A Theory That Explains Everything Explains Nothing
The attribution of the claim that a theory that explains everything explains nothing isn't clear, but most believe that it was Karl Popper who said it. This means this has something to do with science & falsifiability.
The scientific method.
1. Formulate hypothesis H
2. Find out what H entails. Say H [math]\to[/math] P (prediction).
3. Check for P.
4. If ~P then by modus tollens ~H (hypothesis H is false). In other words H is incompatible with ~P.
---
A theory that proves everything (E) has to be compatible with both P and ~P and immediately we recognize the problem: We can't falsify E. The usual route (the prediction P or ~P turning out to be false) is blocked/unavailable.
Conclusion: A theory that explains everything is simply an unfalsfiable theory and for that reason is pseudoscience.
A penny for your thoughts...
The scientific method.
1. Formulate hypothesis H
2. Find out what H entails. Say H [math]\to[/math] P (prediction).
3. Check for P.
4. If ~P then by modus tollens ~H (hypothesis H is false). In other words H is incompatible with ~P.
---
A theory that proves everything (E) has to be compatible with both P and ~P and immediately we recognize the problem: We can't falsify E. The usual route (the prediction P or ~P turning out to be false) is blocked/unavailable.
Conclusion: A theory that explains everything is simply an unfalsfiable theory and for that reason is pseudoscience.
A penny for your thoughts...
Comments (21)
The everything is a closed system.
Proof requires something outside of a system.
There is nothing outside of everything.
Therefore if everything attempts to prove itself, it fails, because it invokes nothing from the outside of everything to make the proof valid.
A theory that proves everything.
You're right. A theory is not a proof. It is a substantiated explanation.
So the original statement is wrong, ad obo. "A theory that proves everything" in and by itself is a false proposition.
I missed that.
Made the necessary corrections. I'm not a 100%. Apologies.
So, tell me, why is it that a theory that explains everything explains nothing.?
EDIT: the original post originally said different things than the original post. Some people need to be more precise from the get-go.
Now I have to explain everything?? :smile:
Oh no! My brother hit me with his toothbrush in 1962. I know about PTSD.
No, you can have something proven as a base that begins the system. If you show proof that there is nothing outside of the system, you do not need something outside of the system.
I don't understand. You mean an axiom, or a subsystem inside of the system that is proved by other parts of the system? In that case it's still the case that the subsystem is proved by something outside of itself. If it's an axiom you talk about, then it's not a proof, but something given that is accepted to be true; no proof exists to prove axioms.
If you say that the base that begins the system (originates it? Creates it?) is part of the system, that can't be, because nothing can create itself. Things can be thought to have existed since infinite past, but they were not begun. If they are made to begin, then they are created, and they are created by an outside thing.
I can't give a proof that this is necessarily so. But I can give one example that supports the proposition.
God. Everything is created, moved, and manipulated by god.
That explains everything, and yet it explains nothing about the dynamics of the causal world.
Alexandre, an occasional poster on TPF, presented a paper that began with the encoding of every fact in the universe. That would be a big step towards a ToE.
Sure they did. Lots of religious writers have. "God is the culprit." Or words to that effect.
I suppose it (or they) is a kind of theory that is used when any other theory fails. After explanations have run out then divine ordination is invoked. So in a way we know in advance that it will explain nothing, because its proper domain of concern is those things for which there is no explanation.
The classic example, as previously pointed out, is "god did it". Why did the crops fail? Devine will. Why did the crops thrive? Divine will. If god explains everything then god explains nothing. We don't know what to do. "Why did the crops fail? - lack of fertiliser; Why did the crops thrive? - because we added urea". This tells us something we can do.
It's also interesting how a theory of everything feeds into confirmation bias - the tendency we all have to interpret new evidence as favouring an existing theory. No matter what happens, "god did it" is confirmed. Faith justifies itself.
Quoting Banno
"God did it" is arguably an explanation, but it isn't presented as a proof of anything. The statement makes absolutely zero predictions, so hardly qualifies as a theory.
An explanation is not a theory. A theory is not a proof. A theorem is a proof, but you rarely see a theorem in physics.
A better example is the long list of various quantum interpretation, which at least do make predictions. Problem is, they all make the exact same predictions, so they too do not qualify as theories, but again only as explanations.
Quoting Agent SmithWhere do you get this nonsense? A theory of everything would make a prediction about everything, but any given prediction would be P or ~P, but not both.
Another example from quantum theory (not interpretations this time). The theory predicts probability of observing certain events. No perfect theory of everything would do better than that. An atom will decay with half-life such and such, but a theory that predicts exactly when a given atom will do so will be quickly falsified,.