nobox

Refer to my thread: Are natural numbers sacred? This topic resurfaces every 3 days here. Again, any proof or disproof is impossible. It is all about meta meta meta physics. My view is that math is a human specific invention, but it has some limited utility. It is more like a game or toy than anything else. I claim that I have found the profound truth about math, numbers and the universe!@ I found many people are almost like engineers, without a mind set to properly think out of box. Maybe they are.

Energy is a definition. A construct just like minus 3. There is no meaning in the word itself, and only 'apparent' in certain contexts.

By and large, animals are parasites to plants and the food chain proves that. There is little feedback loop from animals to plants. The implication is that we need to make sure plants are first colonized on mars. No animal is needed from self-sustaining standpoint. In my opinion, music is not as essential as air or water.

This is exactly what I oppose. We can imagine a world that all the animals are extinct but cannot imagine a world that plants are extinct. We can live without beef, but not without wheat, potatoes and etc. This is just a small argument from food perspective. Plants provide oxygen, fuel, and shapes the biosphere as we know it. This understanding has implication for the future martial colonization.

Even the democratic political systems resort to implicit violence at its core, no less than any other forms of governments. The reason is simple, violence is a universal language that is understood by biological entities. This is a common denominator. It is also the ultimate evolution/competition force. So violence deserves its central role in shaping human history and political systems. It is somewhat obvious but carefully disguised by all political establishments. Today we denounce violence employed by 'terrorists'. We should. But on the other hand unfortunately we have to put it in the context discussed above.

Clearly plants are a magnitude more important to humans' welfare, compared to animals. Yet because of we are animals so our vantage point gives more weight to animals.

Belief of the sacred nature of natural numbers is equivalent to believing in the fundamental orderliness of the world. It also implied that the understanding of the world could be achieved quantitatively. Therefore it is a philosophical ideal rather than a scientific reality, i.e. there is no proof or disproof. In addition, there is abundant evidence to support contradicting views.

Language fools people all the time. 'Processed' is such a thing that everyone knows what it means but no one can agree totally/exactly what others define. Coincidentally this is also what caused a lot of human conflicts. Because we are fooled and fail to realize it at a mass scale. Can we ban the ambiguous languages? I wish but unlikely. The only thing we can do is stop arguing about it. hahaha.

Passion is just another predisposed (or cultivated at very early age) brain preference and can be viewed as part of the aptitude just like 'hard wire'. It is hard to conceive that one person is passionate at something that his brain rejects intellectually. Keeping that passion up is what what makes a predisposed strength to shine. But it does not disprove that some predisposition is determinant.

Denying the central role that individual traits play in math/physics ability is an error. There is significant degree of variability of human brain's aptitude in certain intellectual endeavors. I tend to believe that math/physics ability is related to hormone exposure as a fetus.

I think there is a link between eating excessive processed food and cancer incidence. The definition of processed food is not rigid and should be defined as one wishes. It is similar to the way we define obscenity.

A major issue with current 3-D printing is how to incorporate solid-wall pipes. Pipes/hose/conduit are essential parts that provide fluid/air/paths, as well as structural support.

Think the world (including our universe and other unknown universes) as a giant geometry object. You may slice this object using different 'planes', for instance planes that are distinguishable from observing scales (from nano to light years). The resulting intersection is called observable plane. There is no apparent requirement to observe the same physical laws at different planes. However the geometry object is surprisingly smooth! But it may contain some singularity at its boundaries. In fact all points on the boundaries are singularities if the plane is tangent to that point. (i.e. singularities are dependent on the observing plane) Light and in general electro-magnetic fields are not part of any traces. To be continued... Time is another orthogonal plane wrt space. This geometric object is box shaped, (I am joking in fact I think it is more likely a donuts shaped) i.e. a closed form. Probability is another orthogonal plane. Probability is as fundamental as space and is NOT an emergent or derived variable. It is part of the innate property of the object.

My intuition told me that the common physical variables such as location, time, velocity, and etc are very inappropriate in the quantum world, which created vast amount of confusion. The confusion can be dispelled after removing these concepts/variables, and instead using geometric interpretations. After all, nothing is real in this world. We are fooled by nature all along. “They are very powerful calculational techniques, but they are also incredibly suggestive,” Skinner said. “They suggest that thinking in terms of space-time was not the right way of going about this.” Read more: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-heart-of-quantum-physics/#ixzz3Oq1kq1uK At its core, space or time do not exist. Relativity and quantum mechanics have to twist these constructs to fit our understanding of space and time. This is equivalent to defective mapping in math. Why bother with the concept of space or time, just because we have everyday experience and think we know what they are? Use languages as an analogy, we speak them with speed, but does that mean that English has a property called 'velocity'? I predict that a revolution in physics may have started this year. I suggest physicists picking up geometric algebra at once. Obviously we have to have physical forms to use languages, which involve pitch, speed, paper, digital code and etc. Without some physical form languages cannot 'exist'. But none of them is the innate property of language itself. I tend to think nature is similar to the language. Alas, I am closer to Plato's idealism that I want to.

Someone is figuring out what proposed here: inventing a new math and do away time and etc for the quantum world. Searh "amplituhedron".

We may consider the current world as a domain A and the world in the next moment as another domain B. Time is the operating mapping rule to map each element in A to B. But unfortunately there exists none reverse mapping, hence time travel is a meaningless phrase. In every domain there is no time element. Time itself is an illusion for organisms to incorporate the mapping operation into innate experience. The physics law can be re-interpreted under this new paradigm. Instead treating time as a presumed independent physical variable, it is a function T. For every element (positions and masses) of domain A, we have a time function T(.) that operates on it. 2nd Thermal dynamic law: T(a) = b, where a is the entropy of element a in domain A and b is the entropy b in domain B, and the rule is b>a; Speed of light: T(a) = b/c, where a and b are relative position coordinates in domain A and B, and c is a constant, i.e. speed of light. … If my scheme works, then it will be a profound breakthrough. Of course the probability is admittedly low. But any critique is welcome, as long as it is not personal attack. Fundamentally we cannot measure time, and time is not an absolute variable like position. Making time-space a 4 dimension doesn't help, except more confusion. It caused crisis after crisis in physics because of the confusion of time. If time is treated as an operator things will be much clearer. Quantum mechanics will be instantly making sense the moment we take out the time as a variable.

Math is able to stay self-consistent, partly is because the domains are constructed arbitrarily and the mappings amongst domains are constructed arbitrarily. The only thing that are rigorously constructed and tested is the relationship within one particular domain. Use human languages are an example. A domain corresponds to a language, say English. Mapping is translation, and the elements in a domain are words, sentences, meanings and etc. The relationship of domain elements is the relationship of the words in a language. The grammar of a language is equivalent to one relationship within a domain. You will need coherent and correct grammar to have meaningful language. However, you can construct any arbitrary language, such as sign language and so forth, as long as there is some order and coherence in that language. Further you have mapping that can completely or incompletely translate among different languages. Math is always ‘correct’ because it keeps inventing new domains and new mappings. There is no requirement of what the mappings should be as long as it fits the purpose. For the new domains themselves, the only requirement is to have a set of relationship rules that are coherent and logical. You are able to achieve any types of proof by continuously mapping from domains to domains. One requirement of a good mapping is to avoid contradictory results in mapping operations. Another requirement is to use as few as possible rules in mapping. Unlike human language mapping which requires a tome of dictionary, math mapping prefers general rules that can be summed up in a few lines.

Mass abuse of science occurred in Nazi Germany, USSR, and China. Not to mention in the earlier eras. There are so many proclaimed sciences/truth/paradigms/you-name-it that eventually fell into dustbins.

Maybe there is a cultural thing in this forum and I just realized its existence. I visited this forum the 1st time yesterday. Ask this: 1. Does a hypothesis have a chance to be proved or disproved? 2. Is there any gain during the process and/or from the conclusion? My initial post, as a hypothesis, gives 'yes' to both questions. Yes, I am short of evidence because I am not an expert of either cosmology or high energy physics. But does that deprive me of the right to express a hypothesis? BTW, Santa's underwear failed #2 test so it is purely a waste of time even mentioning it. Since science has become an institutionalized thing, there are many people's status, money and reputation at stake. Can science keep its objectivity and be held accountable, especially the domain knowledge has advanced far from an ordinary citizen's intellectual reach? Wherever there is power and monopoly of authority, there is a possibility of corruption and collusion. My hypothesis is not just about science, it is about ethics as well. I am not attacking science at all, in fact I am pointing to the possibility of abusing science at a massive scale.

One of human's biggest pleasures is derived from knowing/feeling/showing the superiority over others. It is manifested very clearly here. Who cares if today's science has some rotten apples, or has pretty darn bad scams going on.... But scams will be exposed eventually. Evidence takes time and energy to glean. I am not a stakeholder so I am not going to do it. My post is just a reminder of the possibility. OK?

For people who are too comfy inside the box, it is obviously unsettling to see some out of box stuff. All I am suggesting is that some of the branches of science today have become 'unscientific'. Let's focus on this topic. If you have proof that can lead to validating or invalidating this idea, please post it here, otherwise just treat this topic as garbage and pass by.

I am glad someone has spotted more or less the same problem I presented here. Call whatever you want, 'scam', 'off the beam' or whatever, science is now institutionalized, and is no longer the romantic view people had about the science even 60 years ago. Thus mass collusion is possible. (Need proof here, don't blame me on that).

Good science starts that way, sometimes. i.e. it was started by 'ludicrous' idea and proved/disproved by people who had more time than what they know how to spend. Thinking out of box is my job.

You sound awfully like my friend Alan M. I appreciate his scientific rigor. But what I want is to get something new, interesting or helpful from a debate.

As a starter, a large part of modern cosmology is based on the measurement of star brightness. There is only tenuous link between the star brightness with its distance, as claimed by the mainstream science.