The fairness principle and the ultimate theory of not everything by Giovanni Amelino-Camelia

The universe is causal. Demanding causality cannot be wholly encapsulated within a self-consistent mathematical model is indefensible. Proclaiming deities and paranormal cobwebs is frank cowardice. Human understanding isonly limited only by committees and their peer votes.

The singular biblical sin is knowledge: the tree of Knowledge, Gomorrah being burned from history for sins of the mind, the Vatican refusing to look through Galileo's telescope, the Flintstones as a documentary. You walk in others' small footprints and bask in their big noises. Important people work to create the future, not gather to mourn it.

Mr. Amelino-Camelia,

Thank you for a well written and thought provoking essay. I believe that we need have no fear of ever encountering a point in history when there will be no more mysteries of the universe to discover, no more puzzles to solve. I base this belief on the observation that the more we learn about the universe, the more we realize how little we really know about it and the more we realize how little we truly understand it.

I further base my belief on the scientific fact of evolution. By the process of natural selection, our brains gradually have become better adapted to making new discoveries about our natural environment, which has so far worked to our advantage in terms of survival. If we succeed in navigating the precarious phase of evolution in which we currently find ourselves (i.e., having brains ideally suited by evolution for survival in a hunter-gatherer society, but armed with weapons of mass destruction), then our further outlook on the far side of these precarious evolutionary waters should be promising indeed, hopefully finding us a race of beings whose knowledge of science will be tempered by an equal or greater degree of wisdom.

"The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is its comprehensibility." -- A. Einstein

I also have another argument against TOE. I optical fibers the pulse propagation is described by the nonlinear Schrodinger equation (NLSE) which has famous solitonic solutions. Now the NLSE is derivable in certain anharmonic region from Maxwell's equations. You can consider Maxwell's equations as the TOE of light, and still, NLSE has very different characteristics and uses inverse scattering (a completely different math) for solving it.

Similarly in medicine we fully understand now the circulatory system, the bones, etc, but we are still battling cancer. The point is that even after a TOE, emergent phenomena will keep physicists employed. Mathematics is infinite and so are the physical phenomena.

Still, the case for and against a TOE is open and I am not sure either way, what I do know is that physics axiomatization (Hilbert's sixth problem) is mathematically feasible and this may one day be what people will understand by a TOE.

On a separate issue, I was wondering what would your response be to the claims of Nosratollah Jafari, Ahmad Shariati in gr-qc/0602075? Thanks.

Dear Giovanni Amelino-Camelia!

Thank you for having the guts to point to the fact that faith is a big and largely detrimental factor in the scientific community. This is one of my main points, and I will just add that it is not "even nowadays", but especially nowadays, and not in spite of, but not surprisingly at all accompanied by vehemently denying any similarity with religious/esoteric mindsets. But let's stick to the very core of your essay:

You have statements like: "when really we are not doing anything else but describe the worldview that is most appealing to us" [page 4]. I am sure you would admit that your main thesis is exactly falling into this very trap: "there will be a saturation in our ability to discover more and more things. But I find this hypothesis unpleasant and, in an appropriate sense, unfair" [p 3]. Well, the world is not fair! Anyways, because of your desire and your human "instinctive aspiration" [p 4], you "passionately argue however that this is likely not the case" [p 2 ]. What you feel is "not the case" is the "certain level of saturation" [p 2], "a saturation in our ability to discover more and more" [p 3].

You "advocate a perspective on the history of physics that provides some encouragement for this intuition" [p 2], but the human history is short and does thereby distort the understanding of underlying evolutionary mechanisms. In fact, your argument is much like the "oh the old Romans already claimed that the world will end soon with a youth like this, but it still did not". Were the Romans wrong? No, just their intuition about the length of involved time scales was slightly off.

I encourage you to think less anthropocentric and widen your perspective towards inclusion of fundamental aspects of algorithmic evolution. You will come to understand that so called S-curves (rather than exponential growth) are the standard. Charles S. Pierce (1935) already proposed that long term evolutionary development must cause it to gradually lose its spontaneous character (reach the top of its S-curve) in any substrate (be it molecular, genetic or memetic). Nowadays, we call this emerging memetic terminal differentiation, were "terminal differentiation" originally comes from the description of the development of for example seeds or stem-cells towards specialized tissue (organs) - anyways, it is applicable to any substrate since algorithms are by definition substrate independent.

You are right in pointing out the detrimental influence of the somewhat religious "theory of everything" mindset. I encourage you to go beyond this symptom and look for the systemic origins.

Sascha

Hi Mr Giovanni Amelino-Camelia,Mr Vongehr,all ,

Interesting essay .

I agree too Mr Vongehr,Your analyse is pragamatic.

we are babies of the Universe still and the pleasure to learn and to always search the truth is essential ,fundamental ,basic ,rational ,logic,systematic .

A fundamenatl theory evolves too ,improves itself by complementarity .

I d like insist on the difference between the universal faith ,and the human religions ,it's totally different in its system on Earth .

The universe which evolves ,complexificates ,harmonizes itself shows us the building towards harmony ,thus a certain universalism is evident ,totally different than a human interpretation .

The faith ,this universality improves the equations ,it's a catalyzer of the research of truths and truth .

Let's take the entropy ,the energy ,without this evidence of ultim entropy ,our knowledges shall be differents,the problem of a weak evolution on Earth is due to the actual system which is the monney ,and the individualism ,we could evolve more quickly in a complemenatry system focus on priorities and harmonious systems but our story shows us the human instinct and the possible effects of the chaos ,just due to our young age and this past .

The problem of this planet is the human instinct and the global systems of individualism and not universalism and humanism .

We adds problems due to the bad governance at this moment and the lack of universalism and thus respect of all creations .

It's just a question of evolution and time ,we evolve fortunaly and the future will be better but I am afraid about the short time and our possible exponentials due stil to a bad human comportments where the knowledge of sciences is not a priority.

It's time to harmonise some systems around us ,the universality is that ,the sciences reponsability is so ,sos,so important ,well I hope what not only a weak part of people understand this reality ,and the need to harmonize.

The sciences can harmonise all systems .Our Earth is a system thus it's possible .

Regards

Steve

Ultimately this topic hinges on what it means to understand something. The two folk definitions of understanding I'm familiar with are: "If you can explain something simply, then you understand it" and "If you can predict how something will behave, then you understand it." I think it will ultimately be possible to achieve the first type of understanding with respect to the universe, but I don't think the second will ever happen. Science has trained us to equate predictive power with explanatory power. We should be prepared for the possibility that 100% explanatory power still translates to some amount of predictive power that, while nonzero, is still less than 100%.

Hi Giovanni-

I think that the fairness principle is interesting from a philosophical perspective. However, an unlimited number of reasonable principles can be imagined. For example, the principle of parsimony, symmetry principles, the beauty principle (beautiful must be good), etc.

In my opinion, absolutely fundamental characteristics of nature should be used to guide us to a unified theory of physics. In my essay "Ultimate Possibilities of Physics", I explain that this is possible and results in a coherent theory, which explains and predicts many features observed in nature.

Sincerely,

Ben Baten

Hello all ,

I agree Mr Baten ,indeed the nature shows us the fundamenatls .

I am horticulteur too ,botanist and ecologist .It's a passion in fact ,I like plant and cultivate flowers ,vegetables ,trees....The nature and its splendids creations show us the truths ,the truth .

All has a spherical comportments without any doubt .All is correlated with these spheres ,spherisation,rotations ,spheroids ,circles ,ellipsoid ,tori,...all .

Since 12 years I class animals and vegetals ,more atoms ,molecules ,amino acids ,proteins,cells ,animals ,vegetals ,minerals ....more a cosmological link .

It's evident when we see the whole ,let's take the favotite sports of human too ,with spheres dur to the optimized rotation and movements .

Let's take our waves ,....

The seeds ,eggs ,....even the virus ,

Let's take the big revolution of our Earth ,the rotations ,the wheels ,the pullies ,the rotors,....even an wind system ,eolian.

Let's take our brain ,our glands ,our eyes ,our hands ....

We evolve in a spherical dynamic .

All is always balanced in two forces where the balance is the sphere .

The sphere and its properties is our fundamental ,the spheres evolve ....with its spherical lifes .

The nature is fundamental and its creations too ,and the objectivity is a reality ,the sphere relation is fundamental ,any system can contradict this fact of spheres ,spheroids ,circles ,ellipsoids ,tori ,......because we see them simply .The Theory of spherisation of the Universe by quantuùm spheres and their specific rotations is an simple evidence where the eyes see this reality ....a fundamental theory evolve and rest and furthermore we see it in all cen,ters of interest .

Math ^physics ,chemistry ,biology ,astronomy,philosophy,sociability,civilization,technology ....all is linked .The complexity returns to the simplicity ,simply .

Sincerely

Steve

Dear Dr. Giovanni Amelino-Camelia!

Conscious observer has no faith. He is aware of consciousness itself. He is not a believer he is a knower.

yours amrit

Dear Giovanni

Excellent Essay. I have discovered that finding and opening that sought after door, or reaching that mountain peak, can only ever give us a new horizon. It opens up to view areas of nature far greater than that we knew before, but it also gives us far more to explore. Amost unfairly more! as we've been trapped with no way ahead for some time now.

I was stopped in my tracks by your comments on nesting dolls, and a new theory of noteverything, perhaps with "..limited realm of applicability and lacking mathematical rigor." to "..play a key role in changing a fundamental paradigm." as Fermi's theory.

I've become convinced, and think I've now largely proven, that such a theory, even a beautiful one, cannot now do that. Please view my own essay, ('Perfect Symmetry') and article link hidden in the posts under, that achieves this. It's fields within fields, from a galaxy cluster down to a single accellered proton, and Doppler provides the only maths needed for unification without paradox. It's an almost 'naive' unification model it's so simple, but you are absolutely right, it only brings us a slightly clearer view of the distant past and the origin of the universe.

But to change a ruling paradigm? Not with our current half closed eyes and minds. J.C.N.Smith above amplified my point well. Our brains simply haven't evolved enough and aren't ready for it yet. Or please tell me you think I'm wrong?!

Peter Jackson

Dear Giovanni,

I agree with you on your main point about *theory* of everything, but I do not quite agree with the "case for noteverything".

Thus, although the main reason why the term 'theory of everything' appeared, as I see it, is the dominant pyramidal view of the organization of *natural sciences* (with physics at the bottom), the more interesting question about 'everything' is this. Do we need the *representational formalism* for everything, i.e. the universal form of data representation?

Interestingly, so far, we have actually relied on such representational formalism for everything, the numeric formalism: the number is the universal currency in science. So the answer to the question is 'yes'.

However, as I discuss it in my essay, the more fundamental question about 'everything' has to do with whether we need to replace the numeric representational formalism for everything with another one.

That could be well if the name "evolutive "was inserted in the name ?

Regards

Steve

Giovanni:

I agree, the Universe is far more complex and full of information to put it in a single theory of everything.

On my essay (which should be available soon) I posulate only the UNIVERSE itself can contain all the rules we are looking for.

For us, there will allways be things to discover, and new theories to postulate, each of them a little better than the other ones, but never, ever complete.

Uncle Al:

Even if the universe is causal (which I might agree), who says the rules that govern it are finite?

Wait!

I just found the theory of everything.

For any given event or succes in the universe:

If it can be explained completly using quantum physics use quantum physics.

if it can be explained completly using general relativity use general relativity

else just say it works as you saw it.

Hi Juan Ramos ,

It's well that ,I suppose what the name is the Theory of Spherisation ,a GUT of Rotating Spheres ,here is the ultim Gauge my friends and thus this theory will rest and will evolve .

Thus EUREKA hihihihiihi don't be frustrated we can all work together ....if you want of course dear friends .

I am too arrogant ,I am going to have still people against me but it's like that when you find something important and revolutionnary .

The jealousy is human like the vanity but we evolve hihihi fortunally

I have read your essay dear Juan ,verry funny to read .A good humor ,well placed with pragamatism .

Sincerely

Steve

Faith is one of many things that keep us from watching things as they are, so I try to be allways open and respectful to anyones beliefs. Most beliefs have a reasonable part in them. --as long they don't make people kill each other --

the quest to produce a TOE will surelly lead us to some good conclusions even if it does not produce a TOE.

I think there is enogh of us to walk the different paths.

But each of us has to take a position.

It's a great thing most essays do take a position

One of my friend says always that .

It's better to include ....never to exclude ....it's fundamental for the real respect .

I agree mostly with your assessment about TOE's. First off a TOE about quantum supergravity is not likely to tell us that much about how to predict hurricanes. I tend to prefer TODOE, "Theory OF Domains Of Experience." Given certain aspects of physics which appear incommensurate a unification amounts to some physical recognition about how these separate domains are in fact equivalent in some scheme.

Even string theory, if for now we assume this works at some foundations, is really an effective theory. It valences chaotic quantum foam or fluctuations from the lower energy world. The string world sheet in a sense "covers" them. So there is admitedly some domain of ignorance, which in principle could be open to investigation. I think that strings are Skymrion field effects from quantum codes and Planck sphere packings. This might take physics a bit closer to the absolute Planck scale. A closer theory might be mathematically codified by the "monster group."

The "end of physics" is probably coming whether we like it or not. I hope that we can arrive at a reasonable effective theory of quantum cosmology. We might push further if we are lucky to deeper underlying structure to that. I also hold out some hope for some body of empirical data which will support this. Yet we might find in time that we are in a sense lost and can't access data. It is my dread that we might already be there are near there with regards to quantum gravity.

I also suspect that physics might become a sort of applied service science tied to other areas of science, say biophysics. Even more we might find that the biggest area of late 21st century physics will be health physics or Earth physics. We might be forced before terribly long to get serious about cleaning up our mess here.

Cheers LC

Interesting approach ,

"I also suspect that physics might become a sort of applied service science tied to other areas of science, say biophysics"

Personnally I also suspect that physics become a kind of mathematical extrapolations without a real physical sense .

I name that the imaginaries .I prefer the reals .

The sciences are all linked ,even the math must be fundamentals .

A biological system is a pure creation of physics ....

Steve