On 9/22/05, Daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden <Daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden> 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
Received on Thu Sep 22 2005 - 00:31:05 PDT