[Guille]

I agree with unreal zelta's points, that we can't be sure there are only four forces in nature and that we might not have to unite them. Maybe the maximum point of possible unification, at least in the physical world, is having these 4 forces, maybe the mathematical language can make connections, relationships... etz, and that would help, but I doubt it is sensible to make all forces 1. There is nothing that tells us this. Just like with energy, we have kinetic energy, potential energy, mass, heat... We know the mathematical relationships, and the physical connections, but we don't unify them in one, we just know they all form part of one same concept. The same with force.

I just consider MEFD (Matter, Energy, Force, Dimension) the concepts which are not to be pondered by science. They are purelly conceptual, in reality they are abstract analogies between different objects of the world: energy is an abstract analogy between heat, mass, ke, pe... Force is an abstract analogy betwee em, gravity, wnf, snf... Matter is an abstract analogy between liquid, solid, gas, plasma... Dimension is an abstract analogy between space1, space2, space3, time, possibly other dimensions of space or time...

Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, Feynman... They tell us how forces work, how they interact with matter, how they interact amongst themselves, the cause and consequence... But they don't tell us the 'being' of the forces. This is because that is a philosophical question. And here is an important point from me: I've always stated the TOE needs both science and philosophy. By science I didn't mean the classical idea of science, and by philosophy I didn't mean the classical metaphysical idea. The philosophy which is requiered in the TOE is that which must talk about the natural concepts, and mixed with the science that talks about the natural concepts, we can acheive the TOE. This will be the new form of natural philosophy, which is the old name for physics, it is what is needed for the TOE.

Now, mkirkpatrik, I will help you (or at least try to). In fact I never think or say that a principle/idea is not correct, or not good, or not for the TOE or of the TOE, I always assume it to be true and work forward, until I can't, it doesn't work, it fails. I hope someday one doesn't fail.

'All is mind and mind is all' is neither a metaphysical especulation nor a scientific law. It is a statement which forms part of the Natural Philosophy I spoke about in the above post. Before trying the puzzle of nature with it, I need you to tell me a few things:

1. What does 'all is mind' mean? Is it that everything there is is simply the mind, or that everything is in itself mind, or that mind is in everything... or any other posssibility?

2. What does 'mind is all' mean? Is it that mind is in all things, or all things are in the mind, or that all things=mind, or that nothing but my mind exists (cartesianism, it would then be)... or anything else?

3. What do you mean by 'all'? Is it all the things (objects), or all the thoughts/ideas, or all the possible things that exist (then it would be like Wittgenstein, that all that can be thought of has the possibility to exist), or all including existence, non-existence, neither existence nor non-existence... or anything else?

4. What do you mean by 'mind? Is it all thoughts/ideas, or is it simply imagination (that everything in the world is imagination?), or is it both conception and perception.. Or anything else?

Please clarify these. I know it might seem like I'm a stupid kid not knowinh the meaning of anything, but if we are really going serious about trying har dwith your principle (and I am serious), then I need all this 'processing data' state.