rm: explains everything?

I once read a thread on rm and it was suggested that rm explains everything.

It was just my idea that RM is simply the use of logic to explain experience, based on abstract notions and avoiding the use of experimentation and thus biased observations to obtain an absolute level of prediction (truth). Thus rm is not really a theory but rather a format or procedure if you may. Much like maths or logic it takes whatever form you want it to take.

Therefore you can reach different theories based on RM, they really depend on the premises that are used.

So, I would say RM can potentially explain everything, but it does not explain everything.

Someone started a thread on Rational Metaphysics and it wasn’t Me. :laughing:

First let me make two things clear;

  1. RM is a method for creating an indisputable ontology.
  2. the “explains everything” must have been a shorten version of "By using a single field ontology (or “theory”), RM explains everything that Science has currently observed".

Using RM allows for anyone to create a falsifiable, thus provable, ontology concerning reality, such as Fixed Cross’s “Value Ontology” [VO] or my own “Affectance Ontology” [AO] as long as they follow the RM method.

The RM method;

So don’t think that RM:AO supposedly explains why Sally slapped John last Friday at 2:00 AM, or why it rained last Wednesday, or even why Mars is bigger than Pluto. RM is a method for creating provable ontologies. Affectance Ontology specifically addresses physics, psychology, physiology, sociology, and economics, but in reality, can address literally any field. And what is derived will be absolutely true without question AS LONG AS THE RM METHOD IS ADHERED TO.

So you are right in that RM:AO can explain literally everything, even why Sally slapped John (but that would take a great deal of privy information), but right now, it merely explains how to KNOW that Science is right or wrong about its theories and what is necessarily right. If the experimenting hasn’t been done so as to provide that last methodological step, then it isn’t RM yet.

In the field of physics, I have found nothing that has been witnessed by Science that RM:AO can’t explain using merely one “field”. That makes it a true “Unified Field Theory” [UTF]. And then from a good UTF, a “Theory of Everything”, is easily derived.

RM:AO explains why the universe exists, why matter forms, why light travels at the speed it travels, why particles behave they way they do, why molecules do what they do, and so on. In psychology, it explains why all living things do as they do (abstractly). In sociology, it explains why societies, religions, governments, and such do what they do. In economics, it explains what must be done so as to have a stable economy (assuming that anyone actually wanted that).

And for more details, and to avoid having to read Eugene’s thread, RM: An Introduction and New Beginning.

RM defines everything. But the extent to which this explains everything is, I suspect, a bit more problematic. At least regarding the things that are important to me.

More significantly, whether it explains things in a manner that would satisfy you in particular.
RM makes no claims to satisfy all people in all possible manners that they might demand (…yet).
Although through RM, the World can.