On 9/22/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 
 
> *Given* that we want a metaphysical 'Theory Of Everything' (the name of this mailing list after all!) we must *assume* as a starting point that mind can comprehend reality.  Our assumption could be wrong.  That's why it's called a *theory* of everything ;) 
 
Why couldn't the theory be that the mind can comprehend reality, but not all of reality.  Wouldn't that be a theory of everything?  What if that's the actual truth?  We would be doing ourselves a disservice by theorizing otherwise.

 


Well, of course, the question that arises is: what actually *is* a 'theory of everything'?
 
By TOE I don't require that the mind can literally comprehend *all* of reality.  I just think that there's some way to integrate mental and physical concepts into a finite unified explanatory framework  which *is* comprehensible.  So for me, a TOE is a theory which explains the relationship between Mind on the one hand, and Reality on the other.  M (Mind) ---- relationship ----- R (Reality).  My theory is attempting to explain that relationship.   
 
What I'd like is a *logical scaffolding* - a *finite* system which is *universal* in scope - or at least applying everywhere in reality where sentient minds can exist and which explains the relationship between Mind and Reality.    That for me is a TOE.  I don't require that the theory literally explains everything.     
--

Please vist my website:
http://www.riemannai.org

Science, Sci-Fi and Philosophy

---

THE BRAIN is wider than the sky,  
  For, put them side by side,  
The one the other will include  
  With ease, and you beside.

-Emily Dickinson

'The brain is wider than the sky'
http://www.bartleby.com/113/1126.html

Reply via email to