will all therories coalesce into one,one day?

[mkirkpatrick]

Some day in the not too distant future I can indeed see a time when all the
differing theories will gravitate towards each other and there will be a common
agreement on thir theory of everything,how we came about,what happened if there was a beginning,will it all end and so on.The more science pushes back
the idea of what is matter,what is energy,and what on earth are the real properties of light,as yet not understood,and of course what part does electricity play in all this.for myself the answer is really quite simple,I believe
Dave said something like the answered all will be very simple,I agree it will. To
me the universe is the product of thought,we exist and have our being within
that infinite mind,quantum theory talks about a membrane a film of for want of
a better word liquid thought,that flows ever outwards from a cental thought
and that we are all on and within that membrane.a thought within a thought
within a mind,acting on our physical brain.soon I predict that many foremost
experts in their different fields of research will all agree that all is Indeed mind
and that WE are all the product of thought.

kindest regards,michael.

[Guille]

hi.

I'm back from Prague! It was great!

The city was full of drunk celebrative dutch people, for it's football team is playing against the check republic.

Now, to the theme of this thread, it's true that theories seem to be getting more and more towards eac othe,r in the sense of the basisof knowledge and understanding are becoming more and more general, but still all theories won't come to one, they will be collections of ideas, thoughts and knowledges that will specialize in themes, and the parts of a theory aren't and won't be appliable for other subjects, only the laws will be pan-appliable.

[dleviwing]

Though I fear that Guillermo's prediction may dominate science and possibly prevent a true TOE from being realized for decades, it will eventually come to pass and provide an interpretation of reality that will allow us to understand the nature and attributes of our standard models.

Unless the supreme thought entity makes its presence vividly known to the human race, I can only view this philosophy as metaphysical without proof or measure and only useful to achieve serenity of mind for those who prefer to believe.
The solution is simple, not fantastic.

Thoughts are only profound until knowledge is achieved. (dleviwing 2005)

[Guille]

Dave,

In my opinion, you reduce the value of metaphysics and philosophy too much. It is the basis of all thought. And, you say it doesn't have "proof". Well, first tell me what you understand by proof, and then I can explaiin you how philosophy does indeed have proof.

By the way, great signature yours.

[dleviwing]

Guille;
I do not allow religious or metaphysical philosophy to become part of the philosophies of science. I am confused as to what you mean by reducing the value of philosophy. Like any discipline, it can be abused by improper use. I am sure you are quite aware of this.

[Guille]

I am aware of this, of course. Theologians abuse of philosophy just like scientology abuses of science. But you try to comunicate that philosphy cannot proof anything. In what do you base this?

[dleviwing]

I am aware of this, of course. Theologians abuse of philosophy just like scientology abuses of science. But you try to comunicate that philosphy cannot proof anything. In what do you base this?

Guillermo;
Actually philosophy does not prove anything. It only provides a paradigm to evaluate the experimental evidence. Philosophy can only convince, experimental science is needed to prove the philosophy. When the philosophy is wrong, we get absurd interpretations of the experiments just as many TOEquest members have elaborated on. This is why I feel the TOE must be the correction of our philosophical paradigm and not the math.. The math will follow the philosophy.

[Guille]

Dave,

I agree that the math must follow the philsophy, at least for the TOE it should. But I think that philosophy can proof. First, I say this because philosophy has the three possible different mayor kind of proofs in relation to truth and knowledge, and these are: argumental (logical), rational and empirical. Second, I think it's an error to believe that only empirical evidence and experiments are poroofs, for, as you may already know, to base a whole stody on pure empirical observations and perceptions leads to many errors, fallacies, misinterpretations... And, anyway, I want to remind you that philosophy also has empirical evidenc,e and it's not scientifical. Philosophers, just as scientists, and to the matter, artists, observe nature, what it is, how it is, why it is how it is, and why it is what it is: From epistemology, passing by morals and aesthetics, including logic and mind, all the way to metaphysics.

[dleviwing]

And, anyway, I want to remind you that philosophy also has empirical evidence and it's not scientifical.

Guillermo;
You may be presuming that because I did not chose a career in philosophy that it was not one of my studies. This is a poor assumption on your part. Remember my statements, you may need them in the future.

I understand the point and the argument you are posing. Unfortunately it is without factual support; only subjective support. These are the same arguments of theologians. Have a nice day.

[Guille]

Lol, it's so entertaining to see you reduce philsophy to nothing....But with me here, you won't, I'll reply and reply to infinity (allthough it doesn't exist).

Of course what I am saying is subjective, I'm a human being! And, as human beings are subjetive, all of what humans do is subjective, and science is done by human, as well as philsophy, so both are subjective.