What's this about Hawking abandoning the idea of a TOE

[Interesting Ian]

That is "theory of everything". Very gratifying though that he's been brought around to my way of thinking ;)

[Dylab]

What the heck are you talking about? Have you been drinking again?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dylab
What the heck are you talking about? Have you been drinking again?

I've just read it in the Sunday Times. You feel this is astonishingly unlikely? :confused: Why should it be so?

[Interesting Ian]

"BRITAIN’S most famous scientist has abandoned his 16-year quest for a single elusive equation that he believed could explain the workings of the universe, writes Nick Speed.

Stephen Hawking had been trying to find a “theory of everything” which he reckoned could answer science’s greatest questions of time and space in a single statement.

The admission by Hawking, in a paper on his website, that he has ended his quest, is a climbdown from claims in his 1988 book, A Brief History of Time.

“Some people will be very disappointed,” says Hawking. “But I have changed my mind. I’m glad our search for understanding will never come to an end, and that we’ll always have the challenge of new discovery.”"

[shemp]

1. Please post a link to this.

2. Please stop drinking.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by shemp
1. Please post a link to this.

2. Please stop drinking.

[list=a]
I haven't been drinking, nor does it alter the intellectual content or the truthful nature of my posts when I do.
I cannot provide a link because the article pops up in a small window which doesn't have an address. At least it does when you do a search on the Sunday Times site.
[/list=a]

Here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,2086,00.html) is the Sunday Times link. You'll need to find the article for yourself.

Edit to add: Actually here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1010558,00.html) is the precise link.

[Interesting Ian]

Also there is an article in the Sunday Times magazine, but I haven't read that yet. Here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2099-1008535,00.html) is the link.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Interesting Ian,

That is "theory of everything". Very gratifying though that he's been brought around to my way of thinking

Exactly how does his changing his mind about a theory of everything being possible, constitute "coming around to your way of thinking"? I don't think such a theory is possible either. So what? I find it rather unlikely that his reasons for coming to this conclusion bear any resemblance to your own.


Dr. Stupid

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Interesting Ian,



Exactly how does his changing his mind about a theory of everything being possible, constitute "coming around to your way of thinking"? I don't think such a theory is possible either. So what? I find it rather unlikely that his reasons for coming to this conclusion bear any resemblance to your own.


Dr. Stupid

I didn't say his reasons were. I meant "my way of thinking" in reference to the conclusion, not the journey. You also obviously didn't notice the smiley.

Please put me on ignore. You never have anything constructive to say about my posts.

[hammegk]

Does that mean the same conclusion, reached by different premises and logic (or even illogic), is both Correct and at the same time Incorrect?

Hmmm.


Finally, damn Godel.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Hammegk,

Does that mean the same conclusion, reached by different premises and logic (or even illogic), is both Correct and at the same time Incorrect?

No, it means that just because you have reached the correct conclusion, does not mean that the reasoning you used is sound.


Ian,

Please put me on ignore. You never have anything constructive to say about my posts.

That sounds more like a reason for you to put me on ignore, than vice-versa. If you don't want me to read and respond to your posts, then don't make them here.


Dr. Stupid

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
[b]Hammegk,



No, it means that just because you have reached the correct conclusion, does not mean that the reasoning you used is sound.



Sure, Hawking's reasoning may not be sound, but it's gratifying he's come to the correct conclusion.

What I want to know though, is why you don't believe in a TOE? Science is about recognising that apparently disparate phenomena can be subsumed in a single theory (written in mathematics). The natural outcome of this is that all phenomena whatsoever will be able to be so subsumed under a single theory.

BTW, even if I were a naturalist I would reject the possibility of a TOE. I was just wondering if your reasoning was similar to mine.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

How concise does an explanation of reality have to be to be dubbed a "Theory of Everything," as opposed to a big pile of theories? Does the total number of mathematical equations have to be less than some magical limit L?

~~ Paul

[The idea]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
How concise does an explanation of reality have to be to be dubbed a "Theory of Everything," as opposed to a big pile of theories? Does the total number of mathematical equations have to be less than some magical limit L?

~~ Paul
I think a pile of theories counts as a single theory, provided that the theories in the pile are consistent with each other.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat

No, it means that just because you have reached the correct conclusion, does not mean that the reasoning you used is sound.

Would you prefer we base thoughts, words, and actions on a correct conclusion no matter how it was arrived at, or an incorrect conclusion logically justified but based on incorrect premises?

[scribble]

Originally posted by hammegk

Would you prefer we base thoughts, words, and actions on a correct conclusion no matter how it was arrived at, or an incorrect conclusion logically justified but based on incorrect premises?

For the student, here we see an excellent example of the False Dichotomy in the wild. Careful now, it bites.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

What I want to know though, is why you don't believe in a TOE? Science is about recognising that apparently disparate phenomena can be subsumed in a single theory (written in mathematics).

Science is about learning as much as possible about the world around us, and constructing models that we can use to describe it.

The natural outcome of this is that all phenomena whatsoever will be able to be so subsumed under a single theory.

Only if knowing all of the facts about the World was a state we could ever reasonably hope to attain. Even if we had a theory of everything, we could never empirically determine that it was one. All we could do is say that we had not yet discovered any phenomena which it doesn't accurately describe. Furthermore, Godel's incompleteness theorem basically guarantees that even if the theory describes every observation ever made, there will still be questions about the Universe that can be meaningfully asked within the context of science, but which cannot be answered by the theory. This is true even if the number of facts about the Universe is finite, because the logical framework we use to describe the Universe is a second order system.

The only way we could ever have a true TOE, would be if the number of facts about the Universe is finite, and the TOE was simply a list of all of those facts. But even if the number of facts is finite, it is clearly so large as to render any attempt to deal with them as a list of facts, rather than as some set of mathematical rules, intractable. And as long as our models are mathematical rules, those models will imply an infinite number of facts, and will be subject to Godel's incompleteness theorem.


Hammegk,

Would you prefer we base thoughts, words, and actions on a correct conclusion no matter how it was arrived at, or an incorrect conclusion logically justified but based on incorrect premises?

No. ;)


Dr. Stupid

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by hammegk

Would you prefer we base thoughts, words, and actions on a correct conclusion no matter how it was arrived at, or an incorrect conclusion logically justified but based on incorrect premises?

{deleted for reason that post was not relevent to thread}

[hammegk]

Originally posted by scribble


For the student, here we see an excellent example of the False Dichotomy in the wild. Careful now, it bites.

I don't believe I stated those were the only possibilities, just a couple of choices that we may be required to make. Every rational person would prefer to base thought, word, and deed on a correct conclusion logically derived from the correct premises.

Godel pointed out that no internally consistent logical system can Prove it's premises. IIRC, this occured shortly after Russell & Whitehead used a few hundred pages of text to prove that 1+1=2.

So, how do you "have faith" you know which choice you are actually basing your decision on?



Originally posted by Stimpy

No.
What will you do? Nothing? Flip a coin? Pray for guidance? Other(please explain)?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by hammegk
Godel pointed out that no internally consistent logical system can Prove it's premises. No, Godel pointed out that any consistent logical system will be incomplete. There is a significant difference.

[hammegk]

Yeah, I should have googled; the words were a best guess.

Are you also saying "no internally consistent logical system can Prove it's premises" is incorrect?


Sue-z: Then why did you leave my quote?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

No, that's correct. But it didn't take the Incompleteness Theorems to demonstrate that.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by hammegk
(snipped)


Sue-z: Then why did you leave my quote?

Hm. Not sure. Was too intent on taking out my words. Too late to change now.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
No, that's correct. But it didn't take the Incompleteness Theorems to demonstrate that.
My error. :) What would we term the proof for my comment? Logic 001? Go ahead & tell me; I can take it.

[Sindai]

Originally posted by hammegk
My error. :) What would we term the proof for my comment? Logic 001? Go ahead & tell me; I can take it.

Sounds like "not being a circular argument" to me.

[LW]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
No, Godel pointed out that any consistent logical system will be incomplete. There is a significant difference.

Any sufficiently expressive logical system.

[The limit being roughly that if you can express the natural numbers using the system, then it is sufficiently expressive to be incomplete].

[Wrath of the Swarm]

If we really want to be technical, then the system must be capable of generating arithmetic. The definition of the plane includes the natural numbers, but it's not sufficiently powerful enough for the Incompleteness Theorems to apply.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I didn't say his reasons were. I meant "my way of thinking" in reference to the conclusion, not the journey. You also obviously didn't notice the smiley.

[Stimpson J. Cat] Please put me on ignore. You never have anything constructive to say about my posts.

Wow Ian!

You must be one horribly self-absorbed person to say something like that.

[LW]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
If we really want to be technical, then the system must be capable of generating arithmetic. The definition of the plane includes the natural numbers, but it's not sufficiently powerful enough for the Incompleteness Theorems to apply.


Just out of interest, how exactly do you express natural numbers as planes?

[bignickel]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1153853,00.html

"We may have to make do with never understanding the universe completely, he says."

Isn't this pretty much what Stimpy was saying above?


Gödel developed a series of mathematical paradoxes that could not be proved. If there were such mathematical conundrums, then there must also be physical problems, such as understanding the universe, that will also be beyond us, Prof Hawking argues.

While I might disagree with Hawking's reasoning, it's up to him to decide on what problems to apply his massive intellect on. Be interesting to see what he goes after next.

[Dylab]

I'm pretty dissapointed. How cool would it be to have a t-shirt with the ultimate equation on it?

[DaChew]

He quits on TOE just in time to start making March Madness pool picks. Yeah, that's a coincidence.

[Dancing David]

I thought the TOE was another name for GUT?

The fact that hawhins thought that he could do it in the first place is more indicitive of science then his decision that he can't.

The nature of science is to try all sorts of silly things and see which ones work.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

I thought the TOE was another name for GUT?

Not exactly. GUT refers to unified field theory that incorporates gravitation along with the other fundamental forces. If and when such a theory is found, it will most likely raise other questions, or reveal another level of complexity, which must be explained. I think that Godel's incompleteness theorem strongly indicates that this will probably always be the case. Our scientific knowledge can asymptotically approach a complete description of the Universe, but I do not think that limit can actually be attained in a finite period of time.


Dr. Stupid

[wipeout]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Also there is an article in the Sunday Times magazine, but I haven't read that yet. Here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2099-1008535,00.html) is the link.

I liked this bit of that article:

'You have to understand,' says another don, also strictly off the record, 'that Stephen has never come up with a theory that has been tested with observation. So forget comparisons with Einstein altogether. In terms of the 20th century, he is nowhere; certainly not the equal of people like Bohr, Dirac, Heisenberg, or Hans Bethe, who is still alive.

'As for his contemporaries, the greatest living theoretical physicist by far is Ed Witton, although nobody outside the discipline has heard of Witton. I'd say that among Stephen's peer group, Roger Penrose in Oxford is probably the more distinguished.'


This mystery Don says Hawking has "never come up with a theory that has been tested with observation" so this Don offers Witten as the greatest living theoretical physicist instead.

But, as far as I know, Witten is a superstring/M-theory specialist and has never come up with a theory that has been tested with observation himself.

Guys like Bethe, Gell-Mann and maybe some others have come up with fundamental physics that have been tested and confirmed but Witten is better than them "by far", this Don says.

Okay...

And what's more, isn't it superstring/M-theory's failings that have made Hawking give up the idea of a theory of everything? Which is what the article is about. Hawking is calling M-theory an "effective" theory, which is less complimentary than it sounds.