Bullshit talk

https://youtube.com/shorts/g3\_WSzLNTAw - Jeff Bezos talk about theoretical physics that inspired this post. Idc about politics or his persona Math and phisics is about solving problems. The closest you can get to solving a problem is to solve a similar problem. But do we need to actually solve anything? The option is to find an answer and think through the problem, simulate your way of solving it from the begging to end and why exactly answer is like this and what are pros and cons of this answer if there are possible multiple answers. The problem with that is does it stimulate brain enough so pattern recognition and problem solving skill is activated and works wonderfully to solve similar but other of this kind problems? If you think about it 90% or even closer to 100% of what mathematicians and any kind of expert knows is about what they learned based on other people's solutions, theories. Ability to solve problems comes from deep understanding of topics complemented with great but simple, straightforwar thinking abilities. Human brain is developed when it sees and uses structures, patterns, so we should use more system like approach. For example: problem statement Simplification, sumarization, refinement Analyzing Mind map, pattern recognition, research on similar problems Criticizing Highlighting what's important again and what can be used from already solved problems Trying out ideas, brute force and simulations Fail, analyze/criticize downpits, start the cycle from 1. point again Difference between criticizing and analyzing: Analyzing - looking from facts, logic perspective. Similar process is synthesis Criticizing - that's the neet part when humans shine more ig. Judging the problem based on your feeling, intuition. People understand more subconsciously then they realize, thinking part is a layer that's killing subconsciousness. Creativity is also a part of subconscious processes? With a layer of abstraction which thinking is it's impossible to think creatively or it's very limited. Thinking is used to analyze and simplify ideas, problems only. So without this step it's not possible to solve any unique problem but it's important to state that problems are not 100% unique. Some previous solutions to similar problems can fit to those 99%. It's a reference to bio-engineering where solutions of nature are implemented in technical problems. Maybe the way to go is to have this approach to anything in life to ask questions why it work and why in this way to deepen our understanding because a shallow understanding will often times be incorrect --- What is written above is correct? How would you rate the importance of mindset and this type of bullshit talk in math, physics, thinking in general? submitted by /u/its-_-my-_-nickname [link] [comments]