Talk:Theory of everything

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics / Relativity  (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by Relativity Taskforce.

Too much attention to Godel arguments[edit]

The Godel arguments against the potential existence of a Theory of Everything aren't taken seriously by modern physicists or mathematicians. It's fine to show both sides of the debate, but together they encompass something like 10% of the article. By analogy, we wouldn't want 10% of the article on The Origin of Species to be misapplications of the second law of thermodynamics to disprove evolution, even though we could find lots of literature on both sides of this "debate." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

"Fundamental theory of physics"[edit]

I see this expression "a fundamental theory of physics" in Google Books. Is this a reference to the ToE? If yes, are there any refs towards this (ie. the ones that directly say that FToP == ToE)? If somebody finds one, please add into the intro and into Fundamental theory (disambiguation). Staszek Lem (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that:

Solving the theory of everything using Euler's formula and category theory results in a 3 dimensional universe. (simulation by any Turing complete computer provides bridge between lisp machine using recent topological and set theory related proofs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Basically all I'm saying is that it takes two turing machines, only pentagon, triangle and square blocks, to equal an infinitely powerful lisp machine and 3d universe printer. It's basically cause of the new "ceiling" of the proof tower linking exponentials and functional programming to "boolean anylitical geometry" within and without of the rectangular prism physical building (like a skyskraper as wide as math as we know it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

What the heck is going on? Someone just came up with a theory of everything solving for the cosmological constant and quantum entanglement and no one has disproved it yet?!!! Are Conway, Mira and the topology and set theory logic users going to disprove it? Where the **** are the Boolean geometry experts? The cult of Pythagoras and Euclid are probably keeping us from turning into a black hole right now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Basically, with the recent shape configurations composed of rhombuses that aren't technically patterns because they are individually distinctive, the octagon composed of 10 right triangles making squares and four more not making squares, the regular pentagon, the "golden" rhombus that has a golden ratio of side lengths and a certain angle, it's pretty darn easy to combine Boolean algebra, Euclidian geometry, and Euler's identity to make a 2d model of a unique universe containing universes of pure quantum entanglement of a certain shape. Instead of strings, basically the entire universes shape and quantum entanglement contents take the strings place. Relativity is provided by distorted the plane. It states on the relevant article about the relevant patterns that it is a 2d geometric topic that is quite a recent revolution. It was thought impossible to come up with a collection of shapes like this that was not a repeating pattern. It can be used to create any turing computable encoding given enough space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

penrose tiling is the quadralateral arrangement I'm refering to. I might be mistaken about the rhombus part actually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

TOE vs. ToE[edit]

This article uses the acronym of ToE when practically everyone else uses TOE for theory of everything. I tweaked the article to use the BIG TOE, but someone but it back to the small ToE. 2601:589:4705:C7C0:1C96:2508:525A:2F69 (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC)