Algorithm Optimisation Championship. - page 26
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
What is obvious is that mathematics does not always relate to reality, which creates a host of pseudoscientific theories.
Such as the one about multiple spatial dimensions.
Where does that come from? Well, for example, from the fact that you can add extra coordinate axes to a quadratic function drawing a parabola, and infinitely many of them...
And if you draw a dog with 10 legs, can you assume that it exists, but nobody has seen it yet?
It is possible to devote years to the study of alien life forms which no one has ever seen, simply by relying on the calculations of a computer program which will itself calculate what forms of life may exist on the planets of the galaxy after entering the scientific data on these planets.
What is the value of such a study?
I want to remind you that concepts of the Earth and stars, laws of heavenly mechanics have been formed for centuries on the basis of empirical method of research (supervision and measurement).
At the same time, there has always been a mess of pseudoscientific theories in the heads of people who do not follow the scientific way of thinking, which are based on subjective sensations and imaginary outbursts beyond the boundaries of reality.
Penrose is a must-read. I promise.
Well, that's it then, 99% of all Einstein's theories are "pseudoscientific" too, since they were born in his head without reliance on the real physical world. And Penrose pushes "pseudoscientific" theories. Don't read Penrose, he's "pseudoscientific".
PS. Einstein and his "pseudoscientific" theories proved the effect of velocity on the passage of time. Without accounting for these shifts in time, GPS and many other things familiar to humans would not be possible. Google can help, maybe you will believe him.
Well, that's it then, 99% of all Einstein's theories are "pseudoscientific" too, since they were born in his head without reliance on the real physical world. And Penrose pushes "pseudoscientific" theories. Don't read Penrose, he is "pseudoscientific".
About Einstein. I read his biography. His work was based on the work of other physicists, but went further. He proved his theories. Not just mathematically, but physically. For example, during a solar eclipse, he proved that a beam of light could be bent by gravity.
I don't think Einstein would have allowed himself to make bold statements about multiple spatial dimensions. He was limiting physicists' ideas rather than expanding them.
For example, he proved that nothing can move faster than the speed of light. That when it reaches this speed, matter turns into light.
He proved the relationship between time and space and said that time can be bent by gravity. However, this theory remains unproven in my opinion.
A lot of science-fiction theories were based on his work. Such as the warp of space, time tunnels, superluminal speed, etc...
Einstein himself did not claim to be the final truth, but he showed us what a real scientific approach is.
About Einstein. I read his biography. His work was based on the work of other physicists, but went further. He proved his theories. Not just mathematically, but physically. For example, during a solar eclipse, he proved that a beam of light could be bent by gravity.
I don't think Einstein would have allowed himself to make bold statements about multiple spatial dimensions. He was limiting physicists' ideas rather than expanding them.
For example, he proved that nothing can move faster than the speed of light. That when it reaches this speed, matter turns into light.
O proved interrelation of time and space and said that time can be bent under the action of gravitation. However, in my opinion this theory remains unproven.
A lot of science-fiction theories were based on his work. Such as the warp of space, time tunnels, superluminal speed, etc...
Einstein himself did not claim to be the final truth, but he showed us what a real scientific approach is.
I read the thread and it makes me laugh. Any technical endeavour starts to become encrusted with such a cultural layer. )
Einstein is already here. By the way, this scientist's achievements are greatly questioned by many. From the fact that he borrowed other people's achievements without citation to the dubiousness of the experiments performed.
Do you choose which hemisphere you think with? ))
When it is necessary to count 2+2, I turn on logic (left hemisphere) and 2+2=4.
If we use our imagination and fantasy (right side), we will obtain
On the table there are 2 apples, after 1 minute I add 2 apples and as a result there are 4 apples on the table 2+2=4
On the table there are 2 apples, after one thousand years two apples were added to the table and finally there are 2 apples as the apples of one thousand years ago shrank, evaporated and disappeared. 2+2=2
What we do on the computer boils down to adding, remembering zeros and ones. Pure logic. You can argue with all analogies, you can't argue with logic.
To agree or disagree with Einstein, you have to at least reach his level of understanding of physics. I do not claim to do so.
But find me the works of authoritative physicists talking about multiple spatial dimensions. I would be happy to read them.
When it is necessary to count 2+2, I turn on logic (left hemisphere) and 2+2=4.
If we use our imagination and fantasy (right side), we will obtain
On the table there are 2 apples, after 1 minute I add 2 apples and as a result there are 4 apples on the table 2+2=4
On the table there are 2 apples, after one thousand years two apples were added to the table and finally there are 2 apples as the apples of one thousand years ago shrank, evaporated and disappeared. 2+2=2
What we do on the computer comes down to adding up, remembering zeros and ones. Pure logic. You can argue with all analogies, you can't argue with logic.
When I need to count 2 + 2, I usually turn on my memory and don't count. ))
Otherwise, I agree...
I read the thread and it makes me laugh. Any technical venture starts to acquire such a cultural layer. )
Einstein is already here. By the way, this scientist's achievements are highly questioned by many. From the fact that he borrowed others' achievements without citation to the dubiousness of the experiments done.
When I need to count 2 + 2, I usually switch my memory on and don't count. ))
Other than that, I agree...
I'm glad you agree. Your discussion with the topicstarter using various analogies is something I enjoy reading, but it takes me far away from the original problem.
That's why I suggested an example that doesn't require you to turn on your multi-dimensional imagination.
It is obvious that mathematics does not always relate to reality, which creates a host of pseudoscientific theories.
Such as the one about multiple spatial dimensions.
Where does this come from? Well, for example, from the fact that you can add extra coordinate axes to a quadratic function drawing a parabola, and infinitely many of them...
And if you draw a dog with 10 legs, can you assume that it exists, but nobody has seen it yet?
It is possible to devote years to the study of alien life forms which no one has ever seen, simply by relying on the calculations of a computer program which will itself calculate what forms of life may exist on the planets of the galaxy after entering the scientific data on these planets.
What is the value of such a study?
I want to remind you that concepts of the Earth and stars, laws of heavenly mechanics have been formed for centuries on the basis of empirical method of research (supervision and measurement).
At the same time, there has always been a mess of pseudoscientific theories in the heads of people who do not follow the scientific way of thinking, which are based on subjective sensations and imaginary outbursts beyond the boundaries of reality.
Penrose is a must-read. I promise.
I'm glad you agree. I enjoy reading your discussion with the topic-starter using various analogies, but it takes me far away from the original problem.
That's why I suggested an example that doesn't require a multidimensional imagination.
I liked your example because it clearly and vividly demonstrates the search space.
It is clear what and where to look for.
Let's say a competitor doesn't have a lot of imagination. He wants to participate, but he is told "imagine multidimensional space".
He replies, "How about that?"
He says, "We don't know. Just imagine...".
He says, "What am I supposed to find there?" -
He says, "Find the peak values of the function parameters."
He says, "The function that draws the top?"
They go, "Yes, the function that draws a surface, but it's not a surface because the function draws it in multiple dimensions of space, so you can't imagine it as a surface."
He's like, "Many dimensions of space???"
They - "Didn't you know you live in a multidimensional world???".