The Senior Common Room, late afternoon. A fire burns with unnecessary seriousness. Professor Quillibrace is reading. Mr Blottisham is standing. Miss Elowen Stray is seated on the arm of a chair, listening.
Blottisham:
But surely physics aims to explain everything.
Quillibrace (without looking up):
Only if one confuses explanation with inventory.
Blottisham:
I don’t see why that should be a confusion. An explanation that leaves things out is, by definition, incomplete.
Quillibrace:
On the contrary. An explanation that includes everything leaves nothing distinguished.
(Pause.)
Blottisham:
That sounds clever, but it’s evasive. Physics seeks fundamental laws. The final theory. The one beneath all the others.
Quillibrace:
Beneath is a spatial metaphor. Physics does not descend. It constrains.
Blottisham:
You’re avoiding the point. Are you denying that there is a true description of reality?
Quillibrace:
I am denying that “true description” names a thing without a cut.
Blottisham:
A cut again! Everything seems to hinge on this mysterious cut.
Quillibrace:
Everything that can be said does.
Elowen Stray (gently):
Mr Blottisham, when you say “everything,” what exactly are you pointing to?
Blottisham:
Well — the universe. All of it. Nothing left out.
Elowen:
But nothing left out of what? A description? A perspective? A phenomenon?
Blottisham:
Out of reality itself.
Quillibrace (finally looking up):
Reality does not come with an index.
Blottisham:
So you’re saying physics should abandon ambition?
Quillibrace:
No. It should abandon fantasy.
Blottisham:
And the fantasy is…?
Quillibrace:
That explanation improves as perspective disappears.
Blottisham:
Isn’t that what objectivity means?
Quillibrace:
Objectivity means constraint without privilege — not description without position.
Elowen:
It seems to me that every time we ask for a theory of everything, we’re asking for a description that applies everywhere but belongs nowhere.
Blottisham:
That sounds like neutrality.
Elowen:
It sounds like absence.
(Blottisham paces.)
Blottisham:
But surely — surely — there must be something the universe is, independent of how we look at it.
Quillibrace:
There is structured possibility. There are systems. There are constraints on what can be instantiated.
Blottisham:
And those aren’t everything?
Quillibrace:
They are not an inventory.
Blottisham:
Let me put it plainly. If we had a Theory of Everything, what would be wrong with it?
Quillibrace:
Nothing at all.
Blottisham (triumphant):
Ah!
Quillibrace:
It simply wouldn’t explain anything.
(Silence.)
Elowen:
Because explanation requires relevance.
Quillibrace:
And relevance requires exclusion.
Elowen:
And exclusion requires a cut.
Blottisham (after a moment):
So physics will never be finished?
Quillibrace:
Finished things are dead.
Blottisham:
That’s a bit dramatic.
Quillibrace:
Ontology often is.
Elowen (smiling):
Perhaps the mistake is thinking that refusing totality means settling for less.
Quillibrace:
On the contrary. It means settling for meaning.
The fire crackles. Blottisham sits, unconvinced but tired. Quillibrace returns to his book. Elowen continues to watch the room, as if something might yet become a phenomenon.
Closing Reflection
The demand for a final theory is not a scientific error.
It is a metaphysical reflex.
Once that reflex is disciplined, nothing essential is lost.
What remains is a physics that explains without pretending to finish, and an ontology that refuses completion without forfeiting rigor.
Totality is not false.
It is simply not something that can be said.
And that, at last, is the point.
No comments:
Post a Comment