Hawking was looking for a unified theory and Woit thinks the idea is pretty much discredited now: “We now live in an environment where the idea that there may be a deeper, more unified theory has become completely discredited, through the efforts of many, with Hawking playing an unfortunate part.”
Tag: Theory of Everything
Robert J. Marks: How materialism proves unbounded scientific ignorance
Mathematician Kurt Gödel showed that there is an infinite number of truths that are provably unprovable. That’s bad news for scientism, though not for science.
Can a big enough computer come up with a Theory of Everything? Eric Holloway says yer dreamin’…
Bottom line: The rigorously proven No Free Lunch theorem shows that physicists will always be needed to determine the correct questions. No computer will do all our thinking for us.
Sabine Hossenfelder asks: Do we need a theory of everything?
Hossenfelder: So this whole idea of a theory of everything is based on an unscientific premise. Some people would like the laws of nature to be pretty in a very specific way… This is simply not a good strategy to develop scientific theories, and no, it is most certainly not standard methodology.
At Forbes: Wolfram’s new theory “isn’t even science” yet. But wait…
We can tell what’s wrong with science today when we try to take Siegel’s dead-serious explanation of what he thinks a theory in science is and apply it to: Darwinian evolution theory
Stephen Wolfram’s new theory of everything LACKS something?
Let’s see if this Answer to Everything is still a buzz in the fall.
Sabine Hossenfelder asks, How can we test a theory of everything?
Hossenfelder: But there is no reason to think that the forces of the standard model have to be unified, or that all the forces ultimately derive from one common explanation. It would be nice, but maybe that’s just not how the universe works.
Was a theory of everything bound to fail?
If reality truly is constructed of disparate natures, maybe no theory from inside would explain it all.