My Theory of All That Is

[gps]

I have a theory that all that is qua IS results from reification, apperception, and seeming `things' into being qua being.
If one ignores the Map-Territory distinction one can end up in phenomenological hell unable to discern one's mental models and maps from what exists as mass and/or energy `out there'.
If one can avoid `is' -- as in the phrase `all that is' -- via the use of E' or E# {EG English with the words forbidden by E-Prime used with `-qua-' to sharply emphasize their (mis)use} it seems easier to avoid bullshitting Self and Others with figments of imagination having no or precious little correspondence in the Cosmos studied by physicists using mass and energy as criteria for existence.

 

[randomsomeone]

I actually have a theory of all that is, too, and it's a pretty good one! I doubt the physicists will catch up for a few hundred years, but that's okay...I can work with it "as is".

 

[Zukkor]

This is how I look at it: no amount of research, no amount of speculation, no amount of science, can ever truly pin down the existence of anything. Everything that we think we know to be real, could it not be anything at all? Science, a misguided search for the truth of things, but one has to understand that no one can ever know the truth of anything. If you say there is no God, you say this with as much truth as a faithful person says there is. All of these theories, they all amount to nothing, for we will never truly know with a one hundred percent certainty. I ask you one question, If there is a chair in a room, and you leave that room, does the chair still exist?