Will there ever be a Theory of Everything?

[Nitro]

So which one is it gonna be?

It doesn't matter. Both scenarios lead to the same conclusion. i.e. That there can never exist a finite set of laws to describe an infinite system (i.e. the Universe), AND any system (finite or infinite) cannot fully describe (comprehend) itself.

 

[entoptics]

It doesn't matter. Both scenarios lead to the same conclusion. i.e. That there can never exist a finite set of laws to describe an infinite system (i.e. the Universe), AND any system (finite or infinite) cannot fully describe (comprehend) itself.

I'm not entirely certain this is anything more than an "immovable object, irresistible force" paradox, with little or no practical value, and really not all that fun to contemplate.

In other words, there will never be a system (laws of physics) that will describe the Universe. i.e. "Theory of Everything" We will always need to have some faith. We will always have to just accept (believe) some things to be true. Otherwise we won't know the real truth about anything.

This on the other hand is an extreme example of a non-sequitor, which has no foundation in logic or science. Cloaking it in Godel's Theory is never going to prove it, and only makes such arguments suspicious at best.

With mankind's current understanding, perhaps your "incomplete or inconsistent" dichotomy is correct, but history is full of accepted theories being altered or struck down by new information.

Therefore, I "believe" (which is very distinct from "have faith") that mankind will never have an "algorithim" (e.g. computer, equation, etc) that is capable of describing and predicting every aspect of the universe...

...not because it isn't theoretically possible, but because mankind (and possibly the universe) won't be around long enough, and there is currently no imaginable need for such a thing.

EDIT: Also, you are misusing (intentionally I suspect) the accepted definition of Theory of Everything, which I must admit is a very poor name for what physicists are actually implying. It should be called "The Theory of Unification" or something similar.

 

[wyager]

It doesn't matter. Both scenarios lead to the same conclusion. i.e. That there can never exist a finite set of laws to describe an infinite system (i.e. the Universe), AND any system (finite or infinite) cannot fully describe (comprehend) itself.

Oh, It doesn't matter? That explains why you sustained the argument with me over both subjects for quite a while. If you really believe what you're saying about incompleteness, you have to choose. Is AI impossible, or is knowing everything impossible? Don't try and skirt the question, I want you to decide.

"Godel's theorem implies that pure mathematics is inexhaustible. No matter how many problems we solve, there will always be other problems that cannot be solved within the existing rules. Because of Godel's theorem, physics is inexhaustible too. The laws of physics are a finite set of rules, and include the rules for doing mathematics, so that Godel's theorem applies to them." - Freeman Dyson

He is not saying that we will not have an all-encompassing theory. He is saying that we will not be able to solve every problem, which we don't even want to do. "pure mathematics is inexhaustible" is not a limit on the number of equations we can discover, he's saying there is an infinite number of true equations. We can't solve, derive, simplify, etc an infinite number of equations. That much is obvious, you don't even need godel to tell you that.

 

[Nitro]

"The Theory of Everything (TOE) is a putative theory of theoretical physics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena, and, ideally, has predictive power for the outcome of any experiment that could be carried out in principle." - Wikipedia

That is the defenition I'm using, Freeman Dyson is using and Stephen Hawking is using. I'm not sure what definition you guys are using. You guys are free to believe what you want, but don't try to deny the beliefs of Freeman Dyson and Stephen Hawking, who probably have more knowledge on the subject than any living person on the planet.

What's interesting is I just discovered Mr. Hawking recently changed his mind about the existence of a TOE. I came to the conclusion over 20 years ago while studying Godel's theorems back in my college days. Maybe I should have wrote him a letter and informed him. It might have saved him the disappointment. :laughing:

 

[wyager]

Don't try and tell me not to argue with the "pros" when you're misquoting them. I just demonstrated that you improperly used the quote about mathematics being infinite. You also avoided answering my first question, no AI or no TOE?

 

[Nitro]

Don't try and tell me not to argue with the "pros" when you're misquoting them. I just demonstrated that you improperly used the quote about mathematics being infinite. You also avoided answering my first question, no AI or no TOE?

Wyager, you still aren't grasping it yet, but I do have faith in you.

Kurt Godel, Freeman Dyson and Steven Hawking all believe ONE of these two scenarios to be true. Read them again very carefully:

1. If the human mind is on the same level as a finite machine (i.e. Formal Axiomatic System) (i.e. Computer), than there will always be an unsolvable problem out there. Hence there will never be a Theory of Everything. Furthermore, we could never prove our self consistent (fully understand our self), because that would defy his 2nd theorem.

2. On the other hand, if the human mind is on a higher level (infinite system) than a finite machine that puts us closer to the level of the Universe, it may be possible to solve any problem. However, that also means no finite machine (man made computer that we can fully comprehend) (i.e. Turing Machine), will ever reach the infinite level of the human mind. Furthermore, there would never be a finite Formal System of Laws (Axioms) (i.e. Theory of Everything) to describe the human mind, or the Universe.

BOTH scenarios come to the SAME conclusion. That is, there can never exist a TOE, AND man cannot understand himself, or an AI machine that's on the same level as himself. It doesn't mean an AI machine on our same level can't exist, it just means we won't be able to understand it.

 

[Nitro]

I think you guys are failing to comprehend the difference between a Finite System and an Infinite System. They are obviously different. However, the same rules apply to both. It's just that an Infinite System is on a higher LEVEL than a Finite System.

The following statements are true:
A Finite System CANNOT understand an Infinite System.
A Finite System CANNOT understand a higher Finite System.
A Finite System CANNOT understand the same Finite System.
A Finite System CAN understand a lower Finite System.

An Infinite System CANNOT understand a higher Infinite System.
An Infinite System CANNOT understand the same Infinite System.
An Infinite System CAN understand a Finite System.

To summarize:
A System cannot understand a higher system, or itself.
However, a System can understand a lower system.

 

[wyager]

1. If the human mind is on the same level as a finite machine (i.e. Formal Axiomatic System) (i.e. Computer), than there will always be an unsolvable problem out there. Hence there will never be a Theory of Everything. Furthermore, we could never prove our self consistent (fully understand our self), because that would defy his 2nd theorem.

This is one of the places you are wrong. You are assuming that a set of equations that can describe any scenario is the same thing as an infinite set of equations. There are billions of equations to describe possible scenarios in a game of chess, but you only need a handful to completely understand the game. The set of equations needed for a theory of everything is finite, not infinite. On top of that, you are keeping the idea that a human is an infinite system in the scenario. The only reason you would possibly think this is if you had religious motivation (not scientific). Implying that humans are inherently different is not scientifically correct at all.

It's nice that you "have faith" in me, but I won't change my mind just because you keep saying the same things over and over. You mis-quoted those people, so stop trying to use them as an argument.

At this point this thread has become a lot of copy and paste from previous statements, you even quoted yourself at one point. I'm not going to bother replying unless someone has something new to say, which hasn't happened for a while now.

 

[entoptics]

"The Theory of Everything (TOE) is a putative theory of theoretical physics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena, and, ideally, has predictive power for the outcome of any experiment that could be carried out in principle." - Wikipedia

The key parts you are misusing, as I'm certain Mr Hawking and Mr Dyson would agree, are...

Most egregious is "predictive power for the outcome of any experiment that could be carried out in principle."

"Predictive power" is not synonymous with "know everything that will happen"

The 2nd is "all known physical phenomena". That leaves considerable room for the discovery of new phenomena that don't fit the TOE.

TOE for dummies = unification of the theories of gravity, atoms, quantum mechanics, relativity, and thermodynamics. Obviously not a perfect list, but you get the point.

 

[ama230]

"For the record I love Science, Math etc etc etc. I think we need it just like we need a set of laws, constitution etc. However, it is my belief that Science (i.e. man) will never be able to understand everything. In other words, there will never be a system (laws of physics) that will describe the Universe. i.e. "Theory of Everything" We will always need to have some faith. We will always have to just accept (believe) some things to be true. Otherwise we won't know the real truth about anything." - Nitro

I agree with this and nitro and star halo are getting whats going on and where most theorists have arrived at. Good one with the children example as it couldn't be put simpler.:twothumbs

We will never understand the human anatomy but when we do this is where we become the machine. Also dealing with (pico, nano and micro) electronics everyday, they will always have a tolerance for components due to physics being inconsistent. Even with super duper conductors in the most ideal conditions are unpredictable due to heat being the most chaotic form of energy. There isn't a element out there that doesn't require doping to fix its imperfect makeup when it comes to manufacturing. Atoms are always acting a fool when trying to find a balance.

You are stating that we will make present physics bend in order to make a machine understand itself and become self aware. Then this being true, you are 100% correct. This is where the computer wins and we are left in the stone ages. God dang you machines and this is when the resistance starts. I'm in definitely in! grouphug:...:buddies:.............)

In conclusion, knowing these things 100% will conclude to a machine understanding itself, thus it won't happen. This applies with a human as well... Not being political, religious or etc as labels are toooo logicy(nothing against them) you could define the way I think as faith based but its more of an optimistic ethical respect approach, if one were to put into terms...

Perpetual(non-nerdy definition): it continues in a closed loop fashion and cannot be stopped by human interaction, only partially harnessed (electromechanical, photovoltaics and thermoelectrics...etc....)

Everything is basically perpetual in motion as energies are constantly being exchanged and with what you say is they come to a stop. I think this is a new law of physics or something. However, how can we label something as forever as we have no perception of infinite or never ending. It something that continues to move with or without us being here, before and after our existence. The term is used very loose and has tons of connotations, so define sparingly if you will.

I understand it completely as I have several devices of my design, building and delivering using this very technology. It exists in few third world countries off the grid and works very well, then again when this motion(energy) stops existing I might be out of business?:sick2:

It would also be helpful to stop reading what others have come up with and think for yourself as the reasoning here is too systematic and perpetual, might want to break the loop and say what if or maybe once in a while. Life's pretty boring with everything being put into logic and not to mention downright depressing. Again just my opinion...:shrug:

As some are getting hostile on here, they are going to get this nice conversation "washed out". Pretty please with a cherry on top, take it down a notch.:bow:..........Spank you very much:twothumbs

Also take my comment with a grain of salt as this is just a perception into reality. Great outlooks so far and oh so interesting.:thumbsup:

"ALL THIS KNOWLEDGE IS GIVING ME A RAGING BRAINER!!!"


lovecpf

 

[entoptics]

The following statements are true:
A Finite System CANNOT understand an Infinite System.
A Finite System CANNOT understand a higher Finite System.
A Finite System CANNOT understand the same Finite System.
A Finite System CAN understand a lower Finite System.

An Infinite System CANNOT understand a higher Infinite System.
An Infinite System CANNOT understand the same Infinite System.
An Infinite System CAN understand a Finite System.

A big chainsaw CANNOT love a bigger chainsaw.

Prove me wrong! Clearly you don't understand what a chainsaw is!

Simply asserting things without firm explanations and evidence doesn't make them true. Hell, even a good explanation with some evidence won't prove it true.

I get the impression you may not be able to express "understand" adequately, since you keep avoiding an explanation for Godel's theorem that is more than "Godel States XYZ"

Why don't you start with an understandable explanation for why you are willing to believe...

"A finite system cannot understand itself"
"An infinite system cannot understand itself"

Explain in a logical manner how you (or Godel) came to either of these conclusions.

 

[ama230]

A big chainsaw CANNOT love a bigger chainsaw.

Prove me wrong! Clearly you don't understand what a chainsaw is!

Simply asserting things without firm explanations and evidence doesn't make them true. Hell, even a good explanation with some evidence won't prove it true.

I get the impression you may not be able to express "understand" adequately, since you keep avoiding an explanation for Godel's theorem that is more than "Godel States XYZ"

Why don't you start with an understandable explanation for why you are willing to believe...

"A finite system cannot understand itself"
"An infinite system cannot understand itself"

Explain in a logical manner how you (or Godel) came to either of these conclusions.

Easy chief as this isnt an argument, please tone it down as this thread is very interesting and the thread is veryyyyyyy close to getting put on lock down. Pretty please with a cherry on top?

 

[entoptics]

We will never understand the human anatomy...

There's that freewheeling use of the word understand again. Regardless, the argument of "we don't know everything about it now, so we can never know everything about it" is both unimportant and unfounded. Given a billion years, who knows. Who cares. Either way, there's no evidence that "faith is required".

Perpetual(non-nerdy definition): it continues in a closed loop fashion and cannot be stopped by human interaction, only partially harnessed (electromechanical, photovoltaics and thermoelectrics...etc....)

Everything is basically perpetual in motion as energies are constantly being exchanged and with what you say is they come to a stop. I think this is a new law of physics or something.

First of all, I'd stick with the nerd definition, and not invent your own.

2nd of all, the nerds established a principle called entropy quite awhile back and have been testing it since by making everything from missiles to mayonnaise, so the second gem of a statement is pretty far from accurate. All things most certainly are NOT in perpetual motion. Exchanging of energies is in fact the EXACT OPPOSITE of perpetual.

Not a new law of physics. Perhaps you should read more.

I understand it completely as I have several devices of my design, building and delivering using this very technology...

If third world countries have perpetual energy creating devices, it's a certainty that they won't be third world countries for long.

It would also be helpful to stop reading what others have come up with... Life's pretty boring with everything being put into logic and not to mention downright depressing. Again just my opinion...:shrug:

Methinks the use of the most powerful tool mankind has ever invented, namely "Writing things down for others to use later, so they don't have to go back and figure it out themselves again", is helpful, and once again, the EXACT OPPOSITE of your statement is almost assuredly true.

As some are getting hostile on here, they are going to get this nice conversation "washed out". Pretty please with a cherry on top, take it down a notch.:bow:..........Spank you very much:twothumbs

+10

 

[ama230]

Its perpetual harnessing not creating. Everything is in constant motion. Atoms, molecules...etc...... These are always being broken or partnered with others and thus the perpetual motion of energy. Its always in motion and being exchanged through entropy and enthalpy, thermo stuff etc...

Photons are always being emitted, heat is always being exerted and wind and air are always moving due to reactions of celestial bodies. Harnessing these without causing the user to have any knowledge or experience would be pretty hard without a perpetual form of energy source. Definitions are so loose when its comes to certain terms. I can only explain it so much as you have to see or work with the following.... I agree with what you are saying as nothing is perpertual as we have to witness it before we can deem it so, but this is as close to it as possible.

When two colors like blue and red mix:
1)it becomes purple
2)it becomes bled
3)it becomes bluish red
4)it becomes dark blue
There are many connotations and explanations. Vocabulary is very diverse and math is a whole different ballgame. Mixing them could cause the world to go!

So when you say that the ocean stops moving the atoms stop moving too?

When doing your math equations in school they assume that everything is static but in reality everything is in motion, thats how energy. When water is sitting in a glass the water molecules are still moving due to everything around it having an effect on it. Unless its is at 0K then maybe its not moving or exchanging energy.

There isnt really faith its just believing and accepting that something is just untouchable and unexplainable.

I got to admire youre outlook on life as everything's possible though.

 

[jtblue]

Wow this is deep.....

There will never be a theory for everything, well i hope so anyway.

I believe that human beings are a very enquisitive species that strives to find out the causes and effects off all things that surround us.

Imagine how boring life would be if you already knew how to get with that chick at the other end of the room :kiss:

As a flashlight enthusiast I believe that I and most others who use this forum use our flashlights because deep within we want to be able to discover what lies beyond ourselves in the darkness.

lol yeah I'm just rambling on now...back to the LED section I go

 

[wyager]

Its perpetual harnessing not creating. Everything is in constant motion. Atoms, molecules...etc...... These are always being broken or partnered with others and thus the perpetual motion of energy. Its always in motion and being exchanged through entropy and enthalpy, thermo stuff etc...

Photons are always being emitted, heat is always being exerted and wind and air are always moving due to reactions of celestial bodies. Harnessing these without causing the user to have any knowledge or experience would be pretty hard without a perpetual form of energy source. Definitions are so loose when its comes to certain terms. I can only explain it so much as you have to see or work with the following.... I agree with what you are saying as nothing is perpertual as we have to witness it before we can deem it so, but this is as close to it as possible.

When two colors like blue and red mix:
1)it becomes purple
2)it becomes bled
3)it becomes bluish red
4)it becomes dark blue
There are many connotations and explanations. Vocabulary is very diverse and math is a whole different ballgame. Mixing them could cause the world to go!

So when you say that the ocean stops moving the atoms stop moving too?

When doing your math equations in school they assume that everything is static but in reality everything is in motion, thats how energy. When water is sitting in a glass the water molecules are still moving due to everything around it having an effect on it. Unless its is at 0K then maybe its not moving or exchanging energy.

There isnt really faith its just believing and accepting that something is just untouchable and unexplainable.

1. Again, look up the heat death of the universe. What you are saying is wrong, at some point there will be no significant movement of energy.
2."we have to witness it before we can deem it so." You should really look up a. priori and "reasoning".
3.What? Mathematics is not a human language, it is 100% consistent. There is no "purple vs bluish red" in mathematics.
4.Yes.
5.Everything HAS energy, but exchange of energy is what causes movement and reactions. Even at 0K there is still energy, but there's no heat moving around.
6.Oh wow. Believing that something is untouchable and unexplainable just because you feel like it is the stupidest affliction ever to hit humanity. The christians were always really bad with this, they burned the heretics and witches and put bans on science just because they believed that some things were unexplainable. If you want to go live in the middle ages, be my guest. Have fun dying at age 35.

Wow this is deep.....

There will never be a theory for everything, well i hope so anyway.

I believe that human beings are a very enquisitive species that strives to find out the causes and effects off all things that surround us.

Imagine how boring life would be if you already knew how to get with that chick at the other end of the room :kiss:

As a flashlight enthusiast I believe that I and most others who use this forum use our flashlights because deep within we want to be able to discover what lies beyond ourselves in the darkness.

lol yeah I'm just rambling on now...back to the LED section I go

Just because you want adventure doesn't mean you should stop learning. often times learning opens up new adventures.

We will never understand the human anatomy but when we do this is where we become the machine. Also dealing with (pico, nano and micro) electronics everyday, they will always have a tolerance for components due to physics being inconsistent. Even with super duper conductors in the most ideal conditions are unpredictable due to heat being the most chaotic form of energy. There isn't a element out there that doesn't require doping to fix its imperfect makeup when it comes to manufacturing. Atoms are always acting a fool when trying to find a balance.

You are stating that we will make present physics bend in order to make a machine understand itself and become self aware. Then this being true, you are 100% correct. This is where the computer wins and we are left in the stone ages. God dang you machines and this is when the resistance starts. I'm in definitely in! grouphug:...:buddies:.............)

In conclusion, knowing these things 100% will conclude to a machine understanding itself, thus it won't happen. This applies with a human as well... Not being political, religious or etc as labels are toooo logicy(nothing against them) you could define the way I think as faith based but its more of an optimistic ethical respect approach, if one were to put into terms...

Perpetual(non-nerdy definition): it continues in a closed loop fashion and cannot be stopped by human interaction, only partially harnessed (electromechanical, photovoltaics and thermoelectrics...etc....)

Everything is basically perpetual in motion as energies are constantly being exchanged and with what you say is they come to a stop. I think this is a new law of physics or something. However, how can we label something as forever as we have no perception of infinite or never ending. It something that continues to move with or without us being here, before and after our existence. The term is used very loose and has tons of connotations, so define sparingly if you will.

I understand it completely as I have several devices of my design, building and delivering using this very technology. It exists in few third world countries off the grid and works very well, then again when this motion(energy) stops existing I might be out of business?:sick2:

It would also be helpful to stop reading what others have come up with and think for yourself as the reasoning here is too systematic and perpetual, might want to break the loop and say what if or maybe once in a while. Life's pretty boring with everything being put into logic and not to mention downright depressing. Again just my opinion...:shrug:

As some are getting hostile on here, they are going to get this nice conversation "washed out". Pretty please with a cherry on top, take it down a notch.:bow:..........Spank you very much:twothumbs

1.What? We already have a 99.9% perfect understanding of human anatomy, we're a little behind on the brain but that's it.
2.What? AI ≠ evil robots.
3.What? I'm trying to get around the butchering of the english language, but I think your first sentence is 100% wrong. Optimism and ethicality are not logical constructions.
4.Your "non-nerdy" definition is completely incorrect. Perpetual=100% efficient conversion of energy, from one form to another. Even if all you want is heat, this is still impossible due to blackbody radiation.
5.Perpetual in a scientific context has only one definition… you aren't using it. We have an excellent perception of infinity BTW, we've already mastered the concept in many fields of mathematics.
6.You have several devices using what technology? I know for a fact you don't have any perpetual motion devices….
7.Just because something is boring or depressing does not make it false. How about you stop lying to yourself and see the real world, not some magical fairy land where your desired laws of nature are true.
8.Agreed.

 

[Nitro]

The key parts you are misusing, as I'm certain Mr Hawking and Mr Dyson would agree, are...

Most egregious is "predictive power for the outcome of any experiment that could be carried out in principle."

"Predictive power" is not synonymous with "know everything that will happen"

The 2nd is "all known physical phenomena". That leaves considerable room for the discovery of new phenomena that don't fit the TOE.

TOE for dummies = unification of the theories of gravity, atoms, quantum mechanics, relativity, and thermodynamics. Obviously not a perfect list, but you get the point.

After reading this definition again, you make a good point. However, I don't believe Wikipedia is defining TOE the same way Mr Hawking, Mr Dyson and myself are defining it. The "all known physical phenomena", should simply say "all physical phenomena". Wouldn't "Everything" mean everything, regardless of whether we know about it yet? Is it not true that if I don't know about it yet, it still exists, and is a part of everything? The old saying, "If a tree falls in a forest with nobody around, does it still make a sound?" comes to mind. My point is a Theory of Everything and a Theory of Unification are not the same thing. I think that has been our confusion.

Even I wouldn't argue that we will be able to find a system to describe TODAY'S known phenomena i.e. Theory of Unification. We've been doing that all along. However, there will always be more (new) phenomena appearing that we can't explain. I'll take it one step further, the act itself of finding a current TOE will raise more questions that can't be answered by the TOE, therefore negating it's stance as a TOE. Ever notice every time we answer one question, more questions appear? That's been my point from the very beginning. i.e. It will never end. A Final, Ultimate TOE will never be found. To define it in technical terms, it takes an infinite set of laws to describe an Infinite System (Universe). And that's the conclusion Godel, Hawking and Dyson came to. BTW, Hawking, Dyson and Einstein did believed at one point that an Ultimate TOE was possible to find (i.e. a finite set of laws could fully describe the Universe). Einstein spent the latter part of his life trying to find one. And there are scientists still today who believe an Ultimate TOE can/will be found. My question is, do you?

 

[Nitro]

For those who want to read more on this subject, checkout the book "Infinity and the Mind" by Rudy Rucker.