Is the big bang and evolution sciences theory of everything.

[swansont]

33 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

 I am not excluding any parts, I am simply pointing out that the big bang/evolution looks like a theory of everything. Why is this so offensive?

Offensive? Why would you invoke the impression that the responses are driven by emotion? I (and others) simply disagree with you. It's not personal.

As I pointed out, it looks very little like a theory of everything. It looks like a theory of origin. These are not the same things.

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

If the four forces make up everything then unifying them would constitute everything, would it not?

Conservation laws are not based on upon the four forces. So you aren't going to get conservation of momentum or energy, etc. from unification. Thermodynamics pops into mind, too. Probably lots more if one thinks about it for a bit. The fundamental interactions do not give rise to all of the physics.

38 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

By the way, I just wrote a long post on facebook to my friends, it contained a discussion of my mental illness, and the assertion I have realised how the universe, I am getting lots of positive responses, its different here and I know why.

(emphasis added)

If I were willing to wager on this, I would wager that you are wrong.

[PrimalMinister]

We haven't yet agreed on anything, what can we agree on, can we agree the big bang happened, that evolution happened, and that combined they explain how we got here? I am going to keep tapping away at this point, why can't we find agreement, surely that is basic straight forward science. I have been searching for agreement since I started posting, are you just evading this to be difficult. I will play the ignorant fool if you like, I don't mind, you trying to cyber bully me into me into submission isn't going to work.

That warning was bang out of order and I will explain why in clear, consise, scientific fashion. Someone should had said to me, Simon what you are doing is called showboating and this is not allowed on the forum, here is a link to that rule or all the rules. Then, I would have read the rules, realised I was showboating, and stopped it before I got an actual blemish on my record. What you have done by not clearly warning me before blemishing my record, is fucking bullshit, but it tells me a lot about you (even though I know nothing about you and you nothing about me). Yes, maybe I should have read the rules, but why you didn't be 'in the spirit of science' be clear with me and upfront with me, where is your compassion for a rookie mistake.

[John Cuthber]

3 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

Marvlous, absolutly no idea why you have said it. I am just trying to point out the big bang/evolution is obviously a theory of everything, because it explains everything, including what we don't yet, scientists like Richard Dawkins say it is just a matter of time, but science will explain it.

I asked you to predict the boiling point of water because it's something that a ToE should be able to predict.

That's what makes it a Theory of "Everything".

 

So, could you explain how the big bang and evolution can combine to predict the boiling point of water please?

Or is it a "theory of everything except boiling points"?

[Strange]

1 minute ago, PrimalMinister said:

We haven't yet agreed on anything, what can we agree on, can we agree the big bang happened, that evolution happened, and that combined they explain how we got here?

I can agree on all that (with the caveat that the Big Bang and evolution are happening, not happened).

Perhaps where we disagree is on what “theory” means. Could you say what you think theory a theory is?

I get the impression that you think it is a story that scientists tell in order to explain things. 

[PrimalMinister]

29 minutes ago, Strange said:

I get the impression that you think it is a story that scientists tell in order to explain things. 

Do you honestly think I am that much of an ignorant fool, that I would say a theory is story scientists tell in order to explain things. Why do you think so little of me, you know nothing about me. Apprently I don't understand the difference between objective fact and subjective opinion. My, what a fool I am.

[studiot]

36 minutes ago, Strange said:

I get the impression that you think it is a story that scientists tell in order to explain things. 

That's a good way to put it though I prefer the stories told by Richard Adams and Michael Tod. +1

 

Edited September 21, 2018 by studiot

[PrimalMinister]

You explain what a theory a theory is, you are the expert, I have been lumped with the ignorant fool role.

Why do we call them theories and not facts, what is stopping us from us from calling our theories fact, answer that. Why is it called evolutionary theory and not evolutionry fact. Why do you use the term theory when fact is better. I am playing the ignorant fool.

[Phi for All]

48 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

We haven't yet agreed on anything, what can we agree on, can we agree the big bang happened, that evolution happened, and that combined they explain how we got here? I am going to keep tapping away at this point, why can't we find agreement, surely that is basic straight forward science. I have been searching for agreement since I started posting, are you just evading this to be difficult.

Please, can you go into a bit more detail on the bolded bit? Are you talking about the current state of the observable universe, or specifically humans?

This all seems like a misunderstanding of definitions. A ToE is just that, it's an all-encompassing model that could be used to explain all we observe, and we could use its predictive power to work out anything we ever encountered. If we could simply combine some of our current best theories into a ToE, we would have done it. We don't have all the pieces of all the layers of the onion yet. Our current explanatory power is pretty amazing. The LCDM model's maths can come to within a tiny fraction of a second of the start of the rapid expansion we call the Big Bang, but not all the way back. 

In science, we make a distinction between the Big Bang event and the theory that explains it, the same as with evolution and its accompanying theory. The Big Bang and evolution are happening right now. If you take the time to really dig deep into either of the theories we have, it becomes evident pretty quickly that there's no way they could NOT be happening. Evolution is a fact, and the Theory of Evolution is an ongoing, constantly-updated explanation based on current best evidence. Same with the Big Bang. We know it happened, and the theory we have explains it as best we can.

As others have mentioned, there are things we can't reconcile with current theory. We know a LOT, but not enough for a ToE. The initial reaction you're getting is because what you suggest won't work on a pretty fundamental level. You're trying to tell an American football team how to play better but it's obvious you don't know that the ball isn't round and they're allowed to touch it with their hands.

Sorry if it seemed hostile, but nobody wants you to have any misconceptions that you waste your time building upon. We regularly hear about people who study for years based on a lack of knowledge. We always assume that's why folks come here to discuss science as part of a rigorous methodology.

[PrimalMinister]

Look, how can i comprehend that the laws of the universe are omnipresent and isotropic, but not comprehend what a theory is. Some people have already made their mind up about me so it doesn't matter what I say because it is automatically dismissed. I have tried to find agreement because objective facts are something we can all agree on, in theory anyway, in practice, for some bizarrie reason (internet lifestyles) we cannot seem to agree on anything, not even an objective fact (which by definition is something we all agree on, usually because its an objectivily objective fact).

 

Edited September 21, 2018 by PrimalMinister

[Strange]

48 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

You explain what a theory a theory is, you are the expert, I have been lumped with the ignorant fool role.

Why do we call them theories and not facts, what is stopping us from us from calling our theories fact, answer that. Why is it called evolutionary theory and not evolutionry fact. Why do you use the term theory when fact is better. I am playing the ignorant fool.

This is a good question. Evolution is a fact: we know that populations of animals change over time - we can see it happening.

The theory of evolution by natural selection is a theory to explain how evolution happens. It is a detailed model which is consistent with, or supported by, all the available evidence.

Similarly, gravity is a fact (things fall to the ground). But Newton's theory of gravity or Einstein's General Relativity are theories that explain how gravity works. In both cases, they are detailed mathematical models that make quantitative predictions that can be compared with objective measurements. This is what we require of a scientific theory.

[PrimalMinister]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

This is a good question. Evolution is a fact: we know that populations of animals change over time - we can see it happening.

The theory of evolution by natural selection is a theory to explain how evolution happens. It is a detailed model which is consistent with, or supported by, all the available evidence.

Similarly, gravity is a fact (things fall to the ground). But Newton's theory of gravity or Einstein's General Relativity are theories that explain how gravity works. In both cases, they are detailed mathematical models that make quantitative predictions that can be compared with objective measurements. This is what we require of a scientific theory.

You are right, why is that so hard to get agreement on things?

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

You are right, why is that so hard to get agreement on things?

Perhaps because you are trying to get agreement on the wrong things!

 

[PrimalMinister]

You cant disagree with objective facts can you! Ok, the theory of everything is so far, a theory that unifies the four fundamental forces of the universe, a romantic idea that given enough time science will explain everything, and also that the big bang/evolution story which starts at A, moves through B, and gets to C in a nice line to explain us. What do you think the theory of everything is, maybe the theory of everything is not one of those three things and is something else, maybe there is no such thing as a theory of everything, I don't know, you tell me.

I will add, I did not invent the theory of everything, I dont know the history and people behind it, all I know is that there is a film dedicated to Stephen Hawking called 'The Theory Of Everything', RIP.

Edited September 21, 2018 by PrimalMinister

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Ok, the theory of everything is so far, a theory that unifies the four fundamental forces of the universe, a romantic idea that given enough time science will explain everything, and also that the big bang/evolution story which starts at A, moves through B, and gets to C in a nice line to explain us.

I would agree that, as StringJunky said in another thread, that a "theory of everything" (ToE) unifies the four fundamental forces. As Wikipedia puts it:

Quote

A theory of everything (TOE^[1] or ToE), final theory, ultimate theory, or master theory is a hypothetical single, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe.^[2]:6 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

(that page also corrects my misunderstanding about what a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) is - that would be a theory that didn't include gravity)

Not that this is a physics theory; so it says nothing about geology, chemistry, biology, or evolution. (Except, in as much that those things can to some extent be explained in terms of the underlying physics - but the reverse process is not realistic. In other words, I don't think you can go from a description of the four fundamental forces to deduce that living organisms will evolve.)

https://xkcd.com/435/

[PrimalMinister]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

A theory of everything (TOE^[1] or ToE), final theory, ultimate theory, or master theory is a hypothetical single, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe.^[2]:6 

Ok, lets be brutally honest and objective, that is a subjective opinion on the theory of everything, its just a romantic idea.

[Itoero]

Evolution theory is only about biological evolution after abiogenesis. It, for example, doesn't give info concerning geological evolution

[Phi for All]

7 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Ok, lets be brutally honest and objective, that is a subjective opinion on the theory of everything, its just a romantic idea.

No, it's a definition, not an opinion. Why do you think there couldn't be an overarching theory that connects what we know now with what we've yet to discover? Why is it a romantic idea?

[StringJunky]

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Some people call that a grand unified theory. But to be honest, I’m not sure what else would make it “everything”!

 

Yes, that's right.  I had a false memory.  

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Conservation laws are not based on upon the four forces. So you aren't going to get conservation of momentum or energy, etc. from unification. Thermodynamics pops into mind, too. Probably lots more if one thinks about it for a bit. The fundamental interactions do not give rise to all of the physics.

OK.

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Yes, that's right.  I had a false memory.  

Actually, it looks like you were right and I was wrong! ("No, I'm wrong!", "No, I'm ...)

20 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Ok, lets be brutally honest and objective, that is a subjective opinion on the theory of everything, its just a romantic idea.

I agree with Phi for All that it is a definition, not an opinion.

However, whether it is achievable or not is a matter of opinion (and is, perhaps, a romantic ideal). There is no reason why such a theory must be possible. It may be that the universe is not as rational or explicable as we would like it to be. On the other hand, we have no reason to think it is not possible. Or maybe it is possible, but humans are not intelligent enough to achieve it.Only time will tell.

Edited September 21, 2018 by Strange

[studiot]

17 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Evolution theory is only about biological evolution after abiogenesis. It, for example, doesn't give info concerning geological evolution

I'd be interested to learn what geological evolution is?

[Strange]

Just now, studiot said:

I'd be interested to learn what geological evolution is?

I don't think it is an unreasonable term. After all, the Earth has cooled, formed oceans and continents, which have then split up, moved around, recombined, etc. That sounds like something I would use the word evolution for.

[studiot]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

I don't think it is an unreasonable term. After all, the Earth has cooled, formed oceans and continents, which have then split up, moved around, recombined, etc. That sounds like something I would use the word evolution for.

Where would natural selection and the competition that implies come into it?

I didn't say it was unreasonable, I asked because it must widen the definition of evolution perhaps as far as to the original nautical one.

Edited September 21, 2018 by studiot

[Phi for All]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

I don't think it is an unreasonable term.

I'm with studiot on this one. Using evolution instead of development (or something else) to describe geological processes is misleading, just like insisting that "proof" also means less than 100% proven.

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

Where would natural selection and the competition that implies come into it?

I didn't say it was unreasonable, I asked because it must widen the definition of evolution perhaps as far as to the original nautical one.

 

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I'm with Studiot on this one. Using evolution instead of development (or something else) to describe geological processes is misleading, just like insisting that "proof" also means less than 100% proven.

But the word "evolution" still has uses outside of biological evolution. We can talk about the evolution of the arts, of society or even of science. The Big Bang theory is often described as a model of the evolution of the universe.

As long as the context makes it clear that we are not talking about biological evolution (and I think the phrase "geological evolution" does that explicitly) then I can't see a problem, personally.

Admittedly, in the context of this thread, it might be better avoided!

And you know things are getting weird when I am defending Itoero 

Edited September 21, 2018 by Strange

[studiot]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

But the word "evolution" still has uses outside of biological evolution.

I didn't say it did or didn't.

But since it means different things in different contexts all I did was ask for clarification when a new context was introduced.