Connect with us

Why Science is Ridiculous

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

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Yes - it's impossible to apprehend the beauty of the Mona Lisa
    by analyzing the composition of paint molecules. >;->

  2. Actually, the simplest answer is the truest one - the problem is,
    "scientists" are denying up to half of what makes existence real.

    They insist on externally measurable stuff. But when you're
    listening to "The 1812 Overture" or "Claire de Lune", there's
    no way to bottle up and measure the feeling of emotional
    movement that you experience. But it's very, very real.

    What's in a laugh? >:->

  3. This is all well and good, but one of the things they're missing
    is the fractal nature of everything. They're getting themselves
    all mentally twisted up trying to fit a fractal uinverse into an
    orthogonal model.

  4. Meltdarok

    Meltdarok Guest

    Rich the Philosophizer wrote, On 9/1/2007 3:19 PM:
    Well, I have to put you in an MRI machine and see what
    part of your brain lights up--for starters. 0[;D
  5. Bob Myers

    Bob Myers Guest

    On what do you base the assumption of a "fractal"
    universe, and how is it relevant to the question at
    hand? If the universe truly were "fractal," it would
    actually be a very strong reason AGAINST the notion
    that one would have to study the "entire system" in
    order to gain useful knowledge. The very nature of
    a fractal structure means that any part, at any level,
    effectively contains the whole.

    Bob M.
  6. Jonathan

    Jonathan Guest

    Not really. In comparison to real world complex dynamic
    systems it's comparatively simple. The definition of the
    word complex, as defined by complexity science, still
    escapes you. A 747 is a very complicated system
    on a linear scale from few to many.

    Complex, the new meaning, is neither few or many.
    It has too many variables for a Newtonian or classical
    solution, but too few variables for a statistical or quantum
    like solution. Complex behavior requires ...both...realms
    of mathematics at the same time to fully describe the
    behavior. That is why a behavior is called complex, since
    both opposing realms of math is required. Simple now
    becomes defined as that which can be solved with
    just or the other... realms of math.

    Perhaps the simplest example of a complex system
    would be a cloud. Where molecules are randomly
    changing from liquid to vapor and back again.
    A continuous sequence of step changes.
    Even a tiny change in temp or pressure can have
    cause the system to dramatically change forms.

    Just the opposite is true with real world systems. Again
    this science is about how nature creates. Are the properties
    of a forest or a society best displayed by the Congo or
    your back yard? Is public opinion better judged by
    large or small samples?

    The basic difference between a man-made system and
    natural systems which this science is about can be
    seen this way. A man made system is one where the
    goal or final product is envisioned ahead of time, and
    the parts are constructed to fit the goal. Reverse
    engineering nature.

    A natural system allows the final product to emerge as
    it will from the interaction of numerous autonomous agents.
    A 747 and a society are opposites of each other.

    For man made systems sure, for natural systems not at all.

    In natural systems, the ...complications..are added by
    reducing in scale causing a proportional increase in
    variables and interactions. You have to properly envision
    what complexity now means. Imagine two variables
    that are being pulled in opposite directions at all times.
    And just so that neither direction wins, but a persistant tie.
    The variable behavior becomes complex as it's future
    behavior depends on the most delicate of future
    changes. In short, the future of the variable cannot
    be determined, in fact complexity is where there's
    the least ability to determine the exact state of
    an object or behavior.

    Are you going to see panic behavior in a lemonade stand?
    Or the effects of rumors? Emergent behavior is that which
    is only a property of the whole. Behavior that is only seen
    in a mob for instance, and nowhere else.

    Tell me how much a market force weighs? How large is it?
    Where can I find them? A market force only exists as a
    part of the functioning whole. Not a single part of the entire
    system will tell you what they are? As only the combined
    interactions of all the parts produces them. We know
    markets find a way of increasing efficiency, stability and
    creativity. And with Adam Smith like invisible hands
    these forces ...emerge...from the interaction of autonomous
    agents and provide the long term guidance or direction
    of the whole. It is the self tuning properties of nature that
    created us and intelligence. And the physical universe.

    Based on what is most responsible for the visible order
    in the universe.

    Lets compare two entirely different fields/things using
    a system approach. Using the output of the whole
    as the primary information instead of the part details.
    Gravity and biological fitness.

    One is a pervasive force for order in the physical
    universe, and the other for the living world.

    A gravity well vs a fitness landscape.
    When systems become complex as described
    above, standing persistantly poised at its
    phase transition point, fitness peaks then
    tend to clump together, and higher fitness
    peaks have a larger basin of attraction.

    A living system interacting randomly with its environment
    is more likely to 'fall' into a region of higher fitness
    than lower. Just like objects tend to fall together.

    On the....input...side the two are as different as can
    be...material vs living. On the output side they follow
    essentially the ...same laws of organization.

    Using the part details of each system as the first source
    of knowledge leads to two entirely different sciences
    each so unique such commonalites cannot be seen.
    And this commonality is the primary guiding force
    for the system, as you said with gravity. So it is
    with biology. Just two vastly different scales of

    By looking first at the output side, the system properties
    we see what is common between two systems.
    By looking at the part details first we see what is
    different. And very different, so different the two
    fields can't really compare anything between them.
    Physics and biology.

    All order in the universe, physical or living, is the result
    of a system that's persistantly poised at the phase
    transition of its own opposite extremes in possibiliy.

    Or, evolution of the physical and living worlds gets
    it's impetus from complex behavior. Where the parts
    cannot be precisely determined, and only the output
    is predictable and repeatable. As with the relationship
    between a forest and its components. The parts are
    quite often acting randomly, so much so as to defy
    prediction. While the output, the system properties
    are stable and resilient...predictable and repeatable.

    The laws and certainty all of us instinctively look for
    only reside in the whole...the output of a large collection
    of interacting autonomous agents. The larger the more
    predictable...the more certain...the more informative
    of the future.

    That which is as far above us, as we are above animals.

    Again, it goes to the meaning of the word complexity.
    The duality of light for instance. Light act as both a particle
    and a wave, so it is a complex system. To objectively
    measure it, it is reduced to ...either.. a particle or a wave.
    It becomes simple when objectively observed.

    But our existance and reality is based on the properties
    of light when it's in a natural....complex...state.
    It's the properties of the ...system...that define our reality.

    Not the parts. Whenever you reduce or simplify to allow
    objective measurements, the most important properties
    the emergent properties, cannot be seen.

    Only by observing the whole can the guiding self tuning
    system properties responsible for the constant process
    of evolution be seen. They cannot be measured, but
    only known subjectively.

    I'm stating there is no objective reality. Think of a ecosystem.
    The components and the environment are coevolving.
    Each constantly changing around each other.
    Nothing stands still long enough to exactly quantify as
    everything is constantly changing. It is only our
    very arbitrary decisions on when and what to quantify
    that allow any objective comparisons.

    Objectivity measures the past and the simple.
    Subjectivity measures the present and the complex.
    And it is the complex that is the source of all order.

    Complexity science has found a way around that problem
    as well. As this is a relativistic approach that includes
    not excludes the observer.

    In complexity science two people can easily make the same
    subjective observations. As each system is compared not
    to some independent yardstick, not to some other system.
    But each system is compared to...itself.

    It's very easy. The first thing to do when looking at a system
    is to define it's opposite practical extremes in possibility space.

    For instance, with a complex dynamic system such as the
    stock market, thousands of autonomous agents interacting
    in highly random and unpredictable ways. To find where a
    variable becomes complex one merely observes the system
    in operation and asks; "what are the practical, not theoretical
    range of operation for that variable in the system being observed?"

    Here's how it works. Systems display universal behavior when
    the primary driving variables are all 'complex' at the same time.
    Using the new defintion of complex as being midway between
    opposite extremes so that the value has the least possible
    predictive use. Which is when the variable or part displays
    the least amount of certainty or ability to quantify.

    With a stock chart you only have three variables, price, volume
    and time frame. The simplest example possible.

    The task is then to ...subjectively...determine the range of values
    for each that defines the most complex state.

    What is a complex price?

    Observing market behavior, in general any price below a dollar
    is a stock either entering or rising from extreme
    in possibility. And price over...say..ten dollars is considered a
    stable company or a blue chip. The other extremes in possibility.
    Another person may set the range of one extreme at below two
    dollars and the blue chips at twenty. This subjective difference
    doesn't matter much once one further constrains the analysis
    with the other two remaining variables of volume and time.

    What is a complex time frame?

    Observing we find the day traders operate in spans of minutes and hours.
    The opposite extreme, the longs, operate in spans of months and years.
    So a complex time frame is that which is neither short or long.
    Days and weeks is a complex time frame for the stock pattern to play out.
    Five or ten day chart behavior defines the transition point between
    opposite practical extremes in possibility.

    And so on. When all the primary system variables are complex
    the systems all behave in the same way. Or, when component
    uncertainty is at it's highest, system output is at its simplest
    and most predictable.

    And btw, as with all evolving systems, this critical behavior brought
    on by complexity is where predictability and volatility converge
    to simulaneousl maximums. As in a thunderstorm, highly dynamic
    yet, once we've seen enough cycle, very predictable.
  7. Bob Myers

    Bob Myers Guest

    However, the overall behavior of the cloud can
    most certainly be described, to a very high degree
    of accuracy, by existing scientific principles. You
    cannot predict with certainty the behavior of
    individual particles, as there are too many variables
    and too much "randomness" to track, but I see nothing
    here that suggests your "complexity science" does any
    better job of describing clouds than is already achieved.

    The properties of a forest are clearly best demonstrated
    by a forest; this much should be obvious, and has no
    bearing on whether or not conventional science is valid.
    Scientists DO study forests. As to the "large or small
    samples" question - are you familiar with the term
    "statistically significant"? Obviously, larger samples are
    better than small samples - but just as obviously, there comes
    a point where increasing the sample size does not result
    in a sufficient gain in the quality of the data to be worth the
    effort. If I have a box of 1,000,000 marbles, and I am
    told that there is a roughly equal number of black and white
    marbles in the mix, do I need to examine all one million to
    verify this claim?
    If you are claiming here that sociology is a field of study
    which is of a different nature than aeronautical engineering,
    I can't disagree. If this is not what you are claiming, then I
    would have to say that your claim is less than clear.
    It would depend on just what it is about "natural systems"
    you are studying, would it not? The origina example I gave
    had to do with gravity, which is most certainly something
    which is exhibited by "natural systems," and something which
    can be very, very accurately described from the observations
    of very simple examples.
    You keep using this term "natural systems" as if there all
    "natural systems" were by necessity impossibly complex, when
    this clearly is not true, and as though nothing about natural
    systems had ever been explained by conventional science -
    which also is clearly not true. What science studies IS
    "natural," and ONLY "natural" - there is no alternative. You
    are correct in noting that man-made systems are designed,
    and that this is a key feature of such systems - but they are
    designed only through the application of the principles that
    we have learned through observation of the natural world.
    That these man-made designs function as expected, within this
    natural, physical world, is prima facie evidence that our observations
    are of value.
    If you do not see ALL possible behaviors at a given level
    of scale, does that mean that the observations you CAN
    make at that level are of no value?

    As I already pointed out:
    Those questions are as nonsensical as asking how much the
    color blue weighs, or what the opposite of the letter "A" is.
    The question itself lacks meaning, and so is irrelevant and
    shows nothing.
    The first part of this simply agrees with what I said earlier,
    about the need to study systems which ARE sufficiently
    complex to show the quality or phenomenon of interest in
    a given situation. The last two sentences are unsupported
    assertion. WHAT "self-tuning properties?" "Tuning" FOR
    what, and why? Demonstrate that these properties exist
    in the first place, and you have a valid field of study. If this
    is not possible, you have mere speculation.
    What is MOST responsible for the visible order in the
    universe appears to be a very small number of relatively
    simple principles, each of which may be derived from the
    observation of fairly simple systems. In short, the universe
    is shaped by the very same forces that shape its component
    parts. There is absolutely zero evidence that some "super
    principle," which ONLY applies at the scale of the universe
    itself, is required to explain the universe. Which, again, is
    what I was getting at in the following:
    [A good deal deleted]

    I'm sorry, but I saw absolutely no real content in anything
    you said in this section that would lead one to believe
    that there was some principle at work which could ONLY
    be detected at the universal scale. If this isn't what you're
    trying to argue for here, then exactly what your point was
    supposed to be also eludes me.

    Nicely-expressed notion. Why would one believe it?
    What value does the above model provide which is not
    offered by more conventional views?

    "Above" in what sense? How far ARE we "above
    animals"? What is the distinguishing difference, IN KIND,
    between humans and animals, since the above statement
    clearly implies that you believe there is one? Unless these
    questions can be clearly answered, your statement has no
    real meaning whatsoever.

    Light may be modelled as either a particle or a wave,
    yes; I do not see how this causes it to qualify as a "complex
    system." And in many measures of light, the wave vs.
    particle nature is completely irrelevant.
    So you continue to assert; unfortunately, you have yet
    to show any example where this makes any real
    difference - where your supposed "complexity science"
    explains something that conventional science cannot, or
    at least provides a more accurate model.

    Then, as noted, further discussion is useless. In the absence
    of a shared objective reality, ANY description of whatever
    "reality" there might be is utterly dependent on the individual
    observer, and therefore useless for ANY purpose to any other.
    For further information, please get thee to a freshman
    philosophy class, and inquire about "solipsism."

    If it has, then so far you have failed to demonstrate it.

    Bob M.
  8. So what other alternatives do you propose we take on instead. Religion? lol
    Seriously yes I know humans dont know anything, we probally only know about
    2% of whats really out there. But they are no more decent alternatives.
  9. Tom

    Tom Guest

    I guess that depends on what you find beautiful.
  10. Tom

    Tom Guest

    Like measuring "up to half of what makes existence real"? "Half" is, of
    course, a measurement. So it seems that you would prefer to pull your
    claims out of your ass and present them as if they were "measureable stuff"
    even though it's really just some shit you made up on the spur of the
    You can "bottle up" the 1812 Overture by recording it. Then you can let it
    out of bottle whenever you like and it will be beautiful music every time.
    You can "measure the feeling" by observing the reaction of your brain cells
    with precision measuring devices as you listen and correlate them to your
    reported experience of listening.

    So you're wrong again.
  11. John Larkin

    John Larkin Guest

    You are complaining that scientists don't bother to measure things
    that are unmeasurable, and don't try to explain things that are not
    causal. That's just awful.
    Does listening to music make existance real? Do you think that
    scientists don't listen to music?

  12. Bob Myers

    Bob Myers Guest

    That does, though, always seem to be right at the top
    of the list of the anti-science crowd - that studying things
    from a scientific perspective somehow turns you into a
    soulless automaton, incapable of feeling the joy and wonder
    of ordinary existence.

    Although, at least in my experience, exactly the opposite is
    true - people get involved in science in the first place
    BECAUSE of that sense of wonder, and it is in scientists
    that I see it typically to a greater extent than in any other
    sort of people.

    Recommended reading: Carl Sagan's "Broca's Brain:
    Reflections on the Romance of Science."

    Bob M.
  13. Really? How much does it weigh?
  14. Meltdarok

    Meltdarok Guest

    ExterminateAllRepubliKKKans wrote, On 9/3/2007 1:27 PM:
    They've never been able to weigh it, since all of the test
    subjects balked at having it removed from their brains to
    be measured.
  15. Can an MRI show you gut feelings?

  16. No, actually, I'm right, because you're acknowledging that what happens
    when it's listened to is something that happens internally with your
    own physical self, and "Science" has no explanation for the mechanism
    of how "Clair de Lune" causes you to feel joy or whatever, and "I'm
    gonna kill yo bitch mama" causes you to feel distress, or a way to
    objectively measure it, so they dismiss it.

    There's more to reality than meets the measuring instrument. ;-)

  17. I don't disagree with anything either of you has said here. My complaint
    is that when someone insists on "scientific proof" of everything, they
    are dismissing out of hand exactly those intangibles that make life
    distinguishable from inert matter.

    The point is, I'm trying to make a big huge point, which is that
    you'll never get a grand unified theory of everything while insisting
    on excluding the intangibles just because they're intangible.

    Hope This Helps!
  18. Well, it wasn't the molecules who decided to put that enigmatic little
    half-smile on her face, was it? How did they plan it? How did each
    molecule know what the others were doing?

    For that matter, how do water molecules know which site on the snowflake
    to condense onto? How does one arm (of the snowflake) know what the others
    are doing?

  19. John Larkin

    John Larkin Guest

    Who insists on "scientific proof of everything"? Few scientists, I
    If it's intangible, it ain't science.

  20. Tom

    Tom Guest

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