TOE Theory | General Discussion Topics | Forum

A A A
Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —






— Match —





— Forum Options —





Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

No permission to create posts
sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
TOE Theory
July 24, 2011
1:32 am
Avatar
at1with0
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 9243
Member Since:
April 9, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Let me suggest that there should be a theory of TOEs. (TOE = Theory of everything)

What is a ToE? (For that matter, what's a theory and what's "everything"?)

Is there a TOE? How many? What's the simplest one? Is there a simplest one?

If there is a TOE, can it be represented symbolically vis a vis symbols human have created or can create? For example, is it expressible as a "one inch equation," a phrase made popular by Michio Kaku?

What traits must be common among all TOEs other than the defining traits? What are the characteristics that are essential to be a TOE?

This is all a study of TOEs without specifically mentioning any candidate TOEs, a theory of TOEs. Can a theory of TOEs produce or yield a TOE?

Can any of this be proved at least to the standards of modern math? If not, to what extent does that torpedo the whole notion of a TOE?

"it is easy to grow crazy"

May 27, 2012
9:50 am
Avatar
khanster
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 710
Member Since:
September 19, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The theory of everything must be inclusive of everything, so how does that work for certain scenarios of paradoxical logic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B.....er_paradox

Suppose there is a town with just one barber, who is male. In this town, every man keeps himself clean-shaven by doing exactly one of two things:

Shaving himself, or
going to the barber.

Another way to state this is:

The barber shaves only those men in town who do not shave themselves.

All this seems perfectly logical, until we pose the paradoxical question:

Who shaves the barber?

This question results in a paradox because, according to the statement above, he can either be shaven by:

himself, or
the barber (which happens to be himself).

However, none of these possibilities are valid! This is because:

If the barber does shave himself, then the barber (himself) must not shave himself.
If the barber does not shave himself, then the he (barber) must shave himself.

A third truth value is then required.

😯

May 27, 2012
10:32 am
Avatar
DIss0n80r
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 4161
Member Since:
April 20, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The barber doesn't only shave men who do not shave themselves. That supposed paradox is the result of a falsely excluded middle. It's an example of extreme black & white thinking.

"I can conceive of nothing in religion, science, or philosophy, that is anything more than the proper thing to wear, for a while." ~ Charles Fort

May 27, 2012
10:44 am
Avatar
khanster
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 710
Member Since:
September 19, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"DIss0n80r" wrote: The barber doesn't only shave men who do not shave themselves. That supposed paradox is the result of a falsely excluded middle. It's an example of extreme black & white thinking.

It is an example of Russell's paradox that you should know about since you have been discussing it for SEVERAL YEARS at the universal forums :naughty:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.....7s_paradox

In the foundations of mathematics, Russell's paradox (also known as Russell's antinomy), discovered by Bertrand Russell in 1901, showed that the naive set theory created by Georg Cantor leads to a contradiction. The same paradox had been discovered a year before by Ernst Zermelo but he did not publish the idea, which remained known only to Hilbert, Husserl and other members of the University of Göttingen.

According to naive set theory, any definable collection is a set. Let R be the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. If R qualifies as a member of itself, it would contradict its own definition as a set containing all sets that are not members of themselves. On the other hand, if such a set is not a member of itself, it would qualify as a member of itself by the same definition. This contradiction is Russell's paradox.

At1with0 and Dissonator. They just want to argue for the purpose of destruction for its own sake. They wish to destroy knowledge and destroy humanity.

May 27, 2012
10:50 am
Avatar
DIss0n80r
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 4161
Member Since:
April 20, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"khanster" wrote: At1with0 and Dissonator. They just want to argue for the purpose of destruction for its own sake. They wish to destroy knowledge and destroy humanity.

What?

That's crazy talk, dude.

"I can conceive of nothing in religion, science, or philosophy, that is anything more than the proper thing to wear, for a while." ~ Charles Fort

May 27, 2012
10:52 am
Avatar
khanster
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 710
Member Since:
September 19, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"DIss0n80r" wrote: [quote="khanster"]At1with0 and Dissonator. They just want to argue for the purpose of destruction for its own sake. They wish to destroy knowledge and destroy humanity.

What?

That's crazy talk, dude.

Perhaps it is a little overly dramatic but I know you love drama :mrgreen:

May 27, 2012
11:08 am
Avatar
DIss0n80r
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 4161
Member Since:
April 20, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I'd like it even more if you actually responded to the post.

"I can conceive of nothing in religion, science, or philosophy, that is anything more than the proper thing to wear, for a while." ~ Charles Fort

May 27, 2012
12:47 pm
Avatar
khanster
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 710
Member Since:
September 19, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"DIss0n80r" wrote: I'd like it even more if you actually responded to the post.

You just don't have a clue what Russell's paradox is and the wikipedia quote is totally over your head..

May 27, 2012
1:00 pm
Avatar
DIss0n80r
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 4161
Member Since:
April 20, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

That may be.

"I can conceive of nothing in religion, science, or philosophy, that is anything more than the proper thing to wear, for a while." ~ Charles Fort

May 27, 2012
1:04 pm
Avatar
khanster
Member
Members
Forum Posts: 710
Member Since:
September 19, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

"DIss0n80r" wrote: That may be.

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions ... -a-paradox

No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 288

Currently Online:
60 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

greeney2: 10196

bionic: 9870

at1with0: 9243

Lashmar: 5289

tigger: 4576

rath: 4297

DIss0n80r: 4161

sandra: 3858

frrostedman: 3815

Wing-Zero: 3278

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 2

Members: 23820

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 8

Forums: 31

Topics: 8614

Posts: 122991

Newest Members:

Beechy, Film, melisablaise, Brian, Al Staton, lonell, Ielts4t, ieltstips, Maryann Cassidy, Myron L. Des Jarlais

Administrators: John Greenewald: 537, blackvault: 1776