How Did the Jarosite Form at Meridiani?

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
m...

"jonathan" wrote in message
...

"Pedro Rosa" wrote in message
om...
"R.Schenck" wrote in message
.net...
(Pedro Rosa) on 28 Mar 2004 posted

and eager to fast and brilliant conclusions...

What is that sig that I see everyonceinawhile, something life
'large
leaps are the easyiest to take, its the small steps that are the
most
difficult and the ones that we over look' or some such. Seems
quite
relevant. Before we can talk about what kind of animals are alive
on
mars we have to talk about a lot of other things.

That is very relative. My search of possible life in Mars goes
through
finding morpholgies that may have a relation to living beings...
However one should be careful that not even Knoll Criterium is
enough
to avoid you of making mistakes. I have already seen three or four
possible Knoll Criterium objects. And only one I named as parafossil
as it possesses unique properties. However, I still have a few ideas
to "kill" that parafossil.


snip

He just presented me with some idea. I looked at it and a little
light
in my head flashed: "Synergy",


Synergy is just another word for "the whole is greater than the sum of
the parts". That extra unseen value, whether in market systems or
evolution, emotions or teamwork, intelligence or dark energy, needs a
rational explanation.

There is one now, don't you want to know what it is? The one
solution answers the questions for all the examples above, and
at /once/. It is a very powerful and flexible concept. It provides
a certain sense of intellectual ..rebirth.. that was once thought
the realm of only religion.

What is this "Solution"?


A complex adaptive system is a generic or universal model
of system behavior and structure. It applies as well to man-
made systems as it does to natural ones. It's essentially
Darwinian evolution, but modeled mathematically and
abstractly in a way that can be applied to any sufficiently
complex system. It can be shown virtually any organized
structure in the universe is suitable for this type of
analysis.

http://www.calresco.org/lucas/cas.htm




old daddy Prigogine's ideas. But
completely out of context. Mixed with some strange philosophy
that
Life should be something obligatory no matter under what
conditions
exist. As far as I can judge, Jonathan just read a few articles,
maybe
books, mixed them up with some jerk that uses synergy right and
left,
and voila.


Don't be silly, spend some time with random boolean networks
in the first link below. It explains the basic math behind the
general concept of self organization and its spontaneous
and inevitable nature. The link has charts and equations and
everything~. Once versed in these ideas you'll come to
realize that words alone provide a far more complete
and accurate method of understanding than any chart
or graph.

The future of science is to become prose and poetry, as
the mathematics of complexity science...prove...the
human race is destined to swim in beauty. So too will
our methods of understanding.




IMHO words & prose constitute Philosophy which may/may not be based on
reality that is repeatable.


Reality is not repeatable. It is almost ...entirely... non-linear.
Repeatability
only applies to very limited situations where the system is at equilibrium
or comprised of very few and simple components. In real world
systems this is rarely the case without gross simplifications.

The folks who deal with celestial mechanichs would disagree IMHO.

http://www.calresco.org/nonlin.htm



All reality systems, chemistry, physics, celestial mechanics, thermo
dynamics, etc. is definable by mathmathetics that are repeatable.


Math is self-consistent, it works on a blackboard or with an
idealized state. But real world systems are almost...never...
repeatable, so mathematics is consistent only with itself
not reality. It can be shown that any math problem with
more then ...two variables..cannot be solved exactly. There
are no real world problems with only ...two variables.
Unless one simply ignores the rest.





I think J is the guy who thinks that 'complexity math' (whatever
that
is)
is the answer to everything. It seems like he and other people
who,
vaugely at least, support this 'complexity math', feel that
complexity
is
an unstopable process, and that, once you have a set of things
intereacting with each other (i.e. minerals in a 'rock type' or
chemicals
in a 'soup' etc) then you are eventually going to get not only
life
but
intelligent life and comlex systems of intelligent life. I don't
know
why they call it complexity -math- tho because I never see any
math
supporting this.


An Introduction to Complex Systems
Torsten Reil, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~quee0818/comp...omplexity.html


DYNAMICS OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS
http://www.necsi.org/publications/dcs/

Self-Organizing Systems (SOS) FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions Version 2.93 November 2003
http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm

Link page
http://www.iaa.csic.es/~eperez/resea...locations.html


Just a few links to get started. Why are people so
resistant to new ideas?

This is a new science, Mars is a new playground. I'm
simply testing these ideas out for myself. I offered my
answer to the 'test' of Meridiani...in writing... three weeks
ago under , 'Meridiani as an Ancient Bacteria Sponge Ecosystem', and
before Nasa even announced Meridiani was 'drenched'.

I have seen the above links previously. I have yet to see the "Math"
supporting your statements re "'Meridiani as an Ancient Bacteria Sponge
Ecosystem'" either posted here or a link to said "Math".


In that post I'm applying concepts, not equations. Such as
emergence and self-organization. The required math is
in understanding those concepts, not applying them in
this situation. Emergence is analogous to market forces
and their self tuning properties. That self tuning can only
occur when the system has very well defined structural
properties. So when you look at the output, the global
behavior of a system and see it ...is in fact...displaying
such self tuning or emergent properties, you then can
say with good reliability the system has those necessary
structural properties.

Some would say apply "Ocam's Razor", while others would say use the KISS
(keep it simple stupid) system to ask why make something more complicated
than necessary. If something has no bearing or serves no useful purpose in
dealing with the situation at hand, why drag it in to complicate/confuse
matters?

One only needs to point out the emergent features to
gain great understanding of the system...once you
know about the concepts of emergence and self
organizing systems etc.

How can they be pointed out if they are not defined?

For example, if a forest displays a healthy population
of the highest predator, say, eagles for instance. That
simple observation tells you a great deal about the
health and structure of the system. All the required
interactions are in place else that predator could
not thrive. What math is needed to do this?

The devil is in the details. A substantual amount of math is necessary to
define what the "Required interactions necessary for the predator to
"Thrive" are.

Simply an understanding of what is needed to allow
such an emergent creation to thrive. One needs to
know about forests. In this case one needs to know
about self-organizing systems and so on.

The level of complexity of the spheres does just the same
thing, it shows that the system must have supported life
else no emergent features such as spheres, soil building
etc could exist.

To assume is to make an "ASS" of you & me IMHO.

I'm providing the links so others can understand the needed
concepts and apply them properly. I can't do that for you or
post chapter after chapter, you have to point out what
topics you'd like to discuss.




I'm simply waiting for the grades to be posted.

All the math/logic needed is there. I've seen little need to update
it or change anything since then, which means, so far, I'm
passing.

You have yet to post the actual "Math" to be graded IMHO .


The results are what is important, if the conclusion is correct
I passed, as the conclusion is based on very limited data, time
and without any...at all...specialist knowledge in the various
fields this problem crossed. I can think of half a dozen specialties
easy. If I can come to an accurate solution faster I win, by leaps
and bounds.

I have geard this refered to as the "SWAG" (Scientific Wild Ass Guess)
system, except in the instance you relate the "Scientific" part is not
applicable IMHO.

Please keep in mind, I'm testing myself here, and my understanding
of the concepts. If I can wander in to this kind of mystery and
beat the pros, I'm ready to apply them elsewhere, the stock
market for instance. That is my next adventure, ...if I pass this
test.

To be an honest test these predictions and theories must be
public to prevent fudging on my part, so I can't pretend.

It's like stock trading, it's not enough to say I could have
bought there, and sold here. You have to actually go
do it, as putting money down changes the thought
processes and decisions. I've already developed a trading
system with these concepts and have been testing them
with moderate sums.

I'm still making mistakes, but have demonstrated several
months in a row at 20% a month.

The subject here is "Aparrent Concretions" on Mars not your Stock Tradeing
Poweress.


I've lost all my reticence, whether in boasting or offending, as I
realize now that reality is not a 'thing' to be measured and
probed. But reality is what we make of it. It's time to stop
following the cold dead trail of evidence, and start creating
the beautiful world we desire.

These concepts make that Utopian dream possible.

IMHO "Philisophy" is the only place where a "Utopian Dream" is posible.


But complexity science is a universal mathematics, it can be used
to build a philosophy that is quite rational. Philosophical questions
are complex adaptive systems after all.

http://www.calresco.org/lucas/philos.htm



How can something be reality without being "Definable?


The real world never stops long enough to fully define it.
Something as pedestrian as a cloud, tell me it's shape, weight
or size. By the time you've spotted one all those have changed.

If a simple cloud is beyond deterministic methods, how can one
hope to use classical mechanics to explain...oh an emotion, or
a snowflake. The blackboard and the real world are two entirely
different things. One is static and repeatable, the other is not.



How can something be defined without evidence that can be measured &
tested
to determine definition?


What truly effects our reality? Has any idea every moved you, or changed
your view? Show me the math for that? Or the math that predicts
how 9/11 will effect us all. The things that effect us and reality the
most are non-linear and beyond simple quantification.

An idea that changed the world? Show me the math?
When someone gets divorced and dives off a bridge, the
world just lost a variable, show me the math? When
a presidential candidate screams, show me the math.

There isn't any...well...complexity science can deal with all
these things in an elegant and simple way, wanna know how?
Do the necessary math to understand the concepts behind
it and it'll all become clear someday.


IMHO you have posted much "Utopian Imagination" that is without
definition.


Utopia is a well-defined process, one we all know already. Nature and
market
forces self tune, they find the optimum all by themselves. They find
beauty
automatically, once you know how nature works. Utopia is not a place,
thing
or object to be chased, it is a process of improvement. Nature shows
a universal and beautiful process for us to follow. It shows us Utopia,
complexity
science shows us Nature.



Jonathan

s






Jonathan

Ralph Nesbitt


IMHO the reality of science is based on the What, When, Where, Why, & How,
not SWAG.
Ralph Nesbitt

"Joe Knapp" wrote in message
gy.com...

"jonathan" wrote
A complex adaptive system is a generic or universal model
of system behavior and structure. It applies as well to man-
made systems as it does to natural ones. It's essentially
Darwinian evolution, but modeled mathematically and
abstractly in a way that can be applied to any sufficiently
complex system. It can be shown virtually any organized
structure in the universe is suitable for this type of
analysis.

It was fascinating how just recently the long-standing mystery of the
spirals in the Martian polar caps was explained by the same mathematics that
leads to the stable formation of spirals in slime mold colonies:



I read that also, that is exactly how complexity science is being
used. Global pattern recognition and comparisons using
computer simulations. The global patterns between the Spirit
and Opportunity sites are clear also. Meridiani shows this
wonderful order and structure that requires an explanation.
Such order can only be produced by iterative processes and
communication between the features....water.

And the spheres show an added level of complexity.
An emergent creation of that ecosystem. Gotta be life.



"Spirals fit the bill, and while perusing a book on mathematical patterns in
biology, [Jon Pelletier, an assistant professor of geosciences at the
University of Arizona ] was struck by the spiral shape formed by slime
molds. He wondered whether the mathematical equation that described how the
slime mold grew could also be applied to geological processes. 'There's a
recipe for getting spirals to form,' he said. So he tried it out, using
information that described the situation on Mars."

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=13914

Since he ran a simulation to test this theory, the "mathematics" isn't of
the classical closed form, attesting to the complexity of rigorous analysis
of even the simplest of phenomena, but nevertheless the end result is from a
stock set of geometric forms that we see on Earth. Forms on Mars may be a
lot more familiar than many people expect, physics being the same
everywhere. Even in the abiotic interpretations, Earth analogies for their
formation are the rule, not appeals to exotic processes producing radically
"alien" results.


The thing about these equations used in the simulations is that they tend
to be rather simple. Since iterative loops, mapping into itself, can produce
extremely complex behavior.
http://www.calresco.org/lucas/classify.htm

http://www.alpix.com/vrml/lsys.htm


Using global patterns allows one to move between the disciplines
as organized systems tend to display similar behavior. For example, I've
been testing a stock trading system based on thunderstorms....it works.
A system self-organizes....it's behavior becomes...independent... of the
hidden inner variables when all the primary variables are ...complex....at
the same time. Complex using the definition of complexity science.
Which is that each variable is midway between the system specific
possibility space.



http://www.calresco.org/milov/ymtemcss.htm




Jonathan


s





Joe






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article ,
jonathan wrote:

"Joe Knapp" wrote in message
igy.com...

"jonathan" wrote
A complex adaptive system is a generic or universal model
of system behavior and structure. It applies as well to man-
made systems as it does to natural ones. It's essentially
Darwinian evolution, but modeled mathematically and
abstractly in a way that can be applied to any sufficiently
complex system. It can be shown virtually any organized
structure in the universe is suitable for this type of
analysis.

It was fascinating how just recently the long-standing mystery of the
spirals in the Martian polar caps was explained by the same mathematics that
leads to the stable formation of spirals in slime mold colonies:



I read that also, that is exactly how complexity science is being
used. Global pattern recognition and comparisons using
computer simulations. The global patterns between the Spirit
and Opportunity sites are clear also. Meridiani shows this
wonderful order and structure that requires an explanation.
Such order can only be produced by iterative processes and
communication between the features....water.


http://geomorphology.geo.arizona.edu...s/spirals.html

There seems to be a distinct abundance of math in his work,
and a distinct lack of it in your work.

Why don't you write up your work and submit it to a
complexity science conference, Jonathan? I'm sure they
would love to know how to get results like you've been
getting without doing any actual work.

There is one now, don't you want to know what it is? The one
solution answers the questions for all the examples above, and
at /once/. It is a very powerful and flexible concept. It provides
a certain sense of intellectual ..rebirth.. that was once thought
the realm of only religion.


What is this "Solution"?



A complex adaptive system is a generic or universal model
of system behavior and structure. It applies as well to man-
made systems as it does to natural ones. It's essentially
Darwinian evolution, but modeled mathematically and
abstractly in a way that can be applied to any sufficiently
complex system. It can be shown virtually any organized
structure in the universe is suitable for this type of
analysis.

http://www.calresco.org/lucas/cas.htm


Did you read the information contained at that URL?

If it can be shown "virtually any organized structure in the universe"
is suitable, then please do so. (The URL you posted (seemingly at
random, since it does not do anything for your argument) does not show
this).


IMHO words & prose constitute Philosophy which may/may not be based on
reality that is repeatable.



Reality is not repeatable. It is almost ...entirely... non-linear. Repeatability
only applies to very limited situations where the system is at equilibrium
or comprised of very few and simple components. In real world
systems this is rarely the case without gross simplifications.

http://www.calresco.org/nonlin.htm

You keep posting links from this calresco ... however this is not a
scientific site. You did not appear to read the (not so) fine print -

"The views expressed on these pages are those of the authors and should
not be taken to reflect the views of any particular academic community
or discipline. We believe them to be consistent, however, with the
generally accepted viewpoint of the new sciences, with some personal
additions."

You're posting someone elses unproven "theories", and though some of the
contents are interesting, they have very limited applications (namely,
artificial life simulations, and possibly AI). You would be doing much
the same thing you are now if you were quoting scripture (You have done
everything but this, though I expect you'll be doing it soon).

Assurances that someone is correct does not make them correct. Your
profound belief in the rantings of non-scientists does not make it
correct. An interesting aside, however - I have lunar properties I could
sell you, for a VERY reasonable price, I assure you of that!



Math is self-consistent, it works on a blackboard or with an
idealized state. But real world systems are almost...never...
repeatable, so mathematics is consistent only with itself
not reality. It can be shown that any math problem with
more then ...two variables..cannot be solved exactly. There
are no real world problems with only ...two variables.
Unless one simply ignores the rest.


Please show that ANY math problem with more than "...two variables.."
cannot be solved exactly (since, as you say, it CAN be shown).

No realworld problems with only "...two variables" huh? I take it you're
not old enough to do taxes. Thats certainly a realworld example, with
many, many variables ... I manage to do my taxes just fine, and I
haven't been audited once (not to mention...the professionals get the
same figures I do!)

I have seen the above links previously. I have yet to see the "Math"
supporting your statements re "'Meridiani as an Ancient Bacteria Sponge
Ecosystem'" either posted here or a link to said "Math".



In that post I'm applying concepts, not equations. Such as
emergence and self-organization.

Concepts must be applied through some kind of method. You have not shown
the method by which you have reached your conclusion (I doubt you have
one). You've simply blathered endlessly about complexity and math and
poetry(?!).

The required math is in understanding those concepts, not applying them in
this situation.

(See the above paragraph)

Emergence is analogous to market forces
and their self tuning properties. That self tuning can only
occur when the system has very well defined structural
properties.

So show us that Mar's is "self tuning". Show us how you're defining
"self tuning" to the Martian Environment. No links to unrelated websites
please.

For example, if a forest displays a healthy population
of the highest predator, say, eagles for instance. That
simple observation tells you a great deal about the
health and structure of the system. All the required
interactions are in place else that predator could
not thrive. What math is needed to do this?

Oversimplification to the point of idiocy.

You can infer almost nothing in this situation when compared to what a
thorough investigation would (and has, and always will) provide.

A simple observation of eagles would not give you an indication of thier
relative health (is that eagle flying overhead nearly dead, or doing
just fine?), diet (What is this animal eating? It's probably eating
something...but what? Is anything eating it?), reproductive cycle (We
know from our education in grade school that most birds lay eggs, but
you cannot infer this from a simple observation), lifespan (how long do
they live? what do they usually die of? whats the mortality rate of
young?), mating habits (how do these animals attract mates? do they mate
for life? do they keep a "harem" of mates?), etc. This is not an
exhaustive list - Just a few tiny tidbits. A specialist who studies
eagles could likely go on for WEEKS solid and never repeat himself. You
are comparing a grain of a sand to an entire DESERT, and thinking that
the grain of sand is the greater.


Simply an understanding of what is needed to allow
such an emergent creation to thrive.

So are you saying that the inorganic material on mars is thriving?

One needs to know about forests.

And how would one know about forests, without doing a VERY comprehensive
study? Once again, you're oversimplifying to the point of idiocy.

In this case one needs to know about self-organizing systems and so on.

You have failed to show that Mars, or ANYTHING is a self organizing
system. And no, links to amatuer science websites does nothing for me
(or, I suspect, for anyone else).

The level of complexity of the spheres does just the same
thing, it shows that the system must have supported life
else no emergent features such as spheres, soil building
etc could exist.

Complexity is a relative term, and you have not bothered to quantify
what exactly about the spherules are "complex". In fact, you've stated
this so many times, that I really have to demand you answer this question -

"How are the 'blueberries' found on Mars 'complex'? What criteria are
you using to define these objects as 'complex'."

Remeber - No poetry! No rants about how being specific/objective is
evil! No links to unrelated websites!

I'm providing the links so others can understand the needed
concepts and apply them properly. I can't do that for you or
post chapter after chapter, you have to point out what
topics you'd like to discuss.

The links you have provided are largely unproven nonsense. Some of it is
theory. NONE of them that I've seen provides a methodology for applying
any concepts to anything. Note - A vague "This would be useful for AI"
is not a method.


I'm simply waiting for the grades to be posted.

All the math/logic needed is there. I've seen little need to update
it or change anything since then, which means, so far, I'm
passing.


You have yet to post the actual "Math" to be graded IMHO .



The results are what is important, if the conclusion is correct
I passed, as the conclusion is based on very limited data, time
and without any...at all...specialist knowledge in the various
fields this problem crossed. I can think of half a dozen specialties
easy. If I can come to an accurate solution faster I win, by leaps
and bounds.

More generally - You have yet to post your procedure. You have blithered
endlessly about how wonderful the "concepts" are, but have failed to
post how you've applied them. Without that, you're just a crackpot
nutjob taking wild guesses about subjects you know nothing about.

Even a broken method can be correct. IE -

If you take 16/64, and remove the number "6" from it, you get 1/4! It's
right! So I passed the test, right?!

16/64 = 1/4. The conclusion is correct, however the method of reaching
that conclusion is horribly faulty. Since you have not posted your
method of reaching this conclusion, you cannot say you have "passed"
anything.

Please keep in mind, I'm testing myself here, and my understanding
of the concepts. If I can wander in to this kind of mystery and
beat the pros, I'm ready to apply them elsewhere, the stock
market for instance. That is my next adventure, ...if I pass this
test.

You've got a 50/50 chance of being right with this guess. Either there
are sponges on Mars, or there isn't (my money is on "isn't" LOL). You
have not shown your method, and I (and most people with 2 braincells
that aren't feeding on each other) do not believe you HAVE a method -
You've simply guessed. Go play roulette if you want to "guess" or
"gamble" or whatever it is you think you're doing.

Now that you've said that jonathan...I can pretty well associate you to
the Comp.Theory.Self-Org-Sys Jonathan.

I think it's incredibly funny that, the representative of the site
you've cited as your "sources" had this to say to you -

"At CALResCo we believe that these ideas can be widely applied
to human behaviours, although we prefer to ground them in good
science. So we would not necessarily back up all the ideas in
Jonathan's other postings !"

Judging by your postings to C.T.SOS, you're full of ****. From your
posts there, you've been having "adventures" in the stock market for
almost a year and a half. So which is it? Is it your next "adventure,
.... if you pass this test", or is it an "adventure" you've already had,
and failed miserably at?

To be an honest test these predictions and theories must be
public to prevent fudging on my part, so I can't pretend.

You've made your CONCLUSION public...Without the method you used to
arrive at the conclusion, you've "fudged" before you even started.

Do you have problems with pretending too often? It seems that way to me...

It's like stock trading, it's not enough to say I could have
bought there, and sold here. You have to actually go
do it, as putting money down changes the thought
processes and decisions. I've already developed a trading
system with these concepts and have been testing them
with moderate sums.

How is that? If you have a system that works "reliably" (which you have
claimed on C.T.SOS) for generating profits for you, why would that
system change at all when going from pretend money to real money?

The only real answer to that question is - You don't have a system,
you're just guessing.

I'm still making mistakes, but have demonstrated several
months in a row at 20% a month.

Thats odd...You've said -

"I have designed a trading system around the concepts
of self-organizing systems. After testing
it all year I can be fairly confident in saying
that it works quite well."

"Each and ..every play that
fell within the constraints of this system have been
winners."

(comp.theory.self-org-sys, "How to Use Self-Organization to Play the
Market", 09/12/2003, Jonathan)

Any response jonathan?

IMHO "Philisophy" is the only place where a "Utopian Dream" is posible.

But complexity science is a universal mathematics, it can be used
to build a philosophy that is quite rational. Philosophical questions
are complex adaptive systems after all.

http://www.calresco.org/lucas/philos.htm



How can something be reality without being "Definable?

The real world never stops long enough to fully define it.
Something as pedestrian as a cloud, tell me it's shape, weight
or size. By the time you've spotted one all those have changed.

If a simple cloud is beyond deterministic methods, how can one
hope to use classical mechanics to explain...oh an emotion, or
a snowflake. The blackboard and the real world are two entirely
different things. One is static and repeatable, the other is not.

Just because it cannot be done now, does not mean it is impossible. You
would do well to remeber that, as "complexity science" cannot even
approach being able to do these things either ...


How can something be defined without evidence that can be measured & tested
to determine definition?

What truly effects our reality?

Physical interactions with the surrounding environment (IE. I put my
hand on the mouse, and move it...)

Has any idea every moved you, or changed
your view? Show me the math for that? Or the math that predicts
how 9/11 will effect us all. The things that effect us and reality the
most are non-linear and beyond simple quantification.

Reality is absolutely unaffected by what we feel. It is absolutely
unaffacted by what we think. It is only affected when we DO SOMETHING
physically. The phyiscal action is motivated by what we think/feel, but
thinking/feeling is an ABSTRACT CONCEPT, not a physical action.

An idea that changed the world? Show me the math?
When someone gets divorced and dives off a bridge, the
world just lost a variable, show me the math? When
a presidential candidate screams, show me the math.

An idea changes nothing, as I've said before. It's the implementation of
that idea (The physical expression of that idea), not the idea itself,
which does the "changing".

When someone gets divorced and jumps ... Current_World_Population - 1.

All in all, a pretty meaningless string of absolutely confused
statements. Do you often have problems discerning reality from fantasy?

There isn't any...well...complexity science can deal with all
these things in an elegant and simple way, wanna know how?
Do the necessary math to understand the concepts behind
it and it'll all become clear someday.

You have shown/proven none of this, and your assurance that this is true
are absolutely meaningless. None of the sites you have provided point to
any "Math" at all. You have not done any "Math" and in fact have spent
MOST of your post saying how useless math is. Can you go 1 post, at
least, with contradicting yourself?

IMHO you have posted much "Utopian Imagination" that is without definition.

Utopia is a well-defined process, one we all know already. Nature and market
forces self tune, they find the optimum all by themselves. They find beauty
automatically, once you know how nature works. Utopia is not a place, thing
or object to be chased, it is a process of improvement. Nature shows
a universal and beautiful process for us to follow. It shows us Utopia, complexity
science shows us Nature.


UTOPIA
1.
A. often Utopia An ideally perfect place, especially in its
social, political, and moral aspects.
B. A work of fiction describing a utopia.
2. An impractical, idealistic scheme for social and political reform.

Wow. So if you pretend to become a complexity science guru, you get to
dynamically redefine words? YAY!

And those last 2 sentences make absolutely no sense. I don't know whats
wrong with you, but you've said enough that I think you could have
psychologists study you for the rest of your natural life, and they'd
not be able to figure all of it out.

Seek professional help, immediately. Thank you.

"Dan" wrote in message news:olsac.41457$w54.275416@attbi_s01...
In article ,
jonathan wrote:

"Joe Knapp" wrote in message
igy.com...

"jonathan" wrote
A complex adaptive system is a generic or universal model
of system behavior and structure. It applies as well to man-
made systems as it does to natural ones. It's essentially
Darwinian evolution, but modeled mathematically and
abstractly in a way that can be applied to any sufficiently
complex system. It can be shown virtually any organized
structure in the universe is suitable for this type of
analysis.

It was fascinating how just recently the long-standing mystery of the
spirals in the Martian polar caps was explained by the same mathematics that
leads to the stable formation of spirals in slime mold colonies:



I read that also, that is exactly how complexity science is being
used. Global pattern recognition and comparisons using
computer simulations. The global patterns between the Spirit
and Opportunity sites are clear also. Meridiani shows this
wonderful order and structure that requires an explanation.
Such order can only be produced by iterative processes and
communication between the features....water.


http://geomorphology.geo.arizona.edu...s/spirals.html

Funny, fig. B where t=10 reminds me some of the structures seen in
South Hemisphere, relatively above the Pole... This model may have
some significance for a more general explanation of processes ocurring
in Mars


There seems to be a distinct abundance of math in his work,
and a distinct lack of it in your work.

Why don't you write up your work and submit it to a
complexity science conference, Jonathan? I'm sure they
would love to know how to get results like you've been
getting without doing any actual work.

"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message . com...
"Pedro Rosa" wrote in message
om...
Distribution of spherules is really weird and may still need someone
who takes care of making a statistical analysis. However probabilities
and statistics are knifes of two sides. Either you are sure you count
on the purity of the sample and nothing deterministically influences
it, or you may burn your hands in it. So, for now, playing with the
distribution of the spherules is rather dangerous.

Besides you are not correct about random or uniform... Try to see
NASA's photos on the last show and you'll note that spherules may have
a dependence with certain layers.

What lead NASA to the conclusion that this is not volcanism is the
nature of the spherules, confirmed by those slices made by
Opportunity. They clearly showed the relation between inner
sedimentation and the one of the bedding. THAT'S what lead to the
conclusion they are not volcanic.

Has any consideration been given to a "Lahar" type event being initially
responsible for the spherules, distribution, & layering/cross bedding
observed?
Ralph Nesbitt

I don't think and didn't hear anything about it. If we look well at
the outcrop and the spherules, this all seems much more stable than a
lahar. The only "alien" thing I have seen in the frames was a polished
rock, probably basalt. And while there are strong indications that the
place was formed under torrential conditions (see carefully the
layering distribution at second outcrop dig), they are clearly quite
mild as most rock does not seem to go far away.

No Lahars do not seem to be here. BTW, the "single-hit" rock seems at
first sight volcanic. I only saw three frames but it reminded me
solidified lava of hawain type. Anyone has details on it?

"jonathan" wrote in message ...
"Pedro Rosa" wrote in message
om...
"jonathan" wrote in message
...



And besides, beware of "complex mathematics" that show Life as the
something obligatory. These mathematics can only be used in very
exclusive environments with very unstable and very critical factors
called "singularities".


You don't know how wrong you are. These singularities, or critical
points are ...in fact..what drives systems to self-organize. Random
and critical interactions are the driving force behind the inevitability
of increasing order, evolution and life. Please read up on the subject
some before criticizing.

When you've read through the following link, and understand it, then
this conversation can continue.
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/ka...Lecture-5.html

Jonathan, I have been through this whole lectures from 1 to 7. Where
did you see inevitability there? On Lecture 7 he gives a whole
bla-bla-bla about uniqueness of things you usually point as
"inevitable". Besides he himself confesses that this work is mostly
speculation on Science:

"PROLOGUE: AS A BIOLOGIST I HAVE AT LEAST SOME CONFIDENCE WHEN
THINKING ABOUT THE BIOSPHERE, AND EVEN AN EVOLVING ECONOMIC SYSTEM.
THE FOLLOWING IS NECESSARILY THE MOST EARLY "PROTOSCIENCE" IN THIS
DOCUMENT AND IS TO BE TAKEN ONLY AS EFFORTS TO THINK ABOUT SOME
POSSIBILITIES."

His work there is most philosophy rather than Science. Yes, he
presents a lot of scientific facts. But I would be very aware of using
Maxwell's Demon the way he did. Maxwell's Demon is a model abstraction
of an exception of our real physical world to analyse Thermodynamics.
Maxwell's Demon is a violation of the second principle of
thermodynamics, invented by people of the XIX century, to explain why
the alternative is impossible. They made him "intelligent" because
then they still could not find any other "trigger mechanism" and XIX
century was full of spirits and demons. However real trigger
mechanisms are far from the ideal demon. Yes, we know now those
supercritical states where matter forms in cells, creates attractors
and so on. These situations appear on special cases, mostly on
boundaries that deliver the matter to a supercritical state. Yes they
are cases of self-organisation. But that does not mean there are
Maxwell Demons popping up around and making up the world. It's
self-organisation, as Nature points to stability through organisation,
as it allows a more stable dynamic for energy transfer. And this can
happen either with organic or inorganic things at several levels. The
spherules are the result of such case. But that does not demonstrate
Life. Or you wanna demonstrate me that the celled structure of Sun's
cronosphere is also sign of barbecue biology? Do you wanna tell me
that while I'm making my coffee, Life appears in the form of Baynard
cells? Do you wanna tell me that the attractors in Petri dishes are
signs of intelligence? Well I hope you don't as, then, we don't have
nothing to talk about here.

The physical world is self-organising and we know this. Second
Principle comes from the dark labyrinth of interactions between matter
that always tries to find a more stable state. Some people consider
that the rise of entropy is the result of a "game" where some win and
many loose. Two atoms of Hydrogen combine with a atom of Oxygen, so it
will be hard they will combine with any other atom of hydrogen or
oxygen. However this is not impossible and depends on the whole energy
of the system. One highly energized atom of oxygen comes up and may
rip off the molecule of water. Entropy is a measure of all these
interactions. As they are nearly infinite, you cannot measure the
entropy of a system in one state. But if the system goes from state A
to state B then you can measure the delta. That delta is some sort of
leftover, interactions that will not be "satisfied/stabilized" in the
new state. They are known as the "growing chaos".

Second Principle acts as a punisher in the broad view and a gifter in
the very local view. And that's where the problem you can't jump right
over biology. As mineralogy stays first in the line. They also live of
self-organisation, that's why we see those beautiful crystals on the
rock. But there is no straight line that points to life! Note that if
matter decided to run over a crystal framing, odds that biology would
be around will be stupidly minimal. Why? The Second Principle tells
you that. Amorphous highly-organised states are much more complex and
demand much more energy rather than mineral ones. Worse, they demand a
dynamic in energy that helps maintaining the organisation stable.
Minerals can get a fast energetic solution in the form of simple
amorphous state or run to a crytalline strucuture that will be quite
durable. Now Nature tends to the more simple solutions when the
question relates to energy. On minerals the role of energy is primary
at the moment of their formation. Later, many of them can "live" for
billions of years without significant need of energy. On organic
systems like ours, we need an environment that allows a series of
supercritical steps and then the "product" will stay in constant need
of supporting the thermodynamical state that gave birth to him. That's
why we, living beings constantly need to refurbish ourselves with
energy. For Nature, we are energetic "vampires" constantly searching
for food, an exception and not a rule. Second Principle, the "vampire
hunter", follows constantly us as our energetic state is not stable,
not self-supporting and we create more and more chaos to fulfill our
needs. If we fail to reach our objectives, Second Principle will have
no pitty on us. He will free the energy we gathered and deliver the
matter we have stolen into a more stable state in terms of energy.

Spherules are a result of self-organisation. But what tells you that
the agent is Life? Maxwell Demons? Even if we would suppose they
exist, mineralogy would have many more chances to get the prize rather
than biology. As the salary of a Maxwell Demon is energy and Lady
Nature doesn't love spending money on these pests. But if you are more
realistic, then you may understand that self-organising machanisms are
not exclusive to Life. Life in fact is a consequence of the growth of
this self-organisation. Which can be seen in Meridiani quite well.
Note that the outcrop presents signs of a very supercritical states in
terms of concentration of salts. Enough to create "uniquenesses" like
Jarosite (a quite complex mineral), to form those "blubs" seen at the
edges of the rock and to create accretion mechanisms for the
concentration of hematite in form of spherules. Note that some people,
including me, have been pointing here to the magnetism sorrounding
certain spherules. This could be the reson for hematite migration over
the spherule. So, we may be quite far from biology.

The problem of finding Life in Mars is just that we have too many
unknowns to give a chance for successful find. But not an
inevitability of that find. From the moment someone finds that
Spherules were surely formed from a mineral sequence
Olivine(?)-Hematite and all other chances have been exhausted, then
each of us can go home, with some pitty that we got another negative
result but sure that has known something.

On what concerns your straight-forwardness on pointing articles to me
I would HIGHLY recomend you to read the whole lecture and specially:

http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/ka...Lecture-4.html

Where the author points to moments where Maxwell's Demon fails.

Anyway I would highly recomend you to get more serious literature if
you wanna really discuss something here with people. And not branding
"inevitabilities", specially when the author point to the exclusivity
of the phenomenas...



Jonathan

s



Even if there would be conditions in the
outcrop to call for these maths, first you should consider the base
where these conditions exist. And that's that big piece of trash
called Geology. Without it you ain't going anywhere and no Life can
appear, exist, support or be supported. So, consider all variants
until we get the "smoking guns".

And remember. What possible life could have existed in Mars, she will
surely not be a pure tautology to Earth's biotas. You may have
something near but never the same.



Jonathan

"Pedro Rosa" wrote in message
om...
"Ralph Nesbitt" wrote in message
. com...
"Pedro Rosa" wrote in message
om...
Distribution of spherules is really weird and may still need someone
who takes care of making a statistical analysis. However probabilities
and statistics are knifes of two sides. Either you are sure you count
on the purity of the sample and nothing deterministically influences
it, or you may burn your hands in it. So, for now, playing with the
distribution of the spherules is rather dangerous.

Besides you are not correct about random or uniform... Try to see
NASA's photos on the last show and you'll note that spherules may have
a dependence with certain layers.

What lead NASA to the conclusion that this is not volcanism is the
nature of the spherules, confirmed by those slices made by
Opportunity. They clearly showed the relation between inner
sedimentation and the one of the bedding. THAT'S what lead to the
conclusion they are not volcanic.

Has any consideration been given to a "Lahar" type event being initially
responsible for the spherules, distribution, & layering/cross bedding
observed?
Ralph Nesbitt

I don't think and didn't hear anything about it. If we look well at
the outcrop and the spherules, this all seems much more stable than a
lahar. The only "alien" thing I have seen in the frames was a polished
rock, probably basalt. And while there are strong indications that the
place was formed under torrential conditions (see carefully the
layering distribution at second outcrop dig), they are clearly quite
mild as most rock does not seem to go far away.

No Lahars do not seem to be here. BTW, the "single-hit" rock seems at
first sight volcanic. I only saw three frames but it reminded me
solidified lava of hawain type. Anyone has details on it?

By "initially responsible" I am questioning whether the material that formed
the rock strata observed currently was first put in place by a "Lahar Type
Event".
Ralph Nesbitt