daft science

"don findlay" wrote in message
ups.com...
No, C'mon Dick, ..this is serious stuff, ..all about liquids and
solids, and how we know the difference,


How do you define a fluid?

An abstract definition would be based on the level of information
needed to describe the /behavior/ of the system.


"Take first the equation y = x * n. Suppose n = 2, then plotting for x = 1, 2, 3
we have y = 2, 4, 6 - a straight line, of slope n and linearity.

Now for x = x * n. Again for n = 2, starting with x = 1 we have x = 2, 4, 8
an exponential progression towards infinity, if n = 1 we have 1, 1, 1 - stagnation
and for n = 0.5 we have 0.5, 0.25, 0.125 a progression towards zero.

Three very different behaviours from the same formula, dependant upon
the constant. If we assume that it is one then anything even slightly more
will take us eventually to infinity, any less to zero - our 'Butterfly Effect',
sensitivity to initial conditions appears even for such a trivial formula.
In real life we will usually have many coupled variables, so in
practice x,y,z,... = f(x,y,z,...) - a matrix of inter-dependencies."
http://www.calresco.org/nonlin.htm



The two formulas express the world of direct mapping and precise
answers we've all been taught, blackboard science. The linear.
The second formula reflects butterfly effect instability since it maps
not into a dependent variable, but into ....itself.

When the second formula converges to zero it can be thought
of as being attracted to static or unchanging behavior. Which
is where the info needed to describe that system is at a minimum.
When it diverges to infinity the system can be thought to be attracted
to chaotic or unpredictable behavior. But the info needed to describe
chaotic motion is still at a minimum since the /behavior/ of both
are described by simple deterministic equations.

This is counter-intuitive from our classical methods. We think
of gasses, divergent behavior, as complicated or complex.
This would be true if we analyze the system by the specific
positions or part details. Which is the input.

But we are analyzing the system based on the /output./
On the info needed to describe the output, not the
input as is custom with particle or linear methods.


So, where is a fluid in all this?

A fluid exists where the system is constantly pr randomly jumping
between /both/ convergent and divergent behavior.

Or, where static and chaotic trajectories are intractably entangled.

This is where the information needed to describe that system
is at a maximum. This is where ....the real world....exists.
The complex realm.

Systems that tend to this complex behavior are said to be within
a dynamic attractor.

So now we have three distinct system behaviors or attractors
defined in an entirely abstract way.

The static of solids or fixed and simple relationships. (convergent output)
The dynamic realm of complex relationships. (both)
The chaotic realm of unpredictable and random relationships.(divergent output)

The first realm is where Newtonian physics reign.
The last is where quantum or statistical methods reign.
The middle complex realm is where.........Nature reigns
and the first two fail, since neither is capable of fully
describing complex or real world behavior.

And since the real world chaotically jumps between the
direct and statistical ways, neither will describe reality
fully.

Think of a cloud, where the system is chaotically jumping
between water and air. Except the water is Newtonian
methods, and the air are statistical or quantum methods.

In a natural system when do you apply either?
You can't say, because it's randomly jumping between
the two.

Before about 1990, we only had the two methods to use
to understand reality. If only we could build a new
science that can deal with the dynamic realm, and in
an abstract way, then we can actually deal with
reality in a scientific way.

If only!

Well, my constant prattling on about complexity science is
that the breakthrough has finally been found allowing reality
to be properly modeled ...FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER.

Dammit!

That's a big deal in itself.

But it gets better, much better.

Since this is an abstract definition, not dependent on ANY
system specific details. Guess what????

It models, using only one scientific language, one set of axioms...
.......EVERYTHING IN THE FLIPPING UNIVERSE.


At once.



For example, apply this to say ....art.

Learning the rules and techniques of the piano would
be considered the realm of simple relationships.
The static realm.

The chaotic realm would be inspiration, the random shuffling of
existing concepts into novel combinations.

Art, the dynamic realm of fluids and emotions, would be when
the two, the static and chaotic, are intractable entangled.
Are in an unstable equilibrium with each other.
Art now has a mathematics.

So how would one define the ideal society using this method?

When the rule of law, the static, and freedom, the chaotic, are
in an unstable equilibrium.
Governing now has a mathematics.

It's below btw, the very first full online text.
I don't care what field your question is, the answer
is in here.
http://www.necsi.org/publications/dcs/



How would you define the optimum science for understanding
reality...now.

Classical science would fill the static attractor, while religion
or philosophy would fill the chaotic. So a balance between
the two would produce the dynamic attractor of wisdom.
Wisdom now has a mathematics.

And so on.

And so on.

And so on.


It is the dynamic realm where Nature, beauty and wisdom resides.
Where life, evolution and ideas reside. Where everything
that /truly matters/ reside. In the complex realm.

Not in either the static or chaotic.
Not in either classical science or revealed religion.

Residing in either extreme, static or chaotic, are the ways
of the Dark Ages. Of endless conflict between science
and religion. In the man-made world.

Nature is neither and both at the same time.
Reality is a cloud, an emotion and beauty.
Objective methods reside in one extreme or
the other. Subjective methods lie in-between.
In the dynamic.

Only the /subjective/ realm of say prose and poetry, where
both the static and chaotic coexist, is capable of properly
and completely expressing the true properties of the universe.

These basic concepts are simple enough for a child to understand.
The problem is, of course, the notion that an objective or precise
science is necessarily one extreme or another, and by definition....
......grossly incomplete.

We're so inculcated in the objective and precision that embracing
subjectivity is literally Heresy. Subjective can't be science they say!
Nothing every happens the same way twice they say!

But once these concepts are understood, we now have a way
to agree on subjective qualities. We can all look at things
in the same subjective way. We need to learn to train
our subjective abilities before we can know anything.

We need to first understand ourselves...life...to properly
completely and scientifically understand the physical
universe.

There's no other path.

That's the truth, that's the way of the future.


Jonathan


"PERCEPTION of an
Object costs
Precise the Object's loss.
Perception in itself a gain
Replying to its price;
The Object Absolute is nought,
Perception sets it fair,
And then upbraids a Perfectness
That situates so far."


By E Dickinson




s









..and plate Tectonics, ..and
subduction, ..and the dafties who promote it, and call it science.
Science enough to publish in Nature and special issues of scientific
american. Jon there in sci.geo.geology is going on about the political
american, and I get the feeling the two are as daft as each other.

Drinking a lot of coffee again, are you?

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

wrote in message
oups.com...

Drinking a lot of coffee again, are you?


No, out of pot. Which kinda has the same effect eh~





(Sorry, couldn't resist)

Well, my constant prattling on about complexity science is
that the breakthrough has finally been found allowing reality
to be properly modeled ...FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER.

*****************

Well, Johnathan, I agree with what you say, but I'm not so sure your
posts or mine make much difference. People get very polarized against
the science of complexity, it being too --- "far out". What has kept
me going the past 3 or 4 years since discovering the Principia
Cybernetica has been the knowledge that the Global Brain is
automatically, cybernetically, unavoidably locking-in, since the Earth
is full of systems and they will undergo a metasystem transition with
no way to stop it. So I've got to the point of realizing that it will
happen and such people as you and me will only have one effect upon it
- to possibly speed it up. Like a pile of brush just starting to burn,
one may let it go at a normal rate or one may pour 5 gallons of diesel
fuel on it to hurry it along. In any case, I admire your posts and you
know, it's kind of nice to see somethig positive on the horizon for
once (actaully, it's aleady here, it's just refining itself, growing
up). Positive self-fulfilling prediction also has a lot to do with it,
to be optimistic in the face of the negativism one sees all around them
every day.

In my early days I tried discussion and debate with cyberneticists and
they're worse than anyone. Personalities, endless debate. So I just
sit back and watch the show. The ending is inevitable. An organism
wants what's best for itself, the cybernetic purpose of life,
"comfortable survival". Good work.

Don

Well, keep up the good work.

Obviously I am reading your occasional post.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Well, my constant prattling on about complexity science is
that the breakthrough has finally been found allowing reality
to be properly modeled ...FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER.

*****************

Well, Johnathan, I agree with what you say, but I'm not so sure your
posts or mine make much difference. People get very polarized against
the science of complexity, it being too --- "far out". What has kept
me going the past 3 or 4 years since discovering the Principia
Cybernetica has been the knowledge that the Global Brain is
automatically, cybernetically, unavoidably locking-in, since the Earth
is full of systems and they will undergo a metasystem transition with
no way to stop it. So I've got to the point of realizing that it will
happen and such people as you and me will only have one effect upon it
- to possibly speed it up.


I've been pondering that aspect. How to set goals and change the world
that is. How to have the greatest effect. There's a math for that too...
now.

Another thing that's realized in this science when looking at
the properties of random boolean networks. Which is
the 'integral' so to speak of complexity science.
It's the absolute inevitability of natural systems to
converge on the ..complex...or middle realm of
beauty, wisdom and natural.

It's the destiny of the human race to return to nature
and to swim in beauty. The only question is how long?


Like a pile of brush just starting to burn,
one may let it go at a normal rate or one may pour 5 gallons of diesel
fuel on it to hurry it along.


Change may take a linear path, which can be very slow.
Or it can be non-linear. We see this effect in the French
riots right now. One small event set's off a massive
and self-similar response that spreads out of control
literally overnight. These riots are a classic non-linear response.

A system residing on the edge of chaos, the most sensitive or stressful
spot, undergoing a fundamental and sudden phase transition to a
completely new behavior. Switching from a repressive hopeless
or static environment, immediately to the opposite extreme of
chaos.

Looking for such system wide stress is the key to creating
change.

My personal goal is nothing much really, I only wish to
help return the world to nature. Sounds a bit insane eh?

Well, returning the world to nature in the abstract takes the
tangible form of returning the world to democracy.
Nature's best mimic.

To optimize change we must find a system that
has both overall stress and largest scale maximized.
Take a look around the world, do you see such a
large stressed system anywhere?

China stands out like a sore thumb.
The most rigid and largest the world has to offer.

And the 'event' to set off the French-like cascading effect.

The upcoming Beijing Olympics will define the point of
maximum stress ...and....maximum connectivity.

It doesn't get any better. It never will get any better.
It's a once in a species opportunity to suddenly and
massively create change.

Overnight, and with a trivial triggering event, a FOURTH
of the world could be freed. And the inevitable return
to nature will clear it's last great hurdle.

And this grandiose personal goal of returning the world
to nature could be accomplished with something as
trifling as this.


http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Mexico_1968.htm
"Polls have indicated that their demonstration was the
6th most memorable event of the 20th century"


Or the Chinese version,

http://www.faluninfo.net/gallery/photo.asp?ID=101


And ya know what. At the edge, the likelihood of such triggering
events are most likely. In fact it's almost unstoppable with the
proper conditions. I fully believe that merely convincing a few
people that something will happen, and it will.

A self-fulfilling prophecy is a property of the kind of edge
state that will occur during the Beijing Olympics.

Convincing these people ........
http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAca...ateleaders.php

..........that the Falun Gong will try to disrupt the Olympics
should do the trick. Their over reaction will self-trigger the
attractor change.

I'm going to e-mail them all every little detail over
and over before the Olympics. Merely convincing
a few of them of their impending doom is all it
should take.

We'll see. I can't wait.


Jonathan


"YOU cannot put a fire out;
A thing that can ignite
Can go, itself, without a fan
Upon the slowest night.

You cannot fold a flood
And put it in a drawer,
Because the winds would find it out,
And tell your cedar floor."



s













In any case, I admire your posts and you
know, it's kind of nice to see somethig positive on the horizon for
once (actaully, it's aleady here, it's just refining itself, growing
up). Positive self-fulfilling prediction also has a lot to do with it,
to be optimistic in the face of the negativism one sees all around them
every day.

In my early days I tried discussion and debate with cyberneticists and
they're worse than anyone. Personalities, endless debate. So I just
sit back and watch the show. The ending is inevitable. An organism
wants what's best for itself, the cybernetic purpose of life,
"comfortable survival". Good work.

Don

complexity theory - cool
but remember that these theories are just descriptions of real world
processes
and these descriptions, by dint of linguistic relativity, are flawed
have a look at Bohms Implicate Order book and consider ontologies and
representations

doesn't mean that all these different theories are not sweet in their own
domain
you just need to understand the relevant realms of applicability - the scale
length per se

Blooms book - the Global Brain has some very nice takes on complexity
theory, try it




"jonathan" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
Well, my constant prattling on about complexity science is
that the breakthrough has finally been found allowing reality
to be properly modeled ...FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER.

*****************

Well, Johnathan, I agree with what you say, but I'm not so sure your
posts or mine make much difference. People get very polarized against
the science of complexity, it being too --- "far out". What has kept
me going the past 3 or 4 years since discovering the Principia
Cybernetica has been the knowledge that the Global Brain is
automatically, cybernetically, unavoidably locking-in, since the Earth
is full of systems and they will undergo a metasystem transition with
no way to stop it. So I've got to the point of realizing that it will
happen and such people as you and me will only have one effect upon it
- to possibly speed it up.


I've been pondering that aspect. How to set goals and change the world
that is. How to have the greatest effect. There's a math for that too...
now.

Another thing that's realized in this science when looking at
the properties of random boolean networks. Which is
the 'integral' so to speak of complexity science.
It's the absolute inevitability of natural systems to
converge on the ..complex...or middle realm of
beauty, wisdom and natural.

It's the destiny of the human race to return to nature
and to swim in beauty. The only question is how long?


Like a pile of brush just starting to burn,
one may let it go at a normal rate or one may pour 5 gallons of diesel
fuel on it to hurry it along.


Change may take a linear path, which can be very slow.
Or it can be non-linear. We see this effect in the French
riots right now. One small event set's off a massive
and self-similar response that spreads out of control
literally overnight. These riots are a classic non-linear response.

A system residing on the edge of chaos, the most sensitive or stressful
spot, undergoing a fundamental and sudden phase transition to a
completely new behavior. Switching from a repressive hopeless
or static environment, immediately to the opposite extreme of
chaos.

Looking for such system wide stress is the key to creating
change.

My personal goal is nothing much really, I only wish to
help return the world to nature. Sounds a bit insane eh?

Well, returning the world to nature in the abstract takes the
tangible form of returning the world to democracy.
Nature's best mimic.

To optimize change we must find a system that
has both overall stress and largest scale maximized.
Take a look around the world, do you see such a
large stressed system anywhere?

China stands out like a sore thumb.
The most rigid and largest the world has to offer.

And the 'event' to set off the French-like cascading effect.

The upcoming Beijing Olympics will define the point of
maximum stress ...and....maximum connectivity.

It doesn't get any better. It never will get any better.
It's a once in a species opportunity to suddenly and
massively create change.

Overnight, and with a trivial triggering event, a FOURTH
of the world could be freed. And the inevitable return
to nature will clear it's last great hurdle.

And this grandiose personal goal of returning the world
to nature could be accomplished with something as
trifling as this.


http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/Mexico_1968.htm
"Polls have indicated that their demonstration was the
6th most memorable event of the 20th century"


Or the Chinese version,

http://www.faluninfo.net/gallery/photo.asp?ID=101


And ya know what. At the edge, the likelihood of such triggering
events are most likely. In fact it's almost unstoppable with the
proper conditions. I fully believe that merely convincing a few
people that something will happen, and it will.

A self-fulfilling prophecy is a property of the kind of edge
state that will occur during the Beijing Olympics.

Convincing these people ........
http://www.cecc.gov/pages/virtualAca...ateleaders.php

.........that the Falun Gong will try to disrupt the Olympics
should do the trick. Their over reaction will self-trigger the
attractor change.

I'm going to e-mail them all every little detail over
and over before the Olympics. Merely convincing
a few of them of their impending doom is all it
should take.

We'll see. I can't wait.


Jonathan


"YOU cannot put a fire out;
A thing that can ignite
Can go, itself, without a fan
Upon the slowest night.

You cannot fold a flood
And put it in a drawer,
Because the winds would find it out,
And tell your cedar floor."



s













In any case, I admire your posts and you
know, it's kind of nice to see somethig positive on the horizon for
once (actaully, it's aleady here, it's just refining itself, growing
up). Positive self-fulfilling prediction also has a lot to do with it,
to be optimistic in the face of the negativism one sees all around them
every day.

In my early days I tried discussion and debate with cyberneticists and
they're worse than anyone. Personalities, endless debate. So I just
sit back and watch the show. The ending is inevitable. An organism
wants what's best for itself, the cybernetic purpose of life,
"comfortable survival". Good work.

Don

jonathan wrote:
"don findlay" wrote in message
ups.com...
No, C'mon Dick, ..this is serious stuff, ..all about liquids and
solids, and how we know the difference,


How do you define a fluid?

An abstract definition would be based on the level of information
needed to describe the /behavior/ of the system.


"Take first the equation y = x * n. Suppose n = 2, then plotting for x = 1, 2, 3
we have y = 2, 4, 6 - a straight line, of slope n and linearity.

Now for x = x * n. Again for n = 2, starting with x = 1 we have x = 2, 4, 8
an exponential progression towards infinity, if n = 1 we have 1, 1, 1 -stagnation
and for n = 0.5 we have 0.5, 0.25, 0.125 a progression towards zero.

Three very different behaviours from the same formula, dependant upon
the constant. If we assume that it is one then anything even slightly more
will take us eventually to infinity, any less to zero - our 'Butterfly Effect',
sensitivity to initial conditions appears even for such a trivial formula.
In real life we will usually have many coupled variables, so in
practice x,y,z,... = f(x,y,z,...) - a matrix of inter-dependencies."
http://www.calresco.org/nonlin.htm



The two formulas express the world of direct mapping and precise
answers we've all been taught, blackboard science. The linear.
The second formula reflects butterfly effect instability since it maps
not into a dependent variable, but into ....itself.

When the second formula converges to zero it can be thought
of as being attracted to static or unchanging behavior. Which
is where the info needed to describe that system is at a minimum.
When it diverges to infinity the system can be thought to be attracted
to chaotic or unpredictable behavior. But the info needed to describe
chaotic motion is still at a minimum since the /behavior/ of both
are described by simple deterministic equations.

This is counter-intuitive from our classical methods. We think
of gasses, divergent behavior, as complicated or complex.
This would be true if we analyze the system by the specific
positions or part details. Which is the input.

But we are analyzing the system based on the /output./
On the info needed to describe the output, not the
input as is custom with particle or linear methods.


So, where is a fluid in all this?

A fluid exists where the system is constantly pr randomly jumping
between /both/ convergent and divergent behavior.

Or, where static and chaotic trajectories are intractably entangled.

This is where the information needed to describe that system
is at a maximum. This is where ....the real world....exists.
The complex realm.

Systems that tend to this complex behavior are said to be within
a dynamic attractor.

So now we have three distinct system behaviors or attractors
defined in an entirely abstract way.

The static of solids or fixed and simple relationships. (convergent output)
The dynamic realm of complex relationships. (both)
The chaotic realm of unpredictable and random relationships.(divergent output)

The first realm is where Newtonian physics reign.
The last is where quantum or statistical methods reign.
The middle complex realm is where.........Nature reigns
and the first two fail, since neither is capable of fully
describing complex or real world behavior.

And since the real world chaotically jumps between the
direct and statistical ways, neither will describe reality
fully.

Think of a cloud, where the system is chaotically jumping
between water and air. Except the water is Newtonian
methods, and the air are statistical or quantum methods.

In a natural system when do you apply either?
You can't say, because it's randomly jumping between
the two.

Before about 1990, we only had the two methods to use
to understand reality. If only we could build a new
science that can deal with the dynamic realm, and in
an abstract way, then we can actually deal with
reality in a scientific way.

If only!

Well, my constant prattling on about complexity science is
that the breakthrough has finally been found allowing reality
to be properly modeled ...FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER.

Dammit!

That's a big deal in itself.

But it gets better, much better.

Since this is an abstract definition, not dependent on ANY
system specific details. Guess what????

It models, using only one scientific language, one set of axioms...
......EVERYTHING IN THE FLIPPING UNIVERSE.


At once.



For example, apply this to say ....art.

Learning the rules and techniques of the piano would
be considered the realm of simple relationships.
The static realm.

The chaotic realm would be inspiration, the random shuffling of
existing concepts into novel combinations.

Art, the dynamic realm of fluids and emotions, would be when
the two, the static and chaotic, are intractable entangled.
Are in an unstable equilibrium with each other.
Art now has a mathematics.

So how would one define the ideal society using this method?

When the rule of law, the static, and freedom, the chaotic, are
in an unstable equilibrium.
Governing now has a mathematics.

It's below btw, the very first full online text.
I don't care what field your question is, the answer
is in here.
http://www.necsi.org/publications/dcs/



How would you define the optimum science for understanding
reality...now.

Classical science would fill the static attractor, while religion
or philosophy would fill the chaotic. So a balance between
the two would produce the dynamic attractor of wisdom.
Wisdom now has a mathematics.

And so on.

And so on.

And so on.


It is the dynamic realm where Nature, beauty and wisdom resides.
Where life, evolution and ideas reside. Where everything
that /truly matters/ reside. In the complex realm.

Not in either the static or chaotic.
Not in either classical science or revealed religion.

Residing in either extreme, static or chaotic, are the ways
of the Dark Ages. Of endless conflict between science
and religion. In the man-made world.

Nature is neither and both at the same time.
Reality is a cloud, an emotion and beauty.
Objective methods reside in one extreme or
the other. Subjective methods lie in-between.
In the dynamic.

Only the /subjective/ realm of say prose and poetry, where
both the static and chaotic coexist, is capable of properly
and completely expressing the true properties of the universe.

These basic concepts are simple enough for a child to understand.
The problem is, of course, the notion that an objective or precise
science is necessarily one extreme or another, and by definition....
.....grossly incomplete.

We're so inculcated in the objective and precision that embracing
subjectivity is literally Heresy. Subjective can't be science they say!
Nothing every happens the same way twice they say!

But once these concepts are understood, we now have a way
to agree on subjective qualities. We can all look at things
in the same subjective way. We need to learn to train
our subjective abilities before we can know anything.

We need to first understand ourselves...life...to properly
completely and scientifically understand the physical
universe.

There's no other path.

That's the truth, that's the way of the future.


Jonathan


And so, if we make a wrinkle in the woven fabric of space and time, and
gather to us in an instance, the future, we will know, that in much the
same way that E=mc², that 'We' equal the physical universe in union
with infinite space, and vise versa, no? That we are the
'consciousness' of All That Is, no? And all that, 'truly matters', is
whether or not We enjoy ourselves as we row row row our boats gently
down the stream, no?

L.



"PERCEPTION of an
Object costs
Precise the Object's loss.
Perception in itself a gain
Replying to its price;
The Object Absolute is nought,
Perception sets it fair,
And then upbraids a Perfectness
That situates so far."


By E Dickinson




s









..and plate Tectonics, ..and
subduction, ..and the dafties who promote it, and call it science.
Science enough to publish in Nature and special issues of scientific
american. Jon there in sci.geo.geology is going on about the political
american, and I get the feeling the two are as daft as each other.

complexity theory - cool
but remember that these theories are just descriptions of real world
processes and these descriptions, by dint of linguistic relativity, are
flawed have a look at Bohms Implicate Order book and consider
ontologies and representations

doesn't mean that all these different theories are not sweet in their
own domain you just need to understand the relevant realms of
applicability - the scale length per se

Blooms book - the Global Brain has some very nice takes on complexity
theory, try it.

*******************

Bloom's book - read it. Says just what all the other complexity
theorists are saying. For a more complete version:
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ , The Principia Cybernetica.

These theories are "just" descriptions of real world processes.
What more do we need? Unless you wish to elaborate on what you're
saying.

And all that, 'truly matters', is whether or not We enjoy ourselves as
we row row row our boats gently down the stream, no?

***********

Unless that stream is taking us to Niagra Falls. But then, some may
enjoy even that if they're suicidal. Being suicidal really mucks
things up. Like, see what it does to the "Golden Rule":

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."