Re: Justifying the Theory of Everything

From: Russell Standish <>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 10:08:46 +1000

> > Jason wrote:
> >> I have seen two main justifications on this list for the everything
> >> ensemble, the first comes from information theory which says the
> >> information content of everything is zero (or close to zero). The
> >> other is mathematicalism/arithmatical realism which suggests
> >> mathematical truth exists independandly of everything else and is the
> >> basis for everything.
> >>
> >> My question to the everything list is: which explaination do you
> >> prefer and why? Are these two accounts compatible, incompatible, or
> >> complimentary? Additionally, if you subscribe to or know of other
> >> justifications I would be interesting in hearing it.

Another justification is rather indirect. Following the arguments in
Theory of Nothing (also mostly available in "Why Occams Razor" and "On
the Importance of the Observer in Science"), a number of really curly
philosophical problems melt away in a blaze of understanding. I refer
here to

1) Occams Razor
2) The problem of Induction
3) Why anything bothers to exist
4) The Hilbert space structure of QM

Of course its not all plain sailing - the problem of the Occam
catastrophe means that the Anthropic Principle is rather mysterious,
rather than trivially obvious as it is in naive realist theories.

However solving 4 unsolvable mysteries in exchange for having another
one is not a bad deal, and is a pretty good justification for taking
these theories seriously.

A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052         
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Sun Jul 08 2007 - 20:32:29 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:14 PST