FQXi FORUM
CATEGORY: Article Discussions
[back]
TOPIC: The Next Ultimate Theory
[refresh]
|
|
|
That was a very interesting article about the fundamentals of physics. However, I've argued about this for many years, and I'd like to add to the conversation. Inevitably the debate about the foundations of physics and about theories of everything ultimately reduce to conversations about contingency verses tautology. Is the universe a thing about which the rules of logic and mathematics apply? Or do the laws of physics derive from logic and reason itself? Some would like to think that logical reasoning and mathematical modeling are merely abstract tools invented by man to facilitate conversation. And its ultimate use is to talk about things whose existence is considered concrete and separate from abstractions such as reason. Others, however, believe that there is a reason for everything to the point that reason itself gives rise to reality. Here, reason is not just an abstraction, but reason itself is describing the nature of something real in the universe - that reason is a law of physics.
I take the view that logic and reason describes something real about the universe. For if our theories rest on the existence of some contingent particle or field, then we will always be looking for still further explanations for that particle or field, and physics will always be left incomplete. But questions stop, and physics is complete, when the answers are derived from logic itself. There would be nothing left to question except reason itself. And those would be philosophical questions, not physical questions. A theory of everything would explain everything, and this sounds like a job that only reason itself can do.
So the questions become, how can physics be derived from logic? What kind of logic should be used? And how would we know it's correct? Whatever theory is supposed, we are forced to ask if it is true or false. That is the ultimate question. And so the ultimate answer (or theory) would have to be based on the algebra of true and false - or in other words, on propositional logic. If we follow the rules of deductive logic and analysis, then we cannot be wrong. And if it happens to describe part of the universe, then we know it describes it all. For logic is a set of consistent statements. And reality is a set of consistent facts. So if both logic and reality agree somewhere, then they agree everywhere.
As to how to derive physics from logic. I believe I have a good start. I use the premise that reality is a set of consistent facts. By treating each fact as a proposition, I have come up with a type of logical path integral. Then by applying a measure to this logical formula, I get Feynman's Path Integral of physics. See more details at:
Physics from Logic
|
 |
|
