The Basis For A TOE.

[?]

Can a TOE be other than a product of human/world interactions? What is the basis for assuming that humans can be the measure of all things? What is the basis for assuming that reality is essentially measurable and knowable?

[cristian]

A TOE is supposed to be, and cannot be anything else than the product of human/world interactions. It would not be useful otherwise. We're basically supposed to use our brains to model what our senses perceive.

The world is measurable and knowable to some extent, because we've already measured and know some of it. There could be a limit to this, though. Our view of the world is limited by our senses, but also by our brains, which may not have the ability to model all the interactions of the real world. If such a limitation exists, it will be quite tough to figure it out.

These being said there are a lot of things we can do. We can't sense electromagnetic fields, but we can see the compass needle moving when near an electric wire. We can't imagine a 10-dimensional point but we can still use it in equations. So I wouldn't be to quick to give up because of our limitations, although it would be an interesting subject to discuss.

I believe the purpose of a TOE is to allow modelling of any perceivable phenomenon.

[?]

Our brains evolved as all other brains evolved: to increase the probability of the survival of our species. What we can know and measure is most likely that which is relevant to our survival, and it is a stretch to believe that reality is limited to what is relevant to our survival. We know how limited the reality of all other animals is; to think that we alone can grasp it is another stretch. Our brains seek order that they may make predictions. This bias leads us to believe in such things as laws of nature and time. Relative stability is inherant in actuality, but to assume that the universe is ruled by laws is simply a reflection of human nature. No one can predict your thoughts 5 minutes from now, let alone 5 years, and this is not because of a lack of knowledge. One of the beauties of the Standard Model is the elevation of chance and uncertainty. Our science and our culture is and can only be a reflection of our nature. Think about the statement "God does not play dice."

[cristian]

I can see your point now. However I don't agree.

Our brains evolved as all other brains evolved: to increase the probability of the survival of our species.

Fair enough. But it works a bit different: you see the world around you, brain figures out how it works, then you make your decisions that suit you best, not just for survival, but for general well being. Take fire for example: keeps you warm, good, but can burn you, bad. The law that governs this is the distance between you and the fire. As soon as you understand this you can use it to your advantage: stand close, but not too close, bring your friends around, push your enemies in there.

The point is: in order to use it, you must understand it. But you can understand things without having to use them; for example it took some time since the thermometer was invented until it was actually useful for something. Understanding comes first; a TOE should explain the laws we don't understand yet, then we can decide how to use this information to make our lives better.

This bias leads us to believe in such things as laws of nature and time (...) to assume that the universe is ruled by laws is simply a reflection of human nature

The universe IS governed by laws; if you plan to argue with that you should come up with some solid arguments. Consider a ball rolling on a table. Laws of physics (which we don't fully understand, but which happen nonetheless) dictate that it will maintain its direction (inertia) and its contact with the table (gravity), while it slows down (friction). This allows you to tell the future by simply looking at it: if its inertia is big enough, it will move until it reaches the end of the table, when it will fall (gravity again). Otherwise it will slow down to a stop (friction at work).

Now the same experiment without these laws would mean that in the next moment of time the ball has no reason to keep moving on a straight line. It could move sideways, nothing prevents it to do this. It could even fly off the table. Actually it could even go down through the table, without a law that governs collision. It could even appear in the next galaxy, without a law that governs movement. The very atoms that make the ball would have no reason to stay together. There would be total chaos.

From what we can tell, however, rules like gravity are valid all over the universe, and were there since time begun. They keep our universe into place and allow us to predict the future every single day, even if we just use this ability to ensure our survival. Our brains don't seek order, it is already there.

No one can predict your thoughts 5 minutes from now, let alone 5 years, and this is not because of a lack of knowledge

My view is that cannot be (fully) done (yet) simply because of its complexity. Are you saying there's something else preventing it? You can do it to some extent: when you're 5 you're thinking about play, when you're 30 you think about house/car/kids/job, when you're 80 you think about old age and death. My prediction is not very accurate, but it's not just a random guess, there are reasons (read laws) why this happens.

[kriminal99]

Perhaps he simply meant that while the "laws" may exist, calling them laws and implying their existence past what the results they provide is a human design.

[mkirkpatrick]

Perhaps he simply meant that while the "laws" may exist, calling them laws and implying their existence past what the results they provide is a human design.

Thats an interesting way of seeing it,btw,welcome to the toe,settle in and get posting!


regards michael.

[Elizabeth]

A TOE is supposed to be, and cannot be anything else than the product of human/world interactions.....
...
... I believe the purpose of a TOE is to allow modelling of any perceivable phenomenon.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what a TOE is, but if it literally is a theory of everything, although it would have to include human/world interactions, but I think it's pretty ethnocentric to consider it would have to be a product of such. How do we know we are the only species that can think well enough to have a theory? How do we know the porpoises don't already have it all figured out? Or some alien species?

[mkirkpatrick]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what a TOE is, but if it literally is a theory of everything, although it would have to include human/world interactions, but I think it's pretty ethnocentric to consider it would have to be a product of such. How do we know we are the only species that can think well enough to have a theory? How do we know the porpoises don't already have it all figured out? Or some alien species?

I would tend to agree with you there Elizabeth,when I hear of stories of dolphins
saving drowning folks,protecting some from shark attacks,it is as though they already
have the answer,and have accepted it,and moved on?


regards michael.