Thread by @inftoe

The idea of this thread is dictated by a curious situation, however, quite typical for science which has reached an impasse, from which it can no longer get out. Having lost the path of knowledge, physics goes forward at random, not knowing what it is looking for.
1 ↝

A typical example of such a model of cognition "we do not know what we are looking for, so when we find it, then we will decide whether it is it or not" – the search for dark matter.
2 ↝

Pretty arbitrarily combining several disparate observations, physicists have come up with a fantastic stuff that is tasked with explaining these observations. And although even in such form it doesn't do this well, they looking for this magic wand in reality.
3 ↝

Dark matter here is just an example.
But we’ll talk about another problem, where the search for a solution occurs in much the same way: the theory of everything, ToE.
4 ↝

The dominant imagine about the content of the concept ToE began to take shape at a time when the quantum theory was defined, and it became obvious that it did not in any way interact with the already generally recognized theory of gravity.
5 ↝

It seemed to people that since one of them defines the microcosm, and the other macrocosm, then having solved the problem of their unification, they will receive a complete theory that defines the whole world. They gave it a simple, humble name: the theory of everything.
6 ↝

Then, after many disappointments, when Dunning-Kruger danced to his heart's content on the bones of naive enthusiasts, ambitions were greatly curbed, and they began to dream not about a theory of the world in general, but at least about a unified theory of interactions.
7 ↝

But they decided not to change the name, so that everyone would think that work continues on the same grandiose project, just fewer floors, and instead of a pool, there is a shower.
8 ↝

It's clear that combining interactions doesn't answer a bunch of questions. And it would be fine if it was just torpedoing everything and the whole question of what is space and time. But even the question why there are four of these interactions does not answer either.
9 ↝

However, by that time, physics had already quite firmly established itself in its impasse, and the method of cognition "let's open it and then decide what it is" entered the basic toolbox. Let's combine the interactions, and it will become clear where to row next.
10 ↝

Unfortunately, it was lucky with weak and electromagnetic interactions: an electroweak theory uniting them was found. After that, there is no need to hope that at least someone will come to mind not to try to look for an electronuclear GUT, and then quantum gravity.
11 ↝

But is there any guarantee that this unification exists at all, and it is necessary to put eggs in this particular basket?
12 ↝

Yes, thread

https://twitter.com/inftoe/status/1366240402014162944

is strange, but albeit not exactly that, but somehow differently, why can't it turn out that the weak and electromagnetic theory are not orthogonal, but the nature in other pairs is so different that is not amenable to generalization?
13 ↝

(Well, maybe gravity with weak interaction also has some common things, which is hinted at by the non-orthogonality of azimuth and distance in the metric and the special relationship between W and Z - bosons with mass through the Higgs mechanism).
14 ↝

Can you imagine that gigantic intellectual and material resources have been for decades thrown into research in an area in which there is nothing? Looking for a wallet not where it was dropped, but where is light? Digging not where gold is, but closer to home?
15 ↝

Well, let's figure out what requirements a theory must meet in order to really be a theory of everything, that is, a theory that can fully explain the universe.
16 ↝

To do this, you need to remember what the universe is. Surprisingly, but modern cosmology (together with physics) has forgotten even this, so into a deep and hopeless dead end has led it to the vulgar Doppler interpretation of the redshift.
17 ↝

Cosmology has lost its logic so much that it allows itself to talk about things that are incompatible with the concept of "universe": multiverse, space beyond the boundaries, time before the big bang, traces of collisions of universes in the microwave background ...
18 ↝

The universe is everything that exists. Everything is inside it. There is nothing outside of it. Moreover, there is not even this very "outside". All concepts that are possible, even the most fundamental ones, apply only to the inner content of the universe.
19 ↝

And so fundamental that even space and time are not so fundamental. For example, the concept of "existence" (or "being", not to be confused it with the existence of something in time and space). And it, too, is the inner concept of the universe.

https://twitter.com/inftoe/status/1218826938573344769

20 ↝

And the most fundamental concept "the same"/"the other", which ensures the distinction of some concepts from others (in other words, the concept of "information") is also an internal concept of the universe.
21 ↝

We cannot distinguish anything outside the universe, not even because this “outside” is not there, but because the very distinguishing of something is possible only inside.
22 ↝

You must understand this very well. And then you will discover the absurdity of many questions that people ask themselves and other, and not just ordinary people, but even specialists. And they try to answer! You will see how ridiculous these attempts are.
23 ↝

Is the universe endless?
Does it have boundaries?
What is beyond the universe?
What was before the beginning?
Is the universe infinite "into deep"?
Are there other universes?
Are there other dimensions?
Is the universe expanding?
Will there be an end of the universe?
...
24 ↝

All these and similar questions are meaningless, because they explicitly or implicitly require the presence of something outside (including before or after) the universe, or at least the presence of it "outside" itself. But there is no outside.
25 ↝

Deep awareness and acceptance of this fact is needed for this: for a theory to be scientific, it must substantiate everything it operates with. Even the application of axioms must be justified.
26 ↝

Of course, temporary unfounded assumptions are possible. They are called "hypotheses". This is normal, because that's what theory is for, as not only to know, but to learn. And while the theory is in development, gaps in knowledge are temporarily covered by hypotheses.
27 ↝

But everything should be in moderation. If the theory continues to live and develop, but the hypotheses do not receive substantiation, then the theory loses its scientific character. This is a very sad fate for the theory, because it begins to generate a stream of fictions.
28 ↝

A "fiction" here is a theory, a section of theory, a hypothesis, an idea in which at least one godgiven is explicitly or implicitly (in practice, much more, due to the generated stream of secondary fictions).
29 ↝

"Godgiven" here is an assumption in a fictive theory, which is not provided by justification within the framework of this theory. Its application looks as if it was granted by God. All reasoning based on it is fictive.
30 ↝

Of course, a fictive theory, especially if it is large-scale, can give some useful results, because not everything that it operates with is godgiven. But over time, the flow of fictions generated by it nullifies the benefits, and cognition comes to impasse.
31 ↝

This is true for any theory. But what about the theory of everything?
32 ↝

First, it is clear that in the theory of everything there should not be a single godgiven, because there is simply nowhere to introduce unreasonable assumptions into the theory: since there is nothing outside the universe, then there is nothing outside of its theory either.
33 ↝

This is obvious, but there is a more subtle requirement, just as irrefutable, but not immediately striking.
The theory of everything cannot operate with more than one basic (elementary) concept.
34 ↝

If there are more than one basic concepts, then this is not a theory of everything, because in this case, a substantiation is required for the actual number of basic concepts. And where such a substantiation can come from, if the concept is already basic?
35 ↝

In some detail: since the ToE should provide an explanation of everything that exists, that is, it should allow formulating conclusions of any complexity sufficient for this, but at the same time remain a ToE that does not have external substantiations, then >
36 ↝

> theory of everything:
• should be based on exactly one idea (methodological basis);
• must operate with exactly one concept (essential component);
• must be guided by exactly one principle (associative component).
37 ↝

Moreover, both the concept and the principle must be hypostases of the idea, that is, all these three components must be essentially the same basic concept, otherwise, as already mentioned, they would require an external substantiation, separate from the idea.
38 ↝

It should already be clear that the ToE should be extremely simple. The consequences of a very high complexity follow from it (including the entire universe), but the complexity of the theory itself should be absolutely minimal that no external substantiation is required.
39 ↝

Monotheistic religions could be a good example of a ToE (if apart from the particulars). Single idea: God created everything. Single concept: God's will. Single principle: God is omnipotent. But, unfortunately, God is godgiven.
40 ↝

But classical materialism cannot claim to be a ToE at all. Both matter itself and all its declared numerous properties are in no way substantiated within the framework of theory, and, therefore, are hopeless godgivens.
41 ↝

The unification of quantum theory and the theory of gravity would not be ToE either: it is by design limited by this narrow problem, and therefore too incomplete to substantiate the universe. It makes no sense even to consider its compliance with the requirements.
42 ↝

String theory and its derivatives are too complex to be a ToE, and are replete with godgivens: string, vibration, space, dimension, time ...
43 ↝

Godgivens are the sore spot of all fictive theories. Authors easily construct them according to their needs in order to justify the basic idea, which, as it seems to them, corresponds to a set of observations and reasoning.
44 ↝

The properties of these godgivens may be the most fantastic, but the authors hope that in the end the tail will have wagged the dog: the success of the theory will justify these assumptions. Winners are not judged.
45 ↝

However, there is no win. A fictive theory, as already mentioned, is capable of luring with some useful results, but the ultimate goal is unattainable for it, the mine laid down by the groundlessness will inevitably work, and the theory collides with reality.
46 ↝

Facing repeatedly with setbacks and disappointments, some of the most cautious researchers question the very possibility of creating a theory of everything. They appeal to the principle of uncertainty, the theory of probability, Gödel's theorem, etc.
47 ↝

In fact, there is again the old scholastic question of the knowability of the universe.
They can be understood. The analytical method of cognition that science uses shows an obvious increase in the complexity of moving forward, and extrapolation does not bode well.
48 ↝

The situation looks like the limit of knowledge available to humanity has been reached.
As mentioned in the thread about the sad @elonmusk

https://twitter.com/inftoe/status/1405228143884083202

, it's okay: we will fulfill our role regardless of this, and the someone next will take care of the further.
49 ↝

However, it is still interesting what the only magic concept underlies the foundations of the universe, and does not require external substantiation, that is, capable of justifying itself, and so simple that there is nothing simpler than it.
50 ↝

Such strange and seemingly impossible requirements make doubts of the possibility of creating a ToE even more understandable. It seems that such a concept simply cannot exist. The analytic advance into the depths of the reality does not seem to lead to it at all.
51 ↝

Well, since the analytical method doesn't work, we only have the synthetic one. We need to strain and still come up with this strange super-fundamental concept, and then try to build a universe out of it. If it starts to work out, it seems to be it, the ToE.
52 ↝

That is, since we are all already at a dead end, there is nothing left but to use the good old proven method "let's open it and then decide what it is".
53 ↝

This is done here:

https://twitter.com/inftoe/status/1218826934190321665

This strange super-fundamental concept is information combined from the elements "the same"/"the other". And, accordingly, the theory of everything, built on this concept, is the information theory of everything, InfToE.
54 ↝

InfoE meets the requirements for the ToE:
• idea: the universe is only information, and nothing else,
• concept: the element "the same"/"the other",
• principle: elements are combined as information,
• both the concept and principle follow from the idea.
55 ↝

"Combined as information" means the following:
• since the repetition of information is not information, there is only one copy of each combination in the universe;
• a level of combinations contains all combinations of all combinations contained in all lower levels.
56 ↝

From these fairly obvious (for information) rules follow interesting, not immediately obvious consequences, which together form the lower section of InfToE – the theory of complexity.
57 ↝

The middle section of InfToE – theory of observations – considers combinations of information as observers who observe the observed: the combinations that make up their composition. The totality of these observations (direct and indirect) is the existence of the universe.
58 ↝

Within the framework of theory of observations, the concepts of space and time are defined.
59 ↝

The top section of InfoTOE, the theory of realization, looks at how the existence of the universe as a collection of observations leads to the universe as we know it. The metric, 3d space, interactions, elementary particles are determined...
60 ↝

https://twitter.com/inftoe/status/1218826953454759936

Ultimately, the theory of realization, as it develops, will determine the entire universe, but this is no longer our task, the #superperson will be engaged in its further development. Perhaps in later threads we will consider some more or less accessible to us particulars.
61 ↝

In conclusion.
Only information can be not godgiven, because information is only a description, not something material, it does not require external justification, it justifies itself in mutual observations.
62 ↝

Therefore, the ToE can only be informational. Any other theory is not a theory of everything, even if it calls itself that, and at best, if it is correct, it is a subsidiary of the information theory of everything.
63.

@threadreaderapp unroll