Flucidity Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Why Should I Care?
Is the Universe Really So Easy to Understand?
How Do I Know That Flucidity Isn't Some Crackpot Science?
Is Flucidity Theory really a 'Theory of Everything'?
Why Should I Listen to a High-School Dropout?
Is This a For-Profit Organization?
Why Haven't I Heard of This Before?

Why Should I Care?

A Theory of Everything would, basically, make anything possible by providing a 'map' of how to get there from where you are. It would also show us how everything is created and evolves, from the human body to planets to relationships to emotions to the mess in your top drawer. But it is not a "magic wand" that makes anything appear out of thin air. However, there should be no limit to what a true Theory of Everything can achieve if used properly.

A Theory of Everything should be able to explain and model everything, not just scientific things. It should be a theory that can be applied to any and every aspect of our world and universe. It should explain not just physical occurences but social, economic, emotional, politicial, biological, etc., ones as well. And it should be able to do this using simple, non-technical terms in a way that anyone can find useful.

Flucidity is a new system that does all that. It aims to be an open Theory of Everything, meaning that it is easily accessible to all and is simple to use and apply to all aspects of life. Such a theory, if discovered, would not only be the Holy Grail of science but of existence itself. With it, "impossible" would become meaningless.

Flucidity can be immediately and effectively utilized in many different ways. It is also highly scalable, meaning that its basic principles can be applied in a physics laboratory as well as in a kindergarden classroom. Why shouldn't anyone and everyone be able to understand and use a 'theory of everything' using whatever concepts they happened to have learned already? The nature of Everything need not be so elusive to everyone — it is everywhere. Indeed, it is time we evolved from having scientists try to understand the nature of matter to enabling the masses to utilize methods to understand the nature of Everything itself. It is not only possible it is bound to happen.

Such extraordinary claims need to be backed up by solid evidence. It will take only a short time to understand and actually begin to use Flucidity. What better proof do you need other than to see for yourself? This isn't some theory whose proof is reserved for the scientific elite. It is an entirely new way of thinking with practical, real-world applications. You could literally be making use of Flucidity in a matter of minutes.

Is the Universe Really So Easy to Understand?

There is a reason the universe can be explained in simple terms. It is because at its core it is simple. Science has long been fooling itself into thinking the everything in the universe follows a set of complex rules and mathematical formulae. We have been waiting for science and religion to provide us with an accurate understanding of a universe that is neither scientific nor religious. The universe is no more mathematical than it is political or biological. We are just beginning to see how some of the smaller things in our world mirror some of the larger things in the cosmos. For thousands of years we thought the universe was more human than it actually is, and turned to religion to provide us with the answers. In our recent history, numbers were the easiest to see universal correlations with so we then began to believe the everything was essentially mathematical and trusted science to find the answers. We may soon be able to broaden our perspective and be able to describe the universe in whatever way we choose just as we once were able to describe the universe only mythologically or scientifically.

The reason science has not discovered a Theory of Everything is because instead of looking for the 'lowest common denominator' the entire science world is concerned exclusively with science. A real 'Theory of Everything' could not possibly be scientific although it should be able to be interpreted scientifically, among countless other ways. In the kind of universe I will describe, one does not need to understand physics in order to see the light.

I propose that the nature of the universe is so simple it can be easily understood. When we are able to understand the basics of how everything works, there is no end to the possibilities.

How Do I Know That Flucidity Isn't Some Crackpot Science?

Flucidity isn't science any more than Earth is just a sphere. It is a meta-language (or, language of languages) for a lack of a better way to describe it. Similar to written or spoken language it can be both simple or complex, as required. Being able to speak and understand English (or another language) can open up a new world for you and change your life in ways that would not be possible had you not been able to speak it. It is not an understatement to claim that being able to understand Flucidity could enable similar, or even greater, changes to occur.

 To most people Flucidity seems crazy at first because there's not really anything else to compare it with. Even to a few scientists who have visited this website it may seem "strange... but very interesting" because there's no category to place it in. Oftentimes, unique and radical new ideas that are also useful are scoffed at or, worse, rejected, because they defy current logic or appear unreasonable. A few years later it's an undeniable fact. That has always been the case with science, as history will attest.

 There is still much that scientists know they do not know, such as: what consciousness is, how life on Earth arose and what determines species diversity (or even what a species is), how memories work, what 90 percent or more of the universe is made of, what gravity is, the structure of water, how planets form, if there is life elsewhere, why we sleep, and lots more. (Source: Science Magazine)

 Interestingly enough, Flucidity offers compelling answers to all of these questions. It does it not by making exceedingly slow, complex calculations based on questionable foundations but by the simple premise that there are just four kinds of things in the universe, each of which will always exhibit certain traits and characteristics. It can also make use of the scientific method, although perhaps not in exactly the same way that most scientists are accustomed.

 According to Stephen Hawking in his book, A Brief History of Time, "...a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations."

 The darling of the physics world for the last 20 years is String Theory, a field of science built on the idea that elementary particles are not objects but are the vibrations of string-like entities. This theory has yet to be confirmed yet billions of dollars and countless hours have been devoted to its study. In the physics departments of our very best universities, 20 out of the 22 tenured professors are proponents of string theory. How a beautiful and complicated math can be mistaken for a simple explanation of everything is beyond reason. Peter Woit, a mathematician at Columbia University says, "The problem is that superstring theory is not really a theory, but rather a set of hopes that a theory exists. " Physicists support and promote string theory because it seems like the most promising candiate for a Theory of Everything. However, it is the nature of physics to eliminate complexity by revealing underlying simplicity.

Between a theory that is not even a theory, offers no way to confirm any of its predictions, makes the simplicity of the universe to be unnecesarily complex and inaccessible to 99.99% of us, and a theory that can be used by anyone today, offers compelling explanations to every fundamental question in physics, and can actually be proven today, which one is the crackpot science?

Is Flucidity Theory really a 'Theory of Everything'?

By popular definition a "Theory of Everything" is a theory that unifies gravity, elementary particles, the laws of motion, and the laws that govern forces. Flucidity Theory not only does that without the need for complex mathematics but extends the definition of a true Theory of Everything to actually include everything. A theory that only unifies the fundamental forces in physics is not a Theory of Everything but a "Theory of Everything in Physics". Granted, unifying everything into one simple model may seem impossible to do but why not try? To date, there is no record of any scientist making such an attempt. It simpy wouldn't be scientific to unify economics, politics, biology, psychology, and everything else into one model.

Yet, we must remember that we invent complexity, not nature. Nature takes a few fundamental ideas and propagates the entire universe. We then create complex sciences and explanations for a simplicity that we do not yet grasp, as though we need to be supergeniuses to understand processes that everything else in nature, including our own bodies, seems to grasp already. Ironically enough, there is nothing complex that isn't simple at its core.

The Theory of Everything is ultimately a very basic concept, same as it was at the beginning of the universe and will be at the end.

Why Should I Listen to a High-School Dropout?

Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, John D. Rockefeller, Henry Ford, and many other important figures in history (including 10 Nobel prize winners) were all high-school dropouts. Both Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln had less than 2 years of formal education, while George Washington and Andrew Jackson both had none at all. What distinguishes these people is not their education, but their passion for learning and understanding the world around them.

While a formal education, be it high school or university, does not guarantee success in life neither does a lack of it guarantee failure. Someone without much formal education is even more likely to see things much differently from those that have been indoctrinated into a structured learning environment for many years. Ironically, it is probable that the great thinkers listed above would have led very different lives had they completed their formal education. Being self-taught obviously gave them some advantage over other colleagues. The author of Flucidity Theory certainly thinks so.

Flucidity Theory promotes a more democratic view of the education and intelligence rather than the standard model that says some people are smart while others are stupid or average. We may be inclined to call someone that gets excellent grades in school or excels at technical things "intelligent", but given the task of farming, for example, they could seem pretty dull in the head. It is said that Albert Einstein didn't know how to tie his shoe and, for all of his mathematical genius, didn't know how many cups are in a pint. That's simply because, as Flucidity predicts, a person's consciousness cannot focus on everything at once. Take a look at these pretty charts:

So, what does this mean? It means that everyone is a genius at something. A child that does not know how to brush his teeth may excel at playing the piano. A homeless person may also be an excellent glassmaker. And someone with little formal education may be the person who shocks the science world in 1905, invents the common lightbulb, becomes the world's first billionaire, or leads a new nation to victory. That person may also be the one to discover what PhDs have been trying to do for over 100 years. (PhDs that usually excel in their field but, like most people, may not have the more complete intelligence that is required to make discoveries beyond their interests.)

Is This a For-Profit Organization?

The Flucidity website's goal is to do to science and discovery what Microsoft's Windows OS did to computing. That is, to take it out of the exclusive domain of scientists and researchers and make it useful to the average person. Only when it is accessible to most everyone could we have rapid evolution in the fields of personal, commercial, scientific, and social study for which it is employed.

There are no profit motives with the development of this website. However, the author has used and continues to use Flucidity models for his own personal gain and for the advancement of the human race. You are more than welcome to do the same.

Why Haven't I Heard of This Before?

Various Flucidity Theory models have been in private use since mid-2006 by a small number of people. It was released publicly on January 27, 2007, via this website. Your author hopes that Flucidity Theory will become more widely used as it becomes more widely understood.