Comments on a "Final Theory"
                      ___________________________ 
             (first printed - Vol. 2, No. 9 - June 1996)
 
	One may detect two things, I think, in the March issue of the 
Metaphysical Review (vol. 2, No.7, 1996) that point out toward a Final Theory 
of Physics. The first is the view expressed by Steven Weinberg that Newton has 
discovered the scientific method in Physics, the only one which proven to be 
consistent, and by means of which all the rest of physics has been obtained up 
to now. (In Weinberg's words "...all that has happened since 1687 is a gloss 
on the *Principia*"). The second is a reiteration by Timothy Paul Smith of the 
suggestion that there should be a Final Theory of Physics. And this latter 
author raises the sound questions of *what* would be that theory and *why* 
would it exist. In the next issue of Metaphysical Review Jim McBride doubts 
the existence of such a theory, on the grounds that we only have models in 
physics, and the physical research, the quest of nature, will never end.
 
	Prompted by these readings I should like to offer here my view on this 
matter. I think that we already have a Final Theory of Physics, and indeed 
this is the scientific method of research as exposed for the first time by 
Newton. As regards the questions of what would it be teaching us, and why 
would it be existing after all, I would only say that this Final Theory of 
Physics tells us that the cause of the things is the logical necessity.
 

					M. Apostol
 
					Department of Theoretical Physics
					Institute of Atomic Physics
					apoma@theor1.ifa.ro
 
					(received: May 30, 1996)