PART 10 - LIMITATIONS OF MET: WHERE CAN IT BE CRITICIZED?

A strong theory must know what it cannot yet explain.
MET does not collapse under challenge, but it does contain natural weak points, and we list them openly.

---

10.1. LIMITATION 1 - MET does not provide concrete physical mechanisms

MET outlines five layers:

Abyss

Void

Membrane

Physical Layer

Central Reflective Domain

But it does not specify:

equations governing oscillations

forms of energy

quantum reflection mechanics

geometric structure of the Central Domain

This leaves room for physicists to argue:

> "You describe concepts, but you provide no measurable equations."

This is a real limitation-MET currently lacks a full mathematical model.

---

10.2. LIMITATION 2 - MET depends on human-like interpretation

MET assumes:

> "Consciousness is the decoder of reflected oscillations."

But the very idea of "decoding" is biological and nervous-system-dependent.

Scientists may object:

"Would MET function without brains?"

"Does the Central Domain exist if no consciousness interprets it?"

MET's partial answer:

The Central Domain exists independently,

but interpretation depends on the organism.

This gives MET a philosophical flavor rather than purely physical.

---

10.3. LIMITATION 3 - No measurable boundary between Void and Abyss

In MET:

Void = near-meaningless oscillatory space

Abyss = total dissolution of differentiation

But MET does not define:

how to measure the transition

how much energy is needed to move between layers

whether matter-like structures can exist within Void

A physical theory normally requires stricter definitions.

---

10.4. LIMITATION 4 - MET does not justify the number "five"

A critical challenge:

> "Why five layers?
Why not four, seven, or eleven?"

MET does not derive the number from any physical law.
This is a logical vulnerability.

The five layers fit intuition, but mathematics prefers formal necessity.

---

10.5. LIMITATION 5 - MET does not explain how reflection gives rise to geometry

MET states:

Central Domain → reflection → oscillations

oscillations → differentiation

differentiation → geometry (space, time)

But MET does not provide:

a metric

a topology

curvature equations

a fundamental spacetime model

Mathematicians may conclude:

> "This is not a geometric theory - it is a metaphysical analogy."

---

10.6. LIMITATION 6 - MET lacks immediate experimental falsification

MET's predictions exist, but most require:

2035-2050 level technology

extremely sensitive cosmic sensors

next-generation interferometers

new types of AI cognition models

Critics can claim:

> "If you cannot falsify it now, it is not scientific."

This standard is rigid (many major theories waited decades),
but still a valid critique.

---

10.7. LIMITATION 7 - Risk of over-interpretation

MET is flexible.
Too flexible.

Risks:

intuition → called "reflection"

unexplained noise → called "Void signal"

anomalies → called "distorted oscillations"

Scientists may argue:

> "A theory that explains everything ultimately explains nothing."

To avoid this, MET must define boundaries of applicability.

---

10.8. LIMITATION 8 - MET may be too human-centered to be universal

A strong criticism:

> "MET depends on human-style differentiation.
Can it apply to cold life-forms, non-carbon organisms, or purely mathematical AIs?"

MET claims yes - but cannot yet prove it.

A universal model must be independent of human cognition.

---

SUMMARY OF PART 10

MET is powerful in describing:

consciousness

alien civilizational structure

horizontal evolution

the Fermi paradox

oscillatory layers

cosmological anomalies

But MET is weak in:

mathematical formulation

precise physical equations

immediate experimental tests

independence from human cognition

These limitations do not invalidate MET,
but they mark clear boundaries for future refinement.