What is the correct scientific research approach to the theory of everything?

[univeral theory]

The theory of everything is the most interesting research topic extending to almost all academic disciplines (arts or sciences), and to some; it is called the holy grail of science. Most interesting to me because when it is dicovered,it is expected to reconcile between logic, reason and natural
phenomena which will provide a correct yardstick for future research and phenomena implementation.

In philosophy(which is the grand parent of all sciences), even if you have all other answer to

everything with out answering why- you can better go and dig your own grave.

With phenomenology, reason without logic is daft. That is why Descartes found tough times with phenomenology. But metaphysics which is the father of physics has an interesting integrated approach towards reason, logic and the phenomena of everything. This because in metaphysics, until you can have a satisfying answer to what, how, why, where and when, less of this the model in question is flawed.

Physics; which is a metaphysical specialized discipline of its own realms believes that if you can satisfy it with where, what, how and when then you are the hero of the subject. Not all that new that the concerns of why have helped many scientists to discover the flaws with in models which were once a beacon of the phenomena based on what, how, where and when.

We are at the threshold of a new scientific era, where the why of the phenomena, sounds

insignificant in the evaluation of models about the phenomena; not to mention that where it is relevant to the beacon models it is okay and where it is repugnant to the beacon models it is not necessary.

We are searching for the theory of everything and If we don’t make why significant in the

research for the TOT, we only point at one conclusive fact that the TOT is not there. Or else if it is there, it will answer why though this why is not necessary in the search for it.

Now members, what would be the correct approach to the search for the theory of everything or else the correct approach for any scientific research?

[ajb]

The theory of everything is the most interesting research topic extending to almost all academic disciplines (arts or sciences), and to some; it is called the holy grail of science. Most interesting to me because when it is dicovered,it is expected to reconcile between logic, reason and natural

phenomena which will provide a correct yardstick for future research and phenomena implementation.

A TOE would be some quantum theory that contains as appropreate limits both the standard model of particle physics and general relativity.

 

That would be great and hopefully would answer many questions about quantum gravity, the nature of space-time singularities, the origin of the Universe, if time travel is really possible, why the particular gauge structure of the standard model, the nature of supersymmetry, why three generations and so on...

 

I am not sure how you see logic and reason fitting in here? Though one would use logic and reason when calculating things with a TOE.

 

Now members, what would be the correct approach to the search for the theory of everything or else the correct approach for any scientific research?

Ant scientific research should follow as close as possible the scientific method. For the more theoretical and mathematical end of the spectrum this may not be so clear and other guiding principles can be used.

[Dekan]

Shouldn't a "Theory Of Everything" have to account for everything that happens, or will happen, in the Universe.

 

Like whether a tossed coin comes down heads or tails. Or whether a particular U-235 atom decays in the next minute, or in a million years from now. Or who will be elected as US President in 2016. These are all impossible tasks, given the apparently random and unpredictable nature of the Universe.

 

Can any theory predict with certainty who will be the next US President?

 

Obviously not, so there can be no real TOE. QED!

Edited May 24, 2013 by Dekan

[univeral theory]

 

I am not sure how you see logic and reason fitting in here?

 

 

I see it fit with the calculation and interpretation of the phenomena upon which the logical framework of TOT will be relevantly accurate

 

 

Ant scientific research should follow as close as possible the scientific method.

what do you specifically mean by "scientific methods'?

Edited May 25, 2013 by univeral theory

[univeral theory]

Can any theory predict with certainty who will be the next US President?

 

 

A theory is any logical presentation of “HOW” things are predicted to BE, but doesnot influence their BEEING. So the TOT can predict how the next US president will be, but it can not influence who he/she will be.

 

 

 

[ajb]

Shouldn't a "Theory Of Everything" have to account for everything that happens, or will happen, in the Universe.

That is not what one would usually mean by a TOE. Also, if we managed to construct an action that contains all the physics, it may not actually be possible to get exact solutions and/or it may not be obvious which ones actually apply to our Universe. For example, we may need to know the initial condidtions of the Universe exactly to get THE equation that describes the Universe. This maybe just impossible due to the numbers involved, for one they need truncation and two these may not be defined exactly in the first place but rather in terms of expectation values.

 

what do you specifically mean by "scientific methods'?

Generically one must test the theory against nature.

[univeral theory]

it may not be obvious which ones actually apply to our Universe.

if you are "relatively" sure on this, please clarify more.

[ajb]

if you are "relatively" sure on this, please clarify more.

For example, it is not obvious that our Universe is inside the string landscape.

[univeral theory]

A TOE would be some quantum theory that contains as appropreate limits both the standard model of particle physics and general relativity.

 

 

does this try to mean that as much as a given theory can answer everything in physics,the that is enough to predict that it will have correct answers to everything in other academic disciplines or it simply means that TOT is only concerned with physics?

[EdEarl]

Some things can never be answered, for example, "Is there a God."

 

Some computer algorithms cannot be calculated, because no matter how fast a computer exists, the answer cannot be calculated.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-complete

 

Quantum mechanics tells us there are random things that defy prediction.

 

A theory of everything has some limits.

[ajb]

does this try to mean that as much as a given theory can answer everything in physics,the that is enough to predict that it will have correct answers to everything in other academic disciplines or it simply means that TOT is only concerned with physics?

 

Directly with physics, but there could be applications in other fields.

 

We see the application of physics in other areas already, quantum mechanics being used in aspects of biology is one such example.

[univeral theory]

 

Some things can never be answered, for example, "Is there a God."

 

A theory of everything has some limits.

"... theories predict and experiments confirm...."if iam not mistaken, there is alot of theories that "can"claim wheather GOD is there or not.forget the dogmatic bit of it, but even in science, the last inch of any scientifically consistent theory wheather this consistence is proved mathmatically of phylosophically, can predict wheather GOD is there or not which task also a TOT can take previledge of. confirmation is a task of experiments based on a given technology. isnt it so?

Edited June 8, 2013 by univeral theory

[ajb]

"... theories predict and experiments confirm...."if iam not mistaken, there is alot of theories that "can"claim wheather GOD is there or not.

Can you give a reference to a peer reviewed paper in a respected scientific journal that makes such claims?

[EdEarl]

"... theories predict and experiments confirm...."if iam not mistaken, there is alot of theories that "can"claim wheather GOD is there or not.forget the dogmatic bit of it, but even in science, the last inch of any scientifically consistent theory wheather this consistence is proved mathmatically of phylosophically, can predict wheather GOD is there or not which task also a TOT can take previledge of. confirmation is a task of experiments based on a given technology. isnt it so?

Forgive me, I am unsure what you ask.

 

I know there are people who have claimed to have proved God exists and God does not exist. I have not examined many of them; thus, I am not an expert. However, that people claim both proof of existence and otherwise means there is no consensus. In fact, people of different faiths fight over whether their belief about God or gods is the right one. Thus, I find it hard to believe that any such proof, one way or the other, can ever make sense much less be correct.That is evidence enough for me to form an opinion and say no such proof exists, See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_god.

 

If you believe otherwise, that is OK with me. I believe being kind to everyone is important, and that fighting is wrong.

 

Scientists observe and explain what they observe. Since this thread is about scientific research. God cannot be scientifically observed; thus, science cannot have an opinion about God. In other words, science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, which was the basis of my statements (see quote below). I am pretty sure there is consensus by scientists on these two statements because they are not my original thoughts. However, I do not have references.

Some things can never be answered, for example, "Is there a God."

 

A theory of everything has some limits.

[univeral theory]

Can you give a reference to a peer reviewed paper in a respected scientific journal that makes such claims?

i would not preffer to make this topic appear like the main debate of this thread. any way; i was inquiring into why "can't" the TOT account for the existence of GOD by making resornable claims as other theories have been doing. in my post i used "can claim" intentionaly meaning that they are still failing on the groungs of scientific proof - a fact that doesnot neccesitate them to have reference from any respected scientific journal paper. though this does not rule out that such claims "can" be true.

how ever at the moment, i would advise both of us(me and you) to consider EdEarl comments in post 19 before replying each other on the same topic

Edited June 12, 2013 by univeral theory

[ajb]

i would not preffer to make this topic appear like the main debate of this thread. any way; i was inquiring into why "can't" the TOT account for the existence of GOD by making resornable claims as other theories have been doing. in my post i used "can claim" intentionaly meaning that they are still failing on the groungs of scientific proof - a fact that doesnot neccesitate them to have reference from any respected scientific journal paper. though this does not rule out that such claims "can" be true.

how ever at the moment, i would advise both of us(me and you) to consider EdEarl comments in post 19 before replying each other on the same topic

Okay.

 

EdEarl has of course pointed out the fact that science cannot answer the question of the existence of a god. This is independent of your actual theological stance on the question.

[univeral theory]

Okay.

 

EdEarl has of course pointed out the fact that science cannot answer the question of the existence of a god. This is independent of your actual theological stance on the question.

and in my simple english background, i do not think of that to mean science can not "claim" the posibbility of the existence of GOD.

[EdEarl]

and in my simple english background, i do not think of that to mean science can not "claim" the posibbility of the existence of GOD.

Your English is good enough.

 

Science is a collection of information, similar to a library. Scientists publish to make that collection of information. Science is inanimate and brainless; thus, it cannot make claims. Scientists can make claims. Scientists have differing opinions about the existence of God, some believe in God, some do not believe in God, and some are undecided. Social scientists may study peoples opinions about the existence of God, and publish a scientific paper stating their results. But, scientists cannot observe God and write a paper about their observations. And, a paper by a scientist about their own belief in the possibility of God is not per se scientific; such a paper would not be peer reviewed and published as scientific knowledge.

 

IMO, science contains no statement about the possibility or impossibility of God, except for reports about the beliefs of people. Such statements belong in the collection of knowledge pertaining to philosophy and religion.

[ajb]

and in my simple english background, i do not think of that to mean science can not "claim" the posibbility of the existence of GOD.

Scientific statments and claims should be testable against nature. If there is no way to test if God exists or not then any such statments cannot be scientific.

 

If someone can come up with a definative test, then we can make claims as to the existence or not of God.

But, scientists cannot observe God and write a paper about their observations. And, a paper by a scientist about their own belief in the possibility of God is not per se scientific; such a paper would not be peer reviewed and published as scientific knowledge.

This is exactly right.

 

There is simply no scientific evidence to support the idea of God. Which is of course independent of the personal beliefs of the scientists.

IMO, science contains no statement about the possibility or impossibility of God, except for reports about the beliefs of people.

Again this is exactly right.

 

Though in my opinion God is rather obviously a manmade "thing" and so I cannot see how it fits into natural philosophy.

 

Anyway, with this all in mind, I see no reason why a TOE would make any statments about God or gods.

Edited June 13, 2013 by ajb

[univeral theory]

........I see no reason why a TOE would make any statments about God or gods.

for the interpretations of a given theory to predict a phenomena that is not already observed and make claims on it, basing on the proof of an already observed phenomena it has never been scientifically wrong. only that the application of such claims differ from subject to subject. in some subjects like physics; any claim of a given theory necessitates mathmatical proof. while in others like phylosophy, the claims of a given theory may not necessarily require mathmatical proof so as long as they can be reasoned well to their rational concluson. that is why scientific claims can either be observed or believed.so if the interpretations of TOT can extend beyond physics,this implies that some where some how its relevance in the conserned scientific subject may not necessarily depend on mathmatical proof so as long as the claims are rational. and this is the reason why TOT woul make statement about GOD.

[ajb]

for the interpretations of a given theory to predict a phenomena that is not already observed and make claims on it, basing on the proof of an already observed phenomena it has never been scientifically wrong.

It is quite scientifically correct, assuming that at least in principle the predicted phenomena can be observed. Of course many scientific theories have been shown not to be good models of nature.

...in some subjects like physics; any claim of a given theory necessitates mathmatical proof.

One can not prove that a theory is good or bad based just on mathematics, it needs to be tested against nature. However, any prediction of some phenomena within a theory will be based on a mathematical calculation. Proof maybe a too strong a word here as one may have to treat things formally, make approximations, take limits and so on... Calculate is better.

while in others like phylosophy, the claims of a given theory may not necessarily require mathmatical proof so as long as they can be reasoned well to their rational concluson.

Okay, but philosophy is not science and the word "theory" may have different meanings. In physics a theory will mean a mathematical model of nature.

that is why scientific claims can either be observed or believed.

The claims will remain a conjecture until there is some evidence for them. That is how science works, one needs evidence to back up claims. This is very different to blind faith.

so if the interpretations of TOT can extend beyond physics,this implies that some where some how its relevance in the conserned scientific subject may not necessarily depend on mathmatical proof so as long as the claims are rational. and this is the reason why TOT woul make statement about GOD.

I am sure that a TOE will have some philosophical implications for those that worry about such things. We have seen this with quantum mechanics and relativity. However, I still am not convinced that a TOE will or even should say anything about God.

[univeral theory]

I am sure that a TOE will have some philosophical implications for those that worry about such things.

considering the possibility for TOT to extend its implication to phylosophy. should we assume that such possibilities "can" have relevant answers to metaphysics - or ontology and cosmology in particular "for those that worry about such things"?

[ajb]

considering the possibility for TOT to extend its implication to phylosophy. should we assume that such possibilities "can" have relevant answers to metaphysics - or ontology and cosmology in particular "for those that worry about such things"?

Like the theoreis of quantum mechanics and general relativity, I would expect there to be some implications for metaphysics. As this is a branch of philosophy, can it have any answers anyway?

 

Philosophy is not something I worry about much, so other maybe able to give you a better idea of any impact of a TOE on metaphysics.

 

There should be huge implications for cosmology.

Edited June 14, 2013 by ajb

[univeral theory]

Like the theoreis of quantum mechanics and general relativity, I would expect there to be some implications for metaphysics. As this is a branch of philosophy, can it have any answers anyway?

Answers in what sence? in the sence of physical recognition? in the sense of physical observation? or in the sence of any other bra,bra,bra?

[ajb]

Answers in what sence? in the sence of physical recognition? in the sense of physical observation? or in the sence of any other bra,bra,bra?

 

 

Philosophy cannot really answer any questions like science can as the concepts cannot be tested against nature. Philosophy likes to ask questions rather than answer them