Quine's Web of Beliefs
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Quasar Caught Dining on a Galaxy
Next: Positivity was Re: youboob was Re: RingtheChngBell was Re: Lessonslrnd was Re: Thrs a warONnn was Re: Cinema was Re: AlwysBeClsing
From: huge on 30 Jun 2010 21:37 On 06/30/2010 06:36 PM, John M wrote: > > Not on my time you don't. Well, that was a fine chance to get on the soap box, but in all that presentation, you did not address precisely: "In nature there are always two competing centers, or primary system driving forces." Always Two! Two competing centers. Two primary driving forces. In all of nature. That is what I think is bullcrap. Defend it specifically. -- Not on my time you don't.
From: John M on 1 Jul 2010 21:42 "huge" <huge(a)operamail.com> wrote in message news:d9CdnefhfqD7bLbRnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... > On 06/30/2010 06:36 PM, John M wrote: >> >> Not on my time you don't. > > Well, that was a fine chance to get on the soap box, but in all that > presentation, you did not address precisely: > "In nature there are always two competing centers, or primary system > driving forces." > > Always Two! > Two competing centers. > Two primary driving forces. > > In all of nature. > > That is what I think is bullcrap. Defend it specifically. > There are three realms of the universe when it comes to ...behavior. Not what things are, but what systems do. Classical motion, quantum motion and a combination of the two. Placed in abstract form, the 'classical' realm takes the form of simple Newtonian like system rules of operation. Few variables with fixed relationships. More generally this is system behavior which tends to maintain order or simplify the system over time. Gravity would be an example of a classical force. Picture a ball spinning on the inside of a bowl, eventually it comes to rest at the bottom. This is called 'subcritical' behavior. In Complexity Science we call this the ...'static' realm. As that is it's ...probable final state. Opposing the classical or static realm is of course the quantum world. Where there are nearly infinite variables. many interacting in a random or chaotic way. Where only statistical methods are useful. This is behavior like a gas, where order is decreasing over time. We call this 'supercritical' or 'chaotic' behavior. The two attractors, or 'centers' as you mentioned, would be the static and chaotic realms. Or the system forces which tend to maintain order (classical) vs the forces which are dominated by random motion (quantum). Any existing real world system under the sun can be defined in this way. What are the forces for order, and for chaos, for a society? The rule of law and freedom would fill the static and chaotic attractors. For biological evolution. The forces for order are genetics, and the randomizing force is mutation When these two 'real' attractors, static and chaotic, are in an unstable equilibrium with each other, so that neither dominates then the third 'emergent' realm called 'dynamic' is spontaneously produced Static > Dynamic < Chaotic Real > Emergent < Real solid > liquid < gas subcritical > critical < supercritical particle physics > thermodynamics < quantum mechanics condensation > cloud < evaporation gravity > space-time < cosmic expansion matter > light < energy rule of law > democracy < freedom science . > philosophy < religion truth > beauty < love classical > self organizing < quantum Einstein > Darwin < Heisenberg Linear frame of reference wrt complexity zero > infinite Non-linear frame of reference simple > complex < simple (static) > (dynamic) < (chaotic) Remember, chaotic motion is considered simple since it only requires one field of science, same as static motion. Where the complex realm requires both at the same time hence 'complex'. Complex does not mean the same as complicated in this view. Complex is the place farthest from either simple opposing extreme in possibility. Order and life are the results of the critical interaction of classical and quantum realms. That's why it's impossible to merge the two realms into a grand unified theory. For the same reason you can't quantify life, or boil intelligence down to a simple equation. Instead of measuring what things are exactly. We compare the actual behavior of a system, against it's possible static or chaotic extremes. All those systems above, and more, share the same property. Which is that when a system is critically interacting, when it's at the highest level of complexity, it spontaneously produces more than it's sum, it evolves. Read for yourself. Self Organizing Faq http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm Calresco.org http://www.calresco.org/themes.htm Dynamics of Complex Systems http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/ > -- > Not on my time you don't.
From: huge on 1 Jul 2010 22:09
On 07/01/2010 08:42 PM, John M wrote: > > "huge" <huge(a)operamail.com> wrote in message > news:d9CdnefhfqD7bLbRnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... >> On 06/30/2010 06:36 PM, John M wrote: >>> >>> Not on my time you don't. >> >> Well, that was a fine chance to get on the soap box, but in all that >> presentation, you did not address precisely: >> "In nature there are always two competing centers, or primary system >> driving forces." >> >> Always Two! >> Two competing centers. >> Two primary driving forces. >> >> In all of nature. >> >> That is what I think is bullcrap. Defend it specifically. >> > > > There are three realms of the universe when it comes > to ...behavior. Not what things are, but what systems do. > Classical motion, quantum motion and a combination > of the two. > > Placed in abstract form, the 'classical' realm takes the form > of simple Newtonian like system rules of operation. > Few variables with fixed relationships. More generally > this is system behavior which tends to maintain order or > simplify the system over time. Gravity would be an example > of a classical force. Picture a ball spinning on the inside of > a bowl, eventually it comes to rest at the bottom. This is > called 'subcritical' behavior. In Complexity Science we call > this the ...'static' realm. As that is it's ...probable final state. > > Opposing the classical or static realm is of course the quantum > world. Where there are nearly infinite variables. many interacting > in a random or chaotic way. Where only statistical methods > are useful. This is behavior like a gas, where order is decreasing > over time. We call this 'supercritical' or 'chaotic' behavior. > > The two attractors, or 'centers' as you mentioned, would be > the static and chaotic realms. Or the system forces which > tend to maintain order (classical) vs the forces which are > dominated by random motion (quantum). You don't seem to understand what attractors are; things like "realms" are not attractors. You seem to be doing nothing more than engaging in the kind of word play that characterizes a former poster here called John Jones. You wouldn't be him, would you? "An attractor is a set of states (points in the phase space), invariant under the dynamics, towards which neighboring states in a given basin of attraction asymptotically approach in the course of dynamic evolution," as Wolfram's Math world would put it. You are using "attractor" in some wild metaphorical kind of way that doesn't make a lick of sense. You are using a lot of technical theory that you don't seem to understand. I suggest you spend more time doing actual math and let the soap box go for a while. > > Any existing real world system under the sun can be defined in this way. > What are the forces for order, and for chaos, for a society? > The rule of law and freedom would fill the static and chaotic attractors. > For biological evolution. The forces for order are genetics, and > the randomizing force is mutation > > When these two 'real' attractors, static and chaotic, are in an > unstable equilibrium with each other, so that neither dominates > then the third 'emergent' realm called 'dynamic' is spontaneously > produced > > > Static > Dynamic < Chaotic > Real > Emergent < Real > solid > liquid < gas > subcritical > critical < supercritical > particle physics > thermodynamics < quantum mechanics > > condensation > cloud < evaporation > gravity > space-time < cosmic expansion > matter > light < energy rule of law > democracy < freedom > science . > philosophy < religion > truth > beauty < love > classical > self organizing < quantum > > Einstein > Darwin < Heisenberg > > > Linear frame of reference wrt complexity > > zero > infinite > > Non-linear frame of reference > > simple > complex < simple > (static) > (dynamic) < (chaotic) > > Remember, chaotic motion is considered simple since > it only requires one field of science, same as static motion. > Where the complex realm requires both at the same time > hence 'complex'. Complex does not mean the same as > complicated in this view. Complex is the place farthest > from either simple opposing extreme in possibility. > > Order and life are the results of the critical interaction of classical > and quantum realms. That's why it's impossible to merge the two realms > into a grand unified theory. > For the same reason you can't quantify life, or boil > intelligence down to a simple equation. > > Instead of measuring what things are exactly. We compare > the actual behavior of a system, against it's possible static or > chaotic extremes. > All those systems above, and more, share the same property. > Which is that when a system is critically interacting, when > it's at the highest level of complexity, it spontaneously produces more > than it's sum, it evolves. > Read for yourself. > > > Self Organizing Faq > http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm > > Calresco.org > http://www.calresco.org/themes.htm > > Dynamics of Complex Systems > http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/ > > > > > > > > >> -- >> Not on my time you don't. > -- Not on my time you don't. |