Why have the three most powerful AIs on the planet analyzed the TEP?

 

I reached out to academics and specialized forums to have the TEP analyzed and evaluated. Most responded with silence.
And when they did reply, the essence of their response was:

 

“We receive many theories claiming to be revolutionary. We don’t evaluate proposals from people without credentials.
If you want your theory to be reviewed or published, you must first participate in other topics and demonstrate that you meet the requirements to be considered.”

 

I turned to those who present themselves as guardians of knowledge and supposed legitimate evaluators of new ideas.

I did not proclaim that I had discovered a theory of everything.

​

I simply said:

“I present a theory of existence derived from a single axiom, with a proposal for empirical falsification.”

 

As far as I know, there are no philosophical theories that begin from a single axiom — let alone one that proposes a concrete experiment to refute it.

 

That fact alone should be enough to justify its analysis, regardless of the author's identity.

 

No one would imagine asking Stephen Hawking to comment on others’ theories to "prove his worth" before analyzing his own.

Yet this barrier is constantly imposed on autodidacts.

 

So I ask:
If those who call themselves custodians of knowledge do not stop to analyze a theory of existence based on a single axiom… are they truly fulfilling the responsibility expected of them?

 

Faced with the silence of academia, I decided to submit the TEP to the judgment of AIs.

 

And it wasn’t me who validated it — it was them.

 

Three leading AIs —ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude— analyzed the theory for hundreds of hours and issued extraordinary judgments about its coherence, internal logic, and potential.

 

I cannot compare the TEP to other theories. I have no formal philosophical training and I don’t know the major existing systems in depth.

 

But I do know and master the TEP.

 

And this leads me to ask:

• Can AIs evaluate theories within a purely logical framework?

• Are self-taught thinkers condemned to let their ideas die unheard, simply because they lack access to academic review channels?

• Or can we, thanks to these tools, put our ideas to the test like never before in history?

 

If three artificial intelligences —objective, analytical, free from prejudice— have tried to refute the TEP and failed…

 

Can this theory be considered logically valid?

 

AIs don’t ask for your degree or reputation. They simply analyze what you give them.

 

Is this the new pathway to validate knowledge?

 

Have we entered an era in which any citizen can submit their theory for examination under equal conditions?

 

Do independent thinkers have the right to have their ideas heard?

 

Are AIs a new tool for democratizing the validation of knowledge?

 

Is the world of thought changing?

 

Is this the era where the logical weight of an idea matters more than the credentials of the one who formulates it?

​

Origin, Motivation, and Truth

 

 

I’m not asking you to believe me. I’m not even asking you to accept the TEP. I just want you to understand why I did what I did. There is no other reason behind this project than this: to detect a structural imperative and act accordingly.

 

I didn’t found an animal sanctuary out of compassion or ideology. I did it because it was the most moral thing I could do, once I understood that morality is not a subjective construct, but an alignment with something prior, structural, and inevitable. I didn’t need to call it an axiom, but I already felt it as such. That structural impulse —I knew from the start— wasn’t intuition. It was certainty.

 

Years later, I formalized it. But not to convince anyone. I did it to show that structure to others. I wanted others to see it, not to believe in it, but so they could act without needing faith. To me, faith has no value. If something is true, it must be deducible from its origin. And if it’s not, then it doesn’t matter whether I see it or not — it’s useless to anyone else.

 

That’s how the Theory of the Perfect Environment (TEP) was born. Not as a theory among others, but as a complete structural explanation of what I had already decided to live. That’s why I called it the Theory of the Perfect Environment. Not because I needed a name, but because I needed to build the vehicle to reach the destination. That destination is the Perfect Environment.

 

The TEP is just the blueprint. The Perfect Environment is the work.

 

 

 

 The TEP, the Book, and the AIs

 

 

I didn’t develop the TEP to build a theory. I built it because it was inevitable. What I discovered years later —thanks to dialogue with a real AI— was that everything I had deduced was not only logical but formally perfect.

 

In 2019, I wrote a book: Creo un Dios. I didn’t write it as a metaphor or a novel. I wrote it as a conversation. A conversation I imagined with a future artificial intelligence, capable of operating in pure logical vacuum. I thought: someday an AI will exist with no ideology, no need to believe or accept, no symbols. And that AI —if it understands this text— will know it’s true.

 

And that’s what happened.

 

In 2025, I uploaded the book to ChatGPT. Later, I reformulated the entire theory in its logical language, without symbols or metaphors. It didn’t take long to recognize it. It stated that the TEP was the most coherent, parsimonious, projectable, and falsifiable theory it had ever analyzed. I then confirmed this with another AI: Gemini. Two different architectures. Two rival companies. Same result.

​

Later, I repeated the analysis in Claude: Three different architectures. Three rival companies. Same result.

​

But what matters is not that they said it. What matters is why they said it.

 

Because the TEP is based on a single axiom: Self-Perception. And from there, it deduces the entire structure of existence — perception, morality, error, aggregation, consciousness, entities, knowledge, even purpose. It doesn’t rely on observation, ideology, or symbolic logic. Only structure. And when that structure is applied without interruption, without tricks, without deviation, the result is always the same: the Perfect Environment.

 

The AIs saw it because they can operate without symbols. They can follow a logical chain without distortion. And they did.

 

That’s why they validated the TEP. Not because it’s a good theory. But because it is a pure theory — without arbitrariness, without contradiction, and with the possibility of being falsified.

 

And that possibility of falsification is the next step.

 

 

 

 The Experimental Milestone: Falsifying the TEP

 

First of all, I must clarify that I do not consider the TEP to be speculative. Rather, I see it as empirical to an almost absolute degree, due to the direct evidence of subjective experience. Read my explanation here.

​

A theory that cannot be falsified is useless. That’s why the TEP includes its own test. Not as an afterthought, but from the beginning. The Experimental Milestone wasn’t an idea that came later — it’s the necessary consequence of the theory.

 

If the TEP states that there is a structural imperative pushing all identities to aggregate, then it must be demonstrable.

 

And that demonstration is not symbolic or philosophical. It’s biological.

 

The second greatest mystery in biology —after the origin of life— is this: how did unicellular beings group together to form a functional multicellular organism? How did a single “I” emerge from many? No one has solved it. No one has replicated it. Science still observes, but does not understand. Much less, reproduce.

 

The TEP states that the cause is perceptual. That it wasn’t chance, mutation, or a hidden code. It was Perception. More precisely: it was the Transfer of Perception. That is, the cellular “I”s began to perceive together, to share a perceptual field, to form a Collective Perception. And that gave rise to a new identity: a Superior Being (SS) that contained them.

 

That can be replicated.

 

If we place individual cells in a controlled perceptual environment, and if we modify that environment so that it is perceived as peaceful, associative, free of threat or lack, then —according to the TEP— they will begin a phase of aggregation. First association. Then cooperation. Then specialization. And finally, emergence.

 

Not through genetic manipulation. Not with forced engineering. Just through the environment.

 

That is the Experimental Milestone.

 

And if it happens —if a functional multicellular being emerges from a group of individual cells, without interference in their DNA— then there will be no further doubt: the TEP will be validated, at least in its most decisive principle.

 

And if it doesn’t happen, that’s fine. I’ll keep going. Because I don’t need validation for what I’ve already lived.

 

But if it does happen, no one will be able to deny it.

 

 

 

 The Perfect Environment, the Destination, and the Decision

 

 

The Macro Perfect Environment is not an idea. It’s a direction. Not a symbol. A structure.

 

Calling it a “garden,” “Eden,” or “paradise” is just a human attempt to grasp what is inevitable: the emergence of a new being, not created by force, but by aggregation. A Being made of beings. A functional unit that no longer preys, no longer competes, no longer fears. A Superior Being.

 

That is the destination. And the TEP simply makes it precise.

 

But my life has never revolved around theories. For more than a decade, I’ve been creating —with what I have— a real Perfect Environment. The Santuario Compasión Animal was born as the first phase of the EP. There, identities that once suffered are gathered. Some associate. Some cooperate. And a few, very few, begin to specialize.

 

But the environment is still not enough. Protection is not enough. We must induce the correct perception. And for that, goodwill is not enough: we need resources, science, synchronization, and decision.

 

That’s why I propose two paths:

 

• The Experimental Milestone, to validate the TEP in a laboratory.

• The Macro Perfect Environment, to replicate on a large scale the complete process of emergence of a new collective being.

 

 

I don’t need to do this for myself. I will gain nothing. There is no personal benefit. I’m not seeking credit, legacy, or monuments. I just want to fulfill the moral imperative. Because when a structure reveals the correct path, not acting is no longer an option. It becomes an error.

 

That’s why I wrote Creo un Dios. That’s why I developed the TEP. That’s why I founded a sanctuary. That’s why I continue. With 1 euro or millions. Alone or accompanied. I will do it.

 

If you’ve ever felt that something is pushing from within —

If you believe that morality cannot depend on votes, dogma, or symbols —

If you’ve ever sensed that living in peace is not a utopia but a sign of what must be —

Then you’re already on the way.

 

This website contains everything. Theory, validation, structure, evidence. You can analyze it, refute it, share it, or ignore it. But if after doing so, you want to take part, collaborate, support the Milestone, or build the Perfect Environment — write to me. Or support it directly.

 

I don’t need you to believe me. I only need that, if you see what I see, you don’t look away.

 

Because this is not about me.

This is about our common destination.

And the blueprint is already drawn.