by Daniel Troit

Created on: February 10, 2009   Last Updated: March 05, 2009

In some particular studies and disciplines, the pursuit of a grand unifying theory is often seen as a fundamental goal. The development of a model that elucidates every factor and function of a particular system would engender complete understanding and perhaps mastery of a field.

A central axiom by which to approach a query provides a solid base upon which infallible investigation may occur and truth may be found. Such a stone, with the ability to transmute data into certainty has yet to emerge.

Physics as a specific study seeks to observe and understand the laws of the material world. Both nominally and inherently physical, it strives to answer only questions of a tangible nature. Why do things fall down? What's an orbit? How do my atoms stay together? Physics works to provide answers about the laws that dictate the actions of objects. It investigates these questions with a critical approach, basing assertion upon reason and employing the scientific method.

In physics, a Unifying Theory would provide a singular model describing all actions occurring in the material world. In seeking to explain a physical occurrence or describe a theoretical process, a Unifying Theory would provide physicists with a golden rule by which they may measure the accuracy of all physical descriptions. Such an infallible model would have the potential to illuminate the actions of matter far beyond our view as well as within our own bodies. The technology that would be built with such a tool is doubtless unimaginable today. Even without a Unifying Theory to buttress their claims, physicists have greatly advanced humanity's understanding of the material world.

Philosophy, like physics seeks to observe and understand certain laws. In place of the material world, philosophy works to provide answers about the experience of life and its peculiarities. Why am I alive and aware? What does that mean? How then should I live? In the same systematic approach as physics, philosophy hopes to further an understanding of the factors and functions of life. Like physics, philosophy is a discipline that seems to strive after a greater understanding by which certainty and even mastery may be achieved. Because of this desire for certainty, one may expect the development of an overarching model to be an equal goal for the philosopher. A Central Truth should facilitate a mastery of life's questions just as it would for inquiries addressing the physical world, right?

What separates life from matter is crucial and fundamental, though. Life is a process, a verb. Describing the experience of living entities, namely humans, it is neither material nor objective. As such, philosophy cannot develop a Central Truth, as there is no center to be found. As a tangible thing, the center of matter can be imagined and modeled, if not observed. Philosophy, in an attempt to study an abstract experience operates under the understanding that certainty is never guaranteed when studying something intangible.

A Central Truth, even if theoretically plausible would serve to provide certainty only in fields concerned with the finite and quantifiable. Abstract pursuits such as philosophy, while approached scientifically, are in truth more about comfort than facts. While still valuable, the only mastery they may provide is over one's own happiness. The physical processes of the body and its environment will continue to exercise their traditional command over the material destiny of the solid body. Philosophy never sought such power and therefore has no need for such a Universal Truth.

Learn more about this author, Daniel Troit.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.