Well... today the scientists, mainly the physicists, search for a "theory of everything", a theory which explain all the physical phenomena in the universe.
But i (as a physicist) believe they wont suceed.
Imagine that you are an observer, and are examining, lets say, an atom. I know that atoms are not rigid spheres, but its not the point. If you were doing so, when you looked at the atom, you would see something like the picture below.
If you didnt know that what you was seeing on the surface of it was your own image reflected, you surely would try to make a theory to explain why the atom had a man pictured in its surface. If you looked at several atoms, all of them would show the same man, sometimes greater, sometimes smaller. But surely you would have to explain why all the atoms had a man in its surface.
While the truth would be that the atoms hadnt anything in their surface. They were only reflecting the one observing it (and its surroundings as well).
So, my point is: The physical theories are not a description of the world by itself, but a description of how we humans percieve the world.
When we look at anything, we are not seeing it as it is, but as it is percieved by our human minds, brains, etc, which is obviously a very limited view of how it actually is.
If we only were able to see, let say red, we would say that the world is red. And would have a hard time trying to imagine the possibility of the world dont be red at all.
Thats why the physical theories are so well explained using math. Because math is the way that our minds use to understand the world. It is not that the universe follows math, cause math is a human minds creation. The universe does anything, we humans are the ones who filter the doings of the universe into mathematically expressed relations, and then say that they are the "laws of the universe". But they are not. They are only the "laws of how our mind percieves the universe".
So, a "theory of everything" should be able to explain the way our mind percieves the universe, or at least, to point that the laws were a result of the existence of a human observer looking at the universe. The theory of everything should be able to say "the atoms have NOT a man in its surface. That man is the observer looking at the atom, and not the atom itself".
But as until today most scientists still think that is possible to create a theory of everything without including the observer in it, thats the reason because i think they wont suceed. Always there will be the mistery of "why does all the atoms has a man in its surface?"

EDIT: Thats my 2004th post! And 2004 was the year i started to smoke! :stoned::jointsmile:
Coelho Reviewed by Coelho on . Why i think a Theory of Everything wont be ever made Well... today the scientists, mainly the physicists, search for a "theory of everything", a theory which explain all the physical phenomena in the universe. But i (as a physicist) believe they wont suceed. Imagine that you are an observer, and are examining, lets say, an atom. I know that atoms are not rigid spheres, but its not the point. If you were doing so, when you looked at the atom, you would see something like the picture below. If you didnt know that what you was seeing on the Rating: 5