-
You dump so much garbled incoherent blather on this forum, that you can hardly be surprised when we don’t keep track of it all.
-
Your ‘definition’ is sufficiently idiosyncratic that I would expect nobody would accept it. It appears to be a better definition of mere “functionality” NOT “optimality”.
OED defines Optimality as “The state or quality of being optimal” with “optimal” defined as “best or most favourable”. This is what “optimality” is understood to mean within the scientific community.
I would suspect that not a single one of your sources supports anything you have to say.
You have failed to answer my question:
Nobody accepts your definition.
Nobody accepts your interpretation of your sources.
Nobody accepts your claims.
Nobody accepts your ‘Universal Common Designer’ theory.
Nobody has discerned any substantive improvement in your theory since you first posted it.
Nobody is interested in promoting your theory to a wider audience.
It is therefore wholly unclear to me what benefit you expect to garner from further promotion of your definitions, interpretations, claims and theory on this forum.
This thread on an author’s similarly-unsuccessful attempt to promote their grand claims about Design might prove instructive.