Thank you for your comments.
If you found this essay interesting you might find my full project interesting as well: https://www.academia.edu/8991727/Phenomenal_World_as_an_Output_of_Cognitive_Quantum_Grid_Theory_of_Everything_using_Leibniz_Kant_and_German_Idealism
I have been thinking about possible Theory of Everything for 6 years now, and this is my humble result.
My starting point is this: if I want to understand everything (and find a ToE), first I need to understand how I understand things in general. How much can I understand? Why? How science is possible? It is our reason which understand things and forms theories, thus I must understand reason itself. I must look for universal epistemology and derive a ToE from there. I must look for a framework of all our possible knowledge.
-----------------------
I do not agree with everything Kant said either. However, in this essay I mostly relied on him because of the lenght limit. I used Kant to derive an ontology (the fundamental structure of the mind according to which our thinking and experience is organized) from which, I argue, it possible to derive universal epistemology. This project is greatly unfinished, it just lays a framework and directs further thinking. I do not have any funding and do this as a hobby, so I have to leave it until I get a PhD or get a decent funding so I don't have to work outside my studies.
As an undergraduate student of maths and physics I always wondered what is the relationship between maths and physics? For me it sounded inconsistent and foolish to study maths and not know how it relates to the world around you! I liked Plato, Leibniz, Spinoza, Descartes but they did not give me an answer. Pythagoras said that everything is numbers. So what? This is not a decent argument. When I started to read and understand Kant's ''Critique of Pure Reason'', for a couple of months I thought it was the best book ever written. It really answers why our perceived Universe is described by maths and why ''a doctrine of nature will contain only so much science proper as there is mathematics
in it''. Of course, Kant gave just the very basics. I know I must study such thinkers as Frege and Russell. But I think that the most important thing is to study them in the context of this structure: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Flower-of-Life-small.svg .
I know it sounds mystical or like pseudo-science, but my original insight is that this structure (the flower of life) is what Immanuel Kant calls the original synthetic unity of apperception. It is the fundamental structure of our mind. It is the structure where our thoughts are formed. Units cells are connected by logic, logic is fundamental. So it is an invariant structure underlying all our possible knowledge about the Universe and as such is an ontology for ToE. It is the framework of the cognitive faculty of understanding within which all our understanding about the Universe originates.
I do not agree that Einstein refuted Kant's philosophy. There are many papers which argue that Kant's philosophy supports non-Euclidean geometry. My original insight that transcendentally ideal space (our cognitive framework which is 2D) is Euclidean, while empirically real space (3D) is non-Euclidean. In my essay you can find some relations to gravity as an entropic force. I believe gravity is an emergent phenomenon which arises from the difference in information-processing. As a unit cell vibrates, it processes information (performs synthesis which is the work of what Leibniz and Kant call spontaneity). So the information (energy) flow is distorted by different rates of information-processing and that in empirically real space and time appears as gravity.
Kant's last major book was unfinished. It was called ''Transition from the Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science to Physics''. At the end of 18th century Kant argued that there must be 4 fundamental forces of physics (surprise, surprise!) which must be derived from the laws of our thinking. I will investigate this further when I have time...
All the best,
Darius Malys