Hi alias EcruScorpion...
sl Your insightful response stimulated more probing questions, and hopefully relevant commentary.
Thank you for your close read and probing questions. Does the proposal constitute a “theory of everything”?—absolutely not.
sl Is a geometry structure a "theory"?...or a logic framework from which theory can be assessed??
The essay is, as prefaced, a thought experiment from the perspective of one situated outside the field—a “what if” analysis asking how our view of science could be different if_we regarded the Universe as a dynamic system at stable equilibrium between the opposing forces of emergence (mechanically described by the Standard Model) and existence (mechanically explored by introducing the idea of “boundary energy’). In principle, the proposal considers the possibility that the Universe is a dialectic ally fluctuating but balanced system of being and becoming in the full Hegelian sense._
sl The Standard Model as a description of "mass, charge, and momentum" differentials measured over time, verifyies substance and dynamics, but to resolve the underlying mechanics of the differentials, requires a mechanical description of emergence fundamentals... i.e. a momentum mechanism and geometry of a substance distribution structure.
sl Does "existence" as a "boundary energy" force in opposition to the force of emergence as a consequence of a specified momentum mechanism and substance distribution structure, necessitate additional emergence fundamentals?
sl In any case "boundary energy" requires a precise definition of "energy".
sl Is "energy" as herein used, referenced to some convenient unit of measurement associated with the perceivable effect of an event?... or a physical.... i e. occupies space... substance??
sl If given " energy" in units of a measurable event effect... e.g. temperature... would "energy boundaries" have a spatially defined mechanical process to explore?... or only temporally differentiated measurement states from which to theorize an underlying process?
sl If in reference to "energy" as a physical substance, does "energy" have a minimum /indivisible physical form... i.e. can be defined in terms of a spatially dimension ed "energy" distribution unit ... as the irreducible Quantum of Energy (QE)?
A “theory of everything”—as I would define it—would offer a complete material causality of observation expressed in mathematical terms.
sl In the case of "energy" as a quantitative measurement of event effect, in that substance is required to verify causality of substance dynamics, a "complete model of material causality" will need to resolve a unifying substance that exhibits properties from which mass, charge, and momentum can be derived... e g. a QE.
sl To verify causality of substance/entity dynamics within a specified structure, requires a spatial definition of entity, a structural geometry that facilitates a non-perturbative analysis environment, and a momentum mechanism.
sl My rejected 2023 FQXi Essay demonstrates a methodology to generate and utilize these elements to establish a logic framework in which scientist of all disciplines could seamlessly mesh their observations of environment, and there in establish a "theory of everything".
sl Geometry as the basis of all spatial mathematical analysis, precludes many of the conundrums of mathematical syntax... i.e. equations... and I rely heavily on visual illustration to eliminate the necessity for "concept to formulae translations".
sl Fortunately digital CAD SIMulations... ie. animated process... are highly suited to investigate causality of substance dynamics within a specified virtual structural environment.
sl I applaud your willingness to address the issues associated with composite entities, and I think I can equate your concept of an "ontological" hierarchy to my concept of consciousness hierarchy.
sl In that entity boundary mechanisms are manifest as a consequence of the framework onto which QE are distributed, I graphically illustrate examples of boundary hierarchy within the framework.
sl By extension of fundamental entity boundary mechanism, I can define the "I Am" in terms that facilitate application of model derived functions to the human condition.
sl In that our "proposals" have many similarities, I am not surprised that universal harmony has emerged as a prioritized element in your dialog.
At most, I would hope these ideas might stimulate those who are versed at translating concepts into formulae (a skill I do not have) into considering fundamental questions from a different vantage.
sl In that translation of concept to formulae is highly applicable to technological advances... e g. the Star Trek Replicator... I hope conceptual horizons of those "versed at translating concepts into formulae" (a skill I do not prioritize in my work) will be expanded by visual assimilation of a digital animated emergence process.
As to the arbitrary nature of review: to be sure, there is an element of caprice in all human endeavors. It is the natural consequence of the well-intentioned attempt to effect order in a clamorous world. Nevertheless, I have faith that even in an age of noisy discord, sound ideas resonate and will rise from the cacophony.The din no doubt delays reception, but that which harmonizes with the understanding “pleases universally.” In the end, the onus falls on us (those who venture to propose) to make each utterance more clear than the last, and remain ever-sensitive to when our soundings fall flat.
sl Thanks for the "utterance" opportunity our dialog offers.
sl If you get a chance to read my rejected 2023 FQXi Essay (https://www.uqsmatrixmechanix.com/2023FQXiEssay4pdfconv.php) ... know that I consider "probing questions" essential to refinement.
sl May your essay stimulate enhanced conceptualization, and thereby "make a difference in science".