*related=https://videosift.com/video/Eulers-Disk-The-Spinning-Coin-That-Spins-For-Minutes
*related=https://videosift.com/video/Eulers-Disk
*related=https://videosift.com/video/Euler-s-Disk

This is an Euler's Disk has been added as a related post - related requested by mxxcon on that post.

This is an Euler's Disk has been added as a related post - related requested by mxxcon on that post.

This is an Euler's Disk has been added as a related post - related requested by mxxcon on that post.

Euler's Disk - The Spinning Coin That Spins For Minutes has been added as a related post - related requested by mxxcon.

Euler's Disk has been added as a related post - related requested by mxxcon.

Euler's Disk has been added as a related post - related requested by mxxcon.

Your video, Euler's Disk - The Spinning Coin That Spins For Minutes, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#Science_and_the_scientific_method

"In science, Occam's Razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[8][9] In physics, parsimony was an important heuristic in the formulation of special relativity by Albert Einstein,[36][37] the development and application of the principle of least action by Pierre Louis Maupertuis and Leonhard Euler,[38] and the development of quantum mechanics by Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg and Louis de Broglie.[9][39] In chemistry, Occam's Razor is often an important heuristic when developing a model of a reaction mechanism.[40][41]"

You are pointing the finger and saying I am ignorant yet you dismiss Occams razor in ignorance of its application to the scientific method. According to the principle of parsimony I do have an argument but it appears you can't be bothered to consider what I am saying. This is an intellectual laziness which seems to typify our culture today. It is an apathetic reasoning process that sees everything through the lens of stereotypes and generalities. If I am wrong about that I will happily admit it, and you still have ample opportunity to establish otherwise.

^ You can make all of that make sense by simply shifting your epistemological position to the only ones which truly make sense i.e. phenomenology &/or perspectivism.

To rephrase that in less impenetrable terms:
"Materialism" (or in your case I assume "Scientific Materialism") that is to say 'matter is primary', from a philosophers POV is a deeply flawed assumption. Flawed because there appears to be not one experience in human history that did not occur entirely within the mind.
When one see's say a Dog, one only ever experiences the images and sensations occurring within ones mind. You don't see the photons hitting your retina, only the way your mind as interpreted the data.

However the opposite position "Idealism" (mind is primary) is also fundamentally flawed in the exact opposite way. If our minds are the only "real" things then where exactly are they? And how do we even derive logic and reason if there is not something outside of ourselves which it describes? etc. etc.

Philosophers like Husserl, Heidegger and Sartre' got around this by defining a new category, "phenomena". We know for certain that "phenomena" exist in some sense because we experience them, the categories of mind and matter then become secondary properties, both only existing as definitions we apply retrospectively to experiences. i.e. stuff happens and then our brains kick in and say "that happened because of X because in the past X has preceded similar experiences" or "that thing looks like other examples of Y so is probably Y".

The problem then is that this appears to come no closer to telling us what is objectively happening in the universe, it's more like linguistic/logical housekeeping. The phenomenologists and existentialists did a superb job of clearing away all of the old invalid baggage about how we try to describe things, but they did little or nothing to solve the problem of Kants "nouminal world" (i.e. the "real" stuff that we are experiencing by simulation in our minds).

Its stumped philosophers for centuries as we don't appear to have any way to ever get at this "nouminal" or "real" world we naturally assume must exist in some way. But....

I reckon ultimately one of the first western philosophers in history nailed the way out 3000 or so years ago. Pythagoras said "all is number" and due to the work of Euler, Riemann and Fourier in particular I think we can now make it stick. (yeh its turning into an essay sorry )

Without wishing to go deep into a subject you could spend half your life on; Fourier transforms are involved in signal processing. It is a mathematical means by which spatio-temporal signals (e.g. the vibration of a string or the movement of a record needle) can be converted with no meaningful loss of information into frequency (analog) or binary (digital) forms and back again.

Mathematically speaking there is no reason to regard the "signal" as any less "real" whether it is in frequency form or spatio-temporal form. It is the same "signal", it can be converted 100% either direction.

So then here's the biggie: Is there any reason why we could not regard instrumental mathematical numbers and operations (i.e. the stuff we write down and practice as "mathematics") and the phenomena in the universe they appear to describe. I.e. when we use man made mathematical equations to describe and model the behavior of "phenomena" we experience like say Physicists do, could we suggest that we are using a form of Fourier transform? And moreover that this indicates an Ontological (existing objectively outside of yourself) aspect to the mathematical "signals".

Or to put it another way, is mathematics itself really real?

The Reimann sphere and Eulers formula provide a mathematical basis to describe the entirety of known existence in purely mathematical terms, but they indicate that pure ontological mathematics itself is more primary than anything we ever experience. It suggests infact that we ourselves are ultimately reducible to Ontological mathematical phenomena (what Leibniz called "Monads").

What we think of as "reality" could then perhaps be regarded as non dimensional (enfolded) mathematics interacting in such a way as to create the experience of a dimensional (unfolded) universe of extension (such as ours).

(R = distance between two points)
Enfolded universe: R=0
Unfolded universe: R>0

Neither is more "real", they are simply different perspectives from which Ontological mathematics can observe itself.

"Reality": R>=0

I've explained parts of that poorly sorry. Its an immense subject and can be tackedled from many different (often completely incompatible) paradigms. I hope at the very lest I have perhaps demonstrated that the Holographic universe theory could have legs if we combine the advances of scientific exploration (i.e. study of matter) with those of Philosophy and neuroscience (i.e. study of mind & reason itself). The latest big theory doing the rounds with neuroscience is that the mind/consciousness is a fractal phenomenon, which plays into what I've been discussing here more than you might think.

Then again maybe you just wrote me off as a crackpot within the first few lines "lawl" etc..

>> ^HaricotVert:

Vi Hart gives me such a math hardon


She totally euler's your identity?

I can't NOT do a run-down of the subtitles. They're just too goddamn funny.

"The justified and has charged up former C_i_a_ officer
are john and tour kalo
steeple player is said that right
arbiter reiterates problems they write me anyway out with a espionage act
now that's a very very serious charge you know that before president obama
theres only been
three instances of the united states government
charging someone with the espionage act
forgiving excessive information
as they claim
this former cia officer there
and
six different tastes
that is special on it because president or bob promise to
i'd be air and friend to whistle blowers
entrance passage
there's something wrong in our government he reported he was going to
help you
doesn't look like he's albania
so whatever sag ideal while he talked about
how we want a quart of people
and how was torture
now he thought it was justified even did an interview on sixty minutes
and said
uh that he thought it worked the underplayed amount of george but we did
but do you happen to call it torture
now they look at that missy i did not like that
furthermore there was a two thousand a new york times story which invade
believe he is the source of the dam
proving at and so they well okay i got past and i jack I guess you're you
know
there was one of the toughest laws we have
and we're company get your are part of the spaces
because it's if
here's a great irony of that
if you actually do the waterboarding if you didn't torture
you got no punishment whatsoever
now present all mama claimed it was torture and ridiculous and he says he
stopped at
as ridiculous in a squabble right
is torture
but he didn't always scot-free
the president will not
look backward euler look for work
if you report the waterboarding the torture
espionage act
when I play with a look back work
all its to protect the C_i_a_'s after this thing
protect that's the bush administration
error and dick cheyney that order that torture well then of course you look
backward and in fact the new uh... looked very deep into you know us info about
charging
the defense lawyers at one time all back
our whole system is based on
an adversarial system
where somebody gets a defects
now one of the press uh.. tactics was to look at that
interrogators
and try and determine who they were so they can bring them into the court
and say eight use them as witnesses
because the guys who aren't going to have a bank
that are face execution
listen when you get an executed we should be able to call the witnesses

That's not even half the video. But I laughed my ass off.

Of course, if you wish to know why some of Earth's most magnificent structures (like grouped mountain ranges--looking at them from over head) many look peculiarly like pieces of fractals, then spend some time looking into the "Golden Number" or the natural number, but as science refers to it: Euler's number (the constant: e). It is related to a great many interesting things.

Beyond seeding fractals, it is used in math a lot, Golden Spirals and the Fibonacci Sequence are part of it. It can be seen in nature in many places: those mountain ranges, trees, our cardiovascular system, and even shells. It's one of the most interesting constants we have and it is related to many structures that occur naturally. Which sometimes makes it appear that natural origins--structurally--may have their beginnings through this number via things like the Golden Spiral and of course fractals.

Just a little information to help make a piece like this seem even more impressive.

>> ^Ornthoron:

>> ^rottenseed:
>> ^Ornthoroneriously, read the manifesto. Area = (tau/2) r^2 actually makes more sense, too.

Dude that manifesto is fucking hilarious...all of this math knowledge spouted and all for what? All because he doesn't like doing fractions??? Really??? Yea let's rewrite all the math texts since before Princia Mathematica just so you can use tau/6 instead of pi/12. That's useless knowledge wasted on somebody with no common sense. Furthermore, it adds unnecessary fractions in things like Euler's identity and like what you just pointed out, the area of a circle.

Well, it's certainly unrealistic to expect that we can get rid of pi in favour of tau after over two millenia of pi's monopoly. But one can dream, can't one?


What I'm saying is that there's no reason to get rid of it...why's it worth trading 2*pi here for tau/2 over there?

>> ^rottenseed:

>> ^Ornthoroneriously, read the manifesto. Area = (tau/2) r^2 actually makes more sense, too.

Dude that manifesto is fucking hilarious...all of this math knowledge spouted and all for what? All because he doesn't like doing fractions??? Really??? Yea let's rewrite all the math texts since before Princia Mathematica just so you can use tau/6 instead of pi/12. That's useless knowledge wasted on somebody with no common sense. Furthermore, it adds unnecessary fractions in things like Euler's identity and like what you just pointed out, the area of a circle.

Well, it's certainly unrealistic to expect that we can get rid of pi in favour of tau after over two millenia of pi's monopoly. But one can dream, can't one?

>> ^Ornthoron:

Seriously, read the manifesto. Area = (tau/2) r^2 actually makes more sense, too.


Dude that manifesto is fucking hilarious...all of this math knowledge spouted and all for what? All because he doesn't like doing fractions??? Really??? Yea let's rewrite all the math texts since before Princia Mathematica just so you can use tau/6 instead of pi/12. That's useless knowledge wasted on somebody with no common sense. Furthermore, it adds unnecessary fractions in things like Euler's identity and like what you just pointed out, the area of a circle.

(A small addition that has a lot to do with the last part of the original Blog Post.)

The one I posted directly above has some small changes for easier reading. I still need to do a little idea storming at the end as I'm VERY unsure whether the forces at play would still hold the Universe together.

It's more likely that the "big rip" will win out, even over the weak and strong nuclear forces (which is a lot of energy considering that it just did it to the UNIVERSE! heh...

I also need to see, particularly under what conditions the Universe might start to be "swayed" by quantum fluctuations, the same you see at the beginning of the big bang, that had a lot to do with how matter and other non-baryonic (that 's the official way of saying, matter that isn't like the stuff we know: like Dark Matter) matter set up (when you look at the cosmic background radiation (CBR) map, the "hot vs. cold") topography wise; it's why the Universe isn't a smooth uniform (or symmetric) balanced energy place; which you would expect from a perfect explosion like the Big Bang, but the CBR shows that the explosion was far from being smooth and quite the opposite.

It's what gives us our galaxies and also where they're at. The question besides how gravity is related to the quantum mechanics realm; as we have NO theory (with a few hypotheses that almost all have to do with string theory: strings of energy in different "dimensional" configurations; like one dimension, two dimension (planer), etc..."; these little strings vibrate, kind of like a standing wave and intercede and connect into our dimension: think of a plane with limited dimensions on the x & y, then imagine a line intersecting in two spots--one coming "up" the other going "down", but the second connection BARELY hits the plane.

On our end we see a photon that appears to act like a particle and wave in whichever situation it's facing.Normally it may only act like a wave the first spot, but since the energy of this photon is a gamma ray (increased energy) it caused the string to vibrate more forcefully. Thus, connecting it to our "planer" observable space-time. But, when the energy decreases, the photon's string is pulled back and all of a sudden it only displays one of the two characteristics. Baryonic matter works the same way in String Theory, but requires VERY hard math to solve the discrepancies (one of the reasons some people hate it as it isn't a so called "elegant solution"; everything we've seen so far, while hard to grasp initially--tends to, "so far", work out to be very easy solutions).

However, string theory has described many things we have found out in the particle world very well. Another idea (which is more elegant and to me, the presence of "e" in it is very, intriguing) is E8 Symmetry. It's also a mathematical solution, so don't expect too much straight forward dialogue in it's definition. However, remember that Euler's number/The "Natural" number, "e", is related to a great many things already present in everyday life and the formation of almost everything from: you neural pathways, your circulatory system, clouds, trees/plants, sea shells, galaxies, fractals, and much much more...

What I need to know his how baryonic matter would react given a scenario were everything is ripped apart. Specifically, it's quantum mechanical reactions. Does it go into a "quantum critical state" (a fancy way of saying "pseudo"-superposition), as in this state it would still behave in a quantum mechanical way according to superposition. This leads to the last question. If it does enter superposition, is it possible that it may become "uncoupled, disassociated, or dis-entangled" from other matter, even non-baryonic matter like dark matter.

Anyway, just a bit more for what I wrote. More of me, thinking aloud, as I've read a lot about entanglement and superposition, but in this scenario I'd mot likely need an expert to think about it and give me an answer. Math will most likely be useless till we have some hard information on it; right now it's just pure observation. Then you may be able to commit yourself to some math that would show (or at least predict) what most likely would occur.

Another long ponderment! I'm keeping that word so screw you Merriam-Webster!