-->
@zedvictor4
any implication that I'm not is misfounded
what would you expect from a "theory of everything" if you were going to take it seriously?
Posts
Total:
49
-->
@sui_generis
So.
Theory is a tad futile.
Because human theorising can be wildly speculative.
Quantum entanglement springs to mind.
So how does one ascertain everything within the context of human data acquisition and management systems.
An Alternative Intelligence perhaps.
Though alternative systems will be similarly restricted in terms of an indirect attachment to everything.
Perhaps alternative systems will be able to convert everything into mathematical sequences.
I often wonder,
If everything was broken down into it's finite state.
Would it disappear.
And perhaps reappear.
Not so much a BIG BOOM
But more of a WHERE THE FU*K DID THAT COME FROM.
-->
@sui_generis
I'm writing one. I am formulating curricula for myself to ensure I have the adequate basis of knowledge to avoid the sorts of mistakes that would prevent me from being taken seriously before my ideas are even seriously contended with.
The term “Theory of Everything” (TOE) is defined by physicists as the unification of all four known fundamental forces, electromagnetism, the strong and weak forces, and gravity, into a single comprehensive theory which has “universal applicability”. There is an unfounded ideological commitment to “unification” as the path to ultimate truth in physics, but in the end, there are two problems to that. First, we must recognize that science asks carefully delimited questions about natural phenomena, and if the science is so “selective”, then it cannot claim that its picture of reality is complete, and consequently, the resultant theory cannot reasonably be called a theory of “everything”.
Second, even if we could conjure up a mathematical framework demonstrating that all four forces were derived from a single force in the first moments of the Big Bang, what would we really have accomplished? It wouldn’t be testable, it would do nothing to tell us about the nature of physical reality, and it certainly will not yield the sought after single underlying theoretical framework that governs the universe. At best, it would be a matter of abstract mathematics rather than physics, it would have no real connection to the real world.
what markers should I focus on? one of my main concerns is that if I'm going to attempt to defend the universal applicability of the model, then I must be, in some sense, decently competent at talking about everything. naturally, this presents a profoundly disadvantageous burden for me, such as would likely prevent me from attaining a degree of mastery over one specific domain as would grant me the credentials that many of the actual cultural mover-shakers use to pre-filter the ideas on which they spend their time
What you need to do is define the problem in a way that makes sense, what are you trying to accomplish? A “Theory of Everything” as it is currently defined by physicists would necessarily be a Quantum Theory, and Quantum Theory itself has rendered obsolete the view that the universe is wholly determined by inflexible and universal laws. A “Theory of Everything is fundamentally a belief in the causal closure of the physical world, which necessitates an axiomatic system that is consistent and logically complete and Godel’s proof showed that to be impossible. His Incompleteness Theorem is analytically perfect and rigidly deductive and therefore conclusive as far as logic and science are concerned. It states categorically that no axiomatic system is, or can be, complete without reference to a higher system in which that system must be embedded. Gödel proved that a “Theory of Everything” is therefore impossible, which is to say that it is logically and scientifically impossible to devise a set of axioms from which all the phenomena of the external world can be deduced. Werner Heisenberg confirmed that uncertainty is a feature of reality with his own proof in the physical sciences. Each and every unified theory, which is to say every scientific attempt at unifying and completing physical theory, postulates other dimensions in which this reality is embedded, every one of them, as and perhaps because, Kurt Gödel logically proved that they must.
Beyond the proven impossibility of the task, you need to further consider that any unification of the laws of physics must necessarily take into account the thought/consciousness dimension, and thus must unify physics with psyche as well. You need to determine how you will go about formulating consciousness into the mathematical framework of science, something that has always completely eluded science.
wdyt? ❦
What I think is that reality isn’t a problem that needs to be solved, and I wonder why we think that finite creatures can comprehend the whole, that our finite minds can somehow fully axiomatize an infinitely diverse universe of reality of which we are a mere part.
Maps are not territory, and there are definite limits to our mental powers and our mathematics, and maybe we should get past our arrogance by waking up to the fact that we are finite beings pondering the infinite, and that a part cannot circumscribe the whole.
-->
@sui_generis
I wasn't being a troll. I was just commenting.
-->
@zedvictor4
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
-->
@Public-Choice
3 mobile data processing units that get a mention in a book.
They shared an imaginative solution to a conundrum.
Lot's of that about for sure.
But still no tangible MANGOD as such.
Just the same old imaginative metaphor.
-->
@sui_generis
....a unifying, philosophical theory of everything,....
Start Here: Less conventional approaches to Grand Unified Theory of Everything 0 - 2 and 3 most popular candidates for GUTOEverything
0} Monopole gravity --->in<--- aka always attractive vs dipole magnistism either attractive or repulsive charge { dispersive out <----> out disintegrative }
note 1: Fullers diagram using minimal geometry of 3D ---->in<--- vs out <----> out diintegrative forces of charge {EM Radiation/photon } Use zoom button at bottom of page in following link to better read
note 2: tensegrity was the prominent theory by Fuller regarding gravity is the high strung tension as ---> in <----- and all else as mass in coherent integrity by the tension. Fuller invevented word tensegrity however, it is was his student Kenneth Nelson who made the first tensegrity structure out of PVC pipe and rope or cable, or string.
1} Introduction to Arthur Young { inventor of bell helicoptor } .."The Reflexive Universe".. and his theory of Everything based on purpose and process of seven and subsets of seven. His first book was .." The geometry of Meaning"...
...note: Young and have in common in that we both used the four line/level pattern approach, with some similar and some very differrent resultants.
2} my ulta-high number of Quantum Space-time Tori, with diametrcally opposing Outer ( ) Gravity set of surface nodal events, and Inner )( Dark Energy set of surface nodal events that spirally { geodeiscally ....( )( )... define any quantum pulse that includes diametrically opposite invaginations to create the inside body of tube as our sine-wave associated, observed { quantised } time, aka physical reality. ....(> * <) i (> * <)... i.e. occupied space of three primary kinds with the most complex physical reality resultant being bilateral humans ...woman being more complex than man---.
3}
...3a} String Theory >>> super-symmetry comes closet in my oppinnion, that is after my Quantum Space-time Tori scenarios, that also explain dark inflation expansion, entropy { dispersion of order } and cosmic cyclic regeneration of Universe
...3b} loop quantum gravity
...3c} E8 by the surfer dude
-->
@zedvictor4
Huh? I don't follow.
-->
@Public-Choice
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
I basically explained this.
Though theory also suggests that as Middle Eastern Shaman, they probably used hallucinogenic substances as a means of connection with another realm.
You should research the concept you are studying, history etc
I saw this video and reminded me of u
-->
@n8nrgim
A. Who?
B. Who?
Yep, interesting Japanese style guy.
-->
@Public-Choice
We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
T. S. Eliot
what would you expect from a "theory of everything" if you were going to take it seriously?
No idea. I assume by the time we get to that point, we’ll be answering more questions than we’re capable of asking.
-->
@Reece101
what would you expect from a "theory of everything" if you were going to take it seriously?No idea. I assume by the time we get to that point, we’ll be answering more questions than we’re capable of asking.
Robert Frost likened scientific knowledge to a clearing in a forest, the greater the clearing the more contact we have with the unknown, it seems that the more information we obtain through natural explanations, rather than less, the mystery of true reality becomes greater.
I would expect a "one size fits all" BS theory that leaves a million unanswered questions.
-->
@sui_generis
A Young used four numbered lines and his 7 catagories and subcatagories based on 7
I used similar four numbered lines. My Cosmic Trinary Set/Outlineis not based on those four lines, however,
..... My cosmic Trinary Set begins with systemic set of four, that has two primary kinds of space { occupied and non-occupied } and trinary set and sub-sets of occupied space catagory and subcatagores......... So 4 > 2 > 3 = Omni-considerate, most wholistic cosmic set.
Fuller used four 2D hexagonal planes in 60 degree orientation as Vector Equilibrum aka cubo{6}-octa{8}hedron
3 = structure.....and....... 4 = systemic integrity ergo total 7 { more on that point later }
Xx - Xy is three X's within a set of four chromosome system of bio-diversity via sex with humans being the synergetically most complex. Woman more complex than man.
In 2D we have a square [ ] and in-of-itself is never structurally stable till it has two diagonals [X] ---or triangles built into its corners--- that result in four triangles, 6 lines { see all tetrahedron /\/\/ } and four vertexes { * * * * }.
All of finite, occupied space Universe is complemented by geometrical math and other maths.
-->
@sadolite
I would expect a "one size fits all" BS theory that leaves a million unanswered questions.
That would be String Theory.
-->
@Sidewalker
A theory of everything would insinuate the person proposing it has thought of all conceivable possibilities of everything.
Formulating a Theory of Everything is not challenging; it can be grasped through comprehensive abstraction. The true difficulty lies in crafting a theory that is also precise, testable, and adept at explaining the complexities of the natural world across all scales.