The theory of Non-Familiarity

[acre]

The theory of Non-Familiarity

This is an excerpt from a Wikipedia article which is a very coherent step towards the formulation of an equation that would suffice for a theory of everything.

Properties and impasse of self-substantiation

In “The Price of an Ultimate Theory”,^[2] originally published in 2000, Nicholas Rescher specifies what he sees as the principal properties of a Theory of Everything and describes an apparent impasse on the road to such a theory.

Properties

Principle of sufficient reason

First, he takes as a presupposition the principle of sufficient reason, which in his formulation states that every fact t has an explanation t':

 

where E predicates explanation, so that t' E t denotes "t' explains t".

Comprehensiveness

Next, he asserts that the most direct and natural construction of a Theory of Everything T* would confer upon it two crucial features: comprehensiveness and finality. Comprehensiveness says that wherever there is a fact t, T* affords its explanation:

 

Finality

Finality says that as an “ultimate theory”, T* has no deeper explanation:

 

so that the only conceivable explanation of T* is T* itself.

Noncircularity

Rescher notes that it is obviously problematic to deploy a theory for its own explanation; at the heart of the traditional conception of explanatory adequacy, he says, is a principle of noncircularity stating that no fact can explain itself:

 

Thus, the next logical step would be the formulation of this equation:

E (((E=MC2)MC2=E)E=E)

Therefore the answer to unified field theory is; everything is energy.

Krue Ron Taiepa, at 1:28 am, 04/16/2014

[swansont]

Therefore the answer to unified field theory is; everything is energy.

 

 

Tautologies aren't generally that useful. Also, you should have included a link to the article.

This is an excerpt from a Wikipedia article which is a very coherent step towards the formulation of an equation that would suffice for a theory of everything.

 

When you get to an actual equation, let me know. That's the bulk of the problem.

[acre]

the equation is a description of a causal chain, an ordered sequence of events in which any one event in the chain causes the next. the principle of sufficient reason implies an initial cause that is substantiated by itself. in this sense, the equivalence principle that E=MC2 is an expression of allows a self-substantiated first cause. in this formulation, energy is perpetually self-substantiating.

i take E as first cause, then it would follow in the causal chain, what is E? we know E through the equivalence principle is MC2. thus the next question that would follow in the causal chain would be, what is MC2? which again through equivalence we know to be E. thus it would necessarily follow in the causal chain that E=MC2 and MC2=E, therefore we can infer through the causal chain E=E, qualifying it for self-substantiation.

which is the reason for the formulation E (self-substantiation), and how this is achieved, (((E=MC2)MC2=E)E=E).

E (((E=MC2)MC2=E)E=E).