Theoretical physicists are convinced that it is possible to explain the results of the measurements of the phenomena at every scale size of physical reality with the help of one all-inclusive scientific theory (the theory of everything). This post tries to examine how the search for the supposed theory of everything can be effective.
Not every theory can be a theory of everything (TOE) because a TOE is a scientific theory. That means that its description is the result of the search for the nature of physical reality with the help of the scientific method. The latter is a bit confusing because the consequence of the scientific method is that the reliability of a theory depends on how much observations/measurements confirm the theory. That is not an interpretation that was “advertised” by the ancient Greek philosophers some 2500 years ago. The ancient Greek philosophers were searching for the true nature of reality; they didn’t search for the most-likely approximation.
We can compare the search for the right model with solving of a jig-saw puzzle that has no picture of the final result. And more worse, the imaginary jig-saw puzzle has no edges and corners too. So we have no other choice than comparing all the pieces with all the other pieces and try to find more and more related pieces with the help of their individual properties (colour, shape, etc.).
If we think about the scientific method in relation to the search for the model of everything it is clear that the method lacks a clear “picture” of the final result. I don’t want to suggest that in the past philosophers had clear ideas of the final result, because around 1900 the philosophers at that time made the decision to stop their unfruitful search for the nature of reality. The “project” didn’t stop around 1900 because the search for the theory of everything became part of the aims of theoretical physicists. Nowadays some results are known as “grand theories” (e.g. the theory of relativity; the Standard model of particles and forces; quantum theory, the Standard cosmological model and even string theory was hoped to be a grand theory).
Unfortunately the progress in the search for a theory of everything by physicists has stalled in the second half of the 20th century. Theoretically each of the grand theories can be expanded to “the theory of everything” if the foundations of the grand theory are correct. Unfortunately there are no workable ideas how to expand these grand theories in such a way that the theory fits all the phenomena in physical reality.
If we cannot expand grand theories into the proposed theory of everything there must be something fundamentally wrong with the foundations. For example, quantum field theory is quite accurate in describing phenomena in the microcosm but it completely fails to incorporate gravity. Einstein’s theory of relativity is well suited to describe the motion of large phenomena in our solar system, related to gravity. But it fails to describe the motion of cosmological large structure like galaxies and clusters of galaxies. It is also accurate in relation to relational time, energy and the speed of light, but the whole theory is limited to phenomenological reality. Etc.
If we think about these problems the analogy with a jig-saw puzzle comes back in mind. Physicists have examined the relations between phenomena in regard to their individual properties and they have created different “stabile islands” in the whole puzzle that seem to fit internally in a convincing way. However, without the “edges and corners” of the whole jig-saw puzzle – a foundational framework that envelopes physical reality – the supposed stability of the grand theories is questionable. That is why it is reasonable to focus on the creation of a consistent foundational framework instead of prioritising phenomenological oriented research with the help of the scientific method. At least if the aim is to create a model of “everything”.
Points of view
If we humans think about reality – in relation to creating a model of everything – the most elementary question is about “what is everything”? Because human history tells us that humans have the habit to exclude parts of reality. Claiming that it cannot exist in our universe or claiming that parts of reality are nonsensical or even eyewash. So it is reasonable to focus on the question what is part of reality and what is not.
figure 1
It is obvious that for humans observable reality is a mixture of visible phenomena against an invisible background. This picture of reality is not correct but the “composition” reflects how our senses determine the differences between our body and everything around our body. However, I can simplify this “composition” of reality to its core and figure 1 shows the abstraction. Figure 1 shows 4 “manifestations” of reality (A. B, C and D) that correspond with human opinions about the nature of reality. The grey rasterised parts in each picture represent the phenomenon in phenomenological reality. The white coloured parts are supposed to be non-existent. These parts are not involved in the creation of reality in space and time (Newtonian space and time).
Picture A is problematic because it denies our own existence if nothing in the universe is part of reality. Of course I can argue that picture A symbolises the illusion of phenomenological reality (relational reality). But the ultimate consequence is that phenomenological reality has no direct relation with the creating nature of reality, the continuous evolution of the universe. That idea of non-existence is too superficial.
The “composition” of reality by our senses is reflected in picture B. The “tangible” phenomena are real and everything that we cannot observe and/or measure don’t exist. Picture B fits within classic physics although it is a bit short sighted to think that the conceptual framework of classic physics represents a world view that was widely accepted in the then scientific conceptual framework. It is fairer to interpret the conceptual framework of classic physics as a “niche” within the then scientific culture that was still enveloped by philosophy as the general source of “real” science.
Picture C is the opposite of picture B. It is the part of reality that physicists like Ernst Mach tried to exclude. Because the simple mechanical world[1] view was well suited for experiments. The outcome of an experiment was thought to be the reliable judge in disputes about the interpretation of phenomenological reality.
The last picture (D) envelopes A, B and C because these individual pictures don’t represent the nature of reality, these pictures represent different points of view. Picture D is in line with the opinion of the ancient Greek philosopher and mathematician Parmenides of Elea (about 500 BC). Parmenides is thought to be the father of the ontology in Western philosophy. Don’t underestimate the importance of Parmenides as a mathematician.[2][3]
Figure 1 solves the question what is part of reality and what is not part of it. Because the 4 possibilities represent human points of view, not the nature of reality itself. The only conclusion I can draw is that picture D envelopes the other points of view so picture D can be used as the general concept that envelopes – and creates – all the different pieces of the imaginary jig-saw puzzle. In line with the thoughts of Parmenides of Elea about reality.
Universal properties
Images that are used for jig-saw puzzles are static pictures. But our universe evolves, it isn’t static at all. Even space isn’t a homogeneous and isotropic background.[4] The consequence is that the properties of the imaginary pieces of the jig-saw puzzle will change continuous. That isn’t a insuperable problem for experimental physics because the setup of an experiment tries to minimise these influences. The real problem is that we have no idea what the outcome of the same experiment is in the distant future, for example 3 billion years from now. The problem is comparable with the unexpected fast star formation around black holes in the centre of galaxies in the early universe, some 13 billion years ago.[5] It indicates that our present ideas about the background conditions in the universe – picture C – are at least questionable.
It is obvious that our universe has no edges and corners like a jig-saw puzzle. But if our ideas about phenomenological reality depend on our precise existence in time and space – influencing the interpretation of the outcome of our measurements – we need a universal perspective to interpret phenomenological reality. This universal perspective exists because our universe has universal properties. For example the law of conservation of energy. Our universe has also universal constants, like the fixed amount of energy, the Planck constant (h). We also know that there are universal principles, like Heisenberg uncertainty principle. In other words, if we want to develop a model of everything we must not try to construct this model with the help of the enormous amount of data that are the result of observations and measurements. Because this approach has resulted in the creation of our present grand theories and it showed not to be the most successful way to get the desired result.
There are still disputes about the meaning of mathematics in relation to the nature of reality. It is confusing but there are lots of scientists that have the opinion that mathematics is a creation of the human mind and therefore it has no direct relation with everything around. However, mathematics is part of relational reality because mathematics is a type of human language. Mathematics can describe reality with the help of concepts that differ from what we are used too in daily life. In other words, we have universal properties in physics so we must have universal properties in mathematics too.[6]
For example, describing reality at the smallest scale size means that the involved properties of the description are less than the number of properties used in a description of reality at a larger scale size. Because the smallest scale size of reality and the larger scale size are part of the same underlying system, our universe. A larger scale size means more variances in number and in magnitude. It also means that at the smallest scale size properties are singular. So we cannot hypothesise that at the smallest scale size there exist 2 or 3 topological fields. Or 2 or more scalar fields. This type of proposals are unrelated. In other words, the universal properties in physics are not stand-alone universal properties. These properties are universal manifestations of an enveloping structure. An existing structure that is totally denied in cosmology. Because the big-bang hypothesis is no more than a “blind” extrapolation of the force of gravity like there exist no underlying structure in the universe. A structure that manifests itself everywhere in the universe because of the existence of universal properties.
Conclusion
The construction of a reliable model of everything doesn’t need more data or extraordinary experiments. We have all the facts that are needed to construct such a model. We only have to realise that the scientific method is not a reliable blueprint to search for a model of everything.
References:
- E.J Dijsterhuis (1961); “The mechanization of the World picture”
https://archive.org/details/mechanizationofw0000dijk_k8u0 - Tony Freeth at al. (2021); “A model of the Cosmos in the ancient Greek Antikythera mechanism”
Nature scientific reports 11, 5821 (2021)
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-84310-w - YouYube video about the Anikythera mechanism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fExNel1AWag - S.E. Grimm (2025); “On quantitative relations”
https://zenodo.org/records/17340002 - Stefano Carniani et al. (2024); “A shining cosmic dawn: spectroscopic confirmation of two luminous galaxies at z ~ 14”
Nature 633, 318-322 (2024)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07860-9.pdf - S.E. Grimm (2019); “Empiricism and empirical information“
https://zenodo.org/records/3592378
