[Guille]

I have created this thread to discuss something that probably all of those who are interested in either philosophy, any science or math, has considered in his mind.

What knowledges are more "valuable"?

This is the very basic question. I want to centre the theme of it's solutions on:

Mathematical knowledge, scientific knowledge, or philosophical knowledge?

If anybody wants to add a different knowledge to the discussion, you are free to do so. Note that when I say scientific knolwedge, I really mean both human and natural sciences. To make easier the discussion, separate both terms when you post: because these two knowledges are quite different.

The aim in my opinion of discussing the value of different knowledges, is that we are aloud to conclude what aproximate amounts of different knwoledges should the Theory Of Everything include, between all of those that it should include.

[AntonioLao]

knowledge of philosophy is what drive someone to investigate the working of the universe.

During the time of Newton, physics was then called natural philosophy.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao knowledge of philosophy is what drive someone to investigate the working of the universe. During the time of Newton, physics was then called natural philosophy.

I agree that philosophy is the knowledge that pushes one to look for a TOE.

But, is philosophy what HELPS most in arriving to the TOE? I'm not quite sure on that one, what about you?

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE But, is philosophy what HELPS most in arriving to the TOE? I'm not quite sure on that one, what about you?

This seems like a flashback question. Until there is a TOE, I cannot answer the question. What helps most Christopher Columbus arriving in the Americas? Is it his belief that the world is round? Or his fellow shipmates that help him to navigate the ship in the direction that really matter?

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao This seems like a flashback question. Until there is a TOE, I cannot answer the question. What helps most Christopher Columbus arriving in the Americas? Is it his belief that the world is round? Or his fellow shipmates that help him to navigate the ship in the direction that really matter?

I studied it 2 years ago in history, I think it was his belief that the earth was sperical (not round,a s people say to simplify, round is just a 2d notation). This belief was given to him by a portuguesse bishop, who tought him naval engennering of those times.

Actually, his shipmates were agianst him, they even revolted 2 or 3 times agianst him, because the voyage was taking much more than what he promised. By the way, he died stil believing, after being in america 4 times, that america was still india, and that there was not such thing as anew continent. Thsi shows the extremes of human stupidity.

But, Antonio, I don't understand your answer, you say that you need to wait until there is a TOE, to determine what knowledge is more valuable for it. But, you ae a scientist, much more of a scinetist than me, I'm more of a philosopher. And, as a scineitist that you are, you must agree that things can be predicted and understood. If not, what is the usefull nes of scinece, if it doesn't give predictions or knowledge? None, because science itsel fis knwoeldge and prediction.

[AntonioLao]

Reply coming tomorrow. The reply might be a long one. So, brace yourself.

The answer might be the same as a murder investigation: motive, opportunity, and the means.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao Reply coming tomorrow. The reply might be a long one. So, brace yourself. The answer might be the same as a murder investigation: motive, opportunity, and the means.

I'm waiting espectator.

I have been thinking, and I think that philosophy should be the main part of the TOE because it is part of all three. Let me explain. Philosophy is 75% philosophy, 15% logic and 10% sciences. Physics, is 50% math, and 50% philosophy, that is all of what physics is. And, finally, mathematics is logic 95% (this is probably disagreed) and 5% philosophy.

This means that most arrangements of ammounts of science-philosphy-math that the TOE is made up, in most cases, philosphy wil actually occupy msot percentage. If there are equal amount for each of the three, imagen, then, philsophy would be the one that actually occupies mroe amount, because it is perceptage of the other two bigger than the other two is of it.

The two basics for TOE is: Long-term and short-term thinking. This is how I describe philosophy (long-term) and logic (short-term). The mixture of botrh thoughts, would create the very total xplenation of what is think about, because thought as a whole would be participating.

[Guille]

Antonio, in the paper you sended to me you wrote mainly about magnetic helicities, and also at the end about electric helicities.

To understand the whole paper, I need to understand what helicity means here?

If not, I'm lost.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE To understand the whole paper, I need to understand what helicity means here?

We know that lines of forces exist for a magnetic field as well as electric field. If we place a piece of paper over a permanent magnetic and sprinkled some tiny iron fillings allover and shake the paper we can see that the fillings begin to align along these lines of forces. For helicity, these lines cross each other and become twisted and entangled into different convoluted knott structures.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao We know that lines of forces exist for a magnetic field as well as electric field. If we place a piece of paper over a permanent magnetic and sprinkled some tiny iron fillings allover and shake the paper we can see that the fillings begin to align along these lines of forces. For helicity, these lines cross each other and become twisted and entangled into different convoluted knott structures.

ok. but what "IS" HELICITY?

And, finally, waht does the whole paper have to do with the values of different knowledges for the toe?