Philosophical Theory of Everything

[Resha Caner]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Does the world care if physicists come up with a unifying theory of everything? ... Does it get us any closer to understanding ourselves?

I think this is a great challenge to those who seek theories of everything. Because of their attempted scope, such theories typically mean nothing in the end.

I am curious what drives people to seek theories of everything (though I think I know some of the primary reasons).

But, of more interest to me is whether it really matters that a biologist studying which flowers attract bumblebees does not include an explanation of the harmonic response of a cantilever beam to an impact. What value would there be in "unifying" two such disparate fields of study?

[Resha Caner]

I'll take the silence as agreement - no one has a burning need to create a philosophy of everything.

So, rather than trying to merge biology and mechanics, let's narrow the scope a bit. I'm going with mechanics, where I have a background. Sorry, but I never did like biology.

Do people think there is one true theory for a particular aspect - say gravity? Or, are you content to let multiple theories live side by side?

Some will say that Newton is a special case of Einstein, but others will say they are completely different theories. Just for the sake of argument, assume we agreed they are completely different theories. Is it OK that physicists use Einstein and engineers use Newton?

[BaCaRdi]

Whats the matter of things, Resha?

Originally Posted by Resha Caner

I'll take the silence as agreement - no one has a burning need to create a philosophy of everything.

So, rather than trying to merge biology and mechanics, let's narrow the scope a bit. I'm going with mechanics, where I have a background. Sorry, but I never did like biology.

Do people think there is one true theory for a particular aspect - say gravity? Or, are you content to let multiple theories live side by side?

Some will say that Newton is a special case of Einstein, but others will say they are completely different theories. Just for the sake of argument, assume we agreed they are completely different theories. Is it OK that physicists use Einstein and engineers use Newton?

[Resha Caner]

I can't seem to get your video to work, so I don't know what you're getting at. Is it something you can explain in a post?

[BaCaRdi]

In progress my friends..mods are helping

-BaC

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by Resha Caner

I am curious what drives people to seek theories of everything (though I think I know some of the primary reasons).

... because it lights up the neurons in my brain like a Christmas tree

Here are some recurring themes that hint that there may be a unified theory of non-equilibrium thermodynamics (if not a unified theory of everything):

- the Golden Ratio
- fractals (in substance)
- fractals (in process)
- deterministic chaos
- life
- ...

[paulhanke]

Originally Posted by Resha Caner

Do people think there is one true theory for a particular aspect - say gravity?

... only to the extent that there is one true role through which a particular aspect discloses itself to us ... if, on the other hand, a particular aspect discloses itself to us through multiple roles - say, "wave" and "particle" - then perhaps we should not dismiss from consideration that there may be multiple true theories regarding that aspect ...

Originally Posted by Resha Caner

Is it OK that physicists use Einstein and engineers use Newton?

... as an engineer, I would have to say that it's perfectly acceptable ... in most cases, Newton's physics work perfectly well as a simplified model of Einstein's physics ... for example, engineering a race car ... on the other hand, if you're building a supercollider ... ... ... well that's another story! ...

[Resha Caner]

I have my own reasons to think there is a theory of everything, but those reasons are inadmissible here.

Whether it exists or not does not mean we can find it ... or understand it. Maybe the answer is 42, but what is the question?

Or, maybe it wouldn't be practical. Take a recent discussion on pi. Though it's a fun (and maybe even intellectually worthwhile) thing to seek a rational end to pi, it doesn't have practical value. The number of digits we know far exceeds the precision of our abilities to use them.

So, it becomes a religious pursuit of some kind. I'm not sure it's science anymore, and I definitely don't want my taxes funding such things. If people want to pursue such things, it should be done with private funding.

Back to my other question. If we have two theories that explain the same phenomenon, do we need to declare one "right" and one "wrong"? Or is it more scientifically "pure" to define the boundary conditions within which the competing theories operate and the accuracy of their results?

EDIT: I didn't see your second reply, Paul. I think we agree.

[BaCaRdi]

Well said "Resha" <--said it correctly too The "Rope", string that binds

Remember in forum knowledge you speaking to a group and a person...I got you..

Paul is a wise man indeed my brother

-BaC
-Di Vinci

Originally Posted by Resha Caner

I have my own reasons to think there is a theory of everything, but those reasons are inadmissible here.

Whether it exists or not does not mean we can find it ... or understand it. Maybe the answer is 42, but what is the question?

Or, maybe it wouldn't be practical. Take a recent discussion on pi. Though it's a fun (and maybe even intellectually worthwhile) thing to seek a rational end to pi, it doesn't have practical value. The number of digits we know far exceeds the precision of our abilities to use them.

So, it becomes a religious pursuit of some kind. I'm not sure it's science anymore, and I definitely don't want my taxes funding such things. If people want to pursue such things, it should be done with private funding.

Back to my other question. If we have two theories that explain the same phenomenon, do we need to declare one "right" and one "wrong"? Or is it more scientifically "pure" to define the boundary conditions within which the competing theories operate and the accuracy of their results?

EDIT: I didn't see your second reply, Paul. I think we agree.

[Resha Caner]

Originally Posted by paulhanke

if, on the other hand, a particular aspect discloses itself to us through multiple roles - say, "wave" and "particle" - then perhaps we should not dismiss from consideration that there may be multiple true theories regarding that aspect

A good example. But then let me ask this. Are they both "true"? I'm OK with using them to the extent that their limitations are understood. It solves the problem.

But are they "true" or are they merely sophisticated curve fitting? It seems to me there is probably a "warticle" or "parve" theory that would not have the apparent conflict of dual theories. Why does intuition want one explanation?