# Statements about TOEs, Theory of TOEs

by phoenixthoth
Tags: statements, theory, toes
 P: 1,572 I can't find the proper place for this so I'll put it here. I have some questions and some possible answers (or at least my answers). I apologize to the moderator that has to decide where to move this to. Let me suggest that there should be a theory of TOEs. What is a ToE? (For that matter, what's a theory and what's "everything"?) Is there a TOE? How many? What's the simplest one? Is there a simplest one? If there is a TOE, can it be represented symbolically vis a vis symbols human have created or can create? For example, is it expressible as a "one inch equation," a phrase made popular by Michio Kaku? What traits must be common among all TOEs other than the defining traits? What are the characteristics that are essential to be a TOE? This is all a study of TOEs without specifically mentioning any candidate TOEs, a theory of TOEs. Can a theory of TOEs produce or yield a TOE? Can any of this be proved at least to the standards of modern math? If not, to what extent does that torpedo the whole notion of a TOE?
 P: 207 If we do find a TOE, then I hope it can be verified through experimentation and not just through equations on a blackboard.
 P: 1,572 An equation says something along the lines of X really is Y or X is also Y. It shows when two things are different in appearance but identical in nature. I doubt equations, statements of the form "X is Y," will be all that comprises a TOE; it might end up being circular. To answer one of my own questions, I think a good place to start is that a TOE is a complete description of reality.
 P: 1 Statements about TOEs, Theory of TOEs I was watching stevens hawkking last night on nova and they mentioned theory oof everythings, but they also had equation in background which i manage to found on internet today, ithink that this sis what they say is theory of everythings, no? Attached Thumbnails
 P: 1,572 That all depends on what you call a ToE. There isn't a consensus; for me, a ToE is a complete description of reality. In my POV, that equation would then not be a ToE. A complete description could be called "blueprints," and what I am suggesting the topic of this discussion is what is the nature of blueprints and, in particular, is there a set of blueprints for reality that can be expressed in mathematical English in a finite document (or even a one-inch equation)? And if the answer is no, if the blueprints of reality cannot be specified in a finite intelligible document, can these blueprints themselves be completely described (compressed) in a finite document?
 P: 1 Where can i find one inch equations? is not on goggle?
 P: 1,572 It's a term coined (afaik) by Michio Kaku.
 P: 1 Oh, ok thanks you, i think i have to think about this. very hard business no? Here is song about one inch equation for enjoyments and thinkings: Lyrics to One Inch Equation : Been trying to grasp these concepts I snatch a little more every day Well in time your mind may find that Each new find makes it harder to say that Gravity got its hold on me Hides inside just like the precept That resides behind every principle May your mind in time come see that To defy could be possible It's electromagnetic between you and me And it hits with a nuclear force The theory of everything Will be a theory of everyday The theory of everything Here will be a theory of every way Gravity got its hold on me It's electromagnetic between you and me And it hits with strong nuclear force
 P: 1,572 Thanks for posting
 P: 3,408 Theorems are fated to be improved upon. A current TOE must incorporate all conflicting theories -- which, after all, were never really in conflict. If "everything" is all that we will ever perceive, can we ever take leave of our senses?
 P: 1,572 What about other, abstract, types of things like equality, identity, numbers, triangles, etc.. They are a part of everything, no?
 P: 355 According to Wikipedia, a theory of everything is a theory that models physical reality in a way that would, in principle, predict what would happen in any given experiment. In my opinion, this would be a theory that is capable of predicting the exact properties of all of the elementary particles, and the forces that cause them to interact with one another. I wouldn't consider a theory of everything to be something that would immediately solve all scientific problems, however. We also need a better understanding of emergence in order to describe complex systems, since you would otherwise theoretically need a quantum computer more complex than the system you are describing in order to make exact predictions about it.
 P: 1 If we solves theory of everythings, what does this mean for human?
P: 1,572
I would define it as Max Tegmark does, to be a complete description of reality. Knowing it would do as you say but would be inclusive of more than physical phenomena.

 Quote by Intregal If we solves theory of everythings, what does this mean for human?
well it means that humans can have the potential to grasp what the nature of reality is.
P: 355
 Quote by phoenixthoth I would define it as Max Tegmark does, to be a complete description of reality. Knowing it would do as you say but would be inclusive of more than physical phenomena. well it means that humans can have the potential to grasp what the nature of reality is.
What are non-physical phenomena?
 P: 1,572 Mathematical phenomena such as the distribution of primes or commutativity of integers.
 P: 355 Hmm, I wonder if a ToE would explain things like that as well as the properties of the physical universe.

 Related Discussions Differential Geometry 5 Cosmology 2 Biology 6 Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics 2 Fun, Photos & Games 6