Musings of a mad Scientist

[Mordred]

Throughout our knowledge of history mankind has persevered against one fundamental need. The need to explain, to define and categorize all events we observe. To a scientist which society has funded, supported, ridiculed and scorned, this basic desire is all the greater.
Out of all the species on this planet we stand unique in this drive, though we cannot state that we are the most intelligent of beings residing upon our planet. We also cannot name any other species with the same basic desire to push the umbrella of our understanding beyond survival, enjoyment and security of such.
However despite this the average scientist faces numerous obstacles. These obstacles include, our current understanding, our ability to observe, our ability to disprove, our ability of convincing others of what we feel is right, our ability of moving beyond time true and tested understandings, and our imagination of new possibilities either through prejudice or limitations already described. Our very nature of being demands this ability to explain every interaction.
We as the scientist is responsible to provide those explanations, despite limitations, as such we have much to consider.
How many ways can "A influence B " to determine that, we can supposition a possibility or we can observe an influence. In the latter case the problem of observation is already accounted for, in the former we need to find a means of proof beyond faith. Even if we cannot supposition an interaction due to our limitations, we also cannot preclude the possibility of an unknown. Even in the case of our ability to observe an interaction, we are fraught with the limitations described above.
Given all this its safe to say every scientist is MAD in his own way, after all why do we desire to struggle beyond these countless limitations? The one answer I can think of though others are also possible, is our unfulfilled curiosity. Out of all the species on our planet, humanity shares this emotion more so than any other. Scientists exhibit a greater desire and willingness to struggle against limitations of that curiosity than many. So in that sense we are all mad

[Popcorn Sutton]

I don't think that I was mad until I turned 23. I wasn't always speculating, and, up to the age of 23, I took the questions and answers of science with a grain of salt. Science has been my favorite thing to discuss since I was about 13. There weren't many peers of mine that were willing to discuss, let alone able to comprehend, the discoveries of the scientists before our time. I have never been happier than when I was 17 and asked what I consider to be the ultimate question. The single biggest question of my life (and the lives of many others). For me, that question was "what does it take to make a computer able to learn any language?" At the age of 17, I came up with the answer. The answer was pattern recognition. Once I had the answer, I set it aside for another 6 years before I began to openly discuss it. I chose Linguistics as my major because there was nothing more fascinating to me than Science and Language, but to combine the two into the field of Linguistics, I was sold. So, at the age of 23 I lost every single one of my closest friends because they had either went away to college or got into drugs and alcohol. I have to admit that I had my encounters with that scene, and, ultimately, I realized that I didn't want to see the people that were also involved in that type of activity, I'd much rather keep my distance. But, as I said, I lost literally all of my friends and I was scared as hell of being alone. The strange thing that I came to realize is that I've never been happier than when I was alone. I was outcasted, aand there wasn't a single person that I wanted to hang out with. At that time, there was only one person who wanted to hang out with me, but he was NO WHERE NEAR smart enough to satisfy my desire to contemplate the big questions. So, as I said, I began to discuss my ideas with others over fora like this one, and, sure enough, there was opposition. The strange thing was that the opposition had (seemingly overnight) concluded that I was right. I was right about pattern recognition, and there was literally no plausible refutation to that very basic premise. Since there was an opposition, which was really just a resistance to adopt a new paradigm, I got mad. I got mad as hell at all of my ex friends, and I guarantee you that I could not separate my madness from any other situation where I had to be social. There was not a single person who was satisfied with who I was. Luckily, by this time, I've grown out of that madness and entered the world of work, getting paid for something that I love doing. While I'm still pretty poor, and I'm occasionally mad, I can look back at my time alone and safely say that I would willingly have a period like that again because there was nothing more satisfying IMO.

 

Madness, yes. We're very mad (but not all the time) lol.

[michel123456]

Throughout our knowledge of history mankind has persevered against one fundamental need. The need to explain, to define and categorize all events we observe. To a scientist which society has funded, supported, ridiculed and scorned, this basic desire is all the greater.

Out of all the species on this planet we stand unique in this drive, though we cannot state that we are the most intelligent of beings residing upon our planet. We also cannot name any other species with the same basic desire to push the umbrella of our understanding beyond survival, enjoyment and security of such.

However despite this the average scientist faces numerous obstacles. These obstacles include, our current understanding, our ability to observe, our ability to disprove, our ability of convincing others of what we feel is right, our ability of moving beyond time true and tested understandings, and our imagination of new possibilities either through prejudice or limitations already described. Our very nature of being demands this ability to explain every interaction.

We as the scientist is responsible to provide those explanations, despite limitations, as such we have much to consider.

How many ways can "A influence B " to determine that, we can supposition a possibility or we can observe an influence. In the latter case the problem of observation is already accounted for, in the former we need to find a means of proof beyond faith. Even if we cannot supposition an interaction due to our limitations, we also cannot preclude the possibility of an unknown. Even in the case of our ability to observe an interaction, we are fraught with the limitations described above.

Given all this its safe to say every scientist is MAD in his own way, after all why do we desire to struggle beyond these countless limitations? The one answer I can think of though others are also possible, is our unfulfilled curiosity. Out of all the species on our planet, humanity shares this emotion more so than any other. Scientists exhibit a greater desire and willingness to struggle against limitations of that curiosity than many. So in that sense we are all mad

Some time ago, we were nomad.

[Unity+]

Out of all the species on our planet, humanity shares this emotion more so than any other. Scientists exhibit a greater desire and willingness to struggle against limitations of that curiosity than many. So in that sense we are all mad

We don't know the thoughts of other species therefore we cannot determine if this is true(yet).

[Mordred]

lol true enough

I don't think that I was mad until I turned 23. I wasn't always speculating, and, up to the age of 23, I took the questions and answers of science with a grain of salt. Science has been my favorite thing to discuss since I was about 13. There weren't many peers of mine that were willing to discuss, let alone able to comprehend, the discoveries of the scientists before our time. I have never been happier than when I was 17 and asked what I consider to be the ultimate question. The single biggest question of my life (and the lives of many others). For me, that question was "what does it take to make a computer able to learn any language?" At the age of 17, I came up with the answer. The answer was pattern recognition. Once I had the answer, I set it aside for another 6 years before I began to openly discuss it. I chose Linguistics as my major because there was nothing more fascinating to me than Science and Language, but to combine the two into the field of Linguistics, I was sold. So, at the age of 23 I lost every single one of my closest friends because they had either went away to college or got into drugs and alcohol. I have to admit that I had my encounters with that scene, and, ultimately, I realized that I didn't want to see the people that were also involved in that type of activity, I'd much rather keep my distance. But, as I said, I lost literally all of my friends and I was scared as hell of being alone. The strange thing that I came to realize is that I've never been happier than when I was alone. I was outcasted, aand there wasn't a single person that I wanted to hang out with. At that time, there was only one person who wanted to hang out with me, but he was NO WHERE NEAR smart enough to satisfy my desire to contemplate the big questions. So, as I said, I began to discuss my ideas with others over fora like this one, and, sure enough, there was opposition. The strange thing was that the opposition had (seemingly overnight) concluded that I was right. I was right about pattern recognition, and there was literally no plausible refutation to that very basic premise. Since there was an opposition, which was really just a resistance to adopt a new paradigm, I got mad. I got mad as hell at all of my ex friends, and I guarantee you that I could not separate my madness from any other situation where I had to be social. There was not a single person who was satisfied with who I was. Luckily, by this time, I've grown out of that madness and entered the world of work, getting paid for something that I love doing. While I'm still pretty poor, and I'm occasionally mad, I can look back at my time alone and safely say that I would willingly have a period like that again because there was nothing more satisfying IMO.

 

Madness, yes. We're very mad (but not all the time) lol.

well said, I recall when I was 13 with a friend, I asked " If everything must have a beginning, what is the utlimate beginning of the universe?" After two weeks of debate we came up with "nothing +nothing= something" quite the mad answer lol

[Popcorn Sutton]

Lol! Here, I think it may have been johncuthber, we discovered that, mathematically, 0^n always equals 1. It may just be a fluke in math, but there is evidence to support it. It's like space is boiling.

[Mordred]

lol

[PeterJ]

Your question about ultimate beginnings is not scientific but philosophical. Still, philosophers are mad as well.

 

Your answer may well be correct as far as it goes, but note that the same logical approach you take to 'something/nothing' works for 'beginning/no-beginning'.