There are a couple of terms that I - here personally I - constantly stumble upon. I have to google and read it for the hundredth, two-hundredth, three-hundredth times, but after a while, what I read is safely erased from my head. This is despite the fact that I master other unfamiliar terms without apparent effort, but with these two is an eternal habit.
These non-memorizing terms are "entropy" and "singularity."
Why am I reporting a personal issue? I want to voice one not the most popular idea, namely: the process of memorization depends not so much on the individual qualities of human memory as on the subject of memorization - in this case, the terms themselves.
The idea is as follows.
As you know, some terms are defined with the help of others - that is, some words are defined in other words, while there are no "original" words with an established meaning.
"Originally" there is the physical world, divided into physical objects: each object is individual - it can be given a name, and there will be no discrepancies, if only in determining the boundaries of a physical object.
If we agree to call a person Vasya Petrov, this person will be Vasya Petrov: you can only argue about whether, say, Vasya Petrov's hair cut off in a hairdressing salon is part of him, or is it not Vasya Petrov anymore. And if you cut off not the hair, but a finger, is the cut off finger Vasya Petrov? Or, formulating the problem in general terms: if you cut Vasya Petrov in two, both parts will be Vasya Petrov or one, and if one, then which one - in other words, in which part of the physical body is Vasya Petrov's identification focus? But while Vasya Petrov is relatively intact, the question of identification does not arise.
Further, based on similar characteristics, you can isolate groups of objects and name them. Here, discrepancies are already possible, because some of the characteristics of physical objects are not discrete.
The woman who gave birth to a child is clearly his mother. But if you divide people into high and low, you need to arbitrarily set the division boundary. Let's say the border is set at 180 cm.In this case, between two people, tall and short, there may be a difference of only 2 cm (179 and 181 cm), while between two tall people - much more (for example, 181 and 201 cm).
Finally, there are abstract concepts (friendship, loyalty, trust, etc.), which cannot be easily characterized at all, are too complex, ambiguous, and often individual criteria by which they are formed. Nevertheless, even abstract concepts - terms of a higher order - have their own meanings, tied to a set of terms of a lower order.
Thus, a complex system of interconnections between tens of thousands of terms that a person uses throughout his life is formed in the human brain. All these terms are interdependent - tied to each other. If a new term is introduced into an existing complex system, it must lie on the empty space intended for it, moreover, in accordance with related concepts, otherwise the introduced term will not be written into the established system.
You understood correctly: I suspect I am unable to remember the meanings of the terms "entropy" and "singularity" for the reason that they do not correctly fit the terminological system in my brain. I propose to briefly analyze the ill-fated terms for what to use the definitions of Wikipedia.
Here is Wikipedia's most sane phrase about entropy.
, , , : - , .First of all, as an orthodox man in the street, it is not clear to me what it means: the elements of the system are subordinate to some order - some kind of muddy phrase, completely unscientific! If the elements exist within the framework of the system, they act within the framework of this system, and if they begin to act contrary to the system, then they fall out of the system or blow it to smithereens. Kill God, I don't understand - accordingly, I can't remember.
This is not all. Let's say entropy is a measure of chaos. However, “randomness” is a negative term, an alternative to the positive term “orderliness”. I mean that - if, in spite of Occam's razor, it was impatient to introduce a synonymous term into circulation - it was necessary to introduce not a negative term, but a positive one: not a measure of chaos, but a measure of orderliness. Then there would be no problems with memorization.
Imagine that the language lacks the concepts of “shoes” and, accordingly, “shod”, and instead of them, the terms “no shoes” and “barefoot” are used - would it be easier to perceive reality or harder?
Even the etymology, in other cases reliable, does not work here.
Entropy (from ancient Greek. Ἐν "in" + τροπή "turn; transformation")
Suppose I have forgotten the meaning of "entropy", but I know that the word comes from the Greek "in" and "turn" - will this knowledge help me greatly?
I'm done with entropy, I'm moving on to the singularity.
Here is what Wikipedia reports on the singularity:
́ ( . singularis «, »)Here, at least the etymology is understandable, although it still explains nothing, due to its too heterogeneous use.
— , ,
() — , - .
( -) — -, .
— , .
— , , .
Philosophy : there are the usual "singularity" and "uniqueness" - why the hell was "singularity" required? By the way, in my youth I read philosophical works, but I don't remember the singularity.
Mathematics : I don’t know the mathematical apparatus, so I don’t presume to judge. I admit that in mathematics the use of this term is strictly formal, therefore, correct.
Gravity : I don't understand from the word "in general". But I know very well that tales about four-dimensional space-time have no scientific basis. Time is not the fourth spatial coordinate, God forbid. How can you confuse?
Cosmology: I don’t believe in any theory of the Big Bang (the standard objection: if nothing happened at first, then what exploded?), but that’s not the point. Why was it necessary to call the initial moment of the Big Bang a singularity? Not otherwise, because of the beauty of this definition.
Technology : At least the meaning is clear. But - again, a sonorous scientific term, the etymology of which has nothing to do with the given meaning. Why was it done - so that porridge formed in your head?
As you can see, the singularity refers to completely different entities that have no relation to each other and the etymology of the given word. And what is surprising in the fact that my memory flatly refuses to place this eclectic nonsense into a well-thought-out, established conceptual system ?!
I suspect that I am not the only one suffering from this mental feature - if someone confirms the suspicions, it will become much easier for me. However, I am sure even without confirmation: the matter is unclean with "entropy" and "singularity".