Same problem different eyes

As time goes by I change and I can remember tackling many problems in my college years. I have always had an insatiable desire to learn and so I have looked into many subjects. I can remember the frustration in attempting to understand game theory, physics, chemistry and virtually everything. Chemistry was one of those things that plagued me at 18. I knew there was a way to characterize the system so that it could be considered in a rational way. I was a chemist and adding 2 gram molecular weights of on material to the same proportion of another material was certainly repeatable, but it was not a real understanding of what was taking place. It was a procedure, a devised method from experimentation and wasn't derived from an understanding of how a system operates. In fact, the system that describes chemistry is absurd in its language. There is no cause or effect outside of effect of combinations. The underlying cause is vacant. This is what troubled me most.

Now that I understand what is going on down under, that science it is coherent. It seems that the physics, and theory of matter is designed to obfuscate the underlying order. I know this isn't true, because if they understood what was really going on, they would have no gain in creating a fantasy world where they live to conceal the truth. They can only do this because they fail to grasp the entire answer.

I can relate to confusion, failure to understand, acceptable compromise, indeterminacy of process and all those other things that exist before a thing is solved.

There is a difference between how I look at problems and what others are willing to accept. It is the whole picture of the universe and many things are not possible in the small, without great consequence in the large. If the field of a particle were non-determinant at the degree that is accepted, we would see our world vacillate and effects of probability storms. For one, I know it isn't true that there is so much variability in the action of matter. I have solved the relationships and so I can say with certainty that this a nice solution that completely ignores rationality. To me the theories look like someone who throws up their hands in failure and accepts a solution that is seemingly absurd, but is workable to some extent. I experience this all the time when I code and use a new method. People explain how it is done and their understanding of the process and at times it is just wrong. So you take everything with a bit of caution and combine the opinions of several people and eventually you come to an understanding of the process.

With respect to Physics, Math, Chemistry and other mainstream sciences, they seem to take themselves a little too seriously. "Also Sprach Einstein" as if the person was infallible or even correct. I see Newton, Einstein, Maxwell,Galileo and others as great minds that contributed much to humanity in their clarity of thought and pursuit of truth, but if you want to know who I think is talented, skilled, dedicated, conscientious, consistent, and effective, it would be Brian Paul, who wrote much of the MesaGL code, AFAIK. I still can't grasp some of the concepts he manages with ease.

0 comments:

Automated Intelligence

Automated Intelligence
Auftrag der unendlichen LOL katzen