Page 1 of 2 [ 17 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

aequitas1
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 8 May 2013
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 41

14 May 2013, 7:29 am

To have a theory of everything requires, aside from other things, a dynamic oracle machine which God knows is even possible. Perhaps a series (probably infinite) of oracle machines working in conjunction. A lot of them. In the end they would need to be integrated either way I think. You would also need a time machine and the ability to observe all possible states; past, present, and future, in order to prove with certainty that the conjecture holds true always. This entails calculating that which cannot be calculated.

A big problem is having a predictive mechanism for the stochastic and chaotic not to mention somehow reconciling seemingly infinite chaotic occurrence with ordered system by either an axiom of imposition or of underlying and ordered causation between the two. I wonder if the requirement of energy for computing an analysis for every phenomena alone would be impossible given a finite amount of accessible energy. There are also energy and epistemological implications for the construct of an efficient and highly complex framework regarding and expressing within one step all data and the absolute, discernible behaviors happening after the fact including those of conscious, free agents over the course of space and time. There is a metaphysical problem here that may be potentially paradoxical if not handled with the complexity it requires. Consider the omnipotence paradox from philosophy and all related paradoxical problems. For example, how can human free will exist if there is prior knowledge of all behavior within the given system initially? This is a hard to reconcile problem.

Another paradox is that you would need all data in existence to determine with certainty that such a conjecture absolutely resolves while to gain all that data requires the ability to discern and interpret all data. It's a problem on which one can be stuck. Nonetheless, what kind of framework for application could be constructed from such a theory if any? Even supposing this stuff were theoretically possible, it would be only under the condition that we're able to draw energy from outside the universe and drawing from that which cannot be seen is a difficult thing to accomplish. Who knows though what the future may hold for us?

Also, understanding staticism in a dynamical systems context is something I can see as being complicated under certain conditions and something like a unified theory would have to be pretty heavy with respect to this problem. We would be remiss if we didn't classify the array of physical phenomena in our universe as dynamical and in many instances problematic for reconciling theories of everything.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,048
Location: Stendec

15 May 2013, 11:17 am

aequitas1 wrote:
To have a theory of everything requires, aside from other things, a dynamic oracle machine which God knows is even possible...

This assumption is baseless; it therefor nullifies the subsequent premises.



PsychoSarah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2013
Age: 25
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,109
Location: The division between Sanity and Insanity

15 May 2013, 2:35 pm

This is cracked out. And senseless.



aequitas1
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 8 May 2013
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 41

15 May 2013, 3:42 pm

PsychoSarah wrote:
This is cracked out. And senseless.


Yeah, because trying to unify all manner of dynamic physical phenomena in a single, unifying conjecture is sensible and completely doable.

Maybe I should just say that complexity is hard to define.



PsychoSarah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2013
Age: 25
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,109
Location: The division between Sanity and Insanity

15 May 2013, 3:58 pm

aequitas1 wrote:
PsychoSarah wrote:
This is cracked out. And senseless.


Yeah, because trying to unify all manner of dynamic physical phenomena in a single, unifying conjecture is sensible and completely doable.

Maybe I should just say that complexity is hard to define.


No duh, Sherlock.



aequitas1
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 8 May 2013
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 41

15 May 2013, 6:39 pm

PsychoSarah wrote:
aequitas1 wrote:
PsychoSarah wrote:
This is cracked out. And senseless.


Yeah, because trying to unify all manner of dynamic physical phenomena in a single, unifying conjecture is sensible and completely doable.

Maybe I should just say that complexity is hard to define.


No duh, Sherlock.


You seem smart. No need to be mean.

Can you explain to me how order and chaos are reconciled?



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,048
Location: Stendec

15 May 2013, 9:54 pm

aequitas1 wrote:
PsychoSarah wrote:
aequitas1 wrote:
PsychoSarah wrote:
This is cracked out. And senseless.
Yeah, because trying to unify all manner of dynamic physical phenomena in a single, unifying conjecture is sensible and completely doable. Maybe I should just say that complexity is hard to define.
No duh, Sherlock.
You seem smart. No need to be mean. Can you explain to me how order and chaos are reconciled?

Can you?

In some way other than "God did it", please.



aequitas1
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 8 May 2013
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 41

15 May 2013, 10:02 pm

Fnord wrote:
aequitas1 wrote:
PsychoSarah wrote:
aequitas1 wrote:
PsychoSarah wrote:
This is cracked out. And senseless.
Yeah, because trying to unify all manner of dynamic physical phenomena in a single, unifying conjecture is sensible and completely doable. Maybe I should just say that complexity is hard to define.
No duh, Sherlock.
You seem smart. No need to be mean. Can you explain to me how order and chaos are reconciled?

Can you?

In some way other than "God did it", please.


A self-correcting mechanism. That makes the most sense.



aequitas1
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 8 May 2013
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 41

15 May 2013, 10:15 pm

Fnord wrote:
aequitas1 wrote:
PsychoSarah wrote:
aequitas1 wrote:
PsychoSarah wrote:
This is cracked out. And senseless.
Yeah, because trying to unify all manner of dynamic physical phenomena in a single, unifying conjecture is sensible and completely doable. Maybe I should just say that complexity is hard to define.
No duh, Sherlock.
You seem smart. No need to be mean. Can you explain to me how order and chaos are reconciled?

Can you?

In some way other than "God did it", please.


Who said anything about God?



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 44,048
Location: Stendec

16 May 2013, 7:14 am

aequitas1 wrote:
Who said anything about God?

You did.

aequitas1 wrote:
To have a theory of everything requires, aside from other things, a dynamic oracle machine which God knows is even possible.

Focus, please.



aequitas1
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 8 May 2013
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 41

16 May 2013, 8:48 am

Fnord wrote:
aequitas1 wrote:
Who said anything about God?

You did.

aequitas1 wrote:
To have a theory of everything requires, aside from other things, a dynamic oracle machine which God knows is even possible.

Focus, please.


God is and can be used figuratively in colloquial English. It's actually quite common.

Nothing I've stated here was even a preponderance for arguing about God or asserting his existence in any way.



PsychoSarah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2013
Age: 25
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,109
Location: The division between Sanity and Insanity

16 May 2013, 10:14 am

In that context, the God thing would be taken on a religious note. Also, who says it corrects itself? Maybe the universe is falling apart.

Sorry if I came off as mean, forgot to put :lol:



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

16 May 2013, 5:43 pm

God did it explains nothing.



PsychoSarah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2013
Age: 25
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,109
Location: The division between Sanity and Insanity

17 May 2013, 11:43 am

ruveyn wrote:
God did it explains nothing.


Especially if it turns out god doesn't exist.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 May 2013, 2:45 pm

PsychoSarah wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
God did it explains nothing.


Especially if it turns out god doesn't exist.


Even if God did exists, God did it explains nothing. Why? Because the statement does not indicate how God did it.

ruveyn



Gamati
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 23 May 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 19
Location: San Antonio, TX

24 May 2013, 11:55 pm

Eh... an actual "grand unifying theory" might be hyperbole. The original concept drives from Einstein's desire to unify Gravity with the other three electromagnetic forces. The reason was that gravity stuck out like a sore thumb, behaving well when discussing large objects, but breaking down under quantum mechanics.

As for me, I really just figure you can eliminate the problem all together by redefining gravity as an accumulation of the quantum electric forces over extremely long distances over the agregate.

Under this system, a point in space x would have the gravitational value g, where g = sum(electromagnetic effect).

If we take into account that atomic particles may hold positive or negative charges(or both), then fluid dynamics may explain the formation of galaxies, without the need for inflation.

For example, we see that a magnet has all the positve and negative poles aligned in opposite directions. If we consider that magnetic waves reinforce each other according to quantum principles, then the ability of a magnet to attract metal is explained.

In normal matter, the electromagnetic poles are not so neatly organized, but we can be certain that the electromagnetic fields propagate throughout the fullness of space. The positive and negative elements would mean that atractive forces and repulsive forces are constant throughout the cosmos, which would explain why galaxies are separating, but structures within galaxies hold together.

Of course, the underlying mathematical concepts behind this theory are very simple. The actual requisite calculations to come up with a gravitational constant would be extremely complex, mixing fluid dynamics with wave mechanics, and taking into account realtime adjustments in the quantum polarities of quantum particles.

Assuming that someone could figure out how to do the math right, however, the prediction to test is relatively straightforward. Indeed, if the theory is correct, then the aggregate electrical forces over any one point in space should match the observed gravitational constant.

If such an observation could be verified, then occam's razor would basically slice off the need for any type of gravitational force. The trick is that you would have to take into account all quantum electrical forces throughout a very, very large universe. Obviously, direct measurement is impossible, but as more particles are taken into account, we'd expect to see the value for any given point to approach the value predicted by relativity.


_________________
"To have friends, a man need only be good natured, but when one has no enemies there must be something mean about him." -- The Prince, Oscar Wilde