- #1

greswd

- 764

- 20

Is that true? Do the theorems apply to the physical world as they apply to the realm of mathematics?

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- I
- Thread starter greswd
- Start date

- #1

greswd

- 764

- 20

Is that true? Do the theorems apply to the physical world as they apply to the realm of mathematics?

- #2

greswd

- 764

- 20

http://www.hawking.org.uk/godel-and-the-end-of-physics.html

The original article.

The original article.

- #3

Hornbein

- 1,182

- 894

Is that true? Do the theorems apply to the physical world as they apply to the realm of mathematics?

I'm not convinced. I don't see why a supertheory couldn't be self-referential. But might be right. Perhaps a more detailed exposition would do it for me.

I'd say that nothing can ever be proved in physics. We have math, phenomena, and a provisional link between them. But I could be wrong. That's really too simple. Maybe there is some way to show that no other theory would work.

You would be interested in Kochen and Conway's Free Will Theorem, which I think deserves much more attention than it has received. It's in the same ballpark but is a thoroughly worked out "proof" instead of an informal lecture.

- #4

greswd

- 764

- 20

My question isn't really about determinism and freewill.

- #5

friend

- 1,452

- 9

- #6

- 13,417

- 5,853

Godel's theorems do not imply many things which people sometimes think they do. In particular, they do not imply that "it is impossible for us to formulate an absolutely fundamental Theory of Everything". I highly recommend to read the book

Is that true? Do the theorems apply to the physical world as they apply to the realm of mathematics?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1568812388/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Last edited by a moderator:

- #7

pbuk

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Gold Member

- 4,084

- 2,410

Is that true? Do the theorems apply to the physical world as they apply to the realm of mathematics?

http://www.hawking.org.uk/godel-and-the-end-of-physics.html

The original article.

If you read that lecture you will see that Hawking absolutely does NOT say that GIT proves anything about physics.

- #8

greswd

- 764

- 20

oh, you're right. apologies for being such an idiot.If you read that lecture you will see that Hawking absolutely does NOT say that GIT proves anything about physics.

- #9

- 13,417

- 5,853

Or maybe you are not an idiot. In the last paragraph Hawking saysoh, you're right. apologies for being such an idiot.

"

Hawking is not clear how exactly he arrived at that conclusion, but it seems to be motivated by the Godel's theorem.

Nevertheless, strictly speaking, that conclusion does not follow from the Godel's theorem.

- #10

Hornbein

- 1,182

- 894

My question isn't really about determinism and freewill.

True, but Kochen-Conway showed that some things will never be predictable. Would that mean that an "absolutely fundamental TOE" is impossible?

- #11

Hornbein

- 1,182

- 894

Distinguishing incomplete from complete is quite technical. Diophantine equations are incomplete, but it wasn't easy to prove that. I don't know whether geometry is complete. The first step would be to define geometry, and I wouldn't know how to do that. The old compass and straightedge stuff is almost surely complete.

- #12

- 13,417

- 5,853

They didn't show that.True, but Kochen-Conway showed that some things will never be predictable.

- #13

greswd

- 764

- 20

Geometry is built on axioms and I'm told it is complete; no theorems exist in the theory that cannot be proved by the existing axioms.

Who says?

- #14

greswd

- 764

- 20

True, but Kochen-Conway showed that some things will never be predictable. Would that mean that an "absolutely fundamental TOE" is impossible?

How does things not being predictable lead to the impossibility of a TOE?

- #15

greswd

- 764

- 20

Hawking is not clear how exactly he arrived at that conclusion, but it seems to be motivated by the Godel's theorem.

Nevertheless, strictly speaking, that conclusion does not follow from the Godel's theorem.

Thanks. I was wondering how a mathematical theorem without experimental basis could lead to physical results.

- #16

Hornbein

- 1,182

- 894

They didn't show that.

Such is their claim.

- #17

Hornbein

- 1,182

- 894

How does things not being predictable lead to the impossibility of a TOE?

Well, it depends on your definition of a TOE.

- #18

greswd

- 764

- 20

Ok, you give me one and then show how it relates to predictability.Well, it depends on your definition of a TOE.

- #19

Hornbein

- 1,182

- 894

Ok, you give me one and then show how it relates to predictability.

You are the one who brought it up. I don't care.

- #20

greswd

- 764

- 20

From what I can gather, they did not claim anything regarding whether determinism is true or not, they didn't say that some things will never be predictable.Such is their claim.

They just stated a relationship between particles and human free will IF certain conditions are true.

- #21

greswd

- 764

- 20

Well, you said "it depends on your definition of a TOE." which implies that you already know something about the relation in question.You are the one who brought it up. I don't care.

I don't know anything about the relation, I don't know which definition of a ToE will work, therefore I'm asking you to tell me what you already know.

- #22

Hornbein

- 1,182

- 894

Well, you said "it depends on your definition of a TOE." which implies that you already know something about the relation in question.

I don't know anything about the relation, therefore I'm asking you to tell me what you already know.

I could, but all I would contribute would be a layer of error. I'd recommend you search for the Kochen-Sprecker theorem or paradox, upon which the Conway-Kochen proof is based. I don't know why it hasn't received more notice.

- #23

greswd

- 764

- 20

I could, but all I would contribute would be a layer of error. I'd recommend you search for the Kochen-Sprecker theorem or paradox, upon which the Conway-Kochen proof is based. I don't know why it hasn't received more notice.

Alright, if you insist. Based on my reading of the KS theorem, I don't see why it prevents us from constructing a ToE.

- #24

Hornbein

- 1,182

- 894

Alright, if you insist. Based on my reading of the KS theorem, I don't see why it prevents us from constructing a ToE.

Do whatever you like.

- #25

greswd

- 764

- 20

Seriously pal, if you have strong convictions, don't be afraid to share it. You may have some errors but that's not an issue as long as you can see them after people have analyzed it.Do whatever you like.

- #26

friend

- 1,452

- 9

But I've recently read that there are conditions where self-reference in a system does not lead to paradoxes (such as with Godel's incompleteness theorem ?). See for example, in this paper, Thomas Bolander, PhD writes on the top of page 14,

"It can be shown that self-reference can only be vicious (lead to paradoxes) if it involves negation or something equivalent."

And I have to think that the ultimate laws of physics (whatever they end up being) do not involve negation since they should describe only what exists and have nothing to say about what does not exist.

- #27

greswd

- 764

- 20

But I've recently read that there are conditions where self-reference in a system does not lead to paradoxes (such as with Godel's incompleteness theorem ?). See for example, in this paper, Thomas Bolander, PhD writes on the top of page 14,

"It can be shown that self-reference can only be vicious (lead to paradoxes) if it involves negation or something equivalent."

And I have to think that the ultimate laws of physics (whatever they end up being) do not involve negation since they should describe only what exists and have nothing to say about what does not exist.

Dude, you totally sound like a crank. I'm not saying that you are one, but you make a very good impression of one.

You have so many points, and ramble from one to the next. And you're being vague too.

- #28

friend

- 1,452

- 9

If this is an invitation to say more, I'll have to decline for now.Dude, you totally sound like a crank. I'm not saying that you are one, but you make a very good impression of one.

You have so many points, and ramble from one to the next. And you're being vague too.

P.S. A crank is someone who grinds on a subject that has been proven wrong.

- #29

- 13,417

- 5,853

I think it is not. But to be sure, can you quote their exact claim with the reference?Such is their claim.

- #30

- 8,942

- 2,933

Let's take a simpler system: A digital computer. I would say that we have a complete theory of how computers work, in the sense that we can with 100% certainty predict future states from past states. But there are questions about a digital computer that we don't know how to answer. For example: If I write a program that, given a number n, searches for the nth Twin Prime, will that program always halt, for all possible n? We don't know the answer to that. But it's not because there are some aspects of how computers work that we don't understand.

If we had a Theory of Everything, there would still be unsolvable problems about physics. But the ToE would allow us to restate such an unsolvable problem about physics into an unsolvable problem about pure mathematics.

- #31

jerromyjon

- 1,244

- 189

Makes total sense to me... agreed. We already have amazing theories to describe as much as can be or need be. To say we have "a complete set of theories" to describe the universe and everything we can get close enough or detailed enough to have observable consequences is true. To say they all don't combine into a complete all-inclusive model somehow or another would NOT be true. It has not been proven either way!

But I've recently read that there are conditions where self-reference in a system does not lead to paradoxes (such as with Godel's incompleteness theorem ?). See for example, in this paper, Thomas Bolander, PhD writes on the top of page 14,

"It can be shown that self-reference can only be vicious (lead to paradoxes) if it involves negation or something equivalent."

And I have to think that the ultimate laws of physics (whatever they end up being) do not involve negation since they should describe only what exists and have nothing to say about what does not exist.

- #32

Hornbein

- 1,182

- 894

Prof. Hawking is concerned about the incompleteness of physics because the laws of physics are described by mathematics which is incomplete by Godel's incompleteness theorem.

I think it is quite possible that all of physics could be described by mathematics that is complete. One easy way to do it is to restrict oneself to finite sets. There are other ways as well.

In Hawking's view a Theory of Everything would contain the theory itself. That might lead to a contradiction, but I'll believe that when I see it.

- #33

jerromyjon

- 1,244

- 189

I was just thinking about what I think I recall as something dalespam often states that a machine to model a system has to be larger than the system itself. Something to that effect, but where I'm going with this is time. Would it be obviously true that a machine to model atomic physics couldn't "keep up" in real time? I'm mean that is the crux of the problem is "Can physics be condensed and simplified or is it mechanically more complex than it can conceivably be modeled?"In Hawking's view a Theory of Everything would contain the theory itself. That might lead to a contradiction, but I'll believe that when I see it.

- #34

WWGD

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 6,318

- 8,371

- #35

jerromyjon

- 1,244

- 189

I'm not certain but I believe renormalization is basically adjusting the scale of the data where it then fits an axiomatic description. Renormalization group is into theoretic territory but I know very little about it.But physics is not developed/modeled axiomatically but instead experimentally

Share:

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 19

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 677

- Last Post

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 534

- Last Post

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 601

- Last Post

- Replies
- 13

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 16

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 10

- Views
- 2K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 1K