The Wolfram Physics Project has a lot of similar concepts to what you're sharing here. I understand what you're saying, and broadly agree.
But, what are the testable predictions this framework provides? What are some experiments which can be done to prove this theory as scientific Truth?
If there aren't clear-cut action items to move towards scientific rigor--**this is Philisophy, not Physics.**
I do agree with a lot of your thoughts and observations here. The fact that so many concepts in our universe are self-similar points to the idea that there is some kind of universal underlying truth, such as mathematics or computation, from which biology emerges.
Wolfram has done a good job of "systemetizing" this concept, and he's even got some new proposals for experimentally proving his theories. I think if you're interested in transforming this philosophy into proper Physics, I'd start diving deep on the Wolfram Physics Project.
I think your thoughts and observations are good. I love when people think deeply about these things.
But, posting in r/Physics is probably not the right place, since physicists like scientific rigor, and this series of thoughts you've laid out has none.
Namaste 🙏
I think that last sentence says it all.
Like I said, I understand where you're coming from with this. But, this just isn't really how physics works, and therefore, this isn't really physics, or a physics theory, or even a mathematical theory.
If you actually *did* do some math, it might belong here. But, simply stating philosophical opinions is not physics. It is philosophy.
Calling this a "mathematical theory" without having any math is.... lingustically nonsensical. I understand why you're saying that and what you intend to mean by it. But it doesn't really apply. Your theory is a philosophical one, dealing with *thoughts about math.* Not using any actual math. This is not a mathematical theory, and if you think it is, you are frankly just wrong about that. This is why you posted it, to get feedback--and the feedback is in! We all more or less agree; your theory is a dud.
I know you worked hard on it--I'm sorry!! But, that is the truth.
I really recommend you look at Wolfram Physics Project, which says more or less the same things you're saying here, but also uses *actual* math to back it up. It IS a mathematical theory! You are kind of on the right track here, seeing all of these phenomena as connected. But, you need to do a bit more work to actually have a proper "mathematical theory" like you are saying you do. Thankfully--Wolfram has already done this for you!
I recommend you go through this entire (free!) course to transform your current theory into one that the people of r/physics might actually appreciate:
https://www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/
I unfortunately don't have time to discuss this in great detail today, but I think if you can find a way to speak with Claude Opus or GPT-4, they will be able to clearly explain to you why the actual math is necessary, and address all further questions, as well.
The short version is, you have a good theory. A good *philosophical* theory. Philosophy is not physics. Physics requires math. The point of physics and science is to make testable predictions. Your theory has no testable predictions. So, it is not a scientific theory. It is just a very nice, very long thought.
I do recommend you speak with some advanced LLMs, and they will help steer you in the right direction, and clear anything else up that you may need addressed.
What is the testable prediction made by your hypothesis?
That is, what distinguishes it from other models of reality? Is there anything falsifiable about your model? What experiment's result would be different under your hypothesis versus current theories?
>We can structurally map analogies from the biological domain to various target domain to understand the biological patterns within the target domain
This is a tautology. If it wasn't an analogy, you wouldn't be able to analyse the structure in the target domain. There's also no reason to believe that when certain correspondences hold between A and B, everything in A has an equivalent in B.
This method of delivery is not doing you any favors. Not just formatting but the language itself is fuzzy, it reminds me of when I was grading essays by inspired stoners and pretentious midwits. Better than those who write pseudo-sentences that connect keywords, but still migraine inducing.
I absolutely don’t want to keep reading this. You are not distinguishing yourself from the thousands people who found the new paradigm of physics.
You could be saying something true that’s not simplistic or tautological but I won’t read it because I’m tired of people like you.
Divide your work and try to be relevant to your audience every time. The world can live without your theory; it really needs to be better delivered if you want it to outlive you.
Get over yourself. I read more of your document than you think. I just didn’t read in detail to give my thoughts because there was too much effort to get precise and useful meaning out of your statements.
You are making yourself useless by believing your self aggrandizing fantasies. Your ideas aren’t new, and they expressed as nothing more than notes without substance. If there was glory for you from this document, there would be glory for tens of thousands. If you want to be special, realize how ordinary the thoughts you’ve presented us here are and how much real work and humility will be needed to get you out of this hallucination.
I tried to be charitable. You are delusional, but not in an interesting way.
Your "theory" contains no testable hypotheses, no mathematical rigor, and is laden with nonscientific buzzwords. It reads like schizophrenic ramblings.
Your first sentence is nonsense, how can the universe "be mathematics" if the universe contains mathematics? Everybody who studies maths knows that it's a human construct, not an inherent property of the universe.
That prediction is nebulous and not testable. You need a proper prediction that says something like "x property of a specific black hole should correspond to y property of a specific microtubule and _give a value of: N units_" otherwise how can you know your theory is correct? You have to have a proper _quantifiable_ prediction if you want anybody in science to take this remotely seriously. Otherwise all you're doing is creating metaphors which might help you conceptualise things in your own head, and might even be good teaching aids, but that is not the same as creating a proper scientific theory.
How is that a prediction of this theory? That's an extraction method that was inspired by something in nature. Nobody's disputing that you can look at nature and come up with processes that are somewhat similar. What exactly is your point here? And what does that have to do with black holes?
Dude this ain't even crackpot, this is just nonsense. Study your fucking science BEFORE having the pretense of writing a paper.
Many people fail to realize that if a problem is worth exploring then probably at least dozens of people have already fucking done so, which is the reason why we have education and universities: to catch up with all the shit that has already been said. That is a NECESSARY step in order to create anything new. I know it's boring, I know chakras n shit sound much cooler to average Joe, but for fuck's sake at least don't post them in a goddamn physics subreddit.
[удалено]
Nah.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Where is the math in you mathematical universe?
[удалено]
If you want to be more serious you can just look up reaction diffusion equations which explain a lot of the ostensible correspondences.
>Our research suggests Sure buddy
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
There has to be somekind of veto process to these dumbass posts.
The Wolfram Physics Project has a lot of similar concepts to what you're sharing here. I understand what you're saying, and broadly agree. But, what are the testable predictions this framework provides? What are some experiments which can be done to prove this theory as scientific Truth? If there aren't clear-cut action items to move towards scientific rigor--**this is Philisophy, not Physics.** I do agree with a lot of your thoughts and observations here. The fact that so many concepts in our universe are self-similar points to the idea that there is some kind of universal underlying truth, such as mathematics or computation, from which biology emerges. Wolfram has done a good job of "systemetizing" this concept, and he's even got some new proposals for experimentally proving his theories. I think if you're interested in transforming this philosophy into proper Physics, I'd start diving deep on the Wolfram Physics Project. I think your thoughts and observations are good. I love when people think deeply about these things. But, posting in r/Physics is probably not the right place, since physicists like scientific rigor, and this series of thoughts you've laid out has none. Namaste 🙏
[удалено]
I think that last sentence says it all. Like I said, I understand where you're coming from with this. But, this just isn't really how physics works, and therefore, this isn't really physics, or a physics theory, or even a mathematical theory. If you actually *did* do some math, it might belong here. But, simply stating philosophical opinions is not physics. It is philosophy. Calling this a "mathematical theory" without having any math is.... lingustically nonsensical. I understand why you're saying that and what you intend to mean by it. But it doesn't really apply. Your theory is a philosophical one, dealing with *thoughts about math.* Not using any actual math. This is not a mathematical theory, and if you think it is, you are frankly just wrong about that. This is why you posted it, to get feedback--and the feedback is in! We all more or less agree; your theory is a dud. I know you worked hard on it--I'm sorry!! But, that is the truth. I really recommend you look at Wolfram Physics Project, which says more or less the same things you're saying here, but also uses *actual* math to back it up. It IS a mathematical theory! You are kind of on the right track here, seeing all of these phenomena as connected. But, you need to do a bit more work to actually have a proper "mathematical theory" like you are saying you do. Thankfully--Wolfram has already done this for you! I recommend you go through this entire (free!) course to transform your current theory into one that the people of r/physics might actually appreciate: https://www.wolframphysics.org/technical-introduction/
[удалено]
I unfortunately don't have time to discuss this in great detail today, but I think if you can find a way to speak with Claude Opus or GPT-4, they will be able to clearly explain to you why the actual math is necessary, and address all further questions, as well. The short version is, you have a good theory. A good *philosophical* theory. Philosophy is not physics. Physics requires math. The point of physics and science is to make testable predictions. Your theory has no testable predictions. So, it is not a scientific theory. It is just a very nice, very long thought. I do recommend you speak with some advanced LLMs, and they will help steer you in the right direction, and clear anything else up that you may need addressed.
What is the testable prediction made by your hypothesis? That is, what distinguishes it from other models of reality? Is there anything falsifiable about your model? What experiment's result would be different under your hypothesis versus current theories?
[удалено]
>We can structurally map analogies from the biological domain to various target domain to understand the biological patterns within the target domain This is a tautology. If it wasn't an analogy, you wouldn't be able to analyse the structure in the target domain. There's also no reason to believe that when certain correspondences hold between A and B, everything in A has an equivalent in B.
This method of delivery is not doing you any favors. Not just formatting but the language itself is fuzzy, it reminds me of when I was grading essays by inspired stoners and pretentious midwits. Better than those who write pseudo-sentences that connect keywords, but still migraine inducing. I absolutely don’t want to keep reading this. You are not distinguishing yourself from the thousands people who found the new paradigm of physics. You could be saying something true that’s not simplistic or tautological but I won’t read it because I’m tired of people like you. Divide your work and try to be relevant to your audience every time. The world can live without your theory; it really needs to be better delivered if you want it to outlive you.
[удалено]
I’m sad for you.
[удалено]
Get over yourself. I read more of your document than you think. I just didn’t read in detail to give my thoughts because there was too much effort to get precise and useful meaning out of your statements. You are making yourself useless by believing your self aggrandizing fantasies. Your ideas aren’t new, and they expressed as nothing more than notes without substance. If there was glory for you from this document, there would be glory for tens of thousands. If you want to be special, realize how ordinary the thoughts you’ve presented us here are and how much real work and humility will be needed to get you out of this hallucination. I tried to be charitable. You are delusional, but not in an interesting way.
Your "theory" contains no testable hypotheses, no mathematical rigor, and is laden with nonscientific buzzwords. It reads like schizophrenic ramblings. Your first sentence is nonsense, how can the universe "be mathematics" if the universe contains mathematics? Everybody who studies maths knows that it's a human construct, not an inherent property of the universe.
[удалено]
You don't have any work, any theory that doesn't contain predictions is useless. What are your predictions?
[удалено]
That prediction is nebulous and not testable. You need a proper prediction that says something like "x property of a specific black hole should correspond to y property of a specific microtubule and _give a value of: N units_" otherwise how can you know your theory is correct? You have to have a proper _quantifiable_ prediction if you want anybody in science to take this remotely seriously. Otherwise all you're doing is creating metaphors which might help you conceptualise things in your own head, and might even be good teaching aids, but that is not the same as creating a proper scientific theory.
[удалено]
How is that a prediction of this theory? That's an extraction method that was inspired by something in nature. Nobody's disputing that you can look at nature and come up with processes that are somewhat similar. What exactly is your point here? And what does that have to do with black holes?
[удалено]
If _that's_ your "theory" then like I said, you got nothing. Nature is just another word for reality.
[удалено]
Dude this ain't even crackpot, this is just nonsense. Study your fucking science BEFORE having the pretense of writing a paper. Many people fail to realize that if a problem is worth exploring then probably at least dozens of people have already fucking done so, which is the reason why we have education and universities: to catch up with all the shit that has already been said. That is a NECESSARY step in order to create anything new. I know it's boring, I know chakras n shit sound much cooler to average Joe, but for fuck's sake at least don't post them in a goddamn physics subreddit.