StringJunky

How many possible sections are there between any two points in space?

In practice, 'definition' is that which is defined by consensus, which is arbitrary. Once a word has been defined, one needs to find other words to define other things. You don't get to unilaterally decide what words mean. In science, specific words are associated with specific ideas and all scientists use those terms to mean the same thing. This aids clarity between them,

Have you got the full set? That is etymological nirvana.

When one is talking about the biological version it's with a big 'E'.

Yes, that's right. I had a false memory. OK.

If the four forces make up everything then unifying them would constitute everything, would it not?

Yes, I've already mentioned that in his other thread.

Objective facts are where a person performs an observation or experiment, and under the same conditions, but a different time and location, another person will obtain the same result. By requiring repeatability by different people you reduce personal effects on the experiment that may be unique to that person's thinking or method i.e. the result is independent of the person doing it; it is not subjective.

There is no substance in your words; it's just vapour, so far. Objective facts are always repeatable under the same conditions. Subjective facts, not so much.

I have given you, to the best of my knowledge - not my opinion - the scientific consensus, which is based on objective data.

The 'theory of everything' is about having a common description of the four fundamental forces: gravity, weak force, strong force, electroweak force. This is, in part, is related to your OP whereby the latter three forces in my list are quantised i.e.pixellated, but gravity has been stubbornly resistant to being quantised because it's not yet been satisfactorily mediated by a particle description, which the others have been. Gravity is, thus far, only satisfactorily described by curved spacetime in General Relativity, and that says space is 'smooth'; not pixellated. Scientists want to chop space up into little bits to tie it in with the description of the other forces but no-go, so far. They are currently being forced to use two theories, depending on the scale they are looking at; quantum theory for sub-atomic stuff and GR for bigger stuff. Space joins the two scales and they can't get GR to behave mathematically at sub-atomic scales.

The experiment involved tracking low frequency and high frequency photons over billions of light years of space. The idea was that: if space was not smooth then the HF photons would arrive behind the LF photons because they have a shorter wavelength and, so, more likely to be delayed by a discontinuous space. They both arrived effectively at the same time. Maybe someone here can remember and link to it.

Scientists have explored whether space is discontinuous but, so far, they find it's smooth.

Isn't the limit set by gravity i.e. the weight of water vs the vacuum above? The thinner the tube, the higher the water can rise for a given vacuum. Edit: Further down my link:

(－‸ლ)

I think the surface tension of the water column at the top of a capillary (xylem) will act like a solid piston head and the negative pressure above it is enough for that column to rise to fill the void. The xyla (?) are only microns in diameter. The xylem will have evolved to have a diameter that is optimal for the surface tension of the water and the height of the plant/tree.

The xylem tubes (water carriers) are narrow enough for transpiration from the roots to the leaves, by negative pressure due to evaporation in the leaves, is sufficient. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/follow-up-how-do-trees-ca/

"Hello, Big Brother here".

All I can think is that, in the absence of a unified aspiration, we can only look for our own.

Thank you, gentlemen. I think we've had variants on such ideas from such-type persons here on occasion. One knows not what lurks around them.

You've thought about this more than I have. I need to up my game.

Now you've got to tell me about Time Cube.

Isn't a proof an argument that can't be contradicted? Whatever path you take, you always end up in the same place.

A proof will never change. Evidence weighs on the balance of probabilities that can lead to high confidence but always leaves the door open.

From what I've read, the conjecture has been proven to be undecideable under the current paradigm. It needs new maths that doesn't currently exist.