Luc Turpin

Failed my first test; probably looking at the wrong post. Got everything; understand My epiphany moment is keeping me focused at least for now. Was trying to choose a 'sick' smiley face for joigus's response, but ended up with a mad one. Waiting in expectation for the next post; thanks for all of this 🤢maybe this one is better

All good! Confirms what applied Maths is all about. When you have time, I would like for you to substantiate on the predictive phenomena of applied maths. This is getting good for me; hope you don't get bored with it? And the answer to the kjw's riddle, is it model development, observation, conclusions?

Good one😑

I had some sort of an epiphany while skiing today. Training was demanding, but worthwhile. I think that I now know what is going wrong for me. While you are talking about QM, I am trying to pick-out things from these conversations that fit my mental picture of reality, which is heavily based on countess research findings that I read from various science fields. I also realized that I cannot do this without a sound basis of QM. Obviouos to studiot, but not for the one lost in the forest. From now on, I will try and stick with learning about QM, but old habits die hard.

You lead and I will follow. will leave for now Chaos, unless someone mentions it. You know that I will give myself a headache trying to figure out the KJW basic? Linear versus applied maths is not familiar to me. Can wait for the next post. Cant wait that is To me, that chaos should have little or nothing to do with QM, is incompatible with my view that QM or physics shoulld be the basis for all else. But I will leave it at that for the time being, so I can stick to the program. I feel that this the program is going to be very usefull to me.

Both posts on linear and non-linear reassured me that I at least understood them in mathematical terms. So, its definition lies on the strict sense of linear (line) and non-linear (curved) for mathematics. I read throught the thread again (impressive posts from Seth, KJW and others) and rereading some old complexity/chaos material to try and determine what i am not grasping here. At this point, the only thing that I can put a finger on is that that one (complexity/chaos) appears to infuse more meaning (more effect?) to the terms (linear, non-linear) than the other (QM-math). For example, one seems to restrict more the interelationship of things while the other is more liberal at it. For want of a nail, the shoe was lost; For want of a shoe, the horse was lost; For want of a horse, the rider was lost; For want of a rider, the battle was lost; For want of a battle, the kingdom was lost. Maybe I am mixing up non-linearity with chaos. Confusion still reins in my head. Need to think! Note: I understand quite well the concept of two worlds: one outside and one inside our heads. I would also venture to say that QM is a third version of the world and that other science have also their own view of the world. Comming back to the curved line on the diagram: what happens to the trajectory of the line after many-many iterations? And what kind of non-linear equations are required to be able to see the effects of some properties (sensitive to initial condition, figure such as the Lorenz attractor, etc.) of complexity/chaos? Made slight corrections to it

Tipping points I know, but not now as i have so much to figure out before that

Doing very well! Its the exact interpretation that I have of linear. The cat associated moving to danger; not moving to safety! There is also the open (as in open area) and closed context Cat's hide in brush, run in open areas. But its more complicated than that, because of an interplay of those and other variables

Something very basic that i do not grasp, must think

Pictures help need to think why i always return to a cause and effect kind of world do not want to overstay my stay

Thinking more thoroughly, my contention is a foolish one!

I have to wrap my head around the idea about it becoming a tool, not about viscosity, for which i just picked out of the blue for argument sake my contention here is that the act of measurement or observing changes something in the world, or is this again too far fetched. note again, you can disengage at anytime from this discussion Changes and then says something about the world

It clarifies it, but need to think I have to wrap my head around this one, can you expand? But, let’s say for argument purposes, there is only one factor, than the answer becomes yes? Can you expand on this one also?

It implies something of the water, but not linearity or non-linearity! Right? But it does say that slender bodies go through water more easily than wide bodies. And from this, we can Attribute properties to water, like maybe viscosity. Coming back full circle, can we say that the type of tool used is saying something about the world? Or for a commoner like me, not yet Knowing that non-l/l is a part of the tool, say something like Non-l/l shows that water in world has a certain degree of viscosity hope that I am not frustrating anyone.

Now I get it, yes what effects; I was a step back, wanting to know if there was an effect; what, then answers my previous question that there are

I do not understand the meaning Please substantiate! I am grasping at straws to understand, but straws will be replaced by something more solid as I progress. I understand that non-linearity/linearity are part of the tools, but what does it say that they are required to deal with the world? Are they required to deal with the world or are they just there, static being part of the tools. The former implies implications for the world, right? I have a formidable advantage over all of you; I don’t understand as much as all of you

Very interesting, I need to think about it. Like how your are leading the discussion With effects on the world? With effects on the comprehension of the world? Like leading a camel (me) to water

Upon reading it a second time and thinking about it, i would now say a greater yes than before

Yes

I have comments-questions on your last post before this, but that will wait. Yes, meant interaction, not deliberately trying to communicate. Boundary between us and the universe is there, but there might be "bleeding" between the two. I might post something in neuroscience on mind. Far from being proven though. Linearity-non-linearity was reiterated in this post as a response to my debate with genady. And, I would like a deeper dive on this. As much conditioned by human nature of mind as of nature of external world – yes, an interplay of both Limited by sense – yes. Brain as a computer – it is an older model of the brain The act of measuring (apologies to Joigus; their words; not mine) disturbs the system….. – can you substantiate? And the change from CM to QM was brought about by science prodding the universe and getting results that were inconsistent with CM; which comes back to science being the tool, not the subject matter as indicated in one of my previous posts

First line: interesting, need to think about it; Kuhn I like very much Second line: I am a hopeless case in math, but will try

On science and the world, physics and non-linearity! I did a lot of thinking yesterday with little to show except for this: that science telling us what the world is all about as some people think, feels awkward. Should it not be that the world (universe) ought to be telling us through science what it wants to reveal to us? Science is the tool, not the subject matter!. In physics, at least for someone looking outside-in like me, it seems that there is a high rate of theorizing and calculating in comparison to experimenting. This theorizing-experimenting ratio appears to be much different in physics than in other sciences. I am aware that its the nature of the beast. Physics requires it. But what impacts this has on physics, I don’t know! Also, I cannot use math to corroborate things as I am too weak in it. And I found out that I cannot use key words to convey thoughts because the physics sense varies greatly from the conventional one. So, I am stuck in a pickle. What I can claim though with some degree of certainty is that probing the universe with science has put into light some of the non-linear features of complex systems. Seeing us no longer seeing ourselves. I will read this post very carefully! Thanks!

And i use world as the one that surround.use, still need to think before answering

What is your definition of world?

Is it not what i am trying to say that absolute certainty does not exist