Connect with us

Why Science is Ridiculous

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by PureOne, Aug 27, 2007.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. John Larkin

    John Larkin Guest

    Hilarious. He's typing this on a GHz PC, with billions of mosfets
    working flawlessly, posting through fiberoptic links and satellites,
    with the help of hundreds of millions of lines of code, and he's only
    alive because of antibiotics, agriculture, and immensely complex
    social and physical structures.

    All of which work. Almost none of which he understands.

    John
     
  2. Donald

    Donald Guest

    Maybe the OP is one of those from the "GOD trumps science." thread.
     
  3. Jonathan

    Jonathan Guest


    I would agree there is a problem with the current methods
    of unraveling the mysteries of our existence. The primary
    problem is in our timeless habit of reducing to parts
    as a first step.

    People confuse data with wisdom. Just walk into any
    university today and ask yourself the following question.
    Is it possible for any...one..person to fully digest and
    comprehend the totally of all the disciplines and data???

    Of course not, no /one/ person has that ability.

    Then ask yourself another question. Every day
    what happens to the total data and knowledge?
    It increases, and with it the disciplines become
    more detailed, specialized and numerous.

    So, our method of reducing to parts creates a
    relationship where the possibility of true wisdom
    a 'grand theory'....decreases...every single day
    that goes by.

    Or, reducing to parts as a method of understanding
    generates data that goes towards infinity over time.

    The answer to this problem is rather simple, if
    reducing to parts generates an incomprehensible
    mound of data, most of it useless to those outside
    the narrow specialty. Then the solution is to merely
    inverse our method of understanding, we expand
    to system behavior first, instead of first reducing
    to the part details.

    Instead of part details generating our scientific laws.
    System behavior should be our first source of
    knowledge.

    This is essentially what chaos theory, now called
    complexity science, is doing.

    Self-organizing system faq
    http://www.calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm

    Dynamics of Complex Systems
    full online text
    http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/index.html

    Calresco.org
    http://www.calresco.org/concept.htm


    It's inversing the classical scientific method in a rigorous way.
    Which is why it's so hard for classical thinkers to accept complexity
    science as being a true science. As precision gives way to
    pattern recognition. Objectivity is replaced with subjective descriptions.
    And it's assumed nothing directly maps or ever precisely repeats.

    To embrace the new way of understanding nature
    one has to ...temporarily...abandon all they have
    been taught from day one. One has to forget all
    the truths they currently 'know' exist.

    You have to be able to start over from scratch, with
    NO BELIEFS. Then learn a new way from the ground up.

    Something rather wonderful happens when you do that.

    As one expands to the whole, the disciplines begin
    to merge into one. The laws governing this supra-science
    become ever simpler and fewer. In the end you're destined
    to converge on a single idea, a single concept and method
    for all questions.

    All of them.

    But you don't have to give up your classical ideas for long.

    As complexity science 101 begins just on the other side
    of all the classical brick walls. And, in time, the two
    meet up again. And once they do, you'll never see
    the world the same way again.

    You'll suddenly realize just how completely backwards
    science has it right now. The fundamental laws of the
    physical universe should be derived from life.

    NOT the other way around.

    Darwinian evolution, the same concepts we all know and
    love, have been placed in abstract mathematical form
    by the chaos and complexity sciences. And it is DARWIN
    .....the system properties displayed by the most ...complex...
    the universe has to offer, which defines our universe.

    ALL THIS TIME everyone seems to assume the....simplest...
    the universe has to offer is the source of fundmemtal law.

    That is completely wrong, exacty backwards in fact.
    A very simple frame of reference mistake made
    centuries ago out of necessity has us still mired
    in Dark Age beliefs. We've been assuming we have
    to understand oh...quarks to grasp a quasar.

    It's the other way around, we have understand the whole
    first, then the parts later. Only in this way can we
    begin to truly contemplate creating a Grand Unified Theory
    that not only merges quantum and classical behavior.
    But also includes....life. All three in one idea is now
    possible with complexity science. They've already done
    it in fact, it's just no one believes it because they don't
    understand how they got there.

    It's true, try out the ideas of complexity science if you dare.
    It's done wonders for me, I'm two inches taller and even
    have whiter teeth~


    Jonathan


    s
     
  4. John Kepler

    John Kepler Guest

    It's true, try out the ideas of complexity science if you dare.

    Is "complexity science" yet another method to expel a great deal of
    verbiage....and say absolutely nothing? If that's the case....it's nothing
    new and just a warmed-over permutation of, "If you can't dazzle'um with
    brilliance, baffle'um with bullshit!".

    John
     
  5. Jonathan

    Jonathan Guest


    Nothing? Is your reading as mindless as your response?
    I asserted that the fundamental laws of the universe should
    be derived from the most complex the universe has to offer.
    Which are living systems. Instead of the ...simplest...the
    unverse has to offer as is our habit.

    And I also explained why we should inverse our current
    scientific method. I introduced how to do that also.
    While providing links to established scientific sources
    to provide credibility and more detailed reading.

    In short, I've given you a book, and you can only
    .....chew on the cover.


    Jonathan

    s
     
  6. John Larkin

    John Larkin Guest

    No, it's the study of the behavior of complex, highly nonlinear
    systems. Turns out that apparently chaotic behavior often has
    fundamental mathematical properties that appear in many very different
    contexts.

    John
     
  7. John Kepler

    John Kepler Guest

    True! But that isn't what he was talking about....he just attached the
    moniker to a bunch of mumbo-jumbo far closer to the "baffle'um with
    bullshit" motiff than non-linear systems.


    John
     
  8. Jonathan

    Jonathan Guest


    RIght. But when you run with these concepts it becomes even
    more profound a discovery. You first have to understand what
    is meant by complexity in this new science. Normally we imagine
    a linear scale from zero to infinity to judge how complex or really
    how ...complicated some system is. On one end of this
    complexity scale we have Newton, with few variables and
    fairly simple deterministic rules. On the opposite end we
    have quantum theory, where there are too many variables
    and chaotic motion so we use statistical forms
    of methods.

    Old linear complexity scale

    min...............................................>......maximum
    simple...........................................>.....complicated
    newtonian mechanics......................>....quantum mechanics



    But complex now means a system that has too many variables
    for a classical solution, but too few for a statistical treatment.
    Complex is where neither established mathematics works, it
    is ..between... the two.

    So, the new definition of complexity no longer has one minimum
    and one maximum.


    Non linear complexity scale


    min................................>...max....<....................min
    simple...........................>...complex...<...............simple
    newtonian mechanics......>...thermodynamics...<........quantum mech


    In the new definition of complexity, complex now has ...two minimums
    and one maximum. And the max resides where neither simple opposite
    type of mathematics, newtonian and quantum, can provide a solution.


    The above paradigm is more commonly described in attractor
    theory as

    static........dynamic.......chaotic


    But here is the big discovery. A system becomes complex in the new meaning
    when it resides at the point where it is the most difficult to precisely
    quantify.
    Where uncertainty is greatest, is where complexity is greatest.

    And where complexity is greatest, spontaneous cyclic order emerges.

    As if like magic, the one place where classical reductionist methods
    are at their most futile, is the one place where self organization or
    ......evolution...get's it's intitial impetus and driving forces.

    Guys, the source of all order is ultimately randomness. The second
    law provides this steady source of increasing disorder or randomness.
    And this is the food for the Fourth Law of Thermodynamics....
    .....self organization.....DARWIN.

    This is true for the physical universe as it is for the living.

    From the fog of maximum system uncertainty comes evolution.
    From chaos comes order. The answers to the timeless or
    ultimate questions cannot be precisely or objectively known.
    Only through subjective methods. All of us have to learn
    how to subjectively see the same thing, this is possible
    now.

    If you care to read about an entirely new cosmology based
    on these ideas....click below. Read about the cyclic universe
    from one of the most respected cosmology team to be found.
    Steinhardt and Turok of Princeton and Cambridge

    Paul J. Steinhardt
    http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/


    I'm not making this stuff up, just preaching it with
    the bombast it deserves.



    s
     
  9. Rosifer

    Rosifer Guest

    It's not a bug, it is a feature.



    Rosifer
     
  10. Jonathan

    Jonathan Guest


    Perhaps you could provide an example of what you find
    to be nonsense. I'm trying to introduce the core ideas without
    the math, in plain english. After all, equations are merely
    shorthand.

    I made some pretty big claims, I think I can back them up.
     
  11. John Larkin

    John Larkin Guest


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mandel_zoom_11_satellite_double_spiral.jpg



    John
     
  12. kT

    kT Guest

    That's how life itself got started!
     
  13. Bob Myers

    Bob Myers Guest

    Can you explain why this should be so? Do you expect
    that the "most complex the universe has to offer" are
    somehow governed by laws which are different from those
    which govern the simpler things? If so, how? If not, then
    we should be studying the simplest systems which would
    reveal the nature of those laws, to remove unnecessary
    complications from the observation.
    Actually, this is an assumption on your part. You cannot
    know that "living systems" are "the most complex the
    universe has to offer," simply because they are the most
    complex that you are aware of (based on observations which
    by necessity are limited to this tiny little speck out of the
    entire universe). Of course, you could assert that this
    doesn't matter, because we assume that the universe is
    the same everywhere, and the laws apply equally well
    to all things - at which point, you're back to the first
    argument, above.

    I read your previous post, but I am afraid that from it
    (or the sources you cited), I cannot determine exactly
    what you mean by "inverse (sic) our current scientific
    method," let alone determine why it is that you think
    this should be so.


    Bob M.
     
  14. Jonathan

    Jonathan Guest


    Great question. In a complexity perspective, the laws
    would be derived from system properties, not part details.
    In particular those system properties which are emergent.
    For instance, a market system has certain emergent
    system properties we all recognize. Adaptability, resilience
    self tuning feedback mechanisms and so on.

    The minute you stop such a system to detail it's components
    those emergent system properties /vanish/ into thin air.
    They can only be studied while the system is operating
    and cannot be discerned from a detailed look at the
    system parts.

    And it is those 'ethereal' system properties which provide
    the overall direction of the universe towards more order
    over time. They are the most important properties of all
    and they are completely invisible to classical objective
    methods. I'm not saying emergence is a new idea, only
    that complexity science has managed to create a universal
    method of dealing with all emergent properties of any
    real world complex dynamic system.

    So now we have a single scientific language and set
    of rules to apply to any real world system.

    Concept
    http://www.calresco.org/concept.htm

    Every discipline has their own way of dealing with such
    emergent system properties. Whether in sociology
    or psychology or the business world, weather
    forecasting, politics and on and on. Each has their own
    unique languages and laws to describe various system
    behavior.

    Not anymore!

    And the astonishing thing that happens once you can
    examine such disparate systems with a single science
    is that you suddenly realize they all...ALL are essentially
    special cases of a ..single ..universal ..system ..behavior.

    Everywhere you look, in pretty much any discipline at all
    from cosmology to stock trading to religion all find their
    ....ideal form..or solution from a common system structure.

    The complex adaptive system

    What are Complex Adaptive Systems?
    http://www.trojanmice.com/articles/complexadaptivesystems.htm


    This is a science that is all about creating things, not
    figuring out how things were created.


    The most important behaviors or laws in the universe
    cannot be revealed by the part details, only by an
    intact and operating whole. By reducing to parts
    first in order to understand the system, you end
    up with countless specialties and an infinite
    amount of unique data.

    By expanding to system behavior, the output, you converge
    on a single pattern of behavior for all real world dynamic
    systems. Which pretty much covers everything in the
    real live world.

    Complexity science, once you understand the core concepts
    and have practiced applying it to different fields, can be
    applied to just about any discipline at all.

    Learn just one science and you learn...them all.

    And this science is spreading fast and into everything.
    The US govt is one of the first and largest entities
    to embrace and apply these concepts.

    As to why so few people seem to chat about complexity
    science. Well...if you learned something that really worked
    well....wouldn't you keep it to yourself and go quietly
    about putting it to good personal use?

    Don't believe me? Here's a dated list of US govt agencies
    using complexity science. The point here is not so much
    how many agencies are using it, but how they reach from
    one end of the spectrum to the other.


    The use of Complexity Science
    http://www.hcs.ucla.edu/DoEreport.pdf


    Ok, in the known universe. But life is certaintly complex enough
    for us to grasp the concepts. And complexity science makes
    it easy to visualize the various levels of complexity, in either
    direction, by using emergence.

    What emerges from life is the next higher level of complexity.
    Intelligence emerges from life, and wisdom from collective
    intelligence and so on. Maybe eventuall even a god will
    emerge from the collective weight of human evolution.

    Hmm, a religion where god comes at the end of the
    evolutionary ladder. I mean if you truly believe in Darwin...


    Study the output first, system behavior, as a means to
    understand the components later. Instead of the other
    way around. But this inverse frame of reference must
    be rigorously applied at each step. Subjectivity replaces
    objectivity, generic patterns replace precise measurements.
    The future becomes the source of study, instead of the past.
    And so on.
     
  15. Jonathan

    Jonathan Guest


    The point is that their theory is a dynamic solution using attractor
    theory as with complexity science. And their theory has many of
    the properties of a complex adaptive system. In an evolving
    system, for instance, the initial conditions can vary widely
    and the whole will still settle into or is attracted to a probable
    final state. Solving the cosmic coincidence problem.

    The cycle begins with a totally random or boolean network.
    A cold flat universe. Which has the property of generating
    spontaneous cyclic behavior. Or galaxy forming pertubations.
    When the system behavior reaches criticality, or matter domination
    its phase transition point, new properties emerge, such as dark
    energy, that cannot be discerned from the detailed look at the
    components. The new emergent property or energy feed back
    and help tune the system towards stable behavior or a recent
    second period of acceleration. As with a new market.

    But the new force isn't stable, as such highly dynamic systems
    are dissipative, requiring constant energy input to continue.
    So the whole dissipates into eons of near nothingless.

    A totally random boolean network, the exact conditions
    needs for self organization or spontaneous order to emerge.

    And the cycle starts over, but it starts not at the bang, but
    at the death. If that really matters~


    As Steinhardt said...


    "Hubble's discovery that the universe is expanding taught us
    that the universe is evolving, but the notion had been
    that the evolution has been steady over the last 15 billion years
    with no remarkable changes. We now know that time is
    anti-Copernican. We live at a special moment in cosmic history,
    the transition between a decelerating, matter-dominated universe
    and an accelerating, dark energy dominated universe. The
    progressive formation of ever-larger scale structure and
    increasing complexity that characterized the matter-dominated
    universe has reached an end, and now the universe is headed
    towards a period that is ever-emptier and structureless."

    "Quintessence is a dynamical, evolving, spatially inhomogeneous
    component with negative pressure (Caldwell et al. 1998). The term
    derives from the medieval word for fifth element"; according to some
    metaphysicians at the time, the universe consisted of earth, air, fire
    water, plus an additional all-pervasive, component that accounted
    for the motion of the Moon and planets.) In the current context,
    quintessence would be the fifth dynamical component that has in
    fluenced the evolution of the universe, in addition to the previously
    known baryons, leptons, photons, and dark matter.
    http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/steinhardt.pdf



    But once one understands how so many unique parts and one-off
    interactions ...ends up...generating the very same pattern of
    behavior across one discipline after another...then the light
    switch is turned on like never before.

    Don't you see what that relationship is? The more difficult it is to
    precisely quantify the components of a system, the more
    predictable and stable the system behavior becomes.

    Chaos at the component level leads to evolutionary behavior
    or increasing order at the system level.

    Try to imagine the kind of system that would provide the
    biggest difficulties possible to precisely detail the components.
    The weather for instance. Or emotions.
    It is just that kind of component behavior that generates
    the spontaneous cyclic order. The direction of the universe
    towards cyclic order.

    The big answer is found at the one and only place
    objective methods can't see.

    Our habit, objective methods, are all about finding certainty
    of some kind or another.

    But where system ....uncertainty or component chaos is highest
    is where self organization or Darwin begins.

    So the new way is to search for, and understand, ..uncertainty.
    The methods of how to quantify the total system uncertainty
    as a means of designing or recognizing the ideal system form.

    I mean....the higher the order...the more chaotic are the components.
    The universe has a direction and should our methods of
    understanding.

    Start with the whole in order to understand the parts.
    Start with the self tuning properties of a market system
    for instance, to see how they guide the behavior and
    structure of the parts. You can start off trying to fathom
    the universe by counting the number of grapes at the
    local market if you like.

    But that just seems silly~

    Especially when you find out you can't really count
    those grapes...exactly.. ala the uncertainty principle.

    A principle that is also a HUGE CLUE.


    s
     
  16. Don Bowey

    Don Bowey Guest

    On 8/30/07 5:42 PM, in article 0uJBi.75736$,

    (snip)
    Sounds chaotic.
     
  17. David Brown

    David Brown Guest

    No, the point is that it makes sense to look at complexity theory and
    chaos theory in particular contexts, like for the cyclic universe
    theory. It does *not* make sense to throw out every other piece of
    science and look at everything as chaos!
    Some sorts of chaotic systems have cyclic patterns - others do not. And
    lots of systems are not chaotic at all. Just because you can't figure
    out how clouds work (and real scientists have only approximate models),
    does not mean that you'll find a grand truth by looking at the universe
    as a giant muddle.
    There is no "big answer" to be found - the answer depends on the
    question. Read up on your Douglas Adams.
    Darwinien evolution does not apply to galaxy formation - there are lots
    of different types of self-organization, most of which are simpler than
    Darwinien evolution.
     
  18. John Kepler

    John Kepler Guest

    It does *not* make sense to throw out every other piece of

    EXACTLY!

    John
     
  19. Bob Myers

    Bob Myers Guest

    Why? How are you distinguishing "system properties" from
    "part details."

    For example, a 747 is a fairly complex system. One nut
    taken from that same 747's gear assembly is clearly a
    simple part. If I drop either the 747 or the nut, I will gain
    the data necessary to describe how objects fall within a
    gravitational field. The complexity of the 747 makes no
    difference at all here; it would be relevant only if I wanted
    to learn something about how the internal workings of
    that system behave, as opposed to its gross externally-
    visible properties. Moving up a few levels, I can also
    observe/demonstrate the basic principles of aeronautics
    through either watching that 747 in operation, watching
    a Cessna 172 - although Cessna is undeniably a far simpler
    system.

    One would think, from considering most examples that
    come to mind, that the best way to "derive laws" would
    be through the observation of the SIMPLEST system which
    provides sufficient data to do so. Or, in other words, one
    should not bring in unnecessary complexity into an
    experiment without having a good reason for doing so.
    Precisely; but you do not need the full system to demonstrate
    or derive ALL of its properties, only those which might be
    considered to be "emergent" at that level of complexity.
    For anything less than this, you're better off studying simpler
    systems, since they have less potential for generating
    irrelevant problems which would complicate the study of
    these more basic properties. For example, if I want again
    wished to study the BASIC principles of flight, I may be
    better off with a much simpler aircraft than a 747, for the
    simple reason that it will be easier to operate, more reliable,
    and therefore will more readily get me the necessary data.
    I would need to turn to the 747, or something similar, though,
    if I specifically wanted to study, say, the behavior of autoland
    systems in multiengine jet airliners. The complexity of the
    system being studied must be sufficient to provide the
    relevant data, but certainly should be no more complex than
    that. So we still have not justified a belief that we should
    always seek the most complex system possible for study.
    Certainly - and if you wanted to study those, you would
    certainly need to look at a sufficiently complex market.
    If, on the other hand, you merely wanted to study the very
    basics of economic transactions, watching a child's lemonade
    stand doing business may suffice.
    Yes - which again argues only for the need to study
    complex systems in those cases where we are investigating
    properties seen only in those systems, and not in simpler
    cases.

    Which "system properties" do this, and on what grounds do
    you make the above assertion? Until you can identify
    them, I am also not sure how you can get to the conclusion
    that:
    First of all - "most important" in what context? On
    what scale? As judged by whom?

    An example - the behavior of the force of gravity is
    clearly a very important aspect of our universe, as
    it controls the paths of moons, planets, stars, and even
    entire galaxies; it literally shapes the universe. Yet the
    "laws" which describe this behavior are actually rather
    simple, and may to a very high degree of accuracy
    be derived from observations of much simpler structures
    than the universe as a whole. This, then, would seem to
    be at least one example which contradicts the above
    assertion. It may not be the case that ALL "important
    behaviors" can be understood from the simpler cases,
    but it is clear that at least one can, and I believe there are
    other examples that will readily come to mind if you think
    about it.

    OK, so if this is true - what IS the single unified
    description of the universe offered by this science?
    If it is too complicated to outline here, then I would
    submit that this strongly suggests that it is NOT a
    fundamental behavior or "law," but instead is itself
    derivable from simpler principles.

    In that case - how has "complexity science"
    explained life?

    What do you mean by the symbol "god?"

    You have described your desired process, but I am
    afraid this doesn't give us much to go on in terms of
    why it should be preferred, or even what it actually means.
    Why SHOULD "subjectivity replace objectivity"?
    Unless you are using these terms differently in this context,
    are you implying that there is NOT such a thing as a single,
    shared, objective reality? If that is the case - if the
    universe fundamentally subjective rather than objective -
    there is very little sense in discussing any of this in the
    first place, since we can't possibly be assured of any
    common ground on which to base descriptions which
    would be useful to more than a single person.

    Bob M.
     
  20. JosephKK

    JosephKK Guest

    Bob Myers posted to
    sci.electronics.design:

    Thanks, Bob. You have done a reasonably good job of exposing the
    anti-reason of his exposition. But i doubt that you so much as
    dented his mania.
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-