Why i think a Theory of Everything wont be ever made
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coelho
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
Why i think a Theory of Everything wont be ever made
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"...
Why i think a Theory of Everything wont be ever made
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coelho
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:
Why i think a Theory of Everything wont be ever made
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMetal1
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!
Why i think a Theory of Everything wont be ever made
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenDestiny
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenDestiny
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenDestiny
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenDestiny
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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"...
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMetal1
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMetal1
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMetal1
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".
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenDestiny
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.
Why i think a Theory of Everything wont be ever made
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
Why i think a Theory of Everything wont be ever made
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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...
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.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazetwostep
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...
Why i think a Theory of Everything wont be ever made
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.
Why i think a Theory of Everything wont be ever made
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMetal1
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???
Why i think a Theory of Everything wont be ever made
Quote:
Originally Posted by NaughtyDreadz
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:
