Physics' Independent Theories: General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics

Any theory is based upon the notion of creating ideas intended to explain something however, across different areas of knowledge they often hold different purposes. Some for example explain physical, psychological, mathematical, or philosophical phenomena. The limitations of any singular theory can arise from factors such as: involving a high degree of abstraction from reality, being too narrow in their application, and having a lack of obtainable data as the universe is finite. This is of particular prevalence in the natural and human sciences. A theory is not fact, where a fact is something known to have happened or to exist. This because a fact is a knowledge about a singularity whereas a theory provides knowledge for an existing phenomenon. A multiplicity of theories aims to eliminate the limitations of individual theories through the overlapping of multiple theories, even if there exists conflict between theories it may still prove to have greater practicality.

In current times physicists use two independent theories to explain how nature works. This includes general relativity and quantum mechanics. Although at times the two theories contradict each other, they both have proved invaluable to our understanding of physics. There are certain elements of the universe which can be decisively explained buy one theory but not the other and vice versa. For example, general relatively is able account for gravity and all the phenomena that result because of it, from the expansion of the universe to the orbiting celestial bodies. On the other hand, the theory of quantum mechanics can predict the workings of the strong nuclear and weak nuclear forces as well as the electromagnetic force. As a result, the four fundamental forces of nature can be understood and explained from the overlapping and combination of both theories. Simply dismissing either one of these theories would lessen our understanding of the world because at current neither one of the theories can explain all four of the universe’s fundamental forces. However, the basis that both these theories are built upon are formulaically vastly different. They are heavily contradictory by defining reality in ways that are not compatible with each other. It can be interpreted that one of these theories may possibly be absolute in its description of the workings of the universe. The two theories can not both be inherently true as their fundamentals do not match up. It can be argued that practicing two separate theories with fundamentally contradictory natures may inhibit our understanding of the world as the grounds by which we gain knowledge from at least one of the theories must be misled, even they both prove correct in their respective applications. However, given the fact that it may be possible that neither of theories truly explain the nature of the universe, having a multiplicity of theories will increase the likelihood of uncovering the truth.

Newtonian physics is an example of a theory that has been falsified yet is still considered practical and applicable in the real world. This theory is exceptional in the practice of engineering, architecture and space exploration, for it was Newtonian physics that enables us to land on the moon. Only is it in more specific cases when Newtonian physics loses its accuracy and more modern theories such as general relativity or quantum mechanics are required. Otherwise, Newtonian physics is applied practically in the real world on a daily basis but is no longer explored in theoretical physics. This means that although the theory has its limitations it is still very relevant with regards to our understanding of the world and its participation in the multiplicity of theories has been beneficial to society.

Furthermore, having the multiplicity of theories has resulted in more progress in a variety of fields than what a single theory could accomplish by itself in our current time. Therefore, I believe multiplicities of theories in physics has given us a greater understanding of the world and retaining them will continue to do so. General relativity and quantum mechanics must both be retained in the scientific community until discoveries of overwhelming evidence lie in favour of either or neither theory.

Social sciences are academic disciplines that study human society and social relationships, concerned with discovering general principals describing how societies function and are organised. In modern times there is such vast perspectivation that scientists tend to conceive realities of the world differently. What results from this is that one may observe a plethora of independent theories explaining the same phenomenon. This can make it very difficult in the social sciences to pinpoint with high level of confidence a certain cause for an event. Although humans are predictable the majority of the time one can never be fully certain of the actions a person or society will make in the future. The information and knowledge held within the mind of each individual is hidden from the observer unless conveyed through language. This is a crucial barrier between us and gaining full understanding of the world, for many ideas and thoughts an individual may have may never be shared to the world. This means there is limited access to an unlimited resource. Therefore, there is not enough available data for a single theory to claim an explanation for all human decision making. Human decision making is marvellously complex and vast, meaning a single theory cannot explain the cause and effect of every decision we make.

I believe a theory can account for a branch of decision making but a multiplicity of theories is needed to understand a broader spectrum of the basis by which we make our decisions. For example, social interactions can be led by many factors such as reason, intuition and faith. Therefore, there can be theories which account for reason-based decision making and theories which account empirically based decision making, but a theory cannot explain both of these ways of knowing because they a fundamentally different. There are many reasons why someone may choose to do something. A singular cause may lead to multiple possible effects, which can be influenced for example by a person’s ideology, time and external factors. Patterns exist within human decision making and a theory or theories may be well equipped to explain and predict a certain pattern, but patterns are unique and require a multiplicity of theories to grasp a general understanding. A multiplicity of theories in the human sciences helps greatly with making predictions about the future. Different theories will provide different outcomes to a cause or event, meaning a greater variety of preparations can be made spanning across the known possibilities. Therefore, once the outcome becomes knowledge through experience it can be linked back to a specific theory out of the multiplicity, allowing for the refining of and a progressive understanding of patterns. This is because process between a cause and an effect is circumstantial, there are no strict laws such as that in natural sciences and no outcome is set in stone. This is due to the range of factors that are present in the social sciences that interrupt or influence this process. However, the abundance of the multiplicity of theories in social sciences often cause confusion and a loss of clarity and confusion. This can be harmful to our understanding of the world because it clouds judgement and can lead people to believing in a false truth. The range of perspectives that arise when testing a hypothesis come as a result of the subjectivity which characterises the process of forming theories. With the existence of so many theories acting as explanations for a common phenomenon, the rate of improvement of our understanding of world is often inhibited or slowed. A lot of time and resources must be spent on research that aims to prove or disprove theories and generalizations. Although this does eliminate theories that lack validity, it does not focus on refining and exploring those theories that stand on solid ground. Furthermore, if multiple theories stand side by side trying to explain phenomenon, one must eventually make a decision based on the blind spots which lie in each one.

To answer the claim there must be a clear definition of what understanding the world really means. An understanding of the world can be interpreted as a subjective matter. If a person believes they understand an aspect of the world or even the full nature of the world, then in their mind it is true, regardless of the reality of it. A person who believes in faith may only require one theory in order to gain the knowledge of the inner workings of universe, and that is their truth. However, if an understanding of the world implies finding solid ground for reason and empirical evidence then it is completely necessary to retain a multiplicity of theories. The universe is finite, meaning there is a limited quantity of testing that a theory can be put to. Therefore, theories are inherently limited as you can never reach full confidence in the theory. Lastly, because a theory has not yet been able to explain everything, having multiple theories overlapping each other allows for specialisation in fields where individual theories excel. Even if the theories are not compatible with each other, together they form a broader and more in depth understanding of the world.  

I believe a theory can account for a branch of decision making but a multiplicity of theories is needed to understand a broader spectrum of the basis by which we make our decisions. For example, social interactions can be led by many factors such as reason, intuition, and faith. Therefore, there can be theories which account for reason-based decision making and theories which account for empirically-based decision making, but a theory cannot explain both of these ways of knowing because they a fundamentally different. There are many reasons why someone may choose to do something. A singular cause may lead to multiple possible effects, which can be influenced for example by a person’s ideology, time, and external factors. Patterns exist within human decisions making and a theory or theories may be well equipped to explain and predict a certain pattern, but patterns are unique and require a multiplicity of theories to grasp a general understanding. A multiplicity of theories in the human sciences helps greatly with making predictions about the future. Different theories will provide different outcomes to a cause or event, meaning a greater variety of preparations can be made spanning across the known possibilities. Therefore, once the outcome becomes knowledge through experience it can be linked back to a specific theory out of the multiplicity, allowing for the refining of and a progressive understanding of patterns. This is because the process between a cause and an effect is circumstantial, there are no strict laws such as that in natural sciences and no outcome is set in stone. This is due to the range of factors that are present in the social sciences that interrupt or influence this process. However, the abundance of the multiplicity of theories in social sciences often causes confusion and a loss of clarity and confusion. This can be harmful to our understanding of the world because it clouds judgment and can lead people to believe in a false truth. The range of perspectives that arise when testing a hypothesis comes as a result of the subjectivity which characterizes the process of forming theories. With the existence of so many theories acting as explanations for a common phenomenon, the rate of improvement of our understanding of the world is often inhibited or slowed. A lot of time and resources must be spent on research that aims to prove or disprove theories and generalizations. Although this does eliminate theories that lack validity, it does not focus on refining and exploring those theories that stand on solid ground. Furthermore, if multiple theories stand side by side trying to explain the phenomenon, one must eventually make a decision based on the blind spots which lie in each one.