The 3 Body Problem

No because in biology and chemistry we aren’t allowed to just cheat and make stuff up because we cant figure it out, then just turn the number 8 sideways because we are also not lazy… yeh I said it, looking at you matherizers.

This is starting to remind me of Flatland

If you will never be able to figure it out, whats the difference really?
Not everything have to be known, and not everything will be.

Some small things can be, and human will always want to know more, making smaller divisions, while the whole picture fades away slowly and only AI will be able to make something out of it, smaller human brains for small ideas, and gigabrains using gigawatts for giga ideas…

1 Like

The point being its starting to become about perspective, reminds me of the old tale of the man sat looking at a giant white circle, he decides to stand up and walk around it, he notices it looks the same from every angle he views it so it cant be a circle it must be a sphere, he then tries to explain that to the others sat around the circle, some get up with him and walk around also noticing its a sphere but others wont move.

Should the man move them, make them see?

Should the man not care because he knows he is right?

I think, he does what he does. Multiple factors goes into this. You can be that person every second of your life, and you wouldnt know it, untill I point that to you. What influences you, what made you stay here, what is that moment. It all matters, and it all matters not. Choice is yours, or the choice happens?

Why do we ask so many questions, when we already know our fate is to be estinguished like that flame. The story writes itself, but nobody else to read it already.

alas the answer is of course, he should eat it.

anyway lets get back to maths and the problem of having 3 bodies.

Why limit it to 3? There can be always more where that came from. We can divide and divide, even when its all still whole, like a skin on the living bear, without killing it yet.

More we will divide, more complex problem it will become, and we will all die more clueless than when we were born and knew exactly what to do and when. Reflexes pretty flesh and not very obstructed by learning new things.

1 Like

Indeed.

How to get rid of them is the real problem ! Suggestions ?

1 Like

This is false, if we study black holes we can see it was once a star which has collapsed, The point is the star reached and went beyond a weight threshold and then collapsed, there is a number that represents this threshold, obviously nobody knows this number but the theory makes sense that reality can only support a limited amount of weight.

Also, find any acorn flower or sunflower, if you count the amount of petals on on either flower you will find the total number of leaves will always be anumber that is featured in the fibonacci sequence.

So the fibonacci sequence goes; 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55

So you start with 1 and 2 and then add them together to create the next number, and then you just keep adding the last 2 numbers together to get the next number, this sequence goes on forever,

You will be very very shocked how often the fibonacci sequence appears in nature.

The numbers match how all objects orbiting the centre of the galaxy are moving, as shown in this video.

You wrote:

We means human being. We interprete and we are biased.

The black hole doesnt need any numbers. Flowers are not numbers but living beings. They can have as many petals as its needed, where needed or no petals at all, they can have other structures called sepals or tepals. Cannabis sativa doesnt have petals for example.

If you see repeating patters somewhere, it doesnt mean its using math, you are just using math because you have been taught to use it to describe the world. What its using is DNA, cell chemistry and electricity. It developed in a a certain pattern and thats it. Without any underlying math or idea, but with constant change taking place, where environment dictates it.

You can see patterns because they exist, but its because of the environment, and it doesnt use math or numbers. If you say: “Look, a number, and its everywhere!” you are terribly mistaken. Its the environment that made something happen, and you attribute some idea to completely obvious emergent environmental conditions. Like you would see a face in the clouds.

Look at this:

Human interprete also what he thought or devised himself. So we can have math and we can have patterns repeating inside this math language model or patterns arising from conditions set by human. Its all imperfect and will not describe anything fully tho. If you separate matter and energy for example, you need already to use 2 things in any equation, instead of one, while its already both the same thing, only morphed, like you can see a coin, it can have lets say 2 sides, but its still one coin. Whats the logic behind it? Its your mind and its mind’s interpretation only.

Truth is, there isnt any separation between anything, matter or time, or in matter itself. Its all one, and human mind is too contrived to understand it.

1 Like

You are all bugs.

Or you can have mind so contrived it doesnt understand that whatever idea it would form, how wrong it can be, it can think its truth or that others are wrong. While in grand scale it doesnt really matter at all and you can save energy to do something you like.

Maybe it’s not so black and white.

Of course, “use” would require a consciousness and maybe even a purpose. Attributing a consciousness to the universe would be akin to a religious thought, and a highly individual thought at that. In that sense, the more prudent approach would be to avoid the word “use”.

Obviously the mathematics we know is the one our species devised and developed. Some of it is due to pattern recognition and prediction. Most of it is not. The same goes for the “natural” sciences. The physical world does not “use” those sciences. It is those sciences and more, because that is the way we look at the physical world and try to understand it.

An amusing thought is “what would the mathematics of another intelligence look like - would there be overlaps ?”. If there would be overlaps, and more importantly in those parts of mathematics that are related to the physical world, then the question addressed in the video I link below becomes all the more interesting. especially the part about unexpectedly increased accuracies.

Along the same lines one can ask the question if fundamental constants are discovered or invented.

I will allow you to still be our Princess if you do one important thing for Frostpacker!

1 Like

It’s a tool, and it’s development is guided by the things we need it for.

Someone once said that when we developed the book, people thought the universe was a book where our story is written in. When we developed the clock, we thought the universe worked like a clockwork. When we developed Mathematics, we thought the universe follows this formulas and is comprised of forces and vector fields. And since we now invented the computer we obviously now think the Universe must work like a computer…

But this are all just tools to help us understand and model the universe. And they are very powerful in doing that. For example the mathematical models made a lot of predictions that turned out to actually exist in reality. Antimatter was predicted by math for example. The higgs boson was an artifact of someone using a mathematical trick to make the formula prettier, and it turned out it exists. I find that amazing.

And now we start to see the first models that are based on pure computation, and while they still have some catching up to do the things they will discover will be equally amazing I guess.

My guess is it would be a completely different structure and formalism. We always picture aliens to be similar to us, but there could be intelligent life at completely different sizes, whose tough processes work at completely different speeds and hence their view of the physical world and the laws they derive and tools they use to model them may be completely different.

1 Like

Yet the very nature of a black hole is that it’s “too heavy” for reality to support it, so the star/body it once was collapses and distorts reality in a way which we can barely understand.

I have no idea about you, but when I hear the term “too heavy” numbers immediately come to my mind, and I get an immediate understanding that for example 20kilogram weighs more than 10kilogram and the 20kg needs more support since it is heavier.

Now, black holes have been forming for billions of years, this is proof that numbers existed before humans came along, all humans did is learn to refer to whats already present.

We know that the earth has a weight value, we also know the sun has a weight value, if we have an understanding of what’s going on we can agree the earth is orbiting the sun, so the sun is exerting an amount of weight on reality which makes the earth orbit and follow it. As far as i know the earth has been orbiting the sun since it was formed this can only mean that numbers existed since the begining.

Maths is a method of refering to whats already there. Nobody controls the way all of the bodies orbit the centre of the milky way, yet if you super impose a grid featuring the fibonacci numbers over a picture of the bodies orbiting the the centre of a galaxy you will see that the lines conform to numbers featured in the fibonacci sequence.

No, that pattern has a foundation were the base is 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21 and so on

It would function in exactly the same way, mathematics is the same regardless of if it is at one end of the universe or another. Infact, mathematics is exactly how we would communicate with another intelligent life. 1 plus 1 will allways equal 2 in every part of the universe.

no, the universal rules of reality are like. 1+1=2 or 10+10=20, this is the only structure that exists, it’s the only structure that could possibly exist in this reality no matter where you are i the universe. yes the symbols refering to numbers would be different but that is it.

I guess the only time universal laws might not apply is close to or within a black hole

I struggle with this point.

Mathematics is simply the discovery of what’s there. the method used to discover maths is more of a tool.

If we take something like the earth spinning I believe it is spinning at a rate of around 1000 miles per hour or 1,525 feet per second this speed generates a 24 hour day.

Obviously the earth was here before us, we should definitely be able to understand that the earth has always been spinning at roughly this speed since it’s creation and it is the discovery of mathematics that enable us to calculate how fast the earth was spinning millions of years before humans.

Asteroids and planets and comet’s have all been moving through space for billions of years which means they have always been moving at a certain speed,

Humans develop tools/methods to discover maths, we can never develop the math itself for that is already present and visible. The higgs boson was actually already there existing long before somone accidently/purposefully developed a method to discover it. You describe higgs boson as an artifact which wouild mean a human created it or it was only created directly because of the action taken, this is false, higgs boson particles are part of this reality and have been since the begining of time.

Going back to a previous point, maths is definitely the trusted language of the universe, I believe all of science accept this.

1 Like

@Karak_Terrel and @Aaron thank you for your replies.

The Dirac equation (which was a completely mathematical undertaking to make a relativistic version of the Schrödinger equation, linking relativity and quantum mechanics) predicted the existence of the positron 4 years before it was actually discovered. Dirac’s second motivation was to render an earlier formula (Klein-Gordon 1926, which happens to describe the Higgs boson btw) formula more workable.

In the same way, Einstein’s mathematical approach led to the prediction and eventual confirmation of hitherto totally unknown natural phenomena.

We don’t need to imagine alien species to see this: just compare the theories developed by Schrödinger and Heisenberg - two well known aliens for most of us. One uses wave equations, the other uses matrices (in practicality, one is written in German, the other in hieroglyphs, lol). But the essence is, they are describing the same phenomenon and lead to the same conclusions and solutions, whatever the language of the “tool”, just like any book in its “original” language vs. a “perfect” translation into another language - they will say the same things.

I cannot get rid of the impression that there is something very fundamental about mathematics as being part of the universe. I didn’t know I had a romantic streak, but there it is.

2 Likes

A very big pumpkin come to my mind.

I really dont understand why would anyone attach himself so much to an idea of a number. Black holes existed and thats it, billions of years are an abstract idea, in reality its a constant motion and the measuring method is negotiable, but not necessary at all, even for a human being. You can spend whole life not knowing why calendar have sometimes a year longer by a day or why there are only 12 months in it.

Mass is more used in such circumstances, weight would be something that can be attributed to something you can lay on the surface of earth or any celestial body with hard surface.

There are problems with calculating definite weight when you cant have a definite hard surface to place something or when you have two celestial objects pretty close. You could lay the moon on the surface of earth, it would weight something, but when in that scenario moon becomes part of earth and when they form one object is also negotiable. Weight is dependent on location of objects and its a measurement of force. When you have one object, it have mass, So how much a pumpkin weights is just a vector of force that changes constantly when you move it. Same with moon a milimeter away from surface of earth.

Math is a language. Its function is to describe world around you, in universal terms. The terms have to be learned like with any language.

Its like saying: english language sounds the same regardless of if it is at one end of the universe or another. Thats pretty silly statement, dont you think? But thats what it is! Also problem is, nobody knows all the words on both the ends, and you can have different stages of learning it, and the letters can look differently. Also, have you heard about french system of counting?

Its universal rule of math, not reality. There is nothing specific looking like 1 in nature. Its an idea behind a word also, like there is nothing specific in nature that looks like a moon. You can describe many moons using word moon, same as you can describe many ones using 1. Generalization and oversimplification! That is something humans are good with.

Humans develop tools to manipulate, measure, discover world, not math. Math is a descriptive language used in software in those tools and the readout is shown in some numbers.

There was a time nobody was even talking about bosons, or some other model of atom than that of Bohr. Bosons were here, or something that we interpret as it. Currently what we know will most probably change, at least a bit, so dont become attached to it.

Have you listened to Stephen Wolfram and his Wolfram Physics project? I know is a controversial figure, but he has some very nice remarks about the role of math.

A lot of the power of math in physics comes from analysis, ART, QM it’s all full of integrals. What analysis does is basically it allows us to do shortcuts. It’s like a cheat code that allows you to predict how a certain system will look at a certain point in the future without actually having to trace every step.

But not all of physics is like this. A popular example is obviously the name of this thread, the three body problem. We don’t really have an analytic shortcut for that (at least not that I know of). There are many systems, probably the majority of things in the universe, to know how they evolve you have to run the system, there is no shortcut.

It’s like there are irreducible computations running everywhere, but we discovered this pockets of reducabilty like analysis, where we can cheat and jump ahead, and that is where the major progress happened, and what an insanely big junk of physic models are currently utilizing to model the universe.

So what he tries to do now is an attempt to base all this physics on a computational foundation. Instead of Axioms he starts with the simplest objects, a hypergraph that gets updated and they completely build their physics model from there. And apparently they had some successes and got the ART and even QM out of it. They even have some neat model of QM where it’s basically a space of all possible updates and weird stuff like the measurement problem is just a consequence of the observers reference frame, exactly like in ART with space

What you just wrote there is already an abstraction, it’s already a tool, a rather advanced concept you learned. 10+10=20 does not exist in nature.

Numbers are an abstract concept of sets of objects. Numbers don’t exist in nature, we invented numbers to easier reason about set of objects.

Imagine it like this. Before someone came up with the abstract concept of numbers, shepherds put a stone for every sheep they had into a little sack. At end of the day they took out a stone for every sheep they had and then they knew if all sheep where accounted for.

That is how everyone of us would count if we did not learn the abstract concept of numbers. Think about it. We created a language that assigned symbols to sets 5 = ( . . . . . ) and defined operations and rules that let us reason about this sets of objects and instead of counting we can just apply the rule we know works and arrive at the conclusion.

And that is at the very deepest level of math. All the rest is even more abstraction on top of that, like piles of abstractions we proved and created because they are useful.

But it’s a tool created by us. There is no math in the universe, but tools like math lets us look at the immense complexity of the universe trough the lens of abstractions that break down this complexity in digestible pieces for our very limited brain.

My point wasn’t to calculate a precise mass/weight, it was to point out that a precise mass/weight already exists for the earth even though we don’t know it.

If we look at Jupiter for example, due to it’s mass/weight analysis tells us that for millions of years it has attracted asteroids and comets which would have otherwise hit the earth. The reason it has been doing this for millions of years is because it has a higher mass than the earth (even though we don’t know what the mass is exactly) and larger more faster moving comets or asteroids would have destroyed the earth because they can’t escape jupiter’s gravity wake.

Now, we understand that the larger the mass of the body the more gravity it will exert on reality. My point is that the mass/weight existed long before humans learned to refer to the mass/weight simply because it is fact that jupiter has played a big brother type of role within the solar system where it forces large fast moving objects to hit it instead of us, this is maths in action my friend.