Why i think a Theory of Everything wont be ever made

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:

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

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

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)

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.

^^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:

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hazetwostep

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.