seemed quite odd and since I did not read the book, it's really difficult to answer. But, considering that every theoretical physicist I know of in some way is trying to work on a grand unifying theory, they must all disagree that it's unobtainable, which is the central thesis as far as I can tell. I'll side with every current theoretical physicist over Stanley L. Jaki. It looks to me, like he found a pretty good logic puzzle to play with.
You are very quick! Choosing sides without reading the book Jaki is reviewing or Goedel. That is remarkable decisive.
I was saying that I can't make a decision based on the books, since I have not read them. However, I do follow several of the more famous theoretical physicists and have not heard them hemming and hawing over the impossibility of finding a unified theory. So based on my current information, I don't really give much credit to one single persons theory that all theoretical physicists are chasing their tails. You have either not provided enough information yet, or I don't have the requisite understanding, but if the new information does throw a chink in the unified theory armor, I'll change my mind. I don't have the education or knowledge to understand the high level math involved in theoretical physics, so i don't have strong conclusions in the area, instead, I listen to the summaries of people who are experts in the area and expect that they are more correct than incorrect. I could be wrong. Mostly I just enjoy hearing about the scientific possibilities that have at least some likelihood of being correct, and have not been disproved.
I have come to believe that some things will always remain Incomplete. Hawkins suggest in his book, A Brief History of Time. that perhaps humans are never to know as part of the design. But then no one should expect all to give up the errand.
Although I fully agree that we will likely never know all, I do believe that all is knowable. Given of course infinite time and resources. I'm fine with gaps in our knowledge, but I believe there are concrete laws that exist. Laws of nature exist here, different laws may exist elsewhere or in other times, but there will always be some scaffolding with which the moment is built upon. As long as there is a scaffold, some possible logic, we should theoretically be able to know. At least that's knowing all that exists, not necessarily knowing what doesn't exist. What doesn't exist is always infinite.
I didn't say Einstein was an atheist, but for purposes of the definition used in the context of the OP he most certainly was not a theist. He instinctively thought he "sensed" design in nature, but at the same time was also a strict determinist and quite vocally disbelieved in any sort of personal god, going as far as to mock that belief. As noted, if anything he was more accurately described as a mash up of Pantheism and agnosticism, and did at times refer to himself as an agnostic. Also worth noting that the same instincts and reasoning that lead him to suspect a deterministic purposeful universe led him to very wrong conclusions about the nature of QM, so instincts of that sort aren't necessary trustworthy even from what are considered the greatest of human minds.
[video=youtube;j8ZF_R_j0OY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=j8ZF_R_j0OY[/video] i swear this is relevant
I just listened to that at work, laughing and trying to turn the screen away from prying eyes. HAHAHAHA, repped. EDIT: NSFW, but worth it.
This is such a rip off from this 90's bit. [video=youtube;-HPxZKJk-lg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HPxZKJk-lg[/video]
