Laws of Physics

[IronMan79]

Laws of Physics

 

What bugs me is not only the fact that these laws seem to appear exactly and only because we set up matter in such a way as to express mathematical relationship, but also because we impose functions upon matter, we impose causes and effects that resonate with the solution of concrete practical problems that must be solved, we impose a logic upon matter as the logic applies to us and our mind language and intentionalities and goals and such, therefore the laws of physics really are not "general" laws at all, just "happens to be" mathematical type laws as convenient patterns our Man Brain already, from the outset, from the get go, implicitly superimposes upon matter according to how we interact with matter, according to how our very arbitrary and quirky design and sense organs and functionalities interact with matter, but nothing more general or deeper than this, hence not really laws of physics, but laws of a specific Man Brain interacting with matter according to very arbitrary and specific rules accordingly.

 

Case in point, technology doesn't investigate things that have no practical use, things that are not functional to some kind of problem solutions: we will not construct a mechanical computer (but even the idea of a computer already means a function that must be performed, a problem that must be solved, matter must be configured to solve a problem, we are not experimenting with all kinds of random configurations of matter just for the fun of it, for curiosity (maybe what art does ?) but are configuring matter to make it perform a function, hence solve a problem, hence the importance of the mathematical relationships associated with the solution to the problems at hand, the measurements and the formulas that are important for us in order to reach a target, hence we measure the speed of calculations, the forces of the circuits, the currents, the relationships between leakage currents and voltages and all kinds of mathematical relationships that are important only within the framework of the solution space corresponding to the problem space) with car engines and pistons just for fun, but will create things that are optimized and functional and such.

 

And such is most of all of our science: the problem space is first defined, the solution space is created, the targets and intentionalities of use are defined, and all of the mathematics and equations important within this arena are studied and then declared "laws of physics", when they are not really, they are only laws convenient for our goals.

 

What I am trying to get at is that we don't construct irrational circuits with integrated circuits just to see what they do with no goal or function in mind: heck we wouldn't even know what to measure, what to put into relationship with what else, what measurement is to be related to what other measurement if there are no goals in mind, what mathematical relationships we want to express as those relationships are then the basis for navigating towards a clear cut target and function and goal based sequence of steps.

 

But that is what we should do: design the craziest circuits possible and contraptions possible and study them (but then, the very idea of studying them doesn't seem to make any sense any more since studying them would mean finding significant relationships, but the significant relationships only exist within an ideology so to say, a clear cut reference system of goals and activities and causes and effects and logics, a language, a sequence of symbols already defined even before the studying is performed). Kind of like what measurements, signals, quantities do you want to put into a relationship with what other measurements ? which two variables do you want to relate and hence discover the "mathematical relationship" of ? without any clear cut goals and targets, any two or three or anything can be put into a relationship with anything else, and maybe some of them will be mathematical relationships (others simply invented symbolic relationships or invented relationships), most will be unrelated, and many will be very chaotically and statistically related and such, hence the laws of physics are really the laws that we want physics to express according to our goals, the mathematical relationships that we discover are really the relationships that we want matter to express as they resonate with some specific functions and goals we have in mind.

 

Build crazy contraptions, crazy configurations of matter, study them, or pretend to study them, invent relationships, even if they are "false", have fun, this too is real science, is the creation of ever new laws of physics...

 

Millions of random analog circuits on chips all interacting in crazy ways, huge complex mechanical engines with trillions of complex moving parts doing all kinds of weird things, all the possible configurations of matter, matter without the prison of function, matter as free to express itself in ever more new combinations, no longer under the dictatorship of goals, targets and functions as imposed by the Ape Man Man Brain...

[D H]

Sheesh! Are all of your posts this long and nonsensical?

[swansont]

How is it that you "know" these things aren't being done?

 

I don't know what can be done about the existence of mathematically-based physical laws bothering you, but then, rants of this nature really don't invite discussion. And I've pointed out before that soap-boxing is against the rules. If that's what you want, go start a blog.

[Schrödinger's hat]

What bugs me...rules accordingly.

What?

What do you propose as an alternative to mathematics?

If we had access to any other reproducible system of reasoning I'm sure scientists would happily use them to build models.

Case in point, technology doesn't investigate things that have no practical use, things that are not functional to some kind of problem solutions: we will not construct a mechanical computer

(but even the idea of a computer already means a function that must be performed, a problem that must be solved, matter must be configured to solve a problem, we are not experimenting with all kinds of random configurations of matter just for the fun of it, for curiosity (maybe what art does ?) ... but will create things that are optimized and functional and such.

 

What the hell do you propose the function of the LHC is?

(Terrestrial) Physics is all about putting matter into strange configurations to see what it does. Out of curiosity.

Granted, the big money goes towards solving problems, but this is merely because many of these projects are expensive, and the only people willing to pay for research want solutions to problems.

I'm sure you'd have absolutely no trouble finding physicists willing to just start playing with their equipment if you offered to provide the funding. It's one of the main reasons people are interested in science.

If you look at the bulk of cutting edge mathematical research, it's just people getting a bunch of things (in this case, abstract objects) and trying to see what arranging them in different ways does.

 

Build crazy contraptions, crazy configurations of matter, study them, or pretend to study them, invent relationships, even if they are "false", have fun, this too is real science, is the creation of ever new laws of physics...

 

Millions of random analog circuits on chips all interacting in crazy ways, huge complex mechanical engines with trillions of complex moving parts doing all kinds of weird things, all the possible configurations of matter, matter without the prison of function, matter as free to express itself in ever more new combinations, no longer under the dictatorship of goals, targets and functions as imposed by the Ape Man Man Brain...

 

Why? The principles of each of the parts are well understood. If we do something along these lines (a good example would be evolutionary design of things) we usually find after investigating that the behavior of the resultant object:

1) Takes a lot of work to determine, is very convoluted and often unexpected.

2) Employs no effects unknown to physics.

 

Instead we build machines (like the LHC) designed to produce circumstances we rarely encounter.

Smash things together to produce a region so hot, and so chaotic that the current theories no longer make sensible predictions.

We then examine the outcome, to see which new things happen.

 

Unfortunately theory tends to get ahead of the experiment.

It would be lovely if we could just ramp the collider up to energies no-one has made predictions of, set off some supernovae, smash some black holes together, or assemble large numbers of exotic quarks into random arrangements to see what happens to them.

Anomalous and completely new data make for the most interesting science of all.

But this is all somewhere between extremely hard and expensive, and impossible.

So we resign ourselves to saying 'the main theory breaks down here. There are 15 different theories already mostly worked out by other people, let's look for the tiny little blip on the graph we need to disprove some of them.'

 

Simply building a rube goldberg machine isn't productive. For a sufficiently convoluted apparatus, it becomes almost impossible (or at least laborious) to tell what the machine should do given the laws of physics.

I suppose one could employ the methods of biology, or find empirical laws (when I do x, the machine does y), but this does not tell us anything about the universe, only about the machine. So it serves little purpose.

 

In short, it's not that scientists don't want to do what you say (or something along those lines). It's that they can't in any useful sense.

[IronMan79]

From:

 

http://www.----.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=178178

 

Instant Singularity 4

 

With regards to the fact that Man is the infinitely programmable machine: I have often described the Instant Singularity, or better one of the many millions of different possible types of Instant Singularities as occuring by changing the wiring of Man Brains, making them do things differently, connecting all the subsystems in different ways, nay, inventing completely new subsystems (memory systems in mind, emotional systems, sense organ systems, etc.) and in fact I often use expressions like "Stick a Jet Engine in your Brain", shove wild symbols, signals and chemicals in the ball of meat that is the man Brain, everything you see around you could be a new design for a new Man Brain as in everything is a brain, as in BRAINIUM, etc.

 

But, this is kind of over doing it, is going too fast and too forward too soon: I was looking at a baby play, ad was thinking, you don't even need to change the wirings to start experimenting, you just need to change the way the Man Brain is programmed from the set of signals and reactions the Man Brain gets used to respond too: of course the baby is programmed culturally, linguistically, to respond to certain invariants in the environment, but a new born Man Brain is a blank piece of paper, you could associate anything with anything, program it in an infinite number of new ways, it could grow up in a completely new universe and experience space if programmed in such a way: granted a far call, it is far out, but I can imagine Man Brains, as they are presently configured being programmed by computers, or the entire Man, the entire body living in completely artificial environments where the rules and associations are decided by supercomputers (or randomly or scientifically or artistically, you name it) trying out all the possibilities, possible combinations, possible new configurations, wildy new and creative and colorful associations, relationships, new modes of memory and emotion usage, etc. of the Man brain as it is presently configured: I think, already, as is, the possibilities of these Man Brains entering completely new universes with completely new laws of physics, completely new and wild and incredible experiences, new kinds of Instant Singularities are completely possible.

 

AN APE MAN

[Klaynos]

!

Moderator Note

IronMan79, that's not how we play the game here. It's a discussion forum, not a soapboxing location. You need to actually reply to people.

[IronMan79]

"Smash things together to produce a region so hot, and so chaotic that the current theories no longer make sensible predictions.

We then examine the outcome, to see which new things happen."

 

 

 

And then why not smash car engines against each other in huge magnetrons and see how they disintegrate in many different pieces, maybe even while the car engines are running, a car engine accelerator (instead of particle accelerators) to study how they break up colliding, and make believe they are metaphysical entities...

 

 

Anyways from:

 

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=178194

 

 

 

"Does it mean that on a microscopic level the universe operates in ways so obscure and unfamiliar that the human mind, evolved over eons to cope with phenomena on familiar everyday scales, is unable to fully grasp 'what really goes on'? "

 

 

I'm bored. I will answer since I am bored and don't know what to do to waste some time (but time wastes us as we get closer and closer to death). At what point would you be satisfied by your "understanding" ? what would constitute an "understanding" ? A capability to manipulate to any degree matter ? do you fully grasp anything at all ? can you fully grasp anything at all ? At what point would you be satisfied with the understanding you imagine you could get ? how would you imagine 100 % understanding of something ? do we ever understand anything at all ?

 

If I gave you an answer on how Quantum Physics "really works", would you ask me yet another question ? And how many other, a never ending array of new questions can you come up with ? and what if the questions themselves were the explanations and the explanations the questions ? and what if the answers were totally disjoint and unrelated to any questions, all disjoint and a chaotic mess ?

 

Take the waves on a shore, can you predict the next form ? and if you could, what would you have achieved ? would that satisfy you ?

 

I tend to look at these kinds of problems and doubts and all as some kind of imaginary problem the mind has, the mind seems to want more than it has, seems to want something different or better or whatever.

 

But I think all of these kinds of problems can be solved simply changing the circuits of our minds, and assigning them as fully satisfied, fully achieved, fully in 100 % understanding mode, in full discovery of all achieved.

 

Or as science is the activity that formats the unknown into the known ? Or describes some intractable things into other tractable and clear things, as converting or translating a sequence of symbols (a set of input information, a configuration of input bits) into another sequence of symbols that we "recognize" and "understand" (or we assign it as if we understand ? ).

 

Maybe the entire deal is simply the action -> reaction circuits in which we put ourselves in, as in the questions -> answers circuits, or the out -> input as reaction to output circuits, so in essence what we are looking for is an interaction space large enough to contain all possible entities and their interactions as we interact with reality.

 

Science and Research as a constant cycle of ever new sequences of symbols containing ever new and larger classes of phenomena: It is like an answer to a question, a new set of symbols that may allow you to manipulate and interact further with reality, and this provokes another different set of questions and a further new set of answers that allow you to manipulate and interact with reality even further and so on for many cycles until you reach a point where you can interact and manipulate reality in all possible modes, for anything you want, in any possible way so as to satisfy any possible desire or start point to target point, goal oriented intentionalities.

 

But this total "satisfaction achieved" can be obtained in two faster and simpler ways: 1) simply declaring yourself "totally satisfied", "totally achieved" or inventing a symbol any symbol or concept or anything at all, nay, simply lying to yourself to the extreme that "all has been achieved, all has been discovered", you are now completely satisfied by a FINAL SYMBOL (invented or real ? or simply a lie ? who cares, as long as it works), a final sequence of symbols that really means "All Possible Discoveries Achieved Once and For All and Forever";

 

OR

 

2) Modify the circuitry of you mind brain, change your Man Brain, manipulate the neural circuits and connections and subsystems until you reach "Total Satisfaction Achieved", until "Everything You can Ever Want And Desire is Acheived".

 

 

Hey Busty, I WIN, I WON, I AM A WINNER, JOBSTER LOBSTER, APSTER MAN, SHLACLA LACK, SHPACK A LACK, SHLECK A LAK A SHPECK A LAC, A SHPECK A LEK A SHLEK A LEK SHPEK A LEK, I WIN, PLEASE LET ME WIN, LIKE A CRYBABY, I AM A CRY BABY, I WIN I WON, JOBSTER LOBSTER, APSTER MAN, JOBSTER LOBSTER, APSTER MAN, YOU MAIR, YOU FAIRY, CHICKEN PUA, PA PA PA PA CHICKEN , YOU MAIR YOU FAIRY, JOBSTER LOBSTER, APSTER MAN...

 

And I am a 21st Century Schizoid Man.

 

2001 A Space Odyssey.

 

Planet of the Apes.

 

 

Reminds me of:

 

From:

 

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=177699

 

"Question: What was there before the big bang ?

 

Answer: Would you ask me a different question if I gave you an answer ?

 

Question: and what was there before a "question", any "question" ?

 

Answer: another question ....

 

Question: What is the generalized solution to all possible questions ?

 

Answer: a Symbol."

 

 

From:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/64391-laws-of-physics/

 

"Smash things together to produce a region so hot, and so chaotic that the current theories no longer make sensible predictions.

We then examine the outcome, to see which new things happen."

 

And then why not smash car engines against each other in huge magnetrons and see how they disintegrate in many different pieces, maybe even while the car engines are running, a car engine accelerator (instead of particle accelerators) to study how they break up colliding, and make believe they are metaphysical entities...

 

You may want to reference this:

 

http://kunstler.com/blog/2012/02/the-john-brown-moment.html

 

Where I write a lot...

 

Thank You. You're Welcome.

[Ophiolite]

Your rambling style and ineffectual attempt to be literate and clever make reading your entire post all but impossible. (Certainly undesirable.) One thesis did seem to emerge from the collision of ego and effluent: you believe the quest for knowledge is a quest for a form of satisfaction in which, or by which, things are known. Therein lies your confusion.

 

We ask questions and seek answers because that is what we have evolved to do. Our intelligence is a tool by which we can ask questions and seek answers because this improves our understanding of our environment and thus makes us fitter in that environment. This successful evolutionary ploy just keeps running beyond any need to do so, such that we have to find problems to solve and questions to ask. If you doubt this watch the commuters on the train with their crosswords and soduku problems, or the couch potato watching yet another quiz show.

 

Satisfaction of this urge to seek answers is neither possible nor desirable, so if you are proposing a solution to this non-exitent problem, then it is pointless.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

IronMan79, ignoring moderators is a bad idea. You've earned yourself a vacation