> It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to come up with a philosophically sound logically consistent explanation for natural phenomenon which isn't unified and connected at a fundamental level
Well, one could come up with some kind of model of "infinite complexity", different models of different aspects of the universe can never be unified because of stretches of "infinite complexity" "between them", like imagine a model of particle physics with an infinite number of ever "smaller" particles and no fundamental particles/forces, things made of smaller/deeper things ad infinity. I guess our current mathematics is even capable of describing such a thing. But since "more knowledge" means "more advantages / chances of long term survival" for a species, it wouldn't matter if there is no finite upper bound of understanding, we will still pursue science. And such a point of view would only support theories that violate Occam's razor and the principle of parsimony, it wouldn't really help.
...but it would make for interesting philosophy, if the people smart enough to formulate such a theory mathematically would wast their time doing metaphysical philosophy :) And I don't even want to imagine how such a theory could be bent and twisted by popular interpretation and cult leaders looking for scientific support for whatever new "religions". But overall I think some paths of thought, like this one, are better let unexplored - too many dark and weird areas and too little of use for the advancement of science: we'd better keep our Occam's razors sharps and minds aimed at simple and consistent explanations ;)
The problem is consistency with your approach. I am referring to theories that are consistent enough with each other to have useful predictive power. As you get bigger disconnects between theories their predictive power falls away.
Well, one could come up with some kind of model of "infinite complexity", different models of different aspects of the universe can never be unified because of stretches of "infinite complexity" "between them", like imagine a model of particle physics with an infinite number of ever "smaller" particles and no fundamental particles/forces, things made of smaller/deeper things ad infinity. I guess our current mathematics is even capable of describing such a thing. But since "more knowledge" means "more advantages / chances of long term survival" for a species, it wouldn't matter if there is no finite upper bound of understanding, we will still pursue science. And such a point of view would only support theories that violate Occam's razor and the principle of parsimony, it wouldn't really help.
...but it would make for interesting philosophy, if the people smart enough to formulate such a theory mathematically would wast their time doing metaphysical philosophy :) And I don't even want to imagine how such a theory could be bent and twisted by popular interpretation and cult leaders looking for scientific support for whatever new "religions". But overall I think some paths of thought, like this one, are better let unexplored - too many dark and weird areas and too little of use for the advancement of science: we'd better keep our Occam's razors sharps and minds aimed at simple and consistent explanations ;)