The Ultimate Truth! The Theory Of Everything! The Contradiction!

TheMadFool

One of the unsolved problems in science is the so-called Theory Of Everything (TOE). While I'm not clear on the details and hopefully that doesn't matter, the idea behind aTOE is to unify the great Einstein's theory of gravity with Quantum physics. According to what I read, these two are reportedly incompatible which I will interpret as them being mutually inconsistent.

As per what I read, one of the candidates for the TOE is a version of String Theory (ST) and it appears, from my preliminary investigations into the matter, that the main impetus towards a TOE comes from theoretical physics and theoretical physics is primarily in the business of using mathematical models. Now, mathematical models are - bottom line - based off of mathematical theories. It so happens that Kurt Godel (1906 - 1978) [Godel's incompleteness theorems] proved, sadly, that if an axiomatic mathematical system is constructed such that it's consistent, some theorems (mathematical truths) in that system will be unprovable. If that's the case then, a TOE premised on mathematical models must, as of necessity, at some point along the chain of reasoning involved, depend, for its truth, on a mathematical theorem that's unprovable assuming we opt for a consistent axiomatic system.

Ergo, if that's unacceptable, we need an axiomatic mathematical system that's inconsistent, for such a system would/could prove all theorems foundational to the mathematical model that goes into a TOE.

The other side to this coin is the philosophical Ultimate Truth (UT) which I define as that single proposition from which we can derive all other truths in the universe. The UT would be the philosophical counterpart of the TOE and serves a similar function - providing an explanation for everything there was/is/will be.

Now, recall that if we build a axiomatic mathematical system that's inconsistent we can prove all theorems in that system (according to Godel) and that would pave the way for the construction of a mathematical model that can then become the basis for a TOE.

The key takeaway here is that to develop a mathematical model that we can use to generate a TOE, we need to make mathematics inconsistent. Only then, can we prove all true theorems in mathematics and my conjecture is that having achieved this, a mathematical model for the TOE will naturally emerge from what is probably going to be a veritable logical mess.

What is inconsistency?

A system of propositions is consistent if it doesn't entail a contradiction. In other words, if there's a contradiction, a system will be inconsistent.

We wanted an inconsistent system of math to achieve our goal of a TOE. Ergo, we must have, as a foundational premise, a frank and in-your-face kinda contradiction!

This fits in quite well with the nature of contradictions. Recall the principle of explosion or ex falso quodlibet which means, in plain English, from a contradiction anything follows. A TOE and the UT both need to explain/prove everything and, in my humble opinion, among the many choices that may be around, the easiest and I suppose the most obvious choice is to begin with a contradiction.

The Ultimate Truth is, and the Theory of Everything requires, a Contradiction (X & ~X). Everything follows...from...a...contradiction!

Rotorblade

To me a contradiction worse than an unproved assumption. It simply shows something is not right, whereas with the assumption everything works well but you still can’t prove your assumption is certain. With an assumption and no contradiction you have good chances the assumption is correct whereas with a contradiction you are certainly right. However, every theory starts with assumptions anyway

Jack Cummins

↪TheMadFool

I would suggest that Fritjof Capra's systems view is a model which is about the most expansive model, as far as I have made of the scientific views and I am not a mathematician. However,it seems to me that physics is one which is able to incorporate mathematical truths in the wider scheme of understanding the basic laws of matter, energies and underlying laws of these

That is because all theories are models and Capra's systems view works, because it starts from physics but does not make a claim to having one ultimate truth in itself. It is holistic and applicable to various fields and spheres of thought, as a means of building up various scientific ideas like a jigsaw puzzle. I am sure it would leave room for some paradoxes too.

By the way, I am not dismissing the actual theory you are putting forward, but just reflecting on the possibility of any scientific theory that would claim to be the ultimate theory. And that comes from my own question about truth in the wider territory covering both science and religion, and I had just been thinking about that there, so I thought I would put Capra's system view to you, as you are thinking and wondering about a scientific theory of everything. I think that the most one is one which is a starting point for pursuit of individual, separate truths.

TheMadFool

To me a contradiction worse than an unproved assumption. — Rotorblade

This, I believe, is incorrect. When we have an unproved or shaky assumption, the antithesis of the thesis using that assumption issues forth. Look at all the philosophies that are around - there's a certain claim and then there's what I like to call the anti-claim. For instance, theism has atheism, realism conflicts with anti-realism, physicalism is pitted against non-physicalism, and so on. Such a state of affairs occurs precisely because some of the assumptions, premises, in the arguments involved haven't been established beyond doubt. In a sense, we could say that believing in a contradiction that proves both sides of a debate is the same as being uncertain about key premises that participate in that debate. This should, if one adheres to the principles of rationality, render everyone an agnostic on the issue at hand.

Coincidentally, according to Wikipedia, String Theory - the most promising candidate for a TOE - is the legacy of S-Matrix Theory, a project undertaken by Werner Heisenberg (1901 - 1976) of the uncertainty principle fame and it just dawned on me that uncertainty is an innate and fundamental aspect of reality - nothing we do, whether we use better instruments, better labs, or better experimenters, can remove the uncertainty.

↪Jack Cummins

Thank you for your suggestions. Will give it a look. I think I read his (Fritjof Capra's) book, The Tao Of Physics, as a teenager. It was a very interesting read although much above my pay grade then and now.

To Those Interested And You Two

I'm, as of now, trying to read up on paraconsistent logic and dialetheism but both these theories don't quite cut it. The former has rules that preclude the principle of explosion and the latter's negation isn't exactly the negation I'm looking for.

Furthermore, I would like to draw your attention to the existence of paradoxes, the kind that's not about being counter-intuitive or surprising or unexpected but about contradictions. There are contradictions in the universe right? For instance, a theory that proves there are good people can be expressed in logical terms as below:

If Theory T then there are good people

Now, if Theory T also entails there are bad people then the following would be true.

If Theory T then there are bad people (not-good people)

That would mean,

If Theory T then (there are good people AND there are not-good people)

There are good people AND there are not-good people is a contradiction and the only way to prove contradictions is if you start with one - we have to, in this case, assume both that Theory T is true and that Theory T is false.

There are some issues with this line of thinking and I'm willing to discuss it if you want to.

jgill

One of the unsolved problems in science is the so-called Theory Of Everything (TOE). While I'm not clear on the details and hopefully that doesn't matter , , , — TheMadFool

I'm sure the details are insignificant, so proceed with your investigation of reality! Bully show! :smile:

TheMadFool

I'm sure the details are insignificant, so proceed with your investigation of reality! Bully show — jgill

The Devil, as they say, is in the details. Thus, it seems, god must be in the rought outline/general overview and that's when contradictions crawl out of the woodwork. The Devil's supposed to be comprehensible because whenever there's a contradiction the Devil draws a distinction. To divide, perhaps with the nefarious intent to rule, is the Devil's modus operandi. God, on the other hand, unites and thus, for that reason, must be a contradiction and being that God's incomprehensible. A bit of religious detour there but you can be a Deist about it and the argument still makes sense.

Jack Cummins

↪TheMadFool

Strangely enough, when I read your idea last night I was thinking that God and the devil is the most fundamental paradox. It is the whole issue of opposition, like good and evil, male and female, light and dark, heaven and hell.

Nevertheless, I do believe that your consideration of paradoxes involves more than the matter of opposites. Perhaps you are asking whether they exist a priori or if they are mere aspects of the divided, binary consciousness of our thinking?

TheMadFool

Strangely enough, when I read your idea last night I was thinking that God and the devil is the most fundamental paradox. It is the whole issue of opposition, like good and evil, male and female, light and dark, heaven and hell.

Nevertheless, I do believe that your consideration of paradoxes involves more than the matter of opposites. Perhaps you are asking whether they exist a priori or if they are mere aspects of the divided, binary consciousness of our thinking? — Jack Cummins

You're right in saying that God and the Devil are opposites - yin and yang in a manner of speaking. However, the will to unify is a divine directive and the need to divide is a demonic desire. Give the thought just a moment or so and it'll all sink in. Contradictions are what stops in our tracks, at least for me. When someone thinks/speaks/acts in ways that fit the description of an antinomy, we immediately descend into darkness, our minds struggling to make sense of what is before it viz. a contradiction. A good piece of advice that I was fortunate to chance upon is that whenever one is faced with a contradiction, it's time to draw a distinction as a means of resolving the contradiction and then, when the one splits into the two, the conflict resolves, and we comprehend the thought/speech/act. Every time, we're faced with what appears to us as doublethink we'll use this principle and divide the world up into smaller but more numerous parts. This is, in every sense of the word "opposite", going in the direction opposite to where we want to go - our destination is to unify our experience of reality in, if possible, one word, if not, in one sentence.

Given that's the case, the only option that makes sense and does not too is bring the two halves that are in opposition together and thus the contradiction X & ~X. Every possible truth will flow out of it as naturally as the waters of the rivers in my country, yes I seem to have one, flow from the glaciers high atop the mountains. What's curious is this - we live in a world rife with paradoxes and yet our minds seem to be more familiar with a lack/absence of them. I need to add this to my growing list of paradoxes. Thanks for leading me to it. By the way, does the world make sense to you or is the general suspicion that we haven't yet figured out what the truth is a false intuition?

Jack Cummins

↪TheMadFool

I think that your point that ,'the need to unite is a divine directive and the need to divide is a demonic desire,' captures an important aspect of truth in itself. When we see opposition and conflict we do often recoil, oppressed by the confusion and the darkness is like an unfathomable. I love the title of RD Laing's book, 'The Divided Self', and it is perhaps more profound than the book, as antipsychiatry is almost dated in its arguments.

To some extent, I think that we do see the opposites as part of our own fragmented egoic consciousness. But, to say they do not exist at all would be verging on the absurd, although I sometimes think that continuums are more helpful than binary thinking. But some might say that I am making things even more complicated and foggy. But on a most basic level, I think it is too simple to classify life into good and evil, and any attempt to do so lacks philosophical imagination.

Yes, the whole question of a paradox or the lack of them is interesting.

I think that I am finding the whole question of truth in my recent thread to be a helpful scope for my thinking. But I think that if we found the answer completely, or solved all the paradoxes we would lose some of our meaning and purpose. Perhaps, I am speaking like a mystic here, in love with my own quest.

And, in that respect, I recommend The Waterboys' song, 'The Whole of the Moon'. A wonderful song and band. I don't know if you know it, and I don't use You Tube, but I am sure you could find it there. Anyway, I believe that Mike Scott wrote the song comparing his own quest for truth with that of Prince. And in that sense, you can say that rock music is as primary to my thinking as mathematics is to you.

TheMadFool

I think it is too simple to classify life into good and evil, and any attempt to do so lacks philosophical imagination. — Jack Cummins

Now that you mention imagination, the creator of paraconsistent logic - Nicolai A. Vasiliyev - was supposed to have called his logic "imaginary". The wikipedia page doesn't, to my knowledge, contain an account of practical applications of paraconsistent logic but that's odd considering what I said before about the world having a paradoxical side to it which, every now and then, bubbles up to the surface, and catches us off guard and then it's back to the drawing board insofar as a consistent theory of reality is in our crosshairs.

Also, if it's all the same to you, I'd like to extend the boundaries of paradoxes to include the unexpected, the counter-intuitive, the ironic, and other similar notions for these are essentially either a frank contradiction or else evolving into one and either way we're in trouble.

I just went through the Wikipedia page on cognitive dissonance and I found a very relatable paradox - the meat paradox - which asserts the known truth that we do care about animals and yet we eat them without even a second thought. It's just a hunch of mine but I suspect there are other paradoxes - some harmless, others deadly - lurking away in the depths of our minds.

It appears, from my brief encounters with contradictions, that what I'm really interested are in dialetheia which are real contradictions and this reminds of Blaise Pascal's quote:

In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't. — Blaise Pascal

However, read Pascal in the broadest sense possible. Reality isn't trying to deceive but we're deceived. That's another paradox if you're interested. We see/smell/hear/taste/feel the same reality but our beliefs strike a discordant note - the harmony that people are so quick to claim as their own is simply nonexistent.

Another point of interest in my theory is that Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, a major stumbling block for what seems to be the ultimate aim of science - mathematization of our understanding of reality - relies for their proof a variation of the Liar's paradox. Which person in faer right mind proves anything with the help of a liar? Something's wrong, right?

Come to think of it, by trying to get my point across to you, I'm contradicting myself. Ahhhh...the irony.

Jack Cummins

↪TheMadFool

I think that we all live out contradictions in life, such as the one you make about eating meat while disliking cruelty to animals Perhaps it is about not questioning oneself enough, and layers of self deception. I would say we have splits in our our consciousness between reason and lack of it.

It probably requires a lot of honesty to admit to ourselves that this is true on a personal level, and easier to point out the contradictions of others.Personally, I am aware of many contradictions in my thinking and in my behaviour, and between the two. It is sometimes painful emotionally to engage in this level of self analysis and perhaps it is one reason why I am often awake in the night. The paradoxes are not the best remedy for sleeping.

The Ultimate Truth! The Theory Of Everything! The Contradiction!

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions