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.