[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 3 KB, 225x225, Optimum.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12029301 No.12029301 [Reply] [Original]

I saw a Thread saying /sci solved physics with something called Optimum Theory.

If this is true, why do I have to pay on some shady ass website to read about it?

Also what predictions/solutions to current physics problems does this theory have?

To me it seems like some dude made some shit in excel and all it does is make a "particle" on its own.

blow my mind /sci

>> No.12029311

>>12029301
U = E /S

>> No.12029314

>>12029311
yes I saw that too

could you explain the implications to a brainlet like myself?

>> No.12029317

Fuck you Gary!!!!

>> No.12029323

>>12029317
what?
I am not Gary, so please explain the meme
I am ashamed of beeing a newfag

>> No.12029439

>>12029323
Every few months this retard tries to shill his dogshit website by spamming the board.

>> No.12029442

>>12029301
so just another schizo theory? got it

>> No.12029450

>>12029439
so all those replies were him?

>> No.12029496

>>12029450
I replied to his other thread and assume he’s a nutcase

>> No.12029613

>>12029301
Information about it is sketchy at best, which leaves me dubious. I've tried to recreate it, and it doesn't do an awful lot. Until I know more, my conclusion is that it is essentially no different from other cellular automata that have existed for decades:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyZUzakG3bE

>> No.12029764

>>12029301

Optimum Theory is free at www.optimuminstitute.org/scholarship

>> No.12029780

>>12029450
>so all those replies were him?

Gary samefags a lot but the first time the theory was posted here it pretty legitimately turned into 5 month long thread with 11 editions or some shot like that

>> No.12029801

>>12029780
i like the concept and all, but why push it like a cult? take money to watch a shitty video of trippy excel sheets

>> No.12029826

>>12029764
the second thing you learn at this scholarship is about conciousness and shit
Doesnt seem shady at all

>> No.12029948

>>12029801

I mean idk, but I'll play devils advocate. To make money so he can work on the ideas more? Aren't all schools like cults in a way?

>> No.12029952

>>12029826
>the second thing you learn at this scholarship is about conciousness and shit
>Doesnt seem shady at all

Hahaha it gets worse. The last 15 minutes are about mind uploading and being immortal. But I love this schizo shit

>> No.12030133

What is Gary's theory? Did he hypothesize a new particle?

>> No.12030298

>>12030133
>What is Gary's theory? Did he hypothesize a new particle?

Universe is an infinite real-number matrix that conserves its sum 0 value by simultaneously and symmetrically averaging the magnitudes of its local neighborhoods. I.e. U = E / S. The Universe is EnergyMatter dividing across Space. When computed using a cellular automaton it produces pixelated imagery that approximates the 4 fundamental forces of physics.

>> No.12030301

>>12030133
https://youtu.be/WuXCS_K_8qM

>> No.12030316

>>12029311
>>12030298
Hey Gary, fuck you!!!!

>> No.12030454

Optimum Theory predicted this 2 years ago. https://phys.org/news/2020-08-universe-lookeven-cosmologists.html

>> No.12030549

>>12030298
>using a cellular automaton it produces pixelated imagery that approximates the 4 fundamental forces of physics
By emergence is it possible to create galaxies in this automaton?

>> No.12030609

>>12030549

Yes, of course. Would just take a massive processor.

>> No.12030661

>>12030609
how good is this "automaton" in "aproximating" classical physics?
because you are just integrating some quantum field

>> No.12030695

>>12030661

Depends on how much processing you throw at it. If you are calculating something like the velocity of a missile you would want to use a more traditional, targeted equation for that, but theoretically if you had infinite processing power you could use the automaton to generate a new Universe a la Elon Musk's simulation theory, and no surprise then that exploring those kind of ideas is what Optimum Theory is all about!

>> No.12030708

>>12030661

Optimum Theory will become more and more useful as we get deeper into the singularity, quantum computing, "perfect" simulations, mind uploading, etc...

>> No.12030749

>>12030133
>What is Gary's theory?
there is no theory at all

>> No.12030840

>>12030695
no you don't get it

i mean how much does nature emerge from your excel sheet
if you would do it in python on some obscene server would you see real physical quantities, like the charge of an electron
i saw something similar from wolfram but he did a much better analisys

>> No.12030859

>>12029948
Nah, cuz at the height of the Optiumum Theory memery I was trying to get Gary to sell OT t-shirts with the logo from the OP. Pretty sure it’s just schizo being schizo

>> No.12030926 [DELETED] 
File: 1.23 MB, 1920x951, screenshot-https_www.optimuminstitute.org_forum_the-optimum-institute_i-think-i-just-answered-the-last-remaining-major-question-why-something-instead-of-nothing-2020.05.24-19_17_27.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12030926

>>12030859
Don't worry, he took your advice for a day or two.

>> No.12031101

Why doesn't Optimum Theory have an optimum uptake narrative?

>> No.12031146

I'm not Gary, but this guy did some serious work.

I'm more of an Excel person, than a big brainer.

My last job was 90% Excel, so I know a thing or two, because I've seen a thing or two.

His personal ideology might be a little strange, and his approach to the situation is unique...

But I think there's something to how his theory actually functions.

>> No.12031170

>>12030840
>no you don't get it
>i mean how much does nature emerge from your excel sheet
>if you would do it in python on some obscene server would you see real physical quantities, like the charge of an electron
>i saw something similar from wolfram but he did a much better analisys

I thought I answered the question. Yes, you would see the charge of an electron. You can already see electrons and charge in the automaton when being processed on a home computer. The more powerful the computer the more you can simulate. In theory, the equation is perfect, it's just a matter of computing it, and how much computation you are willing to throw at it. Think of it like the movie The Matrix, how much of the Matrix could be computed with a desktop versus a super computer?

>> No.12031177

>>12031146
>But I think there's something to how his theory actually functions.

Agreed.

>> No.12031187

>>12031146
>His personal ideology might be a little strange, and his approach to the situation is unique...

Gary's ideology is pretty common among silicon Valley technocrats. Strict computational materialist, but still respecting his heritage, believes in an eventual singularity and "mind upload" etc...

>> No.12031196

>>12031187

Gary's basically a Peter Theil style technocrat. Gary even got retweeted by Andrew Yang last week.

>> No.12031203
File: 25 KB, 632x308, received_631222570859784.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12031203

>>12031196

>> No.12031230

>>12031203

I have it on good authority that Gary will bring glory to Sci in the next song that future president Andrew Yang will definitely see

>> No.12031540

>>12030298
What are the units for energymatter/space? Have you proposed a way to test the theory experimentally?

>> No.12031545
File: 23 KB, 326x323, 1597988400604.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12031545

>>12029301
>another Gary thread

>> No.12031570

>>12031540
>What are the units for energymatter/space? Have you proposed a way to test the theory experimentally?

Planck lengths. Ultimate test of validity would be comparing the results to experimental particle data, etc... Would require funding.

>> No.12031578 [DELETED] 

>>12029439
Why are you so "angry grrrr" because of him?

>> No.12031594
File: 90 KB, 900x722, 1597389815907.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12031594

>>12029764
Wait how is there an institute for this when the guy is just some teacher who severely lacks funding?

>> No.12031761

>>12031594
It's like a correspondence institution.

Gary has a small select following.
Not exactly a cult, just people that believe his work is accurate.

>> No.12031883

>>12031761
Kind of a shame he goes on to rant about his interpretation of individuality, consciousness and the definition of life though.
Simulating the smallest coherent quanta of spacetime and seeing the fundamental laws emerge from the simple rule of averaging energy levels with neighboring cells is kind of interesting of an interesting attempt at a unified theory. It implies that these, erm, "Planck pixels" being entangled to their neighbors is what makes the universe tick, which is consistent with some other thoughts on the matter from actual scientists with funding.
>How to Discredit Your Own Hypothesis with Tangentially Related Bullshit 101

>> No.12031951

>>12031883
>Kind of a shame he goes on to rant about his interpretation of individuality, consciousness and the definition of life though.
>Simulating the smallest coherent quanta of spacetime and seeing the fundamental laws emerge from the simple rule of averaging energy levels with neighboring cells is kind of interesting of an interesting attempt at a unified theory. It implies that these, erm, "Planck pixels" being entangled to their neighbors is what makes the universe tick, which is consistent with some other thoughts on the matter from actual scientists with funding.

Gary is clear that it all "could be wrong in part or total" though, and if your the kind of person who would get turned off by discussion of consciousness, the material origin or life and social philosophy then would you really be interested in a strictly material explanation for fundamental physics anyway?

>> No.12031955

>>12031951

Gary is clear that it all "could be wrong in part or total" though, and if you're the kind of person who would get turned off by discussion of consciousness, the material origin of life and social philosophy then would you really be interested in a strictly material explanation for fundamental physics anyway?

>> No.12031962

>>12031951
>>12031955
Doesn't matter what kind of person any given individual in the audience is. Tying your own philosophical extrapolation and interpretation of implications so close to the base topic takes away from the potential reach of the original message.

>> No.12031970

>>12031955
>>12031962
It just opens up the discussion way too much for the logical fallacy of "if you support X, you must believe in Y too, because the main proponent of the idea also does and proclaims that X leads to Y".

>> No.12031979

>>12031970

Understood. I suppose that is why Gary also made this video that doesn't even mention Optimum Theory, and simply explains the automaton straight forward. https://youtu.be/WuXCS_K_8qM

I'm going to paraphrase what Gary told me, he basically said he wanted The Optimum Institute to be a community for people who fell through the cracks. Jews are strict materialist these days, basically atheists in fact, but they don't allow anyone in who is not blood. Meanwhile Christians allow anyone in, but generally do not allow materialist discussion when it comes to fundamental reality, life or consciousness. Meanwhile atheists do not have any kind of ethical requirements and Humanists do not have any kind of scientific requirements. "Optimism" as The Optimum Institute calls its members, corrects those gaps.

>> No.12031983

>>12031979
>Optimism

Optimists, rather.

>> No.12031986

>>12031970
>>12031979

... he said he was trying to develop a theory of everything that was as philosophical, general and refined as Taoism, but completely grounded in science.

>> No.12031989

>>12031979
>>12031986

He also said he wanted to "burn any bridge that makes Optimism a cult or religion like scientology. It has to be strictly science and philosophy."

>> No.12032009

>>12031979
> I suppose that is why Gary also made this video that doesn't even mention Optimum Theory, and simply explains the automaton straight forward.
That's good. My point still applies to the main video on the website though. I would have some strictly theory related introductory video as the main attraction on the homepage, then have the "about Optimum Theory's implications upon philosophy and other fields" content as a separate package altogether.
^Saying this as someone who disagrees on many aspects of the further viewpoints demonstrated in there, but still find the discussion and potential of debate about the tangentially related topics useful. I also think the guy could be onto something big, possibly a very good lead on the path to a unified theory type of big, but see his thoughts about teleportation, identical copies and such completely ridiculous. I won't get into specifics about these points as I don't want to shit up the board further with stuff that annoys most posters here to begin with, but suffice to say that if I exist, then it is completely possible - and likely - that it would be a turn off for people who'd otherwise support his efforts when it comes to the science itself.

>> No.12032012

>>12032009
>I won't get into specifics about these points as I don't want to shit up the board further with stuff that annoys most posters here to begin with, but suffice to say that if I exist, then it is completely possible - and likely - that it would be a turn off for people who'd otherwise support his efforts when it comes to the science itself.

I completely understand, and these are valid criticisms.

>> No.12032015

How to make this theory better:

-make a 3d model
-have somebody smart check the calculations with Von Neumann stability analysis
-desrcibe in deatil, how the 4 fundamental forces emerge
-model easy experiments and compare theory and messurement

>> No.12032017

>>12032009
>That's good. My point still applies to the main video on the website though. I would have some strictly theory related introductory video as the main attraction on the homepage, then have the "about Optimum Theory's implications upon philosophy and other fields" content as a separate package altogether.
>^Saying this as someone who disagrees on many aspects of the further viewpoints demonstrated in there, but still find the discussion and potential of debate about the tangentially related topics useful. I also think the guy could be onto something big, possibly a very good lead on the path to a unified theory type of big, but see his thoughts about teleportation, identical copies and such completely ridiculous. I won't get into specifics about these points as I don't want to shit up the board further with stuff that annoys most posters here to begin with, but suffice to say that if I exist, then it is completely possible - and likely - that it would be a turn off for people who'd otherwise support his efforts when it comes to the science itself.

I'm actually going to share all this on the Optimum Institute message board if that's alright.

>> No.12032018

>>12032017
Of course.

>> No.12032020

>>12032015
>How to make this theory better:
>-make a 3d model
>-have somebody smart check the calculations with Von Neumann stability analysis
>-desrcibe in deatil, how the 4 fundamental forces emerge
>-model easy experiments and compare theory and messurement

Agreed. I will share this on The Optimum Institute message board, if that's alright.

>> No.12032022

>>12032020
you have my blessing

>> No.12032387

>>12029301
looks like the logo of a sect
not really of a scientist

>> No.12033998

>>12032387
>looks like the logo of a sect
>not really of a scientist

I'm surprised you didn't recognize the logo as being the "capstone" of a Wolfram Sierpinski automaton.