@Icon,
I think it was Popper who suggested, man cannot achieve objectivity. Bias is applied, as it is necessary to our questioning sense. It was from such a base that Popper proposed experimental objectivity i.e. the null hypothesis and what eventually led to the Randomised Controlled Trials.
I see your point though. Perhaps the only discovery here is of self, and not even a generality of self, but myself as I am right now, a state if you like. This seems very plausible. And so to does the possibility that there is no universal truth in such theory.
If though, one considers there may be a basic truth behind the universe, apart from randomness, then as part of the universe it would be achievable to comprehend such basic force. One is part of the universe and therefore one's processes would also be based on such universal law.
The problem is that if there were such a thing as a Theory of Everything, then by definition it would not be testable. As it would be a theory of everything there would be no wrong answers, as it would explain everything. There would be no null hypothesis, and therefore it would not be scientific as per modern scientific thought.
I guess then we are left with the question does it make sense. Can it help understand processes, can it be applied and help solve problems?
So then, in what plane is it best to represent? Human condition; physics, biology...?
I don't like cutting and pasting out of previous work I have done on the subject, but I appreciate your curiosity and request for a more critical logic pertaining to it. I have been sitting with it for five years, exploring and trying to ignore it, but it does seem to be quite accurate (ultimately not truth, but a reasonable representation of it). I have told it in as simple terms as I can, and I appreciate it may be over-simplified for you.
Extract from previous work:
Each concept is easy to grasp on its own; when the two terms are placed into a single description it requires more effort to understand. Effort, in my opinion, well spent.
Biology has been around as a study area for millennia. It was one of the first pattern recognition disciplines of modern thought. One would see animals, for example, note the clear differences between them and propose them as organisms sharing the same heritage i.e. sharing features, but different species given the visible variation between them. Further discovery brought a more refined and differentiated discipline, culminating in the theory of natural selection and the discovery of DNA [The discovery of DNA can be argued as a chemistry related finding. Beyond the argument for which field discovered DNA, the question as to whether chemistry or biology is to be credited for DNA highlights the historical separation of scientific specialties and the modern re-convergence of them. An important consideration given this discussion.]
Certainly in regards to the concept of diversity applied to pattern recognition, biology gets the credit. In biology diversity has been used to describe the tangible variation - generally the variation in life or those structures that give rise to life - for centuries. From a biological school of thought, new entities or processes form creating new structures or orders. In this way biology views life as constantly changing or, more accurately, diversifying.
Succession is a recognisable progression of species variation. At the edge of the shore one can often see a few blades of grass. As one moves inland, shrubs, bushes and eventually trees can be found. It is thought that the grass - being less complex - requires less to sustain itself and therefore can grow on thin, sandy soil. The grass grows and as it does it begins to bring the thin soil together to form more packed soil. This enables more complex species to succeed.
The trees are essentially the same as the grass. They both convert sunlight to carbohydrate; they both have roots to utilise water and nutrients. They are also unique. It is here we see another reason why the term diversify is a better term than differ or change: something is new and kind of the same.
Diversity also allows us to consider both directions. A tree can diversify by forming fruit and then another tree. A tree can also diversify by becoming smoke and ashes. In both cases the raw materials are the same, just in one order is maintained or even progressed, but in another, the order is reduced.
Diverse, in this context, implies a range or degree of change. It is not a single occurrence. To say our environment is diverse, is to describe a quality as opposed to a specific occurrence. Certainly at the macroscopic level it is possible to consider the state of being varied as a common quality. By looking at the whole we can see its diverse nature. In biology though, diverse has a scale whereby one system or entity is more or less diverse than another. Here, it is the degree of complexity that is expressed as a higher degree of diversity. The collective entity known as human beings is more diverse - they have more functions making the whole - than plants. In this way humans are a higher order, biologically.
Whilst this type of categorization occurred before we had knowledge of the basic building blocks of life (atoms), the subsequent knowledge of chemists and physicists concurs with the pattern identified by the biologists. At a basic chemical level, humans have many more compounds than plants, and probably any other organism. From Sodium Chloride to Neurotransmitters, Iron Sulphate to Haemoglobin the range of complexity humans have achieved is second to none (probably). This is important because if diversity is one part of universal law (that is, if the state of being varied is a core value in our universe), then we, in regards to being varied, are one of the highest orders of such a law. Perhaps one can say, we operate closer to its greater limit than its lesser.