Sunday, June 20, 2010


The Theory of Everything

In short: if you have a theory of everything you should explain it in terms of a subset of not just everything but of a subset of abstraction.

And there is a claim that the language of nature is a the subset of abstraction called math, hmmm, not very everything huh?

There is theory and there is actuality, you might say that its like the difference between trying and doing..

To have grasped the unified field (not the theory of), using it will be proof enough and for those trying, they can keep on about theory. Kid do play.

Simply put, what "theory of everything" to date, accounts for abstraction? And with this, expecting such a theory to be explained using abstraction is a bit contradictory.

Stop for a moment and look around you, what do you see that could not have been built without the use of abstraction?

But if abstraction is not part of the theory of everything or even of just physics, then as an outsider, how do you explain the existence of that which was built via abstraction, without recognizing abstraction as something to account for in the unified field?

Simply you cannot.

No comments:

Post a Comment