[RascalPuff]

Is it proper to say that the statement, 'Everything is energy', is a a Theory of Everything? If so, it is impressive, because it is after all, three words (Which could actually be abbreviated to two words 'Everything energy').

On the other hand, it's not really all that educational.

I say this because it is my feeling that a fullfilling Theory of Everything is probably obliged to address and explain a heckkuva lot, in order to accomodate a reasonably well rounded understanding.

That is, I can say 'E=MC2' , and maybe be right about a T.O.E., but the accurate response is not conceptually fullfilling - at least, not for most thoughtful people. There is a history of dissent, even among mathematicians, for example, regarding the meaning of E=MC2.

All of this is to submit that a Theory of Everything probably occurs in a list format, at the top of which, IMHO, occurs 'Matter' - from which everything I can think of (including metric space), originates. We could speak of a void (non metric space), and then we're back to a Theory of Nothing, which is not by any means to be underestimated, since it is an importantly considered comparative background to a Theory of Everything - hand in hand with a Theory of Everything, of which there are probably several different, yet, appropriate presentatations.

Requesting the Reader please reply with their thoughts on these considerations. Is 'Everything is energy' a Theory of Everything?

If it is, although not manifestly or presciently comprehensive, is it appropriate to be held out as a valid Theory of Everything? Insofar as, to the best of my knowledge, no such resolution has otherwise been arrived at or agreed upon in this forum and its objective reason for being...

It is understandable that such a discussion can go on indefinitely. On the other hand I don't think it inappropriate to begin establishing a few plateaus from which we may agree - or disagree (establishing perspective) - and continue...
(Please advise)

Respectfully addressed to all Readers,
- RP