Solving Difficult Physics Questions: Beyond Technical Thinking?

[Thetom]

Edward de' bono has formulated the process of creative thinking to the point of providing practical tools that help the human mind with creativity. In this context creativity is described as 'movement of idea'.

It works like this: The human mind is an internally organised information system. All the information in your mind is arranged by creating associations with other info in the system. This way you can associate 'apple' with 'pie', 'green' and also 'wasp' (if you have ever been stung by one while eating an apple). This is opposed to an externally organised system that will use an external factor to arrange the information. A dictionary is arranged externally, A,B,C etc.

So, each individual will associate with things differently (though there are commonalities). Movement of idea is the act of creating a new association within your self organising system. Often, movement of ideas can be humorous. In the classic joke "a man walks into a bar" an pre-existing association is highlighted (that men walk into bars often), and then, through the use of provocation, the association is changed. In this case the provocation is the punch line "and says ow" which causes the the different association.

Below is a diagram of that process.

Man
|
|--> Drinks bar
|
|<---[Provocation]
|
|----> Metal Bar (lol)

Hopefully I've explained the main points that information in your noggin is associated with other information in an organic fashion and that new associations are, in essence, new idea. Also that new associations can be teased out by using provocation.

Now back to the original question:

Can solutions to difficult questions within physics be better solved from without?

There is, as pointed out before, the problem with what does the OP mean by 'better' (cheaper? quicker? more spectacular? more profound?) but I would answer a big YES to the question of whether questions within physics can be solved from without.

Take Einstein for example, he was struggling with his theories of relativity. Presumably with his ideas going round and round his head, stuck in his pre-existing associations, until he threw a stone into a pond and saw the ripples which provoked the movement of his current associations into a new idea that helped him develop relativity.

The inspiration for new ideas can come from anywhere, de Bono has laid out the process for this, and more often than not the inspiration for a new idea will come from something external to the original context.

Here's a little practical exercise for you to try: next time you need a new idea for [insert need area here] try taking a book, turning to a random page and picking a random word. Then associate that word with your problem and marvel at the flood of new ideas that follow. Ok, maybe all those new ideas arn't usable, and may seem absurd at the time, but in the business of idea generation quantity is always better than quality. Absurd ideas can often lead to great ones.

 

[Digitalism]

Is there any significant example from history ? I expect a couple of possible answers which I am ready to discuss[/size]

Ok, so I'm going to post a lot to try and catch up. Are you thinking of Escher?

The reason many scientif minded people think the way they do, is because that is the way science works. There is ALWAYS a reason that something works the way it works. Some way to describe it mathmatically. The sum of scientific knowledge is so vast and varied, that simple every day questions can seem extremely generalized and inadequate.

That is sort of what I am talking about. Many times, it is beneficial to view things with ambiguity not having one specific answer, but many possible ones. It is also beneficial to view things in contradictory ways simultaneously. Boiling things down to singular answers is only possible under controlled conditions and things behave differently when you remove the complexity from the equation.

I experience this all the time. Many times a friend or co-worker will ask me a question and I will have to ask them to elaborate and give me specifics and details and get them to tell me exactly what they are wanting to know in order to give them a correct answer. Especially questions such as "Which one of these is better?". I usually reply with, "Well, that depends on what you mean as better." And so forth. It frustrates me to no end when people can't understand that many things only mean what they mean when defined a certain way or from a certain point of view.

Maybe they are not looking for a factual answer, but rather a relational answer. What I mean by this is they may be seeking how you relate to them. Whether you like or dislike the thing in question. It helps to relate themselves or distance themselves from you/people "like" you. I think this way of viewing things can be useful in science as well. You can think of mathematics as the study of relationships between different kinds of symbols. Obviously, these relationships are not set in stone as they can be very arbitrary.

(In other words, the wikileaks stuff generally falls under the public domain, not private and so the two aren't analogous.)

They can be analogous as the institutions that are being exposed are composed of people who will really be effected by the information released.

Unless... we just fell into your trap of wanting tasks and results and what not! Oooooo... you got us!

No, I am not trying to play a trick on you or get a rise out of anyone or whatever. I think the sciences/math cannot be seen as in a vacuum. There are commonalities or tendencies between people within those fields. This is not good or bad but, I don't think it can be escaped. Science is relational. What I mean by this is real people have reactions for/against science based on the way they FEEL towards it. They may not even recognize these feelings as such. I think that one reason that many religious people feel threatened by science for example is that it undermines how they view reality. It requires a paradigm shift in thinking that is difficult because it seems to have a lot of emotional/relational implications. If I believe in evolution, how does that change how people react to me at thanksgiving if I voice this view? I think many people within science tend to feel different from others as well. Oftentimes, it can be because they are intelligent and find it hard to relate to those around them because they feel misunderstood. When someone is different from those around them they often tend to exaggerate the disparity to maintain their identity. I think this is especially true when being exposed to scientific thinking through media (books, etc.) rather than through people.

Are you saying that scientific minded people don't seem to "enjoy" or put their emotions into their work?

No, not at all. Rather the opposite I imagine.

If not, sorry. =)

No need to apologize AT ALL. Thank you for voicing your thoughts so openly. One of the the things I fear to do here is to generate stereotypical responses within the people here on this forum or myself. Obviously, some of what I am trying to relay is colored by personal experience as is everything and partially this is going to be self-revelatory about the process I have gone through as an individual and will not resonate with many others. I guess, I am just trying to get across how "outsiders" can respond to scientifically-minded people that I see as a gap in understanding, in lifestyle (and consequently mentally) on both sides. I think in order for science to have more of an impact it is going to have to evolve to become more "open" more approachable without losing the benefits and unique views it currently has.

I don't think someone from outside science can even understand the most difficult questions, let alone give any contribution to solving them, despite the plethora of popular books published on all the most sexy scientific conundra. These books give an most a superficial understanding of anything. The devil is in the details, as they say, which are lacking from any popular source.

One is not going to find a cure for cancer without first understanding organic chemistry; likewise, one is not going to unify gravity and quantum mechanics without first understanding gauge connections and Lie groups.

Yes, as absurd as it may sound I think that is precisely why it is needed. Part of this has to do with the question of what is real and what is not. The thing is reality is a many sided thing and I think it is useful to juxtapose what you "basis" for reality is from time to time. I think initially this can feel scary, like being lost or feeling as if you're falling off of a cliff, but I think once you come out the other end of it you become a richer more varied person who can "understand" more about aspects of reality you did not even recognize as being there. Partially, I think science can be so appealing because it can provide a sense of security. A sense of understanding that can safeguard against fear because "I understand how things REALLY are." It can also provide a sense of superiority. I am better than you because I know more. This is a trap that many people fall into in life in many different ways. It is alienating and actually can make one feel lonely and sad. It removes the person(s) from real connection with their fellow human beings (which to me is essentially what it means to feel god. Here I am referring to something said in another post which referenced this article http://www.6seconds.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=257 ).

Sorry, that's all I have time for now. I will try and clean up the mess I'm sure I've inadvertently created for myself another time.

 

[Jack21222]

Take Einstein for example, he was struggling with his theories of relativity. Presumably with his ideas going round and round his head, stuck in his pre-existing associations, until he threw a stone into a pond and saw the ripples which provoked the movement of his current associations into a new idea that helped him develop relativity.

The inspiration for new ideas can come from anywhere, de Bono has laid out the process for this, and more often than not the inspiration for a new idea will come from something external to the original context.

Are you saying that ripples in a pond are somehow outside of or contradictory to science? In what way? Your post is a lot of words, but I can't make sense of any of it in the context of the OP.

 

[DaveC426913]

Thetom, this is post 34.

No thoughtful person on the planet denies that great discoveries sometimes come from a bolt of inspiration, and that inspiration is not a rational scientific process. (What happens to them after that moment of inspiration is another story.)

Does anyone disagree with this?

Is there more you wish to say on the subject?

 

[Jack21222]

Thetom, this is post 34.

No thoughtful person on the planet denies that great discoveries sometimes come from a bolt of inspiration, and that inspiration is not a rational scientific process. (What happens to them after that moment of inspiration is another story.)

Does anyone disagree with this?

Is there more you wish to say on the subject?

I'd qualify that by saying the bolt of inspiration, while not a scientific process in its own right, is part of the scientific process. In no way would I say that such inspiration is "contradictory to" science, as the first post phrased it.

 

[JaredJames]

They can be analogous as the institutions that are being exposed are composed of people who will really be effected by the information released.

You cannot request information deemed private. It is illegal to release private information.

You can request public information.

However, if something is deemed secret / classified it is covered for, I believe, 50 years and cannot be release for that time. After which, you can request it (as recently happened with classified WW2 documents).