Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #697211 > unrolled thread

We don't know what we don't know

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  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 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#697211 — We don't know what we don't know

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"

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#697213

<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.  And physics can be said to be
> empirical with theory of applied mathematics.  But even in physics there
> is contradiction.  

I disagree. 

> Wave particle duality is considered by some to be a contradiction.

Not among the knowledgeable. 

> 
> 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.

The purpose of physics is to understand nature, not so much us. That’s a
different set of fields. 

> 
> 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"
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697215

On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 5:41:46 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <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.  And physics can be said to be
> > empirical with theory of applied mathematics.  But even in physics there
> > is contradiction.  
> 
> I disagree. 
> 
> > Wave particle duality is considered by some to be a contradiction.
> 
> Not among the knowledgeable. 
> 
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> The purpose of physics is to understand nature, not so much us. That’s a
> different set of fields. 

I know.  But if aliens discovered/created physics, how similar would it be to our physics?

Abhinav Lal 
Writer & Investor
...

> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697231

On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 5:41:46 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <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.  And physics can be said to be
> > empirical with theory of applied mathematics.  But even in physics there
> > is contradiction.  
> 
> I disagree. 
> 
> > Wave particle duality is considered by some to be a contradiction.
> 
> Not among the knowledgeable. 

According to Albert Einstein ,

"We have two contradictory pictures of reality..."

> 
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> The purpose of physics is to understand nature, not so much us. That’s a
> different set of fields. 

Aren't we part of nature?  Perhaps we are too complex to be fully modelled in physics.

Abhinav Lal 


> 
> > 
> > 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"
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697240

On 8/6/2018 9:34 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 5:41:46 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> <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.  And physics can be said to be
>>> empirical with theory of applied mathematics.  But even in physics there
>>> is contradiction.  
>>
>> I disagree. 
>>
>>> Wave particle duality is considered by some to be a contradiction.
>>
>> Not among the knowledgeable. 
> 
> According to Albert Einstein ,
> 
> "We have two contradictory pictures of reality..."
> 
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> The purpose of physics is to understand nature, not so much us. That’s a
>> different set of fields. 
> 
> Aren't we part of nature?  Perhaps we are too complex to be fully modelled in physics.

very true.

> 
> Abhinav Lal 
> 
> 
>>
>>>
>>> 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"
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697289

On 8/6/2018 11:21 AM, Sergio wrote:
> On 8/6/2018 9:34 AM, alal65536@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 5:41:46 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> <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.  And physics can be said to be
>>>> empirical with theory of applied mathematics.  But even in physics there
>>>> is contradiction.
>>>
>>> I disagree.
>>>
>>>> Wave particle duality is considered by some to be a contradiction.
>>>
>>> Not among the knowledgeable.
>>
>> According to Albert Einstein ,
>>
>> "We have two contradictory pictures of reality..."
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> The purpose of physics is to understand nature, not so much us. That’s a
>>> different set of fields.
>>
>> Aren't we part of nature?  Perhaps we are too complex to be fully modelled in physics.
> 
> very true.

As for being part of nature, that is true. As for being too complex to 
be modeled, well that depends on what models have been invented, right?
We can be pretty sure that all models have not been invented yet.


>> Abhinav Lal
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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"
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697241

<alal65536@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 5:41:46 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> <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.  And physics can be said to be
>>> empirical with theory of applied mathematics.  But even in physics there
>>> is contradiction.  
>> 
>> I disagree. 
>> 
>>> Wave particle duality is considered by some to be a contradiction.
>> 
>> Not among the knowledgeable. 
> 
> According to Albert Einstein ,
> 
> "We have two contradictory pictures of reality..."

Well, a lot has been learned in the last eight or nine decades. Einstein’s
assessment is not eternal, and specifically in the domain of quantum
physics his views are not at all in synch with the physics community. 

> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> The purpose of physics is to understand nature, not so much us. That’s a
>> different set of fields. 
> 
> Aren't we part of nature?  Perhaps we are too complex to be fully modelled in physics.

That certainly appears to be the case. 

> 
> Abhinav Lal 
> 
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 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"
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697280

On 8/6/2018 11:21 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <alal65536@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, August 6, 2018 at 5:41:46 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> <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.  And physics can be said to be
>>>> empirical with theory of applied mathematics.  But even in physics there
>>>> is contradiction.
>>>
>>> I disagree.
>>>
>>>> Wave particle duality is considered by some to be a contradiction.
>>>
>>> Not among the knowledgeable.
>>
>> According to Albert Einstein ,
>>
>> "We have two contradictory pictures of reality..."
> 
> Well, a lot has been learned in the last eight or nine decades. Einstein’s
> assessment is not eternal, and specifically in the domain of quantum
> physics his views are not at all in synch with the physics community.
> 
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> The purpose of physics is to understand nature, not so much us. That’s a
>>> different set of fields.
>>
>> Aren't we part of nature?  Perhaps we are too complex to be fully modelled in physics.
> 
> That certainly appears to be the case.

Certainly that is the case at Odd's level of intelligence.

>> Abhinav Lal
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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"
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#698211 — The uncaused cause.

> > > Wave particle duality is considered by some to be a contradiction.
> > 
> > Not among the knowledgeable. 
> 
> According to Albert Einstein ,
> "We have two contradictory pictures of reality..."
> 
> > The purpose of physics is to understand nature, not so much us.
> > That’s a different set of fields. 

Once the cards are all dealt, and the dice stop rolling,
and the bets are paid out, the probability wave has collapsed.

Correlation does not imply causation.

The biggest "loophole" in Bell's Theorem is:

  It implies _perfect_ knowledge;
  yet it's an _Ensemble_ of tests, a series, not just one test,
  like a pollster, asking _ 5 people if they'll vote for Hillary or not.

You can't prove anything, not ThermoDynamics ( Entropy and eXergy ),
nor General Relativity; in fact, they _contradict_ each other.

The best you can do is:

  - Find it useful ( in its domain ).
  - Try to Falsify it ( in its domain ).

All of history, every lesson ever, every advance, tells me:

  Randomness is ignorance, nothing more.

Everyone, from the serial killer to his executer, slave and master,
are best viewed under this light (SuperDeterminism), instead of 
assuming "free will" ("the uncaused cause"), à la Christianity.

SuperDeterminism was useful to Einstein, and to me;
it is _not_ useful to The Pope.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697278

On 8/6/2018 8:11 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <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.  And physics can be said to be
>> empirical with theory of applied mathematics.  But even in physics there
>> is contradiction.
> 
> I disagree.

Idiot. Consistency is the very definition of mathematics. Inconsistency 
is never permitted. Your ignorance is palpable.

>> Wave particle duality is considered by some to be a contradiction.
> 
> Not among the knowledgeable.

Odd means, not among the true believers.

>> 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?

There are limits to human understanding. The level of complexity (which 
is to say database size) is one such limit. To learn more read my book 
(the one on myth and religion) at www.hypersphere.us. (which I might 
mention that Odd has refused to read because he prefers his happy 
ignorant state to enlightenment)

>> 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.
> 
> The purpose of physics is to understand nature, not so much us. That’s a
> different set of fields.

HUmans are "fields"? You just babble incoherently! You pretend that 
physics does not apply to humans? Humans are not part of the universe?
Are you really this nuts?

>>
>> 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"
>>
> 
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697572

Odd
“But even in physics there 
> is contradiction.   

I disagree. 

> Wave particle duality is considered by some to be a contradiction. 

Not among the knowledgable.”

Learn to spell, oh wise one

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697584

On 8/8/2018 10:17 AM, john wrote:
> Odd
> “But even in physics there
>> is contradiction.
> 
> I disagree.
> 
>> Wave particle duality is considered by some to be a contradiction.
> 
> Not among the knowledgable.”
> 
> Learn to spell, oh wise on
He used to be a skilled lib publisher, but now he's retired and the sad 
to say the brain has begun to go. Still makes a mean wooden toy though!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697227

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.

> 
> 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]

#697233

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 

> 
> > 
> > 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]

#697239

On 8/6/2018 9:42 AM, 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?

nope.
 and that is what is nice about it,
Aliens would know the same physics we do,
   if they are not the dumb kind.

 take the equation for velocity and accelleration, it has nothing to do
with our type of mind nor body.

a*t = v



> 
> Abhinav Lal 
> 
>>
>>>
>>> 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]

#697242

<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. 

> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 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]

#697258

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.  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]

#697261

<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.  

Let’s be clear. We already know how to detect particles we cannot see with
our eyes. What we choose to try to detect with detectors does not stem from
what we can see with our eyes. 

> 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.  

Thus we can test with astronomical observations. Again note, not with our
eyes. 


> Or if there is a multiverse, might they not have a different kind of
> physics in a different universe.

Fine but we would never be able to know or deduce. 

> 
> 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
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#697290

On 8/6/2018 12:43 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <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.
> 
> Let’s be clear. We already know how to detect particles we cannot see with
> our eyes. What we choose to try to detect with detectors does not stem from
> what we can see with our eyes.

Odd, the Borg can see all kinds of radiation humans cannot! That is a 
given!

>> 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.
> 
> Thus we can test with astronomical observations. Again note, not with our
> eyes.
> 
> 
>> Or if there is a multiverse, might they not have a different kind of
>> physics in a different universe.
> 
> Fine but we would never be able to know or deduce.
> 
>>
>> 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]

#697327

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.




> 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]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web