Unified Theory & God: A Search for a Single Force?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the quest for a Unified Theory in physics and its philosophical implications, particularly in relation to the concept of God. Participants explore the idea of a single force that could explain the universe, drawing parallels between scientific pursuits and monotheistic beliefs.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Philosophical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the search for a Unified Theory is akin to the concept of God, as both represent a singular explanation for existence.
  • Others argue that there are significant differences between the scientific pursuit of a unified force and the theological notion of God, emphasizing distinct methodologies and implications.
  • One participant questions the relevance of a Unified Theory to discussions about God, asserting that understanding the rules of physics does not necessarily illuminate the existence of a creator.
  • Another viewpoint highlights the limitations of physics in addressing questions of purpose and morality, suggesting that physics deals with "how" rather than "why."
  • The discussion touches on the philosophical implications of free will in a universe potentially governed by a Unified Theory, with differing opinions on whether free will exists or is merely an illusion.
  • Some participants propose that randomness might play a role in human behavior, contrasting deterministic views with the notion of individual choice.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the relationship between Unified Theory and the concept of God, with no clear consensus reached. The discussion includes both supportive and critical perspectives on the implications of a unified force for understanding existence and free will.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes various assumptions about the nature of God, the implications of scientific theories, and the philosophical underpinnings of free will, which remain unresolved and open to interpretation.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring the intersections of physics, philosophy, and theology, particularly in relation to concepts of existence, morality, and free will.

  • #31
I just have to add this monumental strawman by Harris that I originally missed from this talk.

"Does the Taliban have an opinion on physics that is worth considering? No? Then how is their ignorance any less obvious, on the subject of human well-being?"

Does Harris have an opinion on physics worth considering? Did Martin Luther King have any opinion on physics worth considering? Did African slaves on the plantation have any opinions on physics worth considering? They can't be trusted to know anything about anyone's well being, much less their own.

So, if a scientologist, Christian, communist, Muslim, etc..came up with a workable form of quantum gravity it would make it "obvious" that their worldview/personal philosophy now has seniority over others and their personal philosophies are now worth considering. Unbelievable.

How can anyone listen to this man?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
itwillend said:
Side note guys and gals... Is there an implication in the thread that morals are not absolute?

If I may, would you all not agree at the very least among humans without mental deficiency that a life free from harm is universally agreed upon? I find that concept alone to be common for everyone on the planet, again minus mentally impaired persons.

Thoughts?

"Harm" is subjective. You don't really want to rid the world of harm. There is harm in all things. How many people die in cars? You want to ban them? I think most violent crime involves alcohol. Ban that? I walk into my local supermarket and the majority of the foods in there are bad for me. Ban them? A woman rejects my advances. This is psychologically harmful to me and I'm sure it would show up on Harris' little neuroscans. What does science demand we do about all these harms? I guarantee you personally will allow some harms and not tolerate others. Where does science show us what harms should be tolerated?
 
  • #33
itwillend said:
Is your response assuming that I am limiting the god-concept to just this one aspect "unified theory"?

I mean, the irony to what I am saying is, our greatest physicists would like to find a unified theory, a single force behind it all. At the same time, monotheistic religions believe one God is behind it all.

The/a unified theory/'theory of everything' will explain how 'forces', 'energies', mass, time, and space correlate in a way that makes logical and scientific sense. It won't be a 'single' force behind it all; and, it doesn't and won't relate to religious ideas.
 
  • #34
Max Faust said:
That would have to be a very passive and panentheistic God-concept, like the Aristotelian "unmoveable mover".

Pantheistic, yes but wouldn't this type of pantheistic God contain all information in the universe/multiverse and, in a very real sense be omniscient?
 

Similar threads

Graduate Maybe there is no grand unified theory?
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
13K
Graduate Metric Ansatz For Unifying All Forces In 11D?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Graduate Status and proofs on Superstring Unified Field Theory ?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Graduate Theory of Everything (TOE) Without a Grand Unified Theory (GUT)
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Graduate What are the prospects for the Causal Fermion System?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
Hydraulic Cylinder Held In Place Until Needed
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
971
Is Existence the Ultimate Power Over God?
  • · Replies 99 ·
4
Replies
99
Views
12K
Graduate What Needs to Be Explored for a Unified Field Theory in Physics?
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
8K
Graduate A Question on the TOV Limit: Continuous Forces vs. a Discrete Trigger
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
Graduate Could the fields for the particles and forces have the same origin?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
984