# Thread: physics: mathematical theory V perception

1. We use mathematics in physics as a type of artifical-perception device, an artifical scaffold, for us to calculate and predict space-time occurences.

Clearly that mathematics we use must actually present to us a way to say, "yes, that is correct, that phenomena is correctly accounted for in this mathematics".

The mathematics though that we use rarely looks ANYTHING like what it is accounting for. Mathematics is a language that looks nothing like, on paper, what it is explaining. The closest mathematics comes to looking like the space-time reality it is explaining would be 3-d graphs accounting precisely for observed phenomena. Then of course we use associated mathematics to those graphs, differentials and the like, that detract from the observed reality.

My question is this: is it possible, would it be possible, to construct a mathematics of our very own fundamental ability of perception, a mathematics that accounted for our perception ability, and then used that mathematics to construct a theory of space-time, and thus a mathematics that would account for our space-time reality as precisely as we would construct that mathematics as well as we observe it?

The procedure of constructing that mathematics would be primarily based on our fundamental ability to be aware, and from that a holistic and logical construct of space-time would be tuned to that basic mathematics of our perception ability.

Any ideas?

I have researched the idea myself, written my own account, but does anyone know of other accounts or attempts? Would then be any gross problems with such an idea/proposition? How vastly would it conflict with the contemporary use of numbers and equations?

When I was studying Medicine, the idea that the brain was a type of super-computer fascinated me. So, I applied meditative tecniques in regard to basic geometrical shapes, focussing my thought processes on those virtual constructs in my mind. Over time, over a long period of time, I began to recieve insights regarding how there exists a type of step-by-step "stream of consciousness" equation. My aim was to uncover that "stream of consciousness" mathematical sequence.

Does anyone know of anyone who has done such research, read of anyone, and how that could be applied to physics/space-time?

2.

3. Are you an alien?

Before the insults start, what you're describing sounds alien-"ish", out of this world, not coneived before, "may as well come from another planet".

Have I heard of anyone with a theory like that?

Aliens maybe?

4. I will humor you a little and reply to your remarks.

As far as I am aware, given where and how I live among humanity, if I am an alien I have adapted well to your conditions of social homeostasis. Yet, the theory I have been working on is essentially "human bourne", a part of the human anatomy of logic. But I don't want to discuss any personal theories here unless it is Moderator approved (use the PM service if you want to discuss my theory). Let us discuss the logic of contemporary physics and the type of mathematics employed.

The logic of contemporary physics, briefly, starts from simple and antiquated ideals we know as "axioms" to then understand space-time principals, such as relativity, that those initial axioms were not designed for. It's fine, because it is rigorous and consistent. I am merely asking when and HOW new axioms should come into play. Does anyone know of anyone in contemporary physics, read of anyone, seriously giving the idea of upgrading the axioms of space-time a decent and thorough looking into. I guess what I am asking is that given all that we have worked out regarding quantum physics, a general idea of the mechanics of space-time, is anyone seriously interested, professionally speaking, in actually custom-designing NEW axioms for what we now know of the quantum-subatomic-atomic world?

5. When you say you were studying medicine, do you mean 'i was injecting heroin'? And when you say you received insight, do you mean 'i was watching the movie pi'?

6. this is one of the first posts you've made that i actually understand.
yes, there has been different ways of perceiving math.
aristoteles for example didn't use numbers, but rather dots, which helped him perceive the pythagorean theorem.

the numbers and methods used in mathematics today, are extremely compact, which is a large advantage. drawing 1000 dots is a lot harder than writing 1000.

7. People have their own ways of talking about what they have experienced on the front of "new perception experiences".

Some have opted for the heroin experience, others the use of dots.

On the front of heroin experiences, I guess I will have to wait for someone to write a book about their own experiences, or relive the 70's and really take notice to the lyrics of the then pop-stars.

As for going back and counting the grains of sand in an hourglass when measuring time, I guess if someone paid me enough money I would get into that, and believe me I would do that for the money, counting tiny bricks in an even tiny wall of "what the.....", given of course where this planet is headed.

But, to reiterate my post here, I am not a wacko-magnet, so any serious replies, please.....

Dejawolf, I thank you for your insight.

I also agree mathematics is a packaged form of explaining a very lartge thing such as reality.

What though I am looking for is "efficiency with numbers without losing the plot".

The plot?

Does the efficiency of numbers explain as simply as possible the basics of space-time, according to our basic ability to be "aware" (aka "basic ability to be conscious of points, lines, etc etc etc).

Are we going for that "efficiency" of numbers, in a way that is compatible with the logic of our basic features of mental reasoning?

Or, are we "alienating", or should I say, are YOU "alientating yourselves", from your basic instincts of reason, by creating an "alienation environment" for yourselves based on your current use of science and mathematics?

8. Stream, are you suggesting that the sciences we use and associated logic will one day rule us, shape us, the more it grows and predominant it becomes, and if we fail to acknowledge basic and fundamental features of our perception ability that should resonate through into our sciences and technology, then that science and reasoning and technology could have us evolve into something "alien", or worse still, "unnatural"?

And so your passion for a science more relevant to our basic features of perception is paramount to you, right, for health reasons, for the sake of humanity, for the sake of the preservation of our own species as we currently know ourselves as humans?

9. Yes, I am suggesting that.

Industrial "disease" is a growing problem, an extension of an incorrect axiom-base of science, a flawed reasoning system, leading to flawed technologies that invariable would make us sick.

As an extension of my medical research, I thought it wise to establish a more biologically "correct" science. But, that's my own stuff.

Does anyone know of anyone professionally interested in that line of work, any physicists? Any research papers? Any research proposals for any such theories? Does anyone find the idea interesting?

10. I'm interested.

I've read your post in behavioural science regarding intelligent design, and was wondering if it is possible to create computer programs that, given enough hardware, can out-calculate human survival to the point that such a computer program, algorithm, whatever, could outthink human survival, and thus defeat humanity......like a program-ghost in our IT machine?

11. Fantacies are fantacies.

In being more realistic, focus on human survival per-se, and relate that to the concept that physics is and always will be a tool for our better survival, and only that. It is not the ultimate, it is just a tool. I am really only presenting the case that ultimately physics is ALWAYS outplayed by our USE of physics. Physics is merely a "pattern", a way we explain things in a certain patterned fashion. What we then DO with physics based on our will to survive represents another pattern, a pattern of more relevance than physics.

Even if physics could incorporate the modus-operandi of human survival instinct into it's theories, we still have the choice to time our own decision making regarding the implementation of our survival strategy.......and that still represents a "greater pattern" than physics.

Max, Physics will always be at ODDS with the ultimate code of our survival, sometimes known as God.............and understandably so. Not of course against God, but clearly the closer Physics gets to thinking it is the be-all-and-end-all authority of development, then the closer physics gets to being out of line.

Thus, to answer your question, no, I do ont think a "program" can defeat our survival. Survival is a different level to automated programs. Survival depends on adaptation, and of course timing when to overcome unknowns. For a program to achieve that, it would reqiure such risk-assessment traits it would be difficult to term it as a "program".

12. Since this was mostly a conversation that streamSystems had with his/herself (looking4recruits and MaxHeadRoom are sockpuppets), the thread is now closed.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement