3 ms·

> Bohm rejects the claim of Stephen Hawking and others that physics can achieve a final theory, or “theory of everything,” that explains the world. Science is a

> Bohm rejects the claim of Stephen Hawking and others that physics can achieve a final theory, or “theory of everything,” that explains the world. Science is an infinite, “inexhaustible process,” Bohm says I don't know who he was referring to by `and others` but I'm pretty sure that `final theory` that Hawking and many people are trying hard to get is not about explaining everything. It should be a theory that explains fundamental forces/particles and their interactions. So the term `everything` is well-defined, and it is far from the everyday usage of the word `everything`. A theory of everything would not necessarily address all aspects of existence or answer questions beyond the realm of fundamental physics.

dav_Oz 3y ago
In physics ToE ("Theory of Everything") is shorthand for a theoretical framework - mathematically formalized - which unifies all observable fundamental forces in nature (observable universe/s) without contradiction. Depending on your worldview like everything has a material basis, the fundamental "reality" is mathematical ... this would literally translate to mean a ToE. But even the most materialistic/platonic "fanatics" out there acknowledge the basic limitation from a ultimate theory like this: the emergent properties arising from it could in turn be infinitely complex i.e. not wholly predictable, so what we are left with is describing and taming those to our satisfaction. This all of course can be construed purely phenomenologically therefore minimizing any metaphysical claims like "underlying reality" and it would amount to the same conclusion. This is how I understand Penrose when he addresses this via Gödel's incompleteness theorems. In this regard I personally like Feynman's pragmatism the most here by acting as a mediator between theoretical-minded and experimental-minded physiscts: Are you looking for the ultimate laws of physics?" No, I'm not. I'm just looking to find out more about the world and if it turns out there is a simple ultimate law which explains everything, so be it; that would be very nice to discover. If it turns out it's like an onion with millions of layers and we're just sick and tired of looking at the layers, then that's the way it is. ... My interest in science is to simply find out more about the world. So echoing Bohr's reply to Einstein: "Stop telling God what to do" One could reply to Bohm as well: If it is a process let it be a process, it doesn't have to be fixed as finite or infinite or whatever. To be fair with Bohm he openly questioned many concepts taken for granted and for the moment tried to deconstruct them in a sincere manner (see: fish tank analogy). In a sense he tried to subject his worldview itself to this flow of procedural thinking. But being basically a lifelong outcast in the physics community I can not help but hear the hurt of rejection and the deep longing for connection to openly and passionately challenge and discuss ideas.[0] [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_Dialogue https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_Dialogue

dav_Oz 3y ago

In physics ToE ("Theory of Everything") is shorthand for a theoretical framework - mathematically formalized - which unifies all observable fundamental forces in nature (observable universe/s) without contradiction. Depending on your worldview like everything has a material basis, the fundamental "reality" is mathematical ... this would literally translate to mean a ToE. But even the most materialistic/platonic "fanatics" out there acknowledge the basic limitation from a ultimate theory like this: the emergent properties arising from it could in turn be infinitely complex i.e. not wholly predictable, so what we are left with is describing and taming those to our satisfaction. This all of course can be construed purely phenomenologically therefore minimizing any metaphysical claims like "underlying reality" and it would amount to the same conclusion. This is how I understand Penrose when he addresses this via Gödel's incompleteness theorems. In this regard I personally like Feynman's pragmatism the most here by acting as a mediator between theoretical-minded and experimental-minded physiscts: Are you looking for the ultimate laws of physics?" No, I'm not. I'm just looking to find out more about the world and if it turns out there is a simple ultimate law which explains everything, so be it; that would be very nice to discover. If it turns out it's like an onion with millions of layers and we're just sick and tired of looking at the layers, then that's the way it is. ... My interest in science is to simply find out more about the world. So echoing Bohr's reply to Einstein: "Stop telling God what to do" One could reply to Bohm as well: If it is a process let it be a process, it doesn't have to be fixed as finite or infinite or whatever. To be fair with Bohm he openly questioned many concepts taken for granted and for the moment tried to deconstruct them in a sincere manner (see: fish tank analogy). In a sense he tried to subject his worldview itself to this flow of procedural thinking. But being basically a lifelong outcast in the physics community I can not help but hear the hurt of rejection and the deep longing for connection to openly and passionately challenge and discuss ideas.[0] [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_Dialogue https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_Dialogue