Why you don't have a new theory of the universe

[swansont]

the topic being "why don't you don't have a new theory of the universe" can have the answer..... Of that it is impossible to have a complete theory of this universe. Eventually physics will have to give way to philosophy when it can no longer point to a state previous to the earliest reasonably evidenced state. In this case that limit (so far) is the big bang. A series of theories starting with the anchient greeks have done a fantastic job of getting us to the big bang, and with the math to back up relevant evidences. But, if the universe is indeed arisen from the maths, as Information Describing Reality, then there must have been an origin to the maths, non-derivable from the maths themselves. Only logic, using whatever supporting evidence available to us which points to a most likely candidate as to how the maths were formulated, or somehow formulated themselves....can get to a final minimum state from which things progressed to now. I propose a thought experiment that the Big Bang is an approximate "middle-point" in the overall evolutionary history of this universe. As much change occurred prior to the big bang, as has occurred post......edd

 

Whether a theory of the universe is in fact achievable is beside the point.

I have to say that while I agree that history has shown that people very often put misguided faith in their own theories, this does not mean that a purely linguistic theory is useless.

 

If Einstein had not used equations would that have meant his intuition of space-time was wrong? If he could put into words his theory, would it have been rejected simply because he wasn't being 'mathematically smart' enough?

 

Just seems like elitism to me. It's as if scientists will only entertain an idea if the author has a high IQ. Instead, we should be aiming to collaborate creativity with high IQ.

 

It's not implied that a purely linguistic theory is useless, just that it's nowhere near complete and much less useful than one that has the maths to explain it. Saying that length and time are relative is nowhere near as useful as having the equation so that a test can be made. It could be that the reasoning behind the intuition is completely wrong. The only way we know Einstein was right is because the theory matches what experiment shows to a very high degree of accuracy, and you can;t get that confirmation without math.

[Bignose]

I have to say that while I agree that history has shown that people very often put misguided faith in their own theories, this does not mean that a purely linguistic theory is useless.

 

If Einstein had not used equations would that have meant his intuition of space-time was wrong? If he could put into words his theory, would it have been rejected simply because he wasn't being 'mathematically smart' enough?

 

Just seems like elitism to me. It's as if scientists will only entertain an idea if the author has a high IQ. Instead, we should be aiming to collaborate creativity with high IQ.

From this post, I think that you don't quite grasp the difference between a scientific mathematical idea and just a linguistic idea. Let me post an example I've posted many times on this forum before:

 

I walk into your room carrying a box. I set the box down and say "Whew! That box is really heavy."

 

Now, what does that mean. What does it really mean? You have to interpret 'heavy' based upon your own experiences and perspectives. If was muscled like an Olympic weightlifter, you'd interpret my words differently than if I was a spindly wisp of a man. You'd interpret my statement different if I was a woman than a man. Or if were a child rather than an adult. And so on. That word, 'heavy', doesn't have a specific meaning.

 

On the other hand, if I had said "That box takes 50 N of force to lift." There is no perspective or experience to change how that is interpreted. 50 N is 50 N. Not 5 N, not 49 N, not 51 N, not 500 N.

 

This is what the math does. It gives us a clear cut, objective measure. And it furthermore uses that objectivity to evaluate ideas. If idea A predicted that the box would weigh 852.6 N, and idea B predicted that the box would weigh 47.2 N, then idea B is obviously closer. We don't have to try to evaluate the ideas on the author's word choice, or how eloquently they phrased their arguments, or anything like that. We have an objective measure. Idea B is clearly making prediction that are closer to measured reality. Hence, idea B is favored until an idea comes along that makes even better predictions, i.e. idea C predicting 50.3 N.

 

This is what math gives us. Look, words are extremely powerful. We know this because to this day, we still read many of the great works of literature. But, we keep re-reading Shakespeare in no small part because we constantly reevaluate his work and reinterpret his meaning to the modern world. Each of his feels slightly different reading or hearing his words based on our own lives, experiences, and perspectives. And that great! If just isn't the best tool for scientific study.

 

You use the right tool for the right job. If you have to change the tire on your car, and are putting the lug nuts back on, sure, you could use a pair of pliers, but a torque wrench is a much better tool. And sure, you could use that same torque wrench to drive a nail into a stud, but a hammer is a much better tool.

 

In the same way, sure, one can explain a lot of ideas just using words. But there is a better tool. Mathematics leaves no room for interpretation. Again, 50 N is 50 N. No matter if I struggle to lift 50 N or I can lift it with ease. You don't have to rely on a particular perspective of 'heavy', it is just 50 N.

 

So, finally, to conclude here, I want to say that no one is saying "that a purely linguistic theory is useless". Because they aren't. But, words aren't the best tool to perform science. Math gives us a much better tool for objective and clear cut evaluation of ideas. And really, why would someone intentionally hamper themselves by using the wrong tool for the job? Mathematics is the best tool for science. So, yeah, we tend to ask speculators for some math when they post their new idea. Because we are a bunch of professional carpenters being handed a chainsaw and a torque wrench and being asked to frame a house. All we're asking for is a hammer. Give us a hammer so we can do a good job. And when you post a new idea, give use some math so that we can give your idea a fair evaluation.

[hoola]

I would think anything considered as a "theory" would have to have mathematical testability throughout is conceptual structures. Therefore a TOE is different than a TOU, or theory of the universe....so you are correct since the thread title is "TOU". ..edd

Edited December 25, 2013 by hoola

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

And what does that have to do with their ideas being correct or scientific?

 

 

Just because something is probablistic doesn't mean that it isn't determinate. It's uncertain, not completely random.

 

Today Christmas Day I was up on Dartmoor Devon visiting one of my daughters for a couple of days. I went outing a nearby field with the Dog, not very dissimilar from your drawings.

 

I saw the upper picture in all its splendour I did not see the lower picture on first look. Then as I squinted I realised the lower picture was there but very diminished to a microscopic level. Sure the formulae are there sprinkled about the sub atomic particles, giving structure and predictiveness to our hidden layers. But I did notice also even at that level a fair helping of non predictive systems, probabilistic systems and dare I say it totally NON predictive systems.

 

When I allowed my eyes to refocus at the Macroscopic level, that which we mainly see and experience by our senses, I found myself surrounded by a world that seemed governed mainly by NON predictive structures , like the clouds, the weather, the grass, stones in fragments, lichen in a random shape, Trees with a multitude of different length twigs and branches. Maths was there in evidence in fern leaves of identical number of side shoots, but these were in a minority.

 

I pondered that Yes but deep down there are atoms going about there business with very prescriptive ways. But they end up at the macroscopic level far from looking like a bunch of identical formulae. So what is going on .

 

Its because , although things start off as a Mega Giga Gazillion Balls THERE is NO TOTALLY DETERMINISTIC LINK to the things that I experience.

What started off as being very mathematical perhaps even then with a mix of uncertainty arrived at my feet very Selective , very random, very ordered in many ways yet very beautiful

by its irregularity.

 

The link to determinism , predictability, mathematical certainty , is broken over and over.

 

WHAT IS MORE IN EVIDENCE is a CURRENT WORLD MOULDING WHAT HAPPENS.

 

The only predictable ones on this sample from my Dartmoor Walk in a field like the drawings above

Is the two identical fern fronds. The rest give no immediate appearance of being the way they are because of some causal,deterministic route back to atoms or other micro level bits. More , the result of a currently constraining, current selective mould or environment. ( like hot soft plastic being forced into an injection moulding machine tool ) The universe as a grand mould itself , dictates these beautiful and irregular items, not some unbroken chain of deterministic links.

 

Mike

 

.

Edited December 25, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[J.C.MacSwell]

Why I don't have a new theory of the universe...

Well, it could be that the answer is just too simple, and I'm simply not smart enough to see it.

[John]

The Relation of Mathematics and Physics

I thought this might be interesting to those who have participated in these types of discussions. It's the second Messenger Lecture delivered to students at Cornell by Richard Feynman in 1964, now hosted by Microsoft's Project Tuva. For those who don't have Microsoft's Silverlight plugin installed and aren't interested in installing it, I'm sure copies of the video can be found on YouTube and various other websites.

Although the entirety of the lecture (and indeed, the other lectures, and pretty much anything else by Feynman) is worth watching, the main portion of the lecture that applies to this thread starts just after the 48 minute mark. Of course, he makes reference to things discussed earlier in the lecture, but the main point comes across regardless.

Edited December 26, 2013 by John

[michel123456]

The "edifice of science"

It is a pyramid with its summit down and its basis up. When you enter it, if you can, there is a labyrinth of dark corridors, a lot of closed doors, some open doors that open to rooms with no floor, wells with no staircases, and very few rooms with a seat hanging from the ceiling where you can take a rest. It is dirty, old, with almost no windows, only a few holes that connect to specific points of the outside world.

A better analogy would be "spiderweb of science", a structure hanging from several points that you stick to and containing a monster in its center ready to eat you.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

The "edifice of science"

It is a pyramid with its summit down and its basis up. When you enter it, if you can, there is a labyrinth of dark corridors, a lot of closed doors, some open doors that open to rooms with no floor, wells with no staircases, and very few rooms with a seat hanging from the ceiling where you can take a rest. It is dirty, old, with almost no windows, only a few holes that connect to specific points of the outside world.

A better analogy would be "spiderweb of science", a structure hanging from several points that you stick to and containing a monster in its center ready to eat you.

 

What quite are you saying here michel ?

 

Mike

[hoola]

what michel is saying, I think is that the universe is a dangerous place. The "citadel" or "spiderweb" is an analogy of treacherous passage life has been on since the blue green algae began the fight for survival, in brackish pools.....what we call evolution. He can hardly blame science for this...science is the culmination to the process....take this forum for example...a "brackish pool". for various ideas to float within certain forum parameters, just as the algae had to float within certain temperatures, salinity levels, and the like to allow survival of the fittest. We carry on with a digitized information survival evolution...with rules and limits, and a "moderator" to enforce them.....of which.... I feel a lightning strike is imminent upon this "blue green bacterial" conversation for being off-topic.....we should perhaps move this discussion to philosophy, a more appropriate brackish pool for such conversations....and pay homage to the "rules" that allow us to go on....how about this as a topic in philosophy....." the blue/green blues"...?.. .edd

[Kramer]

 

 

Big nose say: I walk into your room carrying a box. I set the box down and say "Whew! That box is really heavy."
--- Mike say: no big deal! Every body can carry it, even an old man.
--- Lay man say: And? I see it. Is a only a box with an approximate weight.
--- Greg H say: You “see” it! But when you “don’t see” it, the box disappears.
--- Imatfaal say: We trust in maths. In probability. In uncertainty. There is based modern cosmology.
Here the computer in lay man’s pot gave alert: I am cracked ! I am bugged.
The lay man calm his computer:
-- Hush! May be the computer in pot of somebody else is bugged. Do calm!.

[hoola]

yes, were all buggy computers....curb your enthusiasm...

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Big nose say: I walk into your room carrying a box. I set the box down and say "Whew! That box is really heavy."

--- Mike say: no big deal! Every body can carry it, even an old man.

--- Lay man say: And? I see it. Is a only a box with an approximate weight.

--- Greg H say: You see it! But when you dont see it, the box disappears.

--- Imatfaal say: We trust in maths. In probability. In uncertainty. There is based modern cosmology.

Here the computer in lay mans pot gave alert: I am cracked ! I am bugged.

The lay man calm his computer: -- Hush! May be the computer in pot of somebody else is bugged. Do calm!.[/size]

And swansont has given us all a piece of Christmas rock

and has told ALL of us to eat it up, and we need to keep smiling sweetly !

 

 

. Mike humbug !

Edited December 27, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[michel123456]

 

What quite are you saying here michel ?

 

Mike

You have been bitten, you should know.

 

In short: Stephen Serjeant is a Spider Scientist. He bites whatever is not a spider.

 

In long:

scientist, writers, journalists, laymen in general like to describe Science as it was a monument like the Great Pyramid, the Pantheon or for most educated ones, Newton's Cenotaph.

 

The "edifice of science" gives the false image of an huge building with strong basis, grasped on the ground, a temple.

Which is certainly not the case.

It is almost exactly the contrary.

The "edifice of science" is build on a small set of axioms. The work and the dream of all scientists is to be able to reduce the set of axioms without crumbling the whole edifice. And the ultimate goal of science would be to rely on only one axiom or even better no axiom at all.

 

The analogy of such a situation is not an architectural masterpiece, but a nest hanging from a tree. That would be the best.

At this moment, the 'edifice of science" is hanging from multiple axioms coming from different sides of the "real world", it looks like a spiderweb.

 

In this web, many scientists are working to make the structure stronger and wider. A few out of them, from time to time, find a new "trick" and cut away some strings without making the whole thing collapse. Anyway it is not allowed to collapse.

 

Now maybe I made this poetic, but the OP is simply about the fact that if you want to enter the edifice and you are not a spider, you will be bitten.

It is not that you cannot build your own edifice, sure you can.

Of course it will not look as big and ugly as the one that exists by now.

Edited December 28, 2013 by michel123456

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

You have been bitten, you should know.

 

In short: Stephen Serjeant is a Spider Scientist. He bites whatever is not a spider.

 

In long:

scientist, writers, journalists, laymen in general like to describe Science as it was a monument like the Great Pyramid, the Pantheon or for most educated ones, Newton's Cenotaph.

 

The "edifice of science" gives the false image of an huge building with strong basis, grasped on the ground, a temple.

Which is certainly not the case.

It is almost exactly the contrary.

The "edifice of science" is build on a small set of axioms. The work and the dream of all scientists is to be able to reduce the set of axioms without crumbling the whole edifice. And the ultimate goal of science would be to rely on only one axiom or even better no axiom at all.

 

The analogy of such a situation is not an architectural masterpiece, but a nest hanging from a tree. That would be the best.

At this moment, the 'edifice of science" is hanging from multiple axioms coming from different sides of the "real world", it looks like a spiderweb.

spiderwb.jpg

 

In this web, many scientists are working to make the structure stronger and wider. A few out of them, from time to time, find a new "trick" and cut away some strings without making the whole thing collapse. Anyway it is not allowed to collapse.

 

Now maybe I made this poetic, but the OP is simply about the fact that if you want to enter the edifice and you are not a spider, you will be bitten.

It is not that you cannot build your own edifice, sure you can.

Of course it will not look as big and ugly as the one that exists by now.

 

I understand now. Very well explained. You are a very perceptive person.

i guess I keep poking around this nest due to my love of the deep ideas. I remember you pulling my mutilated body from the nest a while ago. I still manage to get about with a bit of a limp.

 

mike

[swansont]

Interesting portrayal/analogy, but I disagree. What's incorrectly implied is that it's somehow spiders vs non-spiders, but to be a true portrayal one must acknowledge that anyone can be a spider. If you choose not to be a spider, you will get bitten.

 

The link in the OP is simply presenting the reality that any legitimate science proposal requires one to have a solid background in accepted science, and this includes maths. If you don't have this background, you will underestimate the scope of the problem you are trying to solve, and your efforts will fall well short of being useful.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Interesting portrayal

 

Ouch !

[md65536]

From OP's link:

I have not yet understood the slightly crazed conviction of some people that their theory is

right, combined with a curious reluctance of those same people to learn more physics and mathematics.

Perhaps one must experience it to understand it. At least in part this comes from the "urgent need" to get your ideas across, and the urgency makes investing time in learning seem like a diversion. I think that the less understanding one has of the fundamentals, the more daunting it is to consider learning them, and the bigger a wall standing in the way of getting your idea across it seems (paradoxically).

 

There is also a common desire to avoid "tainting" ones original ideas with everyone else's (ie. learning the fundamentals). This isn't as silly as it sounds, because certainly everyone has ideas that we don't bother to explore once we learn what other people have done along the same lines. Most ideas born of ignorance are worse than what's already been done (say 99.999% to borrow a number from the link). Yet, while science progresses iteratively it can sometimes end up in "local maximums", from which we might progress only with a radical change.

 

Neither of these convictions make an amateur hopeless because there's a way out. You can try to get your idea out without learning, and you can explore your idea on your own as far as you can go, and when that doesn't work out, the relative cost of learning the fundamentals becomes lower. Either you can dedicate your life and life's savings to promoting your idea with websites etc, or you can take your "fully developed idea" and start seeing how it fits into the mainstream without worrying about tainting it. At that point, a life-long avoidance of learning more physics and maths should seem like a more daunting waste of time. If the idea's really good, it will survive being shaped and honed by existing physics.

 

Defending that potential 1 in 100000 is exhausting because of the other 99999 who more often ruin it, but still we can't generalize to 100% and ignore the exceptions. Even statements like "If it has no math it's pseudoscience" aren't true in 100% of cases. These discussions seem to attract an anti-crackpot flavor of pseudoscience that goes mostly unacknowledged.

 

As Stephen writes in the link, "If your theory has no mathematics, I'm sorry to tell you that I'm 99.999% certain it's pseudoscientific waffle." I think that he deals with this in the right way, which seems to be that it is simply not worth it for an individual to bother with your idea with those odds. But he's not saying that your idea is certainly worthless or that 100% of such "theories" can safely be suppressed.

Edited January 2, 2014 by md65536

[imatfaal]

From OP's link:

Perhaps one must experience it to understand it. At least in part this comes from the "urgent need" to get your ideas across, and the urgency makes investing time in learning seem like a diversion. I think that the less understanding one has of the fundamentals, the more daunting it is to consider learning them, and the bigger a wall standing in the way of getting your idea across it seems (paradoxically).

...

 

I agree entirely - I once found a series of numbers (ways to colour 3-d regular solids) that matched a series generated through some weird off-shoot of the Reimann Zeta function; I was completely awe-struck and nearly went all "speculations forum" about it. But too many years on science boards had taught me to investigate and be rigorous - and it was already known and explained

 

...

As Stephen writes in the link, "If your theory has no mathematics, I'm sorry to tell you that I'm 99.999% certain it's pseudoscientific waffle." I think that he deals with this in the right way, which seems to be that it is simply not worth it for an individual to bother with your idea with those odds. But he's not saying that your idea is certainly worthless or that 100% of such "theories" can safely be suppressed.

 

But the difficult part is where suppression starts and the refusal to give time and bandwidth to those disinclined to do the hard yards of rigorous science ends. As one of the people who closes threads - I like to think we get the balance about right here; we don't suppress but also the real fruit-cakes do not get to benefit from the (admittedly insubstantial) imprimatur of SF.net

 

My pet peeve is not that some speculators cannot do the math - let's face it who of us can do all of it? The fields medal now gets awarded to physicists who push the borders of maths in order to cope with their new theories. But I cannot cope with those who refuse to accept that whilst they cannot do the maths that others can do it and through using maths demonstrate without doubt that the hypothesis / theory is incorrect.

[Popcorn Sutton]

 

Your position on this is well-documented in another thread, but that's not the point of this discussion. The point here is that if you haven't done the math part, you aren't done with the development of your idea. The attitude of many people with an idea is that the math is just the finishing touch, but the reality is you aren't even close to being done, and insistence that your idea is ready to be accepted anywhere is misplaced. And that your confidence that you are right is not justified.

Well then, I'm in a weird position because I have the math and the logic done for my theory, but now I need to know-

 

"How do I make a UI?"

"What do I do if the storage exceeds my computers capacity?"

"Is there a way to make it more efficient?"

 

Stuff like that. It's like math and logic just aren't enough. That's where other sciences come in.

[swansont]

Well then, I'm in a weird position because I have the math and the logic done for my theory, but now I need to know-

 

"How do I make a UI?"

"What do I do if the storage exceeds my computers capacity?"

"Is there a way to make it more efficient?"

 

Stuff like that. It's like math and logic just aren't enough. That's where other sciences come in.

 

That's like building the apparatus to do an experiment. It's a completely different issue.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Off-topic hijack posts split to here.

[swansont]

Another bit that's on the mark

http://galileospendulum.org/2014/01/10/new-theories-are-hard-to-get-right-but-thats-ok/

 

He nails the characteristics pretty well, including the shortcomings of having pretty pictures but no math, and sweeping claims but nothing in the way of specifics that could be tested.

[Rajnish Kaushik]

we can have we can develope them

[davidivad]

talking about 1s and 0s and probabilities is great. however, you can describe this with math in an absolute way. this removes the element of perception. put it down as an expression and everyone can work on it.