TPF : Another Theory of Everything

[Gnomon]

The theory of everything; formulated so as to be indubitable and thus forming a final theory
I have succeeded in constructing the correct theory of everything, in a manner entirely indubitable such that the universe, with its laws, is a necessary true; thus forming a final theory able to answer why the universe, as perceived by a conscious entity, exists at all.

If you manage to do that, feel free to ask intelligent questions. — Alexandre Harvey-Tremblay

OFF-TOPIC
This may be a dumb question, but aren't "un-hypothetical first principles" just axioms known by divine revelation? Most of our scientific Axioms are simply plausible guesses (hypotheses) that are conventionally accepted as true, pending empirical evidence. So a U-HFP would be an absolute unquestionable fact, to be taken on faith. Yes?

The reason I ask is because I have my own (logical but non-mathematical) TOE, which is derived from an essential Axiom, that was not supernaturally revealed, but merely a hypothetical existential origin-point (First Cause), assumed as necessary for the existence of everything. That's what I call "BEING" : the eternal power to exist. From that starting point or first principle -- AKA The Creative Power to Enform -- everything else follows logically. So, if the axiom is true, we should be able to figure-out all the consequential details. Of course, I'm leaving it up to others, more qualified, to fill-in the technical gaps.

Unfortunately, that kind of open-ended all-encompassing Axiom, while OK for metaphysical Philosophy, is forbidden for physical Science. But then, reductive Science is effective only for understanding Parts & sub-systems, but not The Whole. So, a scientific TOE would be about a collection of pieces, but not a solution to the ultimate puzzle. No?


Axiom :
An axiom, postulate or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Greek axíōma 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.
Wikipedia

Hypothesis :
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
___Oxford

[Gnomon]

The term 'atomic fact' has been used by some authors before, notably Bertrand Russell, but our mathematical take on the concept is unrelated to his, — Alexandre Harvey-Tremblay

I am not conversant with Russell's "logical atomism", but in overview it seems to be an attempt to carry Reductionism to it's logical Omega point : absolute Certainty. That may have been his goal in writing the Principia Mathematica with A, N. Whitehead. However, " the book was initially a success in that no one challenged its "completeness"… until Gödel came along with his incompleteness theorem." (https://math.stackexchange.com/question ... atica-fail).

Russell's motivation for the Principia project was, " responding to what he called "logical holism"—i.e., the belief that the world operates in such a way that no part can be known without the whole being known first." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_atomism) Ironically, his co-author, Whitehead, seemed to retain some holistic inclinations, as indicated in his Process and Reality, where he presented a "philosophy of organism" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_and_Reality). And an Organism only functions as a whole system. Cut it into parts, and it disorganizes.

Apparently, due to the "close-but-no-cigar" failure of the Principia project, "Philosophers such as Willard Van Orman Quine, Hubert Dreyfus and Richard Rorty went on to adopt logical holism." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_atomism). Personally, I can accept the notion of Logical Atomism, because my own worldview is based on Generic Information as the fundamental "element" of reality. However, just as Physical Atomism was undermined by quantum indeterminacy, the "atom" of Information also fades away into amorphous Holism. So, I am forced to take a BothAnd view of reality : it's both atomistic (a collection of parts) and holistic (more than the sum of the parts). Hence, that atomic fact (complementarity) seems to imply that all attempts to reduce Reality to absolute bits of Truth are likely to run into the quicksand of fundamental Uncertainty.

[Gnomon]

Now, it is possible to construct a logical basis for epistemology provided that such basis is recursively enumerable (and not decidable), — Alexandre Harvey-Tremblay

Does this mean that you have learned how to create a non-halting Turing Machine?