according to your (and Marc's?) definition,
is Hal's work a "TOEandTON"?
Or would you include Nothing into the relations of
Mind (again: wat is it really?) and reality (same
(I mean: defined in less than 1000 words <G>)
--- Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le 22-sept.-05, à 06:27, Marc Geddes a écrit :
> > 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.
> I agree and I agree with your other statement
> according to which a TOE
> must explain the relation between mind and reality
> (what most
> physicalist put under the rug).
> But if there are features of reality not explained
> by the TOE, we still
> can expect that the TOE will be able to justify---or
> why it cannot explain those features.