what would you expect from a "theory of everything" if you were going to take it seriously?

I'm writing one. I am formulating curricula for myself to ensure I have the adequate basis of knowledge to avoid the sorts of mistakes that would prevent me from being taken seriously before my ideas are even seriously contended with. 

what markers should I focus on? one of my main concerns is that if I'm going to attempt to defend the universal applicability of the model, then I must be, in some sense, decently competent at talking about everything. naturally, this presents a profoundly disadvantageous burden for me, such as would likely prevent me from attaining a degree of mastery over one specific domain as would grant me the credentials that many of the actual cultural mover-shakers use to pre-filter the ideas on which they spend their time 

wdyt? ❦ 

I knew that my cute profile picture will attract women back to the site.

do you consider ToE's a feminine activity?

I am not sure about if it is feminine activity. Usually, by feminine activity I consider something that girls and femboys do. I dont know the exact meaning of feminine, I just can tell when I see it.

I think Best.Korea made that first comment because I have been posting that there have been no women commenting 

on the topics here on DebateArt. I think you have a great topic. We need an explanation why anything exists.

I think I'm not sure what a Theory of Everything is,

Even after reading, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything,

Basically a rule of thumb, I take it, a base axiom, general principle?

If you don't include hard science and math, you are probably just talking out your ass. Yes a Lotta truth is obtained that way, but that's not where the real work is

I don't really find that an interesting question. why shouldn't anything exist? if nothing existed, the question would be nonsense.

since I don't have enough life left to cover ACTUALLY everything, there are limits to the depths to which I'm going to go in metaphysics and especially cosmology. I am not yet sure if I will end up making statements on the nature of the big bang / the end of the universe. I'd say it's about 50/50 atm as it's looking now with my foci

wrong article

but, yes: basically it's a unifying cause for all observed phenomena.

I have at least two years blocked to learn higher level pure maths, and hard sci is a given. when I say everything I mean everything. 

if you care to share what this verse means to you in this context, I can give you several verses affirming my work, from multiple angles. 

For starters I would expect it to answer this question:

"Why do individual perspectives actually exist?"

I'll put it this way. Somewhere out there in the universe is a life form which, on the internet, has the username sui_generis. This person exists. And this person has the bodily equipment needed to think and perceive.

But this should be nothing more than an abstract fact; why are YOU actually living that perspective? Why am I living mine?

I've never been able to successfully articulate this thought before now, and even as I write it's not impossible that I've once again failed to express what I mean. But it seems to me the strongest evidence for metaphysics and a universe that can't be explained solely by physics. Your theory of everything should give an answer for this question.

Also, welcome back. I remember you from DDO.

Everything is or not.

As it is impossible to validate incoming data

Nonetheless, everything is as it is.

And maybe also a simulation thereof,

Which in itself is everything.

 Agreed. 

We live in a physical world. What caused atoms to be created? A ToE should explain this because a theory of everything (ToE) is an ultimate, all-encompassing explanation or description of nature or reality.

Well, I highly recommend Ecclesiastes as it is a fantastic book of the Bible.

But the teacher's main point is that all that matters is to serve God, enjoy your wealth, and not stress the problems in life.

Everything else is meaningless. Amassing a huge fortune comes with sleeplessness, anxiety, and endless work. Partying all the time comes with poverty and health problems. Trying to "make your mark" on the world comes with being ultimately forgotten to history or realizing you didn't do it first and somebody else already did it before you.

And when you die, if you worked hard, it goes to someone who did nothing to deserve it. And you have striven after the wind spending your whole life focused on checking boxes and building status for yourself.

But the fool who does nothing but play will come to a life of poverty, ruin and misery.

So all that is left is to serve God, enjoy your purpose, and spend your money on the things you like.

Ah, the ancient wisdom of "All paths are wrong except my specific path".

what makes you think this work isn't serving God?

a framework can explain everything without actually executing the explanation of it all. we have not calculated the sextillionth digit of pi but that doesn't mean we haven't solved the framework which would generate it for us if we were to actually execute it.

similarly, my ToE does not fail to meet the standards for a ToE simply because it does not go to the effort of actually executing an explanation for it; it is sufficient that it merely provides for the execution of the same.

as it happens, though, I fully expect to have at least an answer to that particular question by the time I publish 

hey, thanks, good to stop by again and see what's poppin. 

first I'll admit that I don't think I do fully understand what it is to which you are gesturing.

are you trying to ask about why aren't other people p-zombies? or are you trying to ask how there can exist a flesh-and-blood human AND, apparently separately, the idea of the person who "is" that same flesh-and-blood human? or are you trying to ask something else?

I wasn't really commenting on your theory of everything seriously. I was more answering the question in the title.

Well, I really gave an extremely simplified cliffsnotes summary. If you read the book, it'll answer your qualm in extreme detail. It's not an "I feel" book. It is a rational, detailed commentary on life and why it is all meaningless apart from serving God, enjoying your work, and enjoying your money.

engaging sincerely is my favorite way to defeat trolls

@No one, as I ramble and worry I sound odd, yet I'll post anyhow.

Would you say that there are already unifying theories of everything?

I ask, as I am unsure whether such as Hegel, Nihilism, or the Tao, qualify as such.

Or even if they do, are they considered incomplete?

Though some people may argue for 'everything to be explained,

Is it not enough to explain what we 'currently know.

Wouldn't have to be those three above examples, could be as Public-Choice says (I think) within Christianity.

. . .

A theme I see in axiom viewpoints,

Is by using semantics, one is able to apply it to most everything in life,

. . . Even if one was a farmer, or a gambler, it's their depth of experience, that enables them to see patterns,

When/If they describe situations/expectations by farming/gambling analogies.

Yet these patterns are also seen by other systems,.

Though I don't take the negative view of it as Best.Korea 'seems to.

. . .

Though I suppose some viewpoints people have conflict,

Such as all people are good,

And all people are evil,

Though even then, by degrees they can both have truth, to some people.

I guess my question is: Why isn't everyone a p-zombie?

Because a p (philosophical) zombie should be what you get from the mere physical conditions for life being present. It shouldn't be able to explain what actually is experienced.

What is GOD that must be served?

So engage sincerely.