Thinking Inside The Box

[bigbadbogie]

Theory is not my stronghold.

I'll let someone who looks at the world through a magnifying glass continue this discussion...

[OvermindDL1]

Ignore the theory parts, you should still take a look at spacetime, it has been proven to be accurate on scales larger then an atom (and the only reason it does not work lower is because gravity becomes so overpowered by all the other forces that it cannot effect anything at that size).  Spacetime is an amazing concept, I initially got a good grasp of it by a special instructor at my local university (they have a grant to bring in big-name people every once in a while to teach, that one time it happened to be a quantum mechanics physicist, I could not resist taking that class ).  he put it together in such a perfect way so it made sense, I do not do it justice at all, not to mention if I want to use his examples as I have been, a whiteboard would be good, lots of drawings with math calculations to link it all together.
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script via GreaseMonkey

[bigbadbogie]

Just because the maths adds up doesn't mean it is the right calculation.

[mrtwosheds]

Quantum Physics, quantifiable physics, the physics of things that can be measured. I suspect that the reason it has developed 11 or more dimensions (that we cannot perceive!) is in fact a very elaborate attempt to avoid dealing with the things that cannot actually be measured. Such as "nothing" and possibly time too. We can perceive both of them so it seems obvious that they must exist in some way.
Space/time can only be quantified by measuring the "things" in it, we measure time by measuring energy fluctuations of one form or another, but these are not true measurements of time they are measurements of energy and they are unavoidably bound to our perception of them, without the perceiver they are meaningless.
Our perception of time could certainly be altered but a true quantification of it is as likely as finding out just how big "nothing" is.

[Red Devil]

Things gain mass as they approach the speed of light?  I thought that was impossible.  If so, where would it come from?  Maybe it's harder to push that mass faster?

[OvermindDL1]

bbb:  As stated, ignore the theory things, all I said about spacetime, measuring time, time dilation, etc.. have all been measured and proven, the theories exist to try to work the math around what has been measured.

mts:  The way string theory works is that each fundamental force is represented as a dimension, hence why it has been the only one capable of unifying all of them (with surprising accuracy, it keeps predicting things that we eventually find and measure).  And no, time itself has been measured, time itself is an energy state that can be measured, we did not measure the energy of things inside of it, time itself has literally been measured.  It is not 'nothing'.

RD:  Mass and energy are one and the same, certainly you remember one of the most famous physics equations of all time, E=MC², it literally means that as the energy/speed of an object increases, the mass also increases (since they are the same thing), meaning that the more energy something has, the 'heavier' it is, and as such it become more difficult to 'push'.  That is why those famous Newton equations they teach in your little university physics and calculus classes work fine for slow things, things in our atmosphere and such, but completely fall apart at any, what is termed, relativistic speed (*really* fast in other words) because they assume that mass is a constant, it is not.
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script via GreaseMonkey

[Red Devil]

Harrr!  Hoist by his own petard, me is!    *smacks forehead*  Of course!

[Feared_1]

OM, stop typing. Get up, take your computer in your hands. Throw it out the window.

Become a college professor or inventor.

[OvermindDL1]

Bah, there are people far smarter then me studying these topics, I just take what they learned and regurgitate it out.
As for teaching, most of my family are teachers, they are all good at it (hence why I really *hate* bad teachers), but they do all hate doing it as well, I do not want to follow that.
I prefer programming, I am programming in two solutions right now actually (while reading a few tech docs, typing on here, listening to some Nox Arcana music, and fixing one of my virtual machines), so I kind of need my computer with me.

Another forum I frequent is the intjforum.  INTJ is one of the Myer-Briggs Type Indicators (generally abbreviated MBTI), and is the type I am.  A thread on that forum yesterday (which I am reading now) is talking about how we 'correct' people.  Apparently one of the overriding ways is that INTJs just straight out say "You are wrong, and this is why" followed by a detailed description why, but the general consensus seems to be that although we INTJ's prefer to be corrected in that manner as well, it seems most other types do not and generally take offense to it (for reasons we INTJs seem to not be able to figure out), and re-reading what I have been putting above, I have apparently done the same thing.  Now INTJs generally will not say such things unless we are absolutely sure beyond any shadow of a doubt that we are right (if we do not know for certain that we are right then we either stay quiet or try to encourage a debate about it to figure it out and get more information, although if someone has a counter-point with more proof, we love to be corrected since we *hate* having wrong or incomplete information), with a huge amount of information to back up our stance, but seemingly many other types tend to stop listening after hearing the "You are wrong" part, without listening as to why.  I apologize for that, I will try to give my reasons first before stating that some line of thinking is wrong.

EDIT:  Fair warning, when we are not certain about a topic, then as stated, we love debate (the common way INTJs are described is that they tend to 'get off' on debate, it is the main method we love to reason through things, we will debate with ourselves for hours; INTJs have a rather unique ability to see multiple sides of something at the same time, we can play chess with ourselves without cheating either ), and we generally love debate so much that when we are not sure about a subject, but we are leaning one way, but so the other person is also leaning the same way, we can take up the side we do not agree with and argue it, trying to find all reasoning until we are proven wrong or right by it.  I have an INTJ friend, we are near best friends (although I have only known them for about a year), and we are told by our other friends that when we get together that we are an "argument waiting to happen", but we love it, it is how we strengthen our bond, and we can argue about the most complex or the most simple of things for many hours, seemingly getting rather heated, but it can all be dropped in a split second like it never happened, taking up a project where we work together in perfect synchronicity, just the way we INTJs are.
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script via GreaseMonkey

[bigbadbogie]

OM, you would make a perfect teacher, as you have a passion for knowing what has been pre-written, and without questioning it, enforce it upon us.

[Nielk1]

BBB, only if you sit there with your mouth open. He did say debate.

[OvermindDL1]

If there is any possible question about the validity of something, I do not trust it, and then try to find out everything about it that I can.  I did that with Quantum Physics years ago, that is why I am now very certain about many parts of it (there are still a few questionable parts, which I refrained from mentioning if you noticed, but everything I stated is a modern certainty).  So, yes, I question many things.  Take programming, there is not a single 'method' or way of programming that I trust, they all have such horrible downsides, you just have to pick the best one for the circumstance, and yet so many pick the wrong one, like Object-Oriented programming, so many try to use that to do just about everything, when it is actually only well suited for a small amount of tasks.  The Actor programming model, although extremely well suited for multi-processing, so much more so then near any other style, it is very different to program in and you have to throw out so many preconceived notions about how to do things, like storing data in an Actor program is not done in data structures like in OO (OO models data and interations, AO models... well... objects is the correct term, and communication;  the person who coined the OO term was actually talking about AO in the description, just things like C++ slaughtered that notion and turned it into a data emphasis instead of a real object emphasis), but storing data in an actor program is done by passing it around in the 'nether' between actor's, the messages themselves.  The Actor model is, however, horrible unsuited for anything that has to be programmed in a linear way with no multi-tasking.
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script via GreaseMonkey

[Feared_1]

I was just commenting on how thorough he was with responses. I like the "you're wrong" thing. It might be a little insulting for the person, but if its explained well then problem solved.

I wish I was smart enough to just summon information like that

[OvermindDL1]

I am addicted to learning.  I always have to be figuring stuff out.  That is another big thing about the common INTJ, they seem to be rather emotionless, but that is far from the case, it is just that their brain is always working on a hundred different things at all hours that they have no room to process emotions.  It also makes them seem rather aloof, when they are generally the exact opposite, they just tend to be thinking about too many things at once to be able to adequately verbalize one specific train of thought (it is also humorous that when I talk to people how I seem to change from subject to seemingly unrelated subject and so forth, but if I asked I can give a very exact, detailed, and usually long train of thought that seemingly instantly brought me from one thought pattern to another, many people just cannot keep up, this manifests in my typings above at times as I jump from one quantum subject to another, I may have had a very detailed way of going across it, but because I cannot type 500 words a minute then my hands cannot keep up and sometimes skip various thoughts, where-as when I speak I can usually keep it up, but I also speak *very* fast when I start doing that, so most people cannot usually keep up with that either).

So, no, it is not really about summoning information, just that I regurgitate it and think about different things so often that my brain never really has a chance to dump the data.  I cannot always recall everything at once, but if I go through a subject material I will generally pretty quickly reach a certain data, even if I just talked with something shortly with someone, I will still be going over that conversation for probably the next few hours, thinking of how things could have played out, other ways I could have said things, how the person may have responded to other things, which data would have been better to give rather then some others, etc... all while thinking of another hundred things.  INTJs tend to be pretty incapable of emptying their mind, it just makes no sense how when we ask what someone is thinking of when they say nothing (quite literally, how can someone really be thinking of nothing?), when someone asks us that it would take a good hour to rattle off all that we were thinking of in the past minute.

Also, remember, there are two things for 'knowing' things.  Intelligence, which is a measure of how quickly and accurately you can 'reason' through something.  Knowledge, which is a measure of how much you 'know' about something, whether you can reason it out or not.  I know so many 'bookworm' kind of people that know a great deal, but could not reason their way out of a box.  I also know many people who can reason through just about anything, but do not really know of anything.  INTJs generally have high orders of both (else the overriding instinct of 'learning' would be pretty useless, thus making them not a pure INTJ).

As for that insulting thing, I still do not get it.  Just saying "You are wrong" to me without providing any proof, or at least a good *LOGICAL* discussion is *very* insulting.  However, saying I am wrong, while providing proof is in absolutely no way insulting, it is very humbling and quite frankly, I love it.  Anything I am 'proven' wrong about means that I now have some more 'proved' knowledge, which is something I want, and I cannot see why anyone else would not want it either.  As you can guess, I have an incredible disdain for people you refuse to learn.

Of the types, each letter has a ranking, I rank very high on all of them, making me a pure INTJ, I basically have no subtype.  Anyone up for me starting a thread about MBTI with a link to the best free test and how to decipher the results?  The free test will not tell you your subtype, but otherwise seems to be as accurate as the pay test I took for a job.
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script via GreaseMonkey

[Red Devil]

I knew there was something funny about you...

http://typelogic.com/intj.html


I think this is me, if I remember correctly...

http://typelogic.com/intp.html