Saiyan300Warrior

If science is based on the footing of what we can observe and what we can predict then is advancement in science based on the tools we can use to do observation with and what we simply can't do based on laws established? I rember reading a few months back on physicsforums, a person posted about how he thinks physics is coming to a close end because of the lack of major discovery in physics in the last 50 years and that innovation requires new foundational laws which need to be discovered , which haven't been. I was wondering if there will be a limit to how far we can progress in science due to limitations of tools and limits of the universe we live in. In the past they could do giant leaps in picking the low hanging fruit but now people have to specialize in taking little tiny steps like stuff you see on arXiv. Sorry if this is written a little muddled up. I'm asking more than I know about. But still curious so I ask anyway. I have no real specialized knowledge in any science which you can tell by most of my posts.

Well I did make my first post about wanting to use these forums again after having been banned a year back and the admins seem to have let me keep posting still (which is good news to me, thanks!). If I were able to get my old account back and also change my email address to a new one that would be nice, but I forgot my old email address so I cant prove really it's my old acc other than same IP. But IP can be same if you use same VPN, example I was confused with a spamming account because we were both using the free VPN for opera browser.

My old account was called "Achilles" and it was banned last year. I was wondering, since it isn't in use, if I could use it as my username for this account.

From the untrained layman to the skilled mathematician. With how powerful the brain is , why can't it do what a super computer calculator can do? I remember watching 60 minutes and it showed this idiot savant who was born with the gift of doing large sums in his head and even counting pi decimal values to over 1000+ correct places. It made me wonder if maybe little configurations to the brain would allow it to do other things like do large sums in head and tasks people currently find hard. Question also reminds me of P vs NP question for some reason.

Thanks for explaining!

I wasn't going to use "linear thinking" but I googled it and it said "step by step thinking" is what it means. I just wanted to use linear thinking to sound smarter lol So you talking about the brain and how it deals with memory? The brain is so complex based on human studies so I can't really speak for it besides through my own one. To me it seems like an eagle soaring the sky, sees lots of stuff from high up but in order to get its prey it has to kind of 0 in on one thing when going towards the ground and so doesn't see all the stuff (kinda bigger eagle eye picture) anymore. Maybe that is what I am talking about is we can't just fully function on all memories at once, the toolbox like you say... and we have to 0 in on a small piece of knowledge like an eagle and from the ground we do step by step thinking, maybe being in the sky is like memories + imagination... I don't know.

Seems like its only a big question because some person or group with academic reputation said its a problem and big question. Also seems more like a philosophical math question in a way and with those you can come with your own ones and can just consider them some paradoxical or tricky type of questions that have no answer. Could P vs NP be a stupid question that ignores common sense (how human thinking is hardwired which I talked about in my other question which wonders about human step by step kind of thinking and that no P doesn't equal to NP) and is similar to other tricky questions many people come up with. So maybe all together it's math/philosophy and psychology (biology at heart because it's how our brain is wired, or philosophy if you consider self awareness as the only true knowledge) question. I mean how with how we understand our thought patterns and add to that a problem which caters to our step by step thought patterns are we going to answer it with a P = NP if that is just opposite to how we naturally think (what I mean is take a problem that has 2 steps and compare it to a problem that has more than 2 steps). Yeah we have imagination that we think is limitless which we can use to even think up the question of P vs NP and what may not be P != NP but it just goes back to how the world really works based on what we can grasp which is based on how we are physically made which has limits from a perspective.

I was wondering if when you break down all kinds of knowledge in different fields if you get something as simple as a linear pattern, point a to point b. For example people sometimes prize themselves on the fact that they have specialised knowledge in certain knowledge fields like math or science or economics etc. I am wondering if learning anything and everything since we can't change the way we are built (for now since maybe genetic engineering could or if you are born with disability/disfunction) for most people is simply from a linear pattern of going from points a to b to c to d to e etc... I don't know if I am explaining it right but what I AM explaining is very simple concept to define human way of thinking and solving problems. Also not so much the theory of the knowledge where you get into detail of how different steps are but the essence of it where you can go from point to point in simple steps. Am I being clear and just wasting words trying to explain something very simple? But I think when people do biology related subjects they say that this part of the brain means this way of thinking, this part is that and etc. I think I am talking more from a philosophy point of view or psychology maybe. I think things like memory, eyes seeing different textures, objects, more than 1 thing and way brain functions factors for how there is variety in knowledge but simple linear thinking seems to be pattern in all knowledge based on my own self-understanding... here to there, this step after that, point a to point b etc

Yes but what is the point of that analysis for those people? To gather 1000 plus points on an internet forum?

But it does old sport, you see if you believe in something then you think something is true, that is the knowledge I am referring to, the "I know" as a prefix to any given sentence. It certainly does old sport.

Some people just trying to make that paper ya dig, what fk is to give to analysis that doesn't help them survive.

Ex. "I know that zapatos is a cool name" - "I know" - self doing the act of knowing, "that zapatos is a cool name" - description of what the self is knowing. So really if you think about it, we know nothing because knowledge implies truth and truth is just a belief concept that we decide for. All this "evidence and schmancy pancy empirical data bla bla bla" can be broken down to the self doing the act of knowing, truth is, everything simply is. We live in a world of ideas due to being built with a brain I believe and the ones we usually raise with utmost value are the "beliefs" (knowledge that we consider true), you get what I'm sayin'?

Which finger am I holding up?

Because that is the nature of knowledge and truth itself. It is belief. "I know that this is an object", you believe it is an object because without thinking about it much because you been taught in school about it being an object and you being active in "knowing" something. To know is to believe, to state what is true is to believe. We know nothing, things just exist. More philosophy answer I guess. I ain't no scientist.

An age of information? An age of misinformation? An age of Trump? gang gang Seriously though how would you describe the age we are living in with a simple title if you could? God bless everyone

Was just going to say something like Area54, Aliens could be much different than we imagine, they would maybe interpret the world in a different way.

Thanks for you answer my friend. I think I am talking about scientific discovery.

Wow they are cool AF, thanks for writing that down... Google: "While strangely cute, these tiny animals are almost indestructible and can even survive in outer space"

I think I am talking about scientific discovery, with a lot of physics having well established scientific laws, if something novel came out that was applied science invention, most likely it would be coupled with a scientific discovery (more likely other way around, scientific discover -> invention) which again leads me to think that it is best left to the scientists who work on this stuff for a living.

Can you go through the paper and give me my answer please

I know people like to say "sky's the limit" or "imagination is limitless so that is the limit" but isn't it more about what is possible based on current laws. Again I am talking more about some novel applied science invention as opposed to simply creative supply for demand inventions like kids toys.

1. Well it use to be a heart felt dream of mine since high school to invent something that has to do with applied science but that kind of changed when dealing with reality and how money is important for lots of things 2. No I don't think so, but I guess I am trying to cheat the inspirational "never give up" and "it's possible quotes" to what I can narrow down as being an option for my goals 3. What makes you think that? I am just trying to skip some steps in the kind of main frame of stuff using a physics textbook to point me to the Titled stuff and that everything else is kinda details to, so that's why I wrote I would focus on: Electromagnetism, Chemistry, Machine learning etc as opposed to Mechanics as there is nothing there to innovate or invent novel for based on my understanding of physics from highschool... I'm just looking for ways to rekindle my passion personally whilst dealing with real world issues and also to kind of take skips and jumps over stuff that don't really matter right now (like mechanics and light and optics and thermodynamics) in achieving my goal/s.

I asked this on Yahoo Answers and one person said that it is genetic. I am thinking since it is behaviour, intuition kind of makes me think, how does behaviour emerge from genetics? Seems like something they would learn from a their parents or something? Gorillas have been beating their chests since 50 years ago, is there some sort of culture involved in it all, why do all different groups of Gorillas know how to beat their chests? Have they kept the culture of beating their chests that well over 50 years (I know they were here longer than but just saying that to explain they been beating their chests consistently for years) Note: Silverback Gorilla is my favourite animal, what is yours :)?

C'mon dude you know what I mean, I think you are getting to twisted up in the logic of writing and definitions instead of being some human and not a robot and understanding what I am trying to explain lol... Toy car, any kind of mechanical non electrical device vs AC generator, remote control. wireless power transmission etc And as to those companies, I think they have some idea what they are doing or else they wouldn't be a company, I mean yeah supply and demand is common known concept so they must know about it, but maybe they did some research and development and want to try something new? Who knows But yeah I've been thinking about my question and am going to keep reading different articles about stuff to find bigger picture look at it all. Also do you mean like me trying to find an ideal something when that ideal something could not be reality?

I think I found a better word "Applied science"... Also I've been using kind of process of elimination based on high school physics I did and seeing what is most likely going to get me some novel idea to invent and patent 1. Use university Physics contents as a guide for the types of physics out there that one can use to invent with 2. If it is something like mechanics where it is just dealing with non electrical objects then most likely not useful information because those stuff is pretty well established and intuition built from high school physics make me think there is nothing there for some novel invention 3. Focus on topics that are more likely to have cracks and holes to exploit in a way, that leaves me with: Electricity and magnetism/circuits, Chemistry and Quantum mechanics Quantum mechanics requires expensive and powerful tools, its not like I am going to build some nuclear reactor in my backyard for experiments with what I can do and afford... best left to the scientists who work on it for their daily lives, and if they haven't really found anything novel then what makes anyone think i would with what i can do and afford for myself That leaves me with: Electromagnetic circuitry and Chemistry (E&M i enjoyed in high school) , though maybe added knowledge of quantum mechanics can be useful and a formal science - Machine learning, could always try and find some novel idea app or something more when i look into, seems younger then the rest, so maybe more to find hmmm Thoughts fellow humans Is this called deductive reasoning/intuition?