

Hawking & Mlodinow: No 'theory of everything' - edw519
http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2010/09/hawking-mlodinow-no-theory-of_30.html

======
gmlk
Personally I think that the physical reality can't be described in a finite
Theory of Everything (ToE) for the same reason as that there is no ToE for
mathematics? See <http://plus.maths.org/issue37/features/omega/index.html>

~~~
zeynel1
Thanks for the link to that article. Very interesting. But I disagree with the
language of this sentence; it contradicts the rest of the article:

"we can distinguish a world which can be explained by science from one that
cannot."

"The sentence, to me, should be "we can distinguish a world which can be
explained by [mathematics] from one that cannot."

"Mathematics" and "science" are not synonyms. But I agree with Leibnitz that,
to paraphrase, "line explains the dots."

And also, I would like to note that; physicists use "theory of everything" to
mean two things; and they exploit this meanings anarchy that they created:
Even in the same sentence; by "theory of everything" a physicist may mean "a
theory that will conform three famously incompatible physics theories" and "a
theory that will explain the entire reality." These two definition are not the
same.

------
zeynel1
"we adopt a view that we call model - dependent realism"

I have been writing for years that nature is definitional;
<http://science1.wordpress.com/2010/09/30/true-knowledge/> I am glad to read
that Hawking realizes this now.

But this is not enough. He needs to give up his materialism; and reject the
materialist physics.

But what this quote reveals is that; study of nature is not a "physical"
process; study of nature is not a monopoly of physicists; anyone who is
curious can study nature without professional doctrines developed by
physicists.

All you have to do is to develop your own model.

I welcome Hawking's statement.

