Related Tags

A theory of Everything (TOE) meltdown

A theory of Everything (TOE) meltdown

It is more than 60 years since Albert Einstein died, and it is now decades since theoretical physicists tried to put together a “theory of everything” (TOE) or “grand unifying theory” (GUT). There are only a few like Steven Hawking, who, originally a believer, later realized that TOE is not obtainable implicitly by the Top Down Cosmology.

It is not an intention to argue against TOE from the natural sciences point of view. My toolbox is inadequate in that respect. I cannot formulate three forces of quantum size reality described by the Standard model nor gravity prevailing as a force of large-scale objects described by Special relativity. And even less could I formally bring these four forces together under one theory.

But neither could all the greatest contemporary physicists compile TOE. All efforts, funds, and minds are bringing no results. Lee Smolin (Smolin 2007) estimates that more than 80% of US funds for physics are allocated to string theorists that promised to reveal the TOE truth 30 and more years ago. 30 years of no progress, while at the same time, WWW developed from nothing to ChatGPT.

What went wrong, and why should it have been clear from the beginning that the pursuit of TOE was doomed?

The reason is quite simple. A Theory of Everything(should not be understood as physics but metaphysics.

Am I claiming that people like me should be in charge of research of physical properties that define quarks and stars? Of course not. Professional scientists should dig in further and further down and up. But that path will not bring them any closer to comprehension of what they are doing. Even worse: they understand what they do less and less with each step further they take.

Aristotle was perhaps the last scientist/philosopher who could resist scientific particularization. His Metaphysics is considered to be the last philosophy of physics, the last theory of everything. And it was not the deficiency of his tools compared to contemporary hadron colliders that forced him to saturate universality with a God, but it is the narrow-mindedness of contemporary science not to realize that TOE could only be saturated with a concept of something like a God or abandoned. The paradox of contemporary particularistic science is that the more it fights against irrationality, the clearer it becomes that it is irrationality only that can saturate particular scientific theories into a theory of everything.

Note that a similar conclusion was drawn regarding formal democracy!

A Theory of Everything is not digital, cannot be described by any rational algorithm, but is analog, and poetic. And there are so many everyday proofs to this thesis that the blindness of contemporary science in this respect is really baffling.

There is not one viewpoint. There is no one center in the brain representing the self (Dennett 1991). There is not even one universe. There is not one interpretation of any word, and there is not one poem that would be The Poem. Every interpretation is only a new word waiting for interpretation … that is another word… There is one mindfulness (Buddhism), but one for each person! So there are at least 7 billion mindfulness’s on Earth now. And a person being mindful comes in a state of understanding himself as completely decentralized, atomized, logical, non-personal, and non-digital. There are forces like electromagnetism, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, and gravity. But there is nothing rational that could unify them into any kind of one underlying theory.

Dennett, Daniel C. 1991. Consciousness Explained. Back Bay Books. Little, Brown.

Smolin, Lee. 2007. The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next. Illustrated edition. Boston: Mariner Books.

First published in May 2010, the fourth edition

Partly abused in Homonism

Leave A Comment

Go to Top