Why Can't We Find the Theory of Everything? Einstein, Rogue

Post Reply New Topic

Interesting critique of the current state.

Probably because physics is open-ended, with each explanation requiring still another explanation. ...ad infinitum.

I mean that's probably the case, based on what's been found so far. There could conceivably be a day when physicists find the end of physics, and physics is complete. But I doubt that many physicists expect that. Based on experience so far, does it seem likely?

Michael829

edit: removed. I just caught who I was replying to.

Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 19 Nov 2017, 5:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.

> "Why Can't We Find The Theory Of Everything?"

Actually, we have found the theory of everything. We just decided not to share it with you.

I have a possible answer (with the corresponding mathematical equation that can be experimentally tested) for the Theory Of Everything. It is part of my 45 page quantum physics research paper on rewriting string theory. Currently, it is in the hands of a representative of CERN for their review. Unfortunately, they are in the middle of planned experimental runs, so it will be at least a few more months before I will get their feedback on it. (Fingers crossed!)

I say possible answer because I could very well be wrong on my interpretation of what I have found using my methods. All I will say at this point is that Richard Feynman left something unfinished in his work and I see the missing piece of the puzzle. However, the accuracy of the measurements needed for the experiment to prove it are currently beyond what is scientifically possible with the best equipment. It might have to wait until those improvements can be made. Time will tell the truth either way.

Sounds great - hopefully they will get back to you in a timely manner.

I think either way it goes, you get to either impart something they hadn't thought of or learn about something obscure (ie. whatever might break your math) that simply wasn't common enough knowledge for you to stumble across.

It seems like the edifice of human knowledge is still very porous and it'll be a long time before we're really able to dial in on which seams really haven't been hemmed together properly.

I know that the string theory, or at least the superstring theory, is said to only work with super-symmetry; is it the case with your theory? As of right now the CERN don't find the expected super-symmetry particles: super-symmetry could well prove false. Then again I don't know enough mathematics to really understand those questions; I only know from documentaries, vulgarization articles and books.

Particles of matter (and anti-matter) do not need to have a superpartner to exist in my theory.

"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

This reply is the short answer:

There isn't the "Something" that the Materialist believes in. From the point of view of a Materialist, there's Nothing.

That is, there's no reason to believe in an objectively, fundamentally existent physical world and its objectively-existent things.

Materialism is widely believed-in, and it seems to have official status, but it's an assumption that should be questioned.

This is a philosophical sub-forum, and metaphysics is a name for the philosophy of what is (The word "ontology" is used too), what is real. In contrast to Materialism, there's a kind of metaphysics called "Idealism", which could just be called "Non-Materialism".

So what is there?:

There are abstract if-then facts.

In this physical world, every fact can be stated as an if-then fact.

Though we're used to declarative grammar, I suggest that we tend to believe our grammar too much. i suggest that conditional grammar is a better description of our world.

Say there's a traffic roundabout at the intersection of 34th and Vine. Then there's the following if-then fact: If you go to the corner of 34th and Vine, you'll encounter a traffic roundabout.

A set of hypothetical physical quantity-values, and a hypothetical relation among them (called a "physical law") are parts of the "if " premise of an if-then fact.

...except that one of those physical quantity-values can be taken as the "then" conclusion of that if-then fact.

A mathematical theorem is an if-then fact whose "if " premise includes, but isn' limited to, a set of mathematical axioms (algebraic or geometric).

When the world is carefully examined, one encounters such physical laws and mathematical theorems.

People can debate how "real" they think abstract logical facts are or aren't, but no one denies that there are such things.

Why are there abstract facts? How could there not be? An inter-referring set of if-then facts about hypotheticals is valid in its own local inter-referring context, and needn't be real or "existent" in any other context.

Someone could ask, "But couldn't there have not been any abstract facts?"

If there were no facts, then it would be a fact that there are no facts, and that would be a fact.

Someone could ask, "But couldn't there be one fact, a fact that there are no other facts other than just that one fact that there are no facts other than itself?"

But that would be a special brute-fact, calling for, but not having, an explanation.

Besides, as I mentioned above, an inter-referring system of abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals needn't have meaning, existence or reality in any context other than its own. In particular, it doesn't need a global context or permission, or a medium in which to exist. For that reason, would be meaningless to speak of a global fact that there can't be any other facts or inter-referring systems of if-then facts.

Then there inevitably are complex systems of inter-referring if-then facts about hypotheticals. ...like the physical if-then facts that I mentioned above.

Inevitably, there's one such system that has the same events and relations as our physical universe. There's no reason to believe that our physical universe is other than that.

Of course, no one can say for sure that there doesn't also superfluously exist a fundamentally, objectively, existent universe too, in the form of this universe. But, because it's inevitable that there's a complex system of abstract if-thens that matches this universe's events and relations, then if there's also an objectively-existent world like that,it's superfluous, and it would be an unexplained brute-fact. And the suggestion of such an objectively-existent world would be unverifiable and unfalsifiable.

Ockham's Principle of Parsimony suggests that we disregard assumptions of a brute-fact. Physics teaches us to not count on un-verifiable, un-falsifiable propositions.

Michael Faraday, in 1844 pointed out that there's no reason to believe that our physical universe is other than a complex system of inter-referring abstract logical and mathematical facts.

Additionally, the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein said that there are no "things", just facts.

(Of course he meant "things" with a restrictive meaning of "things other than facts", or maybe even "physical objects". ...as opposed to the more general meaning of things, as whatever can be referred to.)

Because everything that we know about the physical world is via our own individual experience, then I suggest that, instead of speaking of a world consisting of those abstract facts, it would be more meaningful or relevant to speak of your individual life-experience possibility-story, consisting of a complex system of inter-referring if-then facts about hypotheticals.

Using pre-existing philosophical terms, this metaphysics could be called Eliminative Ontic Structural Anti-Realism.

It's a completely uncontroversial metaphysics. None of its statements are anything that anyone would disagree with.

Michael Ossipoff

Last edited by Michael829 on 25 Nov 2017, 2:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'll just add that of course there are infinitely many complex systems of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals, and infinitely-many of those that could be called physical worlds.

...possibility-worlds.

Instead of one world of "is"--infinitely-many worlds of "if".

And likewise there are infinitely-many hypothetical life-experience possibility-stories.

The reason why you're in a life is because there's a life-experience possibility-story about you--as the protagonist of such a story. Of course you, the protagonist, are the central, primary and essential component of that story.

All of what metaphysically is, all that can be known and discussed, is hypothetical, insubstantial, ethereal.

...implying an openness, looseness and lightness quite different from Materialism's grim account.

Michael829

Is it just me or are Youtube connections failing now on a regular basis? I've seen the blank blocks now quite often in lieu of videos, Google is giving me the shield in the upper right telling me that the site's trying to load scripts from unauthenticated sources.

Nothing is a word in the dictionary to describe what you have left when you remove all the objects from a room full of objects.

In terms of the universe you could use the term nothing to describe what exists outside the boundaries of the universe (since we are incapable of conducting experiments to determine what is there).

Within the boundaries of our universe there is the vacuum of space and all the stars, objects and radiation within it's boundaries.