Theory of everything

[Jack]

Do you think that we will ever be able to produce a theory of everything?

Do you even think that it is possible?

[Loren Booda]

Yes, probably, but in name only.

[Jack]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
Yes, probably, but in name only.

[?]

[selfAdjoint]

I think that ultimately there is a level with no more fundamental puzzles. Whether we get to this point before we destroy ourselves or succumb to the singularity is another question.

[Loren Booda]

What we label as "TOE" will always fall short by definition, either with respect to including the TOE itself, or tautologically including everything.

[Bubonic Plague]

I doubt so, because we can never know everything, so how can we even produce a theory which can explain everything?

[bogdan]

[:))]
Because oh the uncertainty principle, when we'll know everything our brains will be stretched all over the universe...[8)]

[JamesBell]

Yes I think that in time it will be discovered

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by Jack
Do you think that we will ever be able to produce a theory of everything?

Do you even think that it is possible?
Double NO.

"Does dice play God ?"

Live long and prosper.

[RuroumiKenshin]

We'll keep discovering new rules, so making something like the TOE is utterly not possible.

[Zefram]

I would say unlikely but perhaps not impossible.

[Mentat]

People, don't misdefine T.O.E. It doesn't mean the theory that incorporates all phenomena, so much as it means the theory that can serve as a ground-work for understanding each new phenomena.

[Selnex]

IF by a TOE you mean the cause to all motion in the universe, or an explanation to all motion in the universe, than I can with almost 100percent certainty say that this has already been accomplished by the New Science. If by TOE you mean to include that source of the substance of the universe, I tend to think we are perhaps incapable with our present human minds to find a reasonable potential solution for this mystery.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mentat
People, don't misdefine T.O.E. It doesn't mean the theory that incorporates all phenomena, so much as it means the theory that can serve as a ground-work for understanding each new phenomena.

I only bring this up because a lot of you seemed to vote against it, based on the premise that this theory would actually try to explain all phenomena, at once.

[Loren Booda]

In other words, physical totality might be represented by a finite mathmatical description.

[arivero]

Theory of Everything that is mathematically speakable.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
In other words, physical totality might be represented by a finite mathmatical description.

That's the opposite of what I'm saying. In fact, I was trying to point out that that is what it is not. A Theory of Everything just gives a foundation, so that further understanding can be made, in any field.

[rdt2]

Originally posted by Mentat
That's the opposite of what I'm saying. In fact, I was trying to point out that that is what it is not. A Theory of Everything just gives a foundation, so that further understanding can be made, in any field.

Are we talking about TOE as it's normally understood - i.e a unification of electric, magnetic, weak + strong nuclear and gravity or are we talking about a more metaphysical thing?

Cheers,

Ron.

[CJames]

I voted yes, probably. The universe obeys a set of rules. It seems to me that if there is no theory that can incorporate all those rules, what are we doing? A theory of everything, however, will never be capable of explaining itself.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by rdt2
Are we talking about TOE as it's normally understood - i.e a unification of electric, magnetic, weak + strong nuclear and gravity or are we talking about a more metaphysical thing?

Cheers,

Ron.

I assumed that we were talking about the first one (that you mentioned), but I guess some of the other members do not agree.