Any one else here obsessed with physics?

[Ronald Zeeman]

Seeing more and more u-tube videos that support my view of how the universe works Time and gravity are both emergent, Time can go forward and backwards concurrently. Four spatial dimensions Mobus strip flat space matter one side anti matter other side. Dark energy information dark matter a so far unknown particle Or as Neil Turok
hypothesis right handed neutrino.

 

[Boogs]

I've not seen those vids, but had come to the opinion (in my unprovable ill-educated fashion) of something similar. In that time is just the anthropic perception of causality, which equates to something like the units of space that make up the three spacial dimensions and is ... - oh great, here we go again, I was about to write "always in existence" but 'always' is only meaningful within the context of time and if time isn't real ...

Anyway, everything exists always, and time is just anthropic - we perceive time and that it can only travel in one direction simply because that's how neural networks operate. They can and do run in reverse (again, bad descriptive terms - 'run in reverse' - using time as if it's real), but self awareness only becomes apparent when it operates in one specific direction, like many electronic circuits only produce the desired results when current flows in one direction not the other. It doesn't mean they can't necessarily run in the opposite direction, they just won't do the same things in the same way. While I can't handle complex abstract math, I've read that in many area's of physics (all?) time is symmetrical - it can work equally well in either direction (except that time isn't real).

So all that, if it were the case, would also predicate a predefined universe, and the existence of fate and lack of free will, although impossible to perceive.

Because of this, we can only perceive memories constructed when our neural network operates in the 'forward' direction (the 'arrow of time'), almost like playing a recording backwards compared to playing it in the normal direction - backwards is unintelligible with respect to the original piece. As we only ever perceive this direction of flow, everything we evaluate in our brain is with implicit respect to this being a constant.

Maybe self awareness only operates in one direction, in the other direction there are thought's of sorts, but nothing our forward running minds could be aware of or know for what it is?
Maybe our conscious thoughts are emergent phenomena? (that's stretching it a bit there I think).
Like a video emerges from a sequence static images, but only in the context of moving from image to image, not in any single image (moment in time).

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

Some of you insights may be on the right track quantum mechanics in general does not require time. To me time is the result of movement quantum mechanics requires movement by it's very nature.

 

[Boogs]

I prefer the term causality to time, to me time is the human measurement of causality, and it seems to me that causality (and therefore time) being quantum too makes much sense in the quantum world.

 

[Gerald Wilgus]

I look at time as merely one coordinate within relativity. An anthropic sense of time is meaningless especially when considering loop quantum gravity.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

Just watched A U-tube video called Theories of every thing, basically supports what I have been saying Unable to attach wife went shopping. On U- tube space time.

 

[Gerald Wilgus]

I prefer the term causality to time, to me time is the human measurement of causality, and it seems to me that causality (and therefore time) being quantum too makes much sense in the quantum world.

So what notation will you use for the differential dx/dt = . . . . ?

 

[Boogs]

I can't do math I'm afraid, which I have to say is a huge frustration for anyone wanting to understand science.

I'm really good at logic if I have the right data, but numbers I struggle with, I can't visualise what they mean, or the shapes they make, etc.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

I can't do math I'm afraid, which I have to say is a huge frustration for anyone wanting to understand science.

I'm really good at logic if I have the right data, but numbers I struggle with, I can't visualise what they mean, or the shapes they make, etc.

Don't feel bad I did a lot of math in high school, grade 13, great at visualizing it, remember reading a book on how Fermates last theorem was solved just had a gut feeling that a lot of the math used was applicable to physics which I found out years later was correct. You may have similar ability.

 

[Boogs]

TL : DR!

I can process logic, but have little ability to process complex numeric abstractions. I've no internal process to be able to visualise in any fashion. I don't feel 'bad' about it as such, but it severely limits any way to partly validate anything original - 'original' with respect to my not knowingly having been overtly presented with a particular concept, but having thought through the logical patterns in what I have learnt and seen connections that suggest better confirmation of one of my possible options for understanding a thing, or a new connection I've not consciously rationalised previously.

It's very gratifying to later view a video or read an article that by chance presents the same idea, although equally it brings my ego back to earth realising I'm only picking up on something many others have realised long before me - not really so clever after all!

I've decided my brain/mind seems to operate more like ChatGBT (ChatBooGS?). I have very little formal education, much of what I know I've had to teach myself. For decades I've got very good at learning to source valid information, and good at cross referencing and sometimes motive divination (e.g. if the content is hard to evaluate, then evaluate the author), or at least information that I consider valid (or as valid as I can reasonably expect) based on my own criteria - I (try to) tend toward the evidence/logic methodologies...

Is what's being presented based on independent evidence?
If so can the source of evidence be presented for my independent analysis? (and does it satisfy initial estimates of accuracy?), and then build some sort of schema of meaning, the semantics of it all.
Then finally, what are the logical connections that build on that evidence to provide reasoning for the final conclusions being posited?

Obviously this is simplified, e.g. each connection may need the above process applied to just itself, and the nature of what's presented in the above analysis method can easily change some of the methods used.

Eventually it seemed as though I reached a point where this 'AI training' of my mind (as viewed with hindsight, at the time just trying to build my own understanding of my universe) actually started to produce it's own results once a certain amount had built up, direct from my subconscious fed into my conscious (I've just had an idea!) rather than some long slow difficult conscious analysis producing the new concept to my conscious mind. So I'll rhetorically ask myself something as part of a train of thought, and low and behold, sometimes ChatBooGS just immediately spits out this new (to me) concept. Much of what I write comes from the same sort of process.

Like many people, my little pet ego needs regular feeding, love and attention, a bit of false flattery now and again, etc. So of course I consider my answers to be of far higher quality that most non-specialists achieve (or are prepared to publish), and bask in the self-gratifying thought that I'm really smart in some ways (mostly enabled by taking care to only ever talk to idiots, because indeed everything is relative! ), but taking a careful objectivised (i.e. as objective as I can manage) look with a view to finding where I've made bad assumptions and/or mistakes, generally I don't tend to find major clangers (though that doesn't mean there are none), and likewise, sadly few people challenge my ideas (or at least in a way I can engage with - anyone can call me an idiot (and may be correct!) but it's trite, provides no engagement, no structures to pull apart, test and squeeze, no black boxes to dissect, understand and manipulate) - most of all, nothing validated enough to change (improve) my judgement and understanding in a sound fashion.

Usually personal criticism's are the most pointless and worthless since I know I'm awash with failings and not the most pleasant of characters around, so it's telling me little other than whoever is saying it has no interesting and educational comments to make to back up their ideas, and so are resorting to close-minded tactics - turned it from an intellectual challenge into a fight for who's right (where 'right' does not mean 'correct' necessarily).

Sorry, this has (as usual with me) turned into an off-topic rant.

a lot of the math used was applicable to physics

So it's not so much that I need the math to have ideas, but more that my ideas are pretty useless in the greater scheme of things, beyond personal satisfaction (which has little real value) and/or interest in the topic.
If I'm unable to attempt even the most crude and simple forms of 'proof' to see if there's some major unseen flaw in my thinking, then for me at least, attempting to build on such ideas (i.e. those not already proven by others and unprovable by me) without something more concrete than my rather subjective and flawed conclusions is not tenable. I get the heebie jeebies doing that. Everything inside is flagged as tentative by a certain degree until I can come across some sort of secondary indicator of accuracy (mostly by coming across someone else presenting same idea, but giving something concrete to back it up).

P.S. When I use words like 'prove' I only mean to the limits of my ability, and the importance vs the time and difficulty, providing limits as to how much effort is worth applying for what value it will have. I still try to flag things as 'much more likely' or 'maybe but needs more evidence/logic', or 'unlikely but no better alternative yet', etc.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

Went for a walk got a interesting thought famous quote think outside the box. Boxes are built be universities called education. If you are out side the box you can look in. I have learned over the years do not second guess my instincts ,It is very commonly correct.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

Do not let dx/dt scare you a calculus term variable in respect to time I can visualize calculus in my head. I like getting into debates with my sister in law masters degree in mathematics, She always reminds me her culture learned calculus in grade school simple rules they memorize which is true but not the same as applying it and understanding it.

 

[Boogs]

Ha ha! Yes, "Think Outside The Box!".
I totally hate hearing that at work. Most of the people who use the term have no idea of what outside the box really means. They are really asking for ideas that are inside the box, but they haven't thought of.
If I thought they'd have the slightest clue what I meant, I'd tell them "I'm already outside of the box, what would you like me to bring inside for you?"

I remember when much younger I often had these strong instincts as to what was happening around some situation or other, but suffered severely from a crippling lack of self confidence that would often persuade me that because everyone else thought something different then I must be wrong. And if I tried to explain what I thought was right I'd very quickly get confirmation I was wrong, not by rational reasoning, but mostly just unexplained rejection.

Much later on I learned more and more that my ideas were often born out to be close or even correct, once I'd the hindsight to evaluate it, especially the criticisms of ideas put in place by others. But I always retained the element of self doubt, and needing something more than my ownership of an idea or opinion to be enough to validate it.

It wasn't until much more recently self diagnosing that I started to understand why all this happened, and also why (to some degree at least) I needed to validate my own ideas to consider them worth using. In terms of progressing socially, work especially, I think if I'd had the benefit of that 20 or 30 years ago it would have made a big difference.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

That's where you and I are different I do not self doubt myself. I was right so many times over the years A friend gave me the Avatar as a gift put it on top my computer. After a while the managers stopped laughing. It's not about arrogance.

 

[Boogs]

Do not let dx/dt scare you a calculus term variable in respect to time I can visualize calculus in my head. I like getting into debates with my sister in law masters degree in mathematics, She always reminds me her culture learned calculus in grade school simple rules they memorize which is true but not the same as applying it and understanding it.

It doesn't scare me, it just doesn't mean anything more than an abstract symbol. There's no visualisation to attach that symbol to, which I think symbols often act as, a sort of short-cut to encapsulating a complex construct.
Memory, in this context, has two elements. There's experiential memory and semantic memory. Experiential memory is primarily built of the data collected from one or more of our senses, pre-processed and stored in our neurons.

That's also rationalised/interpreted by the brain to create meaning in an abstract fashion, what things are, what they do, how they work, what they're composed of, etc etc, which are the semantic memories. Put the two together and you have a powerful indexed knowledge base to draw from. The memories are easier to retrieve having two separate aspects to search on for the one thing, and can be pattern matched and cross referenced and data mined etc in a far more productive and useful way. Powerful semantic processes can be stored under the memory of a word (name) and that name can invoke a whole raft of complex cerebration.

If you can associate the semantics of a complex numerical computation with some sort of visualisation of how that equation works and the 'shape' and patterns of the data it produces can be far easier to work with internally than attempting to hold the whole semantic meaning, unravelled and applied to data, without anything else to compress it with and act as a symbol in it's place simplifying a larger even more complex process.

With only the sematic memories, it also becomes much harder to process more than one thread at a time. I believe most people have a sort of internal notepad of what things their mind is currently occupied with. This allows them to multitask efficiently (it's really task switching not multitasking, but same appearance) because they are automatically subconsciously keeping track of all these tasks and can stop them and pick them back up almost seamlessly. Not having that, or at least a very weak version makes this extremely hard. To the point that if I have the slightest cognitive interruption to my train of thought I sometimes am left unable to grasp anything about what I was doing (very embarrassing in a meeting!). So trying to juggle a complex process becomes even harder when it can't be broken up into parts to reduce the complexity.

It just happens all this (and whatever else is in the mix) makes stuff like complex math extremely difficult and unrewarding. Or that's as best as I've determined.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

Most math is not that complex even complex numbers, That was the issue with my former position most colours have names just break it down into coordinates easy to work with all the really mattered was difference to standard
even then as long as nobody even experts can see the difference. I just put a system together that used this Could just see it in my head took years to put together, most of the time convincing other I was correct.

 

[Boogs]

I just put a system together that used this Could just see it in my head took years to put together,

This is maybe what I mean. The conscious mind has many tools to manipulate abstract ideas. These tools can do things like explain/predict how a complex system works, one that you've worked to understand using many parts of your cognition (maybe) and according to your particular collection of abilities and their individual effectiveness come up with an internal method to use that idea without needing the 'long hand' explanation of how it works to be invoked mentally.

Those of us who have common functionality underdeveloped, dysfunctional or even absent have often had to substitute other functionality to do the job, often learning ourselves to do it, often out of sheer necessity, and when we find ourselves unable to do so, if the missing function is essential for independent living, we start to need support, or flounder.

So on my side, I can only use words internally. Literally nothing else. I can't even see them, or hear them. I simply have nothing else to work with. In addition, I can't remember them from external sources, only the meaning they make, which if I can't manage to turn into semantics in real time (if someone is speaking), are lost completely.
I suspect it's honed my use of them in the fashion that I do use them, and that's had it's own advantages, but I know I've always found math (among other things) to be far more impenetrable than it should be given the concepts and my intelligence (high school level). I do far better with digital concepts rather than analogue one's.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

My edge is having a back ground in chemical engineering can basically can walk onto any process see how it works see the weak points. Even in college this gave me an advantage could see what to watch out for when doing lab experiments.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

I walked into the ford truck assembly plant first day got bare panel put in on the line let it get treated and e-coated took it off bent it over all the paint ant treatment peeled off showed it to paint company rep who was shocked.
Then Asked what is the biggest issue on the assembly line found out it was paint chipping, I knew how to fix this took me a year. I was in charge reverse onus system. made me a legend. Quit as my speciality was painting not treatment systems.

 

[Gerald Wilgus]

I can't do math I'm afraid, which I have to say is a huge frustration for anyone wanting to understand science.

I'm really good at logic if I have the right data, but numbers I struggle with, I can't visualise what they mean, or the shapes they make, etc.

I was poor at a lot of mathematics, but, I found after 35 that I understood uncertainty and the basis of statistics and I learned how to apply it in the Statistical Design of Experiments. I really enjoyed that.