The nature of a "Final Theory"!

[kamil]

I think I can safely say that as long as there are new things to learn, there will be no final theory.

 

Yea, but the Universe has a limited amount of phenomena. THerefore it is is possible. Of course if there are more things to learn we will not find a final theory. But who says there will not be a time when all natural phenomena is discovered. :eek_big: :naughty:

[Doctordick]

Yea, but the Universe has a limited amount of phenomena. THerefore it is is possible. Of course if there are more things to learn we will not find a final theory. But who says there will not be a time when all natural phenomena is discovered. :eek: :eek:

You, and everyone else, miss a very significant fact. A theory is a created story which provides an explanation of whatever phenomena one wishes to understand. Theories fail for two very simple reasons: either new phenomena may be discovered which fail to support the theory or a new theory may arise which does a better job of explaining the known phenomena (either requires fewer assumptions, is simpler in fundamental structure or actually explains more phenomena than the old theory). (If anyone here can conceive of another mechanism of failure, please let me know.) :hihi:

 

What is significant here is the fundamental issue of what goes into a theory: exactly what are the fundamental constraints on that created story. Apparently no one, save myself, has any interest at all in examining those constraints. Suppose there exists an explicit mechanism for expressing exactly what those constraints are? See my expression of those constraints in An Analytical Model of Explanation Itself. The result of that analysis is the very simple equation appearing at the end of that presentation. Once one accepts the fact that a valid explanation must satisfy that equation (i.e., must satisfy exactly the constraints expressed in that equation; which requires little more than understanding the definition of an explanation and the diligence to follow the logic in that paper), it would seem that examining the solutions of that equation would be of interest. :eek:

 

Note that no theory has been presented. What has been presented is the logical constraint imposed on a theory by the concept of validity itself. Given that, the equation yields the mathematical relationships which are required by internal validity of the theory and not at all required by reality. :)

 

That is a very significant factor. One which should be thought about carefully. ;)

 

Suppose secondly that those constraints themselves with no additional assumptions turn out to constrain the universe to exactly what we appear to see. Would it not be then true that those constraints themselves provide one with a final and absolute theory of everything? ;) How does one obtain intelligent conversation on such a thought? :(

 

Have fun – Dick

 

Knowledge is Power

the most common abuse of that power is to use it to hide stupidity

[CraigD]

Suppose secondly that those constraints themselves with no additional assumptions turn out to constrain the universe to exactly what we appear to see.

This reminds me of an inversion of a hypothesis related to ideas by linguists Whorf and Goldberg, amplified in several works of Science Fiction and philosophical non-fiction. The idea, sometime and inaccurately called “Goldberg’s hypothesis”, holds that, just as a given everyday idea may not be expressible in a given formal system, there may be “ideas” useful in describing physical reality that cannot be described in any fashion using natural language. This is related to some old musings about the possibility of “inconceivable Platonic forms”. It raises the question “Is what we do when we do what we call thinking exactly isomorphic to generating theorems in a formal system?”

 

Rather than the hypothesis “there are statements about the universe that cannot be described in any human language” – Doctordick appears to me to be posing the question “is reality constrained such that no such statements exist?”

 

Due to intellectual laziness or deficiency, however, I have not confidence that I “get” what Doctordick is trying so hard to convey, so I may be completely off track here.

[questor]

Dr. Dick, since i am at probably a contemporary to you in age, if not your senior, i feel compelled to comment on a peculiar personality quirk evident in your writings.

1. you are very patronizing, if not insulting, to the posters at large.

2. your subject may not be of much interest to the posters.

3. since you have not fully explained your subject as an entity, we are left to try to understand the snippets as they are presented.

4. the level of intellect here is probably well above the norm, but we are not all equipped with the experience or specialized knowledge to deal with a subject that has occupied your mind for some time.

5. perhaps you would have more interest and a better audience if you would just state your premise, lay off the insults, and see if you can have a discussion.

6. i have a suspicion your theory may not rival E=MC2

7. i am only speaking for myself, and would hope we could have the benefit of your wisdom.

[InfiniteNow]

Dr. Dick, since i am at probably a contemporary to you in age, if not your senior, i feel compelled to comment on a peculiar personality quirk evident in your writings.

1. you are very patronizing, if not insulting, to the posters at large.

2. your subject may not be of much interest to the posters.

3. since you have not fully explained your subject as an entity, we are left to try to understand the snippets as they are presented.

4. the level of intellect here is probably well above the norm, but we are not all equipped with the experience or specialized knowledge to deal with a subject that has occupied your mind for some time.

5. perhaps you would have more interest and a better audience if you would just state your premise, lay off the insults, and see if you can have a discussion.

6. i have a suspicion your theory may not rival E=MC2

7. i am only speaking for myself, and would hope we could have the benefit of your wisdom

.

 

Cheers questor. I agree with and support your points. I believe strongly that Dick is a very intelligent being, but am often disinterested due to their tone. I've encountered a similar issue in another thread, but didn't articulate myself as well as you did here. Thanks, and nice post.

[Doctordick]

I have not confidence that I “get” what Doctordick is trying so hard to convey, so I may be completely off track here.

Quite simply, what would the universe look like if everything were absolutely random: utterly no rules at all? Suppose that the simple constraint that any acceptable story which provides an explanation of whatever phenomena one wishes to understand must be internally self consistent is absolutely sufficient to constrain the universe to exactly what we appear to see. :D Conventional wisdom is, "that can not possibly be" and the issue is simply never logically examined in a careful manner. I have examined such a hypothesis and discovered that it is true. How in hell did you think I managed to obtain my eminent quack status? What I know is as easy to explain to you guys as explaining probability to ancient Egyptians astrologers (hell, that's difficult to explain to modern astrologers).

 

What I have discovered is essentially a Dewy decimal system of organizing information in a manner such that the defined entities (significant aspects of that information) are guaranteed to amount to an internally consistent construct. The system is so constructed as to be applicable to absolutely any collection of information. Is it a theory? Would you present the Dewy decimal system as a theory? It is either an erroneous construct or the consequences implied by the construct are absolutely correct.

Dr. Dick, since i am at probably a contemporary to you in age, if not your senior, i feel compelled to comment on a peculiar personality quirk evident in your writings.

1.you are very patronizing, if not insulting, to the posters at large.

Yes, I suppose I am; however, I have seen little to convince me I am dealing with equals.

2. your subject may not be of much interest to the posters.

The forum provides a very simple solution to that problem: anyone who is not interested has the ability to place me on their personal "ignore" list (quite a popular list by the way). Actually, I wouldn't mind such a move at all. As they say, ignorance is bliss, enjoy yourselves! :)

3. since you have not fully explained your subject as an entity, we are left to try to understand the snippets as they are presented.

Yes, that is very true. That is exactly what I have been searching for: someone who is capable of understanding those "snippets". If they cannot understand those how can I expect them to understand a deduction from them. :D

4. the level of intellect here is probably well above the norm, but we are not all equipped with the experience or specialized knowledge to deal with a subject that has occupied your mind for some time.

Again, if you are not interested , you have the option to ignore me. If you are interested, nothing I am saying requires any really deep comprehension; just the simple ability to think about things a little.

5. perhaps you would have more interest and a better audience if you would just state your premise, lay off the insults, and see if you can have a discussion.

I'm not looking for an audience; I am looking for a few good men willing to think about things a little. :D

6. i have a suspicion your theory may not rival E=MC2

That's nice! It's good to know the rational behind your reactions. ;)

7. i am only speaking for myself, and would hope we could have the benefit of your wisdom.

Wisdom?? Just simple logic and nothing more. :D

 

Please, if you would be so kind, point out what snippet you found "difficult to understand" in my previous post (msg #19 on page #2 of this thread). :eek2:

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

[InfiniteNow]

;)

 

good grief. ;)

[CraigD]

Quite simply, what would the universe look like if everything were absolutely random: utterly no rules at all? Suppose that the simple constraint that any acceptable story which provides an explanation of whatever phenomena one wishes to understand must be internally self consistent is absolutely sufficient to constrain the universe to exactly what we appear to see. …

Thanks, Dr. With this explanation, I think I “get” your message.

 

It’s a pretty esoteric line of thought, but a valuable one, and not entirely foreign to folk who have studied subjects like Abstract Algebra. I’m reminded of the pedagogic “TNT” formalism presented in Hofstadter’s “Gödel, Escher, Bach”, although that was intended as an introduction to formal proof to be employed in more practical, applied areas, where as I think you’re interested in, essentially, something like the question what formal system is required by any formal system?

 

Relative to the very applied ideas loved & hated at Hypography, I think you’ve brought a hard idea to contemplate. If I’m any indication, short analogies like the above are likely to be most effective in helping people understand you. My continuing best wishes.

[Doctordick]

Thanks, Dr. With this explanation, I think I “get” your message.

Thank you for your kind and thoughtful response.

... something like the question what formal system is required by any formal system?

I like that very much. ;)

Relative to the very applied ideas loved & hated at Hypography, I think you’ve brought a hard idea to contemplate. If I’m any indication, short analogies like the above are likely to be most effective in helping people understand you. My continuing best wishes.

Not to be subtle but I really don't have much interest in "being understood". ;) However, being old enough to see that grave directly in front of me, I would certainly like to go out knowing that someone out there at least had an inkling of what I discovered. From my experience, that would be much easier for them to achieve if I were present to correct their misunderstandings. After I am dead I probably won't care much. ;)

 

You seem to at least have an idea of abstract logic (what I would call working with unknowns) and what I am saying is actually quite simple. I think the real problem is that people try to read something into it which just isn't there. If you would be so kind as to read An Analytical Model of Explanation Itself up to the first sentence which doesn't make sense to you and tell me what sentence that is, I will seriously try to clear it up. Being ignorant of what you do and do not know makes it very difficult for me to know where you will misinterpret what I am saying. As I said, it is just simple straight forward logic based on my definition of an explanation. Don't worry about what it means, worry about what it says.

 

I really would like to explain that paper to someone. The problem I am trying to present does appear to be a hard idea to contemplate but the solution is actually quite easy when taken one step at a time.

 

Have fun – Dick

 

"The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

[questor]

Dr. Dick, i have followed your discussions about your theory for some time as have numerous others. i have also read some of your links to other sites and your problem in communication has been common to all the different sites.

i think there is obvious interest in your discoveries if people could understand exactly what you are saying. since you are claiming advancing age, i'm sure you would enjoy having your ideas understood and recognized. since i am having a problem understanding you, do you think you could boil your ideas down to a few paragraphs and explain ''the big picture'' so that a high schooler could understand what you are trying to convey?

[Doctordick]

Dr. Dick, i have followed your discussions about your theory for some time as have numerous others. i have also read some of your links to other sites and your problem in communication has been common to all the different sites.

I suspect the real problem is the tendency of the readers to attempt to cast what I say in terms of their current inadequate understanding of the universe. Everyone seems to have a rather universal tendency to see their own mental image of the universe as valid and do everything possible to see what I say in terms of that supposed truth. They all seem to fail to appreciate the truth of the statement, "all I know for sure is that I know nothing for sure!" If you believe that, you must recognize the need to work with unknowns. That is almost the definition of abstract logic. :hyper:

since i am having a problem understanding you, do you think you could boil your ideas down to a few paragraphs and explain ''the big picture'' so that a high schooler could understand what you are trying to convey?

Your first mistake is to presuming I am putting forth a theory which I am not. I am putting forth a tautology based upon a very exact definition of an explanation. What I am saying is true by definition; an analytical truth is based on nothing except logical grounds. You need to understand the difference between a "synthetic truth" and an "analytical truth" :hihi:

Analytical truth: a statement or judgment that is necessarily true on purely logical grounds and serves only to elucidate meanings already implicit in the subject; its truth is thus guaranteed by the principle of contradiction. Such propositions are distinguished from synthetic propositions, the meanings of which include information imported from non-logical (usually induction based) propositions.

Mathematics is the only field which constrains itself entirely to analytical truth though, as many philosophers have pointed out, the fundamental hypothesis's of mathematics are themselves synthetic truths. I don't want to get into that argument as many minds superior to my own are currently very much involved in that dilemma and logic and mathematics is a pretty well universally accepted collection of concepts. :cool:

 

On the other hand, analytical truths are seldom encountered in Science; though, when they are, they are given precedence over synthetic truths. A theory which violated addition would certainly be suspect; that is why mass is held to be equivalent to energy and it is also the reason for the existence of the neutrino. If you have ever heard of symmetry arguments referred to as the most powerful arguments in existence you are listening to the precedence of analytical truths over synthetic truths. :hyper:

 

I can show that one needs to add but one definition to mathematics in order to deduce some rather significant analytical truths. The definition one needs to understand is my definition of an explanation. At that point, a serious effort to follow the logic expressed in An Analytical Model of Explanation Itself will yield the analytical truth that there exists a paradigm for any explanation which requires the equation stated at the end of that paper to be absolutely true: i.e., it is by construction an analytical truth. :hihi:

 

Once you accept that analytical truth, all that is left is to examine the solutions to that equation. That is a much more complex endeavorer. I knew of the truth of that equation five years before I managed to drag out the first solution; however, after I managed that accomplishment, solutions began to fall out left and right. That equation is the fundamental basis of physics in exactly the same way Maxwell's equation is the basis of E & M. I can show that Schroedinger's equation (and thus all of classical mechanics), Dirac's equation, Maxwell's equation and particle exchange forces of nuclear physics are all approximate solutions to that equation. Not only that but the equation is fully consistent with both special and general relativity and finally, the fundamental physics parameters underlying those equations are all determined by the same approximations which create the listed equations: i.e., the universe is the way it is because it cannot be otherwise. :hihi:

 

Now that is pretty close to three paragraphs! Oh, by the way, another thing which falls out is the exact reason why the universe appears to be a three dimensional entity: that is the smallest number of dimensions which allow solutions which can be interpreted as interacting macroscopic objects with complex dynamic properties (emphasis on the "macroscopic" there)! :lol:

 

Please, make an attempt to read that paper and the first time you come to a sentence you don't understand, bring it up and I will try to clarify it. It is a proof and if you misunderstand one step, you have misunderstood the whole thing. :hyper:

 

Have fun – Dick

 

The simplest and most necessary truths are the very last to be believed."

by Anonymous

[Turtle]

...an experiment as a check which is without question the first thing any theory needs to pass before it can be taken seriously. One problem on this forum is that very few of the members even comprehend the process of establishing a definitive experiment

 

Well it's been a year or so Doc since you started these many threads on your theory & in going back to the beginning of this one I can't say as how I've seen your experiment(s) yet.:naughty: Astounding results or some such I believe you have stated somewhere in this gallimaufry of your words. But then you know what they say -- extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. In another vernacular, where's the beef? :shrug:

[Doctordick]

Well it's been a year or so Doc since you started these many threads on your theory & in going back to the beginning of this one I can't say as how I've seen your experiment(s) yet.:shrug: Astounding results or some such I believe you have stated somewhere in this gallimaufry of your words. But then you know what they say -- extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. In another vernacular, where's the beef? :eek2:

Well, it's nice to hear from you Turtle. I notice that this is the only post you have made to this thread, something which I had hoped would interest you. Again, you seem to miss the fact that I have never proposed a theory of any kind (something everyone seems to miss). You should note that the title of the thread is "The nature of a 'Final Theory'!" The object was to bring up the factors which need to go into a "final theory"; something which seems to interest no one.

 

My paper, "A Universal Analytical Model of Explanation Itself" is not a theory; it is an analytic tool which yields relationships which a valid "theory" must obey. The idea that a valid theory must obey my fundamental equation is a logical question, not a theoretical proposition. It can be settled only by logical analysis and experiment has nothing to do with that question. The only question which needs to be answered is, "is my logical deduction valid?"

 

On the other hand, what is astounding is my discovery that all the known laws of physics can be seen as approximate solutions to my fundamental constraint on the relationships which can exist between the fundamental elements of any valid explanation. That says something very profound; something which no one else seems to comprehend. Now, the fact that "all the laws of physics can be seen as approximate solutions to my fundamental equation" is indeed an "extraordinary claim" and it does indeed require "extraordinary proof"; however, that "proof" is not even worth putting forth until an audience which understands that the claim exists and, to date, no one here even seems to comprehend the claim.

 

If you want, I could lay out the proof in detail; however it certainly is not trivial. I have already laid out the first step, the derivation of Shrodinger's equation, at the end of the thread "Is 'time' a measurable variable?. The consequence seems to be the utter failure to generate a response. I do not know if the problem is the inability of any reader to follow the math or simple faith that my suggestion cannot possibly be true so they are not going to look at it (which seems to be the professional academic position).

 

If I have proposed a theory, that theory would be that no theories are necessary to explain what we know. The following quote is from earlier in this very thread:

You, and everyone else, miss a very significant fact. A theory is a created story which provides an explanation of whatever phenomena one wishes to understand. Theories fail for two very simple reasons: either new phenomena may be discovered which fail to support the theory or a new theory may arise which does a better job of explaining the known phenomena (either requires fewer assumptions, is simpler in fundamental structure or actually explains more phenomena than the old theory).

What I have discovered is that no theory is required to explain modern physics experiments. All the theories extant just yield results which are approximate solutions to my equation.

 

I tell you what, I will post another thread so simple that anyone with high school geometry could follow it, if they took the trouble. It is a simple proof of a geometric projection theorem which results in some rather astounding relationships. You should be able to follow it easily if you are careful. Take a look at "A simple geometric proof with profound consequences".

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Turtle]

Well, it's nice to hear from you Turtle. I notice that this is the only post you have made to this thread, something which I had hoped would interest you.

You're the man Doc. I asked for beef & you bring me the whole danged sacred cow!:shrug: I tend to skip around a bit as you may have noticed, but I likely have read 98% of everything you have written here or referred me to. Clearly I see something of interest, even if I yet lack a good explanation for said interest.

The only question which needs to be answered is, "is my logical deduction valid?"

 

On the other hand, what is astounding is my discovery that all the known laws of physics can be seen as approximate solutions to my fundamental constraint on the relationships which can exist between the fundamental elements of any valid explanation. That says something very profound; something which no one else seems to comprehend. Now, the fact that "all the laws of physics can be seen as approximate solutions to my fundamental equation" is indeed an "extraordinary claim" and it does indeed require "extraordinary proof"; however, that "proof" is not even worth putting forth until an audience which understands that the claim exists and, to date, no one here even seems to comprehend the claim.

It is quite the conundrum. Is it as if the laws of physics have to exist as approximations to allow for new discoveries?

 

I tell you what, I will post another thread so simple that anyone with high school geometry could follow it, if they took the trouble. It is a simple proof of a geometric projection theorem which results in some rather astounding relationships. You should be able to follow it easily if you are careful. Take a look at "A simple geometric proof with profound consequences".

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

Yes yes by all means. You know I like to look at geometric patterns.:eek2:

[Doctordick]

It is quite the conundrum. Is it as if the laws of physics have to exist as approximations to allow for new discoveries?

Not really, rather it is the failure of theoreticians to think the underpinnings of their theories out carefully. They do not work out the consequences of their definitions; rather, they just presume they know what they are talking about (i.e., they presume others have already considered the logical consequences of their definitions). It is simply an issue professional scientists don't think is worth looking at. I can give you a good example of the same idea which anyone should be able to understand.

 

When one designs an experiment, one must be careful to assure that the result is not predetermined by definition: that is, that one is actually checking something of significance. A simple example of what I am talking about can be illustrated by thinking about an experiment to determine if water runs downhill. If one begins that experiment by defining downhill with a carpenters level, one has made a major error. They have clearly predefined the result of the experiment as downhill has been defined to be the direction water runs (the bubble being the absence of water). In such a case, it is rather a waste of time to finish carrying out such an experiment no matter how well the rest of the experiment is designed. It should be clear that to do so is nothing more then checking the consistency of one's definitions.

 

The issue of the above example is that, before performing any experiments, one can not just presume they "know" what they are talking about but must very carefully define exactly what they mean by the terms they use. In the above example, one must first carefully define "downhill" and then consider all the consequences of that definition. To do otherwise is to just be sloppy! And people are often quite sloppy when it comes to their beliefs.

 

My presentation (in using the undefined elements A, B, C and D) makes establishing the definitions part of the problem to be solved. My equation is nothing more but an internal consistency constraint on the definitions of those elements.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[HIENVN]

In my e-mail today, I received the "Hypography Science Forums Community Bulletin" which included, under the "Threads with the most views", a reference to "The Final Theory" posted by Alexander over a year ago and still being added to last month....

 

(quote shortened by Tormod)

“The Final Theory” should be Einstein’s unified field theory, because Einstein proposed a single secret of phenomena that he could not establish in his last life. If a single secret of phenomena is introduced to the scientists, then the scientists may base on this single secret to solve the whole universe.

[Tormod]

HIENVN, please avoid double posts. This is the exact same post you made in The Final Theory thread.