A mathematical theory of the limits of knowledge is taking shape
By Graham P. Collins
Deep within the flood of knowledge that science poured upon us in the 20th century, uncompromising limits were found to the things we are capable of knowing. Werner Heisenberg discovered that improving the accuracy in measuring the position of an object, for example, inevitably leads to a decrease in the level of certainty of its momentum. Kurt Gödel showed that within the framework of any formal mathematical system, advanced enough to be useful, it is impossible to use that system to prove all the true assertions included in it. And Alan Turing proved that it is impossible in general to determine whether a particular computer algorithm is going to stop.
David H. Wolfert, a physics-trained computer scientist who works at NASA's Ames Research Center, joined the discussion with his own version of the frontier of knowledge. The implication of this limit, he concludes, is that the universe lies beyond the grasp of any intellect, however powerful, that exists within that universe. In particular, over the past two years he has included proof that no matter what the governing laws of physics are in any universe, there are inevitably facts about the universe that its inhabitants cannot learn from experiment or predict with the help of calculation. Philip M. Binder, a physicist at the University of Hawaii at Hilo, suggests that the theory dictates that researchers looking for unified laws can only hope to arrive at a "theory of almost everything."
Wolfert's work is an effort to create a consistent and accurate description of processes such as measuring a quantity, observing a phenomenon, predicting the future state of a system or remembering information from the past - a description that will be general enough so that it does not depend on the laws of physics. He saw that all these processes have a common basic structure: something needs to be set up (eg, an experimental rig or a computer to run a simulation); A question about the universe must be clearly defined; and an answer (correct or incorrect) must be provided. He builds a model for this general structure by defining a collection of mathematical entities that he calls devices of inference.
The devices of inference operate on a set of possible universes. For example, our universe, i.e. the entire world line of the universe (its path in the four-dimensional space - the editors) across all time and space, can belong to the group of all possible universes permitted by the governing laws of our own universe. Nothing needs to be defined about these laws in Wolfert's analysis. The only thing that changes is that the various possible devices of inference provide answers to questions in each and every universe. In a universe similar to ours, the inference device could include digital scales that you would stand on tomorrow at noon and the question would be related to your mass at that moment. People can also be inference devices, or part of such a device.
Wolpert proves that in every such system of universes there are magnitudes that no inference device inside the system could achieve. The hypothetical "leprechaun" invented by Pierre-Simon Laplace at the beginning of the 19th century (give the leprechaun the position and speed of each and every particle in the universe, and he will calculate the future state of the universe) will therefore fail if he must be part of the universe.
Researchers have already proven in the past that it is impossible to calculate certain physical systems. Wolfert claims that his result is much more general, because it makes no assumptions about the laws of physics and because it places no limits on the computational power of the inference device other than that the device must exist within the framework of the universe in question. Also, the result does not only apply to predictions of the future state of a physical system, but also to observations of a current state and to examining records of a past state.
The proof of the theorem, similar to the results of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and Turing's Halting Problem Theorem, relies on a version of the Liar's Paradox: ask Laplace's leprechaun to predict the following yes/no fact regarding a future state of the universe: "Would the universe not be a universe where The answer to that question is 'yes'?" The elf, who wants to find a true answer that will be yes or no, will encounter a similar problem to someone trying to determine the truth of the verse "This statement is a lie". Even if the elf knew the exact current state of the entire universe and all the laws governing the universe, and even if he had unlimited calculation power - nothing would help him give a real answer to this question.
However, in a sense the existence of such a paradox does not really shock the Sips. As Scott Aaronson, a computer scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), put it: "The fact that our predictions about the universe are inherently limited by the fact that we are part of the universe we are predicting has always seemed pretty self-evident to me - and I doubt that Lapels He himself would say otherwise if we could ask him." However, Aaronson is willing to admit that "sometimes it's a useful exercise to explicitly articulate all the assumptions behind an idea, recast it all in a formal symbol system and think through all the implications," as Wolfert did. After all, the devil, or the elf, is in the details.
43 תגובות
A simple Jew:
Where is the beginning and where is the end of a ball?
God has no beginning, end or middle simply because he does not exist and to be honest it is quite gratifying to know that he does not exist because to think that there is an almighty being who is so evil is very depressing.
It is worth remembering that everything that is physical has a beginning and an end
God is not physical and has no beginning or end
point:
You insist on changing the meaning of all the words (which you claim do not exist) and I have no intention of participating in this game.
Besides, there's no point in arguing with someone who doesn't exist about claims - however significant they may be - that if they didn't exist, they couldn't claim
You live in the enclave that only existing things have meaning when the opposite is true
point:
As far as you are concerned, I don't exist either, so I assumed I don't exist either, so I don't understand why you're arguing
I do not understand why you assume that something exists, after all you have not created any reason for something to exist
Both are of the same type of non-existence which is commonly called in Hebrew as non-existence
And about the article. Now it remains to be seen whether the non-existent consciousness is of the same kind of non-existence as that of the universe.
Someone else entirely:
I'm sure you yourself don't agree with what you wrote.
Do you use medication?
do you drive a car
are you flying by plane
Do you use a phone and a cordless phone?
Do you use radio and television?
Even if you lie to me in your answer to all of these - you have proven that you use a computer and the Internet.
Indeed, there is no limit to the stupidity of some people.
The drugged and delusional always thought that science was approaching their concepts
To Michael R. If "science never produces certain knowledge" there is no need for science; Science can
Produce and predict most of the phenomena we know: ballistic arc, flight, razor mirror
and the movement of vehicles - in all of these he produces certain information... except for a small comma... really
The light rays return to us from the mirror at the highest possible speed, how
Exactly the pull of gravity (and not just calculations of the strength of that force).
In fact, we treat light and gravity almost the same way the early man did
to the danger of falling from a tree. Compared to the ancient man, today's physicist can predict with precision
Rabbi (and from a practical point of view - for sure), how long will it take until a person who fell from a sequoia
At a given height he will reach the ground and at what speed he will fall, but he will not be able to explain how the force works
because of which man fell - and to say with absolute certainty whether there is (or can theoretically be produced) an opposing force
who could have stopped his fall.
There is something very dangerous in the comparison between knowing "almost everything" and knowing "almost nothing".
Since it is clear that science will never be able to know everything (if only for the simple reason that science never produces certain knowledge), then this claim actually negates the practice of science.
The claim stems from the multiplicity of meanings attributed to the word "knowledge" and a lack of distinction between the various things that knowledge refers to.
Even if we do not know how the laws of gravity are expressed in the singularity of a black hole, and even if this fact indicates that our entire understanding of gravity may be wrong, then we do know how to predict (and with great accuracy) how bodies under the influence of gravity will behave in almost every possible situation.
Is there really anyone who really thinks that it is possible to compare our ability to deal with reality today with our ability to do so thousands (or even hundreds!) of years ago?
There is something in Eddy's approach to the claim "almost everything=almost nothing"; Once you don't know everything,
After all, you don't know how much you don't know - and therefore you can never be sure of your statements about what you don't know
you managed to get Example: Since the theory of relativity does not formulate all laws in an absolute way
Physics, it cannot rule out with absolute certainty the movement at a speed higher than speed
The light or gravitational repulsion, what is found - and how much is found - if we manage to reach speed
which is higher than the speed of light, is unknown to us, and there may be a much wider field of physics laws
awaiting formulation than those known to us today.
1. In the context of the philosophical responses, it would be correct to mention Zeno's paradox from a geometric axiom: between every two points there is a point. Therefore, every body that moves in some section, passes an infinite number of points, and the conclusion: it only seems to us that we are moving and reaching the region we want.
2. And this time a little more seriously and in particular for the sake of basic fairness, here is a quote from Wikipedia about Socrates:
In 399 BC, the 70-year-old Socrates was tried for apostasy to the gods and corrupting the morals of the youth and was found guilty. Socrates managed his own defense, and in the hearing of his sentence, when he was asked to propose the punishment he deserved, he suggested that he be given the right to eat a free meal in the council house for the rest of his life His life (an honor given to citizens whom the city recognized as good). His answer so upset the court that he was sentenced to death by a large majority of about 300 votes against 200 votes. More than the majority by which he was found guilty in the first place (280 against 220) and he was sentenced to be executed By drinking hemlock poison. While he was in prison, his students tried to convince him to escape, but Socrates claimed that a person living in a country accepts its laws retroactively and therefore will not escape. (Socrates' words to the jurors - "If you think that by killing me you will be able to prevent someone from condemning your life The corrupt, you are nothing but wrong; this is not a possible or respectable way of escape.
Hugin:
I said what I wanted to say and it's a shame you didn't understand.
He was rightfully in prison after his acts of fraud, embezzlement and forgery were discovered.
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/אריך_פון_דניקן
The best historians among us sat in prison, even Socrates drank from a poisoned cup due to his words, so what did you want to say Michael?
Hugin:
The "fallen" Erich von Daniken is better known for his time in prison than for his time in the bathroom.
Oops, error correction: 28/5/1982..
ו
And these, there is a close connection :)
On 28/6/1982, I was surrounded by a wise and educated gentleman in Jerusalem... a real faller.. (just like in Erich von Daniken's Chariots) who 'thought' it was very unnecessary that a person should go to the bathroom :) His psychologist sister-in-law told him (according to him) that he was of the Hellenistic 'robot'.
I went through a tremendous enlightenment!!! Following that 'Shavuot' holiday that I celebrated with him.. that's how I also fell from my lofty heights and my heavenly neighbors and from honorable management, which I was in charge of at the time.
Their lives are fascinating.
Continue to 'upset' and stimulate all the site's senses.
At your service, until my next flight..
Huginczka.
Hugin,
Is there any added value to the fact that you were in the bathroom, + a description of your actions there (well, maybe not all the actions...), to the message you were trying to convey to me and Michael?
Does this have any holistic meaning?
Is this where you usually communicate with the Bermuda Triangle Nephilim?
And please, this time don't send me to study alone, it's a task I can't handle
Please help me understand
And another sentence of special value for you, Noam:
Last night while I was in the bathroom, I opened one of the books there by Robin Sharma: "The Wisdom of Excellence" and this is the sentence that randomly opened in front of my eyes about 49 (entitled: Love what upsets you) p. 127: "People or circumstances that take you out of control have an inestimable value Normal: they reveal the beliefs that limit you, your fears and your false assumptions."
I thought of you, Noam, and of Michael, I smiled, I wiped, I washed, and when I returned to the computer at some point, I smiled at the unfolding challenges that you are threading here in transparent and 'systematic' white veils.
Surely you know, 'Noam', that Robin Sharma wrote his wise books long after I had achieved my goal according to the sentences that have guided my life since my youth / see, Oscar Wilde: "What does not destroy forges" and.. "Keep me from my friends because it eats my enemies"..
In any case, I wish you to become educated also in the 'services', which you have at home if you have great difficulty in getting informed through the private computerized screen in front of you.
Best regards, Huginchka.
Lenaam: When you open your special website called: "I'm snarky", I'll be happy to inaugurate your pleasantries.. and if you want your Anglo-Saxon grunts as well..
Hugin,
absolutely clear!
Every word carved in stone!
(Except that this response accidentally ended up on the Hadaan site. It belongs on the "I'm a rascal" site)
Extra profit d'orita :)
Between everything from every angle and from every projection wherever he/they is and everywhere down to a sub-particle and 'there is' (inverted: 'I') that weave invisible or visible threads of connection (inspiration) that hold the whole universe... (if you want also in the plural: universes-existences).
So even if a negative and a positive charge cancel each other mathematically, in the 'zero' between them exists all the living and breathing potential..
In fact, the 'viewer' is the eternal external-internal of your spirit that is everywhere. :)
Although the question of existence and non-existence is a philosophical question that personally interests me very much:
(And I am not referring to the meaning of existence, its essence or definition) Existence itself depends, according to how I (as a scientist, in computer engineering) perceive it, on the size of the space (*) observed. If we look at the simple example of particles with a positive charge and a negative charge, a dipole, it is true that if we approach each charge separately it is said to exist since it creates a field in space, on the other hand if we move very far from the two particles the fields will cancel each other out and in fact we will not notice any particle. In fact, the definition of existence has become dependent on the observer from the micro level to the macro and super macro level, the absurdity of this entire story is that there is no physical-mathematical connection that can link these two worlds (quantum theory and relativity theory).
(*) And all this is assuming that the concept of measurement and the measurer are well defined.. (see Schrödinger's cat or the observer effect).
And here's something for the sane:
http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/03/what_happens_if_you_dont_under_1.php
For Miki (15) if, as you expressed.. "In other words we do not exist", the possibility remains as an option in the words of life to establish and place each other.. and about this 'existence' will repeatedly speak: - the truth of life and the world, in the correct 'words'.
Blip for advanced students: an article presented in NRG and deals with the "fluidity" of the point of view, the reality of science, consciousness.
Brings a link to the article
Doron b.
http://www.nrg.co.il/online/55/ART1/907/345.html?hp=55&loc=52&tmp=4713
Blip for the advanced: is science approaching New Age theories?
One of the most famous cell researchers in the world stands behind an idea more closely associated with New Age ideas but completely foreign to the scientific arena, according to which consciousness plays a central role in the creation of the universe - and claims that science chooses a completely wrong starting point for understanding the world. Is the time ripe for a substantial merger between spirit and science?
All the formulas and all the theories we have developed to date can describe/predict things in reality to a certain degree of accuracy but not exactly! And in fact all the laws that we supposedly created and proved are based on axioms and basic assumptions that we established. In general, all the constants we have discovered are actually irrational numbers, and even those we cannot accurately describe with the help of mathematics - only to a certain degree of accuracy.
And in general, how can we describe a system that we are actually a part of?
And if we look philosophically at the universe as a whole, we will realize that we are basically all charge, matter, energy and other things that we haven't discovered, that offset each other, or in other words, we don't exist.
One of the fundamental tenets of human scientific genius has always been to try to turn almost everything into everything, and examples are not lacking; And referring to one of them, which is embodied in Newton's classical physics, which, in the course of scientific research, revealed its limitations regarding the ability to provide more adequate answers, to physical phenomena, which did not concern the physicists at all, especially in Newton's time and later also many after him, until Einstein appeared, and changed what was all , for almost everything.
Even in Einstein's theory of general relativity, there is room to wonder and investigate the claim in the context of the curvature of space by mass when we see from one direction, and according to a description of Tishreti, the way in which mass curves space, and in this way explain, among other things, the force of gravitation, and make of it an overall evidence And it is not certain that they take into account that the same mass creates a curvature (swelling) from the opposite direction, and according to the logic: instead of gravity, you get a force of repulsion; indeed?
Eddie:
Fix:
In fact, I didn't even claim that it solves the problem of completeness, but only that it successfully deals with examples of incompleteness produced by Godel's method.
Eddie:
I did not claim that adding such an infinite series of axioms solves the problem of proving consistency.
I argued that it solves the completeness problem in a consistent axiom system.
Indeed, proving its own consistency will likely remain beyond the reach of mathematics.
Michael,
You must have noticed that my basic position as formulated in responses 2,6,7, 9, XNUMX is not based only (and not mainly) on Gadel's incompleteness theorems. After all, to begin with, and as I mentioned in response XNUMX - Gadel's theorems (unlike what is described in the article) relate to certain mathematical (arithmetic) theories, and do not have primary general applicability (although of course there are other mathematical theories that are based, and also the entire exact science is based, crucially, on arithmetic as well ). The main point of my argument on the subject of the essential 'almost nothing' - rests on understanding the mechanism of changing the content of the concepts in changing (major) scientific theories, as a constant phenomenon.
Regarding your words in response 10: first of all, I would respond as follows: in my humble opinion, on the face of things, it seems to me that even if the addition is of an infinite series of axioms, each of which claims that the set of axioms that precede it is consistent - does not solve the problem. The problem of consistency is not solved simply because each of the axioms 'claims' the consistency of its predecessor. The fact that it is an endless series of axioms does not necessarily seem like an advantage. We will not explain how a system is made completely proven, and I wonder if there is not apparently a tickling aroma of a certain smug intellectual exaggeration here.
But, at the same time, your claim is interesting, and I would like to study it. Since I have no expertise in the field, and for the sake of caution (and the matter!), I would like to read a source to explain your claim, before forming my personal opinion. It would also be extremely interesting to read the opinion of an expert mathematician in an article about the limits of Gadel's incompleteness theorems (perhaps Prof. Avron's?) in Hidaan. If you could help with that, it would be greatly appreciated.
Anyway, I'll try to get hold of the Ernst Nagel and James Newman book. Thanks for the referral.
It would also be interesting to read original material regarding the Wolfert trial.
to the knowledge system,
The article and the whole topic is very interesting and important. Thanks! And we would like more of this same thing.
Eddie:
There was no need for the entire introduction which you obviously know (which was also described almost fully in my response.
Your real answer only begins with the sentence "It is possible to add to the Torah as axioms all the claims that are true about the natural numbers" and I disagree with this answer.
First of all - as I explained - in order to nullify the Gadel theorem, we do not need to add as axioms all the claims that are true about the natural (of course we cannot do this because we do not know what those claims are, but I explained that there is no need to do so either) and it is enough to add an infinite series of axioms of reason One claims that the set of axioms that precede it is consistent.
This addition of axioms is completely algorithmic and any "Gadelian" claim created on the basis of a partial collection of these axioms can be proven in a larger collection and all this in a completely algorithmic way.
In fact, there are almost no mathematicians today who think that God's theorem is due to some limitation on human understanding.
Just to give these things more validity, I will mention that before publishing this response I consulted Professor Arnon Avron, which is one of his areas of expertise.
By the way - in relation to another claim that you raised - which in my opinion is irrelevant - as if a system that is weaker cannot prove its own consistency if a system that contains it cannot do so - this is a claim that is not true.
You are invited to read the chapter An Example of a Successful Absolute Proof of Consistency starting on page 45 in the book Godel's Proof, written by Ernest Nagel and James R. Newman.
Michael,
To clarify my objection to the wording in the article, I will elaborate on what was called 'Gedel's sentence'.
There are two Godel's incompleteness theorems.
Gadel's First Incompleteness Theorem means that an important group of mathematical teachings (not all of them) has the property that in each such Torah there is a theorem (for each Torah it can be a different theorem) that can be formulated in the language of the Torah, but cannot be proved or disproved using it. ZA, the Torah is incomplete in the sense that it cannot be used to decide all the claims that can be formulated within it.
This sentence applies to any Torah that is consistent (a Torah is consistent if it is impossible to prove anything from it and its negation), and effective (a Torah is effective if there is an algorithm that decides with respect to every claim in the language of the Torah whether it is an axiom of the Torah or not). Other teachings, which are not consistent and effective - are of no interest to Gadel or us.
No matter how much we increase the scope of the system, as long as it is consistent and effective there will always be a problematic sentence that the system will not be able to prove. Of course, renouncing effectiveness immediately cuts the matter off - one can add to the Torah as axioms all the claims that are true about the natural numbers and get a syntactically complete Torah of which the natural numbers are a model - but at the price of not being able to distinguish between a legal sentence in the system and what is not because we cannot algorithmically verify proofs.
Gadel's second theorem of incompleteness means that if the Torah is arithmetical, consistent and effective - it is not able to prove its own consistency, because if it were able to prove it, it would be possible to derive from this a proof of that verse that cannot be proven within the Torah, the verse that the first sentence speaks of.
And here, if the system is not able to prove its own consistency, then a weaker system is also not able to do so. It remains therefore to try to strengthen it and prove its consistency only by adding additional axioms.
But here lies a minefield: no one can guarantee that the new system, apparently strengthened, is consistent...
I'm small, but I belong to the people who believe that this giant genius, growing up, was a sensible person. Therefore, the method of 'adding axioms' is an empty method (and we are not talking about 'fur' axioms, but these axioms are the point, and 'this is where the dog is buried').
Godel's sentences mark the end and limit of the rational ability to tell the complete truth. Truth is nothing less than that, unlike anything else (like practical or technological success, let's say).
It turns out that Gadel's laws have parallels in fields related to science.
Therefore, from this point of view, any scientific theory, at the principle level - may be almost nothing, although at the technological practical level it may sometimes be much, very much, and to me almost everything. It seems to me that the historical experience so far, since Thales - proves this.
Eddie:
I'm trying to get hold of Wolfert's original article and I haven't responded until now because I didn't think it would be right to argue about things that were only hinted at (and probably inaccurately) in the article.
However - what you said about the conclusions of the Gadel Law is not true.
What this sentence means is that there are consistently claims that the system of axioms does not allow to prove or disprove their correctness.
He does this by a synthetic construction process that constructs a non-squatting claim from the axioms.
In fact, he constructs a sentence that is necessarily true if the axiom system is consistent and the only reason why it cannot be formally proven is that the axiom system cannot speak for itself and if we try to generalize the claim of its own consistency into it, it will become inconsistent.
What else?
We believe it is consistent.
So it's true - we can't include the axiom of consistency among the axioms because a contradiction would be created, but we can add an axiom that claims that all the axioms we've had so far (not including itself) form a consistent system.
Such an addition of an axiom does not constitute intellectual transgression. After all, from the beginning we believed that the system was consistent.
And see it's a miracle: adding this axiom makes it possible to prove the claim we built within the proof of the Gedel theorem.
So it's true: even in the new system it is possible to build a claim using the same method, but even in it the lack of proof can be overcome by adding a new "fur" axiom that again asserts that the system of axioms so far is consistent.
It doesn't seem to me that there is a sane person who would see adding any number of such axioms as "fur" a wrongdoing, but if it is allowed to do this as much as is required, Gadel's proof is stripped of its meaning!
A large sentence therefore proves something true, but not one that limits our ability to understand and know things and certainly not one that dwarfs our knowledge to "nothing".
I want to add something that was omitted from the previous response.
The process I was talking about (the essential conceptual change in the transition from one great Torah to another great Torah) is probably fundamental to science. This can be understood on the basis of a sentence in logic (Gedel's sentence. By the way, the wording of the sentence in the article is not entirely accurate), or on the basis of a logical physicalist sentence like Wolfert's, or on a procedural physicalist basis like Diem's.
It turns out that human reason is fundamentally incapable of embracing reality, with scientific or even logical scientific tools. Therefore, from a principle point of view (not from a practical and technological point of view!) its perception, which is at best 'almost everything' - is almost everything such that it is almost nothing.
kid,
With cynicism or without cynicism (this is an interpretive question) - I wanted to point to the 'next step': suppose we have arrived at the theory of 'almost everything' - what exactly is this almost 'everything' - something quantitative or essential? Do we know, let's say - 99% of knowledge, which have a truth value simply on the same conceptual level that correctly describes reality, or is the truth value on a different conceptual level, which is closer to reality only by a quasi-analogous approximation, let's say? That's why I brought the example of classical versus modern physics. And for example: Newton's mechanics describes very closely (in events where the speeds are relatively low) the events in our practical lives, but the concepts of time, space, space, mass, momentum - are fundamentally different from those of general relativity regarding spacetime, etc. In principle, Newton's theory - relative to the theory of relativity - is not correct at all (its concepts have no truth value in relation to reality), but its conceptual and mathematical system produces 'successful' results in terms of a practical approximation to ordinary needs. In this sense (and in this sense only) Newton's theory is 'almost nothing'.
Sharon,
Further to what I wrote above: the description is impressive, very impressive. But it is often argued that the two theories are such that they create a certain contradiction between them. The attempts to unify them have not been successful in the last decades, and it is possible that some of them will have to 'bend' a bit in order to create a great unified theory.
I wrote "that 'almost everything' can be (in principle, not practically/technologically!) almost nothing". My intention is this: it is certainly possible that during the aforementioned bending we find that the content of the concepts in the theories of existence changes, just as happened to the concepts in the transition from Newton's theory to the new physics. In such a case, the established physics will continue to 'succeed' in an approximate manner on pre-defined standards, and even on almost any scale, but in terms of the truth value of its concepts (and only in this respect, and except for computationally special cases - ) the 'almost everything' is 'almost nothing' ".
Capricorn
In my opinion, you misinterpreted the concept of "almost", there is no question of cynicism here.
I think that the concept of "almost" should be interpreted mathematically as follows:
For every physical theory, expressed in mathematical (quantitative) terms, there is at least one point, within the space where the theory is defined, where the theory is not defined. This means that the theory is generally true in the entire space in which it is defined except for one point (at least) where the theory is not mathematically defined. (This point is also called a point of discontinuity) This is the meaning of "almost".
What Wolfert's theorem means (to my understanding) is that, for all physical theories there is at least one point of discontinuity, where the theory is not defined. Therefore no theory describes all the points in the universe but only "almost" all of them.
It is important to emphasize that Wolfert's theorem is not only an empirical theorem resulting from a review of all existing theories, but a necessary logical theorem.
Laddie,
What does "almost everything can be nothing" mean?
The two main theories of physics in the 20th century give an impressive description of the structure of the universe on the scale of the particles up to the structure of the universe. They are not theories of everything, are they nothing?
In principle, it is possible that a theory will be formulated that will unite these two teachings into one theory that produces predictions that will be confirmed.
It may not be perfect or fully comprehensive. Will she be nothing?
Eddie, I think you missed the cynicism that was in the sentence,
The emphasis was on the word "almost" meaning the researchers who want to arrive at a theory of everything,
can at most, according to Binder, arrive at a theory of almost everything.
"Philip M. Binder, a physicist at the University of Hawaii at Hilo, suggests that the theory dictates that researchers looking for unifying laws can only hope to arrive at a 'theory of almost everything.'"
The question is in what sense the theory is a theory of 'almost everything'. At the turn of the XNUMXth century, Kelvin believed that physics had a theory of almost everything - and he was very wrong, since the new physics introduced a fundamental change in concepts.
It turns out that 'almost everything' can be (in principle, not practically/technologically!) almost nothing.
"After all, the devil or elf is in the details :)