|
The problem I have with these sorts of "theories of everything" which attempt synthesize everything into a harmonious unity is the same as the objection I have towards solipsism: it's inherently non-falsifiable, and therefore an intellectual dead end. Sure it could be true, but only because it is so flexible as to be able to "account" for anything. A solipsist, for example, can simply argue that any counterargument, or logical refutation is but part and parcel of their own thought processes and that it thereby proves their theory. Such a hypothesis can't be refuted exactly because it cannot be proven.
__________________
Philosopher-in-Training
“The present writer…writes because for him it is a luxury which becomes the more agreeable and more evident, the fewer there are who buy and read what he writes.”
—Sřren Kierkegaard
|