An Idea

[Hucknallite]

Knowledge falls into two categories.
The deductive where the conclusion is a necessary consequence of the premise, as a bachelor is an unmarried man or even better 2+2=4 and
the experiential - I can see a black thing in the sky.

Philosophically knowledge of an experience only counts whilst having the experience as memory is considered unreliable. There is a famous example of the philosopher giving evidence in a court case who couldn't be sure the traffic light was on red. His concept of certainty was different to the courts and he wouldn't confirm that the light was red, only that he thought the light probably was red though not for certain.

These two strands of knowledge are what give rise to our ideas and theories.

There are two strands of philosophy concerning scientific knowledge. The verificationists consider that any statement must be able to be verified. So any mention of a parallel world is unacceptable because we cannot verify it with our senses. Falsificationists on the other hand insist that any scientific statement should be falsifiable. i.e. that the claim can be tested and falsified in some way.

The link to facts and laws comes through theory. We can accumulate facts and the task is to explain facts using some law. That law is our theory. So if I notice that my coffee cup has disappeared from my desk I can use the scientific law "when my girlfriend moves the coffee cup it will no longer be there."

This explains the fact of my cups disappearance. Though this 'girlfriend law' is a law of nature, it is not one used much because it is subsumed under Newtons law that a body remains at rest until acted on by another body. So laws often encapsulate many other laws into a class.

Laws are only ever theoretical. A law will never be considered to be true. They always stated in such a way that some future evidence may prove the law to be false.

Opinion as to the truth of a law is often divided. Someone who thinks a law is revealing some truth about a feature of the universe would be known as a realist. Someone who thought a law was a good approximation... or who thought the law was just lucky in being able to explain things would be an anti-realist or even an instrumentalist.

Anti-realists can be anti-realist about theories or entities. So not believing in electrons is acceptable. The idea is that the electron does not actually exist, but the theory of electrons does explain the phenomena even though it is not true. Anti-realists are more common than you would think.

[Profpat]

You are right in stating that even "Laws" are really theories, such as Newtons law of gravitational attraction. And many theories are given the acceptance of law even though they are theories, i.e. the theory of evolution, relativity theory, the big bang theory, etc.

The best we can do through observation, data collection, experiences, experimentations, and logic is to form an OPINION regarding the subject. If that theory can be retested and the predicted results occur it gains more acceptance until more information and a better theory comes to be.

Best to all,

Pat

[dipayankar]

Isnt that exactly what we are doing Dave? In my mind, we should catch hold of 3 to 4 theories or ideas and then work towards either proving it or disproving it... now we are just trying to form newer threads without taking the existing ones to any logical conclusion..

”Justified true belief” does not determine real truth so what you believe may or may not be true. Science is a discipline or philosophy that attempts to determine the difference between true knowledge and false knowledge. We can say we know Shakespeare but we cannot say his plays are true or false without evidence to support our belief.

The “Your TOE Theory” forum does not require one to present a scientific theory so anything goes here. If one decides to insist that a theory is true then one must present the evidence for review and judgments; otherwise we end up with endless debates and accomplish nothing but confusion.

[Felix Schrodinger]

In my mind, we should catch hold of 3 to 4 theories or ideas and then work towards either proving it or disproving it... now we are just trying to form newer threads without taking the existing ones to any logical conclusion..

Hi Dippy

We already have 3 or 4 'viable' ideas to work on but if we then start to discourage new ones then we get back to the problem which is the current topic on 'What is limiting us'. Either way the only positive conclusion that can be drawn from the examination of a theory is its rejection.

Obviously we are not going to reach a point where we have a complete TOE based on logical conclusions but that will not prevent us from developing and improving our models of reality. 'Tis all grist to the mill.

regards
Felix

[Profpat]

I agree with you Felix, the more the merrier. I have to admit however, that my An Idea is the only one I understand ( go figure ).

The problem of course with my theory it relies on strings as being the basic building block of our reality.

The current LHC, at best, may be able to detect the Higgs Particle ( Field ); to detect a string the accelerator would have to be much, much, much larger (in fact, to see individual strings we would need an accelerator the size of the Milky Way), so until then I rely on logic, that the basic substance would be a 1 dimensional Planck Length Entity called a string.

But lets keep those theories coming. In fact I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter Dipayankar.

Best to all,

Pat

[dipayankar]

I agree with you Felix, I only feel, there are many unnecessary topics which are being dragged on by our members without making any attempt to come to a conclusion....

Hi Dippy

We already have 3 or 4 'viable' ideas to work on but if we then start to discourage new ones then we get back to the problem which is the current topic on 'What is limiting us'. Either way the only positive conclusion that can be drawn from the examination of a theory is its rejection.

Obviously we are not going to reach a point where we have a complete TOE based on logical conclusions but that will not prevent us from developing and improving our models of reality. 'Tis all grist to the mill.

regards
Felix

[Fredrick]

Id, Ego, Superego......Parent, Adult, Child. ( TRINITY ) The dynamics which run the universe.

There are many ways to show something with three options, Pat, but I believe none of them shows three of a kind.

Examples of two of a kind (but with each not being identical) are man and woman, Ego and non-ego, parent and child, etcetera. I have never seen a three of a kind.

The example I can more easily expose as not being three of a kind is Parent, Adult, Child. An Adult can both be a Parent and a Child, and a Child can be a Parent at the same time (middle person of three generations) so there is quite some overlapping of two different frameworks occurring here. Can you come up with three entities that all belong to the same single framework, Pat? I would prefer examples from our physical reality; the example of Id, Ego, and Superego is kind of too convoluted to discuss in clear terms.


frameworks
In science (and I hope we have that term clear now) a truth can be found within its particular framework. Yet what is true in one framework is not automatically true in another framework. The color blue can be considered a fact, because we can look up the specific color in the colorbook and see the name right next to it: blue. Yet blue in an emotional framework is quite different. A fact, a truth, does not stand on its own, but exists within a specific framework from which it derives its value. The frameworks are also not true all by themselves, because they are either abstracts, or man-made, or over-arching entities based on parts(, or...).

Theories are part of science: they are the playing grounds of science. Theories that turn out to be true and theories that turn out to be false are all send away from the playground. So, a ToE does not need to be based on all facts, it only needs to stay clear from all evidence that makes it not true. Many ToEs exist, but for it to be a scientific ToE, it needs to fit current scientific knowledge. The more facts support a theory, the stronger the theory gets (but once proven it ceases to be a theory). Evolution theory is truly pretty strong.

I know the scientific ToE exists already. And there may be a lot more than just one. I have one with mathematical evidence and all, which has not been disproven - only pushed aside or rejected on personal grounds.

[Fredrick]

There's just no sense of "inside out" here. The regular physics is that an electric field IS a magnetic field if you're moving through it. It's the same thing. It just depends on how you observe it.

and:

I made it perfectly clear that the "twist field" and "turn field" were my interpretations.

Thank you, Farsight, for your information. I followed the discussion between you and David with great interest, but I must admit that the debate is not that clear to me - the words and both your knowledge in specifics got in the way. I was actually also trying to put my own agenda in this discussion, and there was no spark/attraction. Thank you, though, for your replies.

[Profpat]

Hi Fredrick;

It's good to hear from you again. Some examples of trinity would be:

1) 3 quarks necessary to make a proton and neutron.
2) 3 primary colors of red, blue, green, when mixed forms all the other colors.
3) The dialectics of Hegel. Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis.
4) Beginning, Middle, End.
5) The fact the universe is composed of Positive, Negative and Neutral.
6) Time, Space and Motion. All three are necessary to create each other.
7) 3 Dimensionality. Length, Width and Height.

These are just some examples of universal trinity.

Best to you Fredrick,

Pat

[dipayankar]

Neutral is a combination of positive and negative...

Hi Fredrick;

It's good to hear from you again. Some examples of trinity would be:

1) 3 quarks necessary to make a proton and neutron.
2) 3 primary colors of red, blue, green, when mixed forms all the other colors.
3) The dialectics of Hegel. Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis.
4) Beginning, Middle, End.
5) The fact the universe is composed of Positive, Negative and Neutral.
6) Time, Space and Motion. All three are necessary to create each other.
7) 3 Dimensionality. Length, Width and Height.

These are just some examples of universal trinity.

Best to you Fredrick,

Pat