By David M. Petersen
In his book, “The Grand Design,” Steven Hawking states:
“…but we now have a candidate for the ultimate theory of everything, if indeed one exists, called M-theory. ” and later on ” …For these reasons M-theory is the only candidate for a complete theory of the universe.”
Am I the only one that realizes that M-theory would be nowhere near a complete theory of the universe? A theory of everything isn’t even in the realm of science; it is in the realm of philosophy. Hawking’s theory of everything woud actually be a complete theory of the beginning of the evolution of the universe (because it would unify quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity) BEFORE stellar and planetary evolution, biology, the rise of consciousness and beyond. Frankly, it being a “theory of everything” is vastly overstated. Now, I realize that alot of this whole theory of everything title is market hype and sells books on physics, but from a philosophical standpoint it is conveying a major fallacy. This phrase more than anything demonstrates that the very focused views of scientists (which is fine for science); are too focused to do philosophy. A true “theory of everything” would include how and why consciousness works and would answer questions such as…
What are we evolving toward becoming?
What is the nature (if any) of “God”?
Is there life on other planets?
Etc…
Obviously, M-theory, being just an abstract mathematical construct that may unify two physical theories, fails to come anywhere near answering these questions. However, luckily, my theory is a “theory of everything!” In my theory, called Sequential-Eternal-Monotheistic-Holism, all that I am ultimately saying is if you take certain assumptions to be true, then everything fits together; God, the universe, mankind, evolution etc., AND it jives with what we know about physics. So please, check it out by following the "Main Page" link below:
Continue: