Is the Game of Life a metaphor for the search for a Theory of Everything?

[nikkkom]

If you assert that everything mathematical is physical, then you run up against Godel's Incompleteness theorem, and physics becomes incomplete or inconsistent.

What does it even mean for *physics* to be "incomplete", and why it's bad?

As to *math*, Godel's Incompleteness theorem basically says that no (consistent) system of axioms can be non-extendable: for any system of axioms, there will be true, but unprovable statements. Take one of such statements, add it to your axioms, and you have an extended system of axioms. And still, there will be true, but unprovable statements for it too. Rinse, repeat.
Yes, this is a bit of unexpected / counter-intuitive fact (it's more comforting to think that "ultimate full set of axioms of math", sufficient to prove all theorems, exists), but it's not illogical.

 

[ftr]

If no truth exists (other than mathematics and physical reality), then that would preclude the statement you just made from being true.

Also, how would you test whether the following statement is true?

"Godel and mathematical philosophy have nothing to do with MUH."

Of course, all statements humans make are designed for communication purposes. The contents then are put under some tests (scientific) and declared by us humans to be true or not. Even many advanced accepted theories are not accepted or interpreted differently by minority scientist. It is only the business of us humans to make up our minds, no chimp will be consulted. That is how science works it is not you vs me, but I can make a hypothesis that we humans can prove it wrong or right by OUR standards. If you weighted about 160 pounds, some statements might reflect such a fact some might not, we have the scale to test.

As to your second question, it is clear that mathematics have served us well and especially over the last 400 years. It is very clear that GR, QM/QFT and their extensions are very very close description of nature. What I keep repeating is that the ultimate correct theory will be of the same nature with no mathematical philosophy involved. This is to be expected, and that is why thousands of physicists with billions of dollars are at it right now. Do you think they are foolish?

 

[tzimie]

Termark's MUH is the only option. Just think about the negation of it.

Not(MUH) = there is something (prana, spiritual energy, vital force, "fire, which burns life into equations", "something that makes things *actually* exist", magic, you-name-it, and other wordy nonsense stuff), which can not be, in principle, expressed in mathematical form, but which somehow affects physics.

Do you agree with Not(MUH)? If not, accept MUH!

 

[nikkkom]

Termark's MUH is the only option. Just think about the negation of it.

Not(MUH) = there is something (prana, spiritual energy, vital force, "fire, which burns life into equations", "something that makes things *actually* exist", magic, you-name-it, and other wordy nonsense stuff), which can not be, in principle, expressed in mathematical form, but which somehow affects physics.

Do you agree with Not(MUH)?

I don't see why agreeing with Not(MUH) is nonsensical. "The actual existing Universe is more real than any other valid solution of equations of Laws of Nature". Why this can't possibly be true?

In fact, I even don't see a 100% solid reason to agree that definite "laws of nature" exist. We had several approximations of them already (say, Ptolemy -> Newton -> Einstein) and there is no reason to be absolutely sure this sequence of approximations is finite. Yes, I hope it is finite, but do I know it for sure? No.

 

[friend]

What does it even mean for *physics* to be "incomplete", and why it's bad?

It means there will always be something for which you not have no explanation. It means you well never have a complete theory of physics. It means you will never know the true cause or final end of the universe. It means that there could always be something pop into or out of existence with no reason for it, like magic. Do you believe in magic? Or do you believe there is a logical explanation for EVERYTHING?

 

[tzimie]

It means there will always be something for which you not have no explanation. It means you well never have a complete theory of physics. It means you will never know the true cause or final end of the universe. It means that there could always be something pop into or out of existence with no reason for it, like magic. Do you believe in magic? Or do you believe there is a logical explanation for EVERYTHING?

Check my example with "game of life"
TOE = theory of everything (on the fundamental level)
TOE is not expected to explain EVERYTHING (biology, sociology etc)