Why i think a Theory of Everything wont be ever made

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GreenDestiny

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GreenDestiny

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stoner Shadow Wolf

what is the mass of magnetism? :wtf:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stoner Shadow Wolf

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GreenDestiny

holy hell I need some herb.

---

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

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?

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

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

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

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?�.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hazetwostep

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.