
#19
Mar2411, 07:35 PM

P: 2,281





#20
Mar2411, 07:38 PM

PF Gold
P: 2,432

In that case, either some aspects of reality are irreduciably random, a matter of chance which way the symmetry broke. Or it could instead be anthropic. Every choice was made "somewhere" and so there is an infinity of universes out there. But what would be really nice is if even the constants are fixed by some kind of selforganising logic. Like they could be emergent ratios in the way that pi, e and other mathematical constants are. So perhaps answering my own question earlier in the thread, maths models the symmetries, and what maths has to say about constants could be central to the story of how symmetries get broken. Constants arise in maths as the limits of processes. Limits of complex processes in fact. Anyway, getting back to your going beyond the final pixel, there is a way to do this based on a logic of vagueness. Because instead of just dissolving smallness, you are also dissolving any largeness. As you zero in on the pixel, it dissolves, and you dissolve, so nothing definite now can lie beyond (as finding anything smaller would demand that you as the observer are still around to see it). This is the quantum foam story of course. The HUP principle. Except that now we have a better name to describe what "lies beyond"  vague potential. 



#21
Mar2411, 07:52 PM

PF Gold
P: 2,432

The reason for expecting EW and strong to be unified is definitely because of the way the couplings run and look to become vanilla at the GUT scale. That is a strong motivation. And gravity would also run, suggesting a planck scale unification of some sort Or instead, in my view, a planck scale dissolution into vagueness. That is gravity would have the vanilla force strength, but it would no longer be coherently directed so as to be pulling in a clear direction. The 3D space would have dissolved into foam by that stage. 



#22
Mar2411, 08:37 PM

P: 239

Guys. Is there a possibility that the TOE would involve no math at all... since physics involves math.. and TOE is beyond math. Then it's the end of physics? What I mean to say is. What if beyond the Planck is a realm that is no longer describable by math. Is this possible? Or would physics evolve to other systems of modelling that don't use math anymore? If so, Symmetry may be the final concept that is still math connected. Beyond Symmetries may lie mathless facts... for example, what if in the planck realm where spacetime breaks down and quantum fluctuations ruin any continuous manifold lie something that is no longer modelable by math?




#23
Mar2411, 08:54 PM

PF Gold
P: 2,432

Science involves both models and measurements in interaction. So for a TOE to be scientific, it has to be testable. If a TOE is just a formally stated hypothesis that is ultimately untestable, then it becomes metaphysics. So I would say it is looking like the maths will stretch beyond the eventual reach of science. Instead of mathless fact, it is more likely we will end up with factless maths! Which is good news for the future career prospects of metaphysicians. 



#24
Mar2411, 09:20 PM

P: 239

So even if it were true that the constants of nature were fine tuned into values compatible with life by a Universal Mind. It still can be modelled by math? It's like this. Big Bang might occur to seed life and mind. Now this can explain how our mind can tap the Mind of the universe and even make us possess the power to create/uncreate reality (nothing that Miracles occured down the centuries where Saints can bilocate (be in 2 places at once) and even levitate as well as numerous phenomena documented by many sources). So you mean all these can be modelled by math? If so, then it is part of physcis and not metaphysics (which can't be modelled by math). In other words, any measurable effects can be modelled by math, is this what you are saying? "There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio than are dreamt off in your philosophy". 



#25
Mar2411, 09:21 PM

P: 2,281





#26
Mar2411, 09:40 PM

PF Gold
P: 2,432

Miracles would have to count as observables to fall within the realms of scientific discussion. So you say these things happened, but if there is no good evidence so far as the rest of us are concerned, then there is no real interest in debating the implications for theory. And the universal mind seems to me a vacuous concept unless it can be pinned down as a formalism that is at least potentially measurable. If you can provide a source that does that for you, please do. Peircean semiotics is for example a kind of "universal mind" approach  but nothing like what you probably mean here. So time to source your model of the universal mind, citing some mainstream philosophical approach. But it is unlikely I would have much to say about it. 



#27
Mar2411, 09:47 PM

P: 239

... I'm listening to MP3 now about chapter 10 called "Computers, Universes and Mathematical Reality". It sounds interesting. 



#28
Mar2411, 09:49 PM

P: 2,281

Please, do explain in accordance with PF guidelines or retract your claim. And roger... I'm in a mood to hurt someone, so lets not make this emotionally painful. 



#29
Mar2411, 10:02 PM

P: 239

Ok. I'll retract it. Mind has nothing to do with the Big Bang or the Constants of Nature. General Relativity, Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are the final words and we are bound to them. Our brain is just emergence of biochemistry. And the world is just pure physical, with no possibility of anything higher. If I need to delete the threads.. just let me know as one can only delete them within 2 hours. 



#30
Mar2411, 10:04 PM

P: 2,281





#31
Mar2411, 10:19 PM

P: 239

Brian Green new book is very interesting... so relevant to many of the topics we discuss like Mathematical Reality. I wonder what would happen if superstrings and branes are just figment of the imagination. Lee Smolin believes in "Trouble with Physics" that they may not be real.. instead of 20 constants of nature.. we now have over 250 constants of nature if Superstrings are real.. so maybe some other Ultimate Symmetry can bind all that can explains the constants? He who discovers it can win 2 Nobel at the same time.. lol




#32
Mar2411, 10:31 PM

PF Gold
P: 2,432

The 2% is of course where they make a career for themselves. 



#33
Mar2411, 10:59 PM

PF Gold
P: 3,072





#34
Mar2411, 11:13 PM

P: 239





#35
Mar2411, 11:29 PM

P: 239

Lee Smolin wrote about the following in Trouble with Physics (just brief quotes):
"In the approach of particle physics developed and taught by Richard Feynman, Freeman Dyson, and others, reflections on foundational problems had no place in research" "However, as I will argue in detail in the pages to come, the lesson of the last thirty years is that the problems we're up against today cannot be solved by this pragmatic way of doing science. To continue the progress of science, we have to again confront deep questions about space and time, quantum theory, and cosmology" Do you guys believe in Smolin approach? If Smolin is right and we don't do reinvestigation of foundational problems, we will never have any TOE. So it's NOT like we have to find the TOE first and then contemplate on the insight later. I still can't decide if Smolin is right or wrong.. and this is why I asked the initial questions in the thread. 



#36
Mar2411, 11:31 PM

P: 2,281




Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Pi's connection to e, and its ubiquity in math  Differential Equations  2  
Why does math work in our reality?  General Discussion  193  
connection between math abilities and physics..  Academic Guidance  2  
Mathematicians Illuminate Deep Connection Between Classical And Quantum Physics  Beyond the Standard Model  0  
math, reality, and sense  General Math  4 