Rethinking…Is There a Next Einstein?

[HIENVN]

According to the World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 6 (E), page 103, copyright Field Enterprises Educational Corporation, 1975, U.S.A.:
“Unified Field Theory. Einstein’s general theory of relativity did not completely satisfy him because it did not include electromagnetism. Beginning in the late 1920’s, he tried to combine electromagnetic and gravitational phenomena in a single theory, called a unified field theory. Einstein failed to establish a unified field theory, though he spent the last 25 years of his life working on it. Toward the end of his life, he remarked that it would be worthwhile to show that such a theory did not exist. He worried that if he neither produced a theory nor showed that one was impossible, perhaps no one ever would.”
Einstein recognized his failure in the establishment of his Unified Field Theory with a remark that has not a person who will perfect this his theory.
Do you think his remark true?

[haloman]

There is actully a team that is trying to end his theory on nova it says that they are close to finding the answer and its just a matter of convincing everyone. Look here: PBS | Search . Search Results
They explain it, so in a way there is it just that they are more than one person.

[HIENVN]

Originally Posted by haloman

There is actully a team that is trying to end his theory on nova it says that they are close to finding the answer and its just a matter of convincing everyone. Look here: PBS | Search . Search Results
They explain it, so in a way there is it just that they are more than one person.

Thanks haloman,
Your post is very important because it help me know some scientists who are the next Einstein that I could not find out.
Scientists of NOVA string theory are right when they use quantum theory as a basic theory to solve the phenomenon of universe. These scientists have an ambition that will reject Einstein’s relativity theory and use Newton’s idea. However, these scientists have not known that Einstein rejected his relativity theory since 1923 and he would like to rethink idea of Newton in his last life. And the purpose of string theory is just the last idea of Einstein in his proposed unified field theory.
Although scientists of string theory have not believed on Einstein, but I think the next Einstein will be belong to these scientists; because the string theory is discovering the secrets of universe that Einstein confirmed as a single law of the universe in his unified field theory.
Einstein was one of the greatest scientists of all time, and this should be recognized by everyone.

[arkain101]

Originally Posted by HIENVN

According to the World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 6 (E), page 103, copyright Field Enterprises Educational Corporation, 1975, U.S.A.:
“Unified Field Theory. Einstein’s general theory of relativity did not completely satisfy him because it did not include electromagnetism. Beginning in the late 1920’s, he tried to combine electromagnetic and gravitational phenomena in a single theory, called a unified field theory. Einstein failed to establish a unified field theory, though he spent the last 25 years of his life working on it. Toward the end of his life, he remarked that it would be worthwhile to show that such a theory did not exist. He worried that if he neither produced a theory nor showed that one was impossible, perhaps no one ever would.”
Einstein recognized his failure in the establishment of his Unified Field Theory with a remark that has not a person who will perfect this his theory.
Do you think his remark true?

I think he answered MORE than enough with his theory of special relativity.

When we couple the principles and consequences of SR with the now quite advanced study in quantum mechanics, some beautiful and astounding philisophical postulates are formed.

Unified Field Theory I also think will be unlikely. Here is my small argument why.

The Macro world is a blending of possibility, a giant pattern produced in the mind. The micro world (quantum) is a machine seperate of the mental construct, it reasons on its own.

Can we unite patterned reality, with patternless source reality? That is the dilemma I see.

[HappytheStripper]

Originally Posted by arkain101

Can we unite patterned reality, with patternless source reality? That is the dilemma I see.

Wow a patternless reality.. thanks for the post.. this thought alone.. would certainly wipe out synchronicity and coincidences which are based on a pattern of events occuring

Ashley

[arkain101]

Only in the self-reasoning source reality, not the one we deal with and see.

Now thats a thinker... No dice gettin rolled in the emination realm?

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by arkain101

Can we unite patterned reality, with patternless source reality? That is the dilemma I see.

The dilemma is entirely in your mind; it is a consequence of not understanding the issues involved (not asking the right question). Do you understand the difference between an epistemological construct and an ontological construct? If not, I suggest you google the terms and see if you can get a handle on why philosophers made the division.

What seems to me to be quite obvious (and I can not comprehend how the idea can be consistently overlooked by so many supposedly intelligent people) is that what people think reality is, (the ontology they take for granted) is a mix of truly objective aspects and total mental fabrications. And, for people who cannot think beyond the end of their nose, "either component of that mix could be nonexistent; that covers the issue of both "solipsism" and "materialism".

Note that I have not defined those objective aspects or mental fabrications. I have merely pointed out a fundamental dichotomy (where I have explicitly included the possibility that the "dichotomy" doesn't exist). What everyone fails to seriously consider, is the fact that virtually all epistemological constructs are based on the presumption of some ontology; in particular, on the presumption that the ontology is known, while, in fact, there exists absolutely no way of defending the validity of any ontological element whatsoever. The error is presuming those ontological elements need defense; in fact, there exists another attack on the problem: ontological elements must be handled as unknowns.

The reason the existence of this alternate attack has gone unrecognized by the scientific community is a consequence of the fact that mankind has had thousands of years of experience with the defense of epistemological constructs including many successes and failures, while they have had utterly no experience at all with any success in defending any ontological construct. It is exactly this, rather distorted, record of success and failure which has driven philosophy out of the world of exact science (which has now become rather limited to epistemological constructs).

One consequence of this distorted record of success is a certain belief held as inviolate by every scientist have ever spoken to (which totally blocks their minds from even considering what I have discovered): "since we cannot tell the difference between these two components (valid ontological elements and mentally fabricated ontological elements) our logic cannot be allowed to handle them as different". All I can say about that assertion is that it is actually an opinion (a self imposed rule). It is an opinion based entirely on that record of experience with the sucessful defense of epistemological constructs. It is my opinion that, when it comes to analyzing ontological issues, it is a fundamentally flawed perspective .

With regard to ontological constructs, the only handle we have on the problem is that there exists a very simple logical difference between "valid ontological elements" and "fabricated ontological elements". That difference consists of the fact that absolutely every flaw free epistemological construct must explain all "valid ontological elements" while the "fabricated ontological elements are free to be anything that epistemological construct needs them to be. The fundamental insight here is that the fabricated ontological elements are part and parcel of the epistemological construct and are free variables unconstrained by "reality". It follows that one must handle ontological elements as two different types of "unknowns"; one collection which is set and immutable and another which is free to anything at all: i.e., the rules are different for the two sets and that difference must be embedded in the logic of the representation.

The entire issue is, "how does one represent these unknowns" and the only viable option is not to handle them directly but to work, instead, with references to them. If one does that, they will discover some interesting constraints imposed on any explanation of reality.

If anyone here is interested in understanding such an approach, I am willing to show you some significant things.

Have fun -- Dick

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

With regard to ontological constructs, the only handle we have on the problem is that there exists a very simple logical difference between "valid ontological elements" and "fabricated ontological elements". That difference consists of the fact that absolutely every flaw free epistemological construct must explain all "valid ontological elements" while the "fabricated ontological elements are free to be anything that epistemological construct needs them to be.
…
If anyone here is interested in understanding such an approach, I am willing to show you some significant things.

I’m interested. In particular, I would like to see a definition of “valid ontological elements” (a class, I assume), and its complement in the superclass of “all ontological elements”. Is this class identical to “fabricated ontological elements”?

IMHO, past discussions along these lines have tended to fail due not so much to epistemological confusion as to semantic confusion – a failure to map the ideas being discussed to recognizable symbols (words, etc.). I’d suggest, therefore, that Doctordick conduct his exposition in as formal a manner as possible, specifying true relationship of terms rather than relying on shared knowledge of them.

As this seems little related to this thread’s original subject (Einsteins view on a unified field theory), or its latest (“patterned” and “patternless reality”), I think it should be started in a new thread.

PS: It’s good to see you posting again, Doctordick. Welcome back – you’ve been missed!

[arkain101]

Yes DR.D.. I enjoy your mind.

A related read and discussion of these concepts can be found here...a related framework containing the consideration of the double slit experiment.

http://hypography.com/forums/physics...eriment-4.html

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by CraigD

I’m interested. In particular, I would like to see a definition of “valid ontological elements” (a class, I assume), and its complement in the superclass of “all ontological elements”. Is this class identical to “fabricated ontological elements”?

I define "valid ontological elements" to be reality itself: i.e., what we are trying to understand. And certainly the complement in the "superclass of all ontological elements" (which is anything which is not real) is identical to "fabricated ontological elements".

Originally Posted by CraigD

I’d suggest, therefore, that Doctordick conduct his exposition in as formal a manner as possible, specifying true relationship of terms rather than relying on shared knowledge of them.

I have no problem with that constraint at all. In fact, my major complaint on everyone's interpretation is that they drag in "concepts of shared knowledge" rather than dealing directly with my abstract defintions.

Originally Posted by CraigD

As this seems little related to this thread’s original subject (Einsteins view on a unified field theory), or its latest (“patterned” and “patternless reality”), I think it should be started in a new thread.

I am tired of starting new threads. If you start a thread which I feel is on the point, I will post there.

Originally Posted by CraigD

PS: It’s good to see you posting again, Doctordick. Welcome back – you’ve been missed!

You are welcome; however, I think the real thing which has been missed is the essence of my posts.

Originally Posted by arkain101

Yes DR.D.. I enjoy your mind.

Thank you but I didn't find your reference particularly relevant to what I have been trying to communicate.

Sorry about that -- Dick