Albert Hawking's Disruption Theorem

The Disruption Theorem (often shortened to *Disr Thm*) is an unpublished formal definition of anomalous activity and anomalous entities produced by Dr. Albert Hawking. Among other things, it forms a rigorous basis for organizing entities into classes by anomalous activity, much like The Caliber System did for power.

## Overview

The original draft written by Dr. Hawking aimed to establish three (3) invariants about anomalies:

1. A definition of anomalous activity, and an inferred definition of anomalous entities
2. A proof for the existence of a tiered class system by which anomalous entities *and* activities can be ordered
3. A proof for the inference of identity under anomalous transformation.

The first and second invariants provide the backbone for how the Disruption Theorem to categorize anomalies in the modern era. The infamous third invariant, often called **Hawking's Silver Bullet**, would provide a basis for understanding the true identity of any anomaly, even if it had mutated in an anomalous transformation over time.

Unfortunately, the formal proof for Hawking's Silver Bullet was not found with the recovered draft of the paper, leading historians to believe that Hawking died before finishing his work.

## The First Invariant - Definition

The first invariant of Hawking's Disruption Theorem focuses mostly on establishing a formal definition of anomalous activity, which Hawking uses to define what an anomalous *entity* is.

According to the first invariant, anomalous activity can be defined by the following properties:

Contradiction
Anomalous activity must violate at least one natural law. The violated law needn't be a physical one - contradicting a law of logic will satisfy this property as much as contradicting a law of physics.
Transformation
Anomalous activity can mutate over time to avoid comprehension. Often this involves changing the activity's delivery method just after it was discovered, but theoretically any aspect of the activity can be changed due to any stimulus.
Reproduction
Anomalous activity can (and often will) have a mechanism to reproduce itself. This may involve spreading the activity itself to other hosts, or creating new hosts to spread the activity. While not all anomalous activity *will* reproduce, or have an obvious method of reproduction, all anomalous activity *can* reproduce, through some means.
These properties, the so-called **Activity Invariants**, are used to produce the definition of an anomalous entity:

Anomalous Entity
An entity whose behavior is subject to anomalous contradiction. This behavior might also be subject to anomalous transformation or reproduction, where the transformation/reproduction occurs over the entity itself, the entity's behavior, or the entity's environment.

This invariant also includes a secondary set of definitions for classifying Anomalies, though Hawking cautions these oversimplified labels are often unreliable:

Standard
Entities or objects which have no unnatural, supernatural, or otherwise remarkable traits whatsoever.
Parastandard
Entities or objects with clear abilities to break traditions of reality or principles of logic. These include but are not limited to the laws of energy conservation, mass conservation, obeyance of gravity, or the rules of atomic structure. While they do not follow all or any of these rules, they nonetheless follow clear internal guidelines and have limitations which can be tested, comprehended, and feasibly reproduced, giving them a degree of predictability. Because of this, Parastandards are said to simply obey rules adjacent to our own, making them surprising and confusing, but still ultimately knowable to us. While they may still mutate as a function of time, this mutation tends to be internally logical and follows a pattern leading to a revision of rules rather than an absence.
Nonstandard
Entities or objects with clear abilities to break traditions of reality or principles of logic, similar to Parastandards. Unlike Parastandards, Nonstandards do not appear bound by any laws, even their own. They may freely switch their behaviors, reactions, or identities without warning, internal reasoning, or even predictive factors governing the change. Due to their inherent unpredictability, Nonstandards are either not considered to have defined limitations, or their limitations are considered to be defined by rulesets higher or lower to our own, making them extremely difficult for us to comprehend them. Sometimes nicknamed the "Bogeymen types", Nonstandards are considered the most dangerous class of Anomaly, since they cannot be safely handled nor reasoned with.
## The Second Invariant - Classification

After enumerating the properties of anomalous activity and entities, Dr. Albert Hawking shifts his focus to proving that every anomaly can fit into 6 distinct equivalence classes. These equivalence classes are often used by modern-day phenomenologists to classify anomalies with respect to their relative disruption.

Hawking's original draft posited that there were an arbitrarily infinite number of these equivalence classes - as there has been no limit to an anomaly's transformative properties that has been discovered as of late. However, modern day usage of Hawking's system limits itself to the first 6, denoted class α0 through to class α5 (pronounced *"alpha-naught"* and *"alpha-five*" when spoken). While we know that classes past α5 must exist, as Albert Hawking showed in his proof, none have been discovered, and even if they were, they'd surely be a force so beyond the recognition of any average person, or even an organized force of average persons, that trying to stop or even study them would be like playing God.

Below are summaries characterizing the 6 anomalous equivalence classes, as they're used in practice.

### Class α0

Class α0 entities are non-disruptive non-anomalous entities that are completely bound by natural laws. This is where the 'average person' is, in terms of anomalous disruption. This is also where 'Standard' class entities fall on the spectrum. Kallids, despite their alien appearance, additionally qualify as Class α0.

### Class α1

Class α1 anomalies, by virtue of *being anomalous*, are more disruptive than α0's, but are typically not *so disruptive* as to be detected by the average person. The only reliable way to detect an α1 as anomalous is to be actively searching for one. Certain Foloid species are included in this category.

### Class α2

Class α2 anomalies are the lowest classification of anomaly that can be detected by the average person. An α2's disruption has very limited affect on its environment - so limited, in fact, that they cannot actually do anything that would endanger or threaten their environment in any way. This makes them optimal for research purposes, and popular among such organizations as the NAPD. Ranchos were recently relegated to this tier.

### Class α3

Class α3 anomalies are the lowest classification of anomaly that are disruptive enough to cause harm to their environment. While they are disruptive enough to kill, α3's don't often do so. Fatalities due to α3 disruption usually happens due to misuse, or by chance. The Green Menu is an example of a Class α3, though a particularly troublesome one.

### Class α4

Class α4 anomalies are known to be dangerously disruptive to their environment, as that danger is a central facet of their anomalous contradiction. This often makes them hostile to other forms of life in their environment, and very difficult to study. LINE is a prime example of an α4 anomaly.

### Class α5

Class α5 anomalies exist only to disrupt their environment in the greatest possible way. They undergo anomalous transformation regularly, they feature large-scale-danger as a primary function of their anomalous contradiction, and they are near-impossible to study. Currently, Cotton Eye Joe is the best known example of an α5.

## The Third Invariant - Hawking's Silver Bullet

The infamous third invariant - known only as Hawking's Silver Bullet - promised to provide knowledge so powerful, it would tip the scales of power and give any organized group of α0's a fighting chance against even α5's.

As we know, higher classed anomalies' destructive ability comes from their potential to disrupt their environment in harmful ways. However, as more is gleaned about an anomaly's disruptive potential, the less it is able to disrupt, as enemy combatants will be wise to the anomaly's tricks. This is why modern-day phenomenologists regard the true source of an anomaly's power to be its ability to mutate and transform itself unrecognizably. Anomalous transformation not only prevents recognition of old threats - it can even make old threats even more dangerous, allowing them to transform beyond their previous class.

Hawking's Silver Bullet would provide a way out of this conundrum. In Dr. Albert Hawking's recovered drafts, he claimed to have a marvelously simple proof that would allow anyone to infer the previous identity of a transformed anomaly, as long as we know the anomaly in question *has transformed*, and does have a previous identity. Further, he claimed this inference was transitive, meaning even if an anomaly had transformed multiple times, possibly beyond recognition, following the steps laid out in his proof would *still* allow you to trace back the anomaly's *original identity*.

While this wouldn't stop the threat higher classed anomalies pose for good, it would arm class α0 researchers with the necessary knowledge to potentially infer a weakness of new forms from learned weaknesses of old ones. Some phenomenologists even claimed that, if Hawking's Silver Bullet exists, it would reduce all anomalies to creatures bound by natural laws - the laws laid out by Hawking's Disruption Theorem.

Alas, the late Dr. Albert Hawking was found dead just before the draft of his Disruption Theorem was discovered, and it appeared he had left it unfinished. No other manuscript verifiably written by Hawking was ever uncovered. Albert Hawking's silver bullet was destroyed with the mind of the man before it could ever be put to use.

There *have* been attempts by other reknown researchers and field experts to discover the proof Albert Hawking claimed to have found. Even Hawking's own collegues, including HP Lovehart and the fabled Peter Pigeonhole, took their own cracks at it, but could only muster up sleepless nights and wasted sweat. It is now commonly believed that even if Albert Hawking did write down the proof for his Silver Bullet, that it was probably wrong. Lovehart's, Pigeonhole's, and countless others' drafts could barely shake off scrutiny, even with cutting-edge insights of the phenomenology of their time - insights that Hawking didn't have access to.