How do you plan to express your theories?

[dark+matters]

I'm hoping to write my theories into ebooks in both fiction and non-fiction. I don't get the chance to talk about my theorizing very much (except in class). How do you plan to communicate your theories? (Or do you plan on it? Or do you do express or implement your theories already?)

 

[Cognisant]

What kind of theories?

 

[nanook]

I don't think i have enough to justify a book, not in volume but accuracy and permanent relevance. I'm always in a process of figuring things out and second guessing myself and this is best shared in personal dialogue, blogs , vlogs and message boards. I'd totally make more youtube videos, if anyone could stand my sight and voice, lol. I don't think it's monotone, but it isn't energized either.

 

[dark+matters]

What kind of theories?

LOL You don't have wildly unusual theories about how the world works that no one else shares? *feels alone in the world*

Theories about any of your deeper interests. So for me, most of my theorizing about why things are the way they are, or how all the pieces of my puzzle fit, revolves around psychology, sociology and power. But it might include insights in whatever other fields of study I invest in later in life.

@nanook I would subscribe to your channel!

 

[r4ch3l]

I'd like to eventually finish the book I've been working on for a couple of years. A longer term life goal is to create a new system of object oriented math/functions/logic notation.

My INTP friend and I always talk about doing a podcast called Deep Packet Introspection where we compare crackpot theories to "legitimate" science and interview people like the Time Cube guy and Louis Kauffman on the same show. But, because we are INTPs, it never actually happens.

 

[Brontosaurie]

understand more to become a better person and make better choices and stand for better things in life.

 

[RaBind]

understand more to become a better person and make better choices and stand for better things in life.

Indeed. Showing your level of understanding through making good decisions is what Id consider to be the best way. Even though it's not always accurate, as what constitutes good decisions is very probabilistic, but it does give your knowledge a lot of legitimacy, as you go about applying your knowledge for self serving purposes, without you having to seek it out.

 

[Aetherius Rimor]

I've got enough with such a wide range of topics and enough depth to write a book. Only problem is most of it is cognitive science speculations and philosophical... Hence currently unfalsifiable.

I've arrived at them with the approach I use to reverse engineer software.

1. Observe inputs and outputs of system.
2. Make assumptions about hidden variables and functions.
3. Analyze for logical inconsistencies, or errors in output and correct.
4. Revise to simplify functions and reduce variables where possible.
5. Go back to step one and repeat process until new system mimics original system perfectly.

Usually the end result is very close or better than the original performance wise, very similar code or rule structure to the original (flaws are imperceptible or negligible) and perceptually indistinguishable from the original.

I've spent some time using this process to design a system that would link classical and quantum physics in a manner consistent with reality using a scope based observer model. Relativity and the variable speed of light based on the observer didn't even need to be implemented in code, because it's a side effect of rendering latency and light being a delegate function notifying observers to render it. The latency involved of being closer to the light means it will go slower and the father away you are the faster it will appear to go from point a to point b due to the distance appearing smaller.

Prime numbers can be used to uniquely identify every dimensions and particle (assuming N-Dimensional universe), and provide a sliding scale of scope (think zoom level), and allow for a relativity based coordinate system with 0,0,0 being the observer for every observer with composite numbers being dimensional connection coordinates (dimension 2 connects with 3 at 6 12 etc).

It's purely theoretical though since no computer has the resources to simulate a universe anywhere close to the size of ours. But it's fun to design anyways.

I just have to keep updating the model to conform with my understanding of the science of physics.

Yeah... I do not look forward to trying to explain all these ideas in book form. Or the criticism from scientist on my assumptions they can't falsify. If the software works, I've proven it's possible bitches.