|
|
 Originally Posted by BorisTheSpider
Originally Posted by wufwugy
doesn't that mean that a "theory of everything" is impossible?
My best answer to that would be, that physics doesn't have a single proof of anything in it. Physics concerns itself with making theories about nature then comparing the predictions of those theories with observation, if a theory makes predictions that agree closely with observation, the best we can do is say that the theory is an accurate model of nature, but we can't prove anything, and to get a little philosophical we can't say what nature "is".
So a "theory of everything", which I take to mean a unified theory that unites all the fundamental forces, certainly seems to be possible - but we'll never be able to prove it's true, merely say that as we further and further refine our experiments/observations we'll have a higher and higher degree of confidence in it's validity the more closely we see its predictions according with our observations.
I don't think that's what the Godel's Incompleteness Theories say about physics.
We posit our axioms as true within the mathematical framework. How that model matches up to observation is independent to how those axioms work within the framework they generate. Mathematically speaking, axioms are true by definition.
The GIT's say that no matter how many axioms we put into the system, there will always be statements within the framework of the system which cannot be proven true or false by the axioms, and no finite number of axioms can relieve this property.
I really don't know how to think of this in terms of a canonical set of physical laws.
|
Reply With Quote