paradox of the 'theory of everything'

suppose i have created a 'theory of everything'

by its definition this 'theory of everything' includes an algorithm for a legitimate descriptive language of models which is the basis for creating these theory in the scientific community

as a result my 'theory of everything' would not be considered legitimate in the scientific community even if it were 100% correct

No, I don’t think that’s what anyone means by a theory of everything. I can’t think of any theories that require “an algorithm for legitimate descriptive language of models” Can you point to such a theory, or to anyone who makes this claim?

11 hours ago, swansont said:

No, I don’t think that’s what anyone means by a theory of everything. I can’t think of any theories that require “an algorithm for legitimate descriptive language of models” Can you point to such a theory, or to anyone who makes this claim?

meaning

аny theoretical model is recognised by the 'scientific' community as a 'scientific' model only after the 'scientific' correctness of this model is proved by means of methods of calculation and description of the objects of this calculation which have the status of 'scientific'

it is an algorithm legitimising knowledge into legitimate 'scientific' knowledge

-

it's standard procedure

-

what's not clear to you?

1 minute ago, 0340 said:

meaning

аny theoretical model is recognised by the 'scientific' community as a 'scientific' model only after the 'scientific' correctness of this model is proved by means of methods of calculation and description of the objects of this calculation which have the status of 'scientific'

it is an algorithm legitimising knowledge into legitimate 'scientific' knowledge

-

it's standard procedure

-

what's not clear to you?

That’s a requirement from science itself, not part of any specific theory.

A theory of everything would only explain things explainable and predictable by science. IOW, a theory of everything is not everything.

Just now, 0340 said:

аny theoretical model is recognised by the 'scientific' community as a 'scientific' model only after the 'scientific' correctness of this model is proved by means of methods of calculation and description of the objects of this calculation which have the status of 'scientific'

Again and again I have to point out to folks that not all scientific thinking requires calculation in particular or even mathematics more generally.

I do however, live in the hope that all scientific thinking requires rational thought,

8 hours ago, studiot said:

Again and again I have to point out to folks that not all scientific thinking requires calculation in particular or even mathematics more generally.

I do however, live in the hope that all scientific thinking requires rational thought,

rational thinking is algorithmic logical thinking

algorithmic logical thinking is mathematically programmable

10 hours ago, swansont said:

That’s a requirement from science itself, not part of any specific theory.

A theory of everything would only explain things explainable and predictable by science. IOW, a theory of everything is not everything.

yes

that's exactly what I'm talking about

paradox is that if i say create a 'theory of everything' that accurately describes everything science will not recognise that theory even if it is 100% correct

you're arguing with yourself

3 hours ago, 0340 said:

paradox is that if i say create a 'theory of everything' that accurately describes everything science will not recognise that theory even if it is 100% correct

I don’t know why you think this.

18 hours ago, 0340 said:

meaning

аny theoretical model is recognised by the 'scientific' community as a 'scientific' model only after the 'scientific' correctness of this model is proved by means of methods of calculation and description of the objects of this calculation which have the status of 'scientific'

it is an algorithm legitimising knowledge into legitimate 'scientific' knowledge

-

it's standard procedure

-

what's not clear to you?

There seem to be a couple of misunderstandings here about science. First, one can never prove a theory in science and second, as @studiot points out, calculation, i.e. the use of mathematics, is not intrinsic to the scientific method.

5 hours ago, 0340 said:

rational thinking is algorithmic logical thinking

algorithmic logical thinking is mathematically programmable

The perhaps you can state the mathematics (algorithm or program) required in the following five scientific scientific, mathematical or engineering statements ?

1. The discovery of penecillin.
   

2. Younger rocks overlay older rocks.
   

3. In granite, feldspar crystallises before quartz.
   

4. The mathematical definition of a set.
   

5. The production of concrete with a strength greater than 45.5 N/sq mm.

Everything has a reason, rational thought is the correct understanding of that reason and may be the result of human inspiration.

Edited April 22Apr 22 by studiot

1 hour ago, studiot said:

The perhaps you can state the mathematics (algorithm or program) required in the following five scientific scientific, mathematical or engineering statements ?

1. The discovery of penecillin.
   

2. Younger rocks overlay older rocks.
   

3. In granite, feldspar crystallises before quartz.
   

4. The mathematical definition of a set.
   

5. The production of concrete with a strength greater than 45.5 N/sq mm.

Everything has a reason, rational thought is the correct understanding of that reason and may be the result of human inspiration.

before you only talked about rational thinking and i told you about algorithm of rational thinking

now you've added "human inspiration" to the rational thinking algorithm

such a system is also programmed with self-learning expert systems or what is called ai

basic algorithm for your examples is not difficult to describe

Edited April 22Apr 22 by 0340

Just now, 0340 said:

basic algorithm for your examples is not difficult to describe

I look forward with great interest to you doing so instead of ducking the questions.

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

There seem to be a couple of misunderstandings here about science. First, one can never prove a theory in science and second, as @studiot points out, calculation, i.e. the use of mathematics, is not intrinsic to the scientific method.

in other words you are saying that a physical or mathematical theory will be recognised by the scientific community as a "scientific theory" without there being evidence that the theory is correct

are you serious?

39 minutes ago, studiot said:

I look forward with great interest to you doing so instead of ducking the questions.

yes of course

you can wait

if you have a specific question you can ask it too

9 hours ago, swansont said:

I don’t know why you think this.

i totally agree with you on that

Edited April 22Apr 22 by 0340

38 minutes ago, 0340 said:

in other words you are saying that a physical or mathematical theory will be recognised by the scientific community as a "scientific theory" without there being evidence that the theory is correct

are you serious?

Aha, so there is indeed something you don't understand about science.

A theory will be recognised as scientifically valid if it (a) fits the relevant observations of nature and (b) makes successful predictions about what further observations can be expected. This is how theories are put to the test in science.

Note that correspondence with observations of nature is the key.

There may or may not be mathematical calculations involved. In physics there almost certainly will be, but in other branches of science there may not.

In no case is any "proof" of correctness of a theory possible, since we cannot foretell what future observations may, some time, be made which do not fit the theory, forcing it to be revised or abandoned.

1 hour ago, 0340 said:

in other words you are saying that a physical or mathematical theory will be recognised by the scientific community as a "scientific theory" without there being evidence that the theory is correct

How did you get this from a statement about calculation not being necessary? Not all analysis of evidence requires the inclusion of math.

When Darwin noticed differences in finch beaks, and concluded that evolution happened, there was no formula that he wrote down.

14 hours ago, 0340 said:

rational thinking is algorithmic logical thinking

No, it is not. Rational thinking means you can give arguments that support your viewpoint. But 'support' is a broader category than 'logically stringent'. I think you've got enough examples here in this thread.

15 hours ago, 0340 said:

rational thinking is algorithmic logical thinking

Nope, an algorithm is a strict set of steps towards a goal, rational thinking is understanding when that's just an excuse... 😉

On 4/21/2025 at 3:19 PM, studiot said:

Again and again I have to point out to folks that not all scientific thinking requires calculation in particular or even mathematics more generally.

I do however, live in the hope that all scientific thinking requires rational thought,

Interesting....

Hi btw

Edited April 22Apr 22 by Imagine Everything

16 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

Do we live in an infinitely finite universe?

The impossible sometimes takes a while, Miracles may take longer.

What makes you think an infinite number of monkey's could be bothered to write like Shakespeare?

13 hours ago, Imagine Everything said:

Interesting....

Hi btw

One shortcoming of the algorithmic approach is that is only caters for one half of the rational process.

18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Nope, an algorithm is a strict set of steps towards a goal,

Indeed this typical cryptic comment from dim actual nails it rather well.

Rational thinking can be roughly divided into Analysis and Synthesis.

The alogrithmic approach needs a goal and corresponds to Synthesis.

Analysis on the other hand includes the observer having the nouce to say "Now how/why did that happen ?", which is of course what occured with the discovery of penecillin.

In other words it includes inspirational thinking.