Well, I was working with what I got. Don't take it as an insult or nit-picking, or that I don't enjoy abstract theories (I mean, I study mathematics for crying out loud. Going there without certain inclinations for theorising would feel like the dumbest decision in my life); I think I have provided scrutiny to a set of axioms that you have laid down above.

It's possible that I'm misunderstanding you on some purely linguistic manner.

It's possible that I'm lacking some central piece that would neatly connect said axioms.

It's very likely that I'm missing context, so here is what I understood: If you were to take the universe and reduce it to one concept that is ever-present and absolute, what would it be?

Here, this is how it begins to make sense for me:

- The concept of allowance exists.

- Any action or inaction that happens as the result of allowing it to happen takes no energy, for a given definition of energy.

- Since X are allowed, any set of object that interacts in allowed fashion requires no energy, for a given definition of energy.

- Any action that goes against allowed course, and hence would change it from allowed evolution, counts as change of holistic state and therefore requires energy, for a given definition of energy.

- Creation of anything that is not allowed, be it object, force or interaction, requires infinite amount of energy (F.A.G.D.O.E.) and therefore cannot manifest its effect.

Possible definition of energy: any expense for actions that contradict allowed state.

I can't dispute that, as it is pretty much a principle of least action applied to an unusual context. Or almost any game, since in this context it would mean:

- You can act only within allowed parameters, no matter how broad.

- Only actions or interactions happen only with accordance to approved/allowed means of acting or interacting.

- Progress of the game will be always the same unless one of the players will deviate from allowed plan of actions in a way that is not itself disallowed.

- No changes to the rule mid-game.

- No backsies.

As of me, present whole thing. I'll read it and as far as my time allows it, I'll give you as fair analysis as I can make. But don't start mid-sentence, I get that you were probably bending what you have in your hand under the purview of my own answer so it might not be complete. Just don't, for a lack of better word, pout in return. I don't come from place of hate, but you better bet that I'll be looking into inconsistencies, assumed or existing, and drop counterexamples. That's how you go with any hypothesis.