Forum Introduction

[Robert]

Welcome to the Characteristics forum. The purpose of this forum is to allow discussions regarding the qualities that a Theory of Everything should possess to be considered legitimate. At the very least, the Theory of Everything should unify the four forces of nature: gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and the electromagnetic force. But how do we know when we have a quality theory? What are the characteristics of an acceptable TOE theory? How can we compare one theory with another, especially when they may be untestable, and determine the better theory.

Should a Theory of Everything be predictive only, i.e. able to predict the outcomes of experiments, without explaining anything? Or should the theory help us to understand the underlying reality that causes our observations. How do we know when we have finally arrived at a comprehensive and definitive Theory of Everything.

Should a Theory of Everything have limits on its applicability, i.e. apply to one area of reality but not another. For example, if there is a spiritual, mind, or biological component, should the theory apply to those realms. How universal should the theory be?

Should the Theory of Everything use a reductionist approach where the nature of complex things are reduced to, or explained by, simpler or more fundamental components. Are there other approaches that could be taken?

Please remember that this forum should be devoted to discussing the characteristics or qualities of a Theory of Everything. It can be anticipated that many of the issues that arise from these discussions may stray from the main goal of the forum. If this occurs, please realize that there are probably be other forums better suited for the resulting in-depth discussions and please move the discussion to those forums as appropriate.

[AntonioLao]

an important characteristic of a theory must have a reasonable description for a quantum of mass. Planck mass, Planck time, and Planck length seem to indicate that the quantum of mass is the Planck mass. This cannot give a satisfactory answer why neutrinos and photons are practically massless. The theory must be able to explain these disparaties of masses between fermions and bosons. Why the spacetime structures of matter and energy are fundamentally different.

Another characteristic of the theory is to give a description for the concept of charge: electric, weak, and color charge. Can these charges be a composite of a deeper fundamental charge concept of space charge or quantum of spacetime.

[Guille]

The prncipal caracteristics of TOE is to unify the four forces known, and in an extend, the higgs field.


The mass, charge, gravity, and all other will be explained into a much depth than now.

[DWB]

Should a Theory of Everything be predictive only? Because there could be an infinite number of TOE's (however you want to define the term), prediction may be the only redeemable quality. Who cares how it works, if we can get results that is what counts. If you have 10 TOES that predict - The underlying makeup isn't important because you don't know which one is the correct one if any.

[Guille]

DWB,

I think that some things of how the TOE works and is are important. It must be logical. It must explain nature in a way that everybody (almost) agree with. It must be a predictive theory, but I can asure you you wont get more than one TOE at the end. Th other theories will be or forgotten, or used but not called TOEs, or simply existing but not being any of the other two. The efinal TOE will be one and only one, the one that will be accepted more, and here what makes the difference is what it is compsoed of: how it works.

[zeroca]

I think that TOE must explain the origin of universe (is it permanent or passing), and general rules for every kind of matter, i.e. basical, essential rules for systematization of universe. It isn’t necessary for it to be predictable, but it must give us some method, or mechanism to make the whole universe harmonic practically.

[Guille]

I think that the resumed list of what a TOE must explain-make predictions of-what they are made of......

Is this one: note; not in order of importance

1.Energy-mass-matter

2.Space and time

3.Forces

4.Dimensions

5.The macro and micro "unfication"

[david44]

[QUOTE]

Welcome to the Characteristics forum. The purpose of this forum is to allow discussions regarding the qualities that a Theory of Everything should possess to be considered legitimate.

At the very least, the Theory of Everything should unify the four forces of nature: gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and the electromagnetic force.

But what if a new TOE eliminates 3 of those forces? How would the new TOE apply in that circumstance? Would it not be accepted at all?

I think as long as the new theory can apply the same observation that created those accepted forces in the first place and then explain the same observation with a different understanding then this should be acceptable.

But how do we know when we have a quality theory? What are the characteristics of an acceptable TOE theory? How can we compare one theory with another, especially when they may be untestable, and determine the better theory.

Perhaps we can start our own criteria data base, that everyone can add to and that way everyone can see what is expected of a TOE. This will also give us a measurable level of data that can be easily quantified and eliminated if it does not meet specific needs to bring it to and connect it to reality.

As a perfect example of this I would like to define some basic parameters that we all know to be real and part of life. And so if anyone wants to bring in a TOE they will be able to adjust their theory along these lines of specifics created in the data base, making their own TOE much more precise.

As a premise we all know that our sun is a star and that all stars contain the same things within them.

We also know that our sun emits two major things, Sunlight and A Solar Wind. Let us now separate these two things and clarify.

We know that sunlight is electromagnetic energy. We know this because of many things as well as because we use solar panels to collect this electromagnetic energy directly into DC batteries. We then use this electromagnetic energy as electricity in our daily life. We also know that electricity is Lightning.

These basics on electromagnetic energy are a part of what we call life and therefore must be considered into any TOE. If anyone wants to come up with a TOE they know they have to consider Electromagnetic Energy in the way that it operates in life.

Solar Wind. We know that the Solar Wind is made up of gases, dust, smoke and other particles, as well as radiation such as Ultraviolet rays, gamma rays and so on.

We also know that if it happens in our solar system then it will be the same in other solar systems because the universe is made up of the same stuff.

There are many things we know about and I'm sure if everyone puts in their ideas we will be able to come up with a pretty good data base.

Should a Theory of Everything be predictive only, i.e. able to predict the outcomes of experiments, without explaining anything? Or should the theory help us to understand the underlying reality that causes our observations. How do we know when we have finally arrived at a comprehensive and definitive Theory of Everything.

You earlier suggested that the TOE is to unify the four forces of the sub-atomic world. The four accepted forces of the sub-atomic world were created in the first place because of observation in life. It is therefore not unreasonable to expect any TOE to do the same.

Should a Theory of Everything have limits on its applicability, i.e. apply to one area of reality but not another. For example, if there is a spiritual, mind, or biological component, should the theory apply to those realms. How universal should the theory be?

If a TOE cannot connect to any of these areas you have just mentioned, then it cannot be called a TOE. If what we know about life is not a part of any TOE, how can the TOE be what it claims to be? By bringing reality to the TOE, it will bring us closer to our goal.


cheers David

http://theuniversalcodeofliving.com

[mkirkpatrick]

For me there would be a problem with a theory of everything,because that very
name to me is bogus!The word Every-thing implies many things-more than one.
well for me that would be absurd and non-sensical,there Is only One Thing,all
else is an illusion,albeit a very real looking one,but still totally false.in the realitive sense there does indeed seem to be many,but as we are all energy and
made up from mindful intention.just trace all the energy back to its source and
when you do that the Apparent many-fold into One.We seem to be hell bent on
finding some sort of Hyper-complex theory the more Hyper the better rather than keeping it simple,you cannot get much simpler than all is mind and mind is all=21 letters that explain Alpha and Omega,and will also throw light on the Prior
Alpha if you think it through? Thisanswer by the way hs been known forat least
12 thousand years and maybe more,man seems to ignore that which is in PLAIN-SIGHT and look anywhere rather than under there noses.what else isnew!

kind regards michael.

[david44]

For me there would be a problem with a theory of everything,because that very
name to me is bogus!The word Every-thing implies many things-more than one.
well for me that would be absurd and non-sensical,there Is only One Thing,all
else is an illusion,albeit a very real looking one,but still totally false.in the realitive sense there does indeed seem to be many,but as we are all energy and
made up from mindful intention.just trace all the energy back to its source and
when you do that the Apparent many-fold into One.We seem to be hell bent on
finding some sort of Hyper-complex theory the more Hyper the better rather than keeping it simple,you cannot get much simpler than all is mind and mind is all=21 letters that explain Alpha and Omega,and will also throw light on the Prior
Alpha if you think it through? Thisanswer by the way hs been known forat least
12 thousand years and maybe more,man seems to ignore that which is in PLAIN-SIGHT and look anywhere rather than under there noses.what else isnew!

kind regards michael.

What are we doing here if not to make some sense out of life in a way that everyone can understand. And because not everyone had the same upbringing, very few people would understand similar things across the board.

Your argument that all is mind and mind is all, I completely understand and agree with. This is what The Second Theory of Everything is all about, however,the problem is getting others to see with their own language so they can understand too.

And although the english laguage is limited in it's communication ability, I think we also have to admit that we must work with what we've got. And so segmenting and separating as many things as we can will help a lot more people get to understand.

cheers David