Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| | | |
| '''Everything''' is all that [[exists]].[1] Every object and entity is a part of everything, including all [[physical]] bodies and in some cases all abstract objects. Everything is generally defined as the opposite of [[absence|nothing]], although an alternative view considers "nothing" a part of everything. | | '''Everything''' is all that [[exists]].[1] Every object and entity is a part of everything, including all [[physical]] bodies and in some cases all abstract objects. Everything is generally defined as the opposite of [[absence|nothing]], although an alternative view considers "nothing" a part of everything. |
| + | <center>For lessons on "'''''everything'''''", follow [https://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Category:Topics '''''this link'''''].</center> |
| ==Scope== | | ==Scope== |
| In ordinary [[conversation]], everything usually refers only to the totality of [[things]] relevant to the subject [[matter]].[1] When there is no expressed limitation, everything may refer to the [[universe]] or the world. | | In ordinary [[conversation]], everything usually refers only to the totality of [[things]] relevant to the subject [[matter]].[1] When there is no expressed limitation, everything may refer to the [[universe]] or the world. |
Line 8: |
Line 9: |
| Especially in a metaphysical context, World may refer to everything that constitutes [[reality]] and the [[Universe]]: see World (philosophy). However, world may "only" refer to [[Earth]] envisioned from an anthropocentric or human [[worldview]], as a place inhabited by [[human being]]s. It is often used to signify the sum of human [[experience]] and [[history]], or the "[[human condition]]" in general.[2] | | Especially in a metaphysical context, World may refer to everything that constitutes [[reality]] and the [[Universe]]: see World (philosophy). However, world may "only" refer to [[Earth]] envisioned from an anthropocentric or human [[worldview]], as a place inhabited by [[human being]]s. It is often used to signify the sum of human [[experience]] and [[history]], or the "[[human condition]]" in general.[2] |
| ==In theoretical physics== | | ==In theoretical physics== |
− | In theoretical physics, a theory of everything ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything TOE]) is a hypothetical theory that fully explains and links together all known physical [[phenomena]]. Initially, the term was used with an [[ironic]] connotation to refer to various overgeneralized theories. For example, a great-grandfather of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijon_Tichy Ijon Tichy] — a character from a cycle of Stanisław Lem's [[science fiction]] stories of 1960s — was known to work on the "General Theory of Everything". Over time, the term stuck in popularizations of quantum [[physics]] to describe a theory that would unify or explain through a single [[model]] the theories of all fundamental interactions of [[nature]]. | + | In theoretical physics, a theory of everything ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything TOE]) is a hypothetical theory that fully explains and links together all known physical [[phenomena]]. Initially, the term was used with an [[ironic]] connotation to refer to various overgeneralized theories. For example, a great-grandfather of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijon_Tichy Ijon Tichy] — a character from a cycle of Stanisław Lem's [[science fiction]] stories of 1960s — was known to work on the "General Theory of Everything". Over time, the term stuck in popularizations of quantum [[physics]] to describe a theory that would unify or explain through a single [[model]] the theories of all fundamental interactions of [[nature]]. |
| | | |
| There have been many theories of everything proposed by theoretical physicists over the last century, but none have been confirmed experimentally. The primary problem in producing a TOE is that the accepted theories of [[quantum mechanics]] and [[Relativity|general relativity]] are hard to combine. | | There have been many theories of everything proposed by theoretical physicists over the last century, but none have been confirmed experimentally. The primary problem in producing a TOE is that the accepted theories of [[quantum mechanics]] and [[Relativity|general relativity]] are hard to combine. |
| | | |
− | Based on theoretical [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle holographic principle] [[arguments]] from the 1990s, many physicists believe that 11-dimensional M-theory, which is described in many sectors by matrix [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory string theory], and in many other sectors by perturbative string theory, is the complete theory of everything. Other physicists disagree. | + | Based on theoretical [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle holographic principle] [[arguments]] from the 1990s, many physicists believe that 11-dimensional M-theory, which is described in many sectors by matrix [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring_theory string theory], and in many other sectors by perturbative string theory, is the complete theory of everything. Other physicists disagree. |
| ==In philosophy== | | ==In philosophy== |
| In philosophy, a theory of everything or TOE is an ultimate, all-encompassing explanation of nature or reality.[3][4][5] Adopting the term from [[physics]], where the search for a theory of everything is ongoing, philosophers have discussed the viability of the [[concept]] and [[analyzed]] its properties and implications.[3][4][5] Among the questions to be addressed by a philosophical theory of everything are: "Why is reality understandable?" "Why are the laws of nature as they are?" "Why is there anything at all?"[3] | | In philosophy, a theory of everything or TOE is an ultimate, all-encompassing explanation of nature or reality.[3][4][5] Adopting the term from [[physics]], where the search for a theory of everything is ongoing, philosophers have discussed the viability of the [[concept]] and [[analyzed]] its properties and implications.[3][4][5] Among the questions to be addressed by a philosophical theory of everything are: "Why is reality understandable?" "Why are the laws of nature as they are?" "Why is there anything at all?"[3] |
| ==Quote== | | ==Quote== |
− | At one time or another [[mortal]] man has [[worship]]ed everything on the face of the [[earth]], including himself. He has also worshiped about everything imaginable in the sky and beneath the surface of the earth. Primitive man feared all [[manifestations]] of [[power]]; he worshiped every [[natural]] [[phenomenon]] he could not comprehend. The observation of powerful natural forces, such as storms, floods, earthquakes, landslides, volcanoes, fire, heat, and cold, greatly impressed the expanding [[mind]] of man. The [[Mystery|inexplicable]] [[things]] of life are still termed "[[acts]] of [[God]]" and "mysterious dispensations of [[Providence]]."[http://www.urantia.org/cgi-bin/webglimpse/mfs/usr/local/www/data/papers?link=http://mercy.urantia.org/papers/paper85.html&file=/usr/local/www/data/papers/paper85.html&line=30#mfs] | + | At one time or another [[mortal]] man has [[worship]]ed '''everything''' on the face of the [[earth]], including himself. He has also worshiped about everything imaginable in the sky and beneath the surface of the earth. Primitive man feared all [[manifestations]] of [[power]]; he worshiped every [[natural]] [[phenomenon]] he could not comprehend. The observation of powerful natural forces, such as storms, floods, earthquakes, landslides, volcanoes, fire, heat, and cold, greatly impressed the expanding [[mind]] of man. The [[Mystery|inexplicable]] [[things]] of life are still termed "[[acts]] of [[God]]" and "mysterious dispensations of [[Providence]]."[https://nordan.daynal.org/wiki/index.php?title=Paper_85#PAPER_85:_THE_ORIGINS_OF_WORSHIP] |
| | | |
| ==Further reading== | | ==Further reading== |
− | *Church Dogmatics III/3, pp. 389–368, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Barth Karl Barth] | + | *Church Dogmatics III/3, pp. 389–368, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Barth Karl Barth] |
− | *[http://www.pentapublishing.com/ In Search of a Cyclops], Fredrick Schermer | + | *[https://www.pentapublishing.com/ In Search of a Cyclops], Fredrick Schermer |
− | *[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Bergson Creative Evolution, Henri Bergson], Chapter IV | + | *[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Bergson Creative Evolution, Henri Bergson], Chapter IV |
| | | |
| ==References== | | ==References== |