[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE And in the 'other' universe there is negative time, space, speed, gravity... right?

Squaring removes all positiveness and negativeness.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>> I agree with you, I believe that spiritual thoughts (if it helps to achieve theories,) they are good. I just think that the spiritual thoughts won't help or that won't be developed to help achieve theories. But I don't put my atheism on top of my scientific positivism. On the other hand, the belief that Einstein rejected QM just because his innate belief in god told him that god does not play with dice is absurd, he was a scientist and as such he didn't interfere with religion, and it is a proof of ignorance to belief that. Einstein did agree with Planck's work, he didn't agree with Bohr's, Shroedinger, Heisenberg... Because the maths of these, he observed, was too far away from gr's math, and gr was the only theory of the time which gave the sensation of being true.

Einstein believed that QM would give way to a "classical" theory. Thus he did not believe QM was complete, and one of his explanations was that "God does not play dice."

[Guille]

Originally Posted by subversion Einstein believed that QM would give way to a "classical" theory. Thus he did not believe QM was complete, and one of his explanations was that "God does not play dice."

Einstein wrote that "god does not play with dice" in a letter to his friend Bohr, and this one replied "do not tell god what to do".

In parallel form, you tell me that Einstein rejected QM because he believed god does not play with dice, and I reply to you "do not tell Einstein what to do" cause you aren't trying to convince me, what you are trying is to change Einstein himself.

[subversion]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>> In parallel form, you tell me that Einstein rejected QM because he believed god does not play with dice, and I reply to you "do not tell Einstein what to do" cause you aren't trying to convince me, what you are trying is to change Einstein himself.

So you're telling me that when Einstein said "God does not play dice" that he was supporting QM? Generally speaking, the statement that God does not play dice is a critical statement of QM. I mean, he didn't say that GOd does play dice did he?

[Guille]

Originally Posted by subversion So you're telling me that when Einstein said "God does not play dice" that he was supporting QM? Generally speaking, the statement that God does not play dice is a critical statement of QM. I mean, he didn't say that GOd does play dice did he?

No, he didn't, and I never said that he supported QM, please don't put words into my mouth, and don't create discussion for the sake of it. Einstein was against QM because he believed in a non-probabilistic universe, and his way of believing in God wasn't really the jewish God, but the God that is sort of 'the order of things' because he believed the universe was so harmonical it must be a sort of being itself, and he called it god (it is cosmos).

Benedict,

Art is the fastest runner, and that is good for it because it is ahead of all other parts of the human culture, but it is also bad because it is so fast because it is not connectd to the world, it doesn't get retarded due to it-s connection to nature. It is i independent of nature, and thus it cannot explain us nature. I do believe it has a role in the TOE, but it is the creative, the epxressive, the imagination of it, not the knowledge, understanding or wisdom (these three come from science (knowledge) and philosophy (wisdom), which are connected by natural philosophy (understanding). Science is very muchslower because it requiers experimental proof, whiles philosophy is just a few steps (or only one step) behind art).

[Benedict Broere]

Guille,
This TOE needs to be organised out of what is there: science, human history, cultures, worldviews, etc. To be able to organise anything, you need a kind of hunch of what a good approach could be. I choose 'variation' and 'thinking the complex out of the simple'. Maybe I'm wrong, but then I expect reality will tell me 'No' somewhere in my search and asking for 'Yes'.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Benedict Broere Guille, This TOE needs to be organised out of what is there: science, human history, cultures, worldviews, etc. To be able to organise anything, you need a kind of hunch of what a good approach could be. I choose 'variation' and 'thinking the complex out of the simple'. Maybe I'm wrong, but then I expect reality will tell me 'No' somewhere in my search and asking for 'Yes'.

I agree, the TOE needs all views. But what is the the TOE? If what you want is to explain all in the universe with one principle, you'll find many, but that's not the meaning of 'theory'. It must be able to describe, predict, understand... The world, the universe, the cosmos.Your two principles are true, but there are much more truths also. I think we can only expect to describe the physical fundamentals of the universe, and we should call that TOE or 'Base/Basic Theory'. All the other knowledge isn't that reductable. I think we should make analogies between the different areas of culture, and not trying to homogenize them, to make them the same, and unite them in a false abstraction.

[Benedict Broere]

I think cultures and worldviews are part of what is there to be explained by the TOE, because they are products of the brain and the brain is part of the physical world. Also thinking TOE within cultures and worldviews doesn't mean homogenising them. I think our cognitive system works as a kind of 'theme' on which human behaviour is a variation. Beyond that I consider the physical world as something mental. Or that is to say, for me matter and spirit are actual the same 'stuff' or phenomenon. So this TOE seems to concern the domain: consciousness, ideas, laws, constants, snares, quarks, atoms, molecules, organs, organisms, consciousness, ideas, different worldviews, science, art and technology, culture in general. I think this TOE also needs to explain itself, why we think it is possible, and what roads we think will lead to it, as being a most plausible candidate.

A lot of response in this forum seems to bear the notion that the TOE is reachable while focussing on the organisation of the physical world and the integration of its laws and forces. And well, I very much agree with this notion. That is to say, I think this activity is a very important aspect of working towards the TOE.

My problem with this point of view however, is that laws and constants, forces and also matter in its most elementary form, seem to suggest mind and creativity. Taking up this notion a bit further it seems that we are part of a concentrated and developing thought. It is as if this world is thought into being while using order as a composer would do while thinking a symfony.

Of course we could debunk this way of thinking by using the word 'projection': we project the creative process we know out of our own experience, on the way this world might come to be - lots of religion comes out of this, all kinds of religion - it is it's fundamental notion.

But by doing so we have reached our own brain and consciousness and the various ways it interprets reality. With the same brain people think differently of this world, it's essential being. Our mind bears lots of worlds, but what is the right one?

And: What than is decisive? The scientific method? Of course, it will be a major pillar in the enterprise TOE! But will it be enough? Or, actually, do we have enough science yet? For even considaring the TOE?

Because if we return to this 'brain and consciousness', we find quikly that there is a whole domain to be investigated: neurology, psychology, sociology, the history of mankind, lots of cultures, lots of worldviews, including the more physical approach, including the approach that tends to think 'mind' and 'creativity'.

Wittgenstein in his time said something like this on this subject: if we have solved all our scientific problems, we haven't hardly touched the real questions we have.

To me the TOE needs to focus not only on the physical, but it needs to explain us, how we live, what we do and do not, and how we interpret reality! If we know more about this, than we might have enough material to work towards the real TOE. Than we might march towards the real thing!

[Benedict Broere]

Come on you minds, you brilliants!
Give me feedback.
Do you think I'm crazy?
Tell me.

[Guille]

We are not only minds, we are also bodies. And not all brilliant. I don't think you'r crazy, in fact you just have to look arround this forum to see that even if you were crazy, you would just be one more in the list. About your post, I wanted to comment on your final statement. In the thread "The Problem with Problems" AntonioLao gave good links to some essays by the scientist-philosopher Steven Weinberg. This one critizes Thomas Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". one of Kuhn's points about science is that there is scientific progress, but not a scientific progress towards something in particular. You can read what I said about this in my last reply in the thread. Basically, I explain that there is no reason to belief that science is moving towards a TOE, nor towards an occupation of all our aspects in knowledge, understanding and wisdom. So the goal of the scientific will is not yet defined. In that sense, it is very similar to art.