[hairykleitous]

Originally Posted by subversion in order for the theory of everything to work, we must hold the definition of the word everything to be true

Subversion, I agree that truth is in the heart; accuracy is in the mind. The mind knows "things", but the heart knows that which transcends "things." I don't understand your statement in the clause I have quoted. What is this "definition" of the word "everything" that we must hold?

[subversion]

Originally Posted by hairykleitous I don't understand your statement in the clause I have quoted. What is this "definition" of the word "everything" that we must hold?

Well, now that you asked, I guess that's what this thread is about. Afterall, if we want a TOE we should first start with a definition right? So tell me, what does everything mean to you?

[michellemfry]

How do you feel about encapsulation of everything in mathematics right away by making everything the set of...

[subversion]

...of everything?

yep, already took care of that

[dustin_archibald]

To me everything is all that has existed, exists, and will exist.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by dustin_archibald To me everything is all that has existed, exists, and will exist.

But then what doesn't exist is not in everythng so everything is not everything if whatevr doesn't exists is a thing or something, and as for example a horse with wings (can't remember the name given in the greek myth) is a thing and dosn't exist, so it must be in everything.

Sub and Michelle,

The problem is that if everything is the set of every-thing, then it must neccesarilly contain all the other sets. But, does the set of all sets contain itself? Again, as often, we come across the question which Russell made to himself 100 years ago whiles writing his Principia Mathematica. Even worse, for know we not only deel with the problem that the set of all sets that do not contain themselves must contain itself and not contain itself, but also that the set of all sets that contain themselves or not contain themselves must contain itself to not contain itself and neccesarilly not contain itself to contain itself such that containing itelf would impply not containing itself by containing itself.

[dustin_archibald]

Originally Posted by <<>> But then what doesn't exist is not in everythng so everything is not everything if whatevr doesn't exists is a thing or something, and as for example a horse with wings (can't remember the name given in the greek myth) is a thing and dosn't exist, so it must be in everything.

The winged horse is Pegasus. The idea or thought of Pegasus exists therefore it (the idea or thought) is covered under "everything".

If you wanted to you could say that "everything" is all that exists or does not exist but that would ultimately lead to all things in existence being Everything. If you want to get into sets (please excuse my notation, it's been a while since logic courses):

Definitions and assumptions:

1. A={Non-existence}={}
   1. We say that A is the empty set since it has no items (technically it has all of the items that do not exist).
2. B={Existence}
   1. This set includes all things that have existed, do exist, and will exist (as per my original post)
3. C={Everything}

Calculations:

1. C=A U B
2. C= ø U B
3. C=B
4. {Everything}={Existence}

Now I haven't fully documented the proofs (Ex: axiomatic, BY 3, etc.) but the logic is still sound. I think.

Adding to this discussion we can give definitions for Existence and Non-existence as discussed here which we can all agree are axiomatic.

[Guille]

Hi again Dustin. The best word to use to describe the set of all existences is Reality. The mental, the physical, the non-existence, the non-nonexistence and non-existence... The main problem resides, in all discussion about everything, that by discussing you convert it into something, a-thing, and this impplies that it should contain and other-things for it is a-thing not every-thing then it's wrong because it should be every-thing, that's what it is. And if by contradiction, we try not to speak of it as a-thing or some-thing, automatically we always leed into it being infinite. And yet there is a big great gigantic enourmous absolute difference between everything and infinity. So we can't talk of everything as a thing or as not a thing. An intuitionist would say we then should talk about it as everything, simply. But this is a misinterpretation: we talk about everything, but we can't talk about everything as everything, we must talk about it as something or not-something, and both of these are wrong. If you have a solution do this--or anyone else reading this--please let me know, but I surelly doubt it.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by <<>> Originally Posted by dustin_archibald To me everything is all that has existed, exists, and will exist. But then what doesn't exist is not in everythng so everything is not everything if whatevr doesn't exists is a thing or something, and as for example a horse with wings (can't remember the name given in the greek myth) is a thing and dosn't exist, so it must be in everything.

I think we've now arrived at the correct definition of everything. Everything is all that exists. To answer your contention Guille, you say that everything is not everything if whatever doesn't exist is a thing or something. The solution to this contention is that everything is indeed everything because whatever doesn't exist is NOT something, it is nothing. Nothing is not something by definition of the word and does not form part of everything. This has to be true because everything has to be everything according to the definition that all things equal themselves. Since everything has to be everything it means that the only "thing" that does not form part of everything is the false thing nothing. So here I will give some official definitions.

Everything= everything that exists and everything that is possible which is everything
Something= anything which forms part of everything
Nothing= that false thing which is not something and therefore does not form part of everything and therefore is everything that is impossible which is nothing

Anything= could be something or nothing, but if it is something it is not nothing and visa versa because nothing does not form part of everything

Hopefully this clarifies it once and for all, anything that doesn't exist or is impossible is simply nothing and is not considered to be a portion of everything

ps. it is not necessary to consider whether the set of all sets contains itself or not because it is itself.

pps. a horse with wings only exists as an idea or an animal in everything if it is possible as an animal or an idea. Everything is possible according to the definition of everything. Nothing is impossible according to the definition of nothing, therefore if a horse with wings is impossible then it is nothing. Otherwise it is something which forms part of everything, be it an idea or an actual creature somewhere in an alternate scenario or on some lost island, etc.

[Lost]

Hi, new poster here, I find all this very fascinating. It's nice to know I'm not the only one trying to make sense of things that can, perhaps, never be understood.

Regarding everything, or more to the point, nothing. It seems to be the concensus thus far that {everything} = {all that exists} - {nothing}. I on the other hand do not see {nothing} as something that does not exist. After all, without nothingness, how could anything be said to exist? Compared to what?

I understand the point of view that {nothing} is an illusionary value and cannot truly exist, as it is the very nature of nothing to be the opposite of "something" (anything). But to me that is the wrong way to look at it.

After all what is a vacuum? Where does that fit in the equation? Vacuums are nothing, yet they do exist. Do they not? The very physics of matter change in a vacuum. Proof enough for me that there is "something" there, or more precisely, nothing at all.

The way I see it, {everything} = {all that exists} + {all that does not exist}

Hope that makes at least a little bit of sense :P