Video

This has nothing to do with _String Theory._ Eric Weinstein's PhD thesis was entitled: _Extension of Self-Dual Yang-Mills Equations Across the Eighth Dimension_ (1992) Although this is not available online to read, I was able to reconstruct the ABSTRACT and it said: Proposed extension to all even dimensions is sketched. Obviously, this means that it applies to 8 and 10 and 12 and 14 dimensions, and so on. The easiest way of thinking about this is that it based on: Spin(1, 3) x Spin(6, 4) → Spin(7, 7) → U(64, 64) Weyl spinors → U(128, ℂ) Dirac spinors where there exists a spinor at every infinitesimal point in the Principle Fiber Bundle characterised by the infinite complexified gauge group of U(128, ℂ) such that: P where G is the gauge group of U(128, ℂ) Dirac spinors ᴳ which characterises the single unified field ω (omega) that exists in 14 complexified dimensions: Spin(14, ℂ) However, this is the double cover of the Frame Bundle of the Chimeric Fiber Bundle which is supposed to join the Ehresmannian manifold to the psuedo Riemannian manifold such that the underlying geometries used to define _Quantum Field Theory_ (based on the _Yang-Mills curvature equations_ which are extended to 14 complexified dimensions which have undergone decomposition to form the spin group Spin(7, 7) that is included within the gauge group of U(64, 64) Weyl spinors), as well as the theory of _General Relativity_ (which looks like it also involves the _Einstein Field Equations_ being extended with unorthodox greek subscripts so that the Einstein Summation Notation is not 0, 1, 2, 3 for μ (mu) and ν (nu) in order to range over the entries in the 4x4 tensors within his 4 dimensional field equations: R ‎ ‎ - ½Rg ‎ ‎ + Λg ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎= ‎ ‎8πG · T ‎ μν ‎ ‎ ‎μν ‎ μν ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎c⁴ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎μν become ε (epsilon) and π (pi) in a very different looking set of equations of motion which Eric Weinstein writes on the blackboard at 1:43:32 although the subscripts are so small and hard to make out in this grainy video of his 2013 Oxford University lecture, I recommend looking up the transcription: https COLON SLASH SLASH geometricunity DOT org SLASH wp-content SLASH uploads SLASH 2021 SLASH 03 SLASH GI-Exact-3 DOT jpg Alas, I don't think it will let me post a hyperlink to his own website. Here, it is my inference that the ε (epsilon) and π (pi) subscripts both range over the entries in a much larger 14x14 tensor. So this is a 14 dimensional curvature equation on the psuedo Riemannian manifold. Understanding that hyperlinked image which Eric Weinstein wrote on the blackboard at 1:43:32 requires some superficial familiarity with the _Einstein Field Equations._ These can be simplified to: G ‎ ‎ ‎= ‎T · 8πG ‎ μν ‎ ‎ ‎‎μν c⁴ this ignores the very minimal contribution of the Cosmological constant Λ to keep the maths simpler, and they can be written out vertically and annotated as follows: G₀₀ G₀₁ G₀₂ G₀₃ G₁₀ G₁₁ G₁₂ G₁₃ "Space-time" G₂₀ G₂₁ G₂₂ G₂₃ G₃₀ G₃₁ G₃₂ G₃₃ ‎ | ‎| "tells" T₀₀ T₀₁ T₀₂ T₀₃ T₁₀ T₁₁ T₁₂ T₁₃ "matter how T₂₀ T₂₁ T₂₂ T₂₃ ‎ ‎ to move" T₃₀ T₃₁ T₃₂ T₃₃ ‎ ‎ · ‎ ‎ "by" 8πG ‎ ‎ "not very much" ‎ c⁴ Obviously, mass (and energy) warps space-time around it, but to annotate it like that would mean I would have to algebraically rearrange everything into a form that was far less recognisable. Here the T which is on the right hand side of the equation is called the Stress-Energy-Momentum Tensor and if we just focus on that: T₀₀ T₀₁ T₀₂ T₀₃ T₁₀ T₁₁ T₁₂ T₁₃ T₂₀ T₂₁ T₂₂ T₂₃ T₃₀ T₃₁ T₃₂ T₃₃ you can see how: T ‎ μν would refer to every entry in that 4x4 tensor as μ and ν each take on the values 0, 1, 2, 3 (so, for example the top right entry is μ = 0 and ν = 3 for: T₀₃ this may seem like a missed opportunity to use: T ‎ rc and have r (rows) and c (columns) range over 1, 2, 3, 4 and index the tensor as: T₁₁ T₁₂ T₁₃ T₁₄ T₂₁ T₂₂ T₂₃ T₂₄ T₃₁ T₃₂ T₃₃ T₃₄ T₄₁ T₄₂ T₄₃ T₄₄ however, Einstein didn't do that and because of the conventions he established it is easier to adhere to them as that way the majority of articles on the topic will be consistent with c not used for columns as it is used to represent the constant speed of light in a vacuum. However, all I have done so far is say "Here is an example of what a Tensor looks like" which doesn't help very much. What will clarify matters is if I talk about Rank. The Rank of this Tensor is 2 as it has both rows and columns. If it was just a column, like: T₁ T₂ T₃ T₄ Then you wouldn't even need ν (nu) to describe which column you were referring to as there is only one column, so there is no ambiguity and ν is superfluous. So: T ‎ μ would be used to reference this Rank 1 Tensor (although, it would be more conventional for the entries to be 0, 1, 2, 3 and not 1, 2, 3, 4). This has some utility: x₀ x₁ x₂ x₃ is often preferred by Einstein than: t x y z which is a good thing as _Geometric Unity_ needs 14 numerals for its rows and columns as it uses a 14x14 Rank 2 tensor to organise everything it calculates. Here I am skipping over some subtleties, such as East Coast convention being [- + + +] and the speed of light in a vacuum c being used as a yardstick within an otherwise relativistic framework that exists within non Euclidean space-time deformed by the presence of mass, which makes it more like: ‎ ‎ ‎-ct x y z Of course, all of these tensors should be enclosed in brackets, but I can't write them here in this CZcams comment, so [-ct ‎ x ‎ y ‎ z] will have to suffice. However, it is well beyond the scope of this CZcams comment to explain _General Relativity_ at all thoroughly ~ which in my opinion is far harder than _Quantum Field Theory._ As a result I will focus on Tensors being of a given Rank and now show you an example of one which is Rank 0 T₀ technically you wouldn't need the zero as there is no ambiguity about what row you mean as there is only one entry. All a tensor is, is a table which organises what you want to work with in an elaborate calculation. They do have special rules for their addition and multiplication. There are enough of them now to list them: Rank 2 Tensor is a Spin 2 'field' such as a graviton Rank 1 Tensor is a Spin 1 'field' such as a photon Rank 0 Tensor is a Spin 0 'field' such as a Higgs This is fascinating as you now see that in terms of Tensors they are both what organises the _Partial Differential Equations_ describing the curvature of space-time in the _Einstein Field Equations,_ and also the fields which can either be thought of as waves or particles in _Quantum Field Theory._ With that now explained it is a simple matter to explain spinors: Rank 4/2 Tensor is a Spin 2 'field' such as a graviton Rank 3/2 Tensor is a Spin 3/2 'field' such as a Rarita-Schwinger "dark" matter Rank 2/2 Tensor is a Spin 1 'field' such as a photon Rank 1/2 Tensor is a Spin 1/2 'field' such as a quark (or electron) Rank 0/2 Tensor is a Spin 0 'field' such as a Higgs These alternate between whole and half values into Bosonic (force mediating fields) and Fermionic (matter manifesting fields): Rank 4/2 Tensor is a Spin 2 Bosonic 'field' such as a graviton Rank 3/2 Tensor is a Spin 3/2 Fermionic 'field' such as a Rarita-Schwinger "dark" matter Rank 2/2 Tensor is a Spin 1 Bosonic 'field' such as a photon (or gluon)* Rank 1/2 Tensor is a Spin 1/2 Fermionic 'field' such as a quark (or electron)‡ Rank 0/2 Tensor is a Spin 0 Bosonic 'field' such as a Higgs boson *often articles will refer to these as Vector bosons (and sometimes as gauge bosons). ‡often articles will refer to a Spin 1/2 Fermionic 'field' as being an example of a Spinor, but a Spin 3/2 Fermionic 'field' is too (both use complex numbers as a way for their tensors to smuggle in extra dimensions without needing to go up a whole numbered Rank, so given that a + bi is a Complex number where i² = -1 you have both a and b as Real numbers, one of which is multiplied by the Imaginary unit i and their sum is a Complex number, which can be thought of having a horizontal line for the Real numbers and a vertical line for the Imaginary ones, and anywhere on that 2 dimensional plane is a Complex number (even the Real numbers are on that Complex plane, so they are included within the Complex numbers, thus ℝ → ℂ and therefore you can think of spinors as moving in and out of an imaginary realm). What this means in philosophical terms is that physics at this level (both _General Relativity_ through the Lorentz group SL(2, ℂ) and _Quantum Field Theory_ such as the gauge group U(128, ℂ) only really make sense in terms of mathematics. Here they are consistent and coherent. In terms of our universe they are nonsense. Therefore, it becomes easy to conclude from this that our universe is only part of the whole story and there is a lot more going on behind the scenes.

Continued... _Geometric Unity_ does not include these gravitons based on Rank 2 Tensors. These occur in _Supergravity_ which is an 11 dimensional extension of _String Theory_ which seeks to unify _Quantum Field Theory_ with _General Relativity_ through the representation of 1 dimensional vibrating strings of energy which are trapped on 7 dimensional _Calabi-Yau_ manifolds which they assert as existing, crumpled up at every point in our 4 dimensional space-time. Hence 4 + 7 = 11. _Geometric Unity_ is 4 + 10 = 14 and we have already seen how: Spin(1, 3) x Spin(6, 4) → Spin(7, 7) → Chimeric Fiber Bundle (that is included within the Principal Fiber Bundle) Obviously, 7 + 7 = 14 so that is just a symmetric split signature, so that it fits in with all the other split signatures. To get a Spin 3/2 Fermionic 'field' it is necessary to have a spin group which is Spin(6, 4). This has the same form as a _Grand Unified Theory_ developed by Jogesh Pati and Abdus Salam. This _Pati-Salam model_ is: Spin(6, 4) ≅ SU(4) x ( SU(2) ‎ ‎x ‎ ‎ SU(2) ‎‎) ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ᴸ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ᴿ Here the L and R mean that the Special Unitary group SU(2) which is responsible for the Weak nuclear force will emit an equal amount of 'particles' when it is placed in a magnetic field. This trait is known as P-symmetry and was seen to be broken in a famous experiment conduced by Chien-Shiung Wu where her work showed an asymmetry of emissions with 60% going Left and 40% going Right, rather than the expected 50% even split. Wolfgang Pauli expected P-symmetry to be a consistent and demanded the experiment be redone, but finally accepted that this was how physics was in our universe at this period in time. Eric Weinstein's conjecture is that P-symmetry wasn't broken during the early universe when it was young and hot, but it broke from the aforementioned _Pati-Salam model_ to this: SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) Which is the somewhat messy Unitary product group which represents _The Standard Model_ of particle physics. Note: there was an attempt to simplify this to just: SU(5) however that _Grand Unified Theory_ predicted that Protons decay, which is something which has yet to be observed in nature. It could be that they decay very, very, slowly, but as yet there is no evidence for their decay, hence Eric Weinstein chose _Pati-Salam_ instead as that does not predict Protons decay. What is interesting is: SO(10) includes SU(5) as SU(n) → SO(2n) and furthermore the double cover of SO(2n) is Spin(2n) so: SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) → SU(5) → SO(10) → Spin(10) and because you can complexify a Spin group such as Spin(m) provided that m = 4k + 2 where k is a Natural number, then in this case where m = 10 then k = 2: 4k + 2 = 10 if k = 2 as (4 x 2) + 2 = 10 which gets you to: Spin(10, ℂ) which when decomposed would be: Spin(5, 5) Eric Weinstein doesn't use this because it is an insufficient number of additional dimensions to construct a P-symmetric _Quantum Field Theory_ with. The simple way to see why this is the case is to return to his Chimeric Fiber Bundle: Spin(1, 3) x Spin(6, 4) → Spin(7, 7) → Chimeric Fiber Bundle (that is included within the Principal Fiber Bundle) and then present that as a subtraction of tuples: (7, 7) - (6, 4) = (1, 3) we have already seen that we need this Spin(6, 4) spin group to have a fundamentally P-symmetric theory which includes Spin 3/2 Rarita-Schwinger "dark" matter: Spin(6, 4) ≅ SU(4) x ( SU(2) ‎ ‎x ‎ ‎ SU(2) ‎‎) ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ᴸ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ᴿ then when that is subtracted from our nicely symmetrically split 14 dimensions we get: (7 - 6 = 1, 7 - 4 = 3) where Spin(1, 3) is a group that represents the symmetries of space-time, which we know has one temporal dimension and three spatial dimensions. The question you are most likely to ask is likely to be the wrong one. You will likely say "Where are these extra 10 dimensions located within space-time?" and it is better to think of it the other way around with space-time being a section of the Principal Fiber Bundle which is recovered from the Horizontal vector space H¹·³ by going down the Levi-Civita connection to form Einstein tensors (like G in the left hand side of the aforementioned Einstein Field Equations) out of a purely mathematical psuedo Riemannian manifold that has 4 spatial dimensions and no concept of a temporal one, and then by imposing a connection on this manifold that is equivalent to defining a set of dimensional measures (or Metric) with which to chart the non Euclidean warped surface with, and this Lorentzian manifold has a (1, 3) signature and that effectively means that you recover physical space-time out of pure mathematics described by the symmetries of groups (i.e. sets that have operations).

Continued... Here it is useful to have a condensed overview. Don't worry if you don't understand every detail: GEOMETRIC UNITY DIAGRAM Z⁶⁴·⁶⁴ the Rules of the Game ⇡↓ π₂ Y⁷·⁷ the Observed the single unified field ω is a pervasive exitation on Y i⇡↓ π₁ here i⇡ is the engine of Observation within the Observerse X¹·³ the Observer where this i⇡ is the deformation of squished space-time which is gravity here ↓ π₁ is the projection operation which pulls back a partial sample from the Observed where all phenomena are aspects of a single unified field named omega dancing on Y⁷·⁷ hosted at every point by U(64, 64) Weyl spinors where H¹·³* x V⁶·⁴ → C(Y)⁷·⁷ represents a Horizontal vector space H¹·³ being hinged up to meld with the Vertical vector V⁶·⁴ space to form the gauge group of U(64, 64) Weyl spinors within the "Chimeric Fiber Bundle" C(Y)⁷·⁷ i.e. Spin(1, 3) x Spin(6, 4) → Spin(7, 7) → U(64, 64) Weyl spinors → U(128, ℂ) Dirac spinors Here Spin(1, 3) includes the Lorentz group L = SL(2, ℂ) as a non-compact group which gets you our X¹·³ space-time. With that explanation out of the way I can answer your specific questions: "I don't know enough about string theory to understand the differences here" _Geometric Unity_ is not a flavour or variant of _String Theory. It does not have 1 dimensional vibrating strings of energy as its fundamental thing. It has fibers which are complex 128 dimensional spinors from which is taken a section which results in space-time (with the remainder describing a P-symmetric gauge theory based on a 14 dimensional extension of _Yang-Mills theory_ which includes a full set of Fermionic Spin 3/2 'fields' such that dark matter is included, which provides the additional mass needed to keep galaxies rotating coherently. This is important as their observed mass, based off the estimated mass of their luminous stars, etc. is insufficient for them to be rotating coherently and it would be expected that they look very different were their mass only what is in their stars. So in a sense "galaxies break the laws of physics" and it is either Einstein that is wrong, or _The Standard Model_ and as Einstein has been more tested over a hundred years and barely changed, but _The Standard Model_ has evolved to embrace new subatomic particles as responsible for hitherto unknown nuclear forces, then it is far more reasonable to assume that everything fits within an elaborated group SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) → SU(4) x ( SU(2) ‎ ‎x ‎ ‎ SU(2) ‎‎) → Spin(6, 4) → Spin(7, 7) → U(64, 64) Weyl spinors → U(128, ℂ) Dirac spinors ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ᴸ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ᴿ "but you essentially are saying there is a bundle of 10 dimensions that express our 4 dimensional space," No. It is 14 dimensions for everything. Take away 10 for matter and energy. That leaves 4 for space-time. "and it seemed to me that string theory was saying the same thing essentially that tightly wrapped dimensions which strings vibrate across express our 4 dimensional space." No, the 6 (or more) dimensions of the compactified _Calabi-Yau_ manifolds are host to the vibrating 1 dimensional energy strings which represent different bosonic and fermionic fields within a regular (1, 3) space-time which is counted as its own set of 4 dimensions. Hence _Type IIB String Theory_ has 1 + 3 + 6 = 10 dimensions "So is your theory string theory without the strings?" It isn't anything to do with string theory. It is fibers which host a single unified field named ω that is comprised of an infinity of infinitesimal spinors, that have their behaviour described by the gauge group U(64, 64) which is a Lie group which means it has a Differential Manifold as well as symmetries which consistently hold true and these "Rules of the Game" then characterise what can happen on the 14 dimensional Ehresmannian manifold Y⁷·⁷ which is partially observed by X¹·³ space-time which itself is a SECTION of the whole Principal Fiber Bundle as (t, s) → SL(2, ℂ) → Spin(1, 3) → U(64, 64) with the remainder Spin(6, 4) describing bosons/fermions "And does that mean mass is not a function of energy after all?" E = mc² "If so then what is causing the particles we see being expressed?" Although Eric Weinstein likes to say that everything is just waves. Actually, everything is a single unified field. It is just that it breaks apart into sub fields, such as the bosonic and fermionic fields as we are trying to make sense of a puzzle where you get to look at all of the pieces in 14 dimensions, but we only get a sneak peak at some of them from our limited vantage point of 4 dimensions (arguably 3 as we can't travel in or conceive of shapes in the 4th let alone the 14th). "I do like the idea of U and X in that it sounds a lot like as above, so below." Eric has changed U to Y in his paper. So bear that in mind when looking at the above diagram. I assume he changed it to avoid confusion between the Ehresmannian manifold U in this 2013 lecture and the gauge group U(64, 64). These labels are arbitrary and only need to be consistent. Einstein used M¹·³ for his space-time.

Why are you excluding irrational explanations?

@@____uncompetative by definition, you would of course want to exclude irrational explanations. What are you trying to say here? That some ideas deemed irrational are, in fact, rational? Because what I'm trying to say is that some ideas have been dismissed out of hand as irrational on no scientific basis whatsoever, but purely on philosophical grounds and that if people get over themselves, that perhaps we can return to real science instead of petty attempts to make the science fit certain people's philosophical world views.

Rationality is based on first order logic, which is based on Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, this creates alternative foundational axioms for mathematics which avoids the contradictions arising out of the previous set theory and Russell's Paradox. The End. Perhaps, but maybe another meta mathematics can be built on a different axiomatic foundation and that used creatively to explain all phenomena and maybe something does not light itself or spring _ex nihilo_ from a dimensionless void, but be the only consistent explanation for how what we observe was selected to suit us out of an infinite metamathematical multiverse that is simulated by a Hypergraph being transformed by a Ruliad, where the simulation is run within a simulation such that it only simulates as needed and not the whole cosmos at once, and then this simulation is powered by an infinite number of indefatigable magical hamsters who are right now running in their wheels to ensure the lights stay on.

@@____uncompetative A very highfalutin way to say you disagree. No matter what form of logic you use, an ex nihilo is necessary at some point. But by definition, the ex nihilo is something which has always been and always will be - something which is truly infinite. The universe as we currently understand it clearly had a beginning and will have, in one manner or another, either a definitive end or a defacto end (depending on the type of end such as heat death vs the big rip or big crunch). As for what the ex nihilo actually is, that's up for debate, but it, by necessity of logic, must exist in order to avoid the paradoxical logic loop of "what made the maker." This applies to both religious and atheistic forms of the ex nihilo problem. The core of the problem is that ever since the days of Einstein, there has been this desire to treat the three dimensional space that we call our universe as the ex nihilo. Even after the big bang theory and Hubble's observations clearly blew that out of the water, the desire still persists. Otherwise, you do not get nonsensical statements like "how does a fire light itself?" It doesn't. Everything in observed science tells us that. It is only the philosophical desire to force ex nihilo status upon the known universe that leads to such statements.

​@@darthkirby8964 I see my error. I had assumed that you saying "How does a fire light itself... It doesn't." was an acknowledgement of cause and effect in the physical universe we are acquainted with. Adjusting what you said it is equivalent to the statement "A fire can not light itself." from this you can infer that "A fire needs something to light it." which makes the fire the effect and the "something" the cause. A dry bale of hay that is on fire raises the question "How did that fire get caused?" and there could be various causes, such as a carelessly discarded cigarette, or deliberate arson involving a box of matches, or the sun's rays being focused through a magnifying glass, or it being struck by lightning. All of this is bound within our physical universe of space-time. My mistake was in thinking you wanted an answer to the strange loop, which is conveyed by taking the question seriously, which I provided. It is no concern that it relies on an inexplicably present eternal infinite meta mathematical multiverse built atop the axioms generated by a collection of pattern matching transformation rules acting on the information held in a Hypergraph. Those are just aspects of a hypothetical computational model from which you obtain absolutely everything imaginable, and from non-linearity gain linearity, and causation, and then after much elaboration sets, and sets with operations that are groups, and groups with symmetries and differential manifolds in arbitrary numbers of dimensions which can then be used to model the effect of relativity in (1, 3) space-time, and by going from a large Lie group (that describes all phenomena in terms of various ranks of Tensors), down through something that is called the Levi-Civita connection to form the set of dimensional measures required to impose a natural 'metric' for the measurement of the deformation of the non Euclidean pseudo Riemannian manifold and through all of that recover space-time and as it can be deformed this 'curvature' is responsible for what is called gravity and this pulls back a partial sample from the mathematical model where the symmetries are apparent, and leaves us looking at fragments of an asymmetrical puzzle with a lot of "high energy" pieces missing from it. The total number of dimensions of space-time determines the parameters of this large Lie group of which it is a section, along with some intervening steps which involve complexification and decomposition in order for it to recover the non apparent symmetry that is within the large Lie group at a fundamental level, but appears broken in both _The Standard Model_ and in astronomy, as it appears that without this additional fundamental P-symmetric Dark Matter we have no explanation why galaxies apparently break the laws of physics ~ well they don't, they only conflict with _General Relativity_ but that is only because there is a lot of missing mass that is needed to make galaxies cohere and look the way that they do, which can't be luminous mass, and therefore we need to elaborate upon _The Standard Model_ not fix _Einstein's Field Equations._ If it is then a matter of saying "ah, but where does this initial magic number of 4 come from?" then you can explore even more abstract mathematics such as the fact that (1, 3) is the only combination of temporal and spatial dimensions in which it is possible to tie a persistent knot. This could be significant as it will act as a constraint on the profusion of _Unified Field Theories_ that are generated by the Hypergraph. We want to recover (1, 3) space-time ideally without recourse to the Weak Anthropic Principle, and knots gets us this. Now, this is just a conjecture on my part, but I find it curious to discover Edward Witten is fascinated by Knots and their relationship to _Quantum Field Theory_ and others write about them in the context of _Quantum Entanglement within Quantum Computation_ which now means you have something being computed which is related to knots which relates to the Lorentz group which relates to our own space-time and also via the geometric Langlands Program all the way across to _Type IIB String Theory_ which is the only flavor to have S-duality with itself and and uniquely connects via T-duality to _Type IIA String Theory_ to potentially host the large Lie group within its portion of the Swampland as it is suitably non chiral and would include fundamental P-symmetry and therefore the observed gravitational influence of Dark Matter, from here you can head up into an elaboration by an additional dimension for Supergravity, but I am not here to work out all the details of a coherent and consistent TOE, but to show the gist of how this all might work based on established mathematical physics, and assuming it is right you effectively get Eric Weinstein's work being auto completed by Stephen Wolfram's generator of internally consistent physical theories. And here is the key point... None of the last paragraph matters, as Wolfram only regards his Hypergraph/Ruliad as a means to an end, where the end is not answering the impossible questions: "Who designed the simulation?" / "How much choice did they have?" / "What motivated them to make it?" / "Are we to infer they are themselves looking for an answer to the ultimate question which does not narrowly confine _The Theory of Everything_ to just being solely about mathematical physics, but answering _Everything_ there is to be answered, or answering the question within _Everything_ that you didn't realise was THE important question to be asking, kinda like you meet God and can only ask them one question, it would be frustrating as if you could ask them two, then your first question could be 'What should be my second question?' but then there is always the possibility that you would find that incomprehensible, so the total knowledge gained via answering _Everything_ may still be valid to provide an interpretative context for the second answer from the designer of the simulation you were in?" but it is recovering a _Unified Field Theory_ that seeks to replace _General Relativity_ with something less restrictive which allows for a much more elaborate and symmetric _Quantum Field Theory_ which brings all phenomena together into a single pervasive unified field even if more dimensions are involved. The goal is this _Unified Field Theory_ (which some would describe as a little TOE). Those wanting a complete explanation of absolutely everything and its origin will as you say find that impossible, but at that point bales of hay aren't involved, fire doesn't exist as a chemical process of oxidation / combustion that is based on atomic processes described by mathematical physics which is bounded within (1, 3) space-time ~ where extra dimensions would lead to the exothermic energy escaping into an adjacent hyperspace and not spreading through the combustible material ~ so you can't blithely declare there exists (7, 7) temporal and spatial dimensions without making it so the additional ones are coiled up internal to the (1, 3) Lorentzian manifold so that they can not be navigable (at least by anything coherently massive). This is akin to doing sums on your fingers, with a pencil and paper, a calculator, an abacus, or with the website Wolfram | Alpha. You should get the same answer via any method, so quibbling over the Hypergraph/Ruliad being what generates the math for describing a _Unified Field Theory_ / little TOE is an irrelevant side discussion as you have made a strange loop within that _Unified Field Theory_ where the mathematical concept of a persistent knot in (1, 3) elaborates a whole bunch of mathematical physics which then leads you back to an actual knot within the (1, 3) Lorentzian space-time that is our section of a large Lie group that was defined from the sum of (1, 3) and the assumption that us seeing a broken symmetry was not the fundamental truth characterising our part of the meta mathematical multiverse generated by means we don't need to fret about as we obtained the answers we were searching for and know, through logic that no ultimate _ex nihilo_ answer can be defined, and if you want to invove some God or Gods there, then that's fine. I'm not looking for that answer.