There are already computers that, according to some criteria, are self-improving, and to some extent creative. However, you may wish to label it simulation, although the question then presents itself as to how human creativity differs in principle. In any case, there is no evidence that an organic base is a prerequisite for the mental processes that make humans creative. But given the state of computers at the moment, whether computers can achieve human creativity is undecidable; an assertion one way or the other belongs to belief, not to physics. This is a physics forum.
If so, then they are concepts which do not belong to mathematics and hence not to physics.
You are apparently thinking of the primitive terms in an axiom system. (By the way, in the language of ZFC, set membership has replaced equality as the undefined term; equality is then defined in terms of set membership.) However, since Principia Mathematica
, the field of Model Theory
has given a more precise formulation of the relationships between syntax and semantics, so that primitive terms are now simply a more solid link between mathematics and physics. The whole concept of referential concepts has been made precise, and do not constitute a reason to think of the corresponding concepts as belonging outside of the formalized framework for physics. Secondly, I am not sure what you mean by an "absolute definition". By its nature, a definition, just as an axiom, is relative. Remember in Alice in Wonderland
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means
just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."
I always wondered what I had my dictionaries for. But even with that, we don't communicate well enough in natural language for the purpose of physics; hence the language of physics is mathematics, where most things are defined, and undefined terms have a specific role.
Most of mathematics and physics deals with relations which are formalized in symbolic language. True, there is a point where physics stops and metaphysics begins, but this is a physics forum, not a metaphysics forum.
It is precisely because of our ability to use symbols that our species has been able to achieve what it has.
Check out a book on Model Theory.
See my comments in the first paragraph above.
More or less, yes. This is the Physics Forum, under the Rubric "Beyond the Standard Model", in which "TOE" refers to the hoped-for theory of physics which will be a type of GUT. I believe that is what most of the physicists reading this understand by the term TOE in this context.
This is a PHYSICS
forum. Not neurobiology, computer science, psychology, or metaphysics. A TOE is supposed to be the base for further applications, although it is probable that an eventual understanding of human creativity will only use the physics already known today, so that, Roger Penrose notwithstanding, the presence or absence of a TOE will probably not be a deciding factor in the understanding of human creativity.
OK, if we have stopped talking at cross-purposes, we have agreement on that point.
I am still waiting for your definition of "complete". But yes, a physical TOE as presently envisioned will not mean the end of physics. No reasonable physicist expects it to, any more than Maxwell's equations meant the end of the study of electromagnetism. As far as it failing in "other aspects", it is hard to know what it will fail at, if anything, before it has been formulated and tested. But there is no theoretical reason that a TOE will necessarily fail in the task that has been defined for it. True, it will not solve your metaphysical problems, but it isn't supposed to even try, so this will not, at least in physics, be seen as a failure.