Suppose Math and Logic were all there is

[Eh]

Actually, that they are the same fundamental thing is quite easy to show. Since you can take any event or thing in the universe and find that they all require time and space by definition, it is quite rational to decide they are the same single entity.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Eh
Actually, that they are the same fundamental thing is quite easy to show. Since you can take any event or thing in the universe and find that they all require time and space by definition, it is quite rational to decide they are the same single entity.

Well, yes and no. Rational in the sense of conceivable, but not in the sense that it explains the evidence better than other explanations. Being self-referential it cannot be determined if it is an entity at all, much less a single entity or something beyond comprehension at that point. Our definitions of space and time are seriously vague and the subject of intense theoretical research.

For all I know spacetime is twelve distinct things all interacting to form an illusion from the human perspective of a single thing. Certainly QM and now even the recently discovered cosmological expansion seem to imply something outside of our universe may well be effecting ours. There is just no way of making a reasonable guess between all these alternatives until more information is gathered or a TOE is discovered.

In the meantime, new CP violations keep cropping up.

 

[Eh]

Well, yes and no. Rational in the sense of conceivable, but not in the sense that it explains the evidence better than other explanations.

I'd say it does by default, because there isn't any real competition at this point. What I mean is, nothing we know of explains the physical universe better than field theories.

Being self-referential it cannot be determined if it is an entity at all, much less a single entity or something beyond comprehension at that point.

Epistemology aside, the point is that the idea contains no self contradictions, and explains the available evidence.

Certainly QM and now even the recently discovered cosmological expansion seem to imply something outside of our universe may well be effecting ours.

Our universe is often a term used to describe our observable universe. Anything we can never view is outside - but still part of the cosmos as a whole. And in cosmology and QM, that cosmos is described in terms of fields.

There is just no way of making a reasonable guess between all these alternatives until more information is gathered or a TOE is discovered.

What alternatives? The big problem with finding a TOE is the quantum nature of the gravitational field. There are many proposals for this, but I don't see any alternatives that throw away the field altogether.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Eh
I'd say it does by default, because there isn't any real competition at this point. What I mean is, nothing we know of explains the physical universe better than field theories.

Epistemology aside, the point is that the idea contains no self contradictions, and explains the available evidence.

What alternatives? The big problem with finding a TOE is the quantum nature of the gravitational field. There are many proposals for this, but I don't see any alternatives that throw away the field altogether.

Neither did Newton fore see the advent of QM, there was simply no way he could have short of a miracle. The evidence of current field theories strongly implies something fundamental is missing from the picture we have drawn. To continue to insist we have already found the basic metaphysical tools we need to describe everything in the face of ongoing failure to do so and serious discrepencies like the CP violations is absurd. It is the same mistake Newtonian's followers made when, in the name of science and objectivity they persisted in insisting the universe is a giant wind-up toy.

 

[Eh]

Oh, no one is denying that something is missing in physicists understanding of quantum gravity. But that doesn't mean the notion of fields (which works so well) needs to be tossed out entirely. It just means that the exact nature of the field is not understood. It is a similar case with Newton and the advent of QM and GR. Those theories were not thrown away, but merely built upon. Netwon's laws of motion were mere approximations of the truth, but are still valid in every day situations. Likewise, Newton's mysterious gravitational field was merely given a more clear definition with Einstein's GR, and was not discarded. The term "unified field theory" and TOE usually mean the same thing, and it seems the question is of a precise description of the field, not whether or not they are really fundemental.

 

[wuliheron]

Agreed, as Einstein said, creating a new theory is not like flattening an old barn and erecting a skyscrapper, it is more like climbing a mountain. The view gets better the higher you go, but this does not mean the old views are not still worth pausing for.

For the last thirty years the consensus has been growing that our definitions of spacetime must become more vague if we are to make further progress. Two steps forward, one back. If our definitions of spacetime change it means our definitions of what constitute a field must also change. In otherwords, despite the tremendous progress made in QM over the last century its central enigma remains:

Just what the heck does QM describe?

 

[Eh]

And we'll need a quantum theory of space-time (gravity) to answer that question. We'll just have to wait another 50 years or so for physicists to figure it out.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Eh
And we'll need a quantum theory of space-time (gravity) to answer that question. We'll just have to wait another 50 years or so for physicists to figure it out.

Yeah, in the meantime we must content ourselves with groping around in the dark attempting to get a feel for the shape of what only the light can reveal.

My own philosophy is that the more extreme the measurements or reasoning, the more absurd they appear to be. This is rather consistent historically, and statistical analysis of trends normally thought of as outside the perview of physics could therefore also shed a little light on the issue. It may be that the absurdities we observe on both the submicroscopic and cosmic scales are just an indication of this kind of profound uncertainty steadily creaping into our observations and equations.

To paraphrase Gary Zuckov, we've begun to look at the universe so closely it seems to be staring back at us at times. The easy observations are behind us, the more difficult ones ahead, in other words, SNAFU (situation normal, all fouled up!) As with every generation, there are a significant number of conservative people unwilling to accept this simple reality of life and willing to promote any alternative that suggests we have more control over the process. It's rather humorous really, if you are willing to see it that way. :0)