Warp wrote:
>   One thing I have never really understood is why they are so vehemently
> trying to find a "unified theory of everything".

As Mueen stated, it's probably to predict what currently can't be 
predicted. He was talking about the properties of particles which still 
have yet to be discovered, but the implications could reach farther. In 
fact, if we could determine *all* the factors present during the Big 
Bang, we will be one step closer to predicting future events. Of course, 
to accurately model the Universe we must use other parallel universes 
for computational purposes. I don't think we will ever reach such an 
advanced state (assuming such a thing is possible). We will most likely 
wipe ourselves out long before making such progress.

>   This may be a far-fetched analogy, but we have theories and models of
> how car engines should be built, and we have theories and models of how
> skyscrapers should be built. Neither model can be used to describe the
> other situation, but so what? That doesn't cause any problems. If you
> are building a car engine, use the car engine model. If you are building
> a skyscraper, use the skyscraper model. Where's the problem? Why would
> we even need a "unified model" which describes both car engines and
> skyscrapers at the same time? There's no need, and it would only completely
> unnecessarily complicate things.

In light of our current state of knowledge regarding basic physics, your 
assumption makes sense. But what if we do find a unified theory of all 
existence which makes us reconsider our severely limited knowledge of 
low-level physics? We might find that the approach to engineering a 
skyscraper and our approach to engineering a car engine becomes, er, 
more unified :)

>   Is it just a question of coolness, or is there some practical issue
> in play here?
> 
There are always practical issues regarding the advancement of knowledge.

Sam

Post a reply to this message