[tophat9000]

Roger Penrose, a mathematical physicist at Oxford University, believes that if a "theory of everything" is ever developed in physics to explain all the known phenomena in the universe, it should at least partially account for consciousness.

Shouldn't a "theory of everything" explain everything? ...after all from the physics perspective we are just a chunk of energy and matter in close formation that seems to be self directed and aware of it self

[Ken H]

Shouldn't a "theory of everything" explain everything?

Indeed it should. If it doesn't, then they should rename it "the theory of a lot of things".

[js1138]

Shouldn't a "theory of everything" explain everything?

For the simple reason that the properties of objects are not predicted by the properties of their component parts.

The properties of water are not predicted by the properties of hydrogen and oxygen. One could take this simple principle up or down the scale of complexity. Living things are made of atomand molecules, but the properties of living things are not obvious in the properties of atoms and molecules. The behavior of societies is not predicted by the behavior of individuals.

Which is another way of saying that there really are new things under the sun, and inventions are not implied by the state of things that came before.