Source: Facebook

photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/54434826_10157047905222264_1661791665083383808_o_10157047905217264.jpg As far as I know we are very close to submission to the inescapable necessity, that the physics of the universe at existential scale is complete, and that no forces or interactions exist or can that we do not know of.

Moreover that modifying our ‘stories’ such that they, our experiences, our thoughts, and actions work ever closer to those rules. In other words, a majority of people demonstrate preference for the results even if a minority demonstrate preference for what produces those results.

Worse, that we evolved our language, cooperation in a division of labor, and all our works, in a period of very short ‘safety’ here on this earth, and here in this place in the universe. We do not have any luxury of ‘free riding’ on this world or the universe.

But it is this particular difference between those of us who seek to consume(relax) above all else, and those of us who seek to produce(achieve) above all else, that separates our understanding of the world.

As far as I can determine, we all seek to create stories that are discordant with that universe for a host of reasons – all of which are reducible to our desires being contrary to it.

Because we survive and prosper by the same means as does all life: the seizure of opportunity to resist entropy.Martin ŠtěpánWhat’s the W?Mar 14, 2019, 10:44 AMMartin ŠtěpánHave you just figured out the theory of everything or what is this?Mar 14, 2019, 10:48 AMDavin EastleyIs this pullin’ our legs? Where’s this from? :OMar 14, 2019, 11:00 AMKyle KalutkiewiczMartin Štěpán It’s the partition function for the standard model coupled to general relativity. g is gravity, A are the force fields (photon, gluon, etc), ψ are the matter fields (electrons, quarks, etc), ϕ is the Higgs boson.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_function_(quantum_field_theory)Mar 14, 2019, 11:06 AMPaul BardSo I guess after the Higgs must come the Hugs spectrum huh.Mar 14, 2019, 11:34 AMAlba RisingIt’s crazy that the equation describing the universe contains an imaginary number, i.Mar 14, 2019, 3:24 PMNick HeywoodI just woke up.

And the first 2 things I see are the speech periodic table and this. FFS!

Tell curt I’m not talking to him anymore!

😁Mar 14, 2019, 3:46 PMMoritz BierlingAlex BeltechiMar 14, 2019, 5:20 PMDermot DanielDo you think any of them fancy Greek characters are going to help when your head is stuffed into a toilet bowl?Mar 14, 2019, 7:39 PMCurt DoolittleI live to upset you. Seriously. first thing I do in the morning is ask “How am I gonna screw with Heywood today?” Surprising how often I’m successful…. lolzMar 14, 2019, 7:54 PMNick Heywood😆😄😆😄😆😄Mar 14, 2019, 9:41 PMRadu M Oleniuc>resist entropy.

https://www.facebook.com/oleniuc/posts/10157112460746565Mar 14, 2019, 10:07 PMMichael ChurchillCurt can you actually understand what that equation says?Mar 14, 2019, 11:13 PMCurt Doolittleyeah – at least roughly – and so could everyone else if it was written in english instead of notation. But technically speaking it’s wrong ( or ‘imprecise’) and meant only to demonstrate that we sorta got it all. the illustration is just the best one I know of that describes ‘everything’Mar 14, 2019, 11:22 PMCurt DoolittleMar 14, 2019, 11:31 PMMichael ChurchillI am at a loss.Mar 14, 2019, 11:32 PMMichael ChurchillThough impressed.Mar 14, 2019, 11:35 PMCurt Doolittlei cant understand it either…Mar 14, 2019, 11:37 PMWilliam L. BengeRight or wrong these (formulas) still beat “infinite sets.”Mar 15, 2019, 1:43 AMYiannis KontinopoulosNot really, if you think of the imaginary number as a function, an operationMar 15, 2019, 9:26 AMJesse Charles Tatsuoka FolsomPhysics merely describes physical behavior, with extrapolation from mathematical consistencies contributing the bulk of our “understanding”, limited by human perception, language, reason, and imagination. Many distortions occur, even (maybe especially) among scientists, because of “is”. The reification of space and time springs to mind. Many of the recent “discoveries” of physics rely entirely on vast mathematical extrapolation overlaid on instrumentally-measured variables at distances and scales we cannot hope to do any actual experiments with any time soon.

I have my doubts.Mar 17, 2019, 5:27 PMCurt Doolittle^those are just words with nothing to test. The grammar and vocabulary of science is operational. As far as I know we are at the closure of the fundamental rules. we cannot find a single example otherwise. All we know is that we are misinterpreting something very small, at very large scales. Recent suggestions are narrowing us down. But to make vague claims is nonsense.

Utnil this year I was questioning whether the fundamental approach to particles was wrong, but it isn’t. Its just that we don’t know of a model for thining about it other than particles or ‘information’ when we probably should think about the universe more fluidlly.Mar 17, 2019, 5:46 PMJesse Charles Tatsuoka FolsomOkay, here’s something theoretically testable. The largest extant land animal is the African elephant, with the largest verified individual animal ever weighing in at 11.5 tons. Elephants are heavy-bodied, with columnar legs and large, fibrous, shock-absorbing pads in their feet. They are incapable of jumping at all. All the largest land animals, including rhinos and hippos, have similarly columnar legs, despite having maximum verifiable sizes more like 4 tons.

Compare this to the Tyrannosaurus rex, a creature whose weight was considered to be comparable to the African elephant, with estimates averaging up to 15.4 tons. And this creature walked on two legs like a bird. Its relatively tiny arms could have been of almost no assistance. This is to say nothing of the largest relatively complete sauropods, that walked on four legs but had estimated weights up to 85 tons, with incomplete specimens speculated to reach as high as 243 tons. Such sizes have no close comparisons among any terrestrial animals.

I question whether biological materials would actually be capable of supporting such titanic land animals under current gravitational conditions. The square cube law applies to muscles, tendons, and bones. But this is testable. Could we need merely make a model T-rex skeleton and try to move it around with plausible configurations of muscle and connective tissue, and see how well it holds up. If it turns out there is a conceivable biological configuration that makes dinosaurs possible under current gravitational conditions, well, current theories are safe, at least from this angle. If not, if dinosaurs could not exist under current gravitational conditions, than they did not exist under such conditions, and I know of no conventional physics that could explain much disparity in this area.Mar 17, 2019, 6:33 PMCurt DoolittleUm. it’s simple math. Which is why they do the math.Andthe math says they were pretty damned good at it. Furthermore, oxygen levels are lower today than during the triassic, and maintaining a cold blooded animals far cheaper than mammals.

So unless you can do the math you shouldn’t have any opinion. Go learn the math.Mar 17, 2019, 6:57 PMJesse Charles Tatsuoka FolsomNo, it’s not simple math. It’s enormously complex math. Biological systems are incredible layers of complexity all the way down. And that’s why you can’t just do the math, and why so much of modern science is so questionable. Because it’s not science at all, it’s mathematical extrapolation, switching back and forth between equation and speculation. Why does dark matter exist? Because we believe the universe keeps its structure through gravity and there just isn’t enough observable mass, so thus we must have unobservable mass. Because the math says it must be there.

Math is only as good as your beginning assumptions. If to then. Experiment, however, exists in the real world, not the relations of human symbols, and as such takes into account the variables we didn’t, sometimes couldn’t, take into account. The map is not the territory, language is just a map of the actual, and math is just a language that, at its origin, was about just about counting similar objects. It certainly has its utility, but the true scientific method cannot rely on it alone. It must ground itself in experiment or you risk hubris, assuming the workings of your mind to be equal to the workings of the universe. You seem like a smart guy, Curt, but I don’t think that’s the case. That is why the original scientific method required experiment, and I’m not sure exactly where it went.

Mathematics are the pilpul of science, change my mind :PMar 17, 2019, 9:36 PMCurt Doolittleyou didn’t make an argument stating the failure of their mathematics. you just cast aspersions at it.

I spend a great deal of my time writing about the difference between pseudoscience and science.

If you had a criticism you’d make one.Mar 17, 2019, 10:29 PMMn RickThis is better than the number one sleep aide on the market by far 😶Mar 17, 2019, 11:34 PMAs far as I know we are very close to submission to the inescapable necessity, that the physics of the universe at existential scale is complete, and that no forces or interactions exist or can that we do not know of.

Moreover that modifying our ‘stories’ such that they, our experiences, our thoughts, and actions work ever closer to those rules. In other words, a majority of people demonstrate preference for the results even if a minority demonstrate preference for what produces those results.

Worse, that we evolved our language, cooperation in a division of labor, and all our works, in a period of very short ‘safety’ here on this earth, and here in this place in the universe. We do not have any luxury of ‘free riding’ on this world or the universe.

But it is this particular difference between those of us who seek to consume(relax) above all else, and those of us who seek to produce(achieve) above all else, that separates our understanding of the world.

As far as I can determine, we all seek to create stories that are discordant with that universe for a host of reasons – all of which are reducible to our desires being contrary to it.

Because we survive and prosper by the same means as does all life: the seizure of opportunity to resist entropy.