Why i think a Theory of Everything wont be ever made

[Coelho]

Well... today the scientists, mainly the physicists, search for a "theory of everything", a theory which explain all the physical phenomena in the universe.
But i (as a physicist) believe they wont suceed.
Imagine that you are an observer, and are examining, lets say, an atom. I know that atoms are not rigid spheres, but its not the point. If you were doing so, when you looked at the atom, you would see something like the picture below.
If you didnt know that what you was seeing on the surface of it was your own image reflected, you surely would try to make a theory to explain why the atom had a man pictured in its surface. If you looked at several atoms, all of them would show the same man, sometimes greater, sometimes smaller. But surely you would have to explain why all the atoms had a man in its surface.
While the truth would be that the atoms hadnt anything in their surface. They were only reflecting the one observing it (and its surroundings as well).
So, my point is: The physical theories are not a description of the world by itself, but a description of how we humans percieve the world.
When we look at anything, we are not seeing it as it is, but as it is percieved by our human minds, brains, etc, which is obviously a very limited view of how it actually is.
If we only were able to see, let say red, we would say that the world is red. And would have a hard time trying to imagine the possibility of the world dont be red at all.
Thats why the physical theories are so well explained using math. Because math is the way that our minds use to understand the world. It is not that the universe follows math, cause math is a human minds creation. The universe does anything, we humans are the ones who filter the doings of the universe into mathematically expressed relations, and then say that they are the "laws of the universe". But they are not. They are only the "laws of how our mind percieves the universe".
So, a "theory of everything" should be able to explain the way our mind percieves the universe, or at least, to point that the laws were a result of the existence of a human observer looking at the universe. The theory of everything should be able to say "the atoms have NOT a man in its surface. That man is the observer looking at the atom, and not the atom itself".
But as until today most scientists still think that is possible to create a theory of everything without including the observer in it, thats the reason because i think they wont suceed. Always there will be the mistery of "why does all the atoms has a man in its surface?"

EDIT: Thats my 2004th post! And 2004 was the year i started to smoke! :stoned::jointsmile:

[Esoteric416]

I think you're right about not finding M-theory untill the people doing the research fully understand that they have to factor their observation into the equation.
Since the collective conciousness of all people combine to create our physical reality how can you find a theoretical framework that doesn't recognise the ovservers roll in what is observed?
It would be nice if our society (and i mean global society) could regain some of the spirituality of the old shamanistic cultures.
:);):thumbsup::jointsmile::D:D

[NaughtyDreadz]

there's a special on the Discovery Science network with portuguese physicist Joao Magueijo about even rethinking E=MC²... pretty trippy shit

João Magueijo's Big Bang : Science Channel (http://science.discovery.com/tv/joao-magueijo/joao-magueijo.html)

[Barrelhse]

I'm quite certain that a Unified Theory will eventually be understood. When I was young we had only recently discovered that the Milky Way is not the universe, and Shapleigh was at the cutting edge of astronomy. ( I still have a problem with Guth's "inflation" being the excuse for the physics following the Big Bang)

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Excellent post Coelho. Scientists, philosophers, medical practioners, and Joe Schmoes throughout history have wanted to find a single cause for all phenomena relating to their field. In the 1800's, chiropractic was put into organized practice in the west with the original idea that all ills could be traced to misallignments of the spine. Chinese medical theorists postulated God-knows how long ago that all illness could be traced to an imbalance in chi. Socrates put forth the theory that ailments were all the result of an imbalance in one or more of the four humors. Sorry to use medical referrences, it's what I'm mainly familiar with. But you see my point here.

I've always found it a bit annoying that so many people, including a friend of mine, have tried show me "proof" in the existence of God by pointing out intricately balanced mathematical formula's that show up repetetively throughout the universe. I tried to explain to him that the all-mighty fibinachi (sp?) sequence is an inevitable product of gravitation and energy efficiency, but they continue to insist upon the amazing numerical balance of the universe. No I won't turn this into a God debate, that's not even the central issue of what I'm saying. It's just that conceptual formulations applied upon the physical universe are only a way of explaining an idea via human language. It's much like realizing that millions of species each have a name, then insisting upon mysterious forces as the reason for all of them having names, rather than crediting the names as something we applied to them to conceptualize and organize the subject. I'm glad at least you understand this, because it seems so few do.


You know I'm just gonna go ahead and blast another quasi-scientific religion that's given rise into people's consciousness these days: The Secret. I am so sick to death of everybody telling me that all my problems can be solved if I just watch The Secret and apply it to my life. Been there, done that, doesn't work; though others will insist that I of course didn't will my desires hard enough or in the right fassion. Folk these days (well, probably all days past and future) hear an argument from an authoritative source and become so enthrawled in their impressive dialogue without actually questioning, challenging, and learning the material themselves. It's bad enough that those who are utterly ignorant of the scientific process and it's potential fallabilities read an article that says "studies show", and they think it has now been proven beyond a doubt. *sigh*


Do my a favour Coelho: breed like a rabbit and spread your seed to the farthest reaches of the planet. It seems the critical thinking gene is in steep decline.

[Coelho]

^^Thanks for you kind words, man... :thumbsup:
I cant give you rep right now, so look at my profile page... you will find there what you want... :thumbsup:

[dragonrider]

I think that most exisitng complicated, inconsistent, or non-unified physical laws will eventually reduce into a very simple set of unified laws that will explain the fundamental forces and types of matter and energy. Eventually there will be a Grand Unified Theory.

However, even very simple laws can yield unimaginable complexity given enough time and energy. So I think we will have an ultimate kind of fundamental physics. But as you move outward from physics to all the disciplines of science and knowledge that build on physics or are consequences of our physical world (chemistry, biochemistry, biology, botany, horticulture, agriculture, psychology, theology, etc.) there will never be an end of discovery.

Physics is about reduction and simplification, and it has an endpoint. But other disciplines are about complexity, and there is no end to complexity.

[hazetwostep]

coelho...

i follow you on the whole issue of only being able to see our perception of reality and not reality itself, but what about that means that a unified theory (of our perception of reality) will never be reached? even if it is not actual reality, would that matter if it simply connected the dots of the quantum and macro world to our reality?

hope that question is clear... i have been sober for 4 days prepping for a drug test and i'm just not thinking clearly :D

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

My theory for everything: Infinity.
Same theory, different word: Nothing.

Infinity is to nothing, as nothing is to infinity.

A blank canvas is to Nothing as a painting is to Infinity.

[Coelho]

i follow you on the whole issue of only being able to see our perception of reality and not reality itself, but what about that means that a unified theory (of our perception of reality) will never be reached? even if it is not actual reality, would that matter if it simply connected the dots of the quantum and macro world to our reality?

I think it wont be reached because this theory should have to explain also the act of observing, of percieving. It should have to explain the relationship between the matter being observed and the observer. As observation is perception, and perception is consciousness, follow that a theory of everything would have to explain also consciousness. What i doubt any physical theory, today or in any near (or even far) future, would be able to do.

The physics is the study of the things that can be mathematically expressed. Only things that follow numbers and mathematical (or logical) rules can be physically defined and explained. But the quantum mechanics showed that the actual behavior of the particles is ruled by chance, and thus not mathematically describable, what limites greatly the range of knowledge of any physical theory.

For example... take the Schroedinger cat experience. In this experience a cat is in a box with a gun pointing to it, and the gun is fired following the decomposition of a radioactive atom.
All what the physics can say is that there is a probability of the atom decompose during some amount of time, but the actual moment when it will decompose is at chance, and cant be known by any physical theory.
So, the life of the cat depends exclusively of chance... and no amount of physics can change it.

[GreenDestiny]

For example... take the Schroedinger cat experience. In this experience a cat is in a box with a gun pointing to it, and the gun is fired following the decomposition of a radioactive atom.
All what the physics can say is that there is a probability of the atom decompose during some amount of time, but the actual moment when it will decompose is at chance, and cant be known by any physical theory.
So, the life of the cat depends exclusively of chance... and no amount of physics can change it.

I believe that every atom is "programmed" with a measurable rate of decay aside from other environmental variables. We can guess the rate of decay, and sort of measure it as it happens (I think?), but like you said we're not sure of when it will actually happen for that atom. We don't have a way of determining the exact life expectancy of the atom, but I'm sure it's not gonna decay all by chance. We just lack a way of measuring it before it happens, to know exactly when it will happen and how long it will take to complete.

To say its all by chance would open up the door to crackpot theories like spontaneous combustion... if the atoms are gonna behave all by chance, then they can just do anything they want at any given time? To say an atom is gonna behave by chance is to give it an infinite amount of possibilities for doing anything... but nah, it's gonna eventually decay at whatever rate it shall depending on the forces that cause it to begin.

That cat experiment seems to be nothing more than a quantum version of the tree falling in a forest... will it make a sound, or not because there was no one there to hear it.. it's all actions and reactions.

Though, given infinite time/space, infinite possibilities would exist for everything, giving a "chance" for complete randomness... but in every system there's still gonna be rules and laws to follow.. dang, science turns into a loop of logic for me sometimes.... an infinite loop lol oh no! i'm stuck!


Anyways, I also doubt we'd be able to merge all the theories together... it doesn't even take into consideration the possibility of things that are much bigger than our scope of reality... macroverses are trippy to think about.

I totally love physics... but the more I try to learn about it, the more I realize that everything is a theory based on our limited observations... nothing is concrete... it's all too............. random. At least some numbers remain constant, as far as we know.. mwahahahah

[hazetwostep]

coelho... can you tell me a bit about your beliefs on existence? i know it is a broad question but maybe answer it as if you had to give a definition for a belief system we know as "coelhoism"...

[TheMetal1]

If you didnt know that what you was seeing on the surface of it was your own image reflected, you surely would try to make a theory to explain why the atom had a man pictured in its surface.

You just blew my mind. Haha :jointsmile:
I've read and thought about the observer/environment relationship and how it will effect the overall perception of reality, but using that picture and analogy just made my brain click. The Everything Theory would not necessarily be "how" it all works, just how we perceive it to be, relative to our position of observation. I wonder though, if we define an ultimate theory... would it automatically be incorrect simply because it is filtered through our eyes? Couldn't our biased observations be correct? Also, if there even is a measurable difference between the "actual" ultimate theory, and our "filtered" theory... would it matter? If our reality is determined by how our mind perceives our environment, then our filtered and biased theory would be the only relevant theory our species would need. I hope I didn't lose everyone there. :jointsmile: It's late. Does that make sense?

This post made me think a lot and I like that. :thumbsup:

[GreenDestiny]

You just blew my mind. Haha :jointsmile:
I've read and thought about the observer/environment relationship and how it will effect the overall perception of reality, but using that picture and analogy just made my brain click. The Everything Theory would not necessarily be "how" it all works, just how we perceive it to be, relative to our position of observation. I wonder though, if we define an ultimate theory... would it automatically be incorrect simply because it is filtered through our eyes? Couldn't our biased observations be correct? Also, if there even is a measurable difference between the "actual" ultimate theory, and our "filtered" theory... would it matter? If our reality is determined by how our mind perceives our environment, then our filtered and biased theory would be the only relevant theory our species would need. I hope I didn't lose everyone there. :jointsmile: It's late. Does that make sense?

This post made me think a lot and I like that. :thumbsup:

Makes sense to me. Once or twice someone's claimed to be close to linking the theories together, so I'm sure they'll find a solution for explaining it for our perceptions of reality, but not for actual reality. We'd just be one step closer to half-assed understanding everything. I'd like to think that there's still a slim chance that our observation could be 100% accurate (infinite realities type theory right there). And like you said, about our reality being determined by how our mind perceives the environment... I think that bit right there gives the chance for all our theories being correct and linked together.

I still have my doubts, but I'm not letting go of hope.

I hope we can at least figure this stuff out after we die!

[Coelho]

I believe that every atom is "programmed" with a measurable rate of decay aside from other environmental variables. We can guess the rate of decay, and sort of measure it as it happens (I think?), but like you said we're not sure of when it will actually happen for that atom. We don't have a way of determining the exact life expectancy of the atom, but I'm sure it's not gonna decay all by chance. We just lack a way of measuring it before it happens, to know exactly when it will happen and how long it will take to complete.

Well... the rate of decay is a measured thing after the atoms decay... its statistics, not science. For example: if you throw a coin, as we usually dont know anything about the movement of it, statistics will say that, in average, the chance of you get heads or tails is the same. So, if you throw several times, you would get about the same number of heads and tails. But the coin doesnt know that it must respect an average. If you throw the coin and get heads several times repeatedly, the chance of getting a tail wont be any greater because of this. What the coin does is governed mostly by chance, and statistics is only an way to disguise our lack of better knowledge about the matter being studied.
So, as we know that the coin has two sides, we assume that the coin will fall with one of this sides upside. But as we absolutely dont know what the coin will do, and thus would be prejudiced to say that one side has greater chance of being upside, we say that the chances are the same for the both sides. But its only a nice way to say that we dont know anything about it. (Statisticists forgive me, but its true... :p)

Regarding the specific example of radioactive emission... the atoms nucleus can be viewed as a cloud of flies flying around a lamp. The flies being the protons and neutrons, and the lamp being nothing. (The protons and neutrons are attracted by themselves, but the flies are not... thats why they need a lamp). Anyway, details aside, the fact is that the subatomic particles are in movement into the nucleus. When two particles fast enough collide, they emit radiation.
But we cant know (due the uncertainity principle) the position of this subatomic particles, so we cant know when they will collide and emit radiation. And nor they (the particles) do, they dont know that the kind of atom they are part has some measured decay rate. The particles just spin around, carelessly, until two of them collide. And as nor we nor they know when they will collide, we say that it happens by chance.


To say its all by chance would open up the door to crackpot theories like spontaneous combustion... if the atoms are gonna behave all by chance, then they can just do anything they want at any given time? To say an atom is gonna behave by chance is to give it an infinite amount of possibilities for doing anything... but nah, it's gonna eventually decay at whatever rate it shall depending on the forces that cause it to begin.

There is a chance of get 10 tails repeatedly when throwing a coin. There is also a chance to get, lets say, 100, or even 1000 tails repeatedly. But we dont see it happening because its very improbable. (about 1:1,000,000,000 for only 30 repetitions). We could make a law like "one coin never falls with the same side upside for more than 30 consecutive throws", and this law would only be wrong at about 1/1,000,000,000th of the time. Increasing the number of maximum throws, the range of validity of this "law" would be greatly increased. But it wouldnt be a true nature law. Cause there is nothing that forbide a coin to fall heads or tails repeatedly by any number of times. If one were lucky enough it could be done. So, again, statistics shouldnt be used as tool for making laws.
Of course sooner or later the atoms will decay... but its by the same reason of why we cant get more than 20 or 30 (or even 10) repeated heads or tails throwing a coin. By chance (or lack of luck).
And yes, even the most improbable things are allowed by physics to happen, but as the chance of they happen is VERY small, we say that its impossible for all useful purposes.


Though, given infinite time/space, infinite possibilities would exist for everything, giving a "chance" for complete randomness... but in every system there's still gonna be rules and laws to follow..

I dont know... i think that what we call rules or laws are patterns noticed by our minds... but nothing ensures us that the nature must obey the patterns our mind makes...


I totally love physics... but the more I try to learn about it, the more I realize that everything is a theory based on our limited observations... nothing is concrete... it's all too............. random. At least some numbers remain constant, as far as we know.. mwahahahah

Me too... and as understand what you say about realizing its limitations, cause i feel it myself too... thats why i started to search other things.
And the numbers only remains constant because they are defined as constants... if they are, by definition, constant, they just cant have any hope of changing their status. For them the life is deterministic indeed... :p


coelho... can you tell me a bit about your beliefs on existence? i know it is a broad question but maybe answer it as if you had to give a definition for a belief system we know as "coelhoism"...

Man... its a very broad question indeed... i wouldnt know even for where to begin... if you could make it a bit more specific, i could try to answer.
And please dont think about starting some "coelhoism"... i think the world is already full enough of "isms"... :D


You just blew my mind. Haha :jointsmile:
I've read and thought about the observer/environment relationship and how it will effect the overall perception of reality, but using that picture and analogy just made my brain click.

Man... it happened the same with me when this thought appeared into my mind at the first time... i was high (as always :stoned:) and noticed that this picture was a very good analogy of the relationship between observer and object...


The Everything Theory would not necessarily be "how" it all works, just how we perceive it to be, relative to our position of observation. I wonder though, if we define an ultimate theory... would it automatically be incorrect simply because it is filtered through our eyes?

It wouldnt be incorret, but incomplete. The filtering done would erase some information, and so we always would lose some knowledge.


Couldn't our biased observations be correct? Also, if there even is a measurable difference between the "actual" ultimate theory, and our "filtered" theory... would it matter?
If our reality is determined by how our mind perceives our environment, then our filtered and biased theory would be the only relevant theory our species would need. I hope I didn't lose everyone there. :jointsmile: It's late. Does that make sense?

Yes, it does. But then we should admit that our knowledge and even our "theory of everything" would not be actually a theory of everything, but only a theory of what we can understand and percieve, and be aware of its limitations.
So, for example, physics would be called "Mathematical patterns of the universe when observed by the human mind", and not "The Laws of Nature".


Makes sense to me. Once or twice someone's claimed to be close to linking the theories together, so I'm sure they'll find a solution for explaining it for our perceptions of reality, but not for actual reality. We'd just be one step closer to half-assed understanding everything. I'd like to think that there's still a slim chance that our observation could be 100% accurate (infinite realities type theory right there). And like you said, about our reality being determined by how our mind perceives the environment... I think that bit right there gives the chance for all our theories being correct and linked together.

I still have my doubts, but I'm not letting go of hope.

I hope we can at least figure this stuff out after we die!

Well... i dont want go off topic so i wont enter in details... but i believe that what we call reality depends heavily on how "tuned" (actually like a radio) our mind is with the reality. Like, when we are stoned our mind is "tuned" differently than when were sober, we percieve things differently. So, our notion of reality depends on the tuning of our mind. If we tune it in some very different "station", the reality we will percieve will be very different from the usual, and surely will have its own laws that may be different of the ones we notice when sober.
And if it actually were so, as there are several different "tunings" of the mind, there would be several sets of laws, one for each tuning.

[hazetwostep]

coelho... i guess i am trying to wrap my brain around the perspective you are sharing. i keep coming to a junction of "we cannot know anything accurately." my thoughts are that your views could only lead to agnosticism, so i am curious to know your thoughts on afterlife/or not, Source/god/gods/no god, etc...

i understand that all we "see" is filtered through our perspective and our perspective is limited... but from the problem of the observer i would come to a conclusion, why seek any answers because they are just wrong anyway... i guess i just want to understand your perspective more and it seems vague to me know

[Coelho]

coelho... i guess i am trying to wrap my brain around the perspective you are sharing. i keep coming to a junction of "we cannot know anything accurately." my thoughts are that your views could only lead to agnosticism, so i am curious to know your thoughts on afterlife/or not, Source/god/gods/no god, etc...

Well... indeed i think that we cant know anything accurately, and that reason leads to the conclusion that reason is indeed a very limited thing.

Thats how i reconcile it with my beliefs. I know that reason cant be used to choose a set of beliefs, so i believe in what i believe and not try to find reasons for it. Cause there are none.

Thinking and believing are two different inhabitants of my mind... and i try to keep them separated, to avoid that they start to fight each other... even if each one has its own sphere of action, they sometimes want to meddle in the other ones affairs... usually with not-so-good results... :p

Anyway... I usually say im half-Christian. I mean that my beliefs are Christian-based. Of course all this "metaphysical" knowledge i gathered changed many of the views i have about the nature of God, afterlife, etc... but i would say that my views are only a "modernization" of the traditional Christianism... hardly there is something i believe that be obviously opposite to Christianism (at least how i understand it.)


i understand that all we "see" is filtered through our perspective and our perspective is limited... but from the problem of the observer i would come to a conclusion, why seek any answers because they are just wrong anyway... i guess i just want to understand your perspective more and it seems vague to me know

I woudnt say that the answers are wrong... only that their validity is dependent on the specific view point they are based upon...
But dont be worried if you cant understand my views... sometimes not even i can...

[GreenDestiny]

Coelho, you are indeed a very deep thinker. I enjoy reading your posts.

As for the coin tossing analogy, that's one I've thought about a bit too. My take on it is a flipped coin will have an equal opportunity to land on one of the two sides. The chances of it landing on a single side more than the other, especially consecutively, is obvious very slim. That is only because each time it is done the variables for each toss will most likely be different.

As far as we can observe, the coin also has a mass and shape that will diminish through wear and tear, oxidation, etc. Its change in an ideal environment will be negligible for testing the probabilities for what side it lands on unless repeated to the point of greatly wearing the coin down at which the variables can be compensated for the loss in mass or change in shape.

Now, suppose the coin can be tossed each time with closely matching variables: the position of the coin's starting point, the amount of energy put into the coin to make it fly into the air and flip over, the part of the coin that energy was directed at, mass of the coin, atmospheric pressure, temperature, turbulance, and the surface the coin is to land on (angle it lands, rebound).

Other variables that would be hard (or impossible) to control for affecting the coin would be things like the Coriolis effect, electromagnetic waves (unless in a shielded environment), quantum particles that bombard and pass through most objects, gravity waves, electron spin, and even our own thoughts. Those kinds of variables would not have a significant impact on the outcome for this kind of a test due to it's scope.

It would be very hard for an average human to replicate the test over and over to try and get the coin to land on a chosen side, but a very finely tuned machine could be built to replicate the variables so precisely that some variables would become more constant, thus increasing the chances to make the coin land on either side chosen.

You could pretty much compare it to a basketball being thrown into the hoop. Throwing the ball at the goal with random uncontrolled force each time will destroy your chances at making it go through... but carefully timed throws with the right angles and energy will increase your chances of it happening.

I've seen it being done with rolling some dice. Holding them a certain way in your hand, rolling them a specific way with the same force each time can increase the chances of what they land on.

It all comes down to just simple physics in the end, there's nothing random about physics as far as our perception is concerned. I believe most things are quantifiable, our lack of being able to measure or control something does not justify randomness.

Randomizing test variables on purpose will usually result in "random" outcomes. Doing it with controlled variables will increase chances of success or to prove something to be incorrect.

I'm starting to give up my belief in random events now. I didn't think I ever would, but these threads in which we've shared our thoughts are making me question my perceptions more. Ah, the quest for deterministic truth, it may never be found or fully understood, but I will continue to try to rebel against the idea that everything is somewhat "fixed".

Thank you for taking your time to share your thoughts on things and being very thurough with your explanations.

[NaughtyDreadz]

You just blew my mind. Haha :jointsmile:
I've read and thought about the observer/environment relationship and how it will effect the overall perception of reality, but using that picture and analogy just made my brain click. The Everything Theory would not necessarily be "how" it all works, just how we perceive it to be, relative to our position of observation. I wonder though, if we define an ultimate theory... would it automatically be incorrect simply because it is filtered through our eyes? Couldn't our biased observations be correct? Also, if there even is a measurable difference between the "actual" ultimate theory, and our "filtered" theory... would it matter? If our reality is determined by how our mind perceives our environment, then our filtered and biased theory would be the only relevant theory our species would need. I hope I didn't lose everyone there. :jointsmile: It's late. Does that make sense?

This post made me think a lot and I like that. :thumbsup:

isn't what you just described is galileo's principle of relativity???

[TheMetal1]

isn't what you just described is galileo's principle of relativity???

I have no idea. I wasn't even aware that Galileo had a theory of relativity :jointsmile: and I'm wayy too tired to google it. Haha. I never had the chance to finish high school, so my formal education in physics is non-existant. It's more of a hobby for me. Anyway, I just wrote what made sense in my head. Great thread Coelho. Cool question. :thumbsup:

Stay :D and Keep :jointsmile:

[Coelho]

Well... i wont re-quote the posts, or this one will be too long.

Naughtydreadz, the principle of relativity of Galileo says that the physical phenomena behaves the same way in all inertial referentials, inertial referentials being the places where the physical phenomena are being measured, and this places must be at rest or moving at constant speed.
It explains why when we are in a car at constant speed it seems it isnt moving... cause physically they are the same situation.

Greendestiny, i agree that a classical coin is deterministic, in the sense that all the relevant variables for predicting its result can be measured with a large degree of precision. So, if we were to make rigorous measurements, the tossing of a coin wouldnt be random. Its said its random because usually we dont know nothing about it and so we cant predict its result.

But there are phenomena that are actually random. The atomic processes are actually random, because the uncertainity principle says that its physically impossible to measure the variables with the required precision, and so there is no way to know what will be its result. Its a limitation of the physics, so it cant be fixed, no matter how good be our measurement instruments.

And this fundamental randomness doesnt is exclusive of the atomic phenomena... the cats experiment is an experiment that brings the atomic randomness to the "real life", so the cats life expectancy is actually random.

So dont abandon the randomness... cause i would say its more usual than the order... its only our mind that says the opposite...

And thank you and also Themetal1 for the kind words... "very deep thinker"... lol! most people thinks im a lazy pothead... but its cause they dont know what im doing when im sitting there stoned out of my mind, and staring at the space... :stoned::thumbsup::jointsmile::rastasmoke:

[TheMetal1]

So dont abandon the randomness...

I'm heading out for work, but I read an interesting idea I awhile back about Order.

Basically, there is no such thing as "Random." All patterns and systems that fall into random order, are really just a highly sophisticated form of order. The more random the formation, the more ordered it is. Like you mentioned, it is our mind that decides it is an accidental pattern, when really we just can not comprehend the orchestration of the order. It is when we see basic patterns and formations, that we can identify that the object is in "Order."

Of course it is a bit more in depth than that... but I'm late. Daaammnnn Youuuu CannnCom!!! Haha

Anyone heard of this concept?

Stay :D and Keep :jointsmile:

[Coelho]

Man... that an interesting idea... where did you read it?
I know that the Chaos theory says that many seemingly random things (like the weather, prices of stock, and things like this) are in fact chaotic, meaning that only their apparent behavior is random, but in fact this apparent randomness is generated by simple deterministic laws... thats the difference between random and chaotic... random is when something its actually random, and chaotic is when it only seems random, but follows some definite law.
The greatest difficulty of it is how to separate chaotic from random phenomena, as both seems random... there are some techniques to do it, but as the Chaos theory is very recent (at most some 40 yrs old), its still under developement.

[TheMetal1]

Well, I just looked through every book I have out on my shelves (I have boxes full in storage) and I found the freaking PARAGRAPH that describes what I mentioned. I am pretty proud of myself. :jointsmile: Of course, it was the first book I looked in... didn't find it... then looked through the rest... didn't find it... went back to the first... FOUND IT!

Title: The Holographic Universe
by Michael Talbot

Pg. 44 paragraph 4
Quote:
As Bohm (physicist David Bohm) delved more deeply into the matter he realized there were also different degrees of order. Some things were much more ordered than other things, and this implied that there was, perhaps, no end to the hierarchies of order that existed in the Universe. From this it occurred to Bohm that maybe things that we perceive as disordered aren't disordered at all. Perhaps their order is of such an "indefinitely high degree" that they only appear to us as random (interestingly, mathematicians are unable to prove randomness, and although some sequences of numbers are categorized as random, these are only educated guesses).

The book has a ton of new ideas... well "new"... some have been around since the early 1900's. I still can't believe I found that shit. :thumbsup: Time to celebrate :jointsmile: I got some outdoor that smells like a pack of gum and puke. Haha... like my sig says...
If I don't have to be nervous about how much it stinks... I don't want it!!! :thumbsup:

Stay :D and Keep :jointsmile:

[Esoteric416]

Awesome. I love the Holographic Model, and Talbot does a really good job of explaining complex things in everyday and easily understandable terms. The Holographic model explains so many things so well. It somehow combines science and spirituality in a very elegant way. I recomend reading The Holographic Universe it to everyone, it's an easy read and a very interesting way to look at reality.

[psychocat]

One simple basic flaw with the very idea of a theory of everything is what use is a theory about an unknown quantity.
What is everything ?

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

bridging philosophy/spirituality and physics/science.

everyone's a Jesus!

[TheMetal1]

What is everything ?

and good point! :thumbsup:

We are constantly discovering new things... unknowns... mysteries.

So how can we formulate an all encompassing theory of everything... when we have yet to realize what is included in that "everything?" Even if we were able, and reached a conclusion, we would undoubtedly encounter a new variable that was not included in previous hypotheses.

Brain Food...

Stay :D and Keep :jointsmile:

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

let's assume infinity exists.

everything would be just that, everything.

Let's also assume that there is a way to reach/harness infinity, what benifits could be brought of it?


Perfection comes to mind.

Nothing is perfect.

so let's now assume infinity and nothing are also the same thing.

Nothing cannot be defined; the softest thing cannot be snapped.


If everything is unlimited, then there is no way TO know everything, but if everything is unlimited, it is also safe to assume that ANYTHING is possible, can exist, and infinity is the golden rule.
Take a moment to think of what infinity could be... there are no wrong answers.

[Coelho]

Well... i think i must explain a thing i didnt... the name "theory of everything" is a proof of the arrogance of many scientists, cause this theory, as they search for it, is only and just only a theory that describes the physical laws. But the physical laws are not the only ones needed for the universe to work, and the other laws (chemical, biological, etc), cant be deduced from only the physical laws... so the right would be call this theory "unified theory of physics"... and NOT theory of everything... cause surely physics is NOT everything.

Themetal1, very nice that quote from Holographic Universe... i didnt read it, but will try find some copy to read... so its thought that the universe has a kind of fractal order through it? its very interesting indeed... and also its one of the things discussed in one book i did read about science and occult (http://boards.cannabis.com/spirituality/144245-excellent-book-science-occult.html).
There was said that occult is NOT what people thinks, like witchcraft, channeling spirits, rituals, etc, but an extension of the science... like if science were a subset of the occult... and its interesting that many recent physical theories are very similar to occult knowledges from long ago... so maybe science is just re-discovering things that were known already...
If you like to read mind-expanding things, and have the open mind for (very) unusual views, you surely will enjoy this book... and reading it stoned is even better! :jointsmile::rastasmoke::thumbsup:

[GreenDestiny]

Well... i think i must explain a thing i didnt... the name "theory of everything" is a proof of the arrogance of many scientists, cause this theory, as they search for it, is only and just only a theory that describes the physical laws. But the physical laws are not the only ones needed for the universe to work, and the other laws (chemical, biological, etc), cant be deduced from only the physical laws... so the right would be call this theory "unified theory of physics"... and NOT theory of everything... cause surely physics is NOT everything.

Wow I had no idea there was actually a "theory of everything"... I had sorta developed what I called my "everything is everything" theory one day. ah, fun daydreaming stuff.

Actually, chemistry and biology are just specialized areas of physics. After all, it's just atoms and molecules doing stuff; physical things. It's like an in-depth form of physics to explain some things in greater detail that the basic laws do not cover. For example, physics studies matter, chemicals are also matter, so we invented chemistry with it's own set of laws to describe the detailed physics of chemicals and chemical reactions. I believe physics is almost everything... it might really be everything if we only had a way to measure it all.... but we will never know.

When it comes to things that don't seem to be made of matter, like gravity, that really blows my mind. We can measure physical effects of it and have a good theory of how it works, we still don't know WHY it works. lol...
I keep hoping that they'll discover gravitons some day.... but then it supposedly has no mass... argh... It's easier to not think about it, even if we had all the answers, we're extremely limited with how we can use the knowledge.

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

Wow I had no idea there was actually a "theory of everything"... I had sorta developed what I called my "everything is everything" theory one day. ah, fun daydreaming stuff.

Actually, chemistry and biology are just specialized areas of physics. After all, it's just atoms and molecules doing stuff; physical things. It's like an in-depth form of physics to explain some things in greater detail that the basic laws do not cover. For example, physics studies matter, chemicals are also matter, so we invented chemistry with it's own set of laws to describe the detailed physics of chemicals and chemical reactions. I believe physics is almost everything... it might really be everything if we only had a way to measure it all.... but we will never know.

When it comes to things that don't seem to be made of matter, like gravity, that really blows my mind. We can measure physical effects of it and have a good theory of how it works, we still don't know WHY it works. lol...
I keep hoping that they'll discover gravitons some day.... but then it supposedly has no mass... argh... It's easier to not think about it, even if we had all the answers, we're extremely limited with how we can use the knowledge.


what is the mass of magnetism? :wtf:

[Coelho]

Actually, chemistry and biology are just specialized areas of physics. After all, it's just atoms and molecules doing stuff; physical things. It's like an in-depth form of physics to explain some things in greater detail that the basic laws do not cover. For example, physics studies matter, chemicals are also matter, so we invented chemistry with it's own set of laws to describe the detailed physics of chemicals and chemical reactions. I believe physics is almost everything... it might really be everything if we only had a way to measure it all.... but we will never know.

Well... in fact all physical matter is made of atoms, and the physics may explain the some of its properties... some chemical laws can be explained (sometimes only qualitatively) by physics... but some laws cant be explained. The chemistry is one science of many atoms, and the physics only can accurately explain systems with few atoms and low/moderate complexity... and the biology is even harder to explain... while some laws of biology can be explained by the chemistry (only qualitatively), most of them really cant. Could you think that, lets say, the natural selection could be deduced from the chemistry alone or from the physics alone? I think it couldnt.
Each one of this sciences deals with different levels of complexity... one living organism is made of zillions of molecules, and great part of a living beings molecules are composed of hundreds (or even thousands) of atoms... so we need different sciences to understand each level of complexity (atoms, large molecules, organisms).


what is the mass of magnetism? :wtf:

What do you mean? I would like to explain, but i really couldnt understand your question...

[GreenDestiny]

what is the mass of magnetism? :wtf:

Ah yes, another simple thing that we don't know all the answers to. I think that's another of those things that probably has no mass. But, a magnetic field can supposedly increase the mass of things passing through it.

Dang, I was just about to say "I totally believe in random things because of the orbital paths of electrons around the nucleus". But now I'm rethinking it... Something so random as that, yet stable enough to serve as part of the building blocks of matter just seems like it can't be random at all.... as if there has to be some real pattern to it. So complex, that it's impossible to calculate.

Then there's things like Pi and the golden ratio, those go on forever... so they must be proof of randomness.... they're perfectly random yet they seem to exist withing definable, measurable boundaries that don't go on forever...

then, how many points are there on a circle or sphere? zero and infinite.
what's the distance between any to points? infinity and or quantumly nothing.

but a single point has zero dimensions, so it does not really exist. there are no points, space is an illusion... and so is time. Also, hey, I saw a special on tv about the hollographic universe, trippy stuff dude!!!!!!

so much random chaotic uncertainty dead cats in a box on the point flipping a coin that doesn't exist oh my god no!!!
things like this can land me in the nut house one day, holy hell I need some herb.

[Coelho]

holy hell I need some herb.

Really? I was sure you was high when wrote this... so many thoughts... :jointsmile:

[GreenDestiny]

Oh, and I guess I was meaning that the literal definition of the term "physics" was what I am blabbering about... I think it should be considered as the grandaddy of all physical forms of science (the head) and then chemistry, biology, etc would be the "body parts". Like, they should have proper names like Chemistry Physics, but just Chemistry for short. Chemistry is a specialized field of physics, at least in my mind, despite what the dictionary says or fails to say. LOL. Words aren't important to me as long as I understand the semantics of what's said, so no worries. :)

And yeah I understand what you mean, like how you can't deduce how a person's brain will function just by studying their ears nose and throat.
A weird analogy pops into my mind like... general doctor is to physics as neurologist is to chemistry. Gen doc is limited to just a broad overview of how the body works, while the neuro is also a doctor but specializes in brain functions. Am I sounding crazy yet?

[GreenDestiny]

heheh... I wish I had some killer indica to slow down my sober brain!

There's just not enough pure indica in the world................

[hazetwostep]

im reading that book that coelho suggested (beyond the physical) and i am thoroughly enjoying it.

[hazetwostep]

coelho

i'm not understanding on pg 36 where the author talks about a "scientific revolution" not really being about truth... i cannot see how a paradigm that does not have a factual basis could survive... or am i missing what the author is getting at?

quote:
That is, what happens during a scientific revolution is literally a competition between different groups of scientists for the right to define reality. And the stronger group wins, perhaps by political means, and in spite of what may or not may be â??truthâ?�.

[GreenDestiny]

That is, what happens during a scientific revolution is literally a competition between different groups of scientists for the right to define reality. And the stronger group wins, perhaps by political means, and in spite of what may or not may be “truth”.

it's a question you asked Coelho, but I'll go ahead an chime in with some input since I'm bored...

Sounds just like the debate about evolution Vs. intelligent design. Both sides have scientists debating their claims for how life came to be. It becomes a legal issue for who is right or wrong about the scientific theories... whoever has the best argument and evidence wins despite who is really right..... and this is a debate that's got no end in sight. Many beliefs/morals are based in religion, and many political powers are also based in religion ("separation of church and state", what a joke). So it could be very easy for religion/politics to concede which theories are right despite what is the real truth. If enough people say so, then it must be so no matter how much real un-biased scientific evidence the other guys have - majority rules (usually). Now evolution's official status is just a theory, as is intelligent design... sort of a way to keep both sides happy for now to avoid so much conflict.

It's funny that I haven't heard anyone propose that a god made up the universal rules and set the Big Bang into motion then stepped back to watch it all unfold - evolution IS intelligent design. Sounds like a better compromise to me, but religious extremists would never buy it. that's all I'll say about that.

[hazetwostep]

thanks for the input greendestiny...

people have proposed theistic evolution (god or the source of us setting the big bang into motion) and i personally agree with it on many levels...

[Coelho]

i'm not understanding on pg 36 where the author talks about a "scientific revolution" not really being about truth... i cannot see how a paradigm that does not have a factual basis could survive...

Well... Greendestinys answer is very good, so i will let his words be mine... i only would like to add that every paradigm has factual basis... they are based upon choosen facts that seems to fit together forming a coherent unity, which gives origin to the paradigm. But, no paradigm can explain all facts, and thats why there is competition between them. I would say that the difference between paradigms lies in which facts they choose as important (and try to explain) and which facts they choose as irrelevant (and try to deny/forget).

[TheMetal1]

I would say that the difference between paradigms lies in which facts they choose as important (and try to explain) and which facts they choose as irrelevant (and try to deny/forget).

Denial and exclusion are, unfortunately, key elements in how our society goes about creating theories and explaining the workings of the world. Good point. Everything from science to religion bases its' entire "philosophy" on assumed information, all while omitting much of the important information. I think denial is a defense mechanism that we have stuffed away in our brain. Keep adding your two cents people.

Stay :D and Keep :jointsmile:

[thefrenchman]

OK so I'm going to take the conversation back a little:


Because math is the way that our minds use to understand the world.

Kind off like how philosophers say logic is the right way to discovering the truth, but when THEY made the whole concept of logic up.

Also, if it were possible to find a unified theory, what would the human race do once that is achieved ? Would it also explain the meaning of life ? Is it even possible to do so : who says the laws determining life, don't state that we wont discover them?



and statistics is only an way to disguise our lack of better knowledge about the matter being studied.

Ex: Quantum physics.

Once upon a time, astronomers would look at the stars and try to draw their paths in the sky. They eventually noticed that some stars would, in a seemingly random manner, appear in the sky. They observed longer and eventually found out that those stars were actually planets and they drew out the trajectory of those planets according to the fact that EARTH was the center of the universe and, even tho it seemed particular it was accepted. Not too long after Heliocentrism was discovered, and thanks to this model of the universe they could better explain the movement of the planets in the sky.

So: drastic change in the way we perceive the universe = better (?) understanding.

All this to say that the probabilities in quantum physics are most likely caused by our bad perception of the world, and that soon-ish some one will come up with a better way to look at things, and that will make the world easier to explain. BUT eventually even that comprehension wont suffice.



Nothing is perfect.


How about the concept of perfection itself?



but a single point has zero dimensions, so it does not really exist. there are no points, space is an illusion... and so is time.

Yeah we made up "space" and "time". We also invented the concept of a "point" to help us explain our world. But in the end what differentiates an illusion from reality?

Ok so what I guess I'm really trying to say is this: Most likely, no unified theory will ever be discovered. But that doesn't matter, because I don't think we ever can find it. In fact, I dont even think we WANT to find it.

Imagine Mr. Scientist growing up thinking: "In my life I will discover the unified theory of everything".
Now Imagine him actually finding it.

He would at that point understand EVERYTHING. Humans (or what ever form of "pre-humans" we really are) aren't designed....







shit who the fuck says were designed by anything.

Im off to hit the bong and sort this out.

ps. Nice community by the way!:jointsmile::thumbsup:

[NaughtyDreadz]

shit who the fuck says were designed by anything.

Im off to hit the bong and sort this out.

ps. Nice community by the way!:jointsmile::thumbsup:

uh...

the jesus people...

[Stoner Shadow Wolf]

nothing is perfect.
perfection is nothing, therefore it is perfect.

Nothingness is perfect.

Infinity is perfect.

Impossible is perfect, because it cannot be touched by human influences.