In Between
Searching for a theory of everything
From scientific conundrums to the drama of daily life, how can we make sense of everything being connected when we
can feel so torn apart?
The human species does not like a question left unanswered. The unexplained must be explained. It feels important to us that we try to satisfy our various curiosities. Ever since the days of our earliest ancestors, we’ve been on a perpetual search to understand the universe.
Along the way toward this knowledge, we became storytellers. We began telling ourselves creation myths. These myths were attempts to derive some sense of meaning out of the mysteries of nature. Why does everything we see around us appear as it does? Where did it all come from? What is the cause that led to any person being present at a given moment?
The earliest religious stories justified and shaped the society around them. Some crafted epic tales of a conflict between good and evil, and our role within this battle. Some helped to establish social classes in their tellings of the differences between people. Regardless of the detail, they all share one general purpose: to create order from the apparent chaos of the world.
Despite an entirely different methodology, science seeks to answer these same questions. It just takes a more evidence-based approach toward determining the exact nature of the universe.
General relativity and quantum field theory are the two dominant theories of physics that have looked to shed light on these inquiries. Since their inception, they have both been proven almost entirely correct, and capable of being used to explain the mechanisms behind almost all facets of the observable universe. But there’s a problem between these two candidates for describing all nature. They cannot both be correct. They are ultimately incompatible with one another, and are only functional when used in their respective area of application. General relativity helps us understand the mechanics of large, high-mass objects, like galaxies, interacting gravitationally. Quantum field theory explains the mechanics of small, low-mass elements, like molecules, using the fundamental forces of weak, strong, and electromagnetic interactions. * The fundamental force of gravity sits apart from the other three fundamental forces of weak and strong nuclear forces, and electromagnetism. String theory emerged in the 1970s as a promising attempt to unify these forces into a theory of everything, but has suffered its own setbacks. At the time of writing, there is absolutely no scientific consensus on a grand theory of everything that accounts for all four of these forces in a single cohesive model. In fact, there is a distinct possibility that one comprehensive theory may never be possible.
In their 2010 book The Grand Design, physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow proposed the idea of “model-dependent realism” to reconcile the possibility of co-existing theories. The concept states that the objective truth of a given model is not its most important element. Any model or theory of the world should be evaluated on the basis of its usefulness alone. Do the rules outlined within the model match up correctly with observations of the world? Does it allow us to make accurate predictions? If this is true, then the model can be considered valid. It may not tell us the whole truth, but it provides enough truth to broaden our knowledge and increase our capacities. Early humans didn’t need to understand thermodynamics to know that fire burns. However they conceptualized it, they still learnt how to use fire to cook.
Model-dependent realism negotiates with our limitations. The concept accepts, as a possibility, that a framework that fully explains objective reality is forever beyond our reach. It puts forth the idea that the best we can do is to find approximations of reality that are nonetheless capable of generating understanding of the mechanics of our world. **
Our entire perception of the world we inhabit is already an abstraction, it is an interpretation of matter filtered through our individual senses. Our brains have evolved to process sensory data in a way that is most conducive to our survival, but this does not constitute an objective reality. However, it would be silly to denounce our mode of perceiving as “not being real”. Perception serves our needs quite well. We can function as humans and do all sorts of activities thanks to our particular interpretations of matter. Model-dependent realism applies a similar type of reasoning to scientific models of the world, allowing the co-existence of many theories. In this way, we are able to make sense of seemingly incompatible observations, like the contradictions observed by scientists between the laws of classical physics and those of quantum mechanics.
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”
— Albert Einstein
An approach for trying to grasp anything that seems incomprehensible might take inspiration from model-dependent realism. This notion could be just as useful for understanding global society as it is for dealing with scientific mysteries. When we speak of unification, we do not mean the elimination of all difference. This is neither possible nor desirable. In fact, it is through the many nuances of difference that strength is found. Differences create resilience through flexibility to adapt to changing scenarios and conditions. The human urge is often to simplify and reduce our models to their most elegant possible forms in order to facilitate understanding. This urge works wonders sometimes, but this tendency has its limits. As humans with limited sensory perception, our entire understanding of existence is subjective. Even still, we can harness subjective truth by incorporating multiple perspectives to advance our understanding of the world. In order to see the bigger picture, we must learn to harmonize disparate elements. Diversity of worldview, evidence-based frameworks and belief systems can all be integrated to create a more comprehensive mode of understanding across the many cultures and theories that make up society.