nobox

No soul saw the significance of my theory? This earth shattering idea crushes the 'elegant universe' syndrome.

Time is clearly an artificial invention. We are fooled all along. Imagine if time is taken out of all physics equation! What's left is just geometry!

Good thought

Why should I care how much the physicists studied? One might travel strenuously in the wrong direction for one's entire life. I felt that the intellectual world is in pretty bad shape, in that most people should not belong there. They are counter-productive.

At it its core, math is about numbers. Natural number arises from counting orders and naming convention for the uniqueness of a places in a sequence. In that sense, the physical world is a book written in natural numbers. Using an analogy, the English alphabet has 26 letters, and with the alphabet infinite books can be written. We examine the books and find that each book consists at least one of the five vowels, and each word is less than 100 letters long, and so forth. We are puzzled by how a random book can be that way. But need not be so, if we realize that the rule of writing a book is quite simple although the end product is somewhat complex. We start with a letter, then a word, and then a passage, a chapter and so on. Each step has some simple but irreducible rules. This process masks the simple relationship between a book and the alphabet, if we simple look at them without the steps in between.

Apparently a bunch of bone headed theoretical physicists.

Simplicity is a result of equilibrium, and seeking simplicity is a human specific preference Simplicity is that a relative few theories and mathematical models can explain a number of phenomena. While complexity is the opposite where there seems to be an unending need to invent new theories. By this definition, physics and astronomy are in the former camp and social science and biology belong to the latter. Why is the universe is even understandable? This itself is hard to understand according to Einstein. I propose a line of reasoning here. Simplicity is a result of long term evolution in a close system. The resulting equilibrium gives rise to simplicity. The infinite possibilities of any member of the system have been largely reduced to a highly confined options. Most of the possibilities are prohibited due to forces that have long been cancelled out during the long evolution. Because of this simplicity, there appears to be causal effect. In other words, causal effect is a direct product of simplicity. Take our universe as an example, the universe is in equilibrium by and large. Only a handful forces remain. Because there are relatively few forces and laws, the universe appears to be orderly and thereby allows mathematics to even exist and work. Mathematics owes its existence to the equilibrium of the universe. Equilibrium brings orderliness and slowness to change. Just imagine, if one puts one stone by another stone, and because the stones decay so fast, by the end of this action of moving them together, one counts zero stone. The law of addition will be forever different from what we know today. In this sense, math and physics have ‘this worldliness’ feature, and is a localized knowledge to this universe at this phase of equilibrium. It could be vastly different in other possible states of the universe or other universes. One notable exception to the simplicity in universe is the complexity in bio-sphere. Because the bio-sphere is inherently expansive and interactive, we cannot reduce the theories to a few laws and mathematics models. The bio-sphere is NOT an equilibrium system. Therefore it is very hard to apply causal effect to explain human society for instance. It is very hard to generalize theories or apply mathematics in bio-sphere or human society, as we are able to in cosmology. Humans’ brain is wired to understand simple things and not complex things. We seek patterns and generalize. This skill helps tremendously in our evolutionary past. For instance, our eyes are adept in figuring out linear movement. Our eyes are especially good at spotting moving object in a static background. The predisposition to seek simplicity gave humans survival advantage in its evolutionary history. We appreciate simplicity over complexity. Humans process limited computational power. It is most efficient to apply the limited resource to a fast algorithm. The design principal of the fast algorithm is simplicity. There is an aesthetic side of simplicity, whether it is a new physics theory or a design of a gadget. The propensity of seeking simplicity is a very human specific trait, and has nothing to do with the reality whether the world is simple or complex. The coincidence of the simplicity of the universe and human’s preference of simplicity is fortunate and fruitful. Specifically in the math and physics the coincidence yielded amazing results. There is no reason to doubt that more amazing discoveries will surface in the future. However, a grain of salt must be added so that we are conscious that there is less mysterious processes or agent involved in the coincidence. This article hopefully explained why.

Yes, Einsterin's thought experiment has no value because he did not prove anything. He was in fact speculating. This web site is so amateurish! Bye bye!!!

I accomplished one thing: Proved that the preference of orderliness, pattern and elegance is just rooted in animal instinct. People believe elegance is the trait of the ultimate world, and orderliness is what is in store for us. It is very likely that the animal instinct leads to falsely assume there is order, or pattern in the universe and elegant theory to explain the world. Consider my earlier attack on natural numbers from another angle, I have to say I am right on.

Maybe that is a bit extreme. But let me say, if I invent 2+2 is 3, it is fine in some world. We choose not to believe. 2-D world is not our world, but certainly is a possible world. It can be real in computer. SO I can create this civilization in computer with 2+2 is 3, and it will work well in that world. That world is not different from our own 'real world', except we have our animal centric view - anything not edible has little significance.

I want to educate. And it is hard. Anyway, math is the type of thing called human's high intellect. I just believe it is a futile effort to extract meaning from the universe. One can construct any math as one wishes and work pretty well with the world. Everything can be explained with math/physics that can be invented 4 times in a day, all completely different from each other.

I found hardly anything useful to me in this forum, most people just like to criticize/complain and call it 'rigor'. Nothing, absolutely nothing useful can be found.

In another word, we are fooling ourselves with invented patterns. Of course if you look you can find patters in complete randomness, if you look hard enough. I am not saying it is the case, but at least we know there is another explanation why the world around us 'looks' explainable. Math is all about orderliness and logic. I am going to attack that soon. If you don't like and cannot contribute, please stay away from the thread I started.

People like order and find 'beauty' in orders. People like elegant formulas and think there is something sacred about it. NO!! Preference of orderliness is a product of animal instinct. It helps animals avoid danger and spot food more easily. As animals we of course would rather spend less time and energy to detect. So I argue that there is nothing sacred about orderliness, it is a human perception and thus holds no place in the universe. Total complexity or chaos may be the truth of the world. We prefer order since our brain can handle simplicity and has a built in animal instinct to do so! The world may be completely incomprehensible, yet our brain tends to find patterns and orderliness - a distinct mammal's idiosyncrasy. This is the most profound findings of the year. for me at least.

Really? My speculation coincides with accepted model???

Hmmm, need some serious middle school tutoring. Kinda proves my suspicion about people around here.

OK. To count 2+2, sometime he got 4, sometimes he got 0 or 1 or 3, depending on where he is at. So there is a probability for 2+2 and that is correlated to his position relative to the center of the rectangle of one side. So he has a theory and it works all the time. LOOOL Again, I solemnly reject the oneness of any theory. Every science is relatively and temporarily useful or correct. Most of the 'time' it is NOT. 'Time' starts from infinity to infinity. The split is just a way to lock this thread and stop exploring. I know it. ;=P Again, it is day and light to me that math is just a tool and can be very different in different places or times. They can be contradicting each other.

Thanks all I just got a patentable idea from this crazy thread! Worth billions of $ in the future!

now, this creature lives on the 2-D surfaces of a box in 3-D world, and there is an inside and outside of it, and the creature can mysteriously travel in between the inside and outside. Do you think his math will be different? Absolutely! It proves my point that math is human specific and physical world specific. Please refute.

If we were 2-dimensional creatures, can we understand natural numbers? Is our math going to be different from 3-d world? Welcome all sorts of answers. Me first: Yes we will have natural numbers in 2-D world. But probably will not develop multiplication or division. It is interesting to think what happens if we were 1-dimensional beings as far as math is concerned.

In oil well drilling, the drill rotates fast. The energy is transferred from the ground machine. An idea is not to drill a hole, but rather a circle spiral in the ground......

No, I am talking about a serious invention that can solve a problem. The stone thing is unrelated to that invention. But tell me smartie, what is the scale's reading?

An invention can be made with is anti gravity thing. I have some crude idea.... I hold a rope, and a stone tied to one end of that rope on a scale. Stone is 40lb, and I am 150lb. Now I swing the rope over my head, so it looks like a helicopter. What is the scale's reading? Hint: don't try it since the stone may break your head.

Seeking proof is very wrong for science's sake, especially in the initial phase of formulating a theory. Science is all about designing test cases, not to prove, but to test. The test case building comprises the core of science, and the other part of science is about wild speculation. 'Prove' should be exorcized from the vocabulary of scientists. I don't have any hard feeling about being locked. It is no surprise that people hate out of box thinkers. It would be surprising if they don't/ 'prove' implies: absolute, ultimate, monopoly and indisputable. I suspect this word has some religious origin. If we are not certain if we are living in a giant matrix type of world, how can we prove anything?? Proof is only possible in man made logical system (like math), which means little for the real world. The real world does not condone any proof. We mistaken such proof as truth. It is very unfortunate, and many people are still in their dreams, wasting their lives on that type of stuff.

I speculate: The earth magnetic field is a result of convection flow of the liquid/half liquid metal core. No proof.