I'm sure that you guys are aware of a large ongoing coordinated efforts amongst academics across the land to come up w/ a theory of everything, or a grand unification theory of what have you. My questions are: What do you think something like that has to be like? And do you think it is possible to come up with one that escapes all philosophical problems?
well..a "theory of everything" already exists...and i cant see how youre gonna come up one, single theory that "escapes all philosophical problems"... can you elaborate on that?...."escapes all philosophical problems"
Like the problem of induction? I dunno man. I don't think I have a master plan or anything. I just think it might be interesting to hear what other people have to say on the matter and see what kinda problems we run into trying to have a hairbrained pothead conversation about it.
The only "Unified Theory" ideas I'm hearing about is a physics concept to conceptualize the three acting forces on particles into one constant. Or, to a large scale, M-Theory (string) to predict all physical interactions. ...so seeing this in S&P seems a bit strange, since it's not meant to address anything in a philosophical sense.
does the following statement seem close in meaning to each other? god is all-inclusive...as is the theory of everything.
Well I read a bunch of books buy these guys who were all into modal logic, and they deal more in philosophical jargon than that of physics, so I just put it here. Then I read some stuff on the history of science, and thought it all fit together nicely in my mind, so I just wanted to get people's opinions on the matter sir.
If it is, finally, a theory of everything... At least the ability to see forward in time to the last moments of the universe. Not necessarily time travel, but the ability to perceive forward that far, and with that the ability to formulate a logical system of predicting everything else left to happen in time that has not happened yet. The entire answer to the entire question, and all of the means which lead us to this conclusion. A task that seems rationally impossible, but that will probably be trivial to a computer 300 years from now (minus the forward time-vision of course). edit Now that I think of it I have neglected the past. Such a theory would have to be able to verify the past and include it in its logic.
no dude...the way people sometimes talk...trying to insert huge words in there for window dressing....that shit....
Oh yeah. That can be bad. But you don't wanna write off big words entirely. They're good for something sometimes. They're surely needed for a theory of everything.
of course. of course....big words are like grown up clothing that kids dont carry to well on them....
change the forecast of everything you know believe you be conscious forever and you will be(without a body)
Gravity's not understood yet. (no hoverboards yet, dammit!) A "theory of everything'; something that combines all scientific theorys/constants can't be made untill everythings understood, and we are far from it. P.S String theory can't explain gravity, so isn't a "science Panacea", but I'm sure all the 'theoretical physicists' would love some more free money, whoops i meant 'funding' to help them come up with better theorys
Very interesting take on this presented in Motion Mountain somewhere near the end. non-axiomatic !!!!
i was refraining but fuck it, noone should have to make do with mis or disinformation: 1. We are far from a theory for everything-wrong, there is a theory named "theory of everything" 2. Why are you dissing theoretical physicists dude?...saying they want "free money" and all that? Einstein was a theoretical physicists and one of the best to populate this planet.
The amount of abstraction necessary to categorize all concepts into a model of everything would make the theory near, if not entirely, incomprehensible to nearly everyone save a few meta-geniuses. The actual formulation, in words, of the theory and its application would be impossible. However, I still think there is a capacity to understand the abstraction if instead of trying to create an eclectic model, the manner of education would be in encompassing a large variety of esoteric concepts to the depth that you begin to see its connections and interplays with reality and other concepts, on a structural level. Then you may begin to make a map of the interplay of everything with everything that constitutes our reality, but I still doubt that language would have the capability to communicate this knowledge in a full concise manner.