Original publication date: 24/09/2024
Hello and welcome,
This website discusses a proposed Grand Unification Theory (GUT) or Theory of Everything (TOE) named the “Dot Theory.”
That may either profess grandness, 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 predictions more accurate. It is published as a website for access and flexibility.
Its core linguistic (in Physics) tenets are:
Spinor Adjustment: The proposal to modify QM’s Spinor structure to treat observer data as local metadata 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 historical data.
GR Modification: The E=m⊙c3 equation can be likened to 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: The Mμν(ψ) 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.
It offers testable Predictions:
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.
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, are in some sense only known ways of successfully describing aspects of reality that help bring order, structure and predictability to our experience of reality. Each of which, when they are proven to offer predictive capability, are considered to be successful and therefore 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 more efficiently. They also helps 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) to ratify its logic of Natural Philosophy as the GUT.
Introduction:
A theory of this scale, even one on the topic of the fabric of the reality of nature itself (not a typo), does not solve all problems immediately: it provides a framework of understanding that enables the solving of a class of problems. In this case, a class of problems involved with how we observe and make reality real (the fabric of the “reality” of nature itself). This is a highly unusual set of things to consider, but in one sense only recognises 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 from it. For reference, the Dot theory can be considered exploitation of the anthropic selection effect that is inherent to all observations.
It means that we can understand our personal relationship with reality better through it, and make the information available from our observations of reality to make it increasingly malleable to our social and personal needs by applying it.
The three distinct and great Physico-Mathematical theories 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 the 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 assisted these (using both mathematical and non-mathematical logics), to form one big pool of tools developed from related frameworks of functioning theories that define our every day experience of life and we use to describe what we call reality.
Elements:
Whilst the subject matter and computation of elements of each of these theories may vary wildly in their expression, each framework has one element in common: Predictability. The Dot theory addresses our relationship with the logics that offer us predictability.
The Dot theory also does something which should be done by any aspiring GUT: it presents a framework that contains a method to adjust both mathematical and non-mathematical logics. 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 that describes the information describing the structure of the logic (whether mathematical or non-mathematical) used to describe the relationships between the data of the reality it describes successfully”.
In Physics, the Dot theory’s effect translates to adaptations in our relationship to the mathematics used in the Schrodinger equation. An equation which, according to the Dot theory, needs to be modified to represent the observations that: a) observational data should 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, as hyper-data if and when we have additional known information about or associated to the observation:
Hyper data is information that, when it is useful to do so, can be viewed from one perspective; simply as 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), and can, upon analysis, be recognised to offer additional, potentially meaningful, information by means of analysis for the existence, presentation, state and correlation of the information to other, somehow similar information as well.
It is known, and obvious, that this can be useful, if willing and able to observe the data differently; i.e. Correlatively (for correlating patterns) and purposefully (with a view to potentially make better predictive decisions), and that doing so, inevitably offers better predictions of outcomes, if using that data analytically and when considering to act on the data describing recurring predictive patterns for predictive purposes. It is logically more accurate therefore, for us to represent our relationship to the data as such, where we use it. The Dot theory is simply a logic that states that: reality is data whenever we look at it, and that data can be viewed (and when possible, ought to be calculated as) hyperdata because it is self-evident that this would make more accurate and more valid predictions about reality. This, therefore, logically, makes all computing frameworks where the relative position of the data within that framework can be observed and therefore used to describe reality by this method, more real than the relationship currently entertained.
This is obviously, yet 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 pathway that is obviously revealing if and more closely observed, recorded and analysed, for predictive relationships (as a variant in topological surface) can potentially bring additional, prediction-improving data of its own, to the computation.
It can represent (if observed as a layer of meta data that can that can take a form that can be composed of 0 and 1 codes that can be observed to take a form or topology) the fabric of the tools used to describe our measurements of our observations on reality and used to make corrections on our observer bias. Practically speaking, this can be generated by a Digital avatar archetypes and used for 100% individualised, real-time predictive healthcare and human optimisation modelling, and some experimental physics applications.
The logical argument is simply that this process (of including recursively analytical data within any computation) must be done because it always makes the outcome more correct when a meaningful question is asked. 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.
In other words, it says that 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 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, 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) perspective on strategy and purpose 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 wave functions. Wave functions are the electrical waves or events that make things real to our brain and sensory existence. They make “things real” to us and are fundamental to the development of our sense of consciousness, self and reality.
The Dot theory is a theoretical elaboration on one singular aspect of the theory of General Relativity: that of the logical representation of our individual, real-world relationship to the way we calculate reality through the relationships represented in Quantum mechanics. Its effect (of applying the Dot theory) enables a better and more accurate understanding of reality, and the paper presents a practical use-case (solving a problem in healthcare) to achieve valuable real world improvements for humans by evaluating and predicting best-outcomes for treatment and lifestyle modification. It’s weird, I know.
The fact that we are discussing data that describes the human experience of reality as 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 calculation. That’s what’s weird. We always used to do math in pursuit of some universal truth. When you accept there is no universal truth that can be universally described, you see that you can only really take your own point of view. That is what this is: the math is being done from the observer’s point of view, not everyone’s.
In this sense, the Dot theory posits that Einstein was correct by introducing his universal constant (if you knew), but Quantum mechanics was using Spinors with set-defined terms that enable/unavoidably create lensing. 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).
Please support this work by purchasing a copy on Kindle or subscribing to our Patreon page here.
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 realization of its first real-world application:
the delivery of improved healthcare by a shift in computational perspective on data.
Thank you,
Stefaan and Team