On Sep 25, 3:35 am, Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 12:09 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > "A theory that can explain anything, fails to explain at all."
> A few people on this list have repeated this sentiment, but I wonder if it
> is really so.  If there were an oracle that could provide an explanation for
> any question asked of it, should we conclude this oracle fails to explain
> anything at all?  If not, then what is the difference between a theory that
> could explain anything and an oracle that could explain anything?

The universe already is an oracle that can explain anything. You just
can't access the parts of it that are not accessible while you are
participating in the universe as a human being.

> Physicists spend their lives searching for a physical TOE that could in
> principal explain anything that happens in this universe.  Is their search
> in vain because this TOE would explain nothing at all?

No, each TO almost-E explains E better than the last. Nothing wrong
with that.

> A final thought, are theories that propose the existence of everything,
> really theories that can explain anything?

It depends what you mean by the 'existence of everything' and
explaining 'anything'. Like if you account for all phenomena does that
make you omniscient? I don't think it would.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to