<P> There is a philosophical debate within the physics community as to whether a theory of everything deserves to be called the fundamental law of the universe . One view is the hard reductionist position that the ToE is the fundamental law and that all other theories that apply within the universe are a consequence of the ToE . Another view is that emergent laws, which govern the behavior of complex systems, should be seen as equally fundamental . Examples of emergent laws are the second law of thermodynamics and the theory of natural selection . The advocates of emergence argue that emergent laws, especially those describing complex or living systems are independent of the low - level, microscopic laws . In this view, emergent laws are as fundamental as a ToE . </P> <P> The debates do not make the point at issue clear . Possibly the only issue at stake is the right to apply the high - status term "fundamental" to the respective subjects of research . A well - known debate over this took place between Steven Weinberg and Philip Anderson </P> <P> Although the name "theory of everything" suggests the determinism of Laplace's quotation, this gives a very misleading impression . Determinism is frustrated by the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical predictions, by the extreme sensitivity to initial conditions that leads to mathematical chaos, by the limitations due to event horizons, and by the extreme mathematical difficulty of applying the theory . Thus, although the current standard model of particle physics "in principle" predicts almost all known non-gravitational phenomena, in practice only a few quantitative results have been derived from the full theory (e.g., the masses of some of the simplest hadrons), and these results (especially the particle masses which are most relevant for low - energy physics) are less accurate than existing experimental measurements . The ToE would almost certainly be even harder to apply for the prediction of experimental results, and thus might be of limited use . </P> <P> A motive for seeking a ToE, apart from the pure intellectual satisfaction of completing a centuries - long quest, is that prior examples of unification have predicted new phenomena, some of which (e.g., electrical generators) have proved of great practical importance . And like in these prior examples of unification, the ToE would probably allow us to confidently define the domain of validity and residual error of low - energy approximations to the full theory . </P>

Who came up with the theory of everything