What if science discovered the Theory of Everything?

Magical Realist said:
Would that be the end of science?
Click to expand...
Not by a long shot.
Magical Realist said:
What else would it need to do after that?
Click to expand...
Prove it, defend it, find ways to use it, develop the resultant discoveries, teach it.
A theory is never the end of anything. It's the beginning of experimentation, testing, questioning, debunking, argument, opposition, nitpicking, second-guessing... and, eventually, if nobody can disprove it, backlash.

Magical Realist said:
Is one Theory of Everything even possible?
Click to expand...
I doubt it, since I don't even know what-all it ought to comprise in order to qualify.
 
Do you think AI will accelerate the progress science is making towards a TOE? I think if and when a TOE is formulated then the issue of how consciousness and the mind originates will have to be addressed. AI may help in that project too. It may even provide us with a direct hands-on demonstration of how consciousness arises in itself, assuming we could even understand it.
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
Do you think AI will accelerate the progress science is making towards a TOE? I think if and when a TOE is formulated then the issue of how consciousness and the mind originates will have to be addressed. AI may help in that project too. It may even provide us with a direct hands-on demonstration of how consciousness arises in itself, assuming we could even understand it.
Click to expand...
Good question, great question in fact and very exciting to think about.
String theory is an attempt but I don't think they have much after nearly 40 years.
GR and QM are not compatible. Stephen Hawking wrote a paper which begins (para) "It is reasonable to say at this point in time we do not have a coherent theory of quantum gravity..."

The year? 1975, the paper is 50 years old next year and the situation is the same.

The HEP (high energy physics) people have not found a dark matter particle, supersymmetric particle and no evidence of other dimensions.
I posted a thread on a DM experiment you may be interested in.
JWST is also on the look out.
 
If you can make an experiment that can be accurately measured to include nearly every proven fact and contending theory, it would still have to do something previously thought impossible to have any merit.
 
Imagine if you must that every part of everything acts and reacts just as science has shown.

Every sample large and small has a point in it where every scientific truth exists.
 
Science is fields, numbers, and objective conclusions(along with many other specific experiments)

So you can basically take any part of reality and apply pieces of every scientific principal.

It appears this color and produces this much heat because of all these scientific factors for instance
 
Relativity vs. Quantum Mechanics vs. ...?

The Universe isn't so old it's needing to tell us what we could know.

I'm happy with that. I don't want the Universe whispering in my ear, "You're so totally f'd."

That's my suspicion. What's Nature's purpose for Death?
 
Mr. G:

At best, the content of your post is only peripherally connected to topic of the thread.
Mr. G said:
Relativity vs. Quantum Mechanics vs. ...?
Click to expand...
You have not actually asked a question here. Nobody can read your mind to know what you're actually thinking about (e.g. what the "vs." is supposed to be about). You'll need to be a bit more verbose if you want to actually have a question you want other people to address.

Mr. G said:
The Universe isn't so old it's needing to tell us what we could know.
Click to expand...
This is a thought bubble that, again, doesn't really communicate what you're thinking to anybody else.

Your implication seems to be that once the universe is old enough (whatever that means), it will need to tell us what we could know. I don't know why you think that. You haven't said. Hence, there's nothing we can discuss about it, again.
Mr. G said:
I'm happy with that. I don't want the Universe whispering in my ear, "You're so totally f'd."
Click to expand...
Sorry to break it to you, Mr. G, but I don't know if anybody cares that this idea you had makes you happy. I mean, that's good for you, I guess, but it doesn't raise any point for discussion, again.
Mr. G said:
That's my suspicion.
Click to expand...
Okay. So what? For instance, are you going to tell us why you suspect that the universe isn't so old that it's needing to tell us what we could know? It doesn't look like that's what you're about to do. If you were inclined to tell us that, I think you would already have done it.

So, what's the point of posting any of this? Attention seeking?
Mr. G said:
What's Nature's purpose for Death?
Click to expand...
Ah! A question that people might respond to, at last.

It's a pity it's entirely off topic for the thread, though.

Do you know how to start new thread, Mr. G? You've had 24 years to work it out.
 
Last edited:
A theory of science is an attempt to explain a phenomenon as consequence of a former phenomenon.

We are way away from explaining everything, so just forget it.
 
Luchito said:
A theory of science is an attempt to explain a phenomenon as consequence of a former phenomenon.

We are way away from explaining everything, so just forget it.
Click to expand...
So you don't think science has improved our understanding of the Universe much?
 
Pinball1970 said:
So you don't think science has improved our understanding of the Universe much?
Click to expand...
My opinion is that the understanding of the universe became stagnated when scientists fooled themselves when religiously followed false theories of science.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top