growthhormone wrote: ↑April 26th, 2019, 10:58 pm

Kevin Levites wrote: ↑April 25th, 2019, 12:04 pm

I believe that a theory of everything is possible, but I doubt that we (humans) currently have the intellectual tools to figure out a theory of everything.

Why?

Consider much simpler problems...like the four color conjecture.

Map makers have known--for centuries--that four colors are always adequate to draw a map, such that each political unit is a different color from the one adjacent to it.

It doesn't matter how convoluted, numerous, or fragmented the political units (ie: a state, for example) are....four colors (you don't want two or more states sharing a border to be the same color, as that causes confusion when you read the map) are always adequate.

So....mathematicians have worked with computers on the four color conjecture, including making any number of maps in any number of ways, yet it remains a conjecture because no one can come up with a mathematical proof that everyone accepts.

There was a proof proposed several years (decades?) ago that may have solved the issue, but the proof ran to several hundred pages, and included something like 2,100 maps and a statement that if an exception existed, it would be in these 2,100 maps....and since the exception wasn't there, then the four color conjecture could now be the four color theorem.....but this proof is rejected by many mathematicians for various reasons.

There are other similar problems in mathematics and physics like the three body problem, or Fermat's Last Theorem, and so forth.

My point is that if seemingly simple problems such as these stymie us despite our deep understanding of mathematics and physics, then how can we reasonably expect to formulate a theory of everything?

I'm not saying that the effort to do so isn't worthwhile, however. Many imporant advancements and discoveries have been made incidentally while going after something else.

Can this model provide an alternative:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oaNK5cmCcZ4

If this mathematic model is not the answer, why can it unite three laws of Newton’s motion, four laws of thermodynamics, Special Relativity, Heisenberg uncertainty principle? I am confuse... Is QM and Relativity not reconcilable? Is there any existing hypothesis that can unite these laws?

On a deeper level, the following fundamental interrelationships can be united by this model, including causality, phase transition, critical point, convergence, divergence, contraction, expansion, similarity, commonality, difference, common mechanism, symmetry, asymmetry, hierarchical structure, order, disorder, periodicity, limitation, without limitation, singularity, plurality, dynamic change, stability. Please excuse my ignorance, I am not aware of any existing hypothesis that can unite these interrelationships but this model. If anyone know, please shed some light.

From the video, this model demonstrates that the third law of Newton’s motion, Special Relativity and one of the principles of QM, Heisenberg uncertainty principle are united on the fundamental interrelationships, symmetry-asymmetry. They are the specific expressions of this fundamental interrelationship.

It is on the fundamental level that social science and natural science are united, and further, science and philosophy.