Quote from: TPTB_need_war on August 08, 2015, 01:03:50 PM

Quote from: macsga on August 08, 2015, 10:02:13 AM

Last but not least, we need to be multi-scientists to construct a TOE that describes everything, which (again) even if it's formed, it can never be complete as the Goedel Theorem of incompleteness suggests...

That is only true if it attempts to enumerates a complete set. A TOE which describes a relationship without enumerating computable sets is plausible. Thus it might not be falsifiable.

We are making reader's heads hurt.

Indeed, this is a valid point. Science is not perfect after all, BUT; it's adequate for us to be able to explain *some* of what's there. In mathematical terms, it's pretty much the same as one is trying to express infinity via 1/x, where x->0. In most cases, he has to figure out a large enough number to solve the respective equation. On the other hand, there are some people obsessed to find what the limit is!

It reminds me back in 1999 when I got first involved into a distributed computing network that was trying to find if the prime numbers are finite; the problem well known as "The Sierpinski Problem". Collective computation via internet networking (aka:distributed computing) was something that was a significant factor for me to get involved in the first place. I became a member of a team (namely, 17orbust) and start calculating away.

Later on, I decided to become a Physicist (on my 30s) because I discovered the magic of the Science behind it. Then became a Chemist & lately Biologist, trying to figure out what their limits are... You get my point...

As for the head hurting part, if anyone has the ability (or psychopathy) to follow this conversation up until now, there's only gain for him/her.
As Arnold Schwarzenegger once said: No pain, no gain. Wink