Back to Home

General Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Misc. Topics | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Everything Means Infinity

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Rowanda on January 10, 2005 15:52:03 UTC

I think it was Hilbert, but probably Zeno understood it first, that no finite theory can predict the infinite. To predict the infinite you need an infinite number of axioms. A finite number of axioms will always give you a finite theory, not capable of explaining everything.

Of course a finite number of axioms can give you local infinities as is well known in physics. However, such cases are renormalized or just avoided like the big bang in GR. Probably more constraining to math & physics is that a valid theory must be self-consistent. It has to consistently yield the same expectations, to use your words. So if you have developed an algorithm for any explanation, that algorithm cannot be self-consistent as the sum of all explanations contain contradictions. Such a theory could not be self-consistent.

But I expect that you have in fact developed a theory that is self-consistent and therefore could only apply to situations where expectations are consistent. Human expectations are not necessarily consistent in the exact same situation. So your theory cannot apply to human expectations. It cannot be a theory of everything.

It could be a theory of nature, at least the realm of nature that is selfconsistent rather than random. There is evidence that nature can be random. Emergent solutions are such an example. They cannot be derived from the axioms of any theory. So your theory cannot do emergent solutions which are inherently random.

However, it should work very well for something like QM and GR. Is not that good enough for you?
That alone would make it an outstanding theory. But to think that it is a theory of everything is purely delusional. The larger scientific community would think you are just a crackpot to make such a claim. Have they?

Sincerely,

Rowanda

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2020 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins