A grand theory of everything is sought by some contemporary scientists and philosophers of science: a single scientific law or corresponding concept that encompasses all of physics. However, searching for empirical evidence to favor such an endeavor and searching for a logical proof of such a thing are either epistemologically futile or conceptually flawed things to strive towards. Moreover, the very concept of a physics-based theory of everything is too limited to truly pertain to every philosophical truth, but not everyone eager to find a theory of everything in physics truly thinks this would entail every aspect of reality, just every aspect of physics. This is not necessary to show just how assumption-laden this idea can be when it is truly believed to be true even when it comes to how various scientific laws or forces relate to each other.
If electromagnetism, gravity, the strong force, the weak force (together called the four fundamental forces), and any other scientific phenomena truly are a part of the external world irrespective of human perception, then all of them are simply true at once. It does not logically follow that they are therefore all different facets of the same underlying natural force or that they are governed by the necessary truths of reason and that they all pertain to how the natural world functions. There is not necessarily some single law of nature from which all of these other scientific laws emerge, and if there is no single law of nature all other aspects of science reduce down to, even trying to find one with the assumption or expectation that it must be there is a mark of stupidity.
Not even quantum physics, the physical and energy-based events at a level so small it is below the size of atoms, makes a so-called theory of everything in physics necessary philosophically. Just like every other scientific law and event, any quantum behaviors of matter would just be another aspect of the physical world. There would simply be some behaviors and laws present at the subatomic scale and others present at the macroscopic scale. None of them would conceptually or empirically be in conflict or logically necessitate a single underlying law of nature that gives rise to every single other one on its own. Since it is popular to mention the phrase "theory of everything," this is just overlooked, as it would deflate excitement.
Then, of course, there is the fact that there are provable aspects of reality outside of or more foundational than any part of science. Thoughts, concepts, the laws of logic, and any moral obligations that may exist, for example, have no immediate connection to science in that one can contemplate necessary truths and introspection without ever involving or relying on sensory experiences--and even then, just experiencing sensory perceptions is not the same as either engaging in scientific observations or seriously reflecting on them. In actuality, the laws of logic are necessarily true no matter what scientific laws are there and are what make the latter metaphysically possible and one's consciousness and its thoughts are necessary for scientific perception and thinking to even exist at all.
Could there be some scientific law that more familiar ones like gravity reduce down to? Of course, if only in the sense that one law enables the other behaviors and patterns in nature. There is neither logical proof of such a thing nor any scientific evidence that one is lurking just outside of current observations. There is also the fact that a single scientific law at the heart of all the others--without which a "theory of everything" has no basis--would be impossible to perceive with ordinary sensory experiences. In turn, since such a foundational law of nature would not be true by logical and conceptual necessity, not to mention the inability to prove that general sensory perceptions show physical matter as it truly is, there would be absolutely no reason for anyone to automatically believe it is even likely in any way.
No comments:
Post a Comment