What Is A Theory?

[ProKeymaster]

What Is A Theory?

richardhp – ‘What is a theory?’

Hi, I’m new to the forums, I’ve watched a few videos and I’d quite like to discuss this theory further. You call ProTheory a ‘Theory of Everything’. I’m interested in how you define a ‘Theory’, what is such an object and what properties should it have? Richard.

richardhp – ‘Re: What is a theory?’

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you are saying that the statement of ProTheory is equivalent to saying that any explanation for any phenomena falls into one of 3 categories:

1) That the explanation correctly explains the phenomena (positive)
2) That the explanation incorrectly explains the phenomena (negative)
3) Or that the supplied explanation is neither of these (neutral)

For example if I wanted to explain why things fall to the ground then 3 examples would be 1) Because gravity acts in this way (positive) 2) Because of space aliens controlling the object (negative) 3) Because I like tea (neutral).

bitman12lenovo – ‘Re: What is a theory’ I can define theory as follows. A classical example uses the discipline of medicine to explain the distinction: Medical theory and theorizing involves trying to understand the causes and nature of health and sickness, while the practical side of medicine is trying to make people healthy. These two things are related but can be independent, because it is possible to research health and sickness without curing specific patients, and it is possible to cure a patient without knowing how the cure worked.

richardhp – ‘Re: What is a theory?’

Ok well I believe what you call protheory is merely a logical tautology. For example if P is a statement that can be true or false, then Q = (P) or (not P) (or Q = P V (¬P) more formally.)Is a statement that is always true; since if P is true then Q is true, and if P is not true, then (not P) is true and Q is true also.

So in every circumstance we find that the statement Q holds, i.e. it is a tautology.Protheory is no different, while it is indeed a theory of everything under your definition that a theory of everything must always be true, it is nothing more than a logical statement that cannot be falsified by it’s construction.

richardhp – ‘Re: What is a theory?’

For example I give you – Gotheory, an alternative to protheory: Everything is either T, U or X:T – blob diddly bobU – fiddly piddly wooX – tom tum dee dee dum. And it is neither any of these but all of these at the same time.

Let’s see it in action! Can I explain the Goldbach conjecture using Gotheory? Well firstly it is definitely T, U and X, but clearly it is none of these and it satisfies these conditions simultaneously. So my theory works, QED.

AdamMedici – ‘Re: What is a theory?’

It’s not that hard to understand, but I can see where you have trouble. It is in change and acceptance of change. Left / middle / right + / 0 /. A new physical constant that is in motion exhibiting all three properties at any given time depending on the circumstances and observation. At one point it is positive yet a few moments later it can be negative and then neutral the next instant.

It only is wrong if a commitment to one is made while ignoring that it has two other possible identities. Water can be a liquid a solid and a gas all depending on circumstance but one would be foolish to say water is always solid, or water is always gaseous, or always a liquid. The truth is that it has the ability to be all three….. maybe you should try taking up a different hobby, learn to play the piano or something.

I promise it will be more conducive than tearing down other people’s ideas and theories. You know you could try and make your own theory and post it here, just try and be respectful to people, no one here is an ass and it’d be nice if that can stay that way.

richardhp – ‘Re: What is a theory?’

First of all I can already play piano – I am not trying to be an ass at all and I’m also not trying to “tear down other people’s ideas”. I believe I understand the theory myself and I all I was trying to point out is that the theory as it stands can never be falsified BY ITS CONSTRUCTION.

It is a statement that is always true because of it’s nature, the theory could just as well be stated: Everything is something and you’d be in the same position – a ‘theory of everything’ in the sense that it can be applied to any situation, but one that gives no insight or explanation.

AdamMedici – ‘Re: What is a theory?’

O.k. , you are brilliant; I bow to your insight. That being said please try and have an open mind as to what I’m trying to convey. The Theory of Everything as what I have been able to find out AND ALL OTHER PHYSICISTS SO FAR including but not limited to: Einstein, Russell, Penrose, Kaku, Higgs, Witten, and more is that the grandiose T.O.E. equals ZERO!

They unanimously reject the possibility of the equations equalling zero because it is the same as infinity, so they keep looking for a better answer. Is their a better answer? maybe but they haven’t found it yet, all they have is theory. I question why so many brilliant minds came up with the same conclusion independently of one another yet refuse to accept the answer that they have found.

The theories (M-Theory, Higgs field, Super-string theory, etc), that they have come up with are actually rewritten and reinterpreted old world philosophies most akin to Hinduism, or Buddhism… That seemed very strange to me of course, why would physics step anywhere near religion of any kind??

That’s because if the T.O.E. is finite or quantized, it proves the Universe is either perpetual or self created, which goes against the 2nd Law of thermodynamics.If however the T.O.E. is infinite (zero), the universe can be susceptible to entropy and eventually cease to be, however a “soul” if you wish or “atman” which connects all energy by the empty space all around us and in us, survives for eternity.

And perhaps gives the big bang another opportunity to happen again……. or God did it. their you have it answer 1,2,3 or left, middle, right, or +,0,- What protheory has proposed, what I have found, and what a few others on the this board have discovered as well. Is not to wrongfully choose one answer over another, but to identify that all three co-exist. Do you need a definitive answer?

Wait until you’re dead, if God is there – right… If nothing happens and it’s oblivion – Left, …. If you happen again – middle. But, does any of this knowledge change you as a person?

Do you perhaps choose to behave differently towards your fellow man, Do you change politically, or ethically because of the understanding of the three potentials? I know I did. Does any of this give insight or explanation? Or do you find that with your OWN mind and through your OWN investigation.

richardhp – ‘Re: What is a theory?’

So is it more the fact that you are acknowledging the possibility that human knowledge is not absolute? That we can’t really ‘know’ anything at all, we can only know that we don’t really know anything.These are not points I would be willing to dispute, take for example atoms.

They don’t really exists in the objective sense, it is just a very useful model to describe the behaviour we observe in things we like to call matter. But what about even more everyday objects?

If you and I were in the same room and I referred to an object that I called a table, and you were able to recognise what I was referring to to my satisfaction and also recognise all the other objects in the world I considered tables and if I were able to do the same for YOUR definition of table as well then we have a common agreement on the concept of a table.Does that actually mean anything beyond this?

Well no, it doesn’t objectively MAKE that object a table, it is only knowledge in the sense that we can both reliably communicate the idea to each other to both our satisfaction. Someone else may yet come along and notice a distinction among the collection of objects we had agreed to be tables and noticed that some of them (according to him) were actually chairs. Who is right? Well if he can teach us the distinction so that we both are able to classify the objects to his satisfaction, and also he is able to agree on all the items we call chairs then between the three of us we may have discovered this new ‘knowledge’ of chairs.

If however we are able to notice a floor in his classification or an inconsistency, and are able to convince him of this, then we would be forced to conclude that the new definition of ‘chair’ was not really knowledge but a useless statement with no bearing on reality. So am I right in thinking that you are calling for more humility in peoples attitude towards knowledge and facts, to not assume truth without checking for yourself, to always be prepared to be wrong, to doubt and ask questions?

I agree with that 100%, but I wouldn’t call it a theory of everything, it is just an observation on the nature of the human mind and the way we accumulate knowledge.It doesn’t actually explain any natural phenomena, it only makes us aware that any such explanation must be subject to review because of our limited capacity to think and consider all possibilities.

AdamMedici – ‘Re: What is a theory?’

So is it more the fact that you are acknowledging the possibility that human knowledge is not absolute? That we can’t really ‘know’ anything at all, we can only know that we don’t really know anything.

We know many things absolutely; we know a square is four sided never three, and a triangle is three sided never four sided. It is absolute, and proves itself as useful knowledge in practical application: architecture and geometry.

So I wouldn’t agree with you that absolute knowledge is impossible in every circumstance. However absolute knowledge in the sense that omniscience or omnipotence is attainable through any one mind I find highly unlikely.

However devout religious people would argue God has such knowledge. That is why Einstein said the theory of everything would be “able to read the mind of God”. So a general statement like we only know we don’t really know anything actually falls under the categorization of yes, no, and maybe. or +,-,0′, 1, 0.

richardhp – ‘Re: What is a theory?’

Well played sir.

[Author]

Posts