XPost: sci.math   
   From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl   
      
   Ross Finlayson  wrote:   
      
   > On 10/19/2025 01:07 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:   
   > > Ross Finlayson  wrote:   
   > >   
   > >> On 10/19/2025 06:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:   
   > >>> The Starmaker  wrote:   
   > >>>   
   > >>>> 'The Theory of Everything is an overarching hypothetical framework   
   > >>>> that would explain the physics of the entire universe in a single   
   > >>>> equation. But unifying theories that define the large-scale   
   > >>>> cosmological structure of the universe with those that describe the   
   > >>>> minuscule quantum world of the subatomic particles has been a   
   > >>>> challenge for over a century.'   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> The key word here is... unifying.   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> So, if energy is mass, and mass is energy...how come it's not called   
   > >>>> energymass? or massenergy??   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> I mean, if you want to  unifying..then EM, not e=m.   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> or energymass.   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> Lets get this TOE started. Get it right!   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>>    explain the physics of the entire universe in a single equation.   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> Is TOE a single equation of  the entire universe?   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>>    or an abbreviation?   
   > >>>   
   > >>> So you misunderstood that too.   
   > >>> The problem is not putting everything in a single equation.   
   > >>> That is trivial, the 'Great Feynman Equation' for example will do.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> The point is having no free parameters,   
   > >>>   
   > >>> Jan   
   > >>>   
   > >>>   
   > >>>   
   > >>   
   > >> That's pragmatic and begins to attain to a theory,   
   > >> yet eventually a "theory of everything" is actually   
   > >> involving also the mathematics and the logic and   
   > >> the philosophy and even the metaphysics of it all.   
   > >>   
   > >> I.e., a theory of everything is about the parameters that are free.   
   > >   
   > > It is you who is thoroughly confused.   
   > > If there are free parameters in it it isn't the TOE,   
   > > by definition, (because it leaves things to be explained)   
   > >   
   > > Jan   
   > >   
   >   
   > No, that's just a closed form and physics is an open system.   
      
   A non-sequitur, whether true or not.   
      
   > I sort of helped explain this to one of the bots and   
   > it really agrees,   
      
   Now that is a really conclusive argument,   
      
   Jan   
      
   [snip more misunderstandings about what the TOE is]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)