pseudo science 1: our will to open up to a new technology

A.    Science vs Pseudo science

Criticism is perhaps the strongest clarifier of knowledge.  I am here seeking Criticism but also indulgence and a willingness to either ignore me or to have a discussion which borders on radical, but I would submit it is not  radical.  As long as a theory is “firmly” founded in mathematics, I argue it is unlikely to be pseudo science.  AuT is math.  The suggested application of math is not inconsistent with leading theories of physics like Hologram and Simulation theory.

Specifically, Peter Hanggi has discussed the universe as "a giant quantum information processor instead of a physical thing."  AuT provides a specific model for the operation of the information processor in two equations.

While obtaining similar observational results are obtained, as they have to be with any math model, AuT rejects the standard model.  It is suggested that the carrier particle ideas of the standard model is more loosely tied to math and logically questionable.  It is suggested that the standard model is a strained model.  

AuT lays down in the face of observations and says, we have to rethink so we can accept and not force the math.  One of the early suggestions which was made was that that logic of AuT (actually a predecessor NLT) “sounded like Zeno’s work” which was 2500 years old.  That is true.  The logical problem which Parmenides and Zeno dealt with had to do with the infinite divisibility of space and the resulting paradox, the so called “Zeno’s paradox.”

Understanding that we are very primitive and tribal in our views, I ask you not to prejudge this work.

The following discussion begins with “equations that changed science.”

Each of these equations embodies outstanding advances, but with a relatively simple foundational equation. 

Let me defend AuT against the claim of pseudo-science for a moment.

AuT is math.  It is not complicated math and it requires two equations unlike the other theories, but both of these equations are verifiable and based on observations.  The “conclusions” AuT reaches from these equations may be questioned, should be questioned, but they are based on logic and our current understanding of information.  In the videos, you can see the domain, operator and co-domain discussion of the math which is the accepted method of discussing mathematical functions.  There is nothing pseudo-scientific or pseudo-mathematic in the approach.  There may be errors, some of which may undermine the theory in its entirety, but the approach is mathematic and scientific and all I ask is that you question the specifics and not the conclusions.

Looking at Ian Stewart’s 17 equations post, none of these are more complicated than AuT which is actually two equations, fpix and f-series compression.

So please indulge me as I discuss the scientific basis of this theory, feel free to question the theory, but please do not reject the theory outright unless you have watched the videos, understood them and found specific logical flaws in the math or conclusions.

I do not want to “win you over,” only to present a mathematical theory which largely follows simulation theory with a more conclusive and specific model and to stimulate a discussion which may or may not agree with AuT.

If you are impatient Please see the author's Amazon page at: https://www.amazon.com/author/frzmn and the author's Facebook page for more links and articles at https://www.facebook.com/frzmn1 or @frzmn1 which include the blog which has 5 years of development of the theory is you feel like slogging through that.
Video overviews can be found on this Youtube Channel: www.youtube.com/channel/UCxK8BwhzafIi1Jd0yE8mQXQ

The videos are surprisingly up to date.  For the one on compression deals with how the folding occurs in detail.  And this is my blog which takes an often tongue in cheek approach. https://gmfbooks.blogspot.com/