Philosophy Now Forum

)Δ^∞(

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Jul 30, 2022 4:37 pm)Δ^∞(

Have you been drinking?

[quote=Harbal post_id=586967 time=1659197136 user_id=9107]
[quote=Advocate post_id=586958 time=1659195420 user_id=15238])Δ^∞([/quote]

Have you been drinking?
[/quote]

Smoking. What does that have to do with anything? Shut up and calculate.

Is there a connection with b4i√U(RU/16)?

[quote=alan1000 post_id=588011 time=1659618730 user_id=8247]
Is there a connection with b4i√U(RU/16)?
[/quote]

dunno

life's a beach until you realize that the toes of physics hold the flip flops of chemistry against the feet of humanity...

-Imp

If 'ToE' refers to a Theory of Everything, then how exactly could there be 'the Theory of Everything of physics?

"Flip flops"? You must be a Pom. "b4i√U(RU/16)" is, of course, Australian mathematics.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 1:49 am If 'ToE' refers to a Theory of Everything, then how exactly could there be 'the Theory of Everything of physics?

Age, surely you are being overly pedantic? Is not the ToE the central question in physics today?

alan1000 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 2:28 pm Is not the ToE the central question in physics today?

But this is a "central" question that can only be asked by those who have not understood what science is.

There can be no ToE of physics.

Because physics is necessarily based on what does not belong to it.

alan1000 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 2:28 pm

Age wrote: ↑Wed Sep 07, 2022 1:49 am If 'ToE' refers to a Theory of Everything, then how exactly could there be 'the Theory of Everything of physics?

Age, surely you are being overly pedantic?

If one wants to speak about a Theory of Everything, then being careful, and even painstakingly, in one's analyses I suggest would be a necessary part.

A so-called Theory of Everything of physics, from my perspective, is NOT being careful AT ALL, and if you want to call me picking up on this MISTAKE being 'overly pedantic', then so be it.

Being 'pedantic' would, obviously, all depend on YOUR DEFINITION for that word, and being 'overly pedantic' is, obviously, VERY RELATIVE.

And, without ALL of the necessary information being provided, FIRST, a carefully constructed Correct answer to your CLOSED, LEADING and/or RHETORICAL question can NOT be supplied, to you.

alan1000 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2022 2:28 pm Is not the ToE the central question in physics today?

A Theory Of Everything could be considered one of the central things being sought out within the topic of 'physics', in the days when this is being written. Along with a Grand Unified Theory is. But, what is relatively, to you, back in those days, 'soon' to be DISCOVERED and UNCOVERED is that a Grand Unified Theory Of Everything actually turns out to be what Is and ALWAYS WAS, ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct.

Oh, and by the way, the ToE is NOT ANY question in physics at ANY time. let alone a central 'question', 'today'. The ToE is just a 'theory' and NOT a 'question', and if 'you' want to call that being 'pedantic' or even 'overly pedantic'. But it IS what IS ACTUALLY True, Right, AND Correct, which is a LOT more than can be said about what you have said and claimed here.

I asked 'you' an OPEN QUESTION, for 'you' to CLARIFY, of which 'we' are STILL WAITING FOR. So, "alan1000", surely 'you' are being overly DECEPTIVE and DEFLECTIVE here, correct?