|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
....How to Tell When a Concretion is.....Abiotic!
"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 |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
....How to Tell When a Concretion is.....Abiotic!
"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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
....How to Tell When a Concretion is.....Abiotic!
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. |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
....How to Tell When a Concretion is.....Abiotic!
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. |
#125
|
|||
|
|||
....How to Tell When a Concretion is.....Abiotic!
"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. |
#126
|
|||
|
|||
....How to Tell When a Concretion is.....Abiotic!
"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? |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
....How to Tell When a Concretion is.....Abiotic!
"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 |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
....How to Tell When a Concretion is.....Abiotic!
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Meridiani Planum as an Ancient Bacteria Sponge Ecosystem (first draft) | Chosp | Astronomy Misc | 12 | March 20th 04 09:51 AM |
UFO Activities from Biblical Times | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 25th 03 05:21 AM |
Complete Thesis on MacDougall Space and the Astral Form | Majestic | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 15th 03 08:29 PM |
Thesis on MacDougall Space and the Astral Form part 2 | Rick Sobie | Astronomy Misc | 2 | November 11th 03 02:24 PM |
Thesis on MacDougall Space and the Astral Form | Rick Sobie | Astronomy Misc | 4 | November 10th 03 01:42 PM |