XPost: sci.math   
   From: nospam@de-ster.demon.nl   
      
   Ross Finlayson  wrote:   
      
   > On 10/22/2025 02:18 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:   
   > > Ross Finlayson  wrote:   
   > >   
   > >> On 10/20/2025 02:15 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:   
   > >>> Ross Finlayson  wrote:   
   > >>>   
   > >>>> On 10/19/2025 01:07 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:   
   > >>>>> Ross Finlayson  wrote:   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>>> On 10/19/2025 06:49 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:   
   > >>>>>>> The Starmaker  wrote:   
   > >>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>> 'The Theory of Everything is an overarching hypothetical framework   
   > >>>>>>>> that would explain the physics of the entire universe in a single   
   > >>>>>>>> equation. But unifying theories that define the large-scale   
   > >>>>>>>> cosmological structure of the universe with those that describe the   
   > >>>>>>>> minuscule quantum world of the subatomic particles has been a   
   > >>>>>>>> challenge for over a century.'   
   > >>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>> The key word here is... unifying.   
   > >>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>> So, if energy is mass, and mass is energy...how come it's not called   
   > >>>>>>>> energymass? or massenergy??   
   > >>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>> I mean, if you want to  unifying..then EM, not e=m.   
   > >>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>> or energymass.   
   > >>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>> Lets get this TOE started. Get it right!   
   > >>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>      explain the physics of the entire universe in a single   
   equation.   
   > >>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>> Is TOE a single equation of  the entire universe?   
   > >>>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>>      or an abbreviation?   
   > >>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>> So you misunderstood that too.   
   > >>>>>>> The problem is not putting everything in a single equation.   
   > >>>>>>> That is trivial, the 'Great Feynman Equation' for example will do.   
   > >>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>> The point is having no free parameters,   
   > >>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>> Jan   
   > >>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>>   
   > >>>>>> That's pragmatic and begins to attain to a theory,   
   > >>>>>> yet eventually a "theory of everything" is actually   
   > >>>>>> involving also the mathematics and the logic and   
   > >>>>>> the philosophy and even the metaphysics of it all.   
   > >>>>>>   
   > >>>>>> I.e., a theory of everything is about the parameters that are free.   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> It is you who is thoroughly confused.   
   > >>>>> If there are free parameters in it it isn't the TOE,   
   > >>>>> by definition, (because it leaves things to be explained)   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> Jan   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> No, that's just a closed form and physics is an open system.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> A non-sequitur, whether true or not.   
   > >>>   
   > >>>> I sort of helped explain this to one of the bots and   
   > >>>> it really agrees,   
   > >>>   
   > >>> Now that is a really conclusive argument,   
   > >>>   
   > >>> Jan   
   > >>>   
   > >>> [snip more misunderstandings about what the TOE is]   
   > >>>   
   > >>>   
   > >>   
   > >> Here's a riddle of induction as Goodman might put it,   
   > >> yours.   
   > >   
   > > If induction could do it we would have had it long ago,   
   > >   
   > > Jan   
   > >   
   >   
      
   > Induction can't complete itself.   
      
   And less than that.   
   If induction could do it we would have had it long ago,   
      
   Jan   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)