The theory of everything in philosophy is a term for a comprehensive philosophical concept that describes the nature or being of all things [1] [2] [3] . The term “theory of everything” is borrowed from physics , in which attempts have been made for a long time to construct a theory that describes all known fundamental interactions [1] [2] [3] . The philosophical theory of everything, according to a number of philosophers, should answer questions such as “Why is reality comprehensible?”, “Why are the laws of nature just like that?”, “Why does anything exist at all?”, Etc. [1] .
Approaches to creating a theory in various philosophical systems
Attempts to create a unified philosophical “theory of everything” can be found in the works of Plato and Aristotle . A new impetus to the creation of the theory was given by the philosophy of the New Age , first of all, the metaphysics of the 17th-18th centuries. The desire to create a holistic philosophical picture of the world can be traced in the works of R. Descartes , B. Spinoza , “ Monadology ” by G. Leibniz , as well as Hegel's philosophical system and the philosophy of the Whitehead process . Currently, approaches to the development of the theory of everything are being undertaken within the framework of structural-system philosophy, in particular, in the works of Lorentz Pantel “Structure and Being” ( Eng. Structure and Being , 2008) and “Being and God” ( Eng. Being and God , 2011 ) and Alan White, “ Toward a Philosophical Theory of Everything ” ( English Toward a Philosophical Theory of Everything , 2014), but none of them can claim to build a complete theory.
There is also the point of view that the development of the theory of everything lies outside the circle of philosophical problems, but is the task of the natural sciences. Stephen Hawking, in his book A Brief History of Time , which contains only one mathematical formula, E = mc² , noted that even if we had a theory of everything, it does not have to be a set of equations. “What breathes fire into equations and makes the Universe in order to be described by them?” [4] .
Nicholas Resher's Approach
Properties and the contradiction of self-justification
The American philosopher Nicholas Resher proposed his own approach to the development of the philosophical theory in the work “ The Price of an Ultimate Theory ” ( English ), first published in 2000. In it, Resher formulates his point of view on the set of properties that the theory of everything should possess and describes the contradiction in the way of creating such a theory.
Properties
The principle of sufficient reason
As a prerequisite, the principle of sufficient reason is taken, which in the formulation of Resher states that each fact t has an explanation t ':
where E is the predicate of explanation, so t ' E t means " t' explains t ".
Completeness
Further, Resher argues that the most direct and natural way of constructing a theory of all T * would be to use two critical functions: completeness and finality. Completeness means that where there is a fact t, T * gives him an explanation:
- .
Finality
Finality means that, as a "final theory", T * has no deeper explanation:
and thus that the only possible explanation for T * is T * itself.
Non-cycling
Resher notes that it is problematic to develop a theory for his own explanation; the essence of the adequacy of the explanation, in his opinion, is the principle of non-cyclicity - that is, no fact can explain itself:
- .
Contradiction
Thus, a contradiction arises: the two most important principles of the theory of Everything, completeness and completeness, contradict the fundamental principle of non-cyclicity. Resher comes to the conclusion that any scientist developing a theory of everything should discard the principle of non-cyclicity. But in this case, Resher asks, how can a theory adequately substantiate itself?
Development Paths
In The Price of the Final Theory, Resher proposes to “split” the concept of explanation in such a way that a fact can be explained either “derivationally” (through the “paths” that lead to it) or “systemically” (through the consequences that flow from it) ) In the “derivational” approach, the fact t is explained by including the more fundamental fact t ’in the category. In the“ systemic ”approach, the fact t is explained when it leads to the best consequences that can be measured - uniformity, simplicity, connectivity, and other systemic criteria Integration Resher concludes that the theory of everything cannot be explained “derivationally” (since no deeper categories can exist), but can be explained “systemically” by the ability to integrate its own consequences.
In his 1996 book Conscious Mind [5] , David Chalmers argues that the theory of everything should explain the phenomenon of consciousness , and since consciousness cannot be reduced to physical phenomena, the fundamental physical theory cannot be the theory of everything. In his opinion, a truly final theory should include not only physical properties and laws, but also phenomenological properties and psychophysical laws that explain the relationship between physical processes and conscious experience. He concludes that if we create a fundamental theory of consciousness in addition to a fundamental physical theory in physics, then we can really get a theory of everything. Chalmers believes that the development of such a theory will not be easy, but it should be possible in principle.
In the essay Prolegomena to Any Future Philosophy [3] , published in 2002 in the Journal of Evolution and Technology, Mark Walker considers how to reconcile the “apparent limb of man” with he calls "the traditional body of philosophy - the unification of thought and being in order to come to absolute knowledge in the final theory of everything." He contrasts two approaches to solving this issue: the “deflationary” approach, in which philosophy is “reduced to something more human” and all abandoned attempts to build a theory of everything, and the “inflationary” or transhumanistic approach, in which philosophers using advanced technologies have “expanded” their minds to the level of “superintelligent beings” in order to develop this theory.
Criticism
In the work “A holistic explanation and the idea of the theory of large unification” [1] , originally presented as a lecture in 1998, Resher identifies two types of criticism of the idea of the theory of everything: reductionism and the position of negation. The reductionist approach proceeds from the fact that such ambitious philosophical questions can only be meaningfully resolved when they are divided into several smaller components, while the position of negation boils down to the fact that the very formulation of the question of creating the theory of everything is unlawful and, in principle, unverifiable. On the criticism of the reductionist sense, Resher argues that the explanation of the individual parts of something does not give an explanation of the object as a whole, and on criticism from the point of view of denial, he argues that the question is important, and obviously not meaningless.
See also
- Theory of Everything
Notes
- ↑ 1 2 3 4 Rescher, Nicholas (2006a). "Holistic Explanation and the Idea of a Grand Unified Theory." Collected Papers IX: Studies in Metaphilosophy .
- ↑ 1 2 3 Rescher, Nicholas (2006b). "The Price of an Ultimate Theory." Collected Papers IX: Studies in Metaphilosophy . ( Googlebooks preview Archived February 21, 2014 on Wayback Machine )
- ↑ 1 2 3 Walker, Mark Alan (March 2002). "Prolegomena to Any Future Philosophy . " Journal of Evolution and Technology Vol. ten.
- ↑ cited from [Artigas, The Mind of the Universe , p.123]
- ↑ Chalmers, David J. The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory. - 1996. - P. 126–127.