“Eventually Science Will Explain Everything”

“Surely,” some people think, “ultimately there will be a “theory of everthing”, and science will tell us all there is to know.

To respond to this we need first to note that in physics there has long been a bit of a puzzle.

In 1915/16 Albert Einstein published his theory of general relativity. Einstein portrayed the universe in terms of four dimensions: the usual three plus time. This has a curved structure, and gravitation is (in a sense) the effect of space-time warps caused by objects. Time does not proceed at a constant rate, but is slowed down or speeded up by high speed motion and/or gravitational pull. Whilst these two might seem different, our experience would be the same if standing on the earth with is gravitational pull or standing in an accelerating rocket in space with our feet towards its tail end. The curvature of space-time means that it is finite but unbounded. Einstein compared this with a shadow-being on the surface of a sphere – the surface is finite but one can move forever in a “straight” line across its surface. One of the consequences of relativity is the existence of “black holes” A black hole is an object so massive in such a small location that it has a gravitational field so powerful that no matter or radiation (including visible light) that has entered the that gravitational field can ever escape. This is why it would look “black”.

Around 1928, the ideas of physicists like Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg, and Arthur Eddington led to quantum theory. Particles like light photons do not have a precise location and speed, but a kind of fuzzy probabilistic existence. The small scale of reality consists of a collection of fuzzy phantoms.

There is a wealth of empirical evidence for relativity, quantum theory, and the “big bang” origin of the universe. The problem is that the first two of these seem fundamentally inconsistent with each other. For decades, then, physicists have been trying to get a “theory of everything” that harmonises these various theories. The most promising approach involves something called “superstring theory,” in which scientists imagine the core components of the universe as tiny loops of string or membranes vibrating in 10 dimensions, and associated with “blanes” or membranes. In 1980 Stephen Hawking, perhaps the most famous astro-physicist in the world, predicted it might come within twenty years – by 1999 he was expecting another twenty.

But would such a theory really explain all there is to know and answer all our questions about life, the universe and everything?

So what kinds of question does science try to answer? Science seeks to formulate generalizations about cause-effect sequences which “explain” events and phenomena in the sense that each event is seen to fit into a general pattern. This also enables us to predict what will happen if a particular set of conditions are set up. Science seeks to unify the various different cause-effect generalizations obtained from experience, and in doing so often goes to higher or more abstract levels of explanation.

Take, for example, the basic gas law:

(Pressure) x (Volume) = (Constant) x (Pressure)

This means that eg if the temperature of a gas in a closed (and therefore unchanged volume) vessel is raised, the pressure will be raised proportionately. This is an empirical law, discovered by Robert Boyle and others. Whenever we repeat the conditions we observe it – and it “explains” all kinds of experiences in the sense that they can be seen as a part of its generalization and (assuming things behave consistently) we can predict its occurrence. Around 1845, however, a higher level of explanation” for this was suggested: the “kinetic theory of gasses”. If we imagine that the gas consists of gas molecules moving around the vessel and bumping into each other, perhaps if we heat them they go faster, bump into the vessel sides more often, and so increase the pressure. But of course even higher levels of “explanation” can be found, in terms of the internal structure of atoms and molecules. The various particles these are made up of are “explained” by quarks, and perhaps ultimately these in turn will be “explained” by superstrings – where strings are smaller than a trillionth of a trillionth of an atom.

But all of this is simply understanding in greater detail the sequences in which phenomena work. None of it can determine whether there is a purpose to existence, a meaning to life or human love. This is not to belittle science, because within its own sphere it has been spectacularly successful and has every prospect of continuing success. It is just to say that it has its own limits.

Albert Einstein himself wrote:

The scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capable, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduce from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations ... the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source.”

Professor Stephen Hawking suggested that is we could find a unified field theory (or theory of everything), and could also explain the beginnings of the universe and real time in a curved system of imaginary time, we would be near to “reading the mind of God”.

"We don't understand the origin of the Universe or why we are here… A complete unified theory might not bring much material benefit, but it would answer that age-old question.''

In another sense, however, this is only answering the ultimate “how” question. Hawking also wrote:

...even if there is only one unique set of possible laws, it is only a set of equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to govern?... Although science may solve the problem of how the universe began, it cannot answer the question why does the universe bother to exist? I don’t know the answer to that.

Science just does not seek to answer questions about meaning and purpose. Even Richard Dawkins, perhaps the best known atheist of our times, for all his confusion and inconsistencies, looks for “a mysterious beyond present-comprehension physics of the future” where we “look for transcendent” which involves “going beyond the range and grasp of the presently experienced.”

The Bible says:

He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end. Ecclesiastes 3:11

Somehow we do feel that there is a purpose, a meaning, to existence. A successful “theory of everything” will not answer this deepfelt human need.