The quest for a unified “Theory of Everything” that explains the fundamental nature of the universe has long been a holy grail for scientists and philosophers, dating back to the ancient Greeks’ search for Arche. The mainstream of this research primarily focuses on the lifeless phenomena and laws of physics while ignores the realm of biology. However, a fundamentally different approach to the ToE has been put forward, presenting a viable alternative to address the challenge of a Theory of Everything. This approach does not seek the ultimate “building block” but rather aims to uncover the intangible rules that fundamentally govern everything in the universe, seeking their universality across the vast spectrum, from the minute subatomic world to the mega mass cosmic world and the magical biological world. This article explores how the Fundamental Interrelationships Model unifies our understanding of the evolution of the universe, encompassing the evolution of multicellularity, development of multicellular organisms, societal evolution, and the four fundamental forces, all within the context of the fundamental interrelationships. Thus, unlike most existing candidates, the Fundamental Interrelationships Model offers a comprehensive framework, encompassing both non-biological and living phenomena. As a truly all-inclusive theory, ToE shouldn’t only encompass non-biological processes and the laws of physics but extend to all facets of life, including evolution of life, evolution of society (civilization), humour, and justice, because life is an integral part of the dynamic cosmic system - the universe. Therefore, any hypothesis failing to integrate biology and sociology shouldn’t be considered a comprehensive Theory of Everything

The full article is on Philpapers https://philarchive.org/rec/HUATFI-2

4 hours ago, Nia20855 said:

The quest for a unified “Theory of Everything” that explains the fundamental nature of the universe has long been a holy grail for scientists and philosophers, dating back to the ancient Greeks’ search for Arche. The mainstream of this research primarily focuses on the lifeless phenomena and laws of physics while ignores the realm of biology. However, a fundamentally different approach to the ToE has been put forward, presenting a viable alternative to address the challenge of a Theory of Everything. This approach does not seek the ultimate “building block” but rather aims to uncover the intangible rules that fundamentally govern everything in the universe, seeking their universality across the vast spectrum, from the minute subatomic world to the mega mass cosmic world and the magical biological world. This article explores how the Fundamental Interrelationships Model unifies our understanding of the evolution of the universe, encompassing the evolution of multicellularity, development of multicellular organisms, societal evolution, and the four fundamental forces, all within the context of the fundamental interrelationships. Thus, unlike most existing candidates, the Fundamental Interrelationships Model offers a comprehensive framework, encompassing both non-biological and living phenomena. As a truly all-inclusive theory, ToE shouldn’t only encompass non-biological processes and the laws of physics but extend to all facets of life, including evolution of life, evolution of society (civilization), humour, and justice, because life is an integral part of the dynamic cosmic system - the universe. Therefore, any hypothesis failing to integrate biology and sociology shouldn’t be considered a comprehensive Theory of Everything

The full article is on Philpapers https://philarchive.org/rec/HUATFI-2

There may be some misunderstanding about what is meant in science by a ToE. It is a concept specific to physics that seeks to completely unify quantum physics with relativity. The term is used because relativity and quantum theory between them underpin just about all of physics, which in turn underpins chemistry, which underpins biology, and so forth. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

Reading your post, I confess my heart sinks to read, yet again, the word "framework", as it is a word beloved of AI LLMs. I hope I am talking to a real person here. 😃

When it comes to ToE and physics, it is reasonable to assume that the same physics exists everywhere in the universe, whereas we have no reason to believe that the same biology exists everywhere in the universe.

I often laugh when I see Star Trek's portrayal of life from other planets.

10 minutes ago, KJW said:

When it comes to ToE and physics, it is reasonable to assume that the same physics exists everywhere in the universe, whereas we have no reason to believe that the same biology exists everywhere in the universe.

I often laugh when I see Star Trek's portrayal of life from other planets.

On the contrary, the rules governing biology should be the same everywhere, it’s the results that can differ.

It would be like arguing that two rivers aren’t the same because the rules of fluid flow vary. And we don’t assert that - we realize that it’s the variables and boundary conditions that differ. Biology has lots of variables and boundary conditions.

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

On the contrary, the rules governing biology should be the same everywhere, it’s the results that can differ.

It would be like arguing that two rivers aren’t the same because the rules of fluid flow vary. And we don’t assert that - we realize that it’s the variables and boundary conditions that differ. Biology has lots of variables and boundary conditions.

Interesting response. +1

46 minutes ago, KJW said:

When it comes to ToE and physics, it is reasonable to assume that the same physics exists everywhere in the universe, whereas we have no reason to believe that the same biology exists everywhere in the universe.

I often laugh when I see Star Trek's portrayal of life from other planets.

Hmm, the theory of everything...

When is it reasonable to assume that? Hmm...

IOW, how could you get a PhD in everyting, bro???

37 minutes ago, swansont said:

On the contrary, the rules of biology should be the same everywhere, it’s the results that can differ.

It would be like arguing that two rivers aren’t the same because the rules of fluid flow vary. And we don’t assert that - we realize that it’s the variables and boundary conditions that differ. Biology has lots of variables and boundary conditions.

I think this would only be meaningful if one is considering the level of biology itself and not the lower levels of chemistry or physics (which form the basis of biology and would be the same everywhere). What specifically biological principles would you expect to be the same everywhere? I would accept that the principle of evolution would be universal, and that life would almost invariably be based on organic chemistry. But apart from that, I doubt that the more complicated building blocks of life that are more-or-less ubiquitous here on earth would necessarily be similar everywhere in the universe. For example, I'm inclined to think that it was a lucky accident that life on earth found the hydrogen bonding between purines and pyrimidines to be its basis.

Edited October 9Oct 9 by KJW

9 minutes ago, KJW said:

I think this would only be meaningful if one is considering the level of biology itself and not the lower levels of chemistry or physics (which form the basis of biology and would be the same everywhere). What specifically biological principles would you expect to be the same everywhere? I would accept that the principle of evolution would be universal, and that life would almost invariably be based on organic chemistry. But apart from that, I doubt that the more complicated building blocks of life that are more-or-less ubiquitous here on earth would necessarily be similar everywhere in the universe. For example, I'm inclined to think that it was a lucky accident that life on earth found the hydrogen bonding between purines and pyrimidines to be its basis.

Why would you assume that?

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Why would you assume that?

Because I have an understanding of chemistry.

1 minute ago, KJW said:

Because I have an understanding of chemistry.

And now we take a deep dive into the rabbit hole; did Alice teach you nothing???

It's difficult to imagine that life could be any other way because we don't have any examples of life that is radically different from the examples we have here on earth.

Just now, KJW said:

It's difficult to imagine that life could be any other way because we don't have any examples of life that is radically different from the examples we have here on earth.

Yet you assume...

Just now, dimreepr said:

Yet you assume...

Are you expecting that all life throughout the universe to be based on ribonucleic acids?

Just now, KJW said:

Are you expecting that all life throughout the universe to be based on ribonucleic acids?

I have no idea, do you?

2 hours ago, KJW said:

I think this would only be meaningful if one is considering the level of biology itself and not the lower levels of chemistry or physics (which form the basis of biology and would be the same everywhere). What specifically biological principles would you expect to be the same everywhere? I would accept that the principle of evolution would be universal, and that life would almost invariably be based on organic chemistry. But apart from that, I doubt that the more complicated building blocks of life that are more-or-less ubiquitous here on earth would necessarily be similar everywhere in the universe. For example, I'm inclined to think that it was a lucky accident that life on earth found the hydrogen bonding between purines and pyrimidines to be its basis.

I’m not even sure about organic chemistry, and I don’t think that it’s a fundamental biological requirement that life be based on the building blocks we observe on earth. Organisms have to have some way to utilize energy, with an intake and expulsion of waste. Those trace back to thermodynamics anyway.

I also think that some aspects of biology would get rewritten if it’s realized that they are, in fact, earth-centric. The earth case would be a subset. Nothing new there, really, since refinement has already happened in other disciplines when we learned new things (e.g. phlogiston, atomic models)

But I also think that there’s a chunk of biology that’s “applied biology” and it’s already understood that it’s specific to earth.

I think physics and chemistry have an advantage in that there are no big holes in them stemming from us only being on earth. We can observe physics and chemistry happening elsewhere, to some extent, because photons get to us. There aren’t any gaps in the periodic table, and the standard model’s deficiencies don’t seem to include missing particles that readily interact. What we learn that’s new in them happens as we dive deeper into them and push boundaries

But biology can only look at what’s happening in a certain slice of conditions, so it might very well be far less complete. There might be low-hanging fruit out there on some alien tree that’s just not available to us (yet)

13 hours ago, exchemist said:

There may be some misunderstanding about what is meant in science by a ToE. It is a concept specific to physics that seeks to completely unify quantum physics with relativity. The term is used because relativity and quantum theory between them underpin just about all of physics, which in turn underpins chemistry, which underpins biology, and so forth. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

Reading your post, I confess my heart sinks to read, yet again, the word "framework", as it is a word beloved of AI LLMs. I hope I am talking to a real person here. 😃

13 hours ago, exchemist said:

"I hope I am talking to a real person here. 😃" Yes!

10 hours ago, swansont said:

On the contrary, the rules governing biology should be the same everywhere, it’s the results that can differ.

It would be like arguing that two rivers aren’t the same because the rules of fluid flow vary. And we don’t assert that - we realize that it’s the variables and boundary conditions that differ. Biology has lots of variables and boundary conditions.

10 hours ago, swansont said:

"On the contrary, the rules governing biology should be the same everywhere, it’s the results that can differ". Totally agree.

You need to have your answers be outside of the quote box

https://scienceforums.net/topic/135919-using-the-quote-function-2025-edition/

“To break up the quoted material, to respond to a specific section, put the cursor in the text box and hit return/enter a few times, and it will split the quote box in two, with a place for you to respond in between them.”

13 hours ago, KJW said:

I often laugh when I see Star Trek's portrayal of life from other planets.

Oh, I don't know ...

In the episode "The Devil in the Dark', the landing team investigates missing miners on a planet inhabited by the Horta, rock-like beings ( silicon based life ? ) which bore through rock using acid, and were threatened when the miners destroyed their 'eggs'.
But a lot has to do with the limited special effects, in most cases where aliens are similar to humans other than facial peculiarities.

51 minutes ago, MigL said:

Oh, I don't know ...

In the episode "The Devil in the Dark', the landing team investigates missing miners on a planet inhabited by the Horta, rock-like beings ( silicon based life ? ) which bore through rock using acid, and were threatened when the miners destroyed their 'eggs'.
But a lot has to do with the limited special effects, in most cases where aliens are similar to humans other than facial peculiarities.

In TNG there was a crystalline life form that called the humans/humanoids “ugly bags of mostly water” (Home Soil)

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Oh, I don't know ...

In the episode "The Devil in the Dark', the landing team investigates missing miners on a planet inhabited by the Horta, rock-like beings ( silicon based life ? ) which bore through rock using acid, and were threatened when the miners destroyed their 'eggs'.
But a lot has to do with the limited special effects, in most cases where aliens are similar to humans other than facial peculiarities.

Yeah, that was a good episode. Actually, it's more "The Next Generation", "Deep Space 9", and "Voyager" that have human-like creatures with weird appendages that indicate the designer's struggle to come up with creatures that look alien. At least in the episode you mention, the alien creatures were truly alien. However, in the original series, the Klingons look oriental, which is kind of strange from a modern perspective.

29 minutes ago, swansont said:

In TNG there was a crystalline life form that called the humans/humanoids “ugly bags of mostly water” (Home Soil)

I think when it comes to aliens that are a feature of the storyline, the writers do come up with interesting characteristics. It's more likely to be minor characters in such places as Ten Forward that one finds the effort to produce an alien appearance. (In Ten Forward, the designers like to make the drinking glasses look futuristic in weird ways, but that's another story.)

11 hours ago, swansont said:

I’m not even sure about organic chemistry, and I don’t think that it’s a fundamental biological requirement that life be based on the building blocks we observe on earth. Organisms have to have some way to utilize energy, with an intake and expulsion of waste. Those trace back to thermodynamics anyway.

I also think that some aspects of biology would get rewritten if it’s realized that they are, in fact, earth-centric. The earth case would be a subset. Nothing new there, really, since refinement has already happened in other disciplines when we learned new things (e.g. phlogiston, atomic models)

But I also think that there’s a chunk of biology that’s “applied biology” and it’s already understood that it’s specific to earth.

I think physics and chemistry have an advantage in that there are no big holes in them stemming from us only being on earth. We can observe physics and chemistry happening elsewhere, to some extent, because photons get to us. There aren’t any gaps in the periodic table, and the standard model’s deficiencies don’t seem to include missing particles that readily interact. What we learn that’s new in them happens as we dive deeper into them and push boundaries

But biology can only look at what’s happening in a certain slice of conditions, so it might very well be far less complete. There might be low-hanging fruit out there on some alien tree that’s just not available to us (yet)

I think I for the most part agree with this. However, organic chemistry is uniquely able to provide the functions that would be necessary for all chemically based lifeforms (I suppose electronically based semiconductor lifeforms might be possible). The only other chemistry that I'm aware of that comes anywhere near close to organic chemistry is silicone chemistry based on repeating siloxane units instead of carbon atoms.

14 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I have no idea, do you?

I have an idea. If I had no idea, I would not have said anything. Obviously, anything said about life elsewhere in the universe is going to be speculative. I think we all understand that. But I think we can apply knowledge from physics, chemistry, and life on earth to say something that is better than nothing.

And by the way, it was not me who downvoted you.

5 hours ago, KJW said:

I think I for the most part agree with this. However, organic chemistry is uniquely able to provide the functions that would be necessary for all chemically based lifeforms (I suppose electronically based semiconductor lifeforms might be possible). The only other chemistry that I'm aware of that comes anywhere near close to organic chemistry is silicone chemistry based on repeating siloxane units instead of carbon atoms.

Yes, it is hard to envisage a biochemistry that does not require catenation, to permit the development of polymers and other complex compounds. Also I think it is hard to envisage a satisfactory alternative solvent to water. I used to like to imagine methane or liquid ammonia or something as an alternative, but it seems hard to make a convincing case.

TOE for me is the physics. String theory was supposed to be the answer but that seems to have run out of steam.

TOE is the standard model explaining gravity in terms of QM and also incorporates DM.

That is from an outsider. (I'm a tech)

There is a quote I always remember (paraphrasing) in the introduction of a published paper.

" I think it is safe to say, that there is no one coherent quantum theory of gravity."

Stephen Hawking 1975.

57 minutes ago, pinball1970 said:

TOE for me is the physics.

It has to start there, anyway. If you can’t do it in physics, you can’t do it with physics plus anything else.

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

I think it is hard to envisage a satisfactory alternative solvent to water.

And it isn't because water is such a great solvent. In organic chemistry, water is a fairly poor solvent. It's because water provides a sharp delineation between the hydrophobic and the hydrophilic. For example, reaction sites of enzymes tend to be hydrophobic. But these sites are geometrically stabilised by water molecules forcing the protein structure into a conformation that has the hydrophilic groups on the outside surface and the hydrophobic groups on the inside. A solvent that tends to dissolve both hydrophilic and hydrophobic substances would tend to disrupt the secondary, tertiary, and quaternary structure of proteins.