[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 3 KB, 126x114, cereal.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1344757 No.1344757 [Reply] [Original]

so /sci/, where is the universal theory of everything? I dont think it exists, there is no fucking proof of it at all. We have so many contradictory facts and theories that I have a hard time buying this 'universal' theory of the universe anymore- i think its just a pipe dream within western philosophy, religion and science to think that there are any universal laws at all. Im starting to whole heartily believe the world is pluralistic- and all the facts we have so far attest to this truth.

>> No.1344769

And I also think this supposition of a universal truth is begging the fucking question. The burden of proof is on those making the claim, and so far they have no proof, yet all this money is getting thrown in this research for it.

>> No.1344774

There's an equation for (pretty much) everything.

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/brian_cox_on_cern_s_supercollider.html

>> No.1344783

>>1344774
>unproven bullshit

>> No.1344790

>>1344783

What? The lagrangian for the standard model is unproven bullshit?

Explain.

>> No.1344794

Sure is fag OP in here. Why dont you go out and do some research to further the cause instead of sitting on your fat ass bitching?

>> No.1344802

>where is the universal theory of everything? I dont think it

You're right that it doesn't exist, because nobody has created one.

>> No.1344807

>>1344757
> Implying there is a way the universe would not have some principle.

>> No.1344812

>>1344807
there is a principle and its plurality

>> No.1344823
File: 254 KB, 1600x900, being vague.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1344823

>>1344807

>> No.1344838

>>1344794
>>1344790

idk, im a bit with the OP here, i have my fair share of IRL /sci/ friends who think all this CERN, string theory shit is really just fancy mathematics, and all this conflict is coming out of domesticated ape technology that can't really get grasp the big picture which is why we cant understand anything and everythings clashing theoretically.

>> No.1344850
File: 76 KB, 268x326, occam.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1344850

>>1344802
the OP has a point though, if there is no proof of a universal principle, its begging the question to suppose there is one, base a methodology off of it, and spend all your research money looking for it. It only seems strange to suppose there isnt one because its so ingrained in culture, it used to be just as strange to say something like;
>is implying the universe could exist without some kind of God

>> No.1344854

>>1344807
>is implying that there is a way that the universe would not have some deity

>> No.1344861
File: 66 KB, 450x373, 1277847392399.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1344861

>>1344794
what, you actually think science has found one universal truth that has stood the test of time and experimentation?

>> No.1344868

>>1344838

My link was not about string theory.

How can you say CERN is just fancy mathematics? It's an institute for nuclear physics. They build fully functioning equipment to probe matter, how is that just fancy mathematics?

>> No.1344875

>>1344850
Actually the concept of unification of theories is fairly recent. Before a century ago, perhaps, nobody would have expected electromagnetism to unify so well with the other forces (not that nuclear or weak forces had been discovered, but you get my point).

>> No.1344879

>>1344861
what, you think Richard Feynmann didn't write any books?

>> No.1344881

>>1344854
>greentext trolling

>> No.1344893

>>1344868
the string theory community and then some is jizzing in there pants over the thought that they might find there precious gravitons or there higgs boson particle bullshit. The 'fancy math' Occam over here is talking about is all the loops they have to jump through theoretically in order to make sense of things with there instruments to develop such a 'universal' theory.

>> No.1344902

>>1344850
>base a methodology off of it, and spend all your research money looking for it.
that's not how science work.
you come up with a hypothesis, then you try your hardest to prove it wrong, if you fail, it becomes a theory.

>> No.1344903

>>1344861

Nothing in the universe travels faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.

This is universal (it holds at all point in space and time)

It has stood the test of time and experimentation.

>> No.1344910

>>1344893
what the fuck am I reading?

>> No.1344916

>>1344875
unification is just another guise for the pursuit of the universal truth that has been sought by the greek philosophers, Christians, Laplace, and all the physicists to come.

>> No.1344917

>>1344893

Again with the string theory. What are you talking about? Do you actually think that nuclear physics is just string theory, or that all physicists at CERN study string theory?

Stop talking about a community you evidently know nothing about.

>> No.1344930

>>1344917
OP here, im not responsible for anything after the first two posts.

>> No.1344927

>>1344903

>Nothing in the universe travels faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.

entanglement

>This is universal (it holds at all point in space and time)

a presupposition, has yet to be proven.

>> No.1344935

>>1344927
>a presupposition, has yet to be proven.
>an experimental fact, has yet to be disproven

FTFY

>> No.1344939
File: 190 KB, 609x456, cruise.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1344939

>>1344917
>thinks hes talking to the same person

>> No.1344944

>>1344927
Entanglement does not travel. If you knew anything about it you would know that no information can travel via entanglement.

We wasn't speaking about something that has been proved (doesn't exist in science) we were talking about something that hasn't been disproved experimentally.

>> No.1344948

>>1344935
well if theres a multiverse, then it doesnt hold all points in space time does it?

>> No.1344954

>>1344948

For something to be universal it holds at all point in space and time in our universe.

If a multiverse existed (lol) then the point is still universal, just not multiversal.

>> No.1344963

>>1344935
you bitches dont know your popper, in order for there to be established 'universal' truths you need an infinite amount of experiments to be done in order to verify such a claim.

>> No.1344964

>>1344812
There you go...

But because some /sci/tard here critized me for being vague, here comes explanation:
The existence of a Theory of Everything is without question. If something exists (and the Universe does exist), there must be a statement that you can make about it. The weakest possible statement is what I just said: "The universe exists." This statement proves, that we can make statements that apply to the whole universe (all of you who contradict here, are theists btw). And then, there must be SOME theory to these statements.

The only thing questionable now, is how useful or powerful this theory can get. The most basic case would be, that we can not go any further than "The universe exists". There might be no other rules that apply to the whole universe. We would already need a MUCH stronger theory to say that "the universe consists of multiple principles, thus its ultimate principle is pluralism".

You see how much logic I need for this sentence? Not only must there be a universe, it must also have a structure that allows it to consist of things and there must exist such things and these things must be different to one another (it would only be ONE principle if they weren't).

>> No.1344968

>>1344964
continue'd for highly advanced topics


You see two things in this example:
1. Even having "pluralism" as the ultimate principle, we implictly construct a higher theory of the universe (and of pluralism) in order to even talk about it. But this theory would then apply to the whole universe, thus being the "Theory of Everything".
2. It's completely useless. I do not believe my example has much scientific value. So while we know now that there MUST be SOME Theory of Everything, it can still be absolutely useless. I'm agreeing with you on that! But now let's look at what you were actually trying to say:

There is no generative Theory of Everything! (Generative meaning that we can actually deduce something from it.)
And that's actually not that strange. While we have no proof yyet, that there is no GTOE (how I call it), we can pretty much assume, that it's right, because our scientific method only allows us to construct theories based on facts we know. Thus, to even construct such a GTOE in the first place, we would probably have to already know most facts about the universe. But then, its practical generativity is pretty lame.

>> No.1344970

>>1344963

well that's your definition of universal truth. a silly one at that.

>> No.1344973

>>1344963
Messr Popper was a fag.

>> No.1344976

>>1344964
well it makes sense, if you like, a taoist and shit

>> No.1344982

calm down, bro. be patient, just wait a couple of centuries.

Newton and Einstein had to sit down and wait in line, it's your turn.

>> No.1344987

>>1344976
i don't even know wtf a taoist is besides "probably from asia". lol

>> No.1344991

the human mind is never going to be able to comprehend the whole universe. No computer is either, because the universe is the biggest computer there is, and you cant create one to match it.

>> No.1344996

>>1344987
its interesting shit, the tao teh ching is like 80 pages and its the most profound shit in the world

>> No.1344999
File: 23 KB, 297x400, Godel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1344999

Just gonna put some Gödel up in this bitch.

>> No.1345001

>>1344996
not even dude, you can put in in less then 20 if you didnt space it like lao tzu did.

>> No.1345003

>>1344757
>>1344769
>>1344999
/thread

>> No.1345014

>>1344996
>>1345001
I think I have something to read in the holidays, then. Thank you guys.

>> No.1345040

>>1345014
dude, you better go fucking read that book, its fucking life changing. Seriously.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FIRLmUEatE

start at 1:11

>> No.1345046

>>1345014
i could hardly read more then 5 pages of that book without having to set it down cause the shit was so deep.

>> No.1345441

>>1344991

If we can conceive the possibility of creating a larger computer then we can.

>> No.1345455

>>1344991
nah man, there is a shitload of unused memory in the universe

all we need to do is use a compression algorithm to simulate the universe so we don't store every point in the vacuum of space

>> No.1345580

>>1345455
You're right. The best example, imo, is that we can write down numbers higher than the amount of atoms in the universe on just a piece of paper.

But speaking of the theory of everything: I think it could get even more crazy as we could easily use these compression algorithms and stuff to build a computer that only computes what a real one would compute. You get it? This pattern can be applied over and over!