Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:53 am
>What are you basing this; "the 'best' theory of everything" on exactly?
As far as possible, on logical necessity, beginning with The Cogito, but it can be approached from many directions to get the same results.
To me, the 'best' theory of everything is one that is written 'better', or is more accurate, than any other theory has been.
You have NOT read NOR heard EVERY other theory of everything.
To you, what, exactly, is 'logical necessity'? And, what is 'The Cogito', and could what is 'logically necessary' to "another", Cogito, being override what is 'logically necessary' to that, The Cogito, being?
Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:53 am
>Is "logical necessity" in relation to 'what', exactly?
Relative to any other philosophy i've ever seen. Most of the "greats" commit logical fallacies that they never address.
How many, so called, "philosophies" are there?
How do you differentiate between the "great" and the "not so great" "philosophies"?
Will you provide some examples of these, supposed, "different philosophies"?
'you' and 'I' have totally different definitions for the word 'philosophy', and so from just about the outset your 'theory of everything' does NOT explain 'things', to me, nor from my perspective.
Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:53 am
>Are you 100% absolutely SURE, without any doubt at all, of this?
Yes, but that's not as high a bar as you make it seem.
I only asked a question.
So, how high a bar does the words 'feature' AND 'complete' mean, and refer to exactly?
Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:53 am
It only means i've never seen a better attempt.
To me, 'feature COMPLETE' means that 'it' (whatever) is COMPLETE of 'features'.
This takes us back to my first question in regards to what you are basing this 'best', theory of everything, on exactly. If it is only the 'best' based on what you have actually seen, then this is one thing, but this certainly does NOT mean that 'your' theory of everything is actually the 'best'.
Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:53 am
Many "great" philosophers have told part of this story but none have ever brought it all together, and as far as i can tell, there are 100% no logical fallacies or gaps in this story.
Being a, so called, "great" philosopher or not has absolutely NO bearing at all on whether a theory of everything is the 'best' or even close to thee actual Truth of things.
A Theory Of Everything brings EVERY thing together, united as One. If that assumption/guess is in valid, sound, and logical form, then that is the One True view of Everything. The story, which is in AGREEMENT with EVERY one, brings EVERY 'thing' together as One.
Do you think or believe that 'your' story will be AGREED with by EVERY one?
If yes, then great.
But if no, then your story still has logical fallacies and/or gaps in it. You may not yet be able to see these fallacies and/or gaps, but if you want to see them, then I can help you to, that is; if you want me to SHOW them to you?
Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:53 am
If i'm wrong, it would be doing me a great service to show how, but that may not be possible immediately because you may not see how the pieces fit together or how it's really all in there.
This may be very true. So, for me to be able to see how the pieces fit together or how 'it' is really all in there, then you will NEED to be able to CLARIFY what you have written, be able to BACK UP and SUPPORT your claims with actual EVIDENCE and/or PROOF, and be able to elaborate on and explain what you say in a very simple and easy understandable way.
Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:53 am
>Saying that there are things that you still do not yet know, shows or infers there are still some 'incomplete features'.
Sure it's incomplete, in that nobody has time to literally answer all questions, but to answer all the questions that matter in a way that inherently allows everything else to be solved is as complete as possible - that i've done.
I would like to SEE this.
So, what are the questions, which you propose 'matter', and, what is the way that inherently allows everything else to be solved?
Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:53 am
Likewise, i can guarantee it's not complete in any sense that operates outside the scale of what humanity can understand, or with regard to future information our instruments may uncover.
So, when you say it is "feature complete", then what you really mean is that it is NOT 'feature complete' and that is only 'feature complete' in very particular ways, correct?
Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:53 am
>Therefore your theory, in fact, does NOT compass all of them at all, right?
It does, it really does, with the obvious caveat regarding the limitations of the human life span and attention span.
But this just 'tries to' "justify" that your story does NOT in fact encompass all of them.
If you can provide the answer to the question; 'What is the solution, which will answer/solve all questions/problems?' for example, then there is NO limitations, in the way that you propose, or attempt to "justify", here.
The Answer to this question, which is a very simple and easy one to obtain, then that WILL and DOES encompass them ALL. So, if and when you want to make claims like, "This encompasses ALL of them", then it is best to actually be able to back up and support this claim BEFORE making the claim itself.
Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:53 am
I can point to a lot of questions i simply haven't had time to answer yet, but if you understand this toolbox, you can do it yourself easily enough.
Will you provide examples of some these questions?
If yes, then great.
But if no, then why not?
Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:53 am
>What is 'knowledge', and, how do you justify 'that', which is already justified?
Knowledge is justified belief. It's all in the epistemology section.
Okay, but I also asked how do you justify 'that', which is already justified, anyway?
Also, why is 'belief' necessary? To me, some thing is either justified or it is not. And, 'belief' is NOT needed anywhere.
Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:53 am
>By the way, how do you define the word 'esoteric'?
Fuzzy, indistinct, hard to get a handle on, address, or solve.
That is one of many definitions. Another definition is;
intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest. So, this might be the very reason why you are not sure what you see, or understand.
intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge or interest.>Would you like me to go through ALL of them?
Advocate wrote: ↑Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:53 am
I'd like you to get involved in any part that catches your interest. There are some huge obvious problems and it makes a lot more sense to work on those first despite them being more about communication than philosophy.
Okay, the first huge obvious problem I noticed, and which brings us back again to my first question, is; How can your write a theory of everything if there are some things, which you claim cannot be known? Also, if as you claim Real Truth is inaccessible to human beings, then how could you even begin to know if you have some thing, which even resembles Everything?