The book Sublime Object of Ideology (Zizek) and a second volume due soon attempts an interdisciplinary reframing of the theory of everything - working with Quantum Physicists and Material Hegelian/Lacanian philosophy. I am a philosopher who works with theoretical physicists.
Philosophy is the science of ideas. Ideas are the basis for all understanding - it is good that you are you there, this topic is inherently the realm of philosophy. Theoretical physicists must be very focused on theory to frame a "Theory of Everything" - what they kno will get in the way.
The Theory of Everything is just our modern way of saying "God" - they occupy the same position in our lives and society. We need to understand and it needs to make sense to us rn, in this time and space - like religion once did.
Even if incorrect, believing that we have a Theory of Everything is necessary. We have killed God and now find it necessary to create an idea that can encompass the void where God once was. Functionality is key.
I doubt the physicists ability to be objective. This is easily explained by adapting God into a Creator of a Game, us to fully uploaded VR Players, reality to the engine, mechanics and programming - all executed as science has already identified with the laws of the universe, etc.
A future version of Microsoft could easily hypothetically make this game. We already are testing reality to determine if it is a hologram.
I believe Stanford already declared it more likely we live in a simulation than it isn't - bc someday, if we can, we will totally make an exact copy of reality - maybe this it. Maybe we are dead and chose to upload ourselves here. Perhaps Musk is right and we are the NPCs of an alien game...
All of those things are far more likely than a spontaneous universe, coming into existence without cause, creating the universe for no reason and only time + chance allowing for what we call reality.
Far far more faith is needed to believe this not a created thing. I find it almost illogical that this being the simplest and most likely conclusion, that it is ignored. Where is the objectivity?
A working model is all we need to move forward - we can figure out later if it's right or not. I'll bet a seriously considered hypothetical" reality as a construct" would explain a lot of stuff.
You need include the placebo effect, how reality knows when I look at it and how only 60 some % of a society need believe something for all of them to declare it true - the collective unconscious, not as defined now - the NYT crossword experiment collective unconscious, the Theory of EVERYTHING must be all of that.
Purely philosophically I can account for much of reality - including ideas, what they are, how we have them, how they evolve and what they do. I'm not sure everything can actually be accounted for outside of a construct - I can't rn and I've tried.
