[Whys]

Profpat,

I like your thinking. However, you seem to be assuming an element's definition exists independently, and is not altered or redefined by changes in its inter-relationship with other elements of the set. To put it another way, a chair is no longer a chair if I always sit on the floor and eat from its bench. I agree to the possibility of a point of sum convergence, but I would suggest that difference of inter-relationship make it a unique element of its own. For a sense experience example, I do not consider green to be the combination of blue and yellow, it is green. Thus white light does not contain green, for it is white. With a prism, I may redefine a portion of white light and make it green. But that is not to say white is green.

The sound of one hand clapping is not clap-clap. It is the sound of realization that the mind can create ideas that have no intrinsic relevance or rational expression. This does not make them any less true. Just absurd.

My point about a Theory of Everything, is that the very concept is inherently absurd. This is not to say such a theory can not exist or be true. Only that it can never be proven in an empirical sense. In terms of what is "knowable", it is a discussion relegated to philosophical conjecture, without any hope of a proof.

Of course, this all assumes we can "know" what is and is not provable. In an infinite reality, nothing seems certain. ;)