Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #697211 > unrolled thread
| Started by | alal65536@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-08-06 04:44 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-08-13 13:42 -0700 |
| Articles | 13 on this page of 33 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
We don't know what we don't know alal65536@gmail.com - 2018-08-06 04:44 -0700
Re: We don't know what we don't know Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 12:11 +0000
Re: We don't know what we don't know alal65536@gmail.com - 2018-08-06 05:55 -0700
Re: We don't know what we don't know alal65536@gmail.com - 2018-08-06 07:34 -0700
Re: We don't know what we don't know Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-06 10:21 -0500
Re: We don't know what we don't know benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 14:21 -0400
Re: We don't know what we don't know Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 15:21 +0000
Re: We don't know what we don't know benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 14:05 -0400
The uncaused cause. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-08-12 17:11 -0700
Re: We don't know what we don't know benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 14:03 -0400
Re: We don't know what we don't know john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 07:17 -0700
Re: We don't know what we don't know benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-08 11:22 -0400
Re: We don't know what we don't know Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-06 08:59 -0500
Re: We don't know what we don't know alal65536@gmail.com - 2018-08-06 07:42 -0700
Re: We don't know what we don't know Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-06 10:20 -0500
Re: We don't know what we don't know Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 15:26 +0000
Re: We don't know what we don't know alal65536@gmail.com - 2018-08-06 09:29 -0700
Re: We don't know what we don't know Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 16:43 +0000
Re: We don't know what we don't know benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 14:23 -0400
Re: We don't know what we don't know "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-08-06 14:45 -0700
Re: We don't know what we don't know Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-06 16:57 -0500
Re: We don't know what we don't know "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-08-08 23:39 -0700
Re: We don't know what we don't know Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 17:10 -0700
Re: We don't know what we don't know benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 14:08 -0400
Re: We don't know what we don't know Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-06 15:07 -0500
Re: We don't know what we don't know benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 17:27 -0400
Re: We don't know what we don't know Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-06 16:35 -0500
Re: We don't know what we don't know poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-08-13 15:59 -0700
Re: We don't know what we don't know Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-08-06 16:59 -0700
We're ten times more retarded than we can imagine. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-08-12 16:53 -0700
Re: We're ten times more retarded than we can imagine. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-08-12 22:59 -0500
Re: We're ten times more retarded than we can imagine. benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 11:42 -0400
Re: We're ten times more retarded than we can imagine. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-08-13 13:42 -0700
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-06 16:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pkag7d$op5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697327 |
On 8/6/2018 4:45 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 8/6/2018 9:29 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: >> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 8:56:08 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> <alal65536@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 7:29:30 PM UTC+5:30, Sergio wrote: >>>>> On 8/6/2018 6:44 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> My quest for truth is to understand myself and the world better. >>>>>> Scientists search for simple laws that describe the natural world. >>>>>> With classical physics, scientist felt they had discovered almost >>>>>> everything and the process was ending. Then came relativity and >>>>>> quantum mechanics. The end is but the beginning. >>>>>> >>>>>> The famous quote about unknown unknowns is from Donald Rumsfeld, a US >>>>>> Congressman. But does it also apply to physics? >>>>>> >>>>>> Mathematics hates contradictions. >>>>> >>>>> no so, they are very useful. >>>>> >>>>>> And physics can be said to be empirical with theory of applied >>>>>> mathematics. But even in physics there is contradiction. Wave >>>>>> particle duality is considered by some to be a contradiction. >>>>>> >>>>>> According to arxiv.org, in "Types of paradoxes in physics", >>>>>> 'axioms of >>>>>> a formal system allow for the possibility of contradiction'. And >>>>>> physics is somewhat a formal system. >>>>> >>>>> not sure what you mean by "formal system", as physics is disparate >>>>> collection. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We will never discover everything, I suspect. But we can continue to >>>>>> have a better understanding of ourselves and the world. >>>>>> Understanding >>>>>> ourselves is just as important as understanding the rest of the >>>>>> world. >>>>>> Biology is just as important as physics. But what are the limits >>>>>> to our understanding? >>>>>> >>>>>> I only read that one paper on arxiv.org, but I need to understand >>>>>> more >>>>>> about how much a thing (human, in this case) can understand >>>>>> itself, and >>>>>> how biased our physics is because it was discovered/created by >>>>>> humans. >>>>> >>>>> physics is not biased. >>>> >>>> Is the human mind, connected to the human senses like vision and >>>> hearing, >>>> specific to humans and other earth species. Might aliens in other >>>> world >>>> have different kind of minds and sense organs, perceiving the world >>>> differently. So is our physics biased based on our specific type of >>>> mind and body? >>>> >>>> Abhinav Lal >>> >>> I think you should first of all be clear that most of the work that >>> is done >>> in physics today does not involve sensory data collection. Most >>> experimental observation now involves the design of instruments and >>> detectors that are sensitive to phenomena wholly outside our sensory >>> domain, and the output of those instruments and detectors is almost >>> entirely processed and analyzed using digital algorithms on computers. >> >> I am somewhat aware of this. If aliens have different kind of senses, >> instead of detecting photons with their eyes, they might detect some >> other particles with whatever sense organs they have, then they will >> create instruments to detect those particles, which may not be known >> to us. > > I always wondered if aliens had compound eyes that can naturally zoom in > and see the microscopic world without any external instruments. So, the > devices that they do build must be on a radically different level than > anything on Earth. there is a new camera with multiple lenses of different sizes, a computer combines the images in different ways to get zoom or close up or... https://www.wired.com/2015/10/light-l16-camera/ > > > > >> Also, different natural phenomenon might occur in their environment, >> leading them to discover/create new physics to explain it. They might >> discover new kind of forces or particles. >> >> I think that alien physics won't be exactly the same as our physics. >> >> What if the physical constants are different where they are in the >> universe. Or if there is a multiverse, might they not have a >> different kind of physics in a different universe. >> >> Abhinav Lal >> Writer & Investor >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me close this discussion with some quotes. >>>>>> >>>>>> "The more I know, the less I know" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> the huge # of problems are not solvable with math, anything over 5 >>>>> dimensions or 5 degrees of freedom typically. >>>>> >>>>> a complex move by a hand on a robot, must be taught to it, as the >>>>> optimum path is not solvable by math. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Abhinav Lal >>>>>> Writer & Investor >>>>>> >>>>>> "I am a contradiction, >>>>>> There is no logical solution" >>>>> >>>>> too general. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-08 23:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pkgnjq$t9t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #697333 |
On 8/6/2018 2:57 PM, Sergio wrote: > On 8/6/2018 4:45 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 8/6/2018 9:29 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 8:56:08 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> <alal65536@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 7:29:30 PM UTC+5:30, Sergio wrote: >>>>>> On 8/6/2018 6:44 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> My quest for truth is to understand myself and the world better. >>>>>>> Scientists search for simple laws that describe the natural world. >>>>>>> With classical physics, scientist felt they had discovered almost >>>>>>> everything and the process was ending. Then came relativity and >>>>>>> quantum mechanics. The end is but the beginning. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The famous quote about unknown unknowns is from Donald Rumsfeld, a US >>>>>>> Congressman. But does it also apply to physics? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mathematics hates contradictions. >>>>>> >>>>>> no so, they are very useful. >>>>>> >>>>>>> And physics can be said to be empirical with theory of applied >>>>>>> mathematics. But even in physics there is contradiction. Wave >>>>>>> particle duality is considered by some to be a contradiction. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> According to arxiv.org, in "Types of paradoxes in physics", >>>>>>> 'axioms of >>>>>>> a formal system allow for the possibility of contradiction'. And >>>>>>> physics is somewhat a formal system. >>>>>> >>>>>> not sure what you mean by "formal system", as physics is disparate >>>>>> collection. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We will never discover everything, I suspect. But we can continue to >>>>>>> have a better understanding of ourselves and the world. >>>>>>> Understanding >>>>>>> ourselves is just as important as understanding the rest of the >>>>>>> world. >>>>>>> Biology is just as important as physics. But what are the limits >>>>>>> to our understanding? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I only read that one paper on arxiv.org, but I need to understand >>>>>>> more >>>>>>> about how much a thing (human, in this case) can understand >>>>>>> itself, and >>>>>>> how biased our physics is because it was discovered/created by >>>>>>> humans. >>>>>> >>>>>> physics is not biased. >>>>> >>>>> Is the human mind, connected to the human senses like vision and >>>>> hearing, >>>>> specific to humans and other earth species. Might aliens in other >>>>> world >>>>> have different kind of minds and sense organs, perceiving the world >>>>> differently. So is our physics biased based on our specific type of >>>>> mind and body? >>>>> >>>>> Abhinav Lal >>>> >>>> I think you should first of all be clear that most of the work that >>>> is done >>>> in physics today does not involve sensory data collection. Most >>>> experimental observation now involves the design of instruments and >>>> detectors that are sensitive to phenomena wholly outside our sensory >>>> domain, and the output of those instruments and detectors is almost >>>> entirely processed and analyzed using digital algorithms on computers. >>> >>> I am somewhat aware of this. If aliens have different kind of senses, >>> instead of detecting photons with their eyes, they might detect some >>> other particles with whatever sense organs they have, then they will >>> create instruments to detect those particles, which may not be known >>> to us. >> >> I always wondered if aliens had compound eyes that can naturally zoom in >> and see the microscopic world without any external instruments. So, the >> devices that they do build must be on a radically different level than >> anything on Earth. > > there is a new camera with multiple lenses of different sizes, a > computer combines the images in different ways to get zoom or close up or... > > https://www.wired.com/2015/10/light-l16-camera/ Very nice. Thank you for the link. Humm... Need to show this to my cousin who is a professional photographer. [...] >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-06 17:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <80e0e124-77cd-4b60-bca4-5f450cd4ae1c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #697258 |
On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 12:29:46 PM UTC-4, alal...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 8:56:08 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > I think you should first of all be clear that most of the work that is done > > in physics today does not involve sensory data collection. Most > > experimental observation now involves the design of instruments and > > detectors that are sensitive to phenomena wholly outside our sensory > > domain, and the output of those instruments and detectors is almost > > entirely processed and analyzed using digital algorithms on computers. > > I am somewhat aware of this. If aliens have different kind > of senses, instead of detecting photons with their eyes, they > might detect some other particles with whatever sense organs > they have, then they will create instruments to detect those > particles, which may not be known to us. Also, different > natural phenomenon might occur in their environment, leading > them to discover/create new physics to explain it. They might > discover new kind of forces or particles. > > I think that alien physics won't be exactly the same as our physics. If they are made of ordinary matter, the laws of physics they discover are pretty much limited to the same laws we have already discovered or are likely to discover. If they happen to be of something else (consider the slim possibility for dark matter beings), they they might be more knowledgeable of some laws and ignorant of others, with a lot of overlap between us and them. > > What if the physical constants are different where they > are in the universe. That would break a lot of know physics, in particular, our assumption that the laws of physics are the same everywhere!!!!!!!!! > Or if there is a multiverse, might they not have a > different kind of physics in a different universe. That is a different question. The possibility of the multiverse is still speculation. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-06 14:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pka2q9$1vu$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697242 |
On 8/6/2018 11:26 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <alal65536@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 7:29:30 PM UTC+5:30, Sergio wrote: >>> On 8/6/2018 6:44 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: >>>> My quest for truth is to understand myself and the world better. >>>> Scientists search for simple laws that describe the natural world. >>>> With classical physics, scientist felt they had discovered almost >>>> everything and the process was ending. Then came relativity and >>>> quantum mechanics. The end is but the beginning. >>>> >>>> The famous quote about unknown unknowns is from Donald Rumsfeld, a US >>>> Congressman. But does it also apply to physics? >>>> >>>> Mathematics hates contradictions. >>> >>> no so, they are very useful. >>> >>>> And physics can be said to be empirical with theory of applied >>>> mathematics. But even in physics there is contradiction. Wave >>>> particle duality is considered by some to be a contradiction. >>>> >>>> According to arxiv.org, in "Types of paradoxes in physics", 'axioms of >>>> a formal system allow for the possibility of contradiction'. And >>>> physics is somewhat a formal system. >>> >>> not sure what you mean by "formal system", as physics is disparate >>> collection. >>> >>>> >>>> We will never discover everything, I suspect. But we can continue to >>>> have a better understanding of ourselves and the world. Understanding >>>> ourselves is just as important as understanding the rest of the world. >>>> Biology is just as important as physics. But what are the limits to our understanding? >>>> >>>> I only read that one paper on arxiv.org, but I need to understand more >>>> about how much a thing (human, in this case) can understand itself, and >>>> how biased our physics is because it was discovered/created by humans. >>> >>> physics is not biased. >> >> Is the human mind, connected to the human senses like vision and hearing, >> specific to humans and other earth species. Might aliens in other world >> have different kind of minds and sense organs, perceiving the world >> differently. So is our physics biased based on our specific type of mind and body? >> >> Abhinav Lal > > I think you should first of all be clear that most of the work that is done > in physics today does not involve sensory data collection. Most > experimental observation now involves the design of instruments and > detectors that are sensitive to phenomena wholly outside our sensory > domain, and the output of those instruments and detectors is almost > entirely processed and analyzed using digital algorithms on computers. What Odd is trying to say is that most "physics" today is not really physics but fantasy physics taking place wholly in imaginations, which is the ONLY kind of "science" that philosophers like Odd think is reality. In other words, to day, most physics is fraud. >>>> Let me close this discussion with some quotes. >>>> >>>> "The more I know, the less I know" >>> >>> >>> the huge # of problems are not solvable with math, anything over 5 >>> dimensions or 5 degrees of freedom typically. >>> >>> a complex move by a hand on a robot, must be taught to it, as the >>> optimum path is not solvable by math. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Abhinav Lal >>>> Writer & Investor >>>> >>>> "I am a contradiction, >>>> There is no logical solution" >>> >>> too general. >> >> > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-06 15:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pka9qu$f28$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697242 |
On 8/6/2018 10:26 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > <alal65536@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 7:29:30 PM UTC+5:30, Sergio wrote: >>> On 8/6/2018 6:44 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: >>>> My quest for truth is to understand myself and the world better. >>>> Scientists search for simple laws that describe the natural world. >>>> With classical physics, scientist felt they had discovered almost >>>> everything and the process was ending. Then came relativity and >>>> quantum mechanics. The end is but the beginning. >>>> >>>> The famous quote about unknown unknowns is from Donald Rumsfeld, a US >>>> Congressman. But does it also apply to physics? >>>> >>>> Mathematics hates contradictions. >>> >>> no so, they are very useful. >>> >>>> And physics can be said to be empirical with theory of applied >>>> mathematics. But even in physics there is contradiction. Wave >>>> particle duality is considered by some to be a contradiction. >>>> >>>> According to arxiv.org, in "Types of paradoxes in physics", 'axioms of >>>> a formal system allow for the possibility of contradiction'. And >>>> physics is somewhat a formal system. >>> >>> not sure what you mean by "formal system", as physics is disparate >>> collection. >>> >>>> >>>> We will never discover everything, I suspect. But we can continue to >>>> have a better understanding of ourselves and the world. Understanding >>>> ourselves is just as important as understanding the rest of the world. >>>> Biology is just as important as physics. But what are the limits to our understanding? >>>> >>>> I only read that one paper on arxiv.org, but I need to understand more >>>> about how much a thing (human, in this case) can understand itself, and >>>> how biased our physics is because it was discovered/created by humans. >>> >>> physics is not biased. >> >> Is the human mind, connected to the human senses like vision and hearing, >> specific to humans and other earth species. Might aliens in other world >> have different kind of minds and sense organs, perceiving the world >> differently. So is our physics biased based on our specific type of mind and body? >> >> Abhinav Lal > > I think you should first of all be clear that most of the work that is done > in physics today does not involve sensory data collection. Most > experimental observation now involves the design of instruments and > detectors that are sensitive to phenomena wholly outside our sensory > domain, and the output of those instruments and detectors is almost > entirely processed and analyzed using digital algorithms on computers. "Physics" is huge, many subjects, many approches. but take cosmic ray characterization, the "Flys Eye" array, consisted of hundreds of PMTs with filters, with amplifiers, adjustable gain, looking at mirrors, aimed at sectors of the night sky, to detect faint light in the atmosphere (located in very dark place), timestamp and corrolate data, build 3D model from data to determine direction, then ID source in sky (very difficult) Just think how poorly Aliens would do if they could read each others minds, disagree, and argue quietly all the time with each other, if you had 10 Aliens, there would be 55 arguments going on (10*11/2). Who says all aliens would agree like in our hollywood movies? > >> >>> >>>> >>>> Let me close this discussion with some quotes. >>>> >>>> "The more I know, the less I know" >>> >>> >>> the huge # of problems are not solvable with math, anything over 5 >>> dimensions or 5 degrees of freedom typically. >>> >>> a complex move by a hand on a robot, must be taught to it, as the >>> optimum path is not solvable by math. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Abhinav Lal >>>> Writer & Investor >>>> >>>> "I am a contradiction, >>>> There is no logical solution" >>> >>> too general. >> >> > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-06 17:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pkaegn$m6e$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697304 |
On 8/6/2018 4:07 PM, Sergio wrote: > On 8/6/2018 10:26 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> <alal65536@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 7:29:30 PM UTC+5:30, Sergio wrote: >>>> On 8/6/2018 6:44 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: >>>>> My quest for truth is to understand myself and the world better. >>>>> Scientists search for simple laws that describe the natural world. >>>>> With classical physics, scientist felt they had discovered almost >>>>> everything and the process was ending. Then came relativity and >>>>> quantum mechanics. The end is but the beginning. >>>>> >>>>> The famous quote about unknown unknowns is from Donald Rumsfeld, a US >>>>> Congressman. But does it also apply to physics? >>>>> >>>>> Mathematics hates contradictions. >>>> >>>> no so, they are very useful. >>>> >>>>> And physics can be said to be empirical with theory of applied >>>>> mathematics. But even in physics there is contradiction. Wave >>>>> particle duality is considered by some to be a contradiction. >>>>> >>>>> According to arxiv.org, in "Types of paradoxes in physics", 'axioms of >>>>> a formal system allow for the possibility of contradiction'. And >>>>> physics is somewhat a formal system. >>>> >>>> not sure what you mean by "formal system", as physics is disparate >>>> collection. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> We will never discover everything, I suspect. But we can continue to >>>>> have a better understanding of ourselves and the world. Understanding >>>>> ourselves is just as important as understanding the rest of the world. >>>>> Biology is just as important as physics. But what are the limits to our understanding? >>>>> >>>>> I only read that one paper on arxiv.org, but I need to understand more >>>>> about how much a thing (human, in this case) can understand itself, and >>>>> how biased our physics is because it was discovered/created by humans. >>>> >>>> physics is not biased. >>> >>> Is the human mind, connected to the human senses like vision and hearing, >>> specific to humans and other earth species. Might aliens in other world >>> have different kind of minds and sense organs, perceiving the world >>> differently. So is our physics biased based on our specific type of mind and body? >>> >>> Abhinav Lal >> >> I think you should first of all be clear that most of the work that is done >> in physics today does not involve sensory data collection. Most >> experimental observation now involves the design of instruments and >> detectors that are sensitive to phenomena wholly outside our sensory >> domain, and the output of those instruments and detectors is almost >> entirely processed and analyzed using digital algorithms on computers. > > "Physics" is huge, many subjects, many approches. > > but take cosmic ray characterization, > the "Flys Eye" array, consisted of hundreds of PMTs with filters, with > amplifiers, adjustable gain, looking at mirrors, aimed at sectors of the > night sky, to detect faint light in the atmosphere (located in very dark > place), timestamp and corrolate data, build 3D model from data to > determine direction, then ID source in sky (very difficult) > > Just think how poorly Aliens would do if they could read each others > minds, disagree, and argue quietly all the time with each other, if you > had 10 Aliens, there would be 55 arguments going on (10*11/2). Who says > all aliens would agree like in our hollywood movies? \ Odd says the answer to getting agreement is to live in a collective. Resistance is futile. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Let me close this discussion with some quotes. >>>>> >>>>> "The more I know, the less I know" >>>> >>>> >>>> the huge # of problems are not solvable with math, anything over 5 >>>> dimensions or 5 degrees of freedom typically. >>>> >>>> a complex move by a hand on a robot, must be taught to it, as the >>>> optimum path is not solvable by math. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Abhinav Lal >>>>> Writer & Investor >>>>> >>>>> "I am a contradiction, >>>>> There is no logical solution" >>>> >>>> too general. >>> >>> >> >> >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-06 16:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pkaevk$n4v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #697321 |
On 8/6/2018 4:27 PM, benj wrote: > On 8/6/2018 4:07 PM, Sergio wrote: >> On 8/6/2018 10:26 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> <alal65536@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 7:29:30 PM UTC+5:30, Sergio wrote: >>>>> On 8/6/2018 6:44 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> My quest for truth is to understand myself and the world better. >>>>>> Scientists search for simple laws that describe the natural world. >>>>>> With classical physics, scientist felt they had discovered almost >>>>>> everything and the process was ending. Then came relativity and >>>>>> quantum mechanics. The end is but the beginning. >>>>>> >>>>>> The famous quote about unknown unknowns is from Donald Rumsfeld, a US >>>>>> Congressman. But does it also apply to physics? >>>>>> >>>>>> Mathematics hates contradictions. >>>>> >>>>> no so, they are very useful. >>>>> >>>>>> And physics can be said to be empirical with theory of applied >>>>>> mathematics. But even in physics there is contradiction. Wave >>>>>> particle duality is considered by some to be a contradiction. >>>>>> >>>>>> According to arxiv.org, in "Types of paradoxes in physics", >>>>>> 'axioms of >>>>>> a formal system allow for the possibility of contradiction'. And >>>>>> physics is somewhat a formal system. >>>>> >>>>> not sure what you mean by "formal system", as physics is disparate >>>>> collection. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We will never discover everything, I suspect. But we can continue to >>>>>> have a better understanding of ourselves and the world. >>>>>> Understanding >>>>>> ourselves is just as important as understanding the rest of the >>>>>> world. >>>>>> Biology is just as important as physics. But what are the limits >>>>>> to our understanding? >>>>>> >>>>>> I only read that one paper on arxiv.org, but I need to understand >>>>>> more >>>>>> about how much a thing (human, in this case) can understand >>>>>> itself, and >>>>>> how biased our physics is because it was discovered/created by >>>>>> humans. >>>>> >>>>> physics is not biased. >>>> >>>> Is the human mind, connected to the human senses like vision and >>>> hearing, >>>> specific to humans and other earth species. Might aliens in other >>>> world >>>> have different kind of minds and sense organs, perceiving the world >>>> differently. So is our physics biased based on our specific type of >>>> mind and body? >>>> >>>> Abhinav Lal >>> >>> I think you should first of all be clear that most of the work that >>> is done >>> in physics today does not involve sensory data collection. Most >>> experimental observation now involves the design of instruments and >>> detectors that are sensitive to phenomena wholly outside our sensory >>> domain, and the output of those instruments and detectors is almost >>> entirely processed and analyzed using digital algorithms on computers. >> >> "Physics" is huge, many subjects, many approches. >> >> but take cosmic ray characterization, >> the "Flys Eye" array, consisted of hundreds of PMTs with filters, with >> amplifiers, adjustable gain, looking at mirrors, aimed at sectors of the >> night sky, to detect faint light in the atmosphere (located in very dark >> place), timestamp and corrolate data, build 3D model from data to >> determine direction, then ID source in sky (very difficult) >> >> Just think how poorly Aliens would do if they could read each others >> minds, disagree, and argue quietly all the time with each other, if you >> had 10 Aliens, there would be 55 arguments going on (10*11/2). Who says >> all aliens would agree like in our hollywood movies? > \ > > Odd says the answer to getting agreement is to live in a collective. dictatorships lead to getting agreements, quick and fast, like Trump, 'a collective' is so..... 60's, and one has to ware bell bottom pants all that retro stuff, and say "far out", there is a you tube video on it. > > Resistance is futile. Resistance is Voltage/Current too but is futile = Voltage/Current or voltage/current = futile ? Quote a Clinton => it depends upon what the word 'is' is. > > > > >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Let me close this discussion with some quotes. >>>>>> >>>>>> "The more I know, the less I know" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> the huge # of problems are not solvable with math, anything over 5 >>>>> dimensions or 5 degrees of freedom typically. >>>>> >>>>> a complex move by a hand on a robot, must be taught to it, as the >>>>> optimum path is not solvable by math. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Abhinav Lal >>>>>> Writer & Investor >>>>>> >>>>>> "I am a contradiction, >>>>>> There is no logical solution" >>>>> >>>>> too general. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | poraty149@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-13 15:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b9f6d8fb-4e7e-42f4-bfcc-3d623871fa62@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #697227 |
On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 4:59:30 PM UTC+3, Sergio wrote: > On 8/6/2018 6:44 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote: > > My quest for truth is to understand myself and the world better. Scientists search for simple laws that describe the natural world. With classical physics, scientist felt they had discovered almost everything and the process was ending. Then came relativity and quantum mechanics. The end is but the beginning. > > > > The famous quote about unknown unknowns is from Donald Rumsfeld, a US Congressman. But does it also apply to physics? > > > > Mathematics hates contradictions. > > contradiction. > > > > According to arxiv.org, in "Types of paradoxes in physics", 'axioms of a formal system allow for the possibility of contradiction'. And physics is somewhat a formal system. > > not sure what you mean by "formal system", as physics is disparate > collection. > > > > > We will never discover everything, I suspect. But we can continue to have a better understanding of ourselves and the world. Understanding ourselves is just as important as understanding the rest of the world. Biology is just as important as physics. But what are the limits to our understanding? > > > discovered/created by humans. > > physics is not biased. ================== some of it yes some of it No ================= > > > > > Let me close this discussion with some quotes. > > > > "The more I know, the less I know" > > > the huge # of problems are not solvable with math, anything over 5 > dimensions or 5 degrees of freedom typically. > > a complex move by a hand on a robot, must be taught to it, as the > optimum path is not solvable by math. > >====================== --- i absotutely agree =========== > > > > Abhinav Lal > > Writer & Investor > > > > "I am a contradiction, > > There is no logical solution" > > too general. ==================== Y.P ===============
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-06 16:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d4c8adb2-d0f0-4c4e-a25f-ce353a39403c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #697211 |
On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 7:44:20 AM UTC-4, alal...@gmail.com wrote: > My quest for truth is to understand myself and the world better. Scientists search for simple laws that describe the natural world. With classical physics, scientist felt they had discovered almost everything and the process was ending. Then came relativity and quantum mechanics. The end is but the beginning. > > The famous quote about unknown unknowns is from Donald Rumsfeld, a US Congressman. But does it also apply to physics? > > Mathematics hates contradictions. And physics can be said to be empirical with theory of applied mathematics. But even in physics there is contradiction. Wave particle duality is considered by some to be a contradiction. > > According to arxiv.org, in "Types of paradoxes in physics", 'axioms of a formal system allow for the possibility of contradiction'. And physics is somewhat a formal system. > > We will never discover everything, I suspect. But we can continue to have a better understanding of ourselves and the world. Understanding ourselves is just as important as understanding the rest of the world. Biology is just as important as physics. But what are the limits to our understanding? > > I only read that one paper on arxiv.org, but I need to understand more about how much a thing (human, in this case) can understand itself, and how biased our physics is because it was discovered/created by humans. > > Let me close this discussion with some quotes. > > "The more I know, the less I know" > > Abhinav Lal > Writer & Investor > > "I am a contradiction, > There is no logical solution" Unknown unknowns is something taken out of context from the Johari Window from psychology. It defines areas of awareness of an individual and relationships to others. The four quadrants of the window represent: things known to me about myself and known to others things known to me about myself and unknown to others things unknown to me about myself and known to others things unknown to me about myself and unknown to others it is an interesting tool.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff-Relf.Me @. |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-12 16:53 -0700 |
| Subject | We're ten times more retarded than we can imagine. |
| Message-ID | <Jeff-Relf.Me@Aug.12--4.53pm.Seattle.2018> |
| In reply to | #697211 |
> We don't know what we don't know > "The more I know, the less I know" Pride is one of "the seven deadly sins", yet we can't function without it. Lies are fine, so long as they help us consume more, longer. We're ten times more retarded than we can imagine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-12 22:59 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: We're ten times more retarded than we can imagine. |
| Message-ID | <pkqvm6$kd4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #698208 |
On 8/12/2018 6:53 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: > We're ten times more retarded than we can imagine. > speak for yourself, retard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-13 11:42 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: We're ten times more retarded than we can imagine. |
| Message-ID | <pks8t4$lg6$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #698232 |
On 8/12/2018 11:59 PM, Sergio wrote: > On 8/12/2018 6:53 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me@. wrote: > >> We're ten times more retarded than we can imagine. >> > > speak for yourself, retard. > He was.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-13 13:42 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: We're ten times more retarded than we can imagine. |
| Message-ID | <88946351-405c-4533-b58e-b02678721ff3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #698208 |
On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 4:53:15 PM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote: > > We don't know what we don't know > > "The more I know, the less I know" > > Pride is one of "the seven deadly sins", yet we can't function without it. > Lies are fine, so long as they help us consume more, longer. > We're ten times more retarded than we can imagine. I've seen what good pride can do! Only an ascetic would call it a sin. Double-A
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web