42?

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

42?

Postby gris » Sun Mar 02, 2014 5:38 am

Split from another thread:

Re: A simple two-page proof of local realism
Postby gill1109 » Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:58 pm

Gerhard, so your recommendation is to shut up and stop thinking and just build faster and faster supercomputers?

You say "immediately provide a fundamental answer .... Just keep at it on ever better supercomputers until you either via this or any other way can explain the too much order"

How do you know that there ever will be an answer? How do you know it won't it go on for ever? When do you predict we will be done?

I predict that it is easy to prove that the supercomputer which is needed to resolve the question your way, is bigger than the universe.
gill1109

Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:39 pm
Location: Leiden
Top
Re: A simple two-page proof of local realism
Postby gris » Tue Feb 25, 2014 2:18 am

No, Richard, it is like solving a crime scene. We miss a lot of data that is obvious. So first we observe all the data we do have in its essence and then we use the instrument between our ears: i.e. we think. Formulating the right questions. In my mind it subsequently popped up that it might be a dynamic crystal. This would indeed fundamentally explain the to much order we observe in our universe. After that it is thus indeed doggedly following that lead (AND every other testable lead especially if it like this idea potentially can integrate it all in a TOE like this idea.)

I don't know how much computing power is needed to simulate say 1000 x 1000 x 1000 mass-less rigid billiard balls (this amount of balls and amount of accuracy should do the trick) each given the room of say a billiard table square. All with the same speed in random directions. In a large box with superconductive walls. Sufficient accuracy is crucial. That doesn't require a computer the size of the universe. It requires tinkering, if you don't have the computing power then less balls might do the trick. And indeed you follow the lead like good police work solving a cold case when new DNA methods come along.

It might be possible to simulate balls a different way that requires less computing power, and you can slow the simulation down. Anyway it is potentially testable, and it would in one go solve a most fundamental question. Edit: come to think of it, it might suffice only to have points representing the center of each ball and have the computer do vector analysis every-time these points are at a certain distance from each other.

Your questions pose the same problem with what you are doing. We don't know. Yet we can do an educated guess via probabilistic reasoning. I believe in an absolute truth that we will never absolutely prove. Yet I'm convinced that by going at it in the right rational way we will get every close to this truth. Like Bayes in fact has done, for neurology more and more points in the direction that it is this algorithm in all our brains. Bayes didn't know that.

BTW what would you say to a prosecutor who tries to solve a crime scene by only looking at part of the evidence and using mathematics in stead? That in effect is what you are doing.


gris

Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:12 am
Top

Anyway Richard you don't need absolute or near absolute certainty that any lead will indeed get the sought after results. What counts is that you get at it and stay at it until the problem is solved. Ad infinitum if need be. It is inherently the scientific method.

Gerhard
gris
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 12:12 pm

Re: 42?

Postby gill1109 » Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:08 am

I am not using mathematics *instead* of looking at some of the evidence. Mathematics provides evidence also, and you are refusing to look at it. Moreover what you can do with mathematics "between your ears" so to speak, is cheaper than building the world's most expensive supercomputer ever only to discover it is not fit for purpose.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: 42?

Postby gris » Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:49 am

Well, first of all the super computers that are probably needed already exist. You should first try. We as far as I know of haven't even tried. No need for mathematics to show the need to at least try (= my point on incorrect scientific process). And, I'm not ignoring or refusing to look at the mathematics, quite the contrary: the simulation is a way to get at the mathematics. Akin the way we found the fractal.

We have been in the process of building ever larger better super computers for other reasons: simply use them for this as well IF you haven't succeeded as yet in finding an explanation for the observed to much order. Because if you succeed first time you don't have to for this reason anymore.

BTW I still don't see why modeling the amount of accurate balls in a box even requires a computer larger than we already have available.
gris
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 12:12 pm

Re: 42?

Postby gill1109 » Mon Mar 03, 2014 7:41 am

gris wrote:BTW I still don't see why modeling the amount of accurate balls in a box even requires a computer larger than we already have available.

Then it's high time you studied some mathematics and physics ;-). Some key words and phrases: chaotic systems, chaos theory, sensitive dependence on initial conditions.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: 42?

Postby gris » Mon Mar 03, 2014 11:16 am

Fair enough, yet quite a lot of those who have done that (nuclear physicist & another assistant prof mathematics etc) don't get further than state it should be reasonably straight forward to do yet that I should start with trying to provide the mathematics / computer programming. So then they are all wrong (mathematically speaking because they are incorrect in procedure) and you are right mathematically.

And given you being correct mathematically then the question is whether there is not a creative way around it: slowing the simulation down, less and less accurate balls in a smaller box and simulating the balls differently more simply. Say only take the center of the balls as a point and define an average sphere around that only taking into account the distance between these points in the center. I.e. you don't need to fully build a sphere per ball. I.e. there might be more simple ways around that.

Fundamental point is: it either is a potentially valid idea or it isn't. That point is the first point to be established because if it is a valid idea then the question is whether is it potentially testable given current technology, comes into view.
gris
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 12:12 pm

Re:42 SOCIOBOTS: RELATIVE BAYES IN THE BRAIN

Postby gris » Tue Mar 04, 2014 3:34 am

42 SOCIOBOTS: RELATIVE BAYES IN THE BRAIN

A philosophical common sense approach to the foundations of physics.
Physicists take in to account all instruments except the one between their ears. That predictably poses a problem. Basic psychology teaches us that when we have a paradigm we also have a confirmation bias. History shows us that it, i.e. the march of folly, always repeats itself and so repeatedly confirms set bias. But physicists as scientists think themselves due to their specific scientific method exempt from this bias. Alas it confirms it. The method is wrong because unnecessarily complex and thus incomplete and I’ll prove it.

It’s a back to basics affair: what is science? A good definition is a systematic (i.e. logical) endeavor in search for the truth in a most economical way. Ultimately it boils down to (later on more on this): if the method can’t be made to fit the Bayes formula it is unscientific. And, if it doesn’t fit the Lex Parsimony (LP: as complicated as needed as simple as possible) it is also unscientific. I.e. the minimum requirement on any analysis to be scientific implies to determine the prior situation (= prior odds) take into account all further evidence (= LR’s) establish the appropriate norm based on the logically required norm following the stated risk and get to a proof, thus holding the hypothesis to be true.

All logic and mathematics can be stated in Bayes theorem. Gödel is thus wrong. He didn’t see and thus take into account that the Bayes formula also works on deterministic problems in a non-probabilistic way: absolute chance pro true vs the situation con is absolutely untrue. The Bayes trick: no need to divide by zero. That is also why it is even more fundamental than that: we very probably all have the Bayes algorithm in our brains. As current neurological research points more and more in that direction. So why then not always use Bayes? It is the LP that prohibits this even though subconsciously you always do even when you think you are reasoning purely deterministically. Without you noticing this your brain has probably autonomously already said to itself this probably can be dealt with deterministically. When correct you will never know. When incorrect you think: “what was I thinking”.

Bayes lets the brain guess extremely quickly and we humans are great guessers. Nice for survival that is. Yet there is more to it: humans live in social groups and depend on the group for survival in the stone age as now. Hence different brains in the groups: first of all of course a few very slow, a lot of medium fast brains and a few fast brains. I.e. something of a normal distribution is the least worse guess if you don’t have the time to take in all the information that is available. This again touches one of the fundamental problems in our current society: Nobody physically can take in all the information anymore, and few dare to take up any integral position for fear of losing face. Yet we depend for survival / reaching our desired goals on taking on average correct decisions on integral issues. Do that wrong and we will predictably go into a downward spiral towards it becoming more and more unpredictable. Which is what we observe more and more in our western societies. It all becomes unstable. Mind you this indirectly also touches fundamental research into physics. Because less funding. But it goes even deeper than that and there is more to it:

Namely different personality traits as depicted in The Big Five: Extrovert ; Alert ; Friendliness; Conscientiousness & Openness. Wildly observed through cultures that every human scores high or low on all traits yet there is always one that is dominant.

This IMO is coupled to another fundamental trait concerning fear: A fright (alert); In an unsafe B environment: B1 fight (also withdraw non panic); B2 freeze (panic); B2a flight (panic) B2b fight (panic); B3 fawn (relation / withdraw non panic). Followed by a safe environment Mars vs Venus.

When you spot a danger (get in an unsafe environment) we (maybe 1% exception, fearless no feeling) all get fright and become hyper alert (some more than others: the alert trait); When the danger, say a bear comes closer 10% will take a fight (80% male) response: no panic staying open-minded action like choosing to withdraw (=/= flight); 80% will remain in closed mind freeze panic until an authority ( = also training) tells what to do, yet switching last ditch, then to (soon or to) late to flight (=panic) or ineffective fight (panic) and 10% will fawn (= relationship non panic 80% female).

In a safe environment this becomes a 50% from Mars (80% male 20% female) “fight” to get to stated goal: i.e. Bayesian logic on that goal and 50% from Venus (80% female 20% male) “fawn” to get to the goal of keeping a good relationship via using the Bayesian logic on that goal. This is the maximum possible given a safe environment i.e. ONLY when the authority (even non verbally) agrees. The authority can be different for different people: your Bible, schooling, peer group, judge, friend parent. Or boss, or Mullah or whatever. The fear of the goal orientated fighters is on not reaching the goal. It is a controlled fear thus non panic.

Whether or not this is nature or nurture is immaterial because nurture based psychology sais in effect the same. And can’t dispute that human social behavior is probably much more DNA and different mixed DNA environment than is politically correct to state. For it means that in effect 80% of all humans are authority driven. Even physicists and scientists thus. Speed of brain doesn’t make you independent minded. You are independent of other idea’s conflict your paradigm to which you then have a confirmation bias.

In other words via book wisdom the box can become larger, yet only if he boss allows it can at best only 50% fairly well think out of the box. 10% always can might choose to withdraw if the risk is deemed to great.

For what is thinking other than having the brain generate idea’s and thoughts relative to the perceived problem, question the brain is asked to perform. In an unsafe environment 90% of all brains will not come up with any idea that is out of the box even if an out of the box solution is clearly in order. It simply doesn’t pop into mind, because the brain deems it dangerous. Doesn’t feel right. The same goes for any out of the box ideas put forward by others. The brain goes into a Bayesian inversion: the extremely improbable is held to be true.

The same goes for physicists peering through the QM microscope and the GR telescope: they observe what their authority = paradigm tells them to observe. And the same goes on the procedures. No matter how hilariously probably incorrect they are.

Hilarious? What has that got to do with it? Well, under pressure i.e. in an unsafe environment only 10% can still think in relative terms in pro and con probability. They still have humour. So a physicist who has no creative humour can’t understand relativity even though knowing all the formulas by heart. Never able to formulate appropriate thought experiments other than extrapolating mathematics out of their respective regime. Yet being perceived by a vast majority as the great authority on the subject. Only able to mirror everyone to the own norm taking only oneself and the sick society as a norm. Hence science, and society as a whole get more and more stuck.

Only short and medium term solutions can be envisaged.

Only if we reorganize this do we get the true 42 supercomputer anthill crowd sourced correctly: of the fastest brains the 10% most open-minded should take the lead in advising what strategic fundamental scientific funding is in order. And advice on the reachable goals that should be met within timeframes. Only by subsequently organizing a safe environment will 50% be effectively be more creative in solutions on the reachable goals. You can subsequently also dispense with publish or perish production and sales techniques. In the west we are structurally both in politics and in science as in law, selling perfection which is more than can be delivered by production. And our production is too much of too little quality on what is actually needed. In short the DNA of production (authority goal driven) and the DNA of sales (relation goal driven) have taken over the DNA of R&D (stated goal driven). The March of Folly repeats itself. (Be it nature or nurture for of course 80% would like it to be.)
gris
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 12:12 pm

Re: 42?

Postby gill1109 » Tue Mar 04, 2014 10:02 am

I don't think this essay is about physics or about mathematics ...
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: 42?

Postby Heinera » Tue Mar 04, 2014 10:53 am

No, but it's probably about the "Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything (42)". Have you read The Hitchhikers's Guide to the Galaxy? Great fun, and if you haven't read it, here is som info on the 42 thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrases_fr ... the_Galaxy

Edit: I strongly suspect the original poster is just having us on.

2nd edit: Or he's just crazy.
Last edited by Heinera on Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: 42?

Postby gris » Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:32 am

1. Godel is wrong because Bayes can do everything is a statement on mathematics. Do you Richard agree that Godel is incorrect and that Bayes can indeed hack it all? As our Bayes in the brain being the instrument between our ears?

2. The instrument between the ears needs accounting for also by physicists = physics. Practical point in case: what is it physicists think they observe when two photons sent by a far away galaxy a billion or so light years ago hits their eye? Answer two mass-less gravity exerting particles. Why do they think they observe this? Authority based psychology that is why. (Actually it's DNA because psychologists in general suffer from the same problem. But what the hell.) In fact it is only a mathematically based extrapolation of GR that makes physicists believe that that is what they observe. Bit of a confirmation bias then when you know there probably is something wrong either with GR and or QM in the first place. Both being the best laws we ever had as humans.

These two photons are never observed galloping unicorns. Extremely improbable that they exert gravity. If they don't and do have mass, then you can quickly marry GR to QM with only that little flaw in GR. It all becomes nicely Newton again. But it can't be moving mass in a whopping field thinks the physicist. Oh yes it can as a dynamic crystal of moving mass as a hologram. => physicists brain syntax error see essay why. Hence the importance of the test.

BTW Heinera of course I've read mentioned guide. That BTW also goes into the psychology of it all: Vogons citing poetry and the mortal danger that ensues. I..e if you are not creative don't try to be. Be your self and check the instrument between the ears.
gris
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 12:12 pm


Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 73 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library