English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

We acuminate the idea of a final theory of physics in order to analyze itslogical implications and consequences. It is argued that the rationale of afinal theory is the principle of sufficient reason. This implies that a finaltheory of physics, presumed such a theory is possible, does not allow toincorporate substantial (non-trivial) propositions unless they are logically ormathematically deduced. Differences between physics and mathematics arediscussed with emphasis on the role of physical constants. It is shown that itis logically impossible to introduce constants on the fundamental level of afinal theory. The most fundamental constants emerging within a final theory areconstants of motion.  It is argued that the only possibility to formulate a final theory isnecessarily a tautology: A final theory of physics can only be derived fromthose presumptions about reality that are inherent in the idea and practice ofphysics itself. It is argued that a final theory is based on the notion ofobjectivity, but it is logically impossible that an ideal final theory supportsrealism.

The Final Theory of Physics - a Tautology?