"The great equation from which every law of physics could be derived was in existence." (p. 235)
Later, new data indicate that the great equation is incomplete.
As I understand it, a Theory of Everything would:
be mathematical in form, a single equation;
describe the most fundamental properties of the most fundamental entities;
unify the forces of nature;
be a single premise from which the familiar laws of physics and chemistry could be deduced;
would not be a basis from which history or contingent events could be deduced.
Would it answer the mind-body question?
Even if a ToE had been formulated, how would it be known that no new data would ever contradict it?
There is a philosophy according to which every theory is provisional, always to be superseded by another theory that explains more. This seems intuitively valid.
7 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I agree, a Theory of Everything is not plausible. Only God can know everything.
Ad astra! Sean
Well, a Theory of Everything is -eventually- plausible, but it will probably only explain macrocosmic stuff; stars, the expansion (and possible contraction) of the universe, and so forth.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
But even that would not truly be a Theory of Everything, the non-macrocosmic stuff not being accounted for.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: Yeah, but there's a random element in small-scale stuff.
A ToE would have to unify the stronger and weaker nuclear forces with electromagnetism and gravity.
Kaor, Paul!
And that "random element" mentioned by Stirling makes me doubt a Theory of Everything is or will be humanly possible.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Quantum mechanics deals with randomness.
Paul.
Post a Comment