[Paradigmer (OP)]

The scientific method is intrinsically flawed, it is merely meant for pragmatic theory of truth. With the flaw the theory of everything can never be found; the ToE would be dismissed even if it was found.

Check this out: Critiques of the scientific method

Also, the paradoxical effect of nature would subliminally negate from many aspects to prevent the ToE from being recognised.

For those who are game enough to explore a propositional ToE, check this out:
Universal Vortical Singularity

[Bill S]

I always like to have a look at something different, but after I brief followup of your links I have to say that I will probably not spend much of my very limited time reading a lot more.  I found the verbiage off-putting, and wonder about the testability of a theory that has a large number of hyperspheres at its heart; given that, as far as I am aware, no one has shown that a hypersphere is anything other than a mathematical concept.

I'm open to conversion, though.

[saspinski]

Could this be one of the rare mysteries where philosophy could provide the answer?

If we compare scientific theories to organisms, mutations can happen by several reasons, and what we call philosophy  are a source of them. But most of the mutations are failures. The role of natural selection is played by maths and experiments. Some mutations succeed and theories change.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

I always like to have a look at something different, but after I brief followup of your links I have to say that I will probably not spend much of my very limited time reading a lot more.  I found the verbiage off-putting, and wonder about the testability of a theory that has a large number of hyperspheres at its heart; given that, as far as I am aware, no one has shown that a hypersphere is anything other than a mathematical concept.

You must be a very well-read and fast reader for being able to go through the links and picked up so much in such a short time. Am sorry to hear that you found the verbiage off-putting. If you are interested to explore that ToE, my suggestion is please start from its Preface, which elaborates on how to effectively explore the UVS treatise and skip the mumbo jumbo. Dig into the technical jargons only when you have become interested in the topics you are evaluating.

Nonetheless, in this thread, I would like to keep the discussions to "Will we ever find a theory of everything?"

I'm open to conversion, though.

Glad you are open to conversion.

Let me know what are your thoughts on these cognitive paradox fallacies of mainstream physics. These could explain why the mainstream physical science could not find the theory of everything.
Many went through the content had explicitly told me they were converted. But this doesn't happen to everyone.

[Bill S]

I'm not a fast reader, in fact I'm mildly dyslexic, so reading can be slow.  As I said, time is very limited and I would want to base any comments on a thorough look at the material, so, no promises, but I will post any thoughts I might have. Just don't hold your breath.

[Colin2B]

This isn’t really a question on a science topic but a presentation of a new theory and an alternative to the current scientific method.
As such it will get better coverage in New Theories section

[Bored chemist]

he scientific method is intrinsically flawed,

Would you like to summarise the evidence for that in a few sentences, for those of us who don't want to struggle through some ratehr unreadable text?

[Paradigmer (OP)]

he scientific method is intrinsically flawed,

Would you like to summarise the evidence for that in a few sentences, for those of us who don't want to struggle through some ratehr unreadable text?

My apology for the very condensed writing, many had also expressed the contents were rather unreadable.

The following was sniped from "Critiques of the scientific method", TBH don't think this summary would reduce the struggle at all:

"With the resolved natural cognitive paradoxes for epistemic theories of truth to evaluate the hallmark scientific theories, the science delusions in the theories of justification were elucidated for numerous conventional wisdom, as on how they were fallaciously validated with their criteria of truth. The developments for the hypothetico-deductive models of these scientific theories with the application of the scientific method for pragmatic theories of truth, literally ignore qualitative evaluations on the posits of their hypothetical constructs. The overemphasizing on deductive analyses with extreme obsession on higher measurement precisions for their quantitative predictions, inevitably entails all sorts of science delusions in the mainstream physics with its fallacies of misplaced concreteness."

[Paradigmer (OP)]

I will probably not spend much of my very limited time reading a lot more.

Thanks for your email explaining your situation. Please take good care of yourself. I wish you good health and speedy recovery. Regards.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

Could this be one of the rare mysteries where philosophy could provide the answer?

If we compare scientific theories to organisms, mutations can happen by several reasons, and what we call philosophy  are a source of them. But most of the mutations are failures. The role of natural selection is played by maths and experiments. Some mutations succeed and theories change.

Thanks for being on the same page.

Galileo famously said “Mathematics is the language in which God has written the universe”, and he said it with the convictions of his qualitative analyses. Such as his revolutionary analyses, experiments, and proofs on how Venus revolves around the Sun, and free falling objects on their time taken for their descents, are independent of their mass. 

Unfortunately, this is by at large not the situation for the nowadays practices of mainstream physics.

Richard Feynman summarized it: “The more you see, how strange nature behaves, the harder it is for us, to make a model, that explains even how the most simple phenomena works. Theoretical physics has given up on this pursuit.”

[Paradigmer (OP)]

This isn’t really a question on a science topic but a presentation of a new theory and an alternative to the current scientific method.
As such it will get better coverage in New Theories section

Appreciate your kind intention.

I saw your comments in the other thread discussing on oceanic tides, and admires your analytical skills.

With your knowledge, I believe you could fairly easily digest an analysis of UVS on:

 "The UVS case study on the barycenter drivers of the solar cycle".

The analysis cogently illustrates how the barycenters of the Solar System, were driving the solar cycles. I hope you enjoy the presentation and could glean something from it.

I have a bit of time for a while to response if you have any query, or stuff like how to set up the planetarium, I would be happy to correspond, but in the events when I am busy away, please excuse me.

p.s. Please forgive my English, this is not my native language.

[guest39538]

The scientific method is intrinsically flawed, it is merely meant for pragmatic theory of truth.

Hello  Paradigmer,  I  do  not  think  the  above  quoted  is  true  in  any  sense,  if  scientific  method  was  meerly  relating  to philosophical  or  political  pragmatism,  then  we  would   not   have  science  such  as  nuclear   power   etc.   Achievements  like  this  showing  us  that  science  is  not  pragmatic theory of truth.

Is  there  anything  In  particular  of  science  you  are  referring  too  and  would  like  to  ''touch''  on ?

[Paradigmer (OP)]

The scientific method is intrinsically flawed, it is merely meant for pragmatic theory of truth.

Hello  Paradigmer,  I  do  not  think  the  above  quoted  is  true  in  any  sense,  if  scientific  method  was  meerly  relating  to philosophical  or  political  pragmatism,  then  we  would   not   have  science  such  as  nuclear   power   etc.   Achievements  like  this  showing  us  that  science  is  not  pragmatic theory of truth.

Hello Thebox, appreciate your honest opinion. However, I beg to differ.

It is exactly the merits with the pragmatic theories of truth for science that insofar we have accomplished those achievements. However, science with its current form of scientific method, has no real merit for how the observed natural phenomena actually work.

Is  there  anything  In  particular  of  science  you  are  referring  too  and  would  like  to  ''touch''  on ?

Yes, there is.
Is the scientific method intrinsically flawed?

[Paradigmer (OP)]

Any one keen to explore a UVS topic on "The cognitive paradox fallacy in cosmic inflation on accelerated expansion of space"?

And let me know why you think the scientific method is not intrinsically flawed?

[mad aetherist]

Any one keen to explore a UVS topic on "The cognitive paradox fallacy in cosmic inflation on accelerated expansion of space"?
And let me know why you think the scientific method is not intrinsically flawed?

The bottom line is that all science (talking about atom stuff & cosmic stuff here) is flawed because Einsteinians turn kids into Einsteinians whilst censoring anti-Einsteinians.  If i were in charge of a big science project i would have a B-team whose job was to identify all of the shortcomings of the A-team's theory & experiment & data-crunching. The use of double-blind peer review is good, but u need peer review before & during as well as after, u need a B-team.

Re cosmic expansion, the science is rubbish. In the first instance it relies on there being a bigbang. No bigbang then no cosmic expansion. Below i mention four different science facts that each kill cosmic expansion on their own.
(1) Crothers has an article showing that the bigbang is rubbish.
(2) Cahill has an article showing that the latest (Nobel) results dont show expansion.
(3) Ranzan has an article explaining the real cause of redshift. 
(4) Arp has pointed out severe inconsistencies in the measured redshift of certain stars & galaxies.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

Any one keen to explore a UVS topic on "The cognitive paradox fallacy in cosmic inflation on accelerated expansion of space"?
And let me know why you think the scientific method is not intrinsically flawed?

The bottom line is that all science (talking about atom stuff & cosmic stuff here) is flawed because Einsteinians turn kids into Einsteinians whilst censoring anti-Einsteinians.  If i were in charge of a big science project i would have a B-team whose job was to identify all of the shortcomings of the A-team's theory & experiment & data-crunching. The use of double-blind peer review is good, but u need peer review before & during as well as after, u need a B-team.

Wished people like you were the in-charge.

Re cosmic expansion, the science is rubbish. In the first instance it relies on there being a bigbang. No bigbang then no cosmic expansion. Below i mention four different science facts that each kill cosmic expansion on their own.
(1) Crothers has an article showing that the bigbang is rubbish.
(2) Cahill has an article showing that the latest (Nobel) results dont show expansion.
(3) Ranzan has an article explaining the real cause of redshift. 
(4) Arp has pointed out severe inconsistencies in the measured redshift of certain stars & galaxies.

There is no cosmic expansion; the science for Big Bang theory is indeed rubbish.

Would like to highlight the UVS topic was explicating on the cognitive paradox for the accelerated metric expansion of space as postulated in cosmic inflation, which IMO, is a failure of the scientific method.

[opportunity]

The scientific method is intrinsically flawed, it is merely meant for pragmatic theory of truth. With the flaw the theory of everything can never be found; the ToE would be dismissed even if it was found.

Check this out: Critiques of the scientific method

Also, the paradoxical effect of nature would subliminally negate from many aspects to prevent the ToE from being recognised.

For those who are game enough to explore a propositional ToE, check this out:
Universal Vortical Singularity

Universal Vortical Singularity.

That can be a "lot" easier done using the Fibonacci sequence for an algorithm of time as a circle. Hit my website to find out how.

[Paradigmer (OP)]

Universal Vortical Singularity.That can be a "lot" easier done using the Fibonacci sequence for an algorithm of time as a circle. Hit my website to find out how.

You did not provide the link to your website.

Does it explain UVS?

[Colin2B]

You did not provide the link to your website.
Does it explain UVS?

Links are ok except for business/commercial sites. We usually ban users who try to use posts here to advertise themselves.
Your’s appears to be ok.

[opportunity]

I read this UVS site, fairly completely. The guy has spent some amazing time talking about fundamental principles found everywhere in spacetime, and thus it was a winner to offer that angled approach. Mine is a little more in depth to that pattern, as it provides the basis of fractal topology using the fibonacci algorithm for the concept of time.

The link is in my web icon under my name here (the planet icon next to the envelope icon), apologies.

www.equusspace.com

It's not commerical, nothing is being sold, its really asking for collaboration, and thus money can in time be made by those who think its worth a shot.

My work explains the idea of UVS, yet the idea of UVS used by that theorist is like a kitten playing with a world of single-dimensional time thread, it getts a little knotted (what he is doing). It's easier to suggest that the concept of "time" is a natural UVS itself, as an algorithm, "then" applying that UVS time theory to space. It does work.

Colin, just wondering, were you implying my work as commercial as something that is frowned upon in this forum, and if so how do you make a crust? I'm merely looking for people to join my research work, or at least "converse" without being spooked. I can take down my website if it worries you as a financial making machine, yes? I don't mind, I really don't, I'd rather talk to people than not know how to design an informational website.

As I was saying, the UVS theory is a step closer to formalising a universal code for spacetime, I can't dispute that.