My personal TOE

[Runewolf1973]

Your admitting you don't have a clue what your talking about. It does not have to meet your standards. YOURS are PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC.

A theory of everything (ToE) or final theory, ultimate theory, or master theory is a hypothetical single, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe.

You forgot about phenomena. It should explain not only physical aspects of the universe, it should also explain all observable phenomena.

 

[outhouse]

, it should also explain all observable phenomena.

That is not what this theory does or is. I has nothing to do with life or consciousness.

You don't get to criticize the name of the theory that we all know and understand the context of

 

[Runewolf1973]

That is not what this theory does or is. I has nothing to do with life or consciousness.

You don't get to criticize the name of the theory that we all know and understand the context of

I just did. Keep facepalming yourself in the head. Maybe if you do it enough times or you do it hard enough, you might actually get it. You are INTERACTING. Nothing more. It is plain and simple logic.

Anything science, or physics, or even philosophy for that matter, could ever possibly come up with as far as a TOE in the future, will only ever amount to yet another mathematical equation or idea representing yet another form or unified form of interaction. Interaction is everything.

Aside from this, there is only one other view that I have found which challenges my view. That is the mystic view of an entirely changeless universe where every interaction is an illusion. I do not personally ascribe to that view, though I can see why others might.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I see two sides to this argument which have to do with defining what a Theory of Everything really is.

One way to see it is a theory that explains all of physics and unifies all [current] theories of physics. Another way is that the ToE simply explains everything, and probably unifies all scientific theories, including theories like evolution. If it were a theory in physics, is it up to the theory to explain consciousness? Or should that be up to psychologists and neurologist to come up with a theory of consciousness which would be a subject in psychology alone? Much like how the theory of evolution is a theory in biology. We don't expect quantum mechanics or general relativity to explain evolution or the diversity of life. By that, I mean that these physics theories don't predict evolution or how life should evolve. Would a theory of everything explain and predict something like evolution and natural selection, as well as other observable phenomenon like consciousness or heliocentric solar system? Or would it only explain all physical and intrinsic properties of the Universe? Should a theory like this be called something other than the Theory of Everything?

 

[Runewolf1973]

I see two sides to this argument which have to do with defining what a Theory of Everything really is.

One way to see it is a theory that explains all of physics and unifies all [current] theories of physics. Another way is that the ToE simply explains everything, and probably unifies all scientific theories, including theories like evolution. If it were a theory in physics, is it up to the theory to explain consciousness? Or should that be up to psychologists and neurologist to come up with a theory of consciousness which would be a subject in psychology alone? Much like how the theory of evolution is a theory in biology. We don't expect quantum mechanics or general relativity to explain evolution or the diversity of life. By that, I mean that these physics theories don't predict evolution or how life should evolve. Would a theory of everything explain and predict something like evolution and natural selection, as well as other observable phenomenon like consciousness or heliocentric solar system? Or would it only explain all physical and intrinsic properties of the Universe? Should a theory like this be called something other than the Theory of Everything?

Perhaps a Universal Theory of Everything? Or something to that regard.

 

[outhouse]

One way to see it is a theory that explains all of physics and unifies all [current] theories of physics.

There is a context to uphold, as the OP was only dealing with this physical aspect of nature through physics. And it was quite obvious even to a grade school student.


Then someone comes along who promotes pseudoscience and takes the title out of context, and thinks the title should be renamed to meet his own personal needs.

 

[Runewolf1973]

There is a context to uphold, as the OP was only dealing with this physical aspect of nature through physics. And it was quite obvious even to a grade school student.


Then someone comes along who promotes pseudoscience and takes the title out of context, and thinks the title should be renamed to meet his own personal needs.

I was speaking of the physical aspect of a TOE. Interaction ie: the Fundamental Forces are physical forces of nature are they not? Interaction is physical. Gravity is a phenomena which arises due to physical conditions or circumstances. I consider that to be a physical interaction as well in one way or another. It just so happens that my view is more far ranging (explains a broader variety of phenomena) than yours.