Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

The Theory of Everything

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
growthhormone
Posts: 40
Joined: December 19th, 2017, 1:25 am

The Theory of Everything

Post by growthhormone » February 9th, 2018, 3:05 am

ToE, "the Theory of Everything" or "the Ultimate Theory" is one of the most fundamental issues in philosophy and theoretical physics. https://tinyurl.com/y8mxo4hc https://tinyurl.com/d9zb8t9

All the following questions, that I previously posted in this philosophy of science section, actually can be addressed with one single mathematical description. This hypothesis is an attempt to address the issue of "the Theory of Everything". It can be used to describe the following issues or link the seemingly unrelated issues.

What is the nature of human civilisation?

How can medical sciences be used to predict human future?

What is the nature of beauty? Is symmetry a scientific explanation?

Is marriage ultimately governed by the laws of physics?

What is the link between beauty and the law of conservation of energy?

How can we unite Newton's three laws?

If someone sees through the melting of an ice cube and tells you the future of human being, is this science or fortune

Why scientific revolution happened in the West but not in other civilisation?

An ultimate philosophical question: is the theory of everything possible?

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3145
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by LuckyR » February 9th, 2018, 2:42 pm

growthhormone wrote:
February 9th, 2018, 3:05 am
ToE, "the Theory of Everything" or "the Ultimate Theory" is one of the most fundamental issues in philosophy and theoretical physics. https://tinyurl.com/y8mxo4hc https://tinyurl.com/d9zb8t9

All the following questions, that I previously posted in this philosophy of science section, actually can be addressed with one single mathematical description. This hypothesis is an attempt to address the issue of "the Theory of Everything". It can be used to describe the following issues or link the seemingly unrelated issues.

What is the nature of human civilisation?

How can medical sciences be used to predict human future?

What is the nature of beauty? Is symmetry a scientific explanation?

Is marriage ultimately governed by the laws of physics?

What is the link between beauty and the law of conservation of energy?

How can we unite Newton's three laws?

If someone sees through the melting of an ice cube and tells you the future of human being, is this science or fortune

Why scientific revolution happened in the West but not in other civilisation?

An ultimate philosophical question: is the theory of everything possible?
Oh, I'm sorry... I thought this was the popular literature section and I was going to defend Douglas Noel Adams...

Carry on...
"As usual... it depends."

growthhormone
Posts: 40
Joined: December 19th, 2017, 1:25 am

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by growthhormone » February 13th, 2018, 1:36 am

Actually all the issues that I previously posted such as beauty, the rise of Western civilisation, scientific revolution, melting of an ice cube, all three laws of Newtonian mechanics, marriage, social development and many more are governed by a COMMON MECHANISM. Although some issues are not linked directly, they are indirectly linked by this common mechanism which can be expressed with mathematical expression.

growthhormone
Posts: 40
Joined: December 19th, 2017, 1:25 am

Re: The Theory of Everything. Finally, the judgement day and the moment of truth

Post by growthhormone » March 2nd, 2018, 1:56 am

After posting all the topics in here for more than a month, it is the moment of truth. It is the judgement day and everyone can judge the answers.

All the questions/topics come from a book, BEHIND CIVILISATION. https://tinyurl.com/y9w6yvxo
In the centre of this book, a mathematical model, is proposed. This model, INTERRELATIONSHIPS MODEL, is the representation of a set of fundamental laws of physics. This model(a set of fundamental laws of physics) is used to describe/explain all those issues.

Here is the introduction:

Today, while we are taking the modern lifestyle provided by civilisation for granted, how many of us ever wonder what civilisation is? Do we really understand its nature?

To understand the nature of civilisation, we need to look into its whole process: civilisation is a product of human behaviour; human behaviour is driven by decision-making; decision-making is influenced by the human nature and the knowledge. As such, human nature and knowledge drive our behaviours to create civilisation. Thus, human nature and knowledge are the driving forces of civilisation.

As force is a vector, it has direction. Then, a question is raised: what is the direction of civilisation? Furthermore, any moving object has its own speed, so this concept is translated into the term of “the pace of civilisation”. As the speed of a moving object is influenced by the driving force and the resistance, then the pace of civilisation is influenced by “the driving force of civilisation” and “the resistance of civilisation”.

This new approach to study civilisation by using Newtonian Mechanics is termed “Social Mechanics” which is a part of the “Physical Sociology”. Apart from this, another approach is taken: human anatomy, physiology and embryology as well as evolutionary biology are used to study social structure, activity and development. As humans have the most successful and advanced body control mechanism through its 4.2 billion years of evolution, it provides a perfect model to understand how civilisation (only several thousand years of history) evolves. Their similarities provide an effective way to study civilisation.

Upon further observation, you might notice that society not only bears amazing similarities to the human body but cosmic phenomena as well: the rise and fall of the Sun, the expansion and collapse of an empire; the collision of galaxies and conflict of civilisations. Behind these phenomena, lie a common mechanism that fundamentally governs everything in the universe.

This common mechanism can be expressed by a mathematical model representing the fundamental laws of physics. Through presenting evidences, it is demonstrated that not only lifeless events follow these laws but the intelligence-driven civilisation as well. As such, all developments in a society including technologies and their consequential social development follow these laws. By using these laws and the aforementioned approaches, many unsolved questions have been successfully answered: the uncertain social development has been predicted; the mystery that the Greeks achieved a brilliant civilisation was deciphered; the puzzle that scientific revolution happened in the West first has been solved; the mechanism behind the rise of the Western civilisation has been unearthed; the enigma of elusive beauty has been unequivocally unlocked and many more…

Finally, comes the conclusion: human civilisation is a part of the evolution of the universe. The laws governing the universe also govern human civilisation.

Steve3007
Posts: 5634
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Steve3007 » March 2nd, 2018, 3:36 am

growthhormone wrote:...Thus, human nature and knowledge are the driving forces of civilisation.

As force is a vector, it has direction. Then, a question is raised: what is the direction of civilisation? Furthermore, any moving object has its own speed, so this concept is translated into the term of “the pace of civilisation”. As the speed of a moving object is influenced by the driving force and the resistance, then the pace of civilisation is influenced by “the driving force of civilisation” and “the resistance of civilisation”....
Over-extending metaphors always leaves us in danger of absurdity. The word "force" when used in a phrase like "the driving force of civilisation" is a metaphor. It isn't the same thing as a "force" in the sense that the word is used in physics. So if you start to also use other physics concepts, as you have with "speed" and "resistance", the metaphor doesn't necessarily hold up.

In fact, it isn't the speed which is directly influenced by driving force and resistance force (and any other forces). It is acceleration. When all the force vectors are added together, the resultant vector is directly proportional to acceleration. How does that fit the metaphor?
As such, all developments in a society including technologies and their consequential social development follow these laws. By using these laws and the aforementioned approaches, many unsolved questions have been successfully answered: the uncertain social development has been predicted; the mystery that the Greeks achieved a brilliant civilisation was deciphered; the puzzle that scientific revolution happened in the West first has been solved; the mechanism behind the rise of the Western civilisation has been unearthed; the enigma of elusive beauty has been unequivocally unlocked and many more…

I'd be interested to hear more about how this analogy with the laws of Newtonian Mechanics supposedly describes the above historical developments.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7442
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Greta » March 2nd, 2018, 4:03 am

Steve, I've had some similar thoughts to the OP in some ways so I can offer you *Greta's little TOE* :)

It's simple: all entities have some kind of core or area of maximal concentration. These cores exert influence on their surrounds. So a particle is a wavicle because the particles cannot be separated from their effects - their metaphorical "gravitational" pull on their surrounds. The surrounding zone could be thought of as the "wave".

Concentrated zones inevitably must form in any relatively homogeneous field or zone, simply by probability. These central concentrations or cores are more dense and complex than their surrounds and so they exert control over, and absorb more energy than, their surrounds.

Some examples:

* Society and the "gravity of wealth" , ie. "the rich get richer", economies of scale.
* Biology - with the digestive system being an energetic core while brains are informational cores (that take a disproportionate percentage of the body's energy in the small scale competition for resources within body systems).
* Planets and stars, comets, large asteroids and black holes.
* Atoms and molecules.

There is another aspect to my somewhat misshapen little TOE that pertains to the boundaries between entities and their environment. So especially complex and/or turbulent conditions apply on "surfaces", at the boundary between entities (including their "waves") and their surrounds, eg. the Sun's corona, the Earth's biosphere (which is effectively the planet's surface layer) and atmosphere, event horizons of black holes, beaches, the protective magnetic bubbles on the outskirts of the solar system, the outer surface of rocks, etc.

I don't how to apply this idea of surfaces or boundaries to life or humans in a meaningful way so if anyone has ideas then I'm all ears :) Maybe consciousness itself and/or life itself?

Steve3007
Posts: 5634
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Steve3007 » March 2nd, 2018, 7:18 am

Greta wrote:Steve, I've had some similar thoughts to the OP in some ways so I can offer you *Greta's little TOE* :)
Nice brand name!
It's simple: all entities have some kind of core or area of maximal concentration. These cores exert influence on their surrounds. So a particle is a wavicle because the particles cannot be separated from their effects - their metaphorical "gravitational" pull on their surrounds. The surrounding zone could be thought of as the "wave".
That certainly is a very common type of structure, but is it ubiquitous? There do seem to be examples of genuinely distributed systems, like neural networks or ant colonies.
Concentrated zones inevitably must form in any relatively homogeneous field or zone, simply by probability. These central concentrations or cores are more dense and complex than their surrounds and so they exert control over, and absorb more energy than, their surrounds.
Yes that's certainly true if there's some kind of universal, mutual always-attractive force at work, like gravity. Those systems are unstable in the sense that any deviation from complete homogeneity, no matter how slight, will tend to snowball, leading to the formation of star systems - concentrations of matter with relatively empty space in between. If the force is attractive at large distances but repulsive at short distances, then the system will be stable. The forces will act against the deviations from homogeneity, as happens in the formation of star/planetary systems once electrostatic repulsion has overcome gravity.
Some examples:

* Society and the "gravity of wealth" , ie. "the rich get richer", economies of scale.
* Biology - with the digestive system being an energetic core while brains are informational cores (that take a disproportionate percentage of the body's energy in the small scale competition for resources within body systems).
* Planets and stars, comets, large asteroids and black holes.
* Atoms and molecules.
Gravity of wealth - Yes, the instability there does seem to be somewhat analogous to the instability of a field of mutually gravitating particles, in the sense that having wealth often confers the ability to attract even more wealth, es exemplified by the old joke about the definition of a bank as: "a place that will lend you money as long as you can prove you don't need it."

I agree that the others, too, are examples of concentration. Though not necessarily examples of the kind of instability in which an increased concentration causes forces that increase the concentration further, like the wealth and gravity examples.
There is another aspect to my somewhat misshapen little TOE that pertains to the boundaries between entities and their environment. So especially complex and/or turbulent conditions apply on "surfaces", at the boundary between entities (including their "waves") and their surrounds, eg. the Sun's corona, the Earth's biosphere (which is effectively the planet's surface layer) and atmosphere, event horizons of black holes, beaches, the protective magnetic bubbles on the outskirts of the solar system, the outer surface of rocks, etc.

I don't how to apply this idea of surfaces or boundaries to life or humans in a meaningful way so if anyone has ideas then I'm all ears :) Maybe consciousness itself and/or life itself?
I suppose boundaries tend to be areas of activity and turbulence because they are places where different substances/environments meet and react.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7442
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Greta » March 2nd, 2018, 5:30 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
March 2nd, 2018, 7:18 am
Greta wrote:Steve, I've had some similar thoughts to the OP in some ways so I can offer you *Greta's little TOE* :)
Nice brand name!
It's simple: all entities have some kind of core or area of maximal concentration. These cores exert influence on their surrounds. So a particle is a wavicle because the particles cannot be separated from their effects - their metaphorical "gravitational" pull on their surrounds. The surrounding zone could be thought of as the "wave".
That certainly is a very common type of structure, but is it ubiquitous? There do seem to be examples of genuinely distributed systems, like neural networks or ant colonies.
Concentrated zones inevitably must form in any relatively homogeneous field or zone, simply by probability. These central concentrations or cores are more dense and complex than their surrounds and so they exert control over, and absorb more energy than, their surrounds.
Yes that's certainly true if there's some kind of universal, mutual always-attractive force at work, like gravity. Those systems are unstable in the sense that any deviation from complete homogeneity, no matter how slight, will tend to snowball, leading to the formation of star systems - concentrations of matter with relatively empty space in between. If the force is attractive at large distances but repulsive at short distances, then the system will be stable. The forces will act against the deviations from homogeneity, as happens in the formation of star/planetary systems once electrostatic repulsion has overcome gravity.
Some examples:

* Society and the "gravity of wealth" , ie. "the rich get richer", economies of scale.
* Biology - with the digestive system being an energetic core while brains are informational cores (that take a disproportionate percentage of the body's energy in the small scale competition for resources within body systems).
* Planets and stars, comets, large asteroids and black holes.
* Atoms and molecules.
Gravity of wealth - Yes, the instability there does seem to be somewhat analogous to the instability of a field of mutually gravitating particles, in the sense that having wealth often confers the ability to attract even more wealth, es exemplified by the old joke about the definition of a bank as: "a place that will lend you money as long as you can prove you don't need it."

I agree that the others, too, are examples of concentration. Though not necessarily examples of the kind of instability in which an increased concentration causes forces that increase the concentration further, like the wealth and gravity examples.
Yes, one must avoid grandiosity in one's titles lest one fails to live up to it :) Thanks for your critiques - very helpful.
Re: the existence of distributed networks. Ants are easy enough to explain - the core of a nest is the queen's chamber. The human brain is a core in itself, but within its own structure I'm not sure. Do cores have cores, which have cores ...? I suppose everything "acts" as a core or a relatively homogeneous chaotic field that is in the process of particulating into smaller cores (like the cosmos), depending on scale.

Re: "not necessarily examples of the kind of instability in which an increased concentration causes forces that increase the concentration further, like the wealth and gravity examples". Would you be able to explain this a little more please? It seems that natural limits apply everywhere but I might be misinterpreting.

Steve3007 wrote:
Greta wrote:There is another aspect to my somewhat misshapen little TOE that pertains to the boundaries between entities and their environment. So especially complex and/or turbulent conditions apply on "surfaces", at the boundary between entities (including their "waves") and their surrounds, eg. the Sun's corona, the Earth's biosphere (which is effectively the planet's surface layer) and atmosphere, event horizons of black holes, beaches, the protective magnetic bubbles on the outskirts of the solar system, the outer surface of rocks, etc.

I don't how to apply this idea of surfaces or boundaries to life or humans in a meaningful way so if anyone has ideas then I'm all ears :) Maybe consciousness itself and/or life itself?
I suppose boundaries tend to be areas of activity and turbulence because they are places where different substances/environments meet and react.
Maybe then consciousness and the senses are boundary zones, our own personal event horizons that, like black holes, are opaque to the outside world?

Steve3007
Posts: 5634
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Steve3007 » March 3rd, 2018, 6:40 am

Greta wrote:Ants are easy enough to explain - the core of a nest is the queen's chamber.
Yes, I realized that I'd used a bad example there after I'd written it. As you say, ant colonies are headed by a female monarch, a bit like some human colonies.
Re: "not necessarily examples of the kind of instability in which an increased concentration causes forces that increase the concentration further, like the wealth and gravity examples". Would you be able to explain this a little more please? It seems that natural limits apply everywhere but I might be misinterpreting.
Yes, you're right really. I was talking about systems of gravitating particles before they've reached that natural limit, while they're still in the process of collapsing. Following on from your analogy between gravity and wealth, I was talking generally about systems which contain forces which act to increase small differences - unstable systems in which anything other than 100% homogeneity causes ever increasing heterogeneity. (If that's a proper word.)
Do cores have cores, which have cores ...?
Do little fleas have lesser fleas upon their backs to bite 'em...?

This dichotomy between a (possibly infinite, possibly not) hierarchy of these "cores" and the concept of a continuum with no centre seems to have been one of the greatest conceptual dividing lines in philosophical considerations of the nature of observed reality. I suppose the advent of QM and particle physics has tended to favour the former - the lumpy view.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7442
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Greta » March 3rd, 2018, 7:08 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
March 3rd, 2018, 6:40 am
Re: "not necessarily examples of the kind of instability in which an increased concentration causes forces that increase the concentration further, like the wealth and gravity examples". Would you be able to explain this a little more please? It seems that natural limits apply everywhere but I might be misinterpreting.
Yes, you're right really. I was talking about systems of gravitating particles before they've reached that natural limit, while they're still in the process of collapsing. Following on from your analogy between gravity and wealth, I was talking generally about systems which contain forces which act to increase small differences - unstable systems in which anything other than 100% homogeneity causes ever increasing heterogeneity. (If that's a proper word.)
"Heterogeneity" doesn't annoy my spellchecker so some good instincts on your part. Yes, when considering these states we need to consider where they are up to in the process of either particulating or disintegrating. You could say that, since 100% homogeneity appears to be impossible - and almost certainly not the initial near-singularity, or we wouldn't be here - then there is something rather than nothing.
Steve3007 wrote:
Do cores have cores, which have cores ...?
Do little fleas have lesser fleas upon their backs to bite 'em...?

This dichotomy between a (possibly infinite, possibly not) hierarchy of these "cores" and the concept of a continuum with no centre seems to have been one of the greatest conceptual dividing lines in philosophical considerations of the nature of observed reality. I suppose the advent of QM and particle physics has tended to favour the former - the lumpy view.
Yet what's in the middle of all those lumps? That was points to actually another aspect of GLT - obviously not everything can be a core or we return to the quasi-singularity above.

Any given field will particulate/fractally divide over time without any effort or cleverness, just an inevitable reflexive matter of self assembly - nature's inherent creativity.

User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Atreyu » March 5th, 2018, 7:11 pm

The 'theory of everything' is not only possible, but it already exists. It simply isn't ordinarily known, that's all.

Certain ancient systems elucidated two laws which were applicable on all scales -- from subatomic particles to the interaction of clusters of galaxies with each other.

One was called the 'Law of Three Principles/Forces' which, to put it very simply, stated that there must be three forces present for any phenomena to occur, regardless of scale (macro or micro).

The other was called the 'Law of Seven' or the 'Law of Octaves' which, to also put it very simply, stated that all processes in nature, regardless of scale, deviate from their original direction, and this Law specifies at what points in the process the line would deviate, and how. This law explains why there are no straight lines in nature, and it also applies on all scales, from the 'nano' to the 'macro'.

What everyone is searching for was discovered a long time ago....

Steve3007
Posts: 5634
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Steve3007 » March 6th, 2018, 7:02 am

Greta wrote:"Heterogeneity" doesn't annoy my spellchecker so some good instincts on your part. Yes, when considering these states we need to consider where they are up to in the process of either particulating or disintegrating. You could say that, since 100% homogeneity appears to be impossible - and almost certainly not the initial near-singularity, or we wouldn't be here - then there is something rather than nothing.
Yes, since 100% homogeneity would be mean nothing happening and no potential for anything to happen. But a vanishingly small deviation from complete homogeneity will grow.
Yet what's in the middle of all those lumps? That was points to actually another aspect of GLT - obviously not everything can be a core or we return to the quasi-singularity above.
Or maybe everything could be a core in the same sense that every part of the Mandelbrot set, if you zoom in enough, contains those lovely little black cores.

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7442
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Greta » March 6th, 2018, 4:29 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
March 6th, 2018, 7:02 am
Greta wrote:"Heterogeneity" doesn't annoy my spellchecker so some good instincts on your part. Yes, when considering these states we need to consider where they are up to in the process of either particulating or disintegrating. You could say that, since 100% homogeneity appears to be impossible - and almost certainly not the initial near-singularity, or we wouldn't be here - then there is something rather than nothing.
Yes, since 100% homogeneity would be mean nothing happening and no potential for anything to happen. But a vanishingly small deviation from complete homogeneity will grow.
That's what I'm thinking. A near-singularity seems much more likely than a perfect one, and also seems more as "nature" behaves.
Steve3007 wrote:
Yet what's in the middle of all those lumps? That was points to actually another aspect of GLT - obviously not everything can be a core or we return to the quasi-singularity above.
Or maybe everything could be a core in the same sense that every part of the Mandelbrot set, if you zoom in enough, contains those lovely little black cores.
It's hard to imagine a realistic alternative to fractal emergences. Maybe best then to think of them as either cores or cores-in-waiting?

growthhormone
Posts: 40
Joined: December 19th, 2017, 1:25 am

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by growthhormone » March 9th, 2018, 3:05 am

I am wondering if there is anyone really understand the important significance of the INTERRELATIONSHIPS MODEL proposed in the book, BEHIND CIVILISATION?

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: The Theory of Everything

Post by Namelesss » March 10th, 2018, 5:14 pm

growthhormone wrote:
February 9th, 2018, 3:05 am
... It can be used to describe the following issues or link the seemingly unrelated issues.
Yes, the ToE can link all observable phenomena, and that which is not observable.
No, it need not specifically answer all superficial questions, though it does point toward that resolution!
Like the 'Middle Way', or the 'chrono-synclastic infundibulum', or the Tao, it resolves all apparent contradictions and conflicts;

"Every kind of partial and transitory disequilibrium must perforce contribute towards the great equilibrium of the whole.." - Rene' Guenon

It need not go into detail for every superficiality!
Umbrella-like it does provide an overarching resolution!
That is why the attempts at some scientific ToE has always failed, and will always fail (so says my ToE)!

Post Reply