WILLSWAYSTUDIOS

Solo-dev pioneering Sci-Hy games
Three engines: Three.js triple-path | Fully custom native engine| SpaceBell Eng
SpaceBell (EA) | End of Empires (Soon) | MAKERS

[WILLSWAYSTUDIOS @WILLSWAYSTUDIOS]

https://t.co/G3453iaiTj updated

[WILLSWAYSTUDIOS @WILLSWAYSTUDIOS]

Argue with 35' Einstein all you want. That will never have bearing, nor will it talk to the 49' Einstein. The 49' Einstein, in vain, tried to clear the air. If you only knew the decades, he worked on a complete description, for a problem the world speaks past, and dually conflates. Only to have attempted his best to clarify in 49'. May his program live on and eventually be complete.

[WILLSWAYSTUDIOS @WILLSWAYSTUDIOS]

https://t.co/T43JBzQcRE

Companion Paper

Postwar physics uses unification for a family of projects that keep the quantum formalism as the form of the fundamental laws and join gravity, or the remaining forces, to that formalism. Einstein used the same word for a different project: a complete individual description in spacetime, one field rather than two, particles and instruments not foreign to the field, and statistical quantum theory demoted to the role statistical mechanics plays inside classical mechanics. This companion paper separates those projects. The target argued in the preceding paper is completion of the individual situation, not a marriage of general relativity to the existing quantum algorithm. Einstein's unified field theory is nonetheless not optional furniture. It is the type of completion he would accept. One may retire his particular continuum if a better primitive appears; one may not replace his demand with quantization-as-unification and still claim his program. Contact with already catalogued quantum statistics is a graduation constraint on any such completion, not an entrance examination written in Bell's variables. Keywords: Einstein unified field theory; incompleteness; completion; quantum gravity; Reply to Criticisms; individual description

[WILLSWAYSTUDIOS @WILLSWAYSTUDIOS]

https://t.co/xrveuWle3B

Worked with AI to write this paper, yes, I have not done the new undergrad work yet of taking AI output and paraphrasing it into my own language, sorry.\\.

Nonetheless, this is a well-polished version of the entire idea that the videogame SpaceBell conveys.

The research that I've compiled for 25 yrs, the primary sources I pull from, as well as the logic and arguments used have not been articulated or published until now. It may be hard to see, but this moves the foundations of physics forward.

Why? Why do I have to be the one doing this work? The world would have moved on already had someone else with credentials ironed this out.

[WILLSWAYSTUDIOS @WILLSWAYSTUDIOS]

Plan AI 2040 won't work--we most likely will be peak WWIII with multipolarity fully underway.

There are two races simultaneously, competitors in any given country, and between nations. Fixing the former will be easier than the latter, when nations double down in the race that leads to a multipolar world. There is an ancient game at stake for the victor of superintelligence. I don't care how academics outside the corps creating it define superintelligence. I care about the companies defining it, and what they mean in their context.

[WILLSWAYSTUDIOS @WILLSWAYSTUDIOS]

It’s not claimed to be a number, it’s a never ending process. The debate on this should be more formal. In that sense, infinity still doesn’t make sense to me. It’s a metal construct for a continuous process and without it we run into Zeno’s paradox that was solved with limits and continuous processes in calculus. But there is a whole domain forming called ultrafinitism and there hard problem then is showing a continuous process without invoking infinity as a concept.

[WILLSWAYSTUDIOS @WILLSWAYSTUDIOS]

She’s walking around naked, phone in hand, coding with Claude. I just never expected this.

[WILLSWAYSTUDIOS @WILLSWAYSTUDIOS]

Literally just met a naked hippie chick living in the woods. She just made two apps. A map app with unique features, and a transaction pooling app.

Wtf is going on?

[WILLSWAYSTUDIOS @WILLSWAYSTUDIOS]

@dev_maims Agree with mostly everything but cut the age requirements. Anyone.

[WILLSWAYSTUDIOS @WILLSWAYSTUDIOS]

Who wants a website and paper delineating the Game of Empires, where we oscillate from a unipolar world to multipolar then back again with brief phases of bi-polarity? The overarching cycle empires are inevitably playing. Vying over hegemonies, that relate to superpower status.

[WILLSWAYSTUDIOS @WILLSWAYSTUDIOS]

The statement/ question I posed to Dario.

I guess Trump answered today.

Sir, how will you end the AGI arms race??
September 4, 476 AD Rome begins to fall (at this stage the world is Unipolar and just now leaving and entering a long multipolar phase). We go through superpower collapse
circa 1600 This is the period when Iberia (Spain + Portugal), France, and England/Britain all operated as major, competing imperial powers before Britain later emerged as the dominant global hegemon. Here is Peak of the ensuing Multipolar phase.
Britain became a true global superpower—creating a brief period of unipolarity—around 1815, immediately after winning the Napoleonic Wars. Its dominance then peaked between 1815 and ~1870, with the clearest “unipolar moment” around circa 1840–1850.
Return to Multipolarity (1870–1914)
This is the era leading into World War I, defined by multiple competing great powers.
Major powers in this multipolar system:
Britain (declining hegemon)
Germany (rising industrial giant)
United States (rising but not yet global)
France
Russia
Japan (new imperial power)
Austro-Hungarian Empire
Peak multipolarity before WWI:1900–1914
World War I (1914–1918): Multipolarity Collapses
WWI destroys several empires:
Germany defeated
Russia collapses into revolution
Ottoman Empire dissolved
Austro-Hungarian Empire dissolved
After WWI, the world is not unipolar, but it is less multipolar than before.
Interwar Period (1919–1939): Fragmented Multipolarity
This is a weak multipolar system with unstable powers:
Key players:
Britain (weakened)
France (weakened)
United States (powerful but isolationist)
Soviet Union (rising)
Germany (rearming)
Japan (expansionist)
This is multipolarity with no clear leader and no stable balance.
World War II (1939–1945): Multipolarity Ends Again
WWII destroys the old multipolar world.
After 1945, only two true superpowers remain:
United States
Soviet Union
This creates the bipolar world.
Cold War Bipolarity (1945–1991)
This is not multipolar — it is two superpowers dominating global politics.
Bipolar system:
USA
USSR
Everyone else is secondary.
U.S. Unipolar Moment (1991–2008)
Date: 1991, after the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989) and the collapse of the Soviet Union (1991).
This is the second true unipolar moment in modern history (after Britain’s 19th‑century one).
The U.S. becomes the sole superpower.
Context: The U.S. Unipolar Moment (1991–2008)
After the Berlin Wall fell (1989) and the Soviet Union collapsed (1991), the world entered a true unipolar era:
U.S. unipolarity begins: 1991
U.S. unmatched militarily
Dollar dominates global finance
NATO expands
No peer competitor
Peak U.S. unipolarity: 1991–2003
First Gulf War
Globalization under U.S. leadership
No rival superpower
Unipolarity begins weakening: 2008
Global financial crisis
China’s rapid rise
Russia’s resurgence
This sets the stage for a new multipolar world.
🌍 2. The Return of Multipolarity (2008–2022)
By the 2010s, several powers were rising simultaneously:
Major poles emerging:
United States (still strongest, but no longer alone)
China (economic superpower)
Russia (military and energy power)
European Union (economic pole)
India (demographic and economic rise)
This is the first true multipolar system since before World War I.
🕊️ 3. The China–Russia Joint Declaration (February 4, 2022)
This is a symbolic milestone in the shift toward multipolarity.
Date: February 4, 2022
Event: China and Russia issue a Joint Statement declaring:
“A new era of international relations… no limits partnership… advancing multipolarity.”
Why it matters:
It openly rejects the U.S.-led unipolar order
It calls for a “multipolar world”
It frames China and Russia as coordinated poles
It signals the end of the post‑Cold War U.S. unipolar era
This declaration is widely interpreted as the formal political announcement of a multipolar world already emerging in practice.

[Octagon Game Studio 🇺🇦 @octagon_game_st]

OctoMaze — New Official Gameplay Trailer | 6 Worlds, 60+ Levels https://t.co/T35hduDuf5 via @YouTube

[WILLSWAYSTUDIOS @WILLSWAYSTUDIOS]

point being in our exchange it was fascinating that grok also gave me Tim Maudlin's argument around the same time that Maudlin himself provided the same argument at roughly the same stage in our debate.

After two days, Maudin landed back on you still need to explain the correlations, which I responded with I agree, and Einstein is not saying that program is not worth pursuing just not his for completion. But we won't know about the successor until we formulate it, what it can predict and explain. And that was where the debate ended.

[WILLSWAYSTUDIOS @WILLSWAYSTUDIOS]

https://t.co/xrveuWle3B

Worked with AI to write this paper, yes, I have not done the new undergrad work yet of taking AI output and paraphrasing it into my own language, sorry.\\.

Nonetheless, this is a well-polished version of the entire idea that the videogame SpaceBell conveys.

The research that I've compiled for 25 yrs, the primary sources I pull from, as well as the logic and arguments used have not been articulated or published until now. It may be hard to see, but this moves the foundations of physics forward.

Why? Why do I have to be the one doing this work? The world would have moved on already had someone else with credentials ironed this out.

[WILLSWAYSTUDIOS @WILLSWAYSTUDIOS]

More aptly stated:

I provided the complete description of the problem. No easy task when LLMs are filing under the Einstein = HVM = local realism, 35' EPR graded under 64' constraints, all the while ignoring the 49' Einstein. Once we Steelman the 49' Einstein the path is illuminated. This was the process to orient grok. I showed the real Einstein first, his second objection to statistical QM. And in our exchange, I posted you can see grok initially defaulting to Bell isn't sidestepped. This was always my problem, but I have thought about this issue for a very long time. Here is the kicker. I debated Tim Maudlin twice (under a pseudonym account, one of the debates lasted 2 days), that is important because he the Titan on the other side and know Bell better than most.

Claiming to sidestep Bell is no light claim and there has been in the foundations a chasm you can simplify into Bell apologist vs Bell denialist. I'm neither and Love Bell. Learned more about statistical QM from reading his book (series of all his papers) than anywhere else. And he was very sympathetic to Einstein's stance. Also, I need to place him in the acknowledgements, because it was pg 89 that set me on this path, even though I had already read Reply numerous times, I mean that was my Eureka moment. I saw Bell trying to justify to Jammer that Einstein was the biggest advocate of HVM. But citing Reply easily invalidates his whole point and actually supports Jammer's premise. Especially the exact quote Bell is citing, if you see the paragraph its isolated from you can see the dissonance. "Roughly speaking the conclusion is this..." There is no way he's referring to correlations there. Lastly, that is what shocked me about the AI assisted papers. It honed right in on the word analogous, and that is where me, Bell and probably other subsequent readers may have slipped on the following point of how statistical QM would take an analogous role as to when statical mechanics as added to classical. You can see that in the grok exchange I posted, it went right to the most contentious element for which Bell himself may have gotten confused.

[WILLSWAYSTUDIOS @WILLSWAYSTUDIOS]

https://t.co/qzviRR9cz5

If you are interested in LLMs, you may find this valuable.

[WILLSWAYSTUDIOS @WILLSWAYSTUDIOS]

@notch hey now we agree

[WILLSWAYSTUDIOS @WILLSWAYSTUDIOS]

you can go to the papers tab, and local copy for a PDF if you are trying to view the papers while zenodo is down.

[WILLSWAYSTUDIOS @WILLSWAYSTUDIOS]

https://t.co/7xLKFVvMpq

[WILLSWAYSTUDIOS @WILLSWAYSTUDIOS]

https://t.co/G3453iaiTj updated

[WILLSWAYSTUDIOS @WILLSWAYSTUDIOS]

https://t.co/G3453iaiTj updated

[WILLSWAYSTUDIOS @WILLSWAYSTUDIOS]

Einstein's logic broke Zenodo. 🤓