A Different Kind of Theory of Everything

 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  8271
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
19 February 2019 12:37
 

https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/a-different-kind-of-theory-of-everything

A paragraph from the middle of this article:

“Traditionally, physicists have been reductionists. They’ve searched for a “theory of everything” that describes reality in terms of its most fundamental components. In this way of thinking, the known laws of physics are provisional, approximating an as-yet-unknown, more detailed description. A table is really a collection of atoms; atoms, upon closer inspection, reveal themselves to be clusters of protons and neutrons; each of these is, more microscopically, a trio of quarks; and quarks, in turn, are presumed to consist of something yet more fundamental. Reductionists think that they are playing a game of telephone: as the message of reality travels upward, from the microscopic to the macroscopic scale, it becomes garbled, and they must work their way downward to recover the truth. Physicists now know that gravity wrecks this naïve scheme, by shaping the universe on both large and small scales. And the Rashomon effect also suggests that reality isn’t structured in such a reductive, bottom-up way.”

 

 
 
Cheshire Cat
 
Avatar
 
 
Cheshire Cat
Total Posts:  1183
Joined  01-11-2014
 
 
 
19 February 2019 23:28
 

“The ascension to the tenth level of intellectual heaven, would be if we find the question to which the universe is the answer, and the nature of that question in and of itself explains why it was possible to describe it in so many different ways.”

Alex, I’ll take “The Ultimate Nature of the Universe” for 100, please…

 
 
Jb8989
 
Avatar
 
 
Jb8989
Total Posts:  6221
Joined  31-01-2012
 
 
 
20 February 2019 12:24
 
Cheshire Cat - 19 February 2019 11:28 PM

“The ascension to the tenth level of intellectual heaven, would be if we find the question to which the universe is the answer, and the nature of that question in and of itself explains why it was possible to describe it in so many different ways.”

Alex, I’ll take “The Ultimate Nature of the Universe” for 100, please…

The rashomon effect, eh?

Also there’s no burden of persuasion to the question CC. Nobody’s in a rush to figure out that we’re irrelevant to the schema.