Similarly, becoming an academic or a person with an advanced degree is too easy these days. — baker
What concerns me deeply is our attitude towards our knowledge base, and how we're limiting exploration and imagination — theRiddler
So please, by all means take a crack at it — Alexandre Harvey-Tremblay
The world of mathematics is exactly equal to the domain of a universal Turing machine. — Alexandre Harvey-Tremblay
Since halting programs are arbitrarily complex and subject the incompleteness theorems, modern notions relating to mathematical undecidability are leveraged to create a 'trial and error' foundation to their discovery, such that one is required to run programs to completion ---essentially to perform 'mathematical experiments'--- to discover them, thereby permitting a re-formulation of mathematics conductive to experimental methods — Alexandre Harvey-Tremblay
However, the knowledge base formulation can derive the laws of physics indubitably in a few lines, whereas the formal axiomatic system representation is plagued with axiomatic gaming and other problems. — Alexandre Harvey-Tremblay
That question is floating in the air for me. Why do you ask it? — Tom Storm
In 1951 they didn't need to ask themselves, "Will x news headline cause anxiety and depression?" because maybe only thirty percent of people in the neighbourhood even read the newspaper on a daily basis. — kudos
Well then somebody ought to hurry up and tell the Scandanavian / Nordic countries that they've been doing their brand of welfare-state capitalism wrong for almost a century. — 180 Proof
If you attempted to apply the idealized structure of mathematics to physics problems you’d encounter unexpected results because the real world doesn’t always deal in easily determined discrete quantities — kudos
The academic may know a lot, but they don't know how to truly behave like a layman. They can never know how to not know what they know, and that is a weakness — kudos
Using as few words as possible is just as important as using the right words. Your argument could have been a lot clearer, less ambiguous, if you'd made the post a lot shorter. — T Clark
I only recently got a smart phone, but I don't use it much. Those damn small letters and having to move the text in order to read it. Nah. — baker
Einstein's Special Relativity applies to physical objects. But General Relativity includes the subjective observer in the network, as a node in the whole pattern, by taking a god-like perspective, from outside the system looking in — Gnomon
They probably don't feel physically like age 25. When I say I feel young, I mean mentally, but what do I mean by that?
— Bitter Crank
I wonder how the making of concrete and steel will be powered? — Xtrix
One reason I wished to discuss the senses, specifically taste and smell, was they appeared to be qualitative (nonmathematical) instead of quantitative (mathematical) — TheMadFool
Although quantum mechanics has been successful in
explaining many microscopic phenomena which appear to be genuinely ran-
dom (i.e., the randomness does not stem from the lack of information about
initial condition, but it is inherent in the behavior of the particles), it is not
a good theory for elementary particles, mainly for two reasons:
• It does not fit well with special relativity, in that the Schr ̈odinger
equation is not invariant under Lorentz transformations.
• It does not allow creation or annihilation of particles.
Since in lots of interesting phenomena (e.g., in colliders) particles travel at
speeds comparable to the speed of light, and new particles appear after they
collide, these aspects have to be taken into account.
Quantum field theory (QFT) is supposed to describe these phenomena
well, yet its mathematical foundations are shaky or non-existent. The fun-
damental objects in quantum field theory are operator-valued distributions.
An operator-valued distribution is an abstract object, which when integrated
against a test function, yields a linear operator on a Hilbert space instead
of a number.