Strange

What does that mean? “Gravity bound to empty space”? What?

All scientific theories are contingent, and are constantly being tested. That is why I didn’t say “absolutely certain.” As more evidence was accumulated, the heliocentric model replaced the geocentric one. Now, it is of course, possible that future evidence could overthrow that model. But there is now so much evidence that the Earth goes round the Sun, that it is generally accepted as a fact. But who knows...

Not really, where science does not have the facts (evidence) it says nothing. Individual scientists may have opinions, just like anyone else, but that is not science. Theories do not have opinions. But then again, theories are not necessarily the truth or descriptions of reality. In many cases, especially in physics, they are just good models that produce good results. For example, we have two theories of gravity (Newton and GR). They can’t both be true but they are both good models so both are used and taught to people. Note that the Big Bang model is not about an event that happened. There is no evidence for any such event so any opinions about it are speculative (but that speculation may be based on science). The Big Bang model describes the evolution of the universe from an early hot, dense state. The evidence for that is overwhelming so we can be pretty certain it is correct.

As there is no evidence that 1. there is a “next universe” 2. a black hole connects to another universe 3. energy can be extracted from s black hole you can invent any rules you like for your movie script That’s the great thing about fictional science: it can be driven by the requirements of the plot.

Form What to do when the trisector comes, by Underwood Dudley http://web.mst.edu/~lmhall/WhatToDoWhenTrisectorComes.pdf A very entertaining article about his discussions with trisectors.

Not necessarily. For example, the statement "Trump is President of the US" is a fact today but won't be in a few years time. So the truth value of the fact is context dependent. (See, I told you it wasn't easy!)

To be honest, I doubt there is a simple answer to that. It is the sort of thing (like “what is truth”) that philosophers have been debating for centuries. A couple of suggestions: 1. If everyone agrees on something, then it is probably objective (but I can already think of multiple objections and counter examples) 2. If we can measure it then it is probably objective. But im not really sure why you are so hung up on this. The common-sense or dictionary definitions are good enough, no?

I can offer a list of languages NOT to learn: https://esolangs.org/wiki/Language_list

I would say a definition is a fact, by definition. If, in an essay, I define the word groiklet to mean the bit of skin between the thumb and first finger, then it is fact that that is the meaning of the word (in that essay). Someone can't come along and say, "no I disagree; that is not what the word means". The would be wrong, as a matter of fact, because I have defined what the word means. So, if the phrase "theory of everything" has a defined meaning, then it is fact that it means that. Not an opinion.

I would assume that the sailing use and the biological use both derived from the original meaning. But unless we want to start a new thread on the history (evolution) of the various senses and uses of the word, I am not going to do the research to check. (Although the OED is calling to me from its place on the shelves...)

Nautical term? https://www.etymonline.com/word/evolution

But the word "evolution" still has uses outside of biological evolution. We can talk about the evolution of the arts, of society or even of science. The Big Bang theory is often described as a model of the evolution of the universe. As long as the context makes it clear that we are not talking about biological evolution (and I think the phrase "geological evolution" does that explicitly) then I can't see a problem, personally. Admittedly, in the context of this thread, it might be better avoided! And you know things are getting weird when I am defending Itoero

I don't think it is an unreasonable term. After all, the Earth has cooled, formed oceans and continents, which have then split up, moved around, recombined, etc. That sounds like something I would use the word evolution for.

Actually, it looks like you were right and I was wrong! ("No, I'm wrong!", "No, I'm ...) I agree with Phi for All that it is a definition, not an opinion. However, whether it is achievable or not is a matter of opinion (and is, perhaps, a romantic ideal). There is no reason why such a theory must be possible. It may be that the universe is not as rational or explicable as we would like it to be. On the other hand, we have no reason to think it is not possible. Or maybe it is possible, but humans are not intelligent enough to achieve it.Only time will tell.

I would agree that, as StringJunky said in another thread, that a "theory of everything" (ToE) unifies the four fundamental forces. As Wikipedia puts it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything (that page also corrects my misunderstanding about what a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) is - that would be a theory that didn't include gravity) Not that this is a physics theory; so it says nothing about geology, chemistry, biology, or evolution. (Except, in as much that those things can to some extent be explained in terms of the underlying physics - but the reverse process is not realistic. In other words, I don't think you can go from a description of the four fundamental forces to deduce that living organisms will evolve.) https://xkcd.com/435/

Perhaps because you are trying to get agreement on the wrong things!

The universe (if it is infinite). Your argument that the universe is not infinite seems to be based on the premise that physical things cannot be infinite. This is the fallacy of begging the question. No it hasn't. That would mean that infinity was a number, and we all agree that it isn't. 1/oo is undefined, so the statement is meaningless.

This is a good question. Evolution is a fact: we know that populations of animals change over time - we can see it happening. The theory of evolution by natural selection is a theory to explain how evolution happens. It is a detailed model which is consistent with, or supported by, all the available evidence. Similarly, gravity is a fact (things fall to the ground). But Newton's theory of gravity or Einstein's General Relativity are theories that explain how gravity works. In both cases, they are detailed mathematical models that make quantitative predictions that can be compared with objective measurements. This is what we require of a scientific theory.

I don’t. Nope. Time doesn’t flow in relativity. Why don’t you find out what relativity says instead of making all these strawman arguments against a theory that doesn’t exist. There is a certain irony to this, which I guess you are blind to.

The axiom is saying an infinite set exists, not defining infinity. As that page says, it can also be phrased in terms of a set contains all the integers (which we can prove are infinite, as you say). Saying “there is no largest number” is pretty much the definition of infinity. And you can’t say that because the universe might be infinite

I can agree on all that (with the caveat that the Big Bang and evolution are happening, not happened). Perhaps where we disagree is on what “theory” means. Could you say what you think theory a theory is? I get the impression that you think it is a story that scientists tell in order to explain things.

Infinity does exist mathematically; it is well defined. As for whether it exists in the real world, that depends whether the universe is infinite or not! Yep. We know that.

But those two theories do exclude all the things mentioned so, by saying They are a theory of everything, you are also excluding them. I’m sure you would get a lot of sympathy here if you wanted to discuss your mental illness. For example, it makes me much more understanding of the idea that you have a theory of everything but are unable to explain it.

Some people call that a grand unified theory. But to be honest, I’m not sure what else would make it “everything”!

Not many people believe such a thing is possible