9 Answers

  1. Apparently, the author of the question is not interested in the” theory of everything “as a term from physics, but in the phenomenon of” final theories ” in general – that is, attempts to create such hermetic descriptions that would justify themselves.

    Many such attempts, on the one hand, are at the intersection of physics and philosophy, and on the other, they have nothing to do with either, being, in essence, just creativity. Periodically, such freaks can also be observed on thequestion, they resort to advertise their “universal irrefutable laws of the universe”, one is funnier than the other.

    But as serious, not marginal attempts, we can consider the classical teachings of Kant or Hegel – and here they have nothing to do with physics and at the same time try to give comprehensive descriptions that would close questions both ethical and ontological, epistemological and metaphysical. Today they don't do such things, because it is not particularly necessary and interesting for philosophers to do this today.

  2. There are many” theories of everything ” in philosophy.

    Another thing is that all these theories, as well as the “theory of everything” in physics, are just models.. This is a description from a specific point of view or a specific doctrine.

    The main question of philosophy (or rather the answer to it) : “what is primary matter or consciousness?” it perfectly shows the very theories of everything.

    Materialism, idealism (subjective or objective) and other combinations of them are all attempts to describe everything through some basic model, through some basic approach or concept. Through the will of God (s), Through illusion, Through the movement of matter….

    Etc., etc.

    And here the whole question is only one.

    What will you choose? What will you believe in? Or which of the theories is closest to you or most like? The choice is yours )

  3. This is a controversial question, because in fact, it is philosophy as such that is originally, in the proper sense, the theory of everything.

    Modern physical “theories of everything” are usually theories of the material universe only, not of everything at all. And so, these are only approximations to philosophy from the side of physics, from the physical side. Your question simply comes from the understanding of the” theory of everything ” as used in physics – and this physical understanding, where does it come from in philosophy? This is a different science, there is a different subject. And the physical object is just one particular aspect of the universal philosophical object.

  4. Because the concept of “theory of everything” itself originated in the framework of physics. A theory of everything is a physical theory that describes all four known fundamental interactions.

  5. Anyone who sets out to create a “theory of everything” is infected with unhealthy vanity, flatters pride. I think that in a scientist there should be a healthy amount of moderate vanity, coupled with the ability to set difficult tasks, concentrate on them and solve them, do not back down, do not give up in the face of difficulties, overcome them with hard work. Such people are able to take a critical approach to themselves and tolerate criticism from the outside. It is no secret that great tasks are solved by friendly teams, held together by a collective mind. I will emphasize that the tasks are grandiose, but realistic. Only scammers can offer to create a “theory of everything” for money.

  6. Exists. Only this is not a “theory of everything”, but a worldview that describes everything. It describes the numenal world, while physics is exclusively concerned with the phenomenal world. And this same worldview will also describe the subsequent “everything” that a person will approach on the path of knowledge and self-knowledge.

    Only this worldview is not materialistic, it is a worldview that recognizes and asserts Reason in nature. Sooner or later, physics will come to the very edge of what it now perceives as unscientific and superstitious. And it will cross this line, because it will have nowhere to go if it wants to remain a science and not a dogma. This is unavoidable.

  7. They exist in both sciences. Physics took from ancient philosophy the theory of everything: atomism.

    However, the use of a single language does not allow us to create a complete variety of what exists, so the theory of the whole must be accompanied by the criterion of negation of the whole.

    . All this is impossible within the framework of a unified theory based on the unity of form, as it is understood in physics.

  8. Simply, the questions of the theory of everything are interesting to physicists, and they came up with this definition as an opportunity to combine all the forces of nature in one equation.

    Philosophers are not interested in combining different interactions into one equation. Recently, they have suggested looking at the world in the most diverse way possible, using different dictionaries and types of thinking.

  9. They exist. Many philosophers had such terms. Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Hegel and others. Many thinkers developed these very “theories of everything”

Leave a Reply