every idea i could think of over the past hour or so. does anybody have any comments, elaborations, or refutations. i feel like i'mpreaching to myself but i just want 2 lern shit.
---
somebody should study the patterns of symbols and shapes in relation to phonological explanations in preceding or even unrelated language systems/whatever, and see how it relates to the culture, area, circumstances, achievements of that era. hopefully that wouldn't end up with the psuedoscience that handwriting is.
it's so easy to see patterns in our own lletter systems. a g is a 6 and a 9. a y is a g with the top line removed (not accounting for the curved). this sounds crazy but i have a feeling there must be some sort of contextual historical reasons for why this occurred, because i'm obviously not the only one who's noticed the similarities. we already know that the language we learn can shape the system we orienti ourselves in (like NSEW instead of LR in common language]. to find the answers to the logic behind past civilizations, we not only have to try to arrive at the correct conclusions but also the wrong conclusions, to mimic their psychology. nothing this common in everyday life can just be a total coincidence like that,
also a 6 is a y with one line removed. edit: and a 9 too, lol
but numbers are a universal system compared to lettering, which is more cultural.
6 is 8, c = <, d = |>, so many of them, maybe i'llbe that guy who guys insane trying to find patterns in Pi
more random thoughts: nobody has tried to correlate weather conditions with the emotional states from different nationalities, and whether the overrepresentation or underrepresentation of certain mental attributes can be traced back to their natural pre-historic positions on wherever on earth. species is too broad of a classification for anything but i guess it serves until we can learn how to sequence genomes or something
so many seemingly unrelated factors like lunar cycles, ethnicity, genetics (more obviously), weather conditions, nutritional content of soil and water. overall humidity, average body temperature, integration of different sensory organs like the eyes and ears are totally disregarded in the soft sciences like psychology, so fuck that shit yo. nobody's interested in actually finding new constructs, just elaborating on their (wrong) pre-construed constructs
also, math teachers should be consistently reminding their students what numbers actually are (and their representations, like in counting) and integrate that/build up from there appropriately until any new concept is explained. math needs to be taught axiomatically so that people actually know what they're doing.
we are not prepared as a species for the technology in the world that gets progressively more complex by a select few who are rare and also reproduce less frequently than average, while a sizable portion has very little clue how to do PEMDAS. in the obliviousness of this all, we're fucking doomed (if we haven't been already with this data-harvesting website) bro
starting off math education with very simple geometry that progresses might be a good idea, because it fills in the "when are we ever actually going to have to use this" of traditional math education. by the time someone can do an algebraic expression, they need to know how the numbers became the objects, which object is the variable, and how that "builds" up the proper construction of real-world mathematics. it's of philosophical debate whether our cognition of logic is a top-down or bottom-up approach (whether math actually exists at all), but it is unreasonable to only teach a single or set way of explaining a basic concept that has logic that is interpretable from various understandings of what logic is.
how many people can define the properties of the shape of whatever object they're even using? just look at the freaking pencil in front of you and tell me if you could define its geometry either qualitatively or quantitatively. there has been very little association with what we see and what we understand (integration of vis input), and that needs to change soon if we want some sort or architectural revolution. understanding the mathematics' of geometry should also help with understand neurology in the occipital lobe, but they haven't generally been able to do that with regular math or much else so far.
also. use a more objective measurement system. obviously not as small as planck units but something that could be like 100,000 planck units = 1 monkey meter, which can then be further subdivided into plank units and imaginary quantities that exist below planck units, this would replace the inches/centimeters systems which i believe isn't as scientifically based as for example temperature in kelvin units or Celsius, but then again i don't know the exact etymology of a centimeter,
weight based on mass and gravity (and volume?) or something? i wonder what mathematical results from that measurement look like. though thiis made me realize planck units are more of a numerical benchmark that a number line assigned to a specific type of property besides "being able to physically exist" so if it applies to one property you might as well have it apply to all of them. and then terms like weight, length, temperature would be actually based in reality
how do refrigerant (hydrocarbons?) that create a hole in the atmosphere differ in dynamics of damage from other greenhouse gas type chemicals? they would both be toxic to the atmosphere but since the layer is getting opened up to heat by sun I wonder if the regrigerant would have any protective properties.
theoretically, if there was a hole in one piece of the ozone layer that was exposed to sun the most because of frequency of orbit/rotation exposing it more to sunlight..and then you had a hole on the other section of the atmosphere that was least exposed to sunlight, and somehow had an infinite supply of oxygen. it would work sort of like a hot air ventilation system. i wonder if that happened it would like scorth the earth or rip it to pieces or something lol
anybody?
