Theory of everything
Discussion
Flyingakite said:
Super Sonic said:
A theory that ties everything up together? Like string theory?
M theory has a lot of failings. A realistic theory that applies to everything we see and cannot see.The fact you need to create 11 dimensions to solve issues in the universe to me feels a fudge.
Unified field theory maybe, that attempts to reconcile quantum physics and relativity - Einstein.
Amazing to know that everything in the Universe is made up of 17 basic things. The same 17 basic things, in different configurations of course, but still those 17 fundamental particles.
It doesn’t unify things in a theory, but it is stunning to have peered at the very essence of everything.
It doesn’t unify things in a theory, but it is stunning to have peered at the very essence of everything.
Worth thinking about what a physical law or theory is. It's a mathematical model that replicates to some degree of accuracy the measurements and observations we make. You start with the assumption that there is some physical reality out there, that we can observe it, and that it has repeating patterns of behaviour. You then construct mathematical models that mimic those patterns as closely as you can and you try to make the models as simple, general, self-consistent and well-behaved as possible.
It's important to understand what fundamental physics is doing and what it's not doing. If I write down an equation that describes the flight of a golf ball, it can be superbly accurate, but it isn't the golf ball; it's "just" maths. And it doesn't explain the golf ball's behaviour; it just mimics the measurements we can make about the golf ball's flight.
So what is a "theory of everything"? It would be a single, self-consistent, well-behaved mathematical model that would appear to mimic and be consistent with all of the measurements and observations we can make. It would be a boiled-down statement of all we could say about the fundamental nature of the universe. But it wouldn't tell us what the universe is "really" like. It wouldn't tell us why the universe is as it is. Those are both fundamentally unknowable.
Can there be a theory of everything? I can't see why not. I can't see an obvious reason that observable patterns might exist that can't be mimicked mathematically.
Are we definitely going to find models that tick all the "theory of everything" boxes some day? I have no idea. To date we've got two mainstream models that are both astonishingly good at mimicking lots of measurements under a huge range of conditions, many of which are highly counterintuitive yet the models beat our physical intuition flat. That has to tell us that there is something "right" about the models. But the models are absolutely riddled with problems when you look at well-behaved-ness (e.g. the mathematics just goes wrong when you push it into awkward corners). They are fundamentally inconsistent with each other (i.e. the usual, trite observation that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are completely different from each other and have nothing to say about each other and in their current formulations contradict each other.) And in particular Quantum Mechanics is clearly not a complete theory at its most basic level because it only forecasts the range of possible outcomes of an experiment without modelling how an observer comes to only see a specific outcome or modelling the interaction of the observer with the experiment or, alternatively, modelling some notion of "event" or "outcome" if you consider the observer to be part of the same quantum system as the experiment.
There's still a massive amount of fundamental physics and cosmology to do.
And none of it is going to tell us the fundamental nature of everything.
It's important to understand what fundamental physics is doing and what it's not doing. If I write down an equation that describes the flight of a golf ball, it can be superbly accurate, but it isn't the golf ball; it's "just" maths. And it doesn't explain the golf ball's behaviour; it just mimics the measurements we can make about the golf ball's flight.
So what is a "theory of everything"? It would be a single, self-consistent, well-behaved mathematical model that would appear to mimic and be consistent with all of the measurements and observations we can make. It would be a boiled-down statement of all we could say about the fundamental nature of the universe. But it wouldn't tell us what the universe is "really" like. It wouldn't tell us why the universe is as it is. Those are both fundamentally unknowable.
Can there be a theory of everything? I can't see why not. I can't see an obvious reason that observable patterns might exist that can't be mimicked mathematically.
Are we definitely going to find models that tick all the "theory of everything" boxes some day? I have no idea. To date we've got two mainstream models that are both astonishingly good at mimicking lots of measurements under a huge range of conditions, many of which are highly counterintuitive yet the models beat our physical intuition flat. That has to tell us that there is something "right" about the models. But the models are absolutely riddled with problems when you look at well-behaved-ness (e.g. the mathematics just goes wrong when you push it into awkward corners). They are fundamentally inconsistent with each other (i.e. the usual, trite observation that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are completely different from each other and have nothing to say about each other and in their current formulations contradict each other.) And in particular Quantum Mechanics is clearly not a complete theory at its most basic level because it only forecasts the range of possible outcomes of an experiment without modelling how an observer comes to only see a specific outcome or modelling the interaction of the observer with the experiment or, alternatively, modelling some notion of "event" or "outcome" if you consider the observer to be part of the same quantum system as the experiment.
There's still a massive amount of fundamental physics and cosmology to do.
And none of it is going to tell us the fundamental nature of everything.
dukeboy749r said:
Amazing to know that everything in the Universe is made up of 17 basic things. The same 17 basic things, in different configurations of course, but still those 17 fundamental particles.
It doesn t unify things in a theory, but it is stunning to have peered at the very essence of everything.
The visible universe but reality is what it is built on. Which the visible is probably a small percentage on known things that actually create the environment of the universe itself for existence to exist within It doesn t unify things in a theory, but it is stunning to have peered at the very essence of everything.
_Rodders_ said:
I would have thought that once genuine AI surpasses human I and moves away from us at an exponential rate it'll tell us just before we're exterminated.
Could be in our lifetimes too.
If it learns from us then it is bound by us and our puny minds. Could be in our lifetimes too.
If it can jump forward in huge leaps of theoretical thinking and creativity like Newton/Einstein/McCartney/Mozart/daVinci, THEN we're in trouble, but I don't think that represents an artificial intellegence, more an Intellegent Being. A life form.
If I could read all that humans have ever read or written and drawn, I don't think I could come up with Weird Fishes by Radiohead.
Next hand grenade: The grand unified theory of everything could actually be the face of a god. Something that we can't comprehend. Amd I'm a 99.9% certain atheist.
Flyingakite said:
Why god. God is a human construct . We exist then don't exist. Why does it need god to exist for the universe to exist when we don't even understand how the universe actually works just what we perceive with our monkey brains.
I don't think there is a big G - od.But I do think that a small g-od meaning a creator with the "rules" or someone who started with a Grant Unifying Theory is an possibility.
An option mind you, not a definite. And I don't pray to it or ask it why the tornado hit the primary school killing 25 children in Kansas. The small g - od is a product of my language to describe something unimaginabley clever.
We are bound by our thoughts and puny minds. A larger mind might have made the rules. Not an AI. We've stopped worshipping the sun. We haven't stopped worshipping yet. I have.
We could be random physical variables (pi, Planck's, G, etc) and humans are a blip.
Thing is certain principles are human thinking randonness etc could be order at complex scales we just can't fathom.
Human are inherited biased , so in effect their deductions will be too.
I think we are entering an age of just scratching the surface of reality. Scales,energy levels involved are things our human minds are not made to fathom.
Human are inherited biased , so in effect their deductions will be too.
I think we are entering an age of just scratching the surface of reality. Scales,energy levels involved are things our human minds are not made to fathom.
I think we are in a similar position to a typical wild animal seeing a mirror. A few understand that it's a reflection of them, some just think it's another animal, we are like the ones smart enough to realise there is something odd going on but not smart enough to figure out what it is. Not necessarily because it's especially complex but just because our existing bag of concepts doesn't apply.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff