0

# A completed theory of everything!

Mon 22 Mar, 2010 02:26 pm
Our physical universe has a beginning of time that is estimated to be 13 billion years old. It said that facts about it, namely it laws, and constitution are said to be logically contingent. This can be put in another way. Suppose physicists discovery a set of equations that describes/govern all we hope for in a theory in physics, then that would be the end of the reductionist program in physics. Every physical system that physicists want to understand, or care to understand could "in principle" be reducible to the laws in this set of questions. One would of course still need initial conditions set according to the physical system in question.

Taking a god ` s eye view view on these equations would be, i will bet, a wonderful thing. If there is a transient god, than this god would itself uses these equations to make our physical same-time manifold. This god would have to design the electron in such a way so that Dirac equation describe/govern it. If this theory of everything( TOE) is ever obtained, then there would still be a mystery. One can ask why the TOE equations has to be the way it is. We normally think of equations in physics as describes our physical reality. The TOE is true only if the TOE describes reality. Make no mistaken, the TOE is a set of questions. To say the TOE is true is to say TOE describe reality, but in what sense can equations describe reality? Here is where some math, and philosophy comes in. Physicists, and mathematician are always trying to classify, and group structures. They define two structures as similar if and only if there is an isomorphism between one structure, and the other. So if TOE is said to be true, then the mathematical structure/formal system described by the TOE has to be isomorphic to the physical universe. To establish isomorphism, one needs to given a story/model that tells what the element in one structure correspond to the element in another structure. In other words, the TOE needs to be given a model. The model is technical, and it is part of model theory. According to a famous theory in mathematical logic, there would be many interpretations/models for any TOE one cares to construct. So There would still be the question of why this model, and not some other model.

At this point, i am a bit depress, because a complete theory in physics would not be able to tell me why the TOE given to me by the physicists is the only one that exist, nor will the model that accompany that TOE is the only one that applies to the given TOE. At this point, i wonder could reality be so boring that there is only one unique TOE, and one model that applies? My intuition, and the intuition of many people with similar mathematical intuition is that reality can not be this boring. Might it not be possible that all logically possible TOE, and all possible models that applies to each exist. I mean there would be a universe described by some TOE, and some model that applies to this TOE, then there would be a universe that is isomorphic to the given TOE with this model. This feels right for me. what do you think?
• Topic Stats
• Top Replies
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 3,204 • Replies: 171
No top replies

xris

1
Mon 22 Mar, 2010 02:40 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
Id like to ask the question why is it assumed you can measure the universe and give it start date. As for the theory of everything, its really quite simple, its so simple we cant conceive it.
Fil Albuquerque

1
Mon 22 Mar, 2010 02:46 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
are ONE
TuringEquivalent

1
Mon 22 Mar, 2010 02:57 pm
@xris,
xris;142276 wrote:
Id like to ask the question why is it assumed you can measure the universe and give it start date. As for the theory of everything, its really quite simple, its so simple we cant conceive it.

The date comes with the big bang theory, but i suppose you have something different in mind by "universe".

TOE is simple? What are you talking about?

---------- Post added 03-22-2010 at 04:02 PM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;142281 wrote:
are ONE

The title "TOE" has it` s origin in physics, and that is what i appeal to.

The "TOE" in physics might not even be possible according to one philosopher.
Fil Albuquerque

1
Mon 22 Mar, 2010 03:02 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,

---------- Post added 03-22-2010 at 04:04 PM ----------

TuringEquivalent;142287 wrote:

The title "TOE" has it` s origin in physics, and that is what i appeal to.

The "TOE" in physics might not even be possible according to one philosopher.

...I have follow physics and the T.O.E. for a long time, I know what you mean, but still I think my point is relevant...

The unification of the 4 forces of nature in One final Theory must be applicable to ultimate reality in every possible after extent of its conceived boundaries...
TuringEquivalent

1
Mon 22 Mar, 2010 03:12 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Why there are two TOE? That is a weird question to me. It is a question your ought to ask other people, and not me.
Fil Albuquerque

1
Mon 22 Mar, 2010 03:15 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;142299 wrote:
Why there are two TOE? That is a weird question to me. It is a question your ought to ask other people, and not me.

I meant one TOE for each model universe, or, ONE for them all...
(I go for the second)

---------- Post added 03-22-2010 at 04:18 PM ----------

True LAW cannot be disputed by any other law...True LAW is in everything...(Meta-Omniverse included)
north

1
Mon 22 Mar, 2010 03:24 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;142273 wrote:
Our physical universe has a beginning of time that is estimated to be 13 billion years old. It said that facts about it, namely it laws, and constitution are said to be logically contingent. This can be put in another way. Suppose physicists discovery a set of equations that describes/govern all we hope for in a theory in physics, then that would be the end of the reductionist program in physics. Every physical system that physicists want to understand, or care to understand could "in principle" be reducible to the laws in this set of questions. One would of course still need initial conditions set according to the physical system in question.

Taking a god ` s eye view view on these equations would be, i will bet, a wonderful thing. If there is a transient god, than this god would itself uses these equations to make our physical same-time manifold. This god would have to design the electron in such a way so that Dirac equation describe/govern it. If this theory of everything( TOE) is ever obtained, then there would still be a mystery. One can ask why the TOE equations has to be the way it is. We normally think of equations in physics as describes our physical reality. The TOE is true only if the TOE describes reality. Make no mistaken, the TOE is a set of questions. To say the TOE is true is to say TOE describe reality, but in what sense can equations describe reality? Here is where some math, and philosophy comes in. Physicists, and mathematician are always trying to classify, and group structures. They define two structures as similar if and only if there is an isomorphism between one structure, and the other. So if TOE is said to be true, then the mathematical structure/formal system described by the TOE has to be isomorphic to the physical universe. To establish isomorphism, one needs to given a story/model that tells what the element in one structure correspond to the element in another structure. In other words, the TOE needs to be given a model. The model is technical, and it is part of model theory. According to a famous theory in mathematical logic, there would be many interpretations/models for any TOE one cares to construct. So There would still be the question of why this model, and not some other model.

Quote:
At this point, i am a bit depress, because a complete theory in physics would not be able to tell me why the TOE given to me by the physicists is the only one that exist, nor will the model that accompany that TOE is the only one that applies to the given TOE. At this point, i wonder could reality be so boring that there is only one unique TOE, and one model that applies? My intuition, and the intuition of many people with similar mathematical intuition is that reality can not be this boring. Might it not be possible that all logically possible TOE, and all possible models that applies to each exist. I mean there would be a universe described by some TOE, and some model that applies to this TOE, then there would be a universe that is isomorphic to the given TOE with this model. This feels right for me. what do you think?

the Universe is NEVER STILL
0 Replies

xris

1
Mon 22 Mar, 2010 03:24 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;142287 wrote:
The date comes with the big bang theory, but i suppose you have something different in mind by "universe".

TOE is simple? What are you talking about?

---------- Post added 03-22-2010 at 04:02 PM ----------

The title "TOE" has it` s origin in physics, and that is what i appeal to.

The "TOE" in physics might not even be possible according to one philosopher.

So what was before the BB if the theory is to be believed? I do believe they say nothing was before the BB ..but nothing is impossible.

The theory of everything..everything originates from simplicity with the ability to become complex. We just ain't worked out how simple it is yet. The BB again holds the key to that simple request. It was simple but it had the ability to become complex. Do you look at the complexities of the ocean currents or a rain drop to understand water.
TuringEquivalent

1
Mon 22 Mar, 2010 03:25 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;142300 wrote:
I meant one TOE for each model universe, or, ONE for them all...
(I go for the second)

---------- Post added 03-22-2010 at 04:18 PM ----------

True LAW cannot be disputed by any other law...True LAW is in everything...(Meta-Omniverse included)

Even than there is some problem, because you are commitment to a mereological relation. One of the axioms in Mereology is that for any two parts, there is a part such that the twor parts are a proper part of the given part. This assumption can be rejected. As a result, there might not be a world which would "include" two different worlds described by different TOE. Am i being too technical here? I am using mereological-relations, and axioms?
Fil Albuquerque

1
Mon 22 Mar, 2010 03:26 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
north

1
Mon 22 Mar, 2010 03:27 pm
@xris,
xris;142309 wrote:
So what was before the BB if the theory is to be believed? I do believe they say nothing was before the BB ..but nothing is impossible.

The theory of everything..everything originates from simplicity with the ability to become complex. We just ain't worked out how simple it is yet. The BB again holds the key to that simple request. It was simple but it had the ability to become complex. Do you look at the complexities of the ocean currents or a rain drop to understand water.

or complexity to the simple

neither takes priority
Fil Albuquerque

1
Mon 22 Mar, 2010 03:31 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;142310 wrote:
Even than there is some problem, because you are commitment to a mereological relation. One of the axioms in Mereology is that for any two parts, there is a part such that the twor parts are a proper part of the given part. This assumption can be rejected. As a result, there might not be a world which would "include" two different worlds described by different TOE. Am i being too technical here? I am using mereological-relations, and axioms?
(Final Causes)

---------- Post added 03-22-2010 at 04:34 PM ----------

---------- Post added 03-22-2010 at 04:38 PM ----------

TuringEquivalent

1
Mon 22 Mar, 2010 03:39 pm
@xris,
xris;142309 wrote:
I do believe they say nothing was before the BB ..but nothing is impossible.

This assumption can be rejected. What i say is more general than things. My argument do not appeal to states of the world, but to the causal laws which applies to it.
Quote:

The theory of everything..everything originates from simplicity with the ability to become complex.

This assumption can be rejected, or that the distinction might not even make sense. Who is to say the universe is not complex? Dirac equation describes the electron, but is it complex or simple? Simple to who? If this equation is complex, then how how does it origin from simplicity? If it is simply, what are the equations, and why do they hold?

Quote:

We just ain't worked out how simple it is yet. The BB again holds the key to that simple request.

Key to what?

Quote:
It was simple but it had the ability to become complex. Do you look at the complexities of the ocean currents or a rain drop to understand water.

I think you are confused between natural selection, and cosmological theories. The former allow structures to become complex, while the latter is the search that the fundamentals of reality that are non-reducible. The non-reducible entities could be simple to a physicists, or complicated to an non-expert. My op posts do not appeal to any specific nature of our physical universe. My argument talks any logically possible TOE, and ask fundamental questions regard it. This i am afraid is more related to mathematical logic, model theory, and formal system than simple matter like the state of the world, or any particular physical theory.

---------- Post added 03-22-2010 at 04:43 PM ----------

north;142307 wrote:
the Universe is NEVER STILL

Are you so self-important that you want to give the most shortest, incomprehensible answer? Fine.
0 Replies

xris

1
Mon 22 Mar, 2010 03:46 pm
@north,
north;142314 wrote:
or complexity to the simple

neither takes priority
Sorry but I dont see complexity becoming simple. The most complex molecule never reverts and becomes simple. I suppose if you run the BB backwards...it might appear that way. But complexity is not where we should be looking for this theory, its in simplicity with a basic law that encourage complexity.
TuringEquivalent

1
Mon 22 Mar, 2010 03:46 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;142312 wrote:

No, i don` t preach anything. I am just showing you the assumptions you made in every claim. A mereology is the study of part-whole relation. The axioms of mereology can be rejected without logical contradiction.
Fil Albuquerque

1
Mon 22 Mar, 2010 03:49 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;142331 wrote:
No, i don` t preach anything. I am just showing you the assumptions you made in every claim. A mereology is the study of part-whole relation. The axioms of mereology can be rejected without logical contradiction.
TuringEquivalent

1
Mon 22 Mar, 2010 03:50 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;142318 wrote:
(Final Causes)

---------- Post added 03-22-2010 at 04:34 PM ----------

---------- Post added 03-22-2010 at 04:38 PM ----------

No, my friend, i know what you are saying. I don ` t reject, oragree with what you say. I am telling you that for there to be a meta-law ( as you say), you need to assume the axioms of mereology. I am telling you right now that there need not be any logical contradiction to rejection those axioms.

On a personal note, i don` t have any opinion, but i do think that if all logically possible worlds exist then it sure would solve all the problems.
0 Replies

Fil Albuquerque

1
Mon 22 Mar, 2010 03:52 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,

---------- Post added 03-22-2010 at 04:57 PM ----------

...the problem is with the definition of what the objects or functions are one to each other... they cannot be dissected in isolation...
TuringEquivalent

1
Mon 22 Mar, 2010 03:58 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil. Albuquerque;142337 wrote:

what exactly what are the "dynamics and context"? If you mean dynamics from physics, then that is given a force law. Is that what you have in mind?

My friend, i am not trying to be vague, or confuse anyone here. Whatever i said, i can given you references, and precises definitions. Can you honest do me the same favor? I don` t look down on anyone, but i do want to at least understand the other guy.

### Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz

1. Forums
2. » A completed theory of everything!