A Theory of Everything was meant in the physical sense. One that fully describes the nature of spacetime (or what appears to us as spacetime).

Obviously the above can't be true. You can't have a consistent and complete theory, come on, that's Godel already.

This is exactly what I'm saying. Chaitin might have a clue to what he's talking about, but obviously the author has nought. I rest my case for people to stop upmodding the article. You may not know it's sensationalist and innacurate, so I'm just letting you know.

I thought we wanted to avoid articles like this on HN?

EDIT: Parent edited his comment.

EDIT2: What basic truths? The only "basic truth" is first-order predicate logic. After that you assume some axioms (ZFC), and then it's not basic anymore. If you had used different axioms, you'd end up with a different mathematics, .e.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Bernays%E2%...

Anyways, here's what I gather the article is saying:

Pysics depends on maths. Godel's incompleteness theorem (GIT) doesn't necessarily impact physics because physics can just use the untouched part of maths. However, Chaitin says his Omega number impacts all of maths with the same kind of consequence as GIT. Therefore, physics and the TEO is in trouble no matter what part of maths it uses.

He shattered mathematics with a single number. And that was just for starters, says Marcus Chown.

Certainly reading about uncomputable numbers like Chaitin's constant is interesting reading, but my case is that this article is not the right start.

Anyways, foundations and information theory isn't my area of research, so I'll leave it at that.

Anyways, they are saying different things from what I can tell, as mentioned in the edit. So, I'm not seeing the case that the article is innacurate.