Here are 10 theories of everything (TOEs)
An overview of different theories on the nature of existence, in five minutes.
You may know that I interview researchers on their theories of reality, which are primarily physics-based, though I also include theories of consciousness. The conversations can be quite technical and lengthy, ranging from 2 to 4-hour-long podcasts.
If you'd like to read a compendious collection of 10 Theories of Everything (TOEs), here you go. This is in no particular order.
Wolfram's Physics Project
This utilizes so-called hypergraphs, which are essentially a generalization of dots connected by lines. The universe evolves through some “rule-based transformation” of these hypergraphs, with the hope of converging on a unique, minimal rule set. The goal is to discover the rules that generate our universe; otherwise, it'll face a similar landscape problem as string theory.
By the way, the term “Wolfram’s” Physics Project is a misnomer. It should actually be the Gorard Physics Project, and even more technically, it should be the Gorard Metamathematical Project. But even slightly more technically, it should be the Gorard Metamathematical Hope!
Universe.exe opened itself, and then used a decompiler named Stephen Wolfram on itself. Fortunately, it was found not to be written in Wolfram Language, else we'd have to pay licensing fees just to exist.
Joscha Bach's Weltanschauung
Bach's view on consciousness involves information processing and phenomenology within a connectionist system, a computational model inspired by neural networks in the brain. Bach integrates phenomenological aspects like qualia, suggesting that qualia arise from intrinsic patterns of information flow, with subjective experience originating from the structure and dynamics of these patterns. Bach discounts the concept of infinity, and you can see his entire project through the lens of someone shaking their fist at Cantor.
Thankfully that’s not the same as fisting Cantor.
The CTMU
Chris Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) states that reality is a self-contained, self-referential system. The CTMU incorporates several aspects of mathematics, logic, and philosophy, specifically including infocognition, a substance duality where information and cognition are unified. It's as if the universe effectively processes itself. I'd like to see more mainstream academics engage with it, as currently, Ben Goertzel is the only one I know of. To Chris, the universe is essentially running an elaborate selfie app.
Tim Maudlin's “Time”
Maudlin's view on time posits a fundamental and irreducible nature of time, contrasting the block universe concept. Maudlin emphasizes the passage of time and the present's objective existence. His “primitive ontology” approach reduces physical theory to spacetime points and their properties, with time progression governed by dynamical laws.
The wavefunction evolves deterministically, much like Bohm’s model. Maudlin’s also working on a discrete spacetime model, which I need to look more into, because it’s been quite some time since the last time we spoke.
Geometric Unity
GU by Eric Weinstein aims to make consonant general relativity and the standard model within a single framework. This makes it an actual attempt at a TOE. It's a different sort of unification as it isn't looking to find some large Lie group (shout out to all my E8 people). GU posits that the universe is a bundle (with a connection) and introduces the "observerse" concept, which connects particles and fields through geometric structures. This is severely watering it down.
Essentially, rather than specifying a metric, you consider a metric “bundle” with the original manifold as the base space, then you take a look at the consequences. Like the CTMU, I'd love to see more academics actually engage with it. GU is basically God making a joke, starting with “Okay, so, all possible metrics walk into a bar, and…”
Iain McGilchrist's Weltanschauung
Iain’s weltanschauung is heavily rooted in the brain's hemispheric asymmetry. What’s most interesting to me is its implications for consciousness and meaning. The left hemisphere is specialized for analytical, detail-oriented tasks, leading to a mechanistic, reductionist abstracted conception of reality.
In contrast, the right hemisphere excels in processing “holistic” (a word I loathe), contextual information, spawning a more integrated, meaningful worldview.
Personally, I don't believe the right hemisphere should be dominant. I think it's a mix of both and a third option that hasn't been considered because we've been stuck since Aristotle into not seeing the (a?) third way.
Constructor Theory
CT by David Deutsch and Chiara Marletto focuses on transformations and the tasks that can be performed physically. CT looks to reformulate quantum mechanics and thermodynamics, with fundamental principles based on physical transformations and the constructors that enable them.
A “constructor” is a generalization of a “Turing machine.” You can think of it like a physical instantiation of a process, rather than just abstract computation. Fingers crossed for applications this century. Actually, I spoke to Chiara a few days ago on some low energy signatures of theories of classical gravity that can be ruled out, and if so, it would be substantial support for quantum gravity theories.
It's an experiment called “Gravitational Induced Entanglement” and should be ready within a few years.
Michael Levin's Morphogenesis
This is about the role of electrical signaling and bioelectricity in cellular and tissue-level organization. Levin argues (and has decidedly demonstrated!) that electrical signals influence cell behavior and tissue patterning beyond the mere genome. It's Nobel Prize-winning work, in my opinion. Called it here first, folks.
The applications are to regenerative medicine and understanding who and what you are (how are you different than the collection of cells that comprise you?).
Orchestrated Objective Reduction
Orch OR by Penrose and Hameroff posits that consciousness arises from quantum computations in microtubules within neurons. The theory suggests that quantum superpositions of microtubule states collapse, or reduce, to definite states, orchestrated by spacetime geometry. The microtubule aspect is overemphasized, in my opinion. To me, it doesn't matter if the quantum gravity/consciousness connection turns out to be there or someplace else. I think it will turn out to be in some place we haven't looked.
String Theory
String Theory postulates that the fundamental constituents of the universe are one-dimensional strings, rather than point-like particles. ST encompasses various versions, like M-theory, that unify these strings within higher-dimensional spaces called "brane-worlds." It's produced insights into dualities and holography but suffers from a vast landscape problem, unfortunately. Still fascinating.
Most people who dislike string theory do so without understanding it. I find this unfair as we all know how it feels to not be understood and dismissed. String theory is different than the string ethos. That arrogant and cavalier ethos is execrable.
Recently, I interviewed Leonard Susskind on ST, and he said that String Theory has failed utterly. Many physicists were quick to applaud his humility and candor as this was a breakthrough coming from one of the heads of the most hubristic fields of science. However, he then generalizes it to something called “string theory with a little s” and that caused quite the stir in the community. One-dimensional strings, infinite-dimensional drama.
If you enjoy this format, let me know, and comment on what other theories you'd like me to cover.
- Curt Jaimungal
For what I understand, none of these theories is testable, reproducible, and most of them are even incomprehensible by anyone else besides their creators, which reduces them into mere subjective opinions. My question would be, what is the use of formulating untestable and subjective models of reality?
You’re such an incredible writer.