[Whys]

If we believe, as I do, that reality is infinite, both in the macro, the micro, and perhaps in other ways transcendent of the physical dimensional universe, then a Theory of Everything could not possibly exist as anything more than a probability set. As a matter of epistemology, a portion of the set can not contain the entire set without exploring philosophical possibilities beyond the empirical.

In short, any Theory of Everything is the sound of one hand clapping. Though personally... I still like the sound of half an applause. ;)

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Whys If we believe, as I do, that reality is infinite, both in the macro, the micro, and perhaps in other ways transcendent of the physical dimensional universe, then a Theory of Everything could not possibly exist as anything more than a probability set. As a matter of epistemology, a portion of the set can not contain the entire set without exploring philosophical possibilities beyond the empirical. In short, any Theory of Everything is the sound of one hand clapping. Though personally... I still like the sound of half an applause.

Welcome to this forum Whys,I see your point here,I like the "no ear listening myself"!


warm regrds michael.

[Profpat]

Hi Whys;

Welcome to the forum.

In set theory,using the Venn diagram, the area ( set ) in the middle contains the elements of all the sets in that diagram. The sound of one hand clapping is the same as two hands clapping ( CLAP CLAP ) Now what is the sound of one lip whistling?

Best,

Pat

P.S. Probability governs the universe. ( Where chaos reigns supreme and chance governs all. ) John Milton

[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. ;)

[Whys]

Allow me to rephrase that...

In an infinite reality, there is always more to discover. :)

[Profpat]

Hi Whys;

Now you are confusing me, which is easy to do.

I have no idea what you mean by this:
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.
If you ake your four fingers on your hand and bring them down on the same hand you'll hear CLAP. The sound of one hand clapping.
BTW the sound of one lip whistling is a whistling sound.

I'm not sure why you think I believe a definition exist independently from the element. What in my post made you assume that. Remember when you assume you make an ass out of you and me ASS U ME.

I agree with you that we can't know anything for certain, in that there is no cetainity in our universe.
I think probability theory is correct and therefore the best we can hope for are approximations.

Reality may be infinite but then again maybe not.

Best,

Pat

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Whys Allow me to rephrase that... In an infinite reality, there is always more to discover.

Absolutely spot on there Whys,cheers for that.



regards michael.

[Whys]

Prophat,

There is absolutely a certainty. You already know what it is. There is however, no empirical certainty. That much we can agree on, despite our inability to prove it. ;)

Again, the sound of one hand clapping is not clap-clap. It is a reference to a Buddhist Koan and monks in training are required to think on it for days, weeks, months, what ever it takes. The issue tends to be one of truth verses meaning. The notion is not that the fingers clap on one hand. The notion is that we can take a complete idea, two hands, clapping, and sound, then break them apart as if they can exist independently from one another. The point of the Koan, is when you take away one hand, the remaining concept becomes absurd. Things can only exist in relationship. What a thing is, is defined by its relationships with everything else. Take away one hand, and the idea of clapping and creating sound becomes absurd. Tho the concepts can be broken down and studied individually, they cease to have the same meaning because we changed their inter-relationship.

You mention the Venn Diagram. I like your example. My example is the color wheel representing emitted light. As you say, we can have a circle for each color in our diagram. In the center of that diagram, all the colors converge. With emitted light, that would be white. My point is that the center element is not the same thing as all the individual elements combined. It is it's own thing. And as such, any Theory of Everything that relies on a point convergence of all ideas is not going to explain everything, as much as it will simply explain itself.

There are plenty of circular arguments that proclaim to explain everything. It is even possible that there is already one in existence that is true. Personally I doubt it, because I'm one of little faith.

Yes, reality could be finite. That sure would makes things simpler. :) Rarely is life so obliging.

I agree with the probability approach, I'm just not sure it truly rises to the level of a Theory of Everything. I mean I could give one right now. "IS" <shrug> It's probable. :]

[Whys]

mkirkpatrick,

Maybe. Or maybe only for now. ;)

[Profpat]

Hi Whys;

I know it is a koan and a Buddhist monk didn't have to hit me on the back of the head to give me enlightenment. I mean the koan has an answer. Clap Clap.

Now here is an old one for you. What happens when an untoppable force meets an immovable object?

Best,

Pat