Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Hmmm - interesting.
I think, though, that what that is saying is that one cannot have a theory which "completely represents reality".
...
|
I believe that is addressed in the second link, where it states that "[Theory of Everything] definitional discrepancy may explain some of the disagreement among researchers", seemingly eyeing what "physics aims to do" and what "physicists...aim for". In light of the named persons involved in this "discrepancy", defining a "Theory of Everything" as an "ultimate truth" and one that "completely represents reality" is given to me as credible a consideration as that of a "practical useful theory" that doesn't completely represent reality.
Cheers,
Marc