Friday, September 12, 2014

Theories and Interpretations

Theories are not really theories. They are commentaries and interpretations. The real theories are quite simple. A teenager can understand them. What’s necessary is wisdom. Intelligence can help. But it’s a mere catalyst. IQ doesn’t count when you realize the truth. IQ only helps, it never does the thing. Wisdom is seeing through appearances. Wisdom is seeing everything in its fundamental level.

                                Intelligence is like a commentary or an interpretation. It’s like dealing with everything as chemicals, metals, molecules, energy, liquids, solids……… and etc. wisdom is dealing with everything as quanta. Wisdom cannot me memorized or measured in conventional ways. Wisdom cannot be even thought. But knowledge and intelligence can be. That’s why those mere catalysts are so much revered. People talk much about good stuff. But rarely pays any attention to great marvels. Just think about how much people talk about some BMW or a Benz and how much they talk about a limited edition like Lamborghini Veneno Roadster.

                        THERE IS NO TEACHING IN PHYSICS
As I have grown older, I have come more and more to the conclusion that there is no teaching
In physics, there is only inspiration to learn. ... The teacher may stimulate the mind of the student...
But the journey to that goal must be made by the student himself.
W. F. G. Swann, ‘‘The Teaching of Physics,’’ Am. J. Phys. 19~3!, 182–187 ~1951!

Think what would happen if the schooling system was based on this. True there are so many wired equations and stuff in Quantum Mechanics. But those things are just commentaries. Yep, that’s what they are. Each one of those complex equations and stuff are either instruments (tools for calculation) or some commentary. When I learn QM many times I feel like they are trying to prove and axiom or over-complicating something because some guys can’t digest simplicity.

[W]e cannot think of any object apart from the
possibility of its connection with other things.
Wittgenstein, Tractatus, 2.0121.
If everything that we call ‘‘being’’ and ‘‘nonbeing’’
consists in the existence and nonexistence
of connections between elements, it
makes no sense to speak of an element’s being
(non-being)... . Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations,
It happened to him as it always happens to those
who turn to science... simply to get an answer to
an everyday question of life. Science answered
thousands of other very subtle and ingenious
questions... but not the one he was trying to
solve. Tolstoy, Resurrection, Part 2, Chapter 30.
[I]n our description of nature the purpose is not
to disclose the real essence of the phenomena but
only to track down, so far as it is possible, relations
between the manifold aspects of our experience.
I would like to describe an attitude toward quantum mechanics
which, whether or not it clarifies the interpretational
problems that continue to plague the subject, at least sets
them in a rather different perspective. This point of view
alters somewhat the language used to address these issues—a
glossary is provided in Appendix C—and it may offer a less
perplexing basis for teaching quantum mechanics or explaining
it to nonspecialists. It is based on one fundamental insight,
perhaps best introduced by an analogy.
My complete answer to the late 19th century question
‘‘what is electrodynamics trying to tell us’’ would simply be
Fields in empty space have physical reality; the
medium that supports them does not.
Having thus removed the mystery from electrodynamics, let
me immediately do the same for quantum mechanics:
Correlations have physical reality; that which
they correlate does not.
The first proposition probably sounded as bizarre to most late
19th century physicists as the second sounds to us today; I
expect that the second will sound as boringly obvious to late
21st century physicists as the first sounds to us today.
And that’s all there is to it. The rest is commentary.

If you like you can read the commentary fromhere. But the commentary is not really necessary. Commentary is just a mode of communication. It’s like words. Knowing all the equations is like knowing the word and grammar. It helps but to compulsory to be enlightened. Don’t ditch the equations. But understand that they are just some guy’s explanation. I developed a theory which I called “Perception Theory” at that time, all on my own while I was just 15. It say quite the same thing what Quantum Information Theory says. Actually QIT only grasps about 60% of what my theory grasped at that time. I didn’t even use a single equation in developing the theory (which made it loose the calculation aspects of it). Now the thing is almost no one would get a single thing (even a wise one) if I don’t personally coach him/her for an hour or two at least. 
                                        Trust me, those equations and crappy interpretations worth a lot; but not for your personal understanding. You can live even without knowing a single word. But knowing words can help you a real lot. Don’t get hooked up in to the so called theories. They are not theories most of the time. They are just different peoples interpretations. The only proper way to teach something is by being heuristic. You’ll have to re-interpret everything for yourself. Having a PhD or not is none of the concerns. Most of the PhD holders are just a bunch of parrots. Most of them (or their entitlements) don’t worth a shit.  
Just walk your own path. Not knowing your way around someone else’s interpretation or commentary doesn’t prove your inability. Knowing your way around them certainly proves your ability. But that ability is just a bonus for yourself; it’s not something compulsory for your transcendence.