Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by nameta9

  1. Actually I think it is a very good indicator. Since the minimum pay and rent are really the 2 factors that count for a person to survive. There are many stories of managers who were once making good and end up flipping burgers. So how is he going to manage ? This is the real bottom line. The numbers are real if not even extremely moderate and conservative. In the US you're closer to 600 dollars a month for a 1 bed home and min. pay is 800 dollars. If you factor in other inflation like health care and other items (gas etc). you get that we are getting poorer at a more extreme rate. I think the point is that GDP seems to give us an impression that the economy "grows" so we are getting richer. In this sense that is totally WRONG AND FALSE! We are getting poorer even if you don't like the idea. Japan and Europe are getting even worse. Try to rent in Tokyo and work minimum wage.... Granted there are many rich and well off people, but as time goes by, they will be sacked.
  2. On one hand the entire basic assumption of science is that we can simplify reality by ignoring the details and creating logical models. On the other hand, science does investigate exactly the many details that philosophers and artists have often ignored because considered "too low level and not worth the human spirit". But we are simply within a quirk range of size levels where the simplification - ignoring details method of science seems to work, but at the many infinite smaller levels there are no simplifying principles and in fact there may be an infinite increase of complexity and chaos and science would actually be inverted in the sense that the simple is based on the infinitely complex.
  3. If you look at anything macroscopic there is alot of random details. Like the leaves on a road, or the cracks in a wall etc. Why don't atoms have any random details? They are perfectly round with "points" (electrons) that circulate them. OK, they are not "perfect" but governed by quantum mechanical equations etc. But they seem so "unnatural" as everything macroscopic has rnadom details and atoms are perfect mathematical equations. True that even air and oceans don't have any random details, but the details are in the random measurements of pressure and temperature. Maybe we can't perceive the atom's random details. Maybe something is wrong with our descriptions... If you look at pictures of proteins and cells you can notice how much random details are there or even pictures of integrated circuits. It's like a DVD. It can contain a film with loads of random details but it's largest common denominator is the bit, 1 or 0. So nature's largest common denominator must be an invariant with no random details otherwise it would be composed of an infinite level of objects each possessing random details and no final invariant. Matter would be based on nothing then and there would be no physical laws at all. And in fact atoms do have random details and matter is composed of an infinite number of levels each having random details all the way down to the plank level. Therefore there are no laws of physics and matter is based on nothing. That is why quantum physics is based on chance, "random" probabilities, to reflect this state of things. Random details are all those intricate little quirks you see in everything around you, like the stones on a road, the casual tree alignments, cracks and all the quirky patterns of car seats and textiles etc. Look at anything very closely and you will see all kinds of odd details. The beauty of the universe is in those details. Now if these details are no longer present for the atom, then what is left is a perfectly abstract item or should I say a perfectly mathematical item. In fact when we abstract concepts we are IGNORING the details so we can manage them logically and mathematically. So if the atom is a purely mathematical item, it is no longer a material item and hence matter does not even exist. If those details are present for an atom, and I see no reason why they shouldn't be since we are biased towards thinking the atom is just a set of equations, then the quirky odd details go on forever at all levels even at 10^-100000 mm and hence there are really no physical laws at all only approximations and "chaos". So matter is based on nothing anyways.
  4. So I can say the mind is a car tire and it's thoughts are a light bulb in your house. You can assign anything, any idea, concept; it becomes more and more an aesthetical - artistical construction. You can even go full circle and watch TV as that is the maximum philosophical achievment. We are talking about science as an expired process. After which only pure invention will reign. There are no constraints, anything can go. What is the square root of multiplication ? An invented symbol as an infinite number of others to create a purely invented science. So any image can be a language and can associate to any meaning-operation much like art. Even the most fundamental logic of dividing things up as separate or as one can be manipulated. 2 apples can be grouped as one and further grouped with the table on which they lay and this can be considered one unique object and manipulated with any kind of invention. When science will have reached the point of manipulating our own neural networks, this will become apparent since then we will invent our own mind, emotional systems, thought structures etc. Art and science will become one and the same. Imagine a modified mind where all the information paths can be changed and all the associated emotional structures can be manipulated in billions of combinations, the space-time references can be changed, enhanced, new sense organs can be mixed and created since all the information in our minds is only electrical signals. So then we would be using science to produce Art in the form of modified brains. But all we will ever perceive is extracted properties from objects. It is how you extract a given value or what given value you choose that makes an object perceivable, so science itself is always a pure invention. If you decide to measure the mass of a particle compared to another, you already simply invented a number since that given choice of property compared to another reference is a pure invention. We decide that that measurement is significant and important whereas objectively speaking, for the physical universe, there is no difference between that choice and any other such as the distance between 2 rocks on mars.
  5. For every RPG programmer there are maybe 10 java programmers. 10 years from now it will be 1 RPG programmer to 100 java or c sharp programmers. So in the long term it is a good investment to learn RPG. If a company needs an RPG programmer they may receive only 3 resumes in contrast to hundreds for java programmers. The future for programmers is in RPG, don't follow the buzzwords.
  6. The only thing that will be left to study in the future is philosophy. It is science that will end. Once all our practical scientific-technical problems have been solved, and we can manipulate all matter and ourselves infinitely, then only philosophy-metaphysics-art will be left, and that study will last forever. This study will lead to inventing any arbitrary science and art form as knowledge. Any sequence of signs and pictures can become an invented irrational mathematics-physics. Trying to understand metaphysical problems in philosophy always ends up questioning more fundamental assumptions as it proceeds. Why "understand" more or less ? Why use any form of logic ? What exactly are we trying to reach ? These ideas go on forever and as you proceed you slowly disassemble all thought processes, logic, reason, all intentions and you end up with everything and/or nothing. The end result is mostly aesthetic or artistic. Just invent arbitrarily anything etc. Philosophy has no given goal. It doesn't necessarily want to increase our understanding, some philosophers may want to decrease our understanding as "understanding" may not be such an interesting goal. Some philosophy likes the purely artistic view of things hence there is no relationship with science. Some philosophy likes to be completely wrong on everything because they are not using right and wrong concepts or non contradictions as taken for granted. Philosophy, in the wider sense, is very much more general and abstract than science, it questions every conceivable assumption, demolishes every conceivable logic and thought process. Real philosophy is truly non social and has no use whatsoever. It is this that makes it so much grander than science. One could say why search for the "truth" ? Why not search for the best lies, non-truths or try to get as far away as possible from the truth ? After all, searching for the truth is one of the assumptions we take for granted. Why not invent better and better lies ? why not contradict ourselves more and more ? Why is truth assigned a higher "value" than that which is "false" ? Let's play a game of demolishing all possible assumptions: 1) why ask why ? so my philosophy doesn't ask why anymore it just assigns arbitrary false facts... 2) why execute any thought ? So my philosophy doesn't contain any thought anymore So I can say the mind is a car tire and it's thoughts are a light bulb in your house. You can assign anything, any idea, concept; it becomes more and more an aesthetical - artistical construction. You can even go full circle and watch TV as that is the maximum philosophical achievment.
  7. Could it be one chance in something like 10^10^50 ? Like if there were only 3 particles having 10 states it would be 10^3 or one chance in a thousand because all the possible combinations of 3 particles with 10 state would be 1000. So if there are 10^50 particles between feet and water etc. it would be 10^10^(number of particles involved).
  8. Yes but I think this exact kind of example has never been done. I mean all kinds of relationships and graphs are done in science, but the idea of putting every physical quantity an elementary particle can have with each quantity on a different axis of an n-dimensional coordinate system may really allow some new research and insight.
  9. Theoretical Physics in the end is simply a set of numbers (mass, impulse, energy etc.) related to another set through a series of mathematical operations. Has it ever been tried to just set all the physical properties in an n-dimensional space where each dimension is a property and just follow the path of the point and points in this space as they interact ? For example a particle may have n properties (x,y,z,t,mass,spin,energy,mass,impulse, size of particle, etc.) so you set each dimension of the space to correspond to each property, so aside from the typical 4 dimensions of space-time you would have other dimensions corresponding to the energy, another to the mass, another to the velocity, another to spin etc. You would end up with an n-dimensional space where the particle would simply be the path of the point in this space. Could this simplify theoretical physics ? Is this result known ?
  10. Take 2 squares (sheets of paper) and slide them over each other at right angles. the intersection is a still point. But if you tilt 1 square (sheet of paper) and slide them over, the intersection is a moving point. If you tilt it to a very narrow angle the intersection will exceed the speed of light. Is this a known result ?
  11. Interesting idea. So then the metaphysical aspect of matter is the results of complexity and random details (maybe related to entropy ?). So matter tends to escape the constraints of mathematical laws by complexity and detail but then on a smaller scale mathematical laws then dominate again and so on for infinity. So the universe is an infinite level of sizes where mathematical laws dominate alternated by an attempt of matter to escape the mathematical laws. This residual error between laws and non-laws creates MATTER-REALITY. At 10^-10 mm simplicity, at 10^-100 mm complexity-random details, at 10^-1000 simplicity, etc for the limit of x that tends towards infinity of 10^-x mm. Who said that a physical theory must be expressed mathematically ? This theory may be true and is expressed in NATURAL LANGUAGE which I think is more powerful than mathematics. Unless you think that matter is equal to mathematics. Maybe the future physical theories will all be expressed in NATURAL LANGUAGE (philosophy dominates again).
  12. You can always say there is a phenomena in the case of the NSE (Navier-Stokes) equations for turbulance since a material substrate is always present in the form of a large ensemble of particles upon which the equations are operating. In the case of QED, there is no longer any material substrate, we are at the end of the line. The virtual particle and feynman diagrams are all that is left, a set of numbers (mass, impulse, energy etc.) related to another set through a series of mathematical operations. The description coincides exactly with the material, that is why QED is so precise. If you add the remaining corrective terms, there is no longer any difference between the measurement and the prediction, hence matter no longer exists, it has completely evaporated into equations. Physicists ask why this particular set of equations and laws govern our universe. Well in fact any set of equations will do, the set we do have just happens to be an arbitrary starting point. Any other set would be the same. The "virtual particle electron size infinite computer" could then transform our starting point set of equations into any other conceivable set of equations by appropriately configuring it to let the feynman diagrams execute a given set of AND and OR circuits that transform one set of physics laws into another. From here we can have any universe governed by any set of equations, and it would be just as real as ours. Bottom line, matter is mathematics, and I think some other physicists have come to a similar conclusion by saying everything is information "IT FROM BIT". The only doubt would be if virtual particles where composed of something else. But you would have to look at distances like 10^-100 to see any fine structure. An interesting thing happens talking about sizes since if you look at the solar system at its size reference the planets are just point like particles executing equations in their motion. But if you go down to the meter size you will see all kinds of complex structure like on earth. If you go smaller you end up again in a very simple world of particles (electrons, protons) executing equations. By continually going to smaller and smaller sizes you go constantly from simple to complex then simple again to complex etc. A bit like looking at traffic from far away, it is mostly a simple process, but if you look at the mm or micron range in the brains of people driving it is very complex. So if virtual particles follow this trend then they may be made of extremely complex fine structure. And then maybe there is no end to small sizes and the cycle of simple to complex to simple at 10^-1000 and then 10^-10000 etc goes on forever. If matter is not mathematics, then mathematics is a subset of matter meaning matter-physics has metaphysical elements within it.
  13. IF QED (quantum electrodynamics) is not a hoax, then matter truly does not exist and all we have is logic-math. The electron according to QED is an infinite set of interacting virtual particles described and understood only in terms of their feynman diagrams which are nothing more than integrals and series. The center of the electron is a GEOMETRICAL point with no extension etc. Since there are an infinite number of diagrams according to an infinite number of possible interactions and decay modes (electron emits virtual photon that becomes virtual e+e- pair etc.) then matter is truly reduced to pure mathematics. If we could control matter at their virtual particle level, we could create an infinite size computer inside an electron by associating and provoking interactions with corresponding feynman diagrams that map one to one with AND and OR circuits, and creating infinitely complex circuits. With an infinite computer we could then simulate any kind of universe governed by any kinds of laws as complex as you wish, since an infinite computer would be unlimited. Hence another simulated universe would be just as real as ours since the building blocks of our own universe is pure math-logic. Of course this may not be the case and virtual particles could be made up of something else at the distance of 10^-100 or 10^-1000 . Actually the limits of the observable universe is not how large it can be but how small. What is there at the distance of 10^-100000 ? Alot of room to speculate. QED may be a hoax if the sums where made in such a way as to force them to correspond to experimental observables, but I think it is true, you never know though...
  14. So then we can be fairly sure that all the theoretical physics results and calculations are cross checked ? I doubt this because most PHDs who are then the ones capable of controlling all the fine details are working on new theories, new results and new papers. I don't think many are cross checking all the old results. Anyways, if new results are built on all the old calculations and math, then I guess we can be pretty sure there are few mistakes.
  15. OK, I know you can learn it and all, and I know some of it. I mean how hard is it to really understand and calculate feynman diagrams and cross check the results knowing exactly what you are doing ? I guess I am suggesting at the PHD level where you review peer papers regarding new results and corss checking all the old ones. It can be done and all but I have the impression that you really have to gifted to be able to start calculating these things seriously.
  16. Severian, you seem to have some knowledge of modern physics. I have some too, but not very technical. My question is actually how on earth can any normal person hope to completely understand and calculate things as hard as quantum electrodynamics ? The theory is hard, the calculations are harder and in many cases very few scientists can even cross check many results, you need a supercomputer and need to work at CERN or with an equipe. At this point how much can we really trust the results that are being given to us since it becomes increasingly difficult to REALLY control them ? How many years of studying tensors and integrals and all are necessary ? How smart in the technical sense must a person really be ? It has always been a question in the back of my mind. Thanks for any clue.
  17. Well since the time we are born and open our eyes all we see is mostly REGULARITY. Things stay in place unless you move them, things fall always in a similar fashion etc. It is natural then to start thinking that some constant rules govern things. From here then to the evolution of science, it is a straight progressing line. A real experiment would be done in the future with a mind (brain in a vat) that evolves and is completely used to random events, completely non sense rules that appear and dissappear etc. Then set this mind to our world, then this mind would be shocked to see regularity and consider mathematical laws a miracle.
  18. In another forum, someone answered me as follows: "I think you are not giving mathematics enough credit, because new math can be produced to fit new observations. However, because we can never say that our "laws" absolutely predict our observations perfectly, I think it does leave room for this "real mataphysical universe" you describe." I answer: So any kind of new math can be produced to fit any possible observation. So math is a handy "invention" to fool ourselves into thinking we know the laws of nature. When nature is slightly out of line we just add some "corrective terms" and go on forever like this. This reminds me of the Feynman diagrams of QED (quantum electrodynamics) where the precision of the calculations increases by calculating ever higher number of integrals , like I think 4 loops can correspond to 30 million integrals. So you add it up on a supercomuter see results, see experiments, measure the differences and say OK the differences are corrective terms in further integrals. Let's calculate 5 loops and then maybe 6 loop etc. What is the complete equation of QED ? trillions of integrals ? Aside that we may never know, but is it safe to assume math really does have this one to one correspondence with reality ? Or maybe is it safe to assume that OUR MIND AND IT'S LANGUAGES (MATH AND NATURAL) HAVE A ONE TO ONE CORRESPONDENCE WITH REALITY-MATTER ? The problem if all reality-matter is math is very important because if in the future we can simulate complete worlds on computers, then these worlds are just as real as ours. We may even be able to create hyper-real worlds that are even more "real" than ours. Also, a computer the size of mars may someday be able to calculate trillions of feynman diagrams to the point of being more precise than any possible measurement. At that point we would have exceeded reality in reproducing matter-physics. A larger computer, maybe the size of the sun, could produce through simulations, a hyper-reality. The ratio between the size of the computer and the point where it exceeds any possible measurement would be the limits of reality as compared to mathematics, reality being A SUBSET OF MATHEMATICS.
  19. Just like natural language can describe, relate and encompass all reality, even math, although it would be very wordy (energy is equal to mass times light speed times light speed etc.) , so math does the same. So all reality is just a sequence of symbols and language, either mathematical or natural. It would seem that it really doesn't matter what the laws are just as long as they are mathematical laws, after which all and any other kind of laws can be discovered or invented. So in a universe that has completely different laws that allow a human mind to appear, that mind can reverse engineer the mathematical laws of the universe, and then invent all mathematical laws, and universes and simulate the laws of our particular universe as we know it.
  20. Bottom line: Does matter exist or is it only a set of mathematical relationships ? Is physics simply a subset of mathematics ? What does it really mean when we cannot solve differential equations of physical systems ? Is matter following equations at all times ? I find it intriguing and confusing.....
  21. This is another example of irreducible complexity. Matter-physics can be described "completely ?" by math but math needs some "external" reference to exist, but the external reference can be described by math etc. So what came first math or matter ? Or maybe it is LOGIC, a subset of logic called MATH and a subset of math called PHYSICS ? It is very confusing, is the universe a complete sea of mathematical formulas, equations within which matter is floating on ? Is there something totally NON-MATHEMATICAL ? very confusing.... I think I am on to something here. If matter only obeys mathematical rules, then reality doesn't exist at all and a complete simulation of a universe on a computer is just as real as our "real" universe. Is math just a refined , precision language to describe interacting items ? Is the basis of logic just relaltionships ? Then the elementary particles of physics and the theory of everything has ALREADY BEEN ACHIEVED AND IS JUST "THE MATHEMATICAL DESCRIPTION OF INTERACTING ITEMS" ! The details of these equations and formulas and how far or close they predict real phenomena is mostly IRRELEVANT! So I think I have finally conquered the theory of everything, or maybe I am really just confused on the realtionship between math, physics and how math is used to describe physics.... It may also be that we use math in a very narrow range of problems we need to solve, (like designing a rocket) and it is just a handy tool with absolutely no metaphysical importance whatsoever.
  22. Does matter follow precise mathematical laws or is mathematics simply a good approximation and tool used to describe matter ? If all there is is mathematical relationships, then matter and all physics actually doesn't even exist if only as a metaphor for equations. If matter only APPROXIMATELY follows mathematical laws, then there is room for a real metaphysical universe made up of non mathematical items. Could matter and reality simply be what remains after all the equations have been calculated as a sort of error ? Matter is the "error" in our calculations, or it could be that the quantum imprecision is what gives matter some "substance" as opposed as being only mathematical items. Any ideas ?, there is always some confusion as where matter, physics starts and mathematics ends.......
  23. You got it all wrong! The example of all minds becoming one is only one of the possible trillion examples of what could happen when we start manipulating minds/neural networks, implanting chips etc. FIRST: Each person with any amount of knowledge, even as we are today, therefore child or adult etc. is a complete single combination of a mind. Each combination is completely vaild and is not HIGHER than (in a sense DOES NOT HAVE MORE KNOWLEDGE) than a mind with any amount greater knowledge. A complete mind/history is one distinct way to know the world. Now any combination of neural circuits can bring about any number of new completely vaild distinct ways to know the world. Just increasing our knowledge doesn't really mean anything. What is important is how many very different distinct world views/experiences are possible. Therefore what we will end up with is the exact opposite, an infinite array of different minds, organized differently, maybe even different civilizations. SECOND: Even more interesting is the idea of creating new minds with completely new informational organizational principles. Thousands of new sense organs, new logics, new emotions and any other combination, new simulated worlds to these new minds. Even in this case you get the exact opposite. You get trillions of completely different minds, universes, realities etc. As is today, we already are going towards a world with multiple civilizations, each having a different technological level, each equally valid. The whole world as one mind seems like a very bad way to use technology and resembles a dictatorship. To put it simpler. I today have a certain amount of knowledge, experiences etc. compared to how I was 10 years ago. Am I better today ? Do I "know" more today ? NO . I am different , a different combination, my combination of 10 years ago is equally valid. Under some points of view I ACTUALLY KNEW MORE then than now. I may have even felt better then than now. So the idea of having more knowledge is a false belief. You simply may know more technical details...
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.