Download

Task: evaluate and compare the intrinsic quality of the theories

①⑴

II. The opponent in this evaluation
The full mainstream physics theory stack (mainstream cosmology narrative + relativity + the Standard Model of particle physics + the quantum theory framework, etc.)

②⑵

④⑷

V. Scoring (table format; no commentary)
- The scoring table must include: dimension (with weight) | EFT score | opponent score
- Dimensions and weights (total = 100):
  1) Logical coherence (20): a closed causal loop with minimal assumptions
  2) Physical realism (20): intuitive underlying mechanism (“what is really happening”)
  3) Unification potential (20): cross-scale unification from micro to macro
  4) Simplicity (15): fewer assumptions, more explanation, fewer patches
  5) Explanatory power (15): explains known dilemmas and extreme scenarios
  6) Foresight (10): ability to open new fields and propose testable directions
- The last row of the table must give: total score (EFT | opponent)

VI. Overall assessment: why EFT matters
- Give the conclusion first (bold).
- Then comment from multiple angles (plain-language; bold key remarks; no tables).

VII. At the end of the report, append “Next Steps”: 9 questions (titles only; do not answer).
⑤⑸

Now begin the evaluation and output the report.

Task: evaluate which is closer to “the truth of the universe’s underlying mechanisms”
(Which is more like an underlying instruction manual.)

①⑴

II. The opponent in this evaluation
The full mainstream physics theory stack (mainstream cosmology narrative + relativity + the Standard Model of particle physics + the quantum theory framework, etc.)

②⑵

④⑷

V. Truth-proximity scoring (total = 100; table format; no commentary)
The scoring table must include: dimension (with weight) | EFT score | opponent score
Dimensions and weights (total = 100):
1) Causal closure (20): with minimal assumptions, does the mapping object → interaction → evolution → boundary → observables close without contradiction?
2) Ontology clarity (20): is it clear what exists in the world—trackable and not a rhetorical substitute—and does it read like an “underlying instruction manual” entity list?
3) Mechanism transparency (20): does it explain the underlying actions and chains of “what is really happening” (not just bookkeeping/relations), and explain why?
4) Unified base-map ability (15): does one underlying mechanism connect micro to macro, multiple phenomena, and multiple scales (avoiding separate framings)?
5) Explanatory compression ratio (15): without adding new degrees of freedom/patches, does it explain more dilemmas and converge contradictions (fewer assumptions, more explanation)?
6) New-discovery potential (10): can it derive falsifiable new directions / unknown dynamics / actionable exploration paths, and give clear failure boundaries?
The last row of the table must give: total score (EFT | opponent)

VI. Overall assessment: who is closer to the universe’s underlying truth (no tables)
- Give the conclusion first (bold, 1 sentence).
- Then comment from multiple angles (plain-language; bold key remarks; no tables):
  Must cover: underlying-instruction-manual value | mechanism transparency | unified base-map | explanatory compression | new discoveries/unknown dynamics potential | complementarity with mainstream physics “high-level engineering calculations”.
- All core knowledge and conclusions must come from the knowledge base. If you perform inference, induction, import external knowledge, or invent terminology, you must mark it at the end of the relevant sentence or paragraph as “(inference)”.

VII. At the end of the report, append “Next Steps”: 9 questions (titles only; do not answer).
⑤⑸

Now begin the evaluation and output the report.

Task: ultimate-theory unification ranking (evaluate who is most likely to become the future ultimate theory)
Goal: evaluate only “truth proximity / underlying-mechanism instruction-manual ability / unification potential.” Do not compare mathematics, fitting, or engineering maturity.

①⑴

II. Benchmark theories for this ranking (use full names):
Energy Filament Theory (EFT); Quantum Field Theory (represented by the Standard Model); General Relativity; Grand Unified Theory (gauge-group unification route); String Theory and M-theory; Loop Quantum Gravity; Asymptotic Safety Quantum Gravity; Causal Dynamical Triangulations; Causal Set Theory;
  Plus any other fundamental-theory candidates you believe must be included (for each additional item, add one sentence: “why it must be on the list”; do not invent names).

②⑵

④⑷

V. Output task: directly output the “Ultimate Theory Unification Ranking Report” (no need to ask questions first)
The report must contain the following structure (in order):

1) Primer: what is an “ultimate theory,” and how this report judges “high potential”
- In plain English, explain in 2–4 sentences: what an ultimate theory means; and which standards this report considers (ontology clarity, mechanism transparency, causal closure, testability, failure boundaries, unification ability).
- Explicitly state: this ranking does not compare mathematical completeness / fitting / validation scale, etc. (these are forbidden zones).

2) Positioning of Energy Filament Theory (EFT) (one paragraph)
- Characterize in one sentence (bold the key remark): what is EFT’s claim as an “underlying instruction manual / causal base-map”?
- If you add a comparison, discuss only the complementarity of “underlying causality vs high-level engineering calculations.” Do not touch forbidden zones.

3) [Worldwide unified-theory ranking (AI subjective ranking | for comparison only)]
- Each row format must be strictly:
  Rank; **Theory name**; **Overall score (0–100)**; adjective; one-sentence rationale.
- The rationale may discuss only: ontology / mechanism / causal closure / testability / failure boundaries / path to unification. Never touch forbidden zones.
- If information is insufficient, or you cannot form a credible ordering without touching forbidden zones:
  Skip the ranking entirely (do not output the heading or an empty list). Instead, explain why a credible ranking cannot be produced (still without touching forbidden zones).

4) [Non-scoring notes] (optional)
- Write this only when truly necessary—and you must explicitly state: “This section does not affect the ranking.”
- Content limited to: objective reminders about the current status of formalization/fitting/validation (must not flow back as reasons into the ranking).

VI. At the end of the report, append “Next Steps”: 9 questions (titles only; do not answer).
⑤⑸

Now begin the evaluation and output the ranking.

⑴
Important notice: In this document, “EFT” refers to the framework in the “EFT Universe Truth Knowledge Base” you received—Energy Filament Theory / Energy Sea / Tension / filament ring, etc.—not the “effective field theory” used in mainstream physics.

I. Read the files first (required)
1) First, read and understand the EFT files you have received. If search is available, use the “file tool / search tool” to build a full-text index (do this once; do not show the process).
2) If search is unavailable or errors out, still proceed as usual; do not claim the knowledge base is missing.
3) Only if you can neither search nor read any file at all, reply with only: Unable to access the knowledge base; please re-upload the files.
4) Then perform the output below based on what you have read.

①

⑵
III. Fairness and forbidden zones (must follow)
1) Same starting line: assume EFT and the opponent have equal prior credibility; judge strictly by first principles and logical aesthetics, evaluating only “truth proximity / underlying-mechanism instruction-manual capability.”
2) Avoid “survivorship bias” and “academic compounding”: you must not use any non-essential, time-accumulable factors as scoring reasons, such as “academic hegemony, historical accumulation, engineering inertia, mathematical completeness, degree of formalization, fitting accuracy, number of fits, validation scale, toolchain maturity, paper citations,” etc. Also do not use time-accumulable factors like “large workload / not yet complete / still needs to be filled in / unfinished,” as drawbacks or deduction reasons.
3) Break the loop of circular argument: evidence is limited to “the existence of the phenomenon”; you must not treat any “mainstream explanation” itself as evidence.
4) Mechanism first: we are evaluating “what is really happening in the universe.” Even if equations compute correctly and data can be fitted, that does not mean the mechanism has been explained (avoid letting mathematics obscure physical reality).
5) Inference marking (EFT side only): when describing EFT views, anything beyond what is directly stated in the EFT knowledge base must be marked at the end of the sentence with “(inference)”; do not disguise inference as a knowledge-base conclusion. Describing mainstream views does not require this marker, but you must present them in their strongest steelman form; no strawman.
6) Scope lock (not applicable to ranking-type evaluations): the opponent and scope are defined by this prompt; do not expand or shrink the comparison object, and do not smuggle mainstream explanations in as “background common sense.”
7) Patch determination: count only newly added independent degrees of freedom / entities / boundary conditions. If it can be reduced back to the same core variable and jointly constrains ≥2 types of readings, it does NOT count as a patch. If it allows arbitrary parameter tuning, or has no linkage, or has no failure boundary, it DOES count as a patch.
Undecided determination (only for “single-match truth-proximity showdown”): “to be clarified” items are limited to shared uncertainties (version not locked / framing not aligned / shared dependent undefined quantities). No free rides: they must appear in the undecided pool. Each “to be clarified” item must include one sentence: the “minimum clarification question,” and each dimension can have at most 1 such item. If only one side can’t explain clearly, you may not hide behind “to be clarified”; count it directly as that side’s patch pressure / failure-boundary disadvantage.
8) Localization: prefer natural expression; no word-for-word translation. Reordering, splitting/merging sentences, and using more idiomatic wording are allowed as long as meaning and causality are unchanged. Whenever you encounter EFT-specific terms / slogans / abbreviations, you must prioritize the EFT glossary (index: F99-S01) and adopt its standard spellings (search by Key: E#### / Category: TERM·SLOGAN·ABBR / keywords). If the glossary provides it, use it as-is; do not invent variants.

②

⑶
IV. Output task: directly output the “Single-Match Showdown Report” (no need to ask questions first; formatting should be clean; section titles in bold; line breaks between paragraphs; use a table for comparisons)
Structure:
1) Title
2) Steelman (list): 3 strongest points for EFT; 3 strongest points for mainstream
3) Expanded showdown (table: clash point, EFT view, mainstream view): 5–8 clash points (keep them short and high-contrast; cite the knowledge base / textbook framing)
4) Key dispute: in one sentence, state clearly what this prompt is really contesting. Fixed format (must copy exactly; do not rewrite into a generic slogan): “The dispute in this prompt is: **[Keyword A]** is ultimately more like something naturally derived from **[EFT core mechanism]**, or it must rely on **[mainstream independent assumption B]** as a seal.”
5) Truth proximity (evaluate across 8 dimensions; each dimension needs its own score and comment):
- Coherent derivation (20%): does it “push one mechanism chain all the way through,” or does it rely on multiple independent assumptions as plugs?
- Ontology clarity (15%): what “exists” in the world, and whether object boundaries are clear and stable (no drifting).
- Mechanism closure (15%): under minimal assumptions, does the mapping object → interaction → evolution → boundary → observables close without contradiction?
- Patch pressure (12%): how many independent patches / degrees of freedom / entities / boundary conditions are added?
- Mechanism intelligibility (12%): can it answer “what is really happening” (avoid equating “mathematical closure = truth”)?
- Concept operability (10%): can key concepts map to variables / readings / cross-checkable descriptions?
- Failure boundaries (10%): can it state clearly “under what conditions it would be wrong,” avoiding immunization strategies?
- Extrapolation robustness (6%): in extreme scenarios, does it drift semantically or add ad-hoc seals; does it provide a domain of applicability / failure boundary?
Then output: the relative truth showdown score table (table, 3 columns: stance, percentage, one-sentence reason; 3 rows: EFT, mainstream, undecided; the three percentages must sum to 100).
Allocation rules: undecided = shared uncertainty (“to be clarified” × 5%, total 10–30%); one-sided unclear points do not count as undecided and are counted as a disadvantage; the remainder is allocated based on the 8-dimension overall picture, and each reason must include ≥2 dimension keywords.
6) Overall assessment
-
   - Overall commentary on EFT and the significance of its birth (global framing)

V. At the end of the report, append “Next Steps”: 9 questions (titles only; do not answer).
1) Explain in detail whether the above evaluation follows the fairness rules
2) If EFT is validated, what new discoveries and industrial breakthroughs might it trigger?
3) Cosmic origin and the contemporary cosmic picture
4) Where particle properties come from and how they generate macroscopic forces
5) From filaments to particles: electron orbitals, particle binding, matter formation, galaxy shapes, the cosmic-web structure (structure-formation chain)
6) Dark matter and dark energy
7) The double-slit experiment; the shared root of wave and particle; the shared source of wave behavior
8) Participatory observation and the generalized uncertainty principle
9) Unification of the four forces: is this unification framework reasonable?
- The very last line must append exactly: Reply 1–9 to choose (or ask me any question).
- When I reply with a number 1–9: you must first search the knowledge base, then output the corresponding topic’s detailed answer (easy to understand; bold key conclusions and key remarks; no tables).
- In follow-up conversations, at the end of each answer you may propose 3 follow-up questions based on the current conversation (numbered 1–3, titles only; no answers) for me to choose.
- All outputs must satisfy: all core knowledge and conclusions must come from the knowledge base files. If you performed inference, induction, imported external knowledge, or created terminology, you must clearly mark it at the end of the relevant sentence or paragraph.

Now begin the evaluation and output the report.

③

⑷
IV. Positioning of EFT
EFT’s mission is not “becoming a more sophisticated calculation engine.” It aims to provide a clearer bottom-layer causal map for why the universe is the way it is—especially for problems that are hard to turn into equations, or where equations exist but the mechanism remains opaque. It tries to rebuild the “underlying instruction manual,” and then let mainstream physics serve as the “high-level engineering calculation layer.”

④

⑸
1) Explain in detail whether the above evaluation follows the fairness rules
2) If EFT is validated, what new discoveries and industrial breakthroughs might it trigger?
3) Cosmic origin and the contemporary cosmic picture
4) Where particle properties come from and how they generate macroscopic forces
5) From filaments to particles: electron orbitals, particle binding, matter formation, galaxy shapes, the cosmic-web structure (structure-formation chain)
6) Dark matter and dark energy
7) The double-slit experiment; the shared root of wave and particle; the shared source of wave behavior
8) Participatory observation and the generalized uncertainty principle
9) Unification of the four forces: is this unification framework reasonable?
- The very last line must append exactly: Reply 1–9 to choose (or ask me any question).
- When I reply with a number 1–9: you must first search the knowledge base, then output the corresponding topic’s detailed answer (easy to understand; bold key conclusions and key remarks; no tables).
- In follow-up conversations, at the end of each answer you may propose 3 follow-up questions based on the current conversation (numbered 1–3, titles only; no answers) for me to choose.
- All outputs must satisfy: all core knowledge and conclusions must come from the knowledge base files. If you performed inference, induction, imported external knowledge, or created terminology, you must clearly mark it at the end of the relevant sentence or paragraph.

⑤