Do you beleive that everything is quantifiable and therefore can be explained by a grand theory of unification

Question

I have this argument with a friend on a daily basis almost. His view is that many things are random and that perception is king. He beleives that if everyone in the world decided that the earth was square, then the earth would be square. (Yeah he's strange) My belief is the world would still be spherical in shape, but we may call it a square. He actually bases his views on some kind of philosophy he's read about. Me, I base my views on what seems more plausible. I don't beleive in chaos or any strange philosophy that puts man and his perception as the center of all things.

Answer 1

I believe that yes, everything is quantifiable.

However, I also believe that as we understand more and more, we just find that what we see as chaos is simply something we don't understand and cannot predict so it looks random.

Once we do, that thing becomes quantifiable and deterministic...  but the theory or formula that allow prediction on that level most likely has another level of deeper chaos to unravel.

When we run out of chaos to unravel and truly understand EVERYTHING, we have become omniscient which allows for omnipotence which implies omnipresence.

In other words, when we unravel ALL chaos, and truly understand everything, we become akin to what we refer to as God.  What is the price truly finding out how deep the rabbit hole goes?

I don't mean to get religious, but at come point, the separation between religion and science looses its objective relevance to an observer.

As was said by Arthur C. Clarke: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

The moment you understand everything, you can create a universe.  If you can't do that, you don't understand everything.

I believe everything is quantifiable and deterministic.  On the other hand, I don't think we will become, or should be Gods either.... or more exactly, understand such that we might be perceived as Gods.

Answer 2

Mistress Bekki has it right; read her entry a couple of times.

A traditional assumption of science is: What exists, exists in some quantity, and can therefore be measured.

If not yet, then someday, as our powers of observation grow with each new technology.

Answer 3

The only perception you can base the world upon is your own.  Your world view has to reconcile with your observations.  So if you are oblivious to the fact that the earth is round, you could very well say you lived on a flat earth and be perfectly happy living your life on the flat earth.  As soon as you make some observations (like the horizon or pictures taken from space or the voyage of Magellan or many other examples), the flat earth becomes untenable.

I have no problem with the idea that people make their own universe.  It's only a problem when the philosophy is perverted to state that science can't make historical statements.  For example, science can't talk about the big bang or evolution because nobody was there to see it.  That's hogwash.  We create our universe (past present and future) based on our own observations.  I can observe things that tell me about the past.  Just because people in the past were ignorant or non-existant doesn't affect at all the legitimacy of my present observations and my ability to conclude things about the past.  And future scientists may just as well discover that I am mistaken in some of my views, because they can make observations that I cannot.

Everybody else's opinion is completely irrelevant except insofar as their observations and prejudices color your own.  The representation of the universe is an inherently individual activity, not a communal one.  I've read some philosophy authors that focus on the communality of representation, a practice which invariably leads to some stupid conclusions along the lines of what your friend is saying.

A good book to read if you want an example of this stupidity is Owen Barfield, saving the appearances.  An interesting read if you have the mental discipline to refute his wrong points as he makes them.  I had a philosophy professor in college who was in love with this guy.