Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Roobaba]

Where does theoretical physics stand after the end of the second decade of the 21st century? Are we finally approaching the end of physics, when the rich tapestry of the universe will be revealed to us and we will finally understand the true nature of reality?

[JackDaydream]

@Roobaba

You ask if 'the rich tapestry of the universe will be revealed to us' and whether 'we will finally understand the true nature of reality?' This is an extremely complex question. Your thread is about have we reached the end of physics and this does link to the nature of understanding reality, but there is also the question as to whether 'reality' can be described by any one of sciences.

In some ways, physics can be seen as the master of the sciences because it is about the basic structure and processes of the physical world. What is interesting is how quantum physics shows relativity, and the observer role in observation. I am not from a background of studying physics, so you may get more detailed analytical replies from people who have studied it. I have mainly read some physics books from the standpoint of its implications for philosophy. But, it does seem that it is about models and what Thomas Kuhn describes as paradigms.

The new physics since Einstein has replaced the Cartesian-Newtonian picture. There has been an emphasis on the way systems work, as stressed by Fritjof Capra. There is the issue of the the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg. There have been some attempts to come up with a theory of everything. Ideas like superstring theory and the multiverse have been generated. But, as for interpreting the ideas of physics that is where it gets more difficult. One of the biggest issues may be to what extent can reality be explained in terms of matter? What is matter and where does it come from? The idea of energy and processes are important. However, so much comes down to the philosophical imagination behind the ideas. Physics may show reductive aspects and wider processes but it is bound up with metaphysical assumptions. So, even though physics has made such advances it is questionable as to it being at a point where it can come up with definitive answers and whether it can do so ever, or whether any endpoint could be achieved in any model of reality.

[Pattern-chaser]

Where does theoretical physics stand after the end of the second decade of the 21st century?

Physics continues, much as it has done for centuries.

Are we finally approaching the end of physics, when the rich tapestry of the universe will be revealed to us and we will finally understand the true nature of reality?

No.

[Raymond]

No wackey cracky intentions meant here. Short while ago it all fell into place. In an unprecedented epiphany the universe showed me her true being. And it's a wonderful one! It gives shelter to an infinite serie of big bangs, an alternative to mass generation is included, no matter/antimatter asymmetry is present, and it's revealed the weak interaction is residual instead of fundamental. I Particles are not point-like but Planck-sized toroids. Space is made from hidden variables and clock time only had real existence around the Planck-sized mouth of the 4D open torus from which two 3D universes bang into existence periodically. All critique is welcome! I'm writing a book about my adventures on the net: The Dark Solution

[Raymond]

I know that I have reached the end of fundamental physics and cosmology. It may sound psychotic but I truly have the feeling the unìverse and what's it made of showed itself to me! After 15 years of thinking, trying, fitting, observing, it fell into place. But this is not the end of physics...

[Alan Masterman]

Whatever you're on, Raymond, it's good stuff. Can't think why you thought it might sound psychotic...

[Raymond]

Whatever you're on, Raymond, it's good stuff. Can't think why you thought it might sound psychotic...

It strange Alan. Since about 1.5 years I'm off some **** I took daily for a long time. I'm still on state approved **** (in fact much more addictive than the original...), and that's not where I'm off now. I took benzos daily. Oxazepam, which helped me in fighting the beast of depression. From one day to the other I was forced to stop. My supplier died... maaaan! That sucked. I won't bother you further with details but when I finally got better I landed in a kind of psychotic up state (the other side of the bi-polarity). I felt great without inhibitions though I knew perfectly well what all was about! I'm interested in physics already all my life. Studied it in Amsterfam I can remember thinking: "Wouldn't it be great if we find out what nature and the cosmos is all about?", and now I'm on to it! That's what I'm on!

All quarks and leptons made from two massless fields. A 6D space of which three dimensions are curled up to Planck-sized circles. S1xS1xS1 tori. On these tori (pointlike from a distance) we can place charge. Like on a circle on a cylinder. They form mass when three particles of the two basic massless fields interact superstrongly by a supercolor gauge field, comparable to the normal strong color force. Around a 4D (well, actually 7D...) wormhole, connecting two infinite 4D spaces, 3D two (mirror) universes inflate into being periodically (negative curvature!). On both sides of the Planck-sized mouth of the wormhole. Etcetera...

Luckily my wife and my dog keep me down to Earth!

[Raymond]

Where does theoretical physics stand after the end of the second decade of the 21st century? Are we finally approaching the end of physics, when the rich tapestry of the universe will be revealed to us and we will finally understand the true nature of reality?

Not still approaching. The goal is reached my dear! And the sight is a beautiful one. The universe is a beautiful structure. It's a 7d space of which three are curled up to the tiny Planck-sized circles. An apparent 4d space. On this infinite 4d space two 3d spaces come into being periodically. There are in fact two of these infinite spaces connected by a tiny wormhole, the central singularity. On both sides of this wormhole, a universe is periodically spit into existence. Two mirrored universes (duality!). Both contain equal amounts of preons and anti preons, but differently arranged. Quarks and leptons in our universe, antiquarks and anti leptons on the other side. A neutrino, an electron, a proton, and a neutron together contain the same preons as their antis contain.

All particles in the universe will one day annihalate (remember there are equal amounts of preons and anti preons). Only photons will be left. A sign for the central singularity to spit out two new universes. A new show begins for the gods to look at, projected on the eternal heavenly heavens.

[Pattern-chaser]

Are we finally approaching the end of physics, when the rich tapestry of the universe will be revealed to us and we will finally understand the true nature of reality?

Not still approaching. The goal is reached my dear!

We understand the "true nature of reality"? Are we able to conclude, objectively, that we are not brains-in-vats, for example? No, we are not. There are many things we do not know; of these, there are many things we cannot know. There is still much to discover, and much to learn.

[Raymond]

Are we finally approaching the end of physics, when the rich tapestry of the universe will be revealed to us and we will finally understand the true nature of reality?

Not still approaching. The goal is reached my dear!

I agree that there are lots of things to learn. But the fundamentals are known, at least, in my story. We can't be brains in a vat because brains can exist only in us or in animals.

We understand the "true nature of reality"? Are we able to conclude, objectively, that we are not brains-in-vats, for example? No, we are not. There are many things we do not know; of these, there are many things we cannot know. There is still much to discover, and much to learn.

[Raymond]

Sorry. Something went wrong. I agree there are many things to learn still. But the fundamentals are known, at least in my story. I don't think we are brains in a vat as brains can exist only in living bodies.

[Pattern-chaser]

Sorry. Something went wrong. I agree there are many things to learn still. But the fundamentals are known, at least in my story. I don't think we are brains in a vat as brains can exist only in living bodies.

I think it's in the "fundamentals" that we are most lacking. These supposedly fundamental things are all based on assumptions. Some of those assumptions are called 'axioms', to make them sound more formal, defined and understood, but they're still assumptions: guesses. Admittedly, some of those guesses are educated guesses, but others aren't. That we are not brains in vats - and that's only one example - is an assumption. It cannot be demonstrated, let alone proven.

[Raymond]

Sorry. Something went wrong. I agree there are many things to learn still. But the fundamentals are known, at least in my story. I don't think we are brains in a vat as brains can exist only in living bodies.

I think it's in the "fundamentals" that we are most lacking. These supposedly fundamental things are all based on assumptions. Some of those assumptions are called 'axioms', to make them sound more formal, defined and understood, but they're still assumptions: guesses. Admittedly, some of those guesses are educated guesses, but others aren't. That we are not brains in vats - and that's only one example - is an assumption. It cannot be demonstrated, let alone proven.

Assumptions can be true though. If you assume that we are brains in a vat, it's your assumption, not mine. I assume we are not because a living brain can't exist in a vat. It needs a body to live in. You can't prove we are brains in a vat because it can't exist in a vat. If you want to proof a brain can exist in a vat you have to construct one. As this hasn't been done (as it can't be done), I don't make this assumption. The assumptions concerning the fundamentals of the cosmos, or its evolution, can be seen around us.

You have to take some story for real... I take mine for real.

[Pattern-chaser]

I agree there are many things to learn still. But the fundamentals are known, at least in my story. I don't think we are brains in a vat as brains can exist only in living bodies.

I think it's in the "fundamentals" that we are most lacking. These supposedly fundamental things are all based on assumptions. Some of those assumptions are called 'axioms', to make them sound more formal, defined and understood, but they're still assumptions: guesses. Admittedly, some of those guesses are educated guesses, but others aren't. That we are not brains in vats - and that's only one example - is an assumption. It cannot be demonstrated, let alone proven.

Assumptions can be true though. If you assume that we are brains in a vat, it's your assumption, not mine. I assume we are not because a living brain can't exist in a vat. It needs a body to live in. You can't prove we are brains in a vat because it can't exist in a vat. If you want to proof a brain can exist in a vat you have to construct one. As this hasn't been done (as it can't be done), I don't make this assumption. The assumptions concerning the fundamentals of the cosmos, or its evolution, can be seen around us.

You have to take some story for real... I take mine for real.

Sorry, I mustn't've expressed myself well. I made two points.

The first point is that there is no knowledge [except for the existence of Objective Reality] that humans possess that is not founded on assumptions, axioms, and guesswork. In other words, I think you might be proclaiming certainties that are not certain.

My second point is that we could conceivably be brains in vats. [There are other examples that illustrate the same point.] I do not assume or believe that we are, I offer it as an example of a thought experiment. You state in response that “it can't be done”. Not by humans, with early 21st century technology, it can't. But we can conceive of another intelligent species being able to do it, or perhaps humans, in some time to come.

It is already possible to keep a heart alive outside a body, and I'm not referring to placing it in ice and zooming it round to a hospital, I mean keeping the heart working 'naturally'. Admittedly, there's a big difference between doing that to a heart and to a brain, but it does illustrate that your confidence that it “can't be done” may be misplaced.

I'm not asking you to accept that we are brains-in-vats, I'm asking you to consider that we could conceivably be, and if we were, there's no way we could tell. [Part of this thought experiment is that the brain is provided with an electro-bio-chemical 'data stream' that exactly duplicates what that brain might have received if it was in a human body.]

[Raymond]

Well, I didn't say that the objective story (which I have) is a sine qua non for everyone. The objective story is subjective, and claiming something is objectively true is a human need. The particle physicist wants his particles to be real, the theist wants her gods to really exist.

Concerning the brain, how will you provide the right stimulation of a brain in a vat if the brain is not in a body (we already ARE brains in a walking vat!). How can the vat equal a body if its NOT a walking body?