What is the term for 'the science of everything'?

  • Thread starter Thread starter midnite13
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Science
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on identifying a term for "the science of everything." Participants suggest that while there may not be an official term, "science" itself encompasses all fields through its methodological approach to problem-solving. The concept of omniscience is humorously mentioned, but the focus shifts to theoretical physics as a candidate for this overarching science. Within physics, the Theory of Everything (ToE) and the Grand Unified Theory (GUT) are proposed as models that aim to describe all physical phenomena. The conversation highlights the complexity and interconnectedness of scientific disciplines.
midnite13
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hello all,

I didn't know which sub/forum was appropriate to ask this question in, so i picked the one with the most pertinent description.

My question is really simple and direct..

Is there a term for 'the science of everything'?

Thanks for your help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Omniscience :smile:.

Jokes aside, when dealing with all of the sciences, I would call it science, plain and simple. Science is a methodological system of problem solving.

I do not know if there is an official term for the "science of everything."

I am curious - why do you need to know this?
 
Saketh said:
Omniscience
:smile: :smile: Good one.
 
There is: theoretical physics. Physics is THE fundamental science, all other sciences are special cases of it. If you are looking inside Physics, then the postulated model able to describe all physical phenomena exactly is called the Theory of Everything (ToE) or the Grand Unified Theory (GUT).
 
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top