<i>That&#x27;s a severe misunderstanding of what it means to have a unified physical theory. The current standard model of physics allows us to theoretically predict the evolution of physical systems with an insanely high precision. A precision so great that there wouldn&#x27;t be any meaningful error simulating macroscopic objects like human brains, given sufficient computing power.</i><p>Sure, like I said, I&#x27;m just thinking out loud here.  Obviously TOE in and of itself doesn&#x27;t automatically translate into full knowledge of everything in practice. But in principle, it would given sufficient computing power, allow us to simulate anything, which I think would yield additional understanding.  But here&#x27;s the thing, and where this all ties back together:  sufficient computing resources may not be possible, even in principle, to allow use of that TOE to do $X.  But an upper bound on the amount of computing resources should also reflect something of an upper bound on what our hypothetical AI can do as well.<p>Or to put it all slightly differently.. if we had a TOE, we&#x27;d have shown, at least, that humans are smart enough <i>to</i> develop a TOE.  Which I think at least raises the issue of &quot;how much smarter can a machine be, or what would it mean for a machine to be much smarter than that?&quot;<p>Note to that I&#x27;m not necessarily arguing <i>for</i> this position.  It&#x27;s more of a thought experiment or discussion point than something I&#x27;m firmly convinced of.