koti

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    2790
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

koti last won the day on May 30

koti had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

416 Beacon of Hope

6 Followers

About koti

  • Rank
    Primate
  • Birthday October 25

Contact Methods

  • Skype
    koti1974

Recent Profile Visitors

22705 profile views
  1. koti

    VARIPEND

    You are stalling, manipulating and being a complete d1*k. I’m here to learn physics and your way of explaining things is not helping. Change your attitude or gtfo mr. Laser.
  2. If Strange was Lee Smolin steeling your precious work, that would be something wouldn't it.
  3. I know you don’t think that but...God eliminates all problems in physics too doesn’t it? Also keep in mind that strings is an old 60’s concept revised by E. Witten in 1994 with his M Theory. QFT is a newer theory kind of working on what string theorists developed. Simulation Theory is a totally new idea.
  4. String Theory is attractive to many physicists mainly because gravity emerges from it as something inevitable and not a forced feature that has to be cramped in unsuccessfuly as in other attempts which try to mary QM and GR. This is the reason physicists pursue strings despite the fact that experimental data is more or less impossible to obtain at our current state of technology. I'm not familiar with the "we are simulated" or the Simulation Theory enough for that matter, what scientifically attractive features do these offer or at least what indirect signs they are giving us that theyre worth pursuing? PS. Elon Musk saying in an interview that „we just gotta live in a simulation, no question about it” doesn’t exactly do it for me
  5. So what better alternative to the scientific method would you propose?
  6. Simple - Yes and no. I think. We know its got an arrow, we know it „bends” along with space under conditions which implies its got „interactive features” which further might imply that time is a thing. But that does not have to be true... just like space is volume, time might just be analogous to volume. On the other hand, we don’t even know if time had a beginning and it might not be a valid question whether there was a beginning to the Universe because conditions at t=0 were so much different from what we see now. Most theorerical physicists agree that GR has to be eventually complemented by a fuller theory and not just because we need to marry gravity under QM and GR but more fundamentally, we don’t know what gravity and spacetime fundametally is. It is pretty obvious (at least to my lame, amateur mind) that what we define as gravity is just a „leak” of something more fundamental, maybe time and the concepts of beginning/before/after are a part of something larger too on the cosmic scales. One thing we can be sure of, our gut is a bad adviser due to our evolutionary handicap of living is our small Earth bubble. There hasnt been a revolution in my lifetime in physics, I hope the next ~30 years will erect one so I can witness it
  7. Exactly. I was hoping PrimalMinister can come to this conlusion on his own. Its worh noting that many people tend to make (wrong) distinctions between people and nature.
  8. Where do you draw the line between something natural and not natural?
  9. Well, theres no way of arguing with that one.
  10. In case anyone forgot what its all about here it is:
  11. @swansont ”Implications about others' intelligence being low” The question is whether or not youre down with Arj Baker. After all this is the quintessence of this oftopic split thread.
  12. "When Huang’s paper landed in Mathieu’s inbox, her first reaction was “uh-oh,” she said. “When a problem has been around 30 years and everybody has heard about it, probably the proof is either very long and tedious and complicated, or it’s very deep.” She opened the paper expecting to understand nothing. But the proof was simple enough for Mathieu and many other researchers to digest in one sitting. “I expect that this fall it will be taught — in a single lecture — in every master’s-level combinatorics course,” she messaged over Skype" https://www.quantamagazine.org/mathematician-solves-computer-science-conjecture-in-two-pages-20190725/ 30 years of failure by prominent mathematicians and a simple solution that even I can understand at the end. Fascinating that something like this can happen in modern science.
  13. I hope you never make it to the last level as this would inevitably strip you of your cool. Your image as the guy from the clip in my head is now solidified. Teach me master.
  14. Dude you replied to me with the same clip 3 years ago in some religious thread, remember? You can send it to me every week though, I love it!