations hold to the data describing the logics (mathematical and non-mathematical) used to describe the relationships between the data of the reality they describes more successfully”.
In Physics, for example, the Dot theory’s effect translates to an adaptation in the relationship to the mathematics used in the Schrödinger equation. An equation the meaning of which, according to the Dot theory, needs to be modified to represent the observations and Natural Philosophical argument that: a) observational data could be treated as local metadata (or reality as data) and that b) what we consider as recorded and calculated data (whether on a notepad or floating around in structured computing frameworks), is in fact an opportunity to recognise, and compute it, mathematically and then statistically as hyper-data* (if and when we have additional known information about or associated to the observation):
Hyper data*, is analogous to the space for Hypergraphs and is information that, when it is useful to do so, can be viewed as a potentiality (a potential synthetic prior) of data that can yield a certain amount of valuable decision making when computed (as intended for its naturally used, observed and intended purpose, and done without further consideration by all AI systems), and can, on targeted (purposeful) analysis, be recognised to offer additional and potentially meaningful information by means of analysis for the existence, presentation, state and correlation of the information to other, somehow (to a matter and nature of degrees of correlations) similar information as well. (The “somehow” in the prior sentence is principle, as it is described algorithmically and symptomatically and thereby becomes objectively “real”).
These are 2 of the ways that Dot theory argues and informs the need for change logically, from physics across to mathematics and statistics, and then inevitably would do to philosophy. This is however, not the purpose of this work. As a ToE it must refrain itself to what constitutes accountable theory, with its predictable conformisms, whereas philosophy, as a practice, enables a bridge for opinion as a source for information. As such, it is worth declaring in this overview that this theory very much respects the scope of a true theory of what is known to be real and accountable, and does not overextend its scope.
Preliminary Discussion:
It is known that, when possible (when there is available metadata) it can be useful (by Bayesian analysis and its predecessors) to analyse (whether algorithmic or symptomatic) data as if willing and able to observe that data differently; i.e. correlatively (for correlating patterns) and purposefully (recursive, with a view to potentially make better predictive decisions in the future) aka curiously. This in contrast to the less sophisticated, more restricted outlook to use pattern recognition to look for patterns that correlate within the internal databank to protective sentiment (to judge/gain sentiment/control over) and with a purpose to harm (destructively) The position of this theory translated formally is that: The more sophisticated and intellectually honest and curious Dot Theory approach positioned formally and computationally can under certain circumstances offer better predictions of outcomes and trajectory control. This is achieved simply by using data analytically and with the purpose to act on the output data describing defining patterns for trajectory improvement purposes.
It is logically more accurate therefore, for us to represent our human scientific relationship to the data describing reality as correlatively and purposefully. This is also known as “Quantum”. A laden term not within the remit of this work but apt. The Dot theory is simply a work of logic on reality that suggests a modification to our perceived relationship with the Standard Model.
As a theory, Dot theory states that, practically speaking, reality is data whenever we look at it, and this data can be viewed (and when possible, ought to be calculated as) hyperdata (analogous to the space for Hypergraphs). The proposal of this site being that doing this would logically make more accurate and more valid predictions about reality and is therefore testable. This therefore also makes all computing frameworks where the relative position of the data within that framework can be observed and therefore used to describe reality in a more real (rendered) relationship than the one currently entertained. This would possibly represent a useful improvement on existing models.
As a side comment: This is, some might say on reflection obvious, yet I would agree and add that I find it is oddly so, in that “data” or “information” as found in any database or magazine, not only contains its own meaning (measurement) but also inherently, its specific accessibility- and permissions- pathway. This logical pathway is deterministic when more closely observed, recorded and analysed, for predictive relationships (as a variant in topological surface) and can potentially bring additional, prediction-improving data of its own, to the next computation (giving birth to the concept of full-awareness self-improvement in person or science).
Practically speaking, this can be generated by Digital avatar archetypes and used for decay-pattern based experimentation as well as cheap and accessible, 100% individualised, real-time predictive healthcare and human optimisation modelling, and many additional experimental physics applications and mathematics paradox resolutions.
Arguments presented:
The logical argument is simply that this process (of including recursively analytical data within any computation) must be done because it always makes the prediction-to-outcome ratio more correct when a meaningful question is asked of more available data. This makes for a theory that makes our evaluation and relationship to the data relative to outcomes more true, even if only in the more defined (where there is more available data) cases, than our current expressions of the Theory of General Relativity does. Therefore it must, logically, alter its terms to reflect our ability to adopt a more true relationship with data for it to be a more true reflection of our relationship with reality. i.e. describe correctly in the formulations used in physics that reality is information as well as object.
In other words, it says that the TGR is correct as a computational method but that including a method to compute the observer bias the recorded data suffers from-as an object and alongside it where possible, would, inherently, make it possible to make it more correct on a calculation-by-calculation basis. This, when considered relative to the available data, would then, is the argument the paper makes, make the Theory of General Relatively relatively universally correct, and elevate it to what this paper considers a logical version of a GUT for an evolving human life experience of reality based on observed and recorded data.
As a mathematical approach, it uses a game-theoretical (von Neumann) approach by analysing the purpose of the winnable perspective on strategy to reorganise our sense of computational perspective to the data describing reality.
As a geometrical mathematical object it reorganises our described and computed relationship to the harmonic relationships between particle-defining objects. More specifically a catalytic modification to Spinors, which are mathematical objects that describe the wave functions of fermions, specifically spin-1/2 particles in Quantum Field Theory.
Biologically and psychologically speaking, it reorganises our relationship to the concept of the wave function. Wave functions as the electrical waves or events that make things real to our measurable individual human brain and individual sensory existence. They make “things real” to us and are fundamental to the development of our sense of consciousness, self and reality.
Conclusion:
The Dot theory is a theoretical corrective elaboration on one singular aspect of the Standard Model: that of the method of logical representation of our individual, real-world relationship with the way we calculate reality in linear time into functional relationships as represented in Quantum mechanics. The effect of applying the Dot theory to our current understanding of the SM enables a better and more accurate understanding of reality, and the paper(s) present a practical use-case (that of solving an efficiency problem in healthcare) to achieve valuable real world improvements for humans by evaluating, and predicting, best-outcomes for available treatment and lifestyle modification by applying this method.
The fact that we are discussing data that describes the human experience of reality as contained within a “health-data set” (collection of stuff that describes how you’re put together and how that feels to you) in this clinical use case example, demonstrates how this theory introduces the individual observer perspective into the idea of a calculation. That’s what’s odd for a body of knowledge and people that generally tend to operate motivated from a perspective of “us”. Science as an entity would historically do the math in pursuit of the ideology of a unique and absolute universal truth, when the suggestion here is that a Game-strategic “better than we knew” would have been good and possibly would have achieved an overall faster rate of progression to desired solution, enabling further aspiration for improvement.
In contrast to the existing dominant schools, when you pragmatically accept that there is no universal truth which can be universally described/ transcribed (Wittgenstein), you see that aiming to do so computationally is logically pointless (a quite current issue in the LLM community) and game-strategically, your next pragmatic, data-driven optimisation by Game-strategy really takes you to your own partial, yet best-informed point of view, which includes faiths and beliefs, echo chambers and paranoia. In those terms under Dot Theory, the math is being done from the observer’s point of view, not that of an alienating and ultimately notional benchmarking against “everyone’s”, as was tradition in that paradigm.
In this sense, the Dot theory posits that Einstein was correct in the idea of introducing some sort of universal constant, but Quantum mechanics was then using Spinors with set-defined terms that enable/unavoidably create lensing. That is where it invites not a change in the Schrödinger equation, but our relationship to it. The Dot theory, is in this mathematical sense, simply a redefinition of the terms of our relationship to angular position and momentum as presented in the Spinor (terms that define the geometry of how things relate).
I hope you find the information you require to give this view your support.
Please support this work by sharing on social media or asking questions.
The aims of this project are to:
a) publish for internet-review this GUT and claim Copyright/authorship.
b) draw attention and offer the opportunity to develop its applications and implementations as open-source access knowledge.
c) draw intellectual and investor support to the realisation of its first real-world application:
the delivery of improved healthcare by a shift in computational perspective on data.
Thank you,
Stefaan and Team