Quote:
Originally Posted by N0B0DY  Picture someone you care most about, and they will pass away. Before they do they ask a bunch of questions about life that you have no answer for, and then they pass away.
In honor of that special person, you spend years searching for the truth that may have resulted in that person stll being here, asking millions of questions to find the answer, but to no avail.
So you conclude there is no answer, and attempt to make people understand that it really doesn't matter if you know all the answers because the answers are already known unbeknownst to you. Save yourself the years of frustration.
Sort of like that castle we build in the sky that comes crumbling down, or like the man who picks up the gun after saying he wished he had lived a life happily in ignorance, than to have lived a life burdened by too many damn questions.
I think if the toe can be realized, it will be you who will realize it. But I wouldn't want to be you. |
______________________
Not wanting to be someone else is understandable, Nobody.
But thanks for the oblique compliment.
On the other hand I don't think I'll approach a solution to the central question of this forum any closer than what relavant submissions I make in posts, threads or articles, which are only
portions of the collective resolution.
The theme of this thread
('Can there be a theory of everything?") is an interrogative, not a capitulation. Michael's flexible response is certainly tenable.
To my way of thinking, everything there is to know will not be known, and all that is to be answered will not be answered. Whereas,
generalised solutions applicable to everything seem to be culminating as a matter of course - on this forum and certainly elsewhere.
There are questions:
Can it be done?
Will it be done?
Again, Michael's response seems to me, to be appropriate.
Again, I do not think that there will ever be a ledger of answers to every question accessible to mortal reference.
Yet, already there are generalised references - the I Ching, for one. There are others but I don't think any known reference of knowledge and understanding surpasses the I Ching. The Western education - and mentality - generally excludes it, and in so doing excludes many opportunities to understand what is still unknown or enigmatic to Western Civilization?
Summarily (for the moment), any expedition to formulate a theory of everything, automatically redeems itself in what it does uncover, and what it strives to reveal...
Michael might say, something to the effect that to know everything requires that you be everything, and until further notice, 'we' don't understand how 'we' - individually and collectively - are everything.
I think it was Arthur C. Clarke who said that 'if' there was a computer that could store enough information, it would automatically become self aware.
My thoughts on that include that, if a given person or collective of persons are interconnected to and with everything, then, access to everything is already potentially available.
The interrogative of this theme is presented with the hopes of stimulating more answers and insights.
The I Ching indicates that it will be advantageous to cross the great stream, and to be firm and correct. (So the implication that there can be a theory of everything, is there. The I Ching also alerts us to watch for and translate several numbers, especially three, and sixty four...)