Being a physical artifacts, even the seemingly abstract theories have independent tangible impact to observable reality. For example, the aerial view bellow illustrates the appearance of two neighboring countries (Austria and former Czechoslovakia), which differs just only by their theories of social arrangement, not by natural conditions. The appearance of landscape in country, which is applying socially oriented theory leading to less diversity is apparently less divergent as well. It still doesn't mean, the more divergent theory is necessarily better, though, because it's suited just for more rich and divergent environment - but this is another story.

Because the scope of density fluctuations inside of nested field of density fluctuations is always limited, the scope of theories must remain limited as well. This is because every theory is based on at least single causal/logical connection between two or more axioms/postulates/assumptions, i.e. an implication tensor definning the cardinality and compactness/consistency of formal logic system built upon implication. But the consistency of two different postulates can be never confirmed with certainty - or we could replace them by single one and we could never have some implication between them anymore, but a tautology. By such way, the scope of every logics is limited, because it remains based on insintrically inconsistent axioms - or we couldn't have some logics at all. In particular, at the moment, when TOE defines a time arrow, it becomes tautological, because validity of every implication depends on time arrow vector of antecedent and consequent. Such conclusion leads us to the understanding, every Theory Of Everything (a TOE based on no assumptions) is necessarily tautological by its very nature by the same way, like dual concept of God - and as such not very useful in causual perspective for the rest of society.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems (GITs) show that, for any sufficiently complex set of mathematical systems, one of the following two statements is true. Either

- There are true statements, expressible within the mathematical system, that cannot be proven from the axioms of that mathematical system. Or:
- There are false statements, expressible within the mathematical system, that can be proven from the axioms of that mathematical system.

Whole GITs are about this dilemma, but the explanation of AWT appears more intuitive and general. GITs were derived for theory of natural number set based on eleven axioms of Peano algebra, which is supposedly best defined human theory (of countable units) so far. The existence of other theories is based on more fuzzy logic, including the definition of theory itself. We can still consider AWT theory more general, then any other number theory, because the (natural) number concept is based on countable units, i.s. singular zero-dimensional particles colliding mutually in infinitely dimensional space, whereas the differential calculus is based upon concept of Aether density gradients driven observable reality.

Without particle concept the number concept is unthinkable - until we accept, we are composed just from pure numbers - which doesn't appear very probable, because number theory is product of human evolution and as such is much younger, then the Universe - not vice-versa. By such way, the AWT is working even at the case of singular geometry and fuzzy algebras.

Donald Rumsfeld: "As we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know."

Zephir, a little off topic

OdpovědětVymazatHave you lived in the Communism's stage? Was it so bad as Lubos usually say?

Actually not for average people - but here were extreme cases of common right violation on both sides. Contemporary West Europe is more socialistic then East Europe of 50's in certain extent.

OdpovědětVymazatAWT considers communism as a dual case of free market society, as proposed by some objectivists, because utopistic character of both social systems depends on altruistic belief in human ability cooperate fairly without tendency to abuse system.

So we are always required to handle part of people engaged by monitoring the rest of society for keeping of social rules - which is basically, what the government does. It's not cheap alternative, but until people become more moral and responsible, it's simply necessary to provide some form of social hiearchy.

I'll dispute various aspects of this duality in some of my later posts.

Zephir thank you very much for the response!

OdpovědětVymazatYou're a great dude ;-).