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
Welcome. Not really sure what you are talking about. One rathere large problems is that this: E (((E=MC2)MC2=E)E=E) That is not even an equation, I don't have any idea what that is suppose to be.:shrug:
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).
