An interview with self: So theory of all, why not the theory of everything?

That is a okay question, because you thought of it yourself. It’s not the theory of everything because I think there are fundamentally no things. Everything/all is connected together. It’s one whole connected things, but it’s not connected because it is one. It’s like the space that is us.

Okay, but aren’t things like different from each other in/at/as this space? 

Yes, this whole space is not homogenous. There are different parts on different positions, and some of them seem stronger connected to each other. While there is also many interaction between them.

Yes, that’s what I was asking.



I could point now to the fact that you said it was one thing, but now you say that not everything is the same thing. Plus there are some other contradicting things like interaction.

True, everything is different. If you select a certain group of neurons, atoms, space, molecules position or space across positions, you almost get infinite in very seconds.

And yet, everything is the same. We’re all energy, everything is matter, everything is space, everything has a position.

While all those things also depend on which perspective you take on this. Quite literal in a self-relative exchange position.  

Sidenotes and ideas:

  • Imagination has no position