What career/major is best for an intuitive thinker?

[Ryker]

Take for example my reductionist argument :

1. If every physics problem can possibly be done by adding, subtracting, multiplying, or dividing a bunch of numbers, then these 4 concepts underpin reality in some way.

2. Every physics problem can possibly be done by adding, subtracting, multiplying, or diving a bunch of numbers. *
---
3. Thus, these 4 concepts underpin reality in some way.

-----
If A, then B

A.

Therefore, B.

-----

The above is a tautology. The one above the above is a bunch of statements I've made to conform to the tautology.

The argument seems to make as much, if not more, sense about the world as physics does.

* I've just thrown in multiplying and dividing for the sake of completeness, but they themselves are really just built on addition and subtraction


Why do you require an actual study? Studies are sometimes flawed. All it sometimes takes is just one counter-example that any individual could come up with to invalidate things and shed some light on others.

Well, since you're good with logic, you probably know that if a premise (A) is false, any statement (B) correlated to it can be proven true. Hence, you are right in everything you say.

 

[Fizex]

Am I the only one in the world who feels that in a world without intuition, one with complete pandemonium, as described by quantum mechanics, there's not much room left for the excitement of knowing that individual opinions matter? That the universe is just uninteresting and unexplorable by human-granted knowledge. That there's nothing to look forward to, that you can never do your part, because reality just doesn't work how you expect it to. The show's over, folks. Reality is unyielding to the human experience. Everyone can just go home now.

That's because intuition and opinion aren't science. The former expect an outcome based upon nothing at all while science doesn't expect a set outcome. Quantum mechanics is in essence a description of nature and it wasn't invented by anyone. It was discovered. It's a part of nature. You can't take away it's inherent probability. You clearly don't have the mind-set of a scientist. The excitement in physics comes from finding out something you didn't expect. You should switch majors immediately.

What I do require from you, however, is to tell me why you think that any physical problem that requires numerical answers in the universe can't be found by adding or subtracting a bunch of quantities? If they can be, then they're the most fundamental. If they're the most fundamental, then they come pre-packaged, if you will, with reality.

Once again, for I think the 4th time now, no one is debating that the + and - aren't inherent of reality. And again, the symbols are just algorithms for these operations.

Stop making the same argument over and over while ignoring advances in the current discussion. Such practice is called trolling and no one will tolerate it.

 

[Klockan3]

Am I to assume the balloon hovers in the same y-position above the floor before the train accelerates and does not move after that? If so, then the back of the train will soon meet the balloon, consistent with intuition.

Why did none else catch up on this? You are wrong here, the balloon will fly forward inside the train car till it hits the front, it won't touch the back of it at all. The reason he stated that example is to show you how your intuition doesn't work everywhere. You can look it up on google if you wonder how it works. A hint though, the reason it is moving forward in the car is the same reason it is moving upwards even though there is a gravitational force acting downwards on it, if your intuition was as great as you claim then you would have caught this one. And to be fair, if it actually had just the correct density to hover in place then it wouldn't move at all but we are assuming that its height is fixed by some frictionless thing or something.

Am I the only one in the world who feels that in a world without intuition, one with complete pandemonium, as described by quantum mechanics, there's not much room left for the excitement of knowing that individual opinions matter? That the universe is just uninteresting and unexplorable by human-granted knowledge. That there's nothing to look forward to, that you can never do your part, because reality just doesn't work how you expect it to. The show's over, folks. Reality is unyielding to the human experience. Everyone can just go home now.

At least I know a great genius with whom I share the same views on intuition and quantum mechanics.

Einstein - "I cannot bear the thought that an electron exposed to a ray should by its own free decision choose the moment and the direction in which it wants to jump away. If so, I'd rather be a cobbler or even an employee in a gambling house than a physicist."

Quantum is intuitive, it is just that particles aren't small balls like you imagined them to be. If you instead accept the plethora of evidence suggesting that particles are inseparable waves then most of it falls into place.

Never heard of ladder operators. Again, I didn't like much matrix mathematics as it seemed highly arbitrary and more like an organizational framework of expressing things in columns and rows. Matrices were invented so that you have less strain on your eye and brain. I'm sorry to say that matrices, as useful as they may be in quantum mechanics, are the poor physicists' crutches.

With your approach science wouldn't have evolved past the 15th century, Newton would be stuck calculating infinite sums etc. Back when I was in middle school I had your views, but then I realized while solving some harder problems that the formulas are the same thing as skipping calculation steps since you already know all of them. If I ask you "What is 1234+1234", do you take 1234 and add 1 to it 1234 times or do you skip steps, because 1234+1234 isn't intuitive, intuition gets you up to roughly 4-5 elements... If you skip these steps then why would it be so bad to skip other steps that you have already done?

For example when integrating I have already proved that the area under the curve of f(x)= x is x squared through 2 (From using infinite sums etc), why can't I use that result later on when I need it? Forcing yourself to always make every step will just stunt your development, so please stop with that and instead try to understand what the more complex structures actually mean. What makes our minds powerful is our ability to generalize, we are really weak in things like adding numbers, without learning to think more abstractly you will always be this feeble not being able to understand more than the most simple of Newtonian physics.

 

[DDTea]

To quote Richard Feynman regarding quantum mechanics and its lack of intuition, "If you don't like it, go somewhere else. Try a different universe."

:)

 

[ZapperZ]

What I do require from you, however, is to tell me why you think that any physical problem that requires numerical answers in the universe can't be found by adding or subtracting a bunch of quantities? If they can be, then they're the most fundamental. If they're the most fundamental, then they come pre-packaged, if you will, with reality.

This is now off topic to Academic Guidance forum. If you wish to do that, please continue in the General Discussion forum.

This thread is closed.

Zz.