A concept like this, entertained by
mainstream physics, is problematic even as a metaphor, for it is postulating
some sort of sacred text for reality (R). Beyond the obvious
paradoxes -like the one that says that the set of postulates which conforms the
theory would contain itself as a postulate- such Pythagorean proposal mistakes
the model for the modelled thing. Theories are conceptual models, at best,
consistent with their own principles, but not necessarily with our basic
intuitions and conceptions (Lebenswelt). An example of this is the mathematical
discipline of Analysis, whose foundations sustain the edifice of physics. The
difference between the original and the model, something purportedly solved by
the traditional platonic appeal to the imperfection of the human sphere in
relation to the sphere of the gods, has been expressed in contemporary epistemology
as the asymptotic approximation of our science to truth (or reality). But in
relation to TE, their supporters seem to forget that there is not (and never
could be) a final representation to serve as original for the model, for R is
apeironic, so for a TE, the model is not R, but an inductive asymptotically
perfected model of previous theories, ever more encompassing. Those theories
are only defined in terms of very limited and unconnected (beyond some basic
logical principles, which are themselves of biological origin) theories which
describe our basic intuitions about the universe. Then TE has nothing to
modelize upon beyond the very basic descriptions of movement in relation to
conceptual frames. An encompassing theory of the biological dimension of
existence (i.e., intelligence) and the so called physical
dimension, cannot be
obtained from the present scientific paradigms, reductionist or holistic, for
there is not a conceptual covering of the social symbolical constructions. Even
today, most part of the population (93%, according to estimations) understands
the universe in terms of very crude metaphors of parenthood and social bonding:
we have projected our cellular constitution and understanding upon the universe
and expect to obtain a cellular integrated answer, fit to our needs and harmonious with our hallucinated
theories of the past. TE can only be, therefore, postulated as an absolute
referent, and we could elaborate models upon it in happy asymptotic
approximations. What is the meaning of an absolute model? It is equivalent to
postulate the existence of a logico-mathematical reality, TE, which acts like
an archangel
communicator of R. We have seen already too much of this kind
of thinking in ancient mythologies, and science will not benefit from such approach.
It is precisely this platonic background what makes the idea of TE so
fashionable and popular, for the proposal is perfectly understood in
traditional terms: the priests which formulate the intricate TE are today’s
geniuses and saints.
