There has to be mathematical proof, Lemmas, sims, something! No falsifiability = no theory (the Feynman test).
The author claims on X that all math was verified as correct. If "all" the math excludes the physical world bridges, then it's not done. Thus, the "TOE" claim would falsify itself. We specify elegant natural systems as simply as possible, but no simpler than that (paraphrasing Einstein). On Thu, 08 Oct 2026, 10:16 John Rose via AGI, <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thursday, October 08, 2026, at 4:07 AM, Quan Tesla wrote: > > I'm open to seeing. Please refer me to the respective domain-specific > proofs. > > > There's no proof you'd have test some predictions on more complicated > chemistry. > > *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* > / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + > participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + > delivery options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> > Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T25fb5a030fcfa28e-M209b796462e304b2bc5df899> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T25fb5a030fcfa28e-M92ccb2d41708b92871cb5d99 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
