Scientists Discover 'Pure Math' Is Written Into Evolutionary Genetics

Is simply false.

I agree, it's also a rather unscientific thing to claim. I've been a dissenter from Darwin ever since studying general relativity which made me acknowledge that the evidence for a mind is overwhelming in our universe, sadly such views have been misrepresented and so many people have closed their minds as a result, a closed mind stops learning though.

 

The real Beauty of his equation is that he recognized the limitations of it. Sadly, it seems, he believed it was a failure instead of being incomplete like all human creations.

"Mathematics is a game where mathematicians invent the rules. Physics is a game where the rules are given to us by nature."

 

How dare him for going against the Scientific Concensus that negative energy doesn't exist.

He should have been kicked out of Cambridge for such heresy.

 

How dare him for going against the Scientific Concensus that negative energy doesn't exist.

He should have been kicked out of Cambridge for such heresy.

Unfortunately a perfectly valid physics concept to explain the nature of certain things (not a theory of actual negative energy) has been trashed by modern day scammers of free energy and reactionless engines.

 

 

 

Not even wrong -> Not Even Nothing.

 

Not even wrong.

I've juste watched it ... I had never seen her so brilliantly sarcastic and likeable at the same time ... gotta love that woman ...

 

I must have missed it. How does his theory reconcile QM and GR?

 

The so called "theory of everything" is a fantasy, paradox. Every theory needs premises, things one assumes and if one later adjusts the theory to make the premises consequences of other premises we end up with infinite regress, hardly an explanation. A theory that explains "everything" must by definition explain its premises...

Here's is what the theory of everything would look like though when someone reaches the point of grasping this:

View attachment 323857​

d

The so called "theory of everything" is a fantasy, paradox. Every theory needs premises, things one assumes and if one later adjusts the theory to make the premises consequences of other premises we end up with infinite regress, hardly an explanation. A theory that explains "everything" must by definition explain its premises...

Here's is what the theory of everything would look like though when someone reaches the point of grasping this:

View attachment 323857​

That's the way it is. It's like all the theory we have is like a cloud floating around in mathematical space. It's like math is in a different dimension, even though some of it correlates to what we see around us. Ok, maybe a better picture is that math is like a cloud floating around in some space of the universe(s).

Is there any exact correlation, that's the question. What else we don't know yet is if math can correlate to everything in the universe. We assume it does, but that's only judging from our meager past experiences with math and physics and how they work together so far. We already know that 'regular' math (non-probabilistic) doesn't always work, that's a milestone and perhaps a predictor of what is going to come: an even more unpredictable physics. What if there are very anomalous one time only occurrences, there would be no way to even think about how to predict those. Of course, there could also be occurrences that we cannot even observe, and that would mean we could never even attempt to develop some theory.
We assume a lot about all of these possible situations.

When we think about this though we have to keep the practical in mind as well. We may not need to actually 'know' everything, we just need to know what works in every situation that is significant to our survival, which usually translates to progress.

 

This always takes me to my realization (when I was studying general relativity years ago) the presence of the universe, the presence of a rationally intelligible universe is not explicable scientifically. One can never scientifically explain the presence of it because one must presuppose things, establish premises, in order to write down any kind of theory and so the premises remain unexplained and therefore we've not explained anything really.

Another way to put this is that we can't use science to explain why science is effective at all. One can react in three ways, from what I've seen over the years debating this subject:

1. There is a scientific explanation but we haven't found it yet (this is paradoxical, self contradictory though)
2. There is no explanation, it just is, it's just there and that's pretty much that, so don't try looking for one.
3. There is an explanation but it's not a scientific explanation, doesn't involve law or causality.

I don't think there are any other options.

Hi,

You made me think of one of the ideas I think comes from set theory.

If an object is part of a set, the object is part of that set, but the set itself cannot be part of that same set.
Also, the object that is part of that set cannot represent the entire set, of course, because it will always be only part of that set. The object cannot be used to explain the entire set.
We could have a set {1,2,3,4,5} and a set {2,3,4,5,6}, and any single object in either of those sets cannot represent the entire set. For example, if we pick '2', we don't know if it came from set 1 or set 2, but more to the point we don't know what the other numbers are just because we know that '2'. The other four numbers cannot be determined from that '2'. We can determine a few of them: 3,4,5 because these three are in both sets, but that would require a 'law' that we would have to make up to accompany those two sets. If the sets were totally unknown though we could not even determine that from the one sample '2'. We can only guess.

We are part of the universe therefore we cannot understand it entirely.

What makes it worse is the universe is not exactly static. It's very dynamic, constantly changing. If any of the single changes has far reaching consequences, it may lead to something never seen before even if we could view the entire universe (which we can't do either). Change leading to more complex changes; emergence.

 

I must have missed it. How does his theory reconcile QM and GR?

Wow, he's much too nice but he's right, "No" or "you are wrong" are not insults.

 

These Are the Most Beautiful Equations, according to Mathematicians

​

Open the link in an incognito window

 

These Are the Most Beautiful Equations, according to Mathematicians
View attachment 325038​

Open the link in an incognito window

The most beautiful equation I ever came across (for electrical work) is the equation that shows the solution to every rectifier circuit (diodes and caps and whatever else along with parasitics).
It's a partial differential equation of course as they seem to be the most beautiful anyway

 

These Are the Most Beautiful Equations, according to Mathematicians
View attachment 325038​

Open the link in an incognito window

 

 

This is really good to know when you run across the situation where you happen to have two masses that are ideal and an ideal perfectly ridged surface that the smaller mass can run into and bounce back.

It is kind of amazing how many ways there are to calculate the approximate value of pi, and in the limit, theoretically speaking, the exact value of pi. This is a new one for me though. I would wonder what made someone try this. This also illustrates how you can reverse engineer some physical process that requires the value of pi to be calculated, then solve for pi itself instead after making the physical measurements. Probably a plethora of processes. There, you made me have to use the word 'plethora'
I guess this means there should be no surprise that this process can be used for that purpose too. This might also show how the "wowness" value can get people to read and watch.

The best formula for pi is the one that computes digits of pi that only requires the number of digits being computed to be stored. It's probably on Wikipedia.

 

The best formula for pi is the one that computes digits of pi that only requires the number of digits being computed to be stored. It's probably on Wikipedia.

Compute any arbitrary digit of pi. In hexidecimal.

 

Compute any arbitrary digit of pi. In hexidecimal.

Mathematicians Accidentally Found a New Way to Represent Pi


​

"All we were doing was studying high-energy physics in quantum theory and trying to develop a model with fewer and more accurate parameters to understand how particles interact. We were excited when we got a new way to look at pi."