[arthur]

Hi Michael, (from Wadebridge)
As you are obviously aware Michael (from one of your posts) criticism, (although I am not sure what it exactly is) is an interpretation by the supposed criticized, a mere suggestion, a hint, even a correction, if it goes against the grain, irrespective of how it was meant could be construed as negative criticism. (I am not sure why). Because of this the timid or the sensitive not wanting to cause upset might be put off making any comment at all or feel obliged not to say what they might feel.
Having said that--To the point,
I have been following the thread, which you started with the proposal that a t.o.e. might be discovered, formulated or evolve from a dialogue amongst persons who all have different degrees of understanding, different levels of ignorance, differing scales of ego and different levels of skill in reasoning (but with no lack of eloquence ambiguity) intellectually attempting to unifying 'the four fundamental forces as you called them even though there is so much about these forces which, it seems they do not know or understand. scales
I can see some basic flaws in this line of approach which could well result in the 'committee who were asked to design a horse and producing a camel' syndrome. One of these flaws is to do with the lack of consensus on what anything actually means; e.g. "to me a t.o.e. means….." "to me consciousness means……." "to me intelligence means……" "to me such and such means…." etc. etc.
Another flaw is in the different implied interpretations of what a theory per se actually is and what a theory might actually illustrate.-----A Professor of Gravity after giving a long lecture on the 'The theory' of gravity stepped of the rostrum tripped and broke his leg. What more does this professor know and understand of gravity than the illiterate trapeze artist or the gibbon?? He may be able to mathematize the weight distribution of a swinging body, he may be able to define with eloquence the gravitational effect on a flying gibbon. He obviously knows a great deal of words related to gravity, but this is not gravity, it is words about gravity. (One could no doubt teach a parrot to say the words) The gibbon and the trapeze artist know no such words but to see their antics it is self evident that they know and understand a great deal about gravity.
There is a professed belief in this forum and else where that to understand a theory of something is to understand the thing. If this were to be the case my mate the Prof would not have broken his leg, of course one could say that it was an accident, but what is an accident other than a display of a lack of knowledge at a particular point in time.
Another flaw, Michael, is in 'proof'. As a lad I crushed my finger in a door jam and whilst in excruciating pain with blood flowing and the nail turning black my lecturer said "prove to me that you are in pain". Proof is in the mind of the believer. How many time have we heard the implication "I don’t care what you say I'll not alter my view".
A Professor. after offering as evidence some spurious data said, "Do not accept as fact that which based upon your ignorance is plausible"
How many scientists and "scientists" offer as proof of fact, proof that their ideas are correct and accurate, proof of a truth, etc, other peoples ideas (theories) which are or were supported by other peoples ideas (theorise) which were peer reviewed by people who used 'the scientific method' (?)

A man had been doing his job for forty years, of course, any thing that he might say about it could not be used as scientific evidence. A post grad for his PhD interviewed and quizzed the man and produced a paper which was successfully 'peer reviewed'. Now the paper, of course, can be used as 'scientific' evidence even if the only knowledge of it comes from a highly condensed version in a popular science magazine.
Anyway, to end what could be a litany of what I see as flaws in your suggested idea of how the 'unification' (?) of the theories of 'four fundamental forces' (what ever they actually are) might lead on to developing a 'T.O.E. (what ever that might be) I will ask, 'If I had managed to develop, as a lad, a 'theory', a mathematical formula, or a compilation of words which to me explained that I was in pain as the result of having a crushed finger and I presented it to my lecturer who had never experienced pain, would he, likely, have understood?, or would he have asked for references before accepting it as proof?
There is no 'objectivity' in science, an interested party cannot be objective, only the disinterested, the unattached, the uninvolved can offer true objectivity.
A boy walking along a path, in his way stepped a philosopher, "excuse me" said the boy. "What evidence have you that I exist" asked the philosopher. The boy looked down at his working boots, thought, walked up to the philosopher and kicked him hard on the shin and continued on his way, looking back he saw all of the hopping philosophers philosophies wafting into the ether.
So Michael, what I am suggesting in this ramble is that if the actual four forces were to be fully understood by someone in this forum, for example, and there was something to link them together, the person would almost certainly recognise it. On the other hand, I suggest, as is the case here, neither the actual forces or the proposed related ideas (theories) are understood which leaves me to doubt, that a link will be found, unless by spontaneous inspiration.
I believe the people who are best equipped and who are most likely to be able to find a link between these forces are the people who recognise their existence and who utilize them in a practical way, and when, if a link is discovered the intellectuals and theorists can do their bit. I cannot see how 'conventional understanding' of a link between the forces alone can result in something called a Theory of *Everything* even though 'they' may be things in their own right.

Michael, I see in other threads and forums and else where that your self and a few others are touching on the idea that there is perhaps an underlying principle which might link everything together, the details of what this actually means to yourself and to the others I cant imagine. Why do you think that after a few millennia of thinking and writing and talking the principle, if there is one is not general knowledge?

arthur