Grand Unifying Theory

You know, this is an issue that has been bugging me for some time.... I know so little about particle physics and so on, that I hardly dare express myself on the topic.    However, last night, watching the Adam Curtis programme about the development of the internet and the ideology behind it, I found myself remembering an unfinished discussion with J and since I can't have it with him, I will try to have it here - who knows, I might even get a comment!

J said "Science teaches us to look for a single theory which explains everything." (Once again, I paraphrase and may be wrong).  My contrarian gene immediately wanted to say "but why should there be a single theory which explains everything?"  why shouldn't there be a number of theories which interact to explain different things?.

I think this is arguably some kind of fashionable post-modern approach, in that it attacks the "absolute truth" idea, and proceeds from human experience, but it occurs to me that the reason that science seeks a unifying theory may be because science after all developed in tandem with theology - and theology uses (ultimately) God to explain everything - and theology searches for God in everything - whereas science as an intellectual practice - cannot apply God, but seeks to find something else that explains everything.   So far, so good.  Nothing can shake a believer from a theocentric explanation, and God can usually explain stuff, in the sense that we all know He moves in a mysterious way etc.    But why should there be an over-arching scientific theory?   I think I read somewhere that there are parts of the universe where gravity does not apply.  If this is true, it seems to me that there are likely to be circumstances where any theory may not apply.

I wish I knew if it was true though, where would gravity not apply?  Inside an electron?  Dunno.

I suppose rather than extrapolating from a "god-based" theory - I am thinking of a theory more based on human behaviour: humans are diverse and do not behave the same way in every situation - and this seems a perfectly acceptable possibility about scientific laws.... and thus if the GUT was to be made based on various laws/theories (gravity, thermodynamics, evolution, relativity - to name a few) some of which did not always behave consistently.... well, arguably it makes it harder to find the data to get to that theory, or maybe it just doesn't exist, or like whatever happened before the Big Bang is only part of our imagination - and has no reality.  Of course - apparently nothing happened before Big Bang since time and space did not exist then (apparently) - but I was brought up on ex nihilo nihil fit and I find it impossible (like most people) to believe that things just start without any cause, any prior notice or begin without any cause.

What was interesting on "Watched over by Machines of Incredible Grace" (WOMIG) was the idea that seemed to be inherent in the "Limits to Growth" arguments that Nature maintained some kind of status quo.  Of course the reality is very different, the constant geological upheavals and weather changes, and one predator wiping out another species has been going for ever - there is no state to which we can revert as a "norm".  It would be nice to keep things in an equilibrium - but not within our power, and to maintain an environmental/economic equilibrium is to condemn developing countries to perpetual suffering and to never develop.  While politically unsavoury, this is clearly an easier object to achieve (or was 50 years ago) than persuading citizens of developed countries to give up their lifestyles in favour of helping 3rd world countries raise their standards of living.

Something that hadn't occurred to me before was that traditionally we had the idea that humanity was a "special creation" - this idea persisted beyond the decline in widespread religious belief in Europe - but by the 60s-70s we began to be seen as one species amongst many and our specialness has declined.  With that I suppose has come the rise of "animal rights" - and a lot of other relativistic stuff... I daresay the idea of humans as special will continue to decline in the "west" - it is an idea that's closely linked to a belief in God.

But this is just a collection of ideas nudged by WOMIG - and it doesn't answer the question "Does there have to be a grand unifying theory"?   And I can't get anywhere with it.   I should read more widely, but most sciencey books (pace Jared Diamond) are really dull and difficult to read - especially to a non-specialist. 

As for my current reading..... well, that's another story.