Absolute truth?

It's not about the color of lighted signals, because top lght is always green, and bottom light is red.

I'm probably missing something here, but it seems that a "set" cannot contain EVERTHING. There cannot be a single set, a unity, only a multiplicity, at least more than one. Imagine the "category" of everything. It would not be a category.
Of course I'm not talking about empirical entities. Sets and categories exist only as thoughts. Therefore I'm not saying that there is no single all-inclusive set IN THE WORLD, only that it would not be useful for thought to make one up.

Take the concept of everything (the meaning of the word "everything"): it must contain everything, otherwise it is no longer the concept of everything.

Habit can also get us into trouble dependent on the situation, time, and place.

Yes, of course, we can and do have the concept of everything. Indeed, I think of Reality as an all-encompassing unity. But I'm talking here about the concept of a "set" or "category" of everything which is a contradiction. By definition sets and categories refer to members of multiplicities.

Quote:

Take the concept of everything (the meaning of the word "everything"): it must contain everything, otherwise it is no longer the concept of everything.

Hmm... isn't this a word that has meaning only in specific contexts? Same as "nothing".
"Go to the top drawer and bring me everything that's in there."
"I checked, but there was nothing in there."
(and no guigus, this is not proof that "nothing is the same as everything" )

Conceptually, "everything" makes sense as the ultimate idea of "all there is", but such a notion is as unfathomable to our confined sense of though as the concept of "nothing" when it's out of context. Due to the mechanics of spoken language, these ideas are something as strange as words that betray their own meaning...

It's not a matter of denying it's meaning, as I see it. It is a matter of understanding what is expressed and what is assumed by those who seek to understand.

All concepts derive their meaning from relation to other concepts. As such, no single concept has any absolute meaning or attribute. Even if we are to envision "everything" as just that; as "everything that can be, thought of as a singular unit", that only has meaning in contrast to the notion of "many separate things that make up this whole".

And no, I am not flirting with you. I am just aware of your fondness for semantics without responsibility.

Even if we are to envision "everything" as just that; as "everything that can be, thought of as a singular unit", that only has meaning in contrast to the notion of "many separate things that make up this whole".

What is the meaning of "everything" in the expression "theory of everything"?

Quote:

What is the meaning of "everything" in the expression "theory of everything"?

Well, basically, it refers to the problem of general relativity (which describes gravity) and quantum mechanics (which describes electromagnetism and the nuclear forces) being somewhat at odds. The pursuit of a theory of everything is the pursuit of a theory that describes these things in one "language", so to speak.

I think the phrase was coined by Einstein, and though he started the work he never go even close to finishing it. Modern physicists refer to it as the unified field theory.

Would the "theory of EVERYTHING" (stated in a single "language") extend beyond the boundaries of physics (i.e., the unified field theory), to include even that theory and the process of its construction?

...Everything by definition "engulfs" time, cause and effect, before and after...to ask for the "construction" simply makes no sense regarding a concept like the set of everything...