Not only for mathematicians and physicists ....

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

User avatar
euclid
Moderator (Script&Mod)
Moderator (Script&Mod)
Posts: 13289
Joined: Sun, 15. Feb 04, 20:12
x4

Not only for mathematicians and physicists ....

Post by euclid » Wed, 8. Aug 18, 18:38

... check this funny movie with a serious background.

Hope you enjoy!

Cheers Eucldi
"In any special doctrine of nature there can be only as much proper science as there is mathematics therein.”
- Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), Metaphysical Foundations of the Science of Nature, 4:470, 1786

User avatar
Hank001
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue, 21. Feb 06, 23:50
x3ap

Post by Hank001 » Thu, 9. Aug 18, 15:09

Hooray euclid!

Great video. Finally someone made one without delving into metaphysics. I'm a bit tied of groups trying to turn theoretical physics into a new basis for some wild mysticisms. I won't grace the hundreds of vids out there on what ritual to use to jump dimensions, create futures, ad nausium, by linking to them. I'm sure you've seen your share.

Finding one that is engaging and well produced is finding a needle in a haystack. The fundimental question is can physics explain the concept we humans refer to as "reality"? What's more can findings be replicated and proven in the scientific method?

What Klee Irwin is on the forefront of with simulation isn't metaphysics, but the search for proofs of how higher dimensions can be proven within the framework of our limited three dimensional existance. If that happens to relate to religions searching for higher orders then religions, like the pseudoscience developing around simulation theory is simply forming conclusions that fit preconceptions that are formed with only that information that fits those preconceptions and biases.

It's refreshing to see that within this search for knowledge the scientific method can still prevail.
The answer to life, the universe and everything:
MIND THE GAP

User avatar
euclid
Moderator (Script&Mod)
Moderator (Script&Mod)
Posts: 13289
Joined: Sun, 15. Feb 04, 20:12
x4

Post by euclid » Thu, 9. Aug 18, 18:03

Trouble is that like with Klee Irwin there are many new (pseudo) science sites out there with a rather poor reputation (trying to raise funds). The positive part is that groups start to separate themselves for the traditional scientific community to try to think out of the box to solve the major problem (a unified theory).

Here another example, less funny as the video above but still an alternative approach to the same problem.

Cheers Euclid
"In any special doctrine of nature there can be only as much proper science as there is mathematics therein.”
- Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), Metaphysical Foundations of the Science of Nature, 4:470, 1786

User avatar
Hank001
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue, 21. Feb 06, 23:50
x3ap

Post by Hank001 » Thu, 9. Aug 18, 18:31

@ euchlid

Yes, I knew the optimism the Hover Brothers generated in 2017.
And what happened in 2018:

https://youtu.be/e8_mIe8TeeA

Not that I was putting down simulation theory in general, I wasn't.
It's just that too many involved tend to fall down the rabbit hole.
The answer to life, the universe and everything:
MIND THE GAP

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Post by Morkonan » Thu, 9. Aug 18, 22:05

So, I watched the video. Or, rather I watched it normally for awhile until the repetition of buzzwords and not just a few unfounded assumptions starting repeatedly rearing their heads, causing me a bit of pause. Then, I darted around to a few spots until I found the culprit: "Quantum Gravity Research Group." Oh yeah... Those guys. /sigh

I'm not qualified to say they're full of crap. But, from a layman's perspective, they're far too enthusiastic about their "discoveries."

Just do some searching on them and you should come to the conclusion that any conclusions they come up with should be taken with more than a few quantum grains of salt. Make sure to include "quantum" in your estimation, since it's a required word-thing that may or may not be represented in multiple dimensions. They only accept aggregated, non-quantum, donations, though, so make sure you don't use scientific notation on the check.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/commen ... _research/

https://www.reddit.com/r/IsaacArthur/co ... ompelling/

And, if you need your colon blown out, you can talk to the founder: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Klee_Irwin

Incidentally, he was also a founder of Kurtweil's "Singularity University." Oh... man.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... y-problems

In short: Scam artists aren't always guilty of running scams, but whenever their is a scam being run, it's usually being done by a scam artist.

Verdict on the video: Pretty pictures. Lots of drama. Much wow. No readily identifiable substance. Likely a load of B.S. being used to prop up a donation farm.

RegisterMe
Posts: 8903
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Post by RegisterMe » Thu, 9. Aug 18, 22:27

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E8_(mathematics)

EDIT: Stupid mark up code chokes on the round brackets. Just copy paste it....
I can't breathe.

- George Floyd, 25th May 2020

User avatar
Hank001
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue, 21. Feb 06, 23:50
x3ap

Post by Hank001 » Thu, 9. Aug 18, 22:32

Morkonan caught:
In short: Scam artists aren't always guilty of running scams, but whenever their is a scam being run, it's usually being done by a scam artist.
Too true. And a shame that like the guy in that last vid I linked (yes it has no sound for the first minutes until he turns the sound up) :roll:
But it goes to show that even the most level headed science oriented SOUNDING people can turn out to be wearing tin foil hats.

And it goes to show that there are enough people spitting out vids just to scam viewers with deep pockets that as that kid found out , the SEC is checking them out BEFORE their business even gets started.

And we here at the campus found out, the fastest way to get flooded with spooky characters in black suits and sunglasses is to say "quantum gravity experiments" too loudly.

So. If we ARE living in a simulation, find the DEV and kick his butt for me. :o

Now on the other hand there are some really good science coming out of MIT and other University research establishments, but I like euchlid (I think) believe the breakthroughs are going to come out of someones garage laboratory.
The answer to life, the universe and everything:
MIND THE GAP

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Post by Morkonan » Thu, 9. Aug 18, 23:10

Hank001 wrote:...Too true. And a shame that like the guy in that last vid I linked (yes it has no sound for the first minutes until he turns the sound up) :roll:
But it goes to show that even the most level headed science oriented SOUNDING people can turn out to be wearing tin foil hats.
"Dihiydrogen Monoxide is being pumped into your home by the government! ZOMGZ! THEY MUST BE STOPPED!"
And it goes to show that there are enough people spitting out vids just to scam viewers with deep pockets that as that kid found out , the SEC is checking them out BEFORE their business even gets started.
That sounds pretty interesting. Do they use some sort of "patent clerk" kind of guy to check into the validity of the research or what?

I'm reminded of that Senator that currently being looked at for some disciplinary stuff/crime/whatever. ("Insider Trading?" The news just hit the other day) As soon as it was mentioned that he had made some huge investments in a drug company that was trying to develop some "miracle cure," at least as much as he touted it, the first thing I said to the television was "And I bet they never ever produced a product."

I can't find a darn thing they've ever brought to market. They have a few patents and some lawsuites trying to protect them on record, but no palpable income that I can find.

In short - The Senator seemed like the typically overenthusiastic investor who's desperately trying to justify his "investment" in the face of what would otherwise be overwhelming indications of failure... I didn't scour the net, so there may be some marketable product or income stream that they truly have going for them. But, all I could find were a bunch of promises and, perhaps, some acquisitions, which still don't equate to "earnings."

So, if people judge their investments on proof-of-concept and/or positive earnings, what do ideas like the ones presented as the basis for the "Research Group" get judged by? And, who does the judging? And, who's money are they looking for?

Has one "think tank" group that prides themselves on "thinking out of the box" and being free of "mainstream science" ever actually... performed?

The growth of achievement in Science isn't a slow evolution of ideas and experimental returns. It comes in fits and starts, with "Eureka" being the more often exclamation than "I thought so." But, that doesn't mean that these new things are discovered by people working "outside of the box." It doesn't mean that these breakthrough discoveries must come from "radical thinkers."
..So. If we ARE living in a simulation, find the DEV and kick his butt for me. :o
IMO, you're the most influential "developer." You just might not have a lot of control over development... Or, maybe you do and you just don't realize it? :)
Now on the other hand there are some really good science coming out of MIT and other University research establishments, but I like euchlid (I think) believe the breakthroughs are going to come out of someones garage laboratory.
If we could predict where they would come from then we'd already have them. :) Someone with a firm foundation in "What we know or think we know" with a "new idea" is, most likely, the one that's going to discover "something new." (IMO) It takes far too much effort, these days, to bark up the wrong tree only to find that there's nothing there. If a bunch of people who are very familiar with trees say that tree isn't likely to have much there, they're probably right. "Probably." :)

User avatar
Hank001
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue, 21. Feb 06, 23:50
x3ap

Post by Hank001 » Thu, 9. Aug 18, 23:35

Okay back on the topic

Back to very beginning. The first varifyable proofs of a quantum universe (or what got a teenage Hank001 hooked)
The Double Slit Experiment.

Presented several times in an experiment on how to find information without finding click bait or a sure cure for insomnia.

The Royal Institution lectures

Photon double slit experiment explained
by Professor James Al-khalili:
(Note may cause drowsiness)

https://youtu.be/A9tKncAdlHQ

Okay if you waided through that and didn't
Come out asking WTF you've taken physics.
Now watch the same experiment explained
a bit differently:

https://youtu.be/DfPeprQ7oGc

(Who says science has to be boring?)

The Public Broadcasting System Digital Studio's Space Time series

(Okay same experiment explained a bit better)

The Quantum Experiment:

https://youtu.be/p-MNSLsjjdo

And here's a few more from PBS:

Quantum Multiuniverse:

https://youtu.be/dzKWfw68M5U

Pilot Wave Theory:

https://youtu.be/RlXdsyctD50

Quantum Entanglement:

https://youtu.be/tafGL02EUOA

:lol:
The answer to life, the universe and everything:
MIND THE GAP

User avatar
BugMeister
Posts: 13647
Joined: Thu, 15. Jul 04, 04:41
x4

Post by BugMeister » Thu, 9. Aug 18, 23:42

- and through observation we conjure reality..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjGgqcyLpug

- hence the music of the spheres:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY74AFQl2qQ
- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!! :D :thumb_up:

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Post by Morkonan » Fri, 10. Aug 18, 05:24

Well, since we're getting all philosophical an' all..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

The takeaway for one of my favorite "weird stuffs":

Given infinite time, the number of Boltzmann brains created will surely be more than the number of human brains created. But, given infinite space at any one moment in time, like what we determine to be "right now," the number of Boltzmann brains surely outnumber the human ones.

If our Universe is truly some measure of an artifact of observation, then it's not "ours." It belongs to the Boltzmann Brains... kinda. :)

Of course, it doesn't mean we would necessarily experience any sort of effect at any one point in time. (Light cone problems and information) But, as soon as you hear someone saying that the "Universe is for observers" or "Observers create the Universe" then you should be bringing up this slight problem. :)

User avatar
Hank001
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue, 21. Feb 06, 23:50
x3ap

Post by Hank001 » Fri, 10. Aug 18, 05:40

@ Morkonan

So in a thermodynamically quesent state something was suppose to pop up and suddenly say "Cogito Ergo Sum"? Right...
The answer to life, the universe and everything:
MIND THE GAP

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Post by Morkonan » Fri, 10. Aug 18, 21:27

Hank001 wrote:@ Morkonan

So in a thermodynamically quesent state something was suppose to pop up and suddenly say "Cogito Ergo Sum"? Right...
Yup. At least... briefly. :)

And, if one wishes to extrapolate or rather borrow from earlier ideas, if something is not forbidden by natural law then it's inevitable no matter what it is, given certain infinities exist.

RegisterMe
Posts: 8903
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Post by RegisterMe » Fri, 10. Aug 18, 21:50

Not being a capable enough mathematician to [ir]really[/i] understand the maths being discussed in the opening post, but being.... aware enough of it to have a taste for it.... it sounded superficially attractive. However, one of the major criticisms of string theory (et al) is that it is untestable. I saw nothing in the video that was testable.

For sure it might be an attractive model (although the jury seems to be out / negative about that), but I don't think it's yet made any predictions that are, say, comparable to somebody going "ok, for Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to be correct we need to sail to this island in the middle of nowhere and take specific observations of the sun and the light that passes it.

And you know what, they did exactly that. And it met very precisely with what would be expected if Einstein's (incomplete) view of the universe held true.

Is there an equivalent here?
I can't breathe.

- George Floyd, 25th May 2020

berth
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sat, 6. Nov 04, 16:22
x4

Post by berth » Sat, 11. Aug 18, 00:42

The title is rather misleading. I was expecting something about the "is the universe a simulation?" thing.

Anyway, I've not heard of Lie groups or Fiber theory before - it sounded like an offshoot of String Theory but they said it had been around for 70 years at one point. Maybe it's been a thing in Mathematics for a while. Often the way.

Maybe they're right, maybe they're not. As has been mentioned, this is, so far, unfalsifiable. A couple of generations on from LHC we might start to get some definitive answers.

But who wouldn't want to be a lone-working surf theorist dude? Made me wonder how he supports himself though.
And he said something about people not wanting to give up on their theories, which I think he should keep in mind.

Well presented, if a little, like, annoying, like totally.

I'd be interested to hear Red Assassin's take on this, he knows his onions.

RegisterMe
Posts: 8903
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Post by RegisterMe » Sat, 11. Aug 18, 04:32

berth wrote:I'd be interested to hear Red Assassin's take on this, he knows his onions.
+1.
I can't breathe.

- George Floyd, 25th May 2020

User avatar
Chips
Posts: 4873
Joined: Fri, 19. Mar 04, 19:46
x4

Post by Chips » Mon, 13. Aug 18, 22:46

Isn't science always the way of "postulate theory, can it be proven/explain all we can observe... if yes (at present time) then accept, until evidence provides otherwise. Otherwise, find another theory or continue to explore existing theories to revise and repeat from start..."

I don't see the problem with Physicists coming up with various theories and trying to see if it'd get accepted. It's how science has always bloody worked for crying out loud. No-one believed any of the scientists we currently take as gospel for various theorems until (often) after they died (where it wasn't immediately measurable anyway).

If everyone poo poo'd every single scientists theory when originally crafted, especially without any counter evidence, while we wouldn't be rubbing sticks together to make fire, we wouldn't be anywhere near where we currently are.

You may be sceptical (what's your credentials?), that's absolutely fine and dandy. But people should be allowed to come up with theories and explore them without everyone who's remarkably unqualified to do so saying "but... nah". I mean, what would theoretical physics be if we could only rely upon observation for every theory :lol:

pjknibbs
Posts: 41359
Joined: Wed, 6. Nov 02, 20:31
x4

Post by pjknibbs » Tue, 14. Aug 18, 08:40

Chips wrote:Isn't science always the way of "postulate theory, can it be proven/explain all we can observe... if yes (at present time) then accept, until evidence provides otherwise. Otherwise, find another theory or continue to explore existing theories to revise and repeat from start..."
That doesn't mean that you have to treat every crackpot theory seriously. If I postulate that the Earth is actually flat and flies through space on the back of four elephants that, in turn, stand on the shell of a giant tortoise, scientists are not required to apply scientific method to that because it's clearly nonsense.

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Post by Morkonan » Tue, 14. Aug 18, 23:47

Chips wrote:...You may be sceptical (what's your credentials?), that's absolutely fine and dandy. But people should be allowed to come up with theories and explore them without everyone who's remarkably unqualified to do so saying "but... nah". I mean, what would theoretical physics be if we could only rely upon observation for every theory :lol:
But, some people prey on the sort of "anything goes" misconception of the process of discovery in order to make money... If they throw enough incomprehensible gobbity-gook at something, people can become overawed by how "scientificky" it all sounds. The more technical something is, the more people believe that there must be some actual knowledge involved in creating it. And, if big brains are manipulating all this stuffs, they must be smart and, therefore, "right."

Bigfoot.

There are som interesting, if practically unsupportable, serious questions to be asked in regards to this mythological creature. The reality of it existing today is really a terribly slim chance of "probably not, but maybe."

But, enough crap put forth as "evidence" has convinced bajillions (technical jargon, sorry) of people that "Bigfoot is real" and there are entire families of Bigfeets out there. They sound like this - "Wwowwwwwwowooooooo." And, their mating habits are like this - <redacted>. And they can detect man-made items like cameras due to some mystical energy field, 'cause the Native Americans were really animists and mystics and totem poles are energy pylons...

Not one photo of Bigfoot has ever been declared authentic. Not one. (Well, there's a logical argument that proves that statement...) But, there's enough crap out there about Bigfoot to convince a lot of people to fork over a lot of money so they can go on Bigfoot Expeditions or fund Bigfoot Researchers or go to Bigfoot Seances at Bigfoot Ranches or to invite Bigfoot Speakers to their Bigfoot Conferences to sell Bigfoot Books...

Psuedoscience peddlers are usually no different than most of the authors of Bigfoot Books proposing evidence for the culture and habits of Bigfeets... They just use bigger words that require a bit more understanding to parse.

"Unconventional Science" is fine. But doublespeak with questionable motivations is not fine.

RegisterMe
Posts: 8903
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Post by RegisterMe » Wed, 15. Aug 18, 00:16

pjknibbs wrote:If I postulate that the Earth is actually flat and flies through space on the back of four elephants that, in turn, stand on the shell of a giant tortoise, scientists are not required to apply scientific method to that because it's clearly nonsense.
Ahh but they are, and they can, and sometimes cheaply.

To "cross channels" so to say, I met a friend in a pub on Sunday afternoon, mainly because he interrupted me 3/4 of the way through my 8k walk, the last quarter of which takes me past our local drinking haunt.

Anyway, the reason he interrupted me was because he wanted me to meet his new friend, a "life coach", who was into "mindfullness" (errgggh horrible abuse of language alert), and coaching, and meditation etc.

I'm... sceptical... of some of that, but I am not wholy (does anybody know how to spell that?) dismissive of it.

But when she introduced the [url=http://www.karnak2000.com/updates/doc/S ... ual_EN.pdf] my alarm bells started going off.

This, explicitly not medical device, if it could do what they say? Nobels falling from the sky........

EDIT: Sorry, spent ten years trying to figure out how to get urls to work properly here and, frankly, I can't be bothered anymore.
I can't breathe.

- George Floyd, 25th May 2020

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”