What is the origin of the idea of `set of everything`?

Question

Recently I have come to an idea. It is not hard to come to so it should have been talked about by others before. But after some digging in Wikiepedia it soon become out of my reach with zero philophical background. So I put it in this question and want to find out what the similar existing ideas and concepts are.

The idea is set of everything, that is, it just include everything - even things that nobody in this world can ever imagine.

This idea differents from multiverse or possible worlds in the sense that, people are talking about whether multiverse exist or not, or what are its forms. In set of everything, multiverse just is a thing in it, and every form of multiverse- even forms that nobody can ever imaging or forms that someone can prove that it cannot exits such as paradoxical forms- are in it too.

By the same reason, it differents from Mathematical universe hypothesis or other philophical concepts in the sense that Mathematical universe is already in it, and worlds for which Mathematical universe hypothesis fails -e.g. worlds that are not mathematical describable and conceivable by human- are also all in it. So there is no need to debate anymore.

It can make some important problems not that annoying:

The ultimate why problem. When thinking about why the Universe exist as it is, people bring up the idea of multiverse, but the problem will become why does multiverse exist as it is. This is the problem of ultimate why. In set of everything, every thing just exist in it, it is this set that is the explaination of ultimate why - everything are just something in it.
What are beyond the boundary of metaphysics. They are just in the set too - even things that are not imaginable are there. The set become the fundamental matrix that includes and supports everything.

The benefit of this idea is that it can finally put curious and confused people to peace. The only problems left are:

Try to find out the facts (supported by evidence) of our world. It is OK that some facts are still not found or even they can never be found. Whether found or not, they are just there in the set and no worry is needed.
Try to imagine as many thing as possible, such as philophical theories, religion frameworks, other worlds. There is no right or wrong and no need to debate, they are just interesting imaginations. When you imagine something new, you don't invent them - they are already in the set and you only find them out.

Note that when some other people come to this idea they should have said something like "check this out, we don't need to debate anymore and we can finally come to peace and just have fun".

Perhaps the most common term for it is unrestricted quantification. — Kristian Berry, Dec 12 '23 at 02:14
Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking. — Community, Dec 12 '23 at 07:51
But the problem is you are most likely not the set of everything there is, thus though peace be upon the said set of everything, it has no additional effect upon you, the things you cannot find are still cannot be found by you even if they're there and perhaps always necessarily there in the said set... — Double Knot, Jan 11 '24 at 07:17

score 0 · Answer 1 · answered Dec 12 '23 at 03:04

Attempts to refer to everything at once come in flavors such as unrestricted quantification and unrestricted composition, any of which is controversial (not to every metaphysical palette's liking). Storer[10] includes a very good overview of problems with holding that there is a determinate totality even of just numbers or sets, much less "everything whatsoever." (See here for some PhilosophySE ruminations about how fuzzy multisets might pose further problems in this connection, or consider that a combination of a universal set and a universal antiset might spit out an absolutely infinite multiset [0, 0, 0, ...].)

Even if, as I am somewhat confident, such issues can be addressed and surpassed, I should not think that everyone contemplating the unrestricted transet would alone bring world peace as if by magic. (I do have some fairly magical beliefs about set theory, even in this connection, but I would not often dare speak them aloud, even in this answer.) Since disagreements are things in this transet, how would they disappear when merely basking in the light of that which houses them? And there is also an old saying: "God with the world does not make up a whole." If God commands disagreement, and there is no set that contains God and all the other things, woe to us, perhaps, here.

What is the origin of the idea of `set of everything`?

1 Answers1