A completed theory of everything!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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)

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.

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?

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.

the Universe is NEVER STILL

or complexity to the simple

neither takes priority

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.

(Final Causes)

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



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