The author discusses the connections between items and their relationships, the string as

well as its components, and much more in the article "A new theory of everything."
Harman criticizes the value of science and its significance in how people perceive the
world. Physics must attempt to develop their "theory of everything" through the use of
string theory. The string theory might be the most effective in explaining the makeup of
stuff and, by extension, the universe’s structure. Harman, however, believes that string
theory falls victim to four critical mistakes that prevent it from serving as the foundation
for a theory of everything.

However, he believes that material physics falls victim to four critical mistakes that
prevent it from serving as the foundation for a theory of everything. Everything that is
real must be physical. Whatever it is it must be fundamental and uncomplicated.
Smallness, a theory that says that all genuine things in existence are made up of minute
components, is where this second claim can be found. However, the author contends
that smallness ignores the emerging phenomena. When components combine to create a
new one, this is an example of emergent behavior. Let's take a closer look at the
situation: when couples get married, a brand-new and unpredicted anti-fictiction and
unexpected thing emerge. Physics, and especially string theory, are focused on the
discovery of real physical objects, while fictional ones are of no interest. A key tenet of
the OOO is that a theory of everything has to be capable of accounting the non-physical
things in the same way that it can for imaginary ones. Insofar as it deals with tangible
beings, it also deals with those. Whatever something is, it must have the ability to be
precisely represented as a propositional literal. The fourth claim is false because it is
literalistic.

Harman is resolute around getting over the human-centric nature of philosophical

argumentation and the significance credited to the subject. With a more broad and freed
conceptions of objects, he recommends doing absent with the conventional modern
division between subject and question. Agreeing to him, everything is a thing, they
exists independently from us, and they basically resist human restrictions. Another step
is to think of the subject and individuals generally as one subject among a numerous
within the tremendous cluster of objects that make up the universe, as restricted to
eradicating it.

With the help of flat ontology, Levi Bryant has achieved success. The phrase was first
used by a British science philosopher. Roy Bhaskar, despite having exactly the opposite
connotation. However, OOO employs "flat ontology" in DeLanda's sense, as a word
with a favorable connotation, although it should be highlighted that OOO does not
consider flat ontology to be an unqualified good. Briefly simply said, flat ontology is a
promising beginning for philosophy but a letdown in the end. As an illustration, it
was argued previously in this chapter that philosophy must be able to discuss anything,
including Sherlock Holmes, real people and animals, chemicals, and hallucinations,
without hastily excluding some of them or hurriedly grading them from more to less
real. We may have prejudices that lead us to believe that philosophy must only address
natural objects and ignore synthetic materials, which we could reject as unreal.

In conclusion, the central tenet of object-oriented ontology (OOO) asserts that

historically speaking, there has been little philosophical thought on objects as such,
always favoring more radical methods. Graham Harman categorized different types of
radical philosophies according to how they view things: some reject them by asserting
that objects are merely containers that hide deeper realities, whether these are
conceptualized in terms of monism or continual flux; others maintain that the concept of
a finished object is founded on a false folk ontology and that there is no reality behind it
other than its properties or relationships.

Other types of realism have also been critiqued by object-oriented ontology, in addition
to anti-realism. The author even asserted that the term "realism" will soon be irrelevant
as a criterion for differentiating across philosophies given the rise in the number of
speculative realist adherents. He has already produced multiple texts outlining the
distinctions between OOO and other realism, which he also criticizes for being
insufficiently realistic and having objects that are "useless fictions," for this reason.

A post office box, electromagnetic radiation, a space-time curve, the Commonwealth of

Nations, or a propositional attitude are all examples of objects in Harman's view.
Whether they are real or imagined, all things are objects. Harman, who professes a
strong love for panpsychism, this suggests the creation of a new study called
"speculative psychology," which would focus on worms, armies, chalk, stone, and sand
as examples of the "particular psychic actuality" of these objects

Finally, an object symbolizes an "infinite emptiness" that is both impenetrable to and

unknowable by anything else. The concept of causality is reinterpreted as "vicarious";
Harman, who took his cues from medieval occasionalism, maintains that interactions
between two objects may only take place indirectly, through the use of a "sentient
vicariousness,” rather than directly. As a result, there are two types of items: real and
sentient. The former are common objects, while the latter are "caricatures" that serve as
a mediator and facilitate communication. For instance, Harman sustains that when the
fire burns wool, the interaction is mediated by the "caricature" of the wool that causes
the fiber to burn rather than the fire ever coming into contact with the endless essence of
the cotton.