"Within each thing is the seed of everything" (alchemy).
"Everything is everywhere and anything is all things" (Plotinus).
"Everything is in everything" (Anaximander).
"The center contains everything" (René Guénon)
The Theory of Everything (TOE)
The Theory of Everything in Physics
The philosophy of the new unifying era of science manifests itself mainly in physics with the search for a final theory, a "Theory of Everything" (TOE), a hypothetical theory that aims to explain in a single unified theory the diversity of all physical phenomena and to be the foundation of our understanding of the universe.
The search for the Theory of Everything in physics is an act of faith motivated by the deep conviction of the simplicity of nature.
In physics we speak of "Theory of Everything", but it does not really refer to "everything", since it is limited exclusively to physical phenomena. It does not include the inner world (the world of mind and consciousness) or the world of life. A true Theory of Everything should explain everything, not just physical phenomena. If such a theory existed it would be the culmination of the law of economy. It would be a philosophical Theory of Everything, a goal pursued by philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato, Hegel and Whitehead.
Physicist Steven Weinberg, in his book "The Dream of a Final Theory: Scientists' Search for the Fundamental Laws of Nature," states that the goal of physics is a "Theory of Everything," which explains all phenomena in the universe. But he recognizes that the problem of consciousness transcends physical laws.
According to John Wheeler, "No physical theory that deals only with physics will ever explain physics." This means that a Theory of Everything in physics has to be based on something deeper than physics. It must be a philosophical physics. Therefore, a Theory of Everything in physics must be based on universal concepts or principles, the manifestations of which would be the particular physical phenomena.
The archetypal paradigm is the most viable option to achieve this unification. The result would be an archetypal, deep, transcendental physics, a physics that we can call "esoteric". Jean Guitton calls it "semantic physics," a physics of the meanings hidden behind the apparent laws of physics. But to establish such a deep physics, a new deep, archetypal mathematics is also needed.
A candidate for a physical archetype is the string or superstring concept. This archetype unites space and matter. In superstring theory, space and matter are two aspects of the same reality. Everything follows from the theory: the structure of space, the structure of matter, even the amount and distribution of matter. In reality, matter does not exist; it is only a vibration of deep space, the ether or akasha.
In quantum physics the concept of dimension plays an essential role (in the unifying superstring theory 11 dimensions are contemplated).
The Grand Unification Theory (GUT) is a theory that unifies 3 of the 4 fundamental forces of nature: the weak nuclear, the strong nuclear and the electromagnetic. The force of gravity is not included, although it is included in a super-grand unification theory (super-TGU).
The limits of knowledge and the Theory of Everything in physics
Stephen Hawking calls a hypothetical future theory that would bring physics, biology, and psychology together in a single equation the "grand unification theory." However, he claims that there can be no such theory. He relies on Gödel's incompleteness theorem. His reasoning is as follows:
According to Gödel's theorem, mathematics is incomplete because there are undemonstrable mathematical truths. These indemonstrable truths are self-referential expressions.
In physics the observer cannot be separated from the process of observation, so physics is also self-referential, it always refers to itself.
Since physics is based on mathematics, there will always be statements corresponding to true physical phenomena that are indemonstrable or inderivable by mathematics.
Therefore, physics is incomplete and there can be no Theory of Everything.
John Barrow puts this same view more compactly and generally: "Science is based on mathematics; mathematics cannot discover all truths; therefore, science cannot discover all truths."
Theory of Everything and universal science
A Theory of Everything necessarily implies the existence of a universal science and a universal philosophy. Some proposals in this sense are:
The hypothesis of the mathematical universe.
Cosmologist Max Tegmark has developed a speculative Theory of Everything, grounded in mathematics, that goes beyond Platonism: the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (HUM), which states that the universe is a mathematical structure.
Consilience.
"Consilience" is a term borrowed from William Whewell and used by Edward O. Wilson [1999] −Darwinian biologist, entomologist, "father" of biodiversity and sociobiology-to refer to the unity or unification of different branches of knowledge. The meaning given by Wilson to the term "consilience" as "unity of knowledge" is not exactly the same as Whewell's original; it would be a universal coherent confluence of all knowledge, a great unified theory, a sort of "Theory of Everything."
The Systemic.
Systemics claims to be the science of everything, the science underlying (deep) all surface manifestations, the common essence of everything. A science with its own laws, methods, logic and mathematics.
MENTAL, a Theory of Everything
In principle, the pretension of achieving a Theory of Everything is vain because all (superficial) phenomena are manifestations of the profound, and the profound cannot be expressed at the superficial level. This is the generalized interpretation of Gödel's theorem. We find ourselves in the same situation as with the issues of the explanation of consciousness, the formalization of semantics, and the definition of information.
But a true Theory of Everything should be based on primary archetypes, the archetypes of consciousness, for primary archetypes connect the deep (the inexpressible and unmanifest) with the superficial (the expressible and manifest). These archetypes are necessarily simple. The Theory of Everything would be a theory of consciousness.
According to Ervin Laszlo, it is easier to elaborate a genuine Theory of Everything than a Theory of Everything limited to physical phenomena. He is right, because the genuine Theory of Everything must necessarily be simple. The more generic a theory is, the simpler it is. In the limit, a Theory of Everything must be of supreme simplicity.
Regarding Hawking's and Barlow's views, they are correct from the mathematical paradigm of formal axiomatics, in which certain expressions are unattainable through axioms. But this is not true with another type of mathematics, such as MENTAL, which is not based on formal axioms but on semantic axioms (the universal semantic primitives), which are deep axioms.
MENTAL is a unified theory, a "Theory of Everything":
It is based on a universal paradigm. It is not something formal and superficial like an equation but has a deep foundation, based on the principle of downward causality.
It is based on the concept of dimension (the 12 universal semantic primitives and their opposites or duals).
It is a universal language, valid for the formal sciences (mathematics, computer science, systemics, etc.).
It is a model of mind and consciousness. It is a deep and innate language of the mind.
It is a philosophical language (primitives are philosophical categories).
It is an archetypal psychological language (primitives are primary archetypes).
It is a language of consciousness that unites opposites or duals, including inner world and outer world, as well as theory and practice.
It is a universal operating system and the foundation of every particular operating system.
It is the Magna Carta of possible worlds.
Bibliography
Andrews, Edgar. Who Made God? Searching for a Theory of Everything. EP Books, 2009.
Barrow, John D. New Theories of Everything. Oxford University Press (USA), 2008.
Courteney, Hazel. Countdown to Coherence. A Spiritual Journey Toward a Scientific Theory of Everything. Watkins, 2011.
Davies, P.C.W.; Brown, J.R. Supercuerdas. ¿Una teoría de todo? Alianza, 1995.
Ferguson, Kitty. Stephen Hawking. Su vida y su obra. Hacía una teoría de todo. Crítica, 1992.
Greene, Brian. El universo elegante. Supercuerdas, dimensiones ocultas y la búsqueda de una teoría final. Drakontos, Crítica, 2001.
Gribbin, John R. En busca de Susy. Supersimetría, cuerdas y la teoría de todo. Crítica, 2010.
Haisch, Bernard. La teoría de Dios. Universos, campos de punto cero y qué hay detrás de todo ello. Gaia, 2007.
Halpern, Paul. The Great Beyond. Higher Dimensions, Parallel Universes and the Extraordinary Search for a Theory of Everything. Wiley, 2005.
Hawking, Stephen W. The Theory of Everything. The origin and fate of the universe. Jaico Publishing House, 2007.
Laszlo, Ervin. El universo informado. La respuesta a los enigmas de la ciencia actual mediante una nueva teoría integral del todo. Nowtilus, 2007.
Laszlo, Ervin. La ciencia y el campo akásico. Nowtilus, 2004.
Weinberg, Steven. El sueño de una teoría final. La búsqueda de las leyes fundamentales de la naturaleza. Crítica, 2010.
Wertheim, Margaret. Physics on the Fringe. Smoke Rings, Circlons, and Alternative Theories of Everything. Walker & Company, 2011.
Wilber, Ken. Una teoría de todo. Una visión integral de la ciencia, la política, la empresa y la espiritualidad. Kairós, 2010.
