• 0 Posts
  • 7 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: August 13th, 2023
  • JustAPenguin@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyz•We've got it all worked outEnglish
    4·
    20 days ago

    I disagree in part with this logic.

    Gödel’s incompleteness theorem says that a system typically cannot prove all truths that come from axioms of the system, like you said.

    Where I disagree is how this is applied to theoretical physics. Depending on where you draw the line of “everything”, the limits of proof comes down to two things: observation and the language we use to describe it.

    As it stands, for example, gravity is difficult to fit into the standard model. It may be impossible to do so within that system. However, it may work well in an alternate description of the universe. In this case, the core mathematics is the same, but the theories differ. It may be likely that our understanding of the universe is filled with logical holes and fallacy, but that does not mean that the incompleteness theorem says anything regarding the ability to unify physics.

    Mathematically, physics is nothing more than descriptions of observation and expectations. It could very well be that our perception of the universe is fundamentally flawed and, in essence, we can only perceive certain truths that appear correct in our perspective. As such, it isn’t necessarily impossible to formulate a correct theory; it’s just that we are unable to succinctly describe reality.

    More simply, math is just the thing we use to describe the universe. So, it’s likely we can keep “adding new math” as we discover new physics. The hard part is understanding the physical nature of the universe, first.

    Or perhaps the universe truly cannot be described all at one, such that everything is related. As a mathematician, I like to believe that we simply lack the ability to perceive the full reality of, well, “reality”. And as such, we are missing important information that would tie all the loose ends together.