Theoretical Polymath

At first, our natural intuition leads us to define something called Physical Nature - a materialistic existence of nature. It also leads us to believe that, from both our perspective and the perspective of the general universal players, there exists only ``physical nature." However, this might be a limitation. Our human brains might be missing many things. Naturally at first, our minds are drawn to the physical world around us, and as a result, firstly, we are approaching to build a theory about the workings of complete physical nature, so-called Theory of Complete Physical Nature. If nothing is found other than the physical nature and everything is of the physical nature then, Theory of Complete Physical Nature will be the Theory of Everything. Anything about nature other than the physical nature, if it is found, is referred to as Non-physical Nature. Furthermore, if it alone can be explained with a theoretical framework, it is called Theory of Complete Non-physical Nature. The combination of these two under one framework will lead to the Theory of Everything, which is an ultimate theory that explains the complete workings of nature. Until we exclude nothing in our explanation, we cannot claim or use the phrase Theory of Everything or Theory of Totality.

​

Deep within our hearts, people with inquiring minds, typically theoretical physicists, have always desired to offer as much explanation as they could about the complete nature. They have always wanted nature to work in as complicated a manner as possible, with no end point in terms of human investigation. Now, if we discover the so-called Theory of Everything in the near or far future, by default, we are expecting that there exists a language - usually a mathematical framework in the theory, often a single equation that is encoded with the complete workings of complete nature. It deals not only with simple predictions, such as a planet's position, but also with more complex ones, such as the next US president, the fifth woman to land on the moon's south pole, the time and location of someone's death, or the fate of a character in a TV show's upcoming season. The needed parameters are enormous for such predictions. If provided, in principle, a theory can answer all of such complex questions. That is why we use the phrase Theory of Everything. Although to discover or formulate such a theory will be unimaginably difficult, physicists continue to pursue this goal until the theory is developed to that level of competence. We believe that if our quest reaches this level, we will think about developing alternate frameworks that are capable not just in principle, but of providing precise results for complex questions like those stated above. Because human intellect is not as advanced as it needs to be to handle problems of such magnitude, and we think that this problem will remain undiscovered forever. It is worth noting that, physics has the power to predict the future, and that says, technically, it has the power to predict what physics can predict. This is the beauty and the answer to the question, what should a Theory of Everything be capable of doing?

​

If a theory of everything truly encompasses everything, having said that, it must also include subjective science - non-physical nature, along with objective science - physical nature. Specifically, if this theory can be expressed in a single mathematical equation, that equation must incorporate the subjective parameters of nature. This is only possible if there exists a fundamental connection between subjective and objective sciences. Therefore, if such a connection cannot be established, then the theory of everything cannot be encapsulated in an equation; rather, it must take some other form of unity that encompasses both subjective and objective sciences. This results in a significant fundamental failure of the mathematical language for the first time. If all of this happens to be true, and after considering subjective experience as a fact of nature, it's hard for our natural intuition to believe and imagine that the existence of a single explanation for everything can be expressed in anything other than mathematical language.

 

While we have the ability to ask increasingly profound questions, such as why nature exists, how nature can emerge from nothing, and what reasons there are for nature to behave the way it does, asking these questions does not necessarily mean that there is always an answer. Nature cannot be an endless series of ever-deepening layers of realization or explanation. There must be an end to such deep questions; otherwise, it is meaningless to consider something as nature if it is always in the process of forming but never quite becomes nature. This is regarded as a fundamental principle called the Principle of Epistemic Finitude, which states that there is a finite limit to the depth of understanding or the layers of realization that can be attained about nature. It implies that nature, in its essence, must have an ultimate form or structure that can be fully comprehended; otherwise, it would be perpetually elusive and meaningless to study. Here, asking these profound questions isn't wrong, but believing that there are answer to it is mistaken because, factually, there is none. This notion applies not only to humans but also to extraterrestrial species that comprehend nature. We can examine this issue from an alternative perspective by considering another fundamental principle known as the Principle of Definitive Resolution. This principle asserts that every question must be answered and cannot remain unresolved. In accordance with this principle, to terminate the ongoing series of inquiries, there must be a definitive endpoint to the perpetual layers of questioning about nature. This endpoint is realized when we acknowledge that there is no specific cause for nature's existence and no origin for nature emerging from nothing; it exists inherently and without further explanation.

​

Whether we achieve our goal or continue to work on it, it does not diminish the interest of an aspiring physicist or a physicist who is already familiar with all of this. All we can hope for is that if the Theory of Everything is discovered, we will have enough time to understand and share our findings with others. If this is the case, it will be beautiful, but more importantly, we will be in a unique position in nature because nature created us to understand itself to an extent, and through us, it will be able to pass on its knowledge to future generations. This is all we can talk about the Theory of Everything.

​

- Dhanush Pabbathi

​