I take a different angle on this.

The everything is a closed system.

Proof requires something outside of a system.

There is nothing outside of everything.

Therefore if everything attempts to prove itself, it fails, because it invokes nothing from the outside of everything to make the proof valid.

:brow:

A theory that proves everything.

A theory that proves everything. — Agent Smith

You're right. A theory is not a proof. It is a substantiated explanation.

So the original statement is wrong, ad obo. "A theory that proves everything" in and by itself is a false proposition.

I missed that.

@god must be atheist

Made the necessary corrections. I'm not a 100%. Apologies.

So, tell me, why is it that a theory that explains everything explains nothing.?

Sounds like a straw man to me. Nobody has ever proposed a theory to explain everything. A 'Theory of Everything' in physics would not claim to explain why I always join the slowest queue. Marxism would not claim to explain volcanoes. Which theories are we talking about?

It's an even bigger strawman than you described. It's not question of whether a theory can explain everything... the question is whether a theory can PROVE everything. That's what the OP asks. I already closed that, saying theories don't prove anything, they only explain.

EDIT: the original post originally said different things than the original post. Some people need to be more precise from the get-go.

So, tell me, why is it that a theory that explains everything explains nothing.? — Agent Smith

Now I have to explain everything?? :smile:

Well, I think changing OP text mid-discussion can cause confusion - a footnote to say 'I typed X and should have typed Y' is clearer. But I can work out what happened and I'm not f-ing about it.

Smith said that he is not 100%... we each have our good days and our bad days. It was a bit surprising to see this happen, but no big deal, I have survived greater mishaps. Like back in 1974, when my shoelace broke during the national elections... And Smith apologized, which is fine, but the shoelace factory did not.

Like back in 1974, when my shoelace broke during the national elections... — god must be atheist

Oh no! My brother hit me with his toothbrush in 1962. I know about PTSD.

Proof requires something outside of a system. — god must be atheist

No, you can have something proven as a base that begins the system. If you show proof that there is nothing outside of the system, you do not need something outside of the system.

No, you can have something proven as a base that begins the system. — Philosophim

I don't understand. You mean an axiom, or a subsystem inside of the system that is proved by other parts of the system? In that case it's still the case that the subsystem is proved by something outside of itself. If it's an axiom you talk about, then it's not a proof, but something given that is accepted to be true; no proof exists to prove axioms.

If you say that the base that begins the system (originates it? Creates it?) is part of the system, that can't be, because nothing can create itself. Things can be thought to have existed since infinite past, but they were not begun. If they are made to begin, then they are created, and they are created by an outside thing.

A Theory That Explains Everything Explains Nothing
I can't give a proof that this is necessarily so. But I can give one example that supports the proposition.

God. Everything is created, moved, and manipulated by god.

That explains everything, and yet it explains nothing about the dynamics of the causal world.

Nobody has ever proposed a theory to explain everything — Cuthbert

Alexandre, an occasional poster on TPF, presented a paper that began with the encoding of every fact in the universe. That would be a big step towards a ToE.

Nobody has ever proposed a theory to explain everything — Cuthbert

Sure they did. Lots of religious writers have. "God is the culprit." Or words to that effect.

I forgot that one. Or that group of theories. I think that's probably it?

I suppose it (or they) is a kind of theory that is used when any other theory fails. After explanations have run out then divine ordination is invoked. So in a way we know in advance that it will explain nothing, because its proper domain of concern is those things for which there is no explanation.

Interesting to see you working with Popper's logic. Yes, useful theories are those that rule things out.

The classic example, as previously pointed out, is "god did it". Why did the crops fail? Devine will. Why did the crops thrive? Divine will. If god explains everything then god explains nothing. We don't know what to do. "Why did the crops fail? - lack of fertiliser; Why did the crops thrive? - because we added urea". This tells us something we can do.

It's also interesting how a theory of everything feeds into confirmation bias - the tendency we all have to interpret new evidence as favouring an existing theory. No matter what happens, "god did it" is confirmed. Faith justifies itself.

That clarifies a lot. Merci!

Which theories are we talking about? — Cuthbert

god did it — Banno

A theory that proves everything (E) — Agent Smith

First of all, an explanation is not a proof. You changed the wording from the title.
"God did it" is arguably an explanation, but it isn't presented as a proof of anything. The statement makes absolutely zero predictions, so hardly qualifies as a theory.
An explanation is not a theory. A theory is not a proof. A theorem is a proof, but you rarely see a theorem in physics.

A better example is the long list of various quantum interpretation, which at least do make predictions. Problem is, they all make the exact same predictions, so they too do not qualify as theories, but again only as explanations.

A theory that proves everything (E) has to be compatible with both P and ~P — Agent Smith

Where do you get this nonsense? A theory of everything would make a prediction about everything, but any given prediction would be P or ~P, but not both.

Another example from quantum theory (not interpretations this time). The theory predicts probability of observing certain events. No perfect theory of everything would do better than that. An atom will decay with half-life such and such, but a theory that predicts exactly when a given atom will do so will be quickly falsified,.

:ok: