09 March 2008


toe-theory of everything = thevery. do not ask me why; i like it.

it is the explanation to incorporate
a) gravitation
b) electromagnetism
c) weak force
d) strong force
c) everything else
(give me some time; i will connect it to computing sciences soon! then to philosophy ofcourse:))
least it can do is to give us a way to understand the confusion of physicists and mathematicians. it might also help in knowing where is that mist of confusion in science headed. however, before there is such a thing, there is enough scepticism in the air.

god of nasty things, and this god business discussed some stuff about implication of godel's theorm on oh! your god! it all started with russel's paradox (as far as i know). bertrand russel a thinker, a nobel laurate in lirature and a mathematician demonstated a paradox in set theory. (one of his books everyone will love reading is: conquering happiness, (you need not read if you know enough hindu philosophy!)). the paradox is something like this:[4]

Let R be "the set of all sets that do not contain themselves as members". Formally: A is an element of R if and only if A is not an element of A. In :

R = {A A ­­is not in A}
Nothing rules out R being a well-defined set. The problem arises when it is considered whether R is an element of itself. If R is an element of R, then according to the definition R is not an element of R. If R is not an element of R, then R has to be an element of R, again by its very definition. The statements "R is an element of R" and "R is not an element of R" cannot both be true, thus the contradiction.

as an aside, do not be mislead to think that this has nothing to do with OTHER things. for example, in computing sciences first-order-logic(fol) is used to implement logic programming. fol is a formal system that covers predication and quantification. a predicate is a property of a SET!(yet godel proved that first-order-logic is complete so we are here earning our bread, programming!)

citing goldbach's conjecture (not proven yet) and godel's incompleteness theorm stephan hawking gets pessimistic arguing that any theory that explains the universe will be self referential and thus must be incomplete or inconsistent.

i am not even a bit rickyppointed (disappointed). a theory will stand for a while and might explain everything we know. it is not reasonable to expect a theory to explain things we do not know yet. in that respect it will be complete and consistant. hold on, godel's theorm has aquired mysticsm. his proof seems to be ina limited context. i only hope hawking knew what he was talking about, because i do not know what i am talking about!

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please leave a note about what you think about this write up. Thanks.