|
|
 But should there exist something like the correspondence of a theory to the facts, then this would obviously be more important than mere self-consistency, and certainly also more important than coherence with any earlier 'knowledge' (or 'belief'); for if a theory corresponds to the facts but does not cohere with some earlier knowledge, then this earlier knowledge should be discarded. (Karl Popper, 1975)
 (Lee Smolin, 1997) A successful unification of quantum theory and relativity would necessarily be a theory of the universe as a whole. It would tell us, as Aristotle and Newton did before, what space and time are, what the cosmos is, what things are made of, and what kind of laws those things obey. Such a theory will bring about a radical shift - a revolution - in our understanding of what nature is. It must also have wide repercussions, and will likely bring about, or contribute to, a shift in our understanding of ourselves and our relationship to the rest of the universe.
|
|
In physics, a theory of everything is a future theory that unifies the four fundamental forces of nature: the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and the electromagnetic force and gravity. A theory of everything is sometimes called a supergrand unified theory because it is an extension of the grand unified theory which attempts to incorporate only the first three of the above forces.
A theory of everything is needed to explain the connection between the many different particles and forces that now confront modern physics. Over the past twenty years String Theory, and its evolution into M-Theory have shown that waves and / resonance founded theories (like Quantum Theory) explain certain phenomena very accurately. More recently a pure Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) in Space has been formalised (Wolff, 1986) with considerable success. The WSM suggests that it is the discrete and separate particle conception of matter that has caused the current confusions and paradox in modern physics (e.g. particle / wave duality of light and matter).
|
|
In Metaphysics and Philosophy a Theory of Everything would have to abide by the further condition of being founded on One thing. This Monism is necessary if we are to explain the Necessary Connection between the many things that we sense as existing (e.g. mind, language, concepts and interconnected motion of matter in space).
This unity of Reality is also a natural extension of Ockham's Razor, that the most simple theory which explains the most things is the better theory. Thus by logical extension, the best theory explains all things from one necessarily connected thing.
A few quotes from some famous philosopher / metaphysicists clearly emphasise the importance of this unity in the Sciences.
 (Heraclitus, 500BC) All things come out of the One and the One out of all things.
Though One, Brahman is the cause of the many. .. Brahman is the unborn (aja) in whom all existing things abide. The One manifests as the many, the formless putting on forms. (Rig Veda)
 (Leibniz, 1670) Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. ... I maintain also that substances, whether material or immaterial, cannot be conceived in their bare essence without any activity, activity being of the essence of substance in general. (Leibniz, Monadology)
 (Aristotle, 340BC) Metaphysics is universal and is exclusively concerned with primary substance. ... And here we will have the science to study that which is just as that which is, both in its essence and in the properties which, just as a thing that is, it has. ... That among entities there must be some cause which moves and combines things. ... There must then be a principle of such a kind that its substance is activity. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)
 (Bradley, 1846-1924) We may agree, perhaps, to understand by Metaphysics an attempt to know reality as against mere appearance, or the study of first principles or ultimate truths, or again the effort to comprehend the universe, not simply piecemeal or by fragments, but somehow as a whole. (Bradley)
 Greek philosophy seems to begin with a preposterous fancy, with the proposition (of Thales) that water is the origin and mother-womb of all things. Is it really necessary to stop there and become serious? Yes, and for three reasons: firstly, because the proposition does enunciate something about the origin of things; secondly, because it does so without figure and fable; thirdly and lastly, because it contained, although only in the chrysalis state, the idea :everything is one. ..That which drove him (Thales) to this generalization was a metaphysical dogma, which had its origin in a mystic intuition and which together with the ever renewed endeavors to express it better, we find in all philosophies- the proposition: everything is one! (Friedrich Nietzsche, 1890)
 The following, however, appears to me to be correct in Kant's statement of the problem: in thinking we use with a certain "right", concepts to which there is no access from the materials of sensory experience, if the situation is viewed from the logical point of view. As a matter of fact, I am convinced that even much more is to be asserted: the concepts which arise in our thought and in our linguistic expressions are all- when viewed logically- the free creations of thought which cannot inductively be gained from sense experiences. This is not so easily noticed only because we have the habit of combining certain concepts and conceptual relations (propositions) so definitely with certain sense experiences that we do not become conscious of the gulf- logically unbridgeable- which separates the world of sensory experiences from the world of concepts and propositions. Thus, for example, the series of integers is obviously an invention of the human mind, a self-created tool which simplifies the ordering of certain sensory experiences. But there is no way in which this concept could be made to grow, as it were, directly out of sense experiences.
As soon as one is at home in Hume's critique one is easily led to believe that all those concepts and propositions which cannot be deduced from the sensory raw material are, on account of their 'metaphysical' character, to be removed from thinking. For all thought acquires material content only through its relationship with that sensory material. This latter proposition I take to be entirely true; but I hold the prescription for thinking which is grounded on this proposition to be false. For this claim- if only carried through consistently- absolutely excludes thinking of any kind as 'metaphysical'.
In order that thinking might not degenerate into 'metaphysics', or into empty talk, it is only necessary that enough propositions of the conceptual system be firmly enough connected with sensory experiences and that the conceptual system, in view of its task of ordering and surveying sense experience, should show as much unity and parsimony as possible. Beyond that, however, the 'system' is (as regards logic) a free play with symbols according to (logically) arbitrarily given rules of the game. All this applies as much (and in the same manner) to the thinking in daily life as to the more consciously and systematically constructed thinking in the sciences.
By his clear critique Hume did not only advance philosophy in a decisive way but also - though through no fault of his - created a danger for philosophy in that, following his critique, a fateful 'fear of metaphysics' arose which has come to be a malady of contemporary empiricist philosophising; this malady is the counterpart to that earlier philosophising in the clouds, which thought it could neglect and dispense with what was given by the senses. ... It finally turns out that one can, after all, not get along without metaphysics.
(Albert Einstein, Remarks on Bertrand Russell's Theory of Knowledge)
|
|
A theory of everything can either be founded on Matter causing Space, or Space causing Matter. e.g. Einstein's Relativity assumes that matter interactions (spherical fields) cause the effect of Space; the Wave Structure of Matter assumes that Space exists as a wave medium and that spherical waves in Space cause Matter.
Certainly many of the greatest scientists (physicists, philosophers) of history believed that Space must exist (a priori) to necessarily connect matter and its interconnected motions. Below are a few quotes from famous scientists on the existence of Space (which we all clearly experience).
 (Newton, 1687) Absolute Space in its own nature, without relation to anything external remains always similar and immovable.
 (Kant, 1781) Natural science (physics) contains in itself synthetical judgments a priori, as principles. ... Space then is a necessary representation a priori, which serves for the foundation of all external intuitions.
 (Faraday, 1830) I cannot conceive curved lines of force without the conditions of a physical existence in that intermediate space.
 (James Clerk Maxwell, 1876) In speaking of the Energy of the field, however, I wish to be understood literally. All energy is the same as mechanical energy, whether it exists in the form of motion or in that of elasticity, or in any other form. The energy in electromagnetic phenomena is mechanical energy.
 (Lorentz, 1906) I cannot but regard the ether, which can be the seat of an electromagnetic field with its energy and its vibrations, as endowed with a certain degree of substantiality, however different it may be from all ordinary matter.
 (Brentano,1838-1916) A three-dimensional (spatial) world is infinitely more likely than any of its alternatives.
(Albert Einstein, 1928, Leiden) According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of matter, as consisting of parts ('particles') which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.
Einstein assumed that matter was spherically spatially extended, thus matter and space where one and the same thing, he writes;
When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence:
Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. (Albert Einstein)
 (Lama Govinda, 1969) According to ancient Indian tradition the Universe reveals itself in two fundamental properties: as Motion and as that in which motion takes place, namely Space. This Space is called akasa and is that through which things step into visible appearance, i.e., through which they possess extension or corporeality. Akasa is derived from the root kas, 'to radiate, to shine', and has therefore the meaning of 'ether' which is conceived as the medium of movement. The principle of movement, however, is Prana the breath of life, the all-powerful, all-pervading rhythm of the universe.
The fundamental element of the cosmos is Space. Space is the all-embracing principle of higher unity. Nothing can exist without Space.
Reference: Metaphysics Philosophy Physics (Images and Quotes)
Editor: Haselhurst
|
|