/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2040249]

Hey /sci/.

I'm looking for a type of person. To be specific, I'm looking for the type of person who wants to learn everything, or at least everything useful. I don't mean some sort of trivial Wikipedia knowledge, either; I mean someone who honestly wants to know how and why everything works, in detail, so they can use it to their own advantage and for their own purposes, whatever they may be. I'm looking for this type of person because I am this type of person, and I'm terrified by the idea that I might be unique, and therefore alone.

I've tried looking for this kind of person in real life, but it's always ended in disappointment; everyone I meet, even if they're incredibly intelligent, seems to lack the self-confidence needed to become something truly great. They're either content with only excelling in one field, or with a near-religious sense of inferiority, don't believe they're capable at being good at everything, as though that's some sort of impossibility. It's disgusting.

That is why I'm posting this here, on /sci/. It's a last ditch effort to find someone, anyone, who believes that they are capable of becoming something more than the common human. And if there ever were a place to find such a person, I believe it would be here.

Don't disappoint me, /sci/.

(Pic somewhat related; It's a voltaic cell. I built one a few days ago, although it used a different reaction than the one in the picture.)

[Anonymous No.2040279]

I want to learn everything, but I am limited by my
intellectual capacity.

It is absolutely impossible to learn everything.
In essence the human mind is an organic computer
and like synthetic computers the brain is limited, it has a capacity.

tl;dr nice to meet you!

[OP No.2040295]

>>2040279
Learn the fundamentals and build upwards. There are a limited number of fundamentals, so it's entirely possible to know how everything works. You lack self-confidence.

[Anonymous No.2040335]

Hey OP, I'm like the person you described. I have an intense thirst for knowledge, even if it's not related to everyday life. I know things from all over the place. Nuclear Science, Anatomy,Sports, Mathematics, Mechanics, Engineering, Thermodynamics, Weaponry, Physics, Languages, Theology, Chemistry, Business Finance, Accountancy, Commerce, History, Economics, and even a little bit of Computer Science. The only area in which my knowledge is weak is Computer Science and Biology (slightly).
However, my only limitation is not processing capacity but memory space. I read toms of materials, but it takes a large amount of space to store, so in the long run I lose a bit of knowledge.
Glad to know there's someone else out there, that thirsts for knowledge as well.
If related my IQ's around 135. I'm studying to be a pilot. 19yo male anon btw.

[OP No.2040421]

>>2040335

I am so happy right now; so happy that you exist. Thank you.

Also, that's a good idea you had there, to talk about areas of knowledge and whatnot. As for myself:

Strengths:
Programming (the first skill I ever learned)
Digital electronics
Analog electronics
Robotics
Martial arts (been training for nine years now; currently a second degree black belt in Tang Soo Do)
Inorganic chemistry (not nearly to the extent of the previous skills)
Woodworking and construction (to a limited extent)
General machine/electronics repair

Weaknesses / Desired skills:
Mathematics
Organic chemistry
Biology
Machining/metalworking
Survival skills

My main strategy for retaining a lot of knowledge is to rely more on intuition than memorized facts. For example, for chemistry, I imagine how a molecule would act in different scenarios with different things bumping into it, or for electronics, I use things like the fluid flow/water hose analogy to get a rough idea of how to build something, then look up the equations when I need exact figures. I use a lot of spatial/visual processing, mainly.

Ironically, I totally fucked up my first year of college (majored in computer science, hated it) so now I'm going to tech school to be an electronics technician. 18 year old male, here.

[Anonymous No.2040882]

nice to meet you op,

my main interests are mathematics, metaphysics/esoteric, literature,art

i'm starting to branch out into physics,botany
the problem for me is keeping interested

i've been reading a few david suzuki books of late( i like his ideas and his writing style)

my weakness is working with hands(i need to be shown how to do things the first time round)

what is the water flow/hose analogy? to say im curious is an understatement

i was an accounting student(big regret), but changing to either bach mathematics or bach engineering

[Anonymous No.2041025]

You and I are intellectual opposites:

My strengths:

Oceanography
Ecology
Animal Behavior
Applied Mathematics
Statistics
Physics (mostly Fluid Dynamics)
Bioinformatics
O-chem

My weaknesses are everything you listed as strengths minus programing.

My goal is to become entirely proficient at molecular biotechnology (a subject that has nothing to do with my current research position) and eventually do my own experiments with genetic engineering.

[MusicPiggy !!iMBB9yBnJYG No.2041074]

You're not alone, OP, at all. Please don't fall into the pit of pretension and elitism that often comes with being different. There are people like you; I'm like you. And frankly, people like us are awesome. But there are other awesome people out there too.

[Anonymous No.2041096]

No OP, you are not alone by any means, I too am one of those people and thank you for making this thread to reveal some of us..

I had the same fear ;-;

[Anonymous No.2041144]

strengths:

quantum mechanics (non-relatistic, including application of)
statistical mechanics (non-eq. and eq)
thermodynamics
mathematical analysis (functional analysis/PDEs, complex analysis, numerical analysis, and everything that goes into these fields)
chemistry (inorganic and organic synthesis and physical chemistry thereof)
application of chemistry (hands-on synthetic techniques and analytical techniques)


weaknesses:

programming in any language but fortran
digital and analog electronics
classical dynamics (to a point)
classical electrodynamics
biochemical theory
biochemical laboratory techniques.
I can do quantum mechanics way the fuck better than classical mechanics.

way easier and more straightforward, as it is basically just pure math, whereas there is a lot more physics insight required for classical mechanics.


there are some things that spill over between disciplines:

dipole expansions (identical mathematics as the derivation of the angular momentum states of the H-atom, both are examples of solutions to the associated legendre differential equation, in units of Cos(theta) instead of x)


I implicitly understand lagrangian mechanics and hamiltonian mechanics from studies of statistical mechanics and quantum...


I can program DFT and UHF wavefunction minimization algorithms in fortran...

I can use the method of Green's Functions to solve any linear inhomogeneous 2nd order PDE...
cant do PCR or gel electrophoresis (though I could if i was taught).

dont know any advanced biochemical kinetics or mechanisms, because I havent studied them.

I havent studied advanced enzyme kinetics (which are the most advanced level of kinetic modelling that chemists learn).


I am a physical chemist.

[Anonymous No.2041186]

It's good to know that there are others with the same need to learn that I have. I'm college freshman going into game programming right now, and I know only a few others like this on campus (to be fair though, there's less than 1000 people here).

My strength seems to be mainly reasoning in general; I've always excelled in the sciences (math, physics, chem, programming, and the like), even without studying once in high school.

My weakness is anything that has to do with long pieces of writing >_>

[Anonymous No.2041190]

If I had money to waste I would have liked to get at least a bachelor's if not masters in math, then physics, then chemistry, then microbiology, after that I feel like I would be able to say that I knew how everything worked.

[Anonymous No.2041193]

Übermensch reporting in.
Theoretical Quantum Computation
Quantum Mechanics
Relativity
Nuclear Physics
Game Theory
Discrete and Statistical Mathematics
Neurocognition
Evolutionary Biology
Artificial Intelligence
Linguistics
Paraconsistent and Boolean Logician
Practitioner of the Dharmapada

Transhumanist dedicated to the design and development of cyberorganic life and man-machine metamorphosis.

[Anonymous No.2041222]

>>2041193
My weakness comes down to choice. We have potentially an infinite number of right ways to model everything and an infinite number of wrong ways to model everything.

I've hesitated on which formal systems to learn at times which, combined with complicating events and conditions of life, have slowed me from getting into the maths. This year, I found the tool that matches the conditions I set, so now I must build my provisional complete model which will necessitate carefully combing through much "higher" maths than I'm presently conversant in for parts.

I have trust issues regarding people, and I don't like social functions because I have almost no incentive to interact with most random people.

[:D !!s2uh28knASO No.2041261]

I have a double major EE / Math and a minor in Economics. Studying a PhD in Systems Dynamics

Im interested in
Western History
Biology
Evolution
Sociology
Systems Dynamics
Game Theory
Modeling
Developmental Biology
Nutrition and Fitness
Cosmology
Anthropology
History Science.
Environmental Science
Astronomy
Systems Theory
Information Theory
QM
AI
Psychedelic Drugs
Psychology
Ecology
Molecular Biology
Genetics

Im have fair knowledge in these fields at least enough to maintain a high quality conversation with a graduate or professors in the field

[Anonymous No.2041268]

Hmm OP, perhaps you're my man.
Dunno.

Like most here am interested in many things, mostly sciences.

But my main objective is to use math combined with sociology/psychology/biology, prog/hacking with politics and economy to attain power or/and make an underground group that will get money & power.

Its sounds too much but am sure i can do this if at least one person like me exists here and he believes that it can be done.

I mean srsly, have you even looked who are the people that rule the world today?
Fucktards with average mind and knowledge, the only difference is that they are super greedy and born in position that would allow them to do all that, i srsly think we could dominate economy and politics.

inb4 massive trolling/"get a life neckbeard etc"

[Anonymous No.2041269]

This is an impossible task for any modern human.

Perhaps in a few thousand years, when and if humanity evolves in its intellectual capacity to accomplish such a task.

[:D !!s2uh28knASO No.2041272]

>>2041261
lol sorry for the grammar of the last sentence. its kinda late and i wrote it in a rush

[Anonymous No.2041281]

>>2041269
The solution is simple, we buy ourselves another 1000 years, and we develop modules to upgrade our capabilities. Neural co-processors and direct man-machine interfaces are about five to ten years out.

If we can imagine it, we can build it.

[Anonymous No.2041290]

>>2041281
we can imagine time machines that go back in time, but going back in time is absolutely impossible.

Time travel in future, yes but just this one, going to past is not possible.

[Anonymous No.2041291]

Fucking me. The search for other people like this is the main reason I want to go to a God-tier university.

[Anonymous No.2041308]

>>2041290
You have an experiment in mind that disproves time-travel? Any specific theory or theorem? What exactly do you base that on? The fact that Einstein didn't like the idea of tachyonic solutions to his field equations, negative mass or energy, or imaginary physical quantities?

Tell me which side do you come down on:
"God plays dice"
"God does not play dice"
or "God plays dice, and they're loaded"

[Anonymous No.2041347]

>>2041290
Better yet, can you describe time formally? Can you give me a concise mathematically and logically consistent definition and a method of experimentally measuring this quantity?

Can you prove the past happened at all? Can you prove that what you remember is what happened for everyone else and not a localized phenomena to your specific experience?

The past is uncertain, the future more so. If you can't do these things, I don't think you should be claiming impossibility of the phenomena yet. You have insufficient evidence to back your claim and almost no theoretical ground on which to stand.

[4tran No.2041352]

As a theoretical physicist, I seek...
the one theory
to rule them all
(Laplace demon, etc)

[Anonymous No.2041360]

>>2041347

Ok you are right, i myself dont have evidence.
But.
It is because ALL physicists i asked said the same thing.
They say time travel in future can surely be done but not possible in the past, i dont remember their reasoning but when i heard them they seemed pretty legit and they made sense.

My opinion is because time itself doesnt exist, we get the illusion from interactions.

[Anonymous No.2041361]

Incidentally, I'm looking for a collaborator for an independent research project I'm working on. The goal is to rebuild special and general relativity, Gödel's proof, Turing's Thesis, Hutter's model of universal artificial intelligence, and the mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics in terms of quantum computation and complexity theory using a unique paraconsistent logic.

[Anonymous No.2041364]

>>2041352
"theory of everything"?

lrn2stringtheory

Though i hawking said there isn't one.

[Anonymous No.2041367]

>>2041360
Luke: I don't, I don't believe it.
Yoda: That is why you fail.

[Anonymous No.2041372]

>>2041364
He claimed that blackholes destroyed information. It's not likely the case. Between his claim and his work with challengers, they have devised blackhole thermodynamics and the holographic principle.

His modus operandi is to claim an impossibility as true and then work to disprove that claim like a scientist should.

[4tran No.2041374]

>>2041364
I'm aware of string theory.
I'm aware that the gauge group of the standard model embeds nicely into E8xE8.
Have they actually done so and calculated the ratio of the quark masses?
Has a string vacua been found that reproduces current physics?

I'm not saying it's a bad theory; I'm just saying that we need to learn more about it before declaring it a "theory of everything".

[Anonymous No.2041386]

Whatever floats your boat OP, I just don't see a point in spending a lifetime gaining knowledge, only to die and have worms eat my brain.

But hey, if you enjoy it, do what you want.

[Anonymous No.2041389]

>>2041374
It's took complex. Occam's razor says we should favor the theory with the least assumptions of the least length.

Quantum loop gravity has a better chance, and if I'm right about my research, it will fail for the same reason String theory fails. The logic of the system admits too much while restricting necessary properties.

[Adolf_Hipster No.2041391]

Modern Day Renaissance Man present!!!

I'm wanting to learn the following:

Biochemistry
Chemistry(Organic, Physical and Inorganic)
Biology
Become a master of literature(almost there, ALMOST)
Survival skills
Leadership skills
At least become a black belt in one martial arts
Learn one form of swordsmanship(fencing, kendo, etc)
Archery
Advanced Mathematics
Become at least a Polyglot in the following: German, Russian, Latvian, Spanish,Latin, Ancient Greek or Swedish(To be a superglot is the dream)
Have an understanding of intermediate Economics
An understanding of higher Politics

[Anonymous No.2041410]

To all the seekers in this thread:

Pick a topic from your lists and start studying them now. One may dream of doing all sorts of things, but the reality is we must start... and this in no way condemns the laundry lists and planning that you should probably do beforehand, but the litmus test of reality is going out and doing something about it : ).

tl;dr = As some East Asian (I recall it being Chinese) proverb says: Talk doesn't cook rice.

In light of our (hopefully) noble intentions, may we all work to better humanity, which means we have to change ourselves first.

[Anonymous No.2041414]

>>2041386
Well, that's rather pessimistic. Why bother doing anything at all at that rate? Kill yourself now, it's not like it'll matter right?

>_>

[Anonymous No.2041430]

>>2041352

God Most High?... It meets your criteria of "Ruling them All"

[Anonymous No.2041447]

Does anyone dislike improvement?

It seems to me that the only difference between yourself and other people would be what you consider useful.

[Anonymous No.2041458]

>>2041447
When it comes to knowing the way things work, we have an objective standard of useful vs useless knowledge. If knowing something implies a perspective that is in agreement with empirically observed reality or deduces the proof or disproof of some system for modeling reality, it is useful.

What do you think, OP?

[Anonymous No.2041462]

>>2041410
I only listed what I already am proficient in. Make no mistake, I have a list that I pick from. I have a plan that is operable over a hundred years formulated decade by decade with the greatest resolution on a year from now.

Experience:
Physics - twelve years+
Computer science - eight years
Biology - five to six years
Cognition - fourteen years
Logic and argumentation - ten years
Formal systems - six years

At the moment, everything is contingent on the results of my current research. If my intuition is correct, I will be onto the next phase of the plan. I will develop an intelligence on a chip before 2029.

You can only act upon what you know. Wisdom is eliminating the unnecessary.

[Anonymous No.2041471]

>>2041462
I sincerely wish to you the best of luck.

[Anonymous No.2041476]

>>2041458

How do you choose which model(s) to learn first? Surely you don't claim your education path to be objectively superior.

[4tran No.2041497]

>>2041389
I don't know much about LQG, but string theory doesn't actually require all that much more than QFT. As I learned it, we just promoted time to an operator, and just did path integrals over a rather simple relativistic string lagrangian. It can presumably be 2nd quantized.

If I'm not mistaken, LQG requires a rather drastic change to the structure of spacetime: I'm not even sure if it's a manifold anymore.

>>2041430
Invoking God is a trivial response. It tells us nothing.

[Anonymous No.2041500]

Spent my highschool days wasting the majority of my life away. But, I'm balls deep in a good amount of things now.
Main interests:
Physics
Chemisty
History - I spend most of my time studying both sides to a conflict. I've been interested from a young age in how the winner rapes the truth and how that's usually the version we go by today.
Government
Philosophy
Engineering - Actually taking a break from building a little rocket from scratch right now
Fitness
Martial arts
Weapons
And even more important - shooting them, at least once a week
Survival, I'm a minimalist backpacker
Gardening like a god damn professional
And hunting

Interests that I'm now getting into, but am still completely ignorant in:
Robotics
Programming
Artificial intelligence

[Anonymous No.2041501]

>>2041476
Superior in what sense? If we're going to talk about logical ordering and a quantifiable goal, I might have a case by which to argue it's superiority.

It is not an adaptive path if you want a social life or you want romance.

As for how do you choose? Unending tests of trial and error. Observing what works, what doesn't. I've converged on a very precise formulation of the scientific method.

I came to this method by attempting to apply socially-independent reasoning to problems of choice, decision, emotion, forensics, and deception detection.

[Anonymous No.2041515]

>>2041497

Invoking God, in one sense of the word, tells you everything, because the One and Only God would be anything and everything.

Though, admittedly vague, I can see where you are coming from when you say that, meaning something to the extent of "I can't work with that", I'd suggest that you could.

We already know its not possible to know everything, so why not first start by awakening your "heart"? Then you may know much more than simply what your intellect can teach you, no matter how powerful it is. Though it can always be both. Your massive understanding of the world can lead you to God, or your firm rooted belief, along with creation as a whole, can lead you to understanding. Either works, and sometimes neither works out, for some of us.

[Anonymous No.2041522]

>>2041515
On what basis do you claim the impossibility of mortal omniscience?

Your argument is a cop-out of intelligence, a grand apology for why ignorance is preferable to hard-earned knowledge and wisdom.

As for awakening the "heart"? I suppose you argue this on some kind of moralistic or ethical platform along the lines of every other major religion.

I prefer reason and free will. Choice and consequence. If we depend on our emotions, we are bound to them as fetters. We can not see reality for what it is and is not. You speak as if to sound profound, but what you speak is weak.

STFU and GTFO.

[Anonymous No.2041543]

try thinking instead of learning, learning is for losers who cannot think

[Anonymous No.2041555]

>>2041522
was going to make a new thread but why start a new shit storm, looking for decent arguments for why absolute morality doesn't exist. obviously it is not something that can be measured, so science has nothing to say about it? but I have basically asserted that immorality couldn't exist because the consequences are absurd for any moral direction other than good means behaving contradictorily.

[Anonymous No.2041558]

ITT: delusions....

[Anonymous No.2041560]

>>2041555
absolute immorality or morality ^

[Anonymous No.2041563]

>>2041555
Or morals are shit we made up, and they don' exist beyond us.

[Anonymous No.2041567]

nerds

[Anonymous No.2041571]

>>2041563
yes now give an argument to prove it.

[4tran No.2041640]

>>2041522
For some reason, certain types of religious/spiritual bantering resembles "speak as if to sound profound". Though careful analysis generally reveals such statements for the bullshit that they are, I find it strange that such statements can elicit an emotional response similar to "that's profound" (eg in multiple movies, there's this "ancient prophecy" crap).

>>2041555
How is morality in any way related to this thread? Unless you yourself is the strawman...

[Anonymous No.2041654]

What you don't know is that you are a lametart and probly a homosexual. Plus you know nothing and are looking for the same so /thread

[Anonymous No.2041671]

>>2041571
Um the relative morals norms between cultures, don't assume that the morals in "civilization" somehow are superior to every other culture. They exist because they are beneficial to to the state and or we were raised that way.

[Anonymous No.2041823]

>>2041640
>>what way is it related
this whole thread is not related to /sci/
>>2041671
thats not very convincing, just because we suck at forming morals doesn't mean objective ones might not exist right? I'm open to every avenue of approach but to me the most likely idea is that objective morality is useless (too many contradictions to produce a desired result).

[Anonymous No.2041889]

Another incredibly stupid, pointless thread.
Good luck OP, you'll need it.

[Anonymous No.2043755]

>You

[Anonymous No.2043873]

>>2041823
Here's the thing, empirically establish morality. Do it. Show me evidence for the existence of objective morality. Culturally-determined, socially-determined, individually-determined, subjective, or any logical fallacy-based theory of morality is out of bounds. First two are appeals to authority or argument ad populum.

As it stands, notions like meaning and purpose lack empirical standing. Ideologies are not falsifiable even in principle. The greek's notions of virtue? Not scientific. Emanuel Kant's notion of the categorical imperatives? Not scientific.

Point me to an empirical theory of ethics or morality in with scientific standing.

[Anonymous No.2043889]

L. Ron Hubbard was. I don't think he believed the Scientology bullshit either, he just got others to.

[Anonymous No.2043905]

OP, you want to learn everything useful?

Do you want to study the effects the soviet regime had on the geopolitical environment of its time? Do you want to study Sumerian artifacts to deduce how they lived their lives, what their religion was like, what their social structure was like, what kind of language they used, etc? Do you want to understand Wittgenstein's Tractatus, all his statements on the structure of language, then his refutation in his posthumous Philosophical Investigations, and the life experiences and studies that caused him to refute his work? Do you want to study the effects of the media on society-at-large? Do you want to learn how technology has shifted the popular paradigm away from a linear temporality into a very skewed nonlinear modern historical narrative?

I don't think you want to do what you claim you want to do.

[Anonymous No.2043912]

+1

[Anonymous No.2043919]

>>2043905
Fuckin' yeah

[Anonymous No.2043921]

HAY OP ARE YOU GOING TO LEARN ALL LANGUAGES TOO?
EVEN THE ARTIFICIAL STUPID LANGUAGES? ARE YOU GOING TO REVIVE THE ETRUSCAN LANGUAGE?

[Anonymous No.2043927]

Sounds like a wasted life

[Anonymous No.2043937]

welcome to 4chan

[Anonymous No.2043939]

Knowledge grows exponentially. Don't give up, OP.

[Anonymous No.2043940]

That describes me quite well.

I enjoy learning about mathematics, physics, biochemistry, chemistry, population genetics and CS. Economics, politics, history, government and philosophy are also interesting subjects. I like it all (except for women studies. fuck that), but mathematics is my favorite one.

My only limitation is lack of energy. Despite being very interested in all of these subjects, it still takes a lot of motivation to grab a book and read it. But I do push myself. Every now and then I get bursts of energy and I'll spend hours (sometimes days) reading about something.

[Anonymous No.2043973]

If you don't know welding and surfing, you don't know shit. I know everything ITT, plus welding and surfing. Bow at my feet, ye mortals.

[Anonymous No.2043996]

ITT: RIIGGGGGHHHTTT, everyone on /sci/ is a wannabe polymath.

So now explain why /sci/ is so shit.

[Anonymous No.2044034]

>>2040279
This. I learn as much as I can, but I have limits.

[Anonymous No.2044115]

>>2043996

Because it's impossible to learn every subject without some--or all--taking a hit.

[Anonymous No.2044523]

>>2044115
You better qualify that claim, son. It would seem currently impossible to learn every subject because...
Reality check: brain chips and petabyte storage devices. The whole of human history currently fits into about 15 petabytes of information.

We will have at current advancement, the ability to tap the whole of human knowledge in all of about twenty years.

[Anonymous No.2044540]

>>2044523

Learn everything there is to learn about quantum mechanics, then move on to immunology. By the time you're done with immunology, try to solve a very difficult problem in quantum mechanics. It will be more difficult than it was before. Put in some more distance in how much you've learned or through time and you'll no longer have the incredibly in depth skills and knowledge required.

As a person, you're going to forget things. That's just how it is.

[Anonymous No.2044718]

I don't understand your search OP. The fact is - there's plenty of people like you out there, but all of them are too busy to talk to random people on the internet or give a shit about anyone else at all.

i've got a friend who's like you, although I wouldn't really call him a friend, I just have all my studies with him. He never studies though, just get A's in all the courses (electrical engineering) but he's always too busy building stuff or inventing new machines to ever do anything other than learning new stuff. He recently built one of those cool wireless electricity things, he's using it to power a small lamp in his lab. It's kinda cool.

[Anonymous No.2044811]

>>2044540
What you are talking about is the forgetting curve. The rate at which human beings forget things.

You did not comprehend my point of contention. Man-machine interfaces and petabyte storage renders forgetting irrelevant.

As for learning quantum mechanics and moving to immunology? You take a performance hit which is dependent on the length of time from your latest refresh and whether or not you continue using quantum mechanics into immunology or not. If you "study" a subject by going to class doing homework and getting 'A's, yes you would forget pretty appreciably. My primary method of studying is highly associative and very much about the retention and comprehension of the domain of discourse. It's called mutual re-enforcement. When I learn about biology, I learn about quantum mechanics. When I learn about Trigonometry, I learn about mathematical logic. Etc.

They are all tied together. Locate the commonalities and build upon those then move out from there.

Claiming impossibility of something because you can't or haven't tried to do it yourself is argument from personal incredulity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_incredulity_.2F_Lack_of_imaginati
on

[Anonymous No.2045182]

>>2044811

Well, I guess if you are a robot, then you can remember anything.

You are not a robot.

You forget things.

[Anonymous No.2045307]

>>2045182
The question is do I forget things that matter? I can cut out whole swathes of things I know if I can compress those things to a couple of easily memorized, frequently employed principles or rules.

For instance, formal systems have shown me that Trigonometry is a subset of analytical geometry which itself is expressible as a model of computation. For my purposes, everything classically expressible reduces to a Boolean logic. Everything expressible in quantum mechanics reduces to a unique paraconsistent logic.

DNA is expressible in quantum mechanics.

I may not be able to recall every conversation I've ever had with everyone but doesn't eliminate the possibility of effectively learning everything useful. Therefore, your counter example isn't.

If you were "just saying you can't remember everything," so what?

Do I need to remember everything to know everything useful? Establish logical necessity of 100% permanence of memory for every domain of discourse.

[Anonymous No.2045329]

>>2045307

You seem to be limiting yourself to science.

Science isn't the only thing that's useful.

Let's use QM to relate to something simple like how to interact with people when you're trying to curry political favor.

[Anonymous No.2045340]

>>2045329
>politicians
>useful

[Anonymous No.2045342]

>>2045340

Didn't say politicians were useful, only that it's a skill that's useful to have.

And no matter where you end up working, there will be political power plays in some form, so the skill is useful to have no matter what it is you do.

[Anonymous No.2045434]

I'm that way OP but I'm a college freshman who doesn't know shit at the moment. I'm in the process of organizing my knowledge since I realized I was already forgetting things. I was thinking of making a thread on it, but anyway I'm using Anki, which is a spaced repetition (increasing intervals) flashcards system which is supposed to be a very efficient way of memorizing things. So far it's just math up to Calc 3, basic chemistry, and some Chinese characters from when I was (more) weeaboo.

I get the feeling I'm just one of many delusional aspies on 4chan, and I hear the amount of necessary information in a given field is growing exponentially while our lifespan isn't changing much. But I figure I'll be happier this way than not trying.

[meh !IDhmIZA.fg No.2045503]

>EDIT: Just scrolled down and realized a few people have already touched upon the broader perspective.

Why does everyone seem to keep limitations upon science and education? There are many useful pieces of information and skills that can be manipulated towards giving one an advantage; not just from science. Hell, even skills and information of music can be used to take advantage of others and be used for self-purposes. It doesn't necessarily have to be enclosed in the arts of science.
(1/?)

[meh !IDhmIZA.fg No.2045509]

Also, regarding OP's post;
I ask questions all the time. I wonder about why something works the way it does. I wonder why people react the way they do. I wonder how society works, how the functions of the human brain works. I wonder why, how, why, how and why. All the time.
I do have this 'thirst for knowledge'. I want to understand. Hell, fuck if I'm 'underage'. All of you were young once. We all learned the basics; basics that were once thrived to be understood. Doesn't mean that we are only enclosed with fundamentals and knowledge that is already preexisting. We want to understand and break down these things into a, 'precise' you might call it, knowledge of what it is.
Along with that, as OP mentioned;
>don't believe they're capable at being good at everything
This is based on perception. Perception changes. It always does; whether you like it or not, whether you know it or not. This is similar to saying it's impossible.
Hundred, or rather, thousands of years ago, people dreamed of flying. People had said it would be impossible, that we can't grow wings, or whatever it was that they believed in at that time. Well look at humans now. Was that impossible?
What about going back in time? Is that impossible? With our current knowledge, it is impossible, but it's the same as back then with airplanes. They didn't have that knowledge, so they did not believe in flying. As humanity progressed, and knowledge progressed, we learned how to create planes, something that basically is flight, or simulates self-flight. Going back in time may or may not be possible, but hundred of years from now, who knows; it may certainly be possible; we may certainly go back in time; but with the current mindset of people, how can something be impossible, when you don't understand it?
That's what we do.

[meh !IDhmIZA.fg No.2045515]

Thrive to understand.
Understand to apply.
Apply to become.

We are humans. As far as I see it, in our lifetime, we can not understand everything. We don't have the capacity of doing it. We can't live forever to do it. But we reproduce. We know what people have discovered hundreds of years ago. We base the formations of our understandings on them, and build up from it or create something new. We're living now. Let's fucking do something that can change the mindsets of people. Understand things we've not comprehended with. Learn to apply it, become it, and continue the progression of knowledge with it.

But fuck. Maybe we can do it all in our lifetime. Prove me wrong, that it's impossible to understand everything in this generation.
Do something about it, spur us with action and not words. Maybe once we do, we will understand everything.

Holy fuck was this shit long.
>inb4peoplepostlaughinggirls.jpgatme.
>myfaceifithappens.

[Anonymous No.2045549]

>>2040249
You're already an expert in being a fag, so you've got that part down.

[Anonymous No.2045671]

>>2045329
Sorry science takes up most of the empirical studies. Sorry science and mathematics is the foundations of *all* reasoning. Don't like it? Deal with it.

Neurocognition, behavioral economics, psychohistory, quantum computation, and game theory provide the framework for currying political or social favor if I wished for such things. Money and fame can not buy omniscience, so I'm not interested.

According to the ten thousand hour theory of learning and the sixty hour a week principle, we have about 30 things we can absolutely master in a hundred years time. I don't waste my time with things which do not contribute to knowing 99% of the universe.

[Anonymous No.2045673]

>>2045509
>Hell, fuck if I'm 'underage'.
>my face

but cool post bro. I get discouraged a lot but I guess when you think about it many important innovations aren't really that complicated. People trying to figure it out just get some insight for whatever reason. Kepler, for example, was a delusional christfag obsessed with his idea of the solar system being based on perfect solids. But eventually he formulated his laws which are so concise yet so illuminating.

I'm partway through Cosmos and Feynman Lectures as per /sci/'s recommendation. I was really inspired by pure science at first but Feynman kind of bummed me out just now talking about the different levels of understanding. It seems there are so many layers of abstraction in so many fields that one is useless in terms of another. I thought a broad understanding would be really helpful but maybe it's just a waste of effort.

[Anonymous No.2045693]

>>2045671
>psychohistory

lol it worked for Paul Krugman I guess.

I'm aware about this 10000 hours of deliberate practice stuff, but I think it's more about practicing skills, not attaining knowledge. Where should I start learning about learning? It seems learning to learn efficiently should be the first step if you want to be lolomniscient.

[Anonymous No.2045722]

>>2045671

>game theory
>implying game theory is useful for anything

lol wat

>thousand hour theory of learning

pop-science. confirmed for talking out of your ass.

[Anonymous No.2045732]

>thousand hour theory of learning

i am a master-bater

tehe

[Anonymous No.2045772]

>>2045722
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Ericsson
http://www.coachingmanagement.nl/The%20Making%20of%20an%20Expert.pdf
Cited by Malcom Gladwell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgetting_curve
http://archives.igda.org/articles/erobinson_crunch.php

These cover the basics of productivity and effortful practice.

[Anonymous No.2045790]

I think everyone here in /sci/ believes they are you OP.

[Anonymous No.2045792]

I am that king of person. What now?

[Anonymous No.2045793]

>>2045792
Kind********* for fuck's sake.

[Anonymous No.2045798]

>>2045671

Oh, so you wish to master 30 things, not everything? And if you have to devote so much time to studying, why are you on 4chan?

[Anonymous No.2045807]

Damnit OP
You've done something horribly excellent here.
I say it's "horribly excellent" because it's horrible that this thread will die when I see so much potential for the world's first "mega individual learning convention", and all it takes is a small location either online or in the real world in which each of us can network with one another, develop and refine our knowledge and skills from one another whilst teaching the skills required to be great.
We COULD be something truly special, but I doubt any of you have the balls to attempt to formulate this mass empire of genius.

Put it this way, in front of you is the door to all the learning you require, consider it as a mountain of gold just waiting for you to grasp. But you're too unbelievably weak of mind or persistent enough to want to take it away piece by piece.
I'm filled with great melancholy as I can envision the value involved in gathering all those who want to learn, and together solving life's mysteries whilst providing each other with fundemental values and teaching, only to have it all go to naught when this thread 404's.

Fuck you OP, if I knew who you were I'd care to learn from you and teach you what I know. But for the moment I despise you for waving the potential for greatness infront of my face when I know it's worthless to try and grasp it.

That being said, I too have a tendency to want to know all I can and everything I can. I'm rather interested in the sciences, and all things. I am also reasonably good at teaching others through visual and spatial projections. There are easy ways to remember things, and I would have loved to provide others with knowledge that they will struggle to forget

[Anonymous No.2045830]

>>2041074

>don't fall into elitism
>And frankly, people like us are awesome

I have a friend that's like you, a know-it-all blowhard that constantly spouts random bullshit and says "Oh, you do know what that means don't you?" and then expects you to give a graduate-level dissertation on whatever topic pops into his head at whatever random bullshit time of the day.

I him like the plague. So does other people.

[Anonymous No.2045925]

>You lack self confidence.

[Anonymous No.2045933]

>>2045925
why do motivational speaks always roll their sleeves up, is this suppose to make me feel better about myself? fuck no it looks like he's about the pound the shit out of me for feeling like shit.

some motivational speaker

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.2045941]

Huh, interesting thread. I guess I've been doing as much as I can to learn about the topics that interest me.

The best method of learning is doing, I've always believed that, hence the various projects I've done. Anyone can do this stuff, it's a very meager first step towards the sort of proactive conquest OP is talking about, so I'm surprised more don't.

[Anonymous No.2045951]

If anyone cares, I have setup a Facebook page designed to associate each of you to the group that is soon to be regarded as: The Society of Fundemental Education & Learning for Individual Genius

Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001839065337

Join up if you support the idea of a networking sech. dedicated to tackling life's mysteries and the fundemental knowledge and skills
despite the designed education system permitting only those with a particular study score to have access to further education pertaining to particular subjects.

If enough support is gathered I will design a possible real world location to begin the world's first Individual learning association for those willing to learn as much as they are physically able.
In other words, a new mensa designed to teach the fundementals in all educational subjects from Math, to Biology to Physics, Thermodynamics and Quantum Mechanics, and so on.

[Anonymous No.2045988]

>>2045951
Wow, you just mentioned all the classes I took in high school.

How exactly are you different from that again?

Did you not know about Adult Further Education? There are people out there wanting to learn things for different reasons. You're just looking for a group to call your own like all those wankers who set up guilds/clans/etc on games.

[Anonymous No.2046002]

>>2045951
dude what

Is Mensa even like that? I thought it was just to look smart but I guess Asimov was president so it had to do some cool stuff at least.

[Anonymous No.2046012]

>>2045951
"the world's first Individual learning association for those willing to learn as much as they are physically able"

The Royal Society beat you to it by 3.5 centuries. Good luck with your next idea.

[Anonymous No.2046050]

I want to learn as much as I can but the only thing hindering my progression into an all-knowing being is the truth. This thing has been diluted by history, war, and genocides, how can we know that what we know now is even correct. The Sun is supposedly 5 billion years old. We say it like we are so intelligent yet we, humanity, have not even been on this planet for a fraction of that time. How could we be sure?

Its question like these that make me ponder weither or not science is true. I left politics and religion for this exact same reason. I cant go a single day without questioning everything? I wonder about how atomic particles are atrracted by each other when, technically, they are supposed to repel themselves because of their charges. I look up at the stars and wonder the chances of life outside of this planet and the different variabilities in species that may exist. I look at a simple worm and stare upon for hours for no apparent reason but ti simply study its reaction to the World.

I hate myself for this because I believe I have trust issues. However, my "skill" as most of my teachers have stated should be used to my extent. I sit here now, even though my paper upon the advancedment of third-world countries is due in two days, questiong how computers work and how inteliigent minds come together to just talk. I am not intelligent. I am an analyzer. I see the world for what I percieve it to be. And yet, it still makes no sense.

I

[Anonymous No.2046053]

What OP and every other idiot replying with "yo bro that describes me EXACTLY" is proposing to do is utterly impossible. Each and every field expands its knowledge every day, to the point that it becomes difficult to even stay on the cutting edge of even one field, let alone EVERY field.

Then there's the fact that by learning, only learning, they are destined to leave this earth having never contributed a damn thing to human society. Congratulations, you are aspiring to be THE WORLD'S GREATEST JEOPARDY CHAMPION. The real challenge, and value, lies in innovation.

Third, and last, you already conceded that it is physically impossible for a human being as matters stand to acquire and retain ALL knowledge by qualifying "everything" with "useful." YOU HAVE FAILED TO DEFINE USEFUL. AT ALL. Useful for what? Or is this just a cop-out to allow yourself, when asked about anything you don't know, to reply "well, you see, that isn't useful information."

[Anonymous No.2046055]

in all seriousness, the last person who could claim to posess the sum of human knowledge was aristotle. but if you want to see someone like that today, check out some of greg egan's fiction (or his amazon reviews if you're the non-fiction type). the amount of knowledge that guy possesses is freaky. check out his books schild's ladder or diaspora, you will be humbled, i guarantee it.

also i suspect you're just a dilettante.

[Anonymous No.2046081]

>>2046012
From what I have read of the Royal Society, it does not seem to culminate proposed knowledge in each area for anyone's learning but focus entirely on singular areas. If you're good at math, do math at the Royal Society, if you're good at physics, do physics at the Royal Society. What I'm instead proposing is the idea of group discussions on a matter of all subjects at one time, not individual subjects for the rest of your life just so you can master that ONE subject.
I want to learn all things, I dont particularly have to master them, but a generally excellent understanding which I can use to bound the other subjects together and formulate a decent simulation of HOW THINGS WORK in this universe. It's not that hard when you're taught correctly and logically understand why it works.

[Anonymous No.2046093]

>>2045798
Premise 1: There exists a theory of everything.
Premise 2: The length of that theory is finite.
Premise 3: There exists a method for finding the theory of everything in a finite number of steps.

Don't start with Godel, Turing, Tarski, and the failure of the Hilbert's program. I know where they went wrong.

30 things in a hundred years is a board enough spectrum search for me to find it in my lifetime. If not it then a way to extend my search time.

Theorem 4: If P1 and P2 and P3 then finding the theory of everything is a function of the time it takes to search for an output of P2 for all finite inputs.

Take a guess at what is good at searching arbitrarily large spaces for solutions.

[Anonymous No.2046095]

You sir a a complete and total tool.

[Anonymous No.2046109]

Be the discoverer of the GUT then just use deductions from the basic equations obv...

[Anonymous No.2046113]

>>2043873

The one ethical school that dodges relativism and religious bullshit is utilitarianism.

As for empirical - you must base morality on two axioms that are hardwired in the human condition.

Happiness is good. Suffering is bad.

With that in mind, minimize potential and actual suffering, then maximize potential and actual happiness. Ultimately the complexities of each situation mean that a comprehensive list of moral rules is impossible. All we have are general guidelines called human rights. The rest we leave up to the individual, keeping in mind the two axioms of morality.

[Anonymous No.2046121]

well you clearly need to not be fucking retarded to understand everything. I'm sure some troll would help you understand how to scrape the cum out of you fucking brain

[Anonymous No.2046125]

>>2046053
>>2046055
First off, do not mistake the reflections for the reflected. There is but one reality and we all inhabit it. What you're talking about are the linear combinations of the basis of the space.

Second off, I have no interest in the sum total of human-generated facts or artifacts. I am interested only in the sum total of real and maybe complex facts.

Finally, you speak as if I will never contribute anything of interest ever. I am twenty four years of age at this point. I can expect reasonably to live another forty. I have all the time I will ever need in the first thirty years of my life.

The rest is implementing what I learn now. I'm sorry you have to project your insecurities on those who are willing to attempt the impossible regardless of consequences.

[Anonymous No.2046127]

>>2046081
No ones does math "at" the Royal Society. Also there is no understanding without mastery. Even then understanding means mastering principles and computational tools, not "getting" what is taking place. Try you logic on quantum physics, and let the world watch you flounder.

[L No.2046139]

you just described several of the people at my school, including me. :)

[Anonymous No.2046140]

>>2046113
Very good. What you have described is the basis of the dharma of Buddha Gautama. However, happiness is not taken to be innately good or desirable. Merely, not suffering is desirable.

[Anonymous No.2046144]

>I have all the time I will ever need in the first thirty years of my life
>I am interested only in the sum total of real and maybe complex facts

[Anonymous No.2046171]

>I have no interest in the sum total of human-generated facts or artifacts
>I am interested only in the sum total of real and maybe complex facts
>I am twenty four years of age at this point.
>I have all the time I will ever need in the first thirty years of my life.

In six years will you fully understand dark matter?
In six years will you be able to describe the shape of the universe?

Or is this not "useful" information?

[Anonymous No.2046179]

>>2046171
Six years, yes. Dark matter however is a no. It's unnecessary.

I'll point you at MOND and let you figure out the rest. Hint: the "need" for dark matter, energy, etc comes from the spiral body problem.

[Anonymous No.2046192]

>>2046179
The need comes from observational evidence.

[Anonymous No.2046224]

>>2046192
The logical necessity of an alternative explanation arises from a discrepancy between theory and observed data. The theory in question? Newtonian mechanics. They're already known to be problematic, see Einstein's critique.

[Anonymous No.2046250]

>>2046224
The theories in question are inflation, gravitation, expansion, and accelerated expansion. Also Newtonian mechanics is completely contained in general relativity, therefore all questions of classical mechanics are relativistic.

[Anonymous No.2046341]

How do you find such people at a uni? I guess it would be pretty pointless till I know enough to do research or projects or something.

yeah I never leave my room. I don't enjoy social stuff. I'm OK with this I think.

[Anonymous No.2046364]

>>2040249
Brain doesn't work the way you think it does, neither does life. You are speaking from young childish ideals.

Also,
>capable of becoming something more than the common human

every human is just like every other human, there are no such things as superheroes.

[Anonymous No.2047995]

>>2040249
“Don’t ever let somebody tell you, you can’t do something. You got a dream. You gotta protect it. People can’t do something themselves. They wanna tell you you can’t do it. If you want something go get it“.

[4tran No.2048867]

>>2046093
Aw crap, that's going to be a problem.
I guess I have to get used to spending my life doing something that's impossible...

[Anonymous No.2048883]

>>2046093
Well, it's not just a matter of finding the theory of everything, but also of determining its empirical consequences and testing them.

[Anonymous No.2048903]

OP you are definitely not alone. I have accumulated an entire library of books in my room on every possible subject you can think of that I bought from Half Price Books. I am always expanding it. I also obsessively look up the definition of words that I haven't seen before, and I always have way too many tabs open in Firefox, mostly articles on the sciences.

It is brain overload and it is not good for me to try to learn so many things at once, but I'm an obsessive knowledge seeker.

[Anonymous No.2049082]

>>2048883
Check out the mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics. It'll give you an idea of what finding such a theory would mean for empirical tests.