What dictum states that a theory that encompasses everything is an empty theory?

I am sorry I don't know Pappa's Dictum, yet.

But the dictum above it is incorrect. One theory of everything in the universe is the epistemological statement "existence exists." I have repeated it in this forum so many times I'm sick of it--but not sick of your question. You put it very differently.

The mistake of believing there must be more than "existence exists" as an explanation of all the things that exist, is the mistake of thinking that existence is itself the material of something else, that it is predicative of something else.

The fact is, it is a primary, and all other things are predicated of existence.

Nothing is outside existence.

Nothing is side by side with existence because by definition that would be part of existence no matter where it was located. It would not be a "Separate Reality," nor a parallel universe, except as a concept predicative of "existence."

Aristotle rules!

ADD:

"Cosmologists" have been consumed in physics, quantum and otherwise, for many decades. I met one of them, probably a savant, a professor at the local university. He called Metaphysical Cosmology by the description of "BUNK!"

He said it to me over and over as I discussed it with him.

I respect his opinion about his own cosmological ideas, but my own are not "bunk."

He invited me to sit in on his class right at that moment. The class was about "time" or "time construction," or something. I asked if Husserl's "Phenomenology of Internal Time Consciousness" would help me understand his theme that day.

Boy, was he surprised! Who wudda thunk that me, a stupid "metaphysical" cosmologist, would be smart enough to understand that book.

He said no, it would not, his class was a different subject, but he walked out with a new respect for me. I deserved it. I used my reason with a man of mathematical logic in physics, and I did not lose.

And I came to understand the difference between his profession and my passion.

The logic of metaphysics, of physics, and of mathematics, all looks the same on paper as far as symbolology goes. I learned electronics logic in the Army. Then I taught myself syllogistic logic. I can't say I'm any good at math, however!!!!!!

Einstein spent the last 20-30 years of his life attempting to come up with a theory that encompasses all of the theories that governed the universe. Many great thinkers are continuing to do this today. Such a theory is not an empty theorem.

The author of Pappa's Dictum was expressing a contrarian view.

A Theory Of Everything(TOE) is the Holy Grail of All Theoretical Physicists and Metaphysical Philosophers. So far it eludes us until we can consistently tie together the fundamental forces of nature and the explanation of how Big(astrophysics) and Small(subatomic physics) things came to exist! Cosmologists are both philosophers and theoretical scientists because the view in either direction in size leads to more mysteries and more Quantitative Questions.

Not to mention the Grandest Q of all Time(GQT): "Just how does matter have thoughts at all?"

I guess it is easier to say that such things are empty (of Content , or call it nonsense, or meaningless ) rather than hang in there "putting mind to matter" like a determined car driver puts the pedal to the medal*!

It sounds to me like Pappa's Dictum is the real empty theory! LOLa#ofX Have fun

Pls see the goofy, kooky, spoof of the white-coated physicists who have crossed the centerline betw the sane and the insane--> http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/parodies/n...

*pun for "metal" is very James Joycean and Jungian!

>Does the large Bang concept state that each thing got here from no longer some thing? No. It does state that exceedingly a lot each thing that we may be able to really observe got here from a finite beginning a finite era of time in the past, yet previous that it would not really make very many claims in any respect. >i'm continuously listening to this argument from Christians, yet i change into less than the impact that it change into no longer no longer some thing, yet particularly condensed count number. nicely, what they really mean is that the large Bang concept claims that the Monobloc (the particle of condensed mass you're speaking about) could itself have come from no longer some thing. What surpassed off after that first on the spot isn't the form of huge deal philosophically, that is that first on the spot that is significant.