I wrote this at another forum but thought someone here might comment:
How about, as F.David Peat I think suggests in "Superstrings And The Theory Of Everything", a SUB-mathematics?
more basic, so sub, mathematics is:
comparing and matching patterns.
A "theory of everything" is a contradiction in terms? Because "Everything" needs no speculation, no theory. Everything IS.
So one is left with a theory of theory. How about: an everything of theory?
What is the everything of theory?
What is the minimal requirement for any theory?
This question puts a new light on Chris and others' work.
I suggest it must involve a comparing and matching of patterns. Thus 3 components. The current physics laws can apparently be derived from taking this 3, this comparison of two patterns; and making a new comparison (4). Origin of 4-D "space-time" right there?
Roger Penrose's spinors and twistors right here? As pattern-matching involves a base-structure of two patterns compared; 2, so comparisons are 2-D; so complex numbers?
The 4 quantum numbers are obtained easily it seems, and form a pattern like a double helix of DNA. A 3-4 interchange system furthers the DNA analogy.
The major physics laws seem readily derivable.
To exist is to be different, distinct, unique. Random = unique. Thus perhaps Dr. Stafford found that the laws of physics are the base structure for "random" (unique) re-occurrence probabilities of sub-patterns in larger arbitrary patterns?
But if our knowledge fits "random-finding" laws, does it mean we know nothing? No; as random = unique. We know each thing uniquely. To know something is to know it is unique.
We live in the Kingdom of Existence; the Kingdom of God; where all things are new, created, unique in at least some way as to be is to be unique.