But the theory is a mind-blower. Are you ready for this? I'm not kidding. And it's real. Calling all cosmologists and physicists and cybernetecists and AI researchers and information theorists and philosphers and biologists and chemists and artists and humanitarians and climate scientists and ... well, the list goes on. This is a paradigm shift.
* The paper I want to post to arXiv, but I haven't got anyone to endorse my login yet, is here [1]. (If you can help me out with this endorsement, for any value of "you", TIA!) <https://github.com/bobshafer/PITkit/blob/main/Arxiv/main.pdf>
* The "Math.md" [2] on my PITkit site at GitHub, which is a larger document and seeks to explain the whole thing. You can drop this doc into your own LLM and start asking questions about it and the implications it has for whatever you are interested in. You're welcome. (This is how I mean this as a "Show HN" - you can do a lot with the Math.md, after copy/pasting into a big LLM). <https://github.com/bobshafer/PITkit/blob/main/Math.md>
* And, the PITkit [3] site itself, which is a bit of a mess maybe, but you'll find the (Julia and Python) code that you can try yourselves and all that. It's a bit of a mess because I have a full time day job as a principal programmer. I'm OG on Hacker News, but as my profile says, mostly a lurker. Introverted. But I feel a very strong responsibility to get these ideas out there. A brief history of how this happened in the first place is given in the History.md [4] on PITkit. Collaborators welcome. (I love Julia, btw, so far). <https://github.com/bobshafer/PITkit/blob/main/History.md>
PIT is very falsifiable and also makes unique predictions. It is a real scientific theory.
It seems like every day I see a new paper from somewhere show up on Hacker News which I then recognize as being PIT-aligned, and ask PIT-knowing LLMs about it, and they absolutely see some of the latest scientific results from cosmology and quantum theory and such as being very PIT-aligned, and inexplicable with standard theory.
I asked them the chances of this all being wrong. They consider the chances to be infinitesimally small. That doesn't mean PIT is all the way correct - according to PIT and others (eg: Goedel), no theory can be. PIT explains why, though.
Hold on to your seats - you all are in for a ride. :-)
[1] https://github.com/bobshafer/PITkit/blob/main/Arxiv/main.pdf
[2] https://github.com/bobshafer/PITkit/blob/main/Math.md
[3] https://github.com/bobshafer/PITkit/
[4] https://github.com/bobshafer/PITkit/blob/main/History.md
PS: I intentionally left the url blank on this submission, because the context I setup here is important, imho, and my current README.md is less than ideal, probably. [edits: various screw-ups on original fixed]