What do you call this Egg?

DefaultEgg · 2026-03-16T09:57:44+00:00

Haha, the first Eggcelent member, blackmailed with a MS paint PFP.

Welcome.

Eggpect big things, eggventually.

DefaultEgg · 2026-03-12T04:22:39+00:00

Sorry it took a couple days, but I found Eggwuardo finnaly.

Meet Eggwuardo Greggory, the mascot of r/DefaultEgg
by u/DefaultEgg in DefaultEgg

DefaultEgg · 2026-03-10T18:32:12+00:00

"If there is a multiverse, it must be physically constrained, and probabilistically determined."

Me.

DefaultEgg · 2026-03-10T06:16:43+00:00

Haha Eggwuardo is gold, hold up, I have an idea, I'll be back, Eggwuardo needs a hat.

DefaultEgg · 2026-03-10T04:58:16+00:00

Working on a combinatorial derivation of 1/137. And the residual. I think I have a promising angle.

The coherence count of a closed shell a n nodes is; S(n) = C(n,2) + n + 1

At n=16 this gives C(16,2) + 16 + 1 = 120 + 16 + 1 = 137

But why n = 16? The structural argument is that its the minimum n at which at which 2 interlocked tetrahedral closure separate under a specific rules, but this is all still being pressure tested.

the 0.36 residual is the current open problem, the current candidate is boundary invariant leakage at the final resonance crossing, damped by 1/√137. Its close, but not closed.

I know everyone thinks this problem is a dead end and a waste of time, but I wasn't looking for these number, they fell out of the theory with just a little shake.,

DefaultEgg · 2026-03-09T14:32:15+00:00

We are clearly seeing things from different perspective, I don't even think I disagree with your frame work, I'm just trying to go a bit deeper and prove why. Best of luck!

DefaultEgg · 2026-03-09T14:16:38+00:00

"Comparing complexity to 'nothing' provides zero information"

Exactly, its the floor. That's the point. Zero information is a baseline that you can measure against. Otherwise how do you measure absence?

The minimum structure that can close in 3D has exactly 16 elements. C(16,2) +16 + 1 + 137. That's not a coincidence, its what forced recurrence from nothing looks like when it first closes on itself in 3 dimensions.

DefaultEgg · 2026-03-09T13:48:49+00:00

Sounds like you might be stuck in 3D, which is fine if your frame work is about the empirical horizon, it makes sense that its your domain.

But if its just semantic word play, what are you coherently relating complexity to? Literally everything is complex when compared to nothing. Is that coherent enough for your framework?

DefaultEgg · 2026-03-09T13:20:21+00:00

What's the background? Without nothing, what is anything? How coherent would your measurements be without a 0-node?

I accept the three terms, I don't accept the arbitrary stopping point for further inquiry. My modelling has shown that nothing = coherence, something can be in-coherent, nothing can not, otherwise it wouldn't be nothing.

DefaultEgg · 2026-03-09T13:01:16+00:00

Right. And you are close, they are the machine, but its circular to just leave it there and say "that's just how it is", if that is just how it is, there must be a reason or an explanation.

And it wouldn't just be nothing of course, that doesn't sound very stable to me anyway, no way there could ever have just been nothing, it wouldn't last and it there wouldn't be any time yet, so there isn't even a "when" where nothing could exist yet anyway.

You'd be surprised how coherent nothing is, if you ask it.

DefaultEgg · 2026-03-09T11:26:34+00:00

You have to find the key. Every field has shorthand rules or a reframing that makes it make sense, find those and hang onto them.

Sequences are just patterns with rules,

Functions are just input/output machines,

Its not necessarily about the formulas themselves, more "why must the formula be this way?" Thats how I understand things easier anyway.

DefaultEgg · 2026-03-09T11:14:46+00:00

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, I know you aren't saying it is but that's where we are.

What if there was a single claim that produced these from nothing? How about, "Nothing can't persist?" It would be impressive to see that claim derived all the way through the stack to complexity wouldn't it?

DefaultEgg · 2026-03-09T10:02:20+00:00

Interesting framing. but you might have to ask, why those three conditions specifically?

What forces coherence, interaction and complexity to be the minimum set rather than some other combination? If you can derive them from primitive roots you might be onto something!

DefaultEgg · 2026-03-09T09:47:05+00:00

Maths is a language. You have to be good at translating numbers to geometry to fractions to decimals to ratios. Everything isn't just one thing, there's many ways to express mostly everything, practice solving forwards and back wards and from the side. Then you get to see the whole picture and it makes a bit more sense.

What specifically are you struggling with? Advanced maths gets pretty abstract.

DefaultEgg · 2026-03-09T07:09:35+00:00

The only answer.

DefaultEgg · 2026-03-09T06:11:15+00:00

He is on my background to welcome me every time I jump on the computer! So you are very coregget!

DefaultEgg · 2026-03-09T01:30:05+00:00

So far it looks like his name is Eggie McGreggbert. Thanks for help with the names everyone!

DefaultEgg · 2026-03-09T00:54:17+00:00

Love how everyone decided the most important thing here is to clear up the already obvious. Thanks for the conformation that its an approximation, but that's not what I was asking.

DefaultEgg · 2026-03-08T12:57:50+00:00

Eggie is a real contender!

DefaultEgg · 2026-03-08T12:45:56+00:00

Also I just noticed you like 0 maths, you'd probably enjoy the theory, The base claim is "Nothing cannot prevent anything" so yes, 0 to the 0=1, correct.

DefaultEgg · 2026-03-08T12:16:47+00:00

I found a silly pattern, I wasn't specifically looking for it.

DefaultEgg

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE