A pseudo-Kracus thought

[l0g1c]

So, me and a couple buddies had an interesting discussion about physics last night that evolved into a more generalized discussion about science as a whole. I'd like to get some more opinions about it, and this place is a pretty good sounding board for stuff like this. I'll keep it brief.

The closest thing that I have to religion is a belief that nature is elegant in it's simplicity. To use a popular example would be E=mc^2.

Many scientists have successfully boiled down entire branches of science into a handful of such equations. Would you say that this philosophy is a barrier to realizing a unification theory, or would you agree that there is something to it?

To be completely honest, I haven't kept up with many of the developments in physics in the last few years, so I'm trying to keep this more on a philosophical level.

Thoughts?

[Eraser]

I'm not really educated on these things on a scientific level, but I can be philosophical about it, errr, heh

Anyway, what I would think is that if there's some unification theory, a theory that explains everything, equations that allow us to calculate everything, then discussions about free will and responsibility become very odd.

If you'd assume that everything in this universe can be calculated, then that means nothing is actually random. There is no chaos so to speak.

Some people believe humans have a soul which is not something that is physical. Others don't believe this and even distill things like emotions and opinions down to mere chemical processes that happen in our brains and bodies.

If there is no chaos, then everything is cause and effect. These chemical processes in our bodies then are always the effect of some cause. Strictly speaking, this would mean that you have no real free will, because everything you think, do or feel is because of some chemical reaction in your body that strictly work according to fundamental physical and chemical laws.

With that in mind, you could say that people aren't really responsible for their own actions as those actions are merely the result of certain processes in their body they have no influence over (they work according to unbendable laws).

I might be leaving the scope of your initial post a bit here though...

To get back to your initial post, stretching this non-chaos idea to the entire universe, you could say that everything that has happened, is or will happen is merely the result of certain non-chaotic laws.

Now, I can't really find myself in this idea. Maybe it's because I dislike the idea so much that I'm biased against it. So if you'd assume that chaos is indeed an existing factor, you automatically assume that not everything can be predicted (because of the completely random element of chaos). And if not everything can be predicted, then not everything can be caught in a number of equations.

So an uber-equation could be possible, but it's a bit of a grim idea.

[LawL]

So, me and a couple buddies had an interesting discussion about physics last night that evolved into a more generalized discussion about science as a whole. I'd like to get some more opinions about it, and this place is a pretty good sounding board for stuff like this. I'll keep it brief.

The closest thing that I have to religion is a belief that nature is elegant in it's simplicity. To use a popular example would be E=mc^2.

Many scientists have successfully boiled down entire branches of science into a handful of such equations. Would you say that this philosophy is a barrier to realizing a unification theory, or would you agree that there is something to it?

To be completely honest, I haven't kept up with many of the developments in physics in the last few years, so I'm trying to keep this more on a philosophical level.

Thoughts?

I bet you guys are the life of the party wherever you go.

[Pext]

If you'd assume that everything in this universe can be calculated, then that means nothing is actually random. There is no chaos so to speak.

ah well. so randomness allows for free will? i don't think so.

things that happen are either deterministic, random or "hardcoded". nothing else would be possible to express using logic.

[Grudge]

You should read:

The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene

Freedom Evolves by Daniel C. Dennett

and if you're hardcore:

The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John D. Barrow, Frank J. Tipler and John A. Wheeler

[Grudge]

ah well. so randomness allows for free will? i don't think so.

Daniel C. Dennett quite nicely explains how you can have free will in a deterministic universe without having to resort to randomness in his book Freedom Evolves.

[GONNAFISTYA]

So, me and a couple buddies had an interesting discussion about physics last night that evolved into a more generalized discussion about science as a whole. I'd like to get some more opinions about it, and this place is a pretty good sounding board for stuff like this. I'll keep it brief.

The closest thing that I have to religion is a belief that nature is elegant in it's simplicity. To use a popular example would be E=mc^2.

Many scientists have successfully boiled down entire branches of science into a handful of such equations. Would you say that this philosophy is a barrier to realizing a unification theory, or would you agree that there is something to it?

To be completely honest, I haven't kept up with many of the developments in physics in the last few years, so I'm trying to keep this more on a philosophical level.

Thoughts?

I don't know what else so say but read a bunch of physics books. There is nothing philosophical about a unification theory....it either works or it doesn't. The whole point of the unification theory is that it's trying to merge two completely different systems, it doesn't mean there actually is one.

No offense....but from this and your post on the movie "Sicko"...you don't seem to do much actual thinking.

[horton]

im sorry, im too lazy and retarded to read that.

i was expecting lead pipes.

[l0g1c]

I don't know what else so say but read a bunch of physics books. There is nothing philosophical about a unification theory....it either works or it doesn't. The whole point of the unification theory is that it's trying to merge two completely different systems, it doesn't mean there actually is one.

No offense....but from this and your post on the movie "Sicko"...you don't seem to do much actual thinking.

Lol, you're one of the few people on this board I have some respect for (probably from LE) so I'll let that one slide.

You do make a good point. A single unification theory is a misleading concept. I believe that unification will occur when the individual sciences are refined enough to coalesce.

Back to my main point, though. Hundreds of years from now, when that does happen (or doesn't to be fair) do you think that the underlying theories will be elegant or hairy? So far, refining has produced many elegant theories.

I'm proposing that this trend will continue... that nature is fundamentally elegant. The counter-argument would be that nature is exceedingly complex, and that pursuing an elegant, simple solution is destructive and hinders forward progress.

I hope that better illustrates what I'm asking.

Thanks for the book recommendations, Grudge, and thanks for the food for thought, Eraser. It's a little tangential, but it really is relevant when you think about it.

[tnf]

Fabric of the Cosmos is a bit more accessible than elegant universe if you're after a string theory.

Perhaps check out the problem with physics by Smolin as well.

[l0g1c]

I read the summaries and they look like they are bang-on what I'm talking about. Smolin's, especially.

Smolin (The Life of the Cosmos) believes that physicists are making the mistake of searching for a theory that is "beautiful" and "elegant" instead of one that's actually backed up by experiments.

Thanks, tnf. I'm ecstatic that someone picked up on what I was getting at (I'm not particularly eloquent)
Now I've got to cram these books in before school starts again in the Fall. :thumbs:

[duffman91]

So, me and a couple buddies had an interesting discussion about physics last night that evolved into a more generalized discussion about science as a whole. I'd like to get some more opinions about it, and this place is a pretty good sounding board for stuff like this. I'll keep it brief.

The closest thing that I have to religion is a belief that nature is elegant in it's simplicity. To use a popular example would be E=mc^2.

Many scientists have successfully boiled down entire branches of science into a handful of such equations. Would you say that this philosophy is a barrier to realizing a unification theory, or would you agree that there is something to it?

To be completely honest, I haven't kept up with many of the developments in physics in the last few years, so I'm trying to keep this more on a philosophical level.

Thoughts?

With a little further Physics research, I think you'll find that most equations are a heck of a lot more complex than their common forms. (e=mc^2 included).

In fact, most of the regurgitated equations are in ideal conditions, eliminating a multitude of factors. If anything, I'd be more inclined to believe that the world is horribly complex and complicated. Either indicating: a) a higher power understanding all of it, or b) it being a cluster fuck of randomness and chance.

PS: Wow, Firefox successfully spell-checked "cluster fuck"...

[Ryodox]

You should read:

The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene

...

I actually just bought this book, and will be reading it after I finish Hawking's The Universe in a Nutshell.

Also hello.

[MaCaBr3]

Here's something for you: BBC Horizon: Death Star.

It explains something that contradicts E=MC² but at the end it didn't.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &plindex=0

[Grudge]

You should read:

The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene

...

I actually just bought this book, and will be reading it after I finish Hawking's The Universe in a Nutshell.

Also hello.

Hello there, haven't seen you in a while.

[Ryoki]

Also hello.

hies