[^^zix home page]  [HYPER-SPACE (mfa)]  [Quick Index/Map]

ma: z^scientist

See also: [L/D] [S/D] See also: [af/art3/pkda2001 - pizoig gaming projects] Ab Fr \ / +----------------+ /| /| / | / | / | / | Fu / | / | \ / | / | +----------------+--Hu | | | "RS-3" | | [Quick Index] | Jz--+----------|-----+ | / | / \ | / | / Sc | / | / | / | / |/ |/ +----------------+ / \ Sp Ar "Reality Structure 3" (mark II) [Learn more about the Iconosphere] [Cross Product Space] (entry port SCxSC) [Semi-linear blog-o-sphere] (and duck crossing) This iconosphere owes much of its existence to Phillip Glass:Symp #3 & #2. -^_6


(table of contens follow...)

More Triple-Cross Products

NOTE: Recent theoretical work on the possibilities of Quadrupple (4-tupple) Cross Products has been suspended due to a lack of funding. Data processin continues - un-abated. AxB (v) :: C -[ SC x SP (Earth) :: (expressed via) ART -> Eco Psychology, etc]- See also: The name re-makes the thing (HUM x SCI (word) :: EXP as JAZ). -^_6 On this page: {Intro} {The Sciences} {Arthropology} {Archaeology} {Biology} {Chemistry} {Computer Science} {Computation, Turing Machines and "The Matrix"] {Geology} {Linguistics} (our special guest today) {Mathematics} {Lost Mathematics} -[Spiritualist Philo(Logic))]- {Mathematical Trees} (latices, decision trees, etc) {Randomness} {Laws of Form} {Physics} {Psychology} {Sociology} {Science: A quick history} {The Scientific Method} Key concepts: {Matter} {Energy} {Za-car} {Space} {Time} {Universe} {Science is?} See also: -[Spiritualist (Philo(Logic))]- {Core Concepts Science} {Analysis/Reduction per se} {Analysis/Reduction via Bifurcation} {Determinsim} {Control} (feedback, systems analysis, etc) {Cosmogony} {E & M} (Electricity & Magnetism) {Philosophy} {Psychic Powers (ESP)} {Quantum Mechanics} {Goedel's non-time Theory} {Robotics} {Systems Theories} {Thermodynamics} {Science and its opposites}


-^_6 The following "keys" are given after the list of the sciences, a brief history of science, and a brief essay on the so-called "scientific method". Keys: {
Matter} {Energy} {Za-car} {Space} {Time} {Universe} But first.... Following a brief descriptions of "the sciences", there will be two introductory essays on the history of science, and the so-called "scientific method". In this section: {The Sciences} {Science: A quick history} {The Scientific Method}

An introduction to the scieneces

Or if this Thursday, then it must be Physics.... -^_6 Our serving selection for today: {
Arthropology} {Archaeology} {Biology} {Chemistry} {Computer Science} {Computation, Turing Machines and "The Matrix"] {Geology} {Linguistics} (our special guest today) {Mathematics} {Physics} {Psychology} {Sociology} -^_6


Anthropology (Greek: "Man Knowledge/Words") is the study by man of man. As the British englighment period poet, Alexander Pope, put it "The proper study of man, is man". By this, he was not just setting man apart of nature, but apart from the Churdh of the time - primarily of course the Catholic Church. There are several sub-areas of antrhopology of interest. Physical Anthropology - dealing with the minor (and sometimes not so) differences between the physical structure of humans -(
see map)-. It deals as welll with the biological evolutiojn of primates, cenring of course on the roles that have lead to humans. Ethnology and Cultural Antropology - dealing with how One of the most important impacts from the "theory of relativity" (physics) was towards helpting to justify the concept of "anthropological relativism" or more general: Cultural Relativism. Early on, the impact of Darwin's theory was mis-interpreted as saying "Survival of the Fittest". Previously, the various European powers had already been plundering the rest of the world, and many people had some misgivings of how "the nobel savage" was being treated - this being part of the *Romantic Movement* of the time to glorify and evny the simplicity of the savage in not having to deal with the growth the modern industrial national state, etc. So, with the handy "tonic" of "survial of the fittest", then it was only *natural* that these inferior cultural variants of man should die off just as the dinosaurs and other special variants of animal life had died off to make way for a better, more advanced and above all: More fit creature; ie, Christianised/Civilised/Industrialised MAN. But, when relativity (and finally an awareness of the logical errors of other forms of absolutest thinking) came to light and reason, the practice of anthropology stopped being one of simply bearing witness to the passing of the "Dodo" versions of man's primitive, un-fit cultures to one of not intervieing too much, as well as being more of a "participant/observer". Of course, one of the earliest to arrive at this was Franz Boas, who had many student revitalised and more relativised by his views. It is interesting to note, that the works of the great ethnologist of Black Americans, Zora Neal Hurston was a pupil of Boaz as well. CROSS PRODUCT LINK: -[ HU x HU (anthropology, perception) --> Cultural Relativism]- An important area (in terms of all areas of the "arts") is the concept of ritual and the following references are recommened: Grimes, Ronald L. (1996) Readings in Ritual Studies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. A superbly varied introduction to all aspects of ritual. Makes an excellent follup from Van Gennep (see below). Turner, Victor (1969). "Liminality and Communitas" in The Ritual Process. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. This is a superb classic showing much of Turner's original research and a wealth of ideas that can be applied to all things human/dolphin/robotic/etc. Van Gennep, A. (1960). The Rites of Passage. Chicago, Ill: The University of Chicago Press. Although old (originally published 1900), it is far from dated. And is still a standard reference work, as well as an excellent introduction to all things ritual. Van Gennep's style is easily approachable and well orgianised. The following two works are considered standards in the areas of anthropology of ritual as well as the aesthetics and easily read and assimulated, as well as excellent reference books. Eliade, Mircea. Myths, Dreams, and Mysteries. 1957. For better or worse, Eliade is generally credited for giving us the idea of "shaman" as guide/guru/seer/intercessor/etc. This work is especially to artists of all types. NOTE: The role of the shaman, etc is discussed in: -[humanist]- Langer, Susanne K. (1957, 3rd Ed.) Philosophy in a New Key - A Study in the Symbolism Reason, Rite, and Art. Harvard Press. Cambridge (Massachusetts). A modern classic of cross-product development of ideas.


Archaeology (Greek: "Old Knowledge/Words" is the science dealing with man's ancient past - primarily with "pre-history". Thus, archaologists talk of the "paleo-lithic" (Greek: "Old Rocks") and "neo-lithic" (Greek: "New Rocks") eras and of course this borders on the areas of physical anthropology (see above) as well. More to the point, archaeology is concerned with not just "digging up the past", but re-constructing as closely as possible the culture, mores, behaviours, beliefs, and practices of our various ancestors. One of the biggest stumbling blocks to anthropologists was (and is) the destruction of sites by amateurs and treasure hunters. In fact it was not until the middle of the 20th (1900c) century that there was by international agreement groups of professional societies. This is by no means a small matter, even the most gifted amateur may be ignorant of much of the history of a region, the geological structure of the region (as well as its recent geological history -- thus, bordering on the "holocene" and "pliestocene" periods of very recent geology). As such, much valuable (and yet seemingly non-existent or uselss) data has been lost in many "digs". Obviously the study of archaeology (in its proper form) goes hand in hand with the study of art -- escpecially "ancient art" (or as artists are want to say "Art History I" (as opposed to "Art History II" - the renaissance to the modern era - and "Modern Art" - 1848 or so forward). One of the primary cross-products of archaeology and art practice (ie, art technique) is in the re-construction of HOW ancient peoples made certain objects that we know they did not have modern technology to accomplish. Examples of this, are carefull reconstructions (to a high degree of certainty) of how Stonehinge, The Pyramids (both African and American), the Statues of Easter Island, etc, were built using the technologies of the time and the materials availabl at the location. A further important aspect of archaeology is the affect that the climate, environment, terrain, and bordering peoples had on cultural development, as well the very day-to-day and long-term survival.


In this section: {
Intro} {Botany} {Zoo-ology} {The Physics/Maths/Arts of The Bio-morphic}

Biology: Intro

Biology is broken down into two "classic" areas: Zoology (pronounced: zoh ah uh gee; Greek" Life knowledge/words) and Botany (pronounced: bah tuh nee; Greek: Plants + "y"). With the growing awareness of the complexity of life and non or near life; eg, phages, viruses, etc. The traditional "Linean Classification" system (named after the Swedish scientist who started it) has undergone many changes. When the evidence of evolution is brought into play, some of the previously accepted classifications have changed. Further, there are also the study of extinct (particularlly, very ancient) speicies which are broken down into: Paleobilogy (Paleo: Greek "old") Paleozooology Paleobotany Finally, the area of biology has been extended to include the possibility of life in space or on other worlds than Earth. This area is geneally known as: Xenobiology (Xeno: Greek "Strange" or "Other"). At the present time, only life based on DNA (the so-called "double helix") is known to exist anywhere in the universe. Although, many xenobiologists theorise that beings based on liquid helium, pure neutrons, or on more traditional but slightly altered chemistries are possible. The area bording Astronomy (an area of physics/geology) and biology is the idea of "SETI" (The Search For Extra Terrestrial Intellegence") and was started by many science fiction writers, such as H.G. Welles, as well as scientists such as Drake and Sagan. No evidence of ANY intellegent life has been to absolutely exist anywhere (even on the planet Earth). And of course the debate continues.



The Physics/Maths/Arts of The Bio-morphic

The concept of the biomorphic (Greek: "Life changing/changible") came into being (??) with the -[
Surrealist artists]- who were just begining to be influenced by the science discoeries of the previous century; and in this case the concepts of Darwin and Freud. Darwin gave us the fact that life evolves and is not constant. Freud gave us "dreams as the royal road to the sub-conscious" (poss not an exact quote). Anyway, the idea is that life changes. And of course we go back to Versalli's "Life of the Artists" -- that is, the realisation in the renaissaance that the artist is embedded in his/her/nez time and not just something that fell off Mount Parnassas (Greek: "Fell out of the sky"). Thus, like John Donne's "crag" (The tolling bell - a eulogy ??), the artist reflects their time, nationality, etc. Key to the idea of artistic biomorphism is the cross product of (big drum roll here; thanks, Shosty!) GEOMETRIC & ORGANIC Now this sort of thing manifests itself in maths as such things as "genetic algorithms", "mathematical economy", "markov processes" and of course our old nemesis FRACTALS. Meanwhile in Physics biomorphism has (as far as i know) so far only manifested itself in the form of life forms in the sf novel by rocketist/futurist Robert Forward's "Dragon's Egg". Where-in life is based on neutrons living on the surface (barely) of a neutron star. Forward also has given us "Camelot-40K" (or something like that) an sf novel based on sex (er, ahhh), violence, (errh, uuuhmm) Sorry wrong notes: Life based on liquid helium. Look, i didn't invent this stuff. All Mr. Wentworth told me was to come in here and say that there was trouble at the mill (life in mutatable forms). I didn't expect a sort of Spanish Inquistion!!! (meanwhile, Graham Chapman's lovely head - sans, pipe) was last seen floating (joggling?) down West Sainsburry Street, near the corner of Lord Grey avenue. So, finally Kermit sighed a big sign, picked up his banjo, got into the VW (again with a sigh). Ms. Piggy sighed, wiping a teer from her eye and asked/sed: "South of France for a week?" to which kermit nodded silently, slowly wiping the teers from his eyes. Meanwhile, "a certain duck" was heard to exclaim: Rosebud. That is to say, such "streams of consciousness" were a main component of the surrealist's desire to "go beyond" the here and now -- to find the REAL understructure. Note that this had already (probably) occured. In one sense, Van Gogh was trying to do that with his art (as we might see from people who self-mutilate themselves "i wasn't trying to kill myself; i just like pain"_. -- a fellow cartoonist, ??name?? (i kept hope-ing that it was just another hullucination, but it was real (as i would put it: ALL too reel. Anyway, so when van Gogh writes to his brother Theo that: Why should i avoid just using white and black out of the tube, without mixing them? After all, if i paint someone reading "Le Journal" ??title?? isn't the print black, and the paper white? -- not an exact quote (looks for Chipp's book) Thus, the idea was to use the here and now to go beyond the hear and know. Later of course, things like LSD would simply re-capitulate (echo) the royal musician of Zaniduu. That is, (in terms of physics) The state of the current state + change produces a new state but, in terms of fractals, the quantum, and of course "ante" (given by the symbol (lower-case) alpha and an apostrphe; ie, either / (should be smaller font here) a' or a` or a (tips towel to Mihai and Mrs. Doctor Mihai) That is: the the FUTURE state is "somehow" involved as well. We might think about it like this: A creatue can not evolve beyond a certain level, since to do so would cause it to lose a certain level of complexity; ie, create a toxic flaw causing "cascade failure", or simply "a stopage". Think about Jean Tinguely's "Self destroying machine - portrait of New York" An artwork is constructed which actually has the ability to destroy itself. This was first attempted (??) by Man Ray in a photograph of an object, the title of the work (which one? the photo or the object itself?) was: "Object to be destroyed later". Thus, we might say that a black hole is simply an object that "wants to destroy itself" (which it can't do) - the only way to do so, is to destroy the entire universe. This is reminiscent of a short story by Stanislov Lem *** PDE ** LINK *** wherein a device is created that can destroy everything. But then it stops. Why? -- ah, but i would never put spoilers in a file like this!! So, where are we? bio morphic forms probably are metaphysical (they are certainly pataphysical - i don't think i need to use 'pataphysical here) in that they have (like fractals) different representations in different "views" (eg, phsyics, art, sculpture, modern danse -- esp the futurers banker's hornpipe, as well as any other area/way that we can represent/project/extract/remunerate: the geometric and the organic (whereupon the learned left-leaning lecturer-er lead too far to the left, and instead of falling face first into a quite recently deposited load of horse hockey, sed: "When it's just sort raining "a bit" and you see ducks taking cover (they will waddle over under some bushes, under a tree) -- TAKE COVER!!! -- that's how i lost "the green" (umbrella/brollie/bumbershoot) //\\ // \\ || -||- (an approximation of the Chinese Gliph for umbrella -- which (oddly or not) enough LOOKS like an umbrella. Very nice, bamboo with painted, waxed paper for the "covering" (skin?) --42-- btw: This article was brought to you by "The Dada Fire Insurance" company. And by readers like you.


Chemistry is the science involving the combinations of atoms (the most stable form of complex sub-atomic particles; such as, hydrogen, oxygen, iron, etc). Combination of the some 110 known types of atoms form compounds, and more complex compounds are refered to as molecules. The merging of chemistry with other sciences (such as physics) gives: Chemical Physics - studying the very intricate (physical) processes in fairly simple compounds and trying to generalise this into a "unified theory" of chemistry from a physics poing of view. (usually only a few (eg, 10) atoms or so). Physical Chemistry - studying the physical properties of farily complicted compounds and molecules. (usually between 50 and 500 atoms or so). Biochemistry - the attempt to study the complex molecules involved in life itself (usually, from 10_000 to 50_000 or more atoms. Even simple DNA molecules can contain hundreds of thousdands of atoms).

Computer Science

Computation, Turing Machines and "The Matrix"

See also: -[
The Matrix]- (in SF literature; film) Note this section is designed to be fairly self contained, so there is probaly a lot of extra needed...

The Turing Machine

The grit: A general purpose computer that has access to various tapes. Each tape can contain data (information, databases, text) or programs (instructions to the computer). The Turing computer can move the tape forward and backward (either counting places on the tape or to a specific location on the tape). Each "place" has an ADDRESS; for ease of use these start at 1 and goes to 2, 3, 4, 5, ... to the capacity of the tape. Each "place" on the tape can contain a single "character" of data. The computer can check the value (read it, but leave the value un-changed) and make a decision based on the value; eg, Read CURRENT_TAPE_POSITION value If value > 0 MOVE TAPE FORWARD 126 spaces. or If value > 0 BACK_SPACE one space INCRMEENT THAT LOCATION BY ONE. The "default" operation after execuing the instruction at a given location is to forward space the tape one position, read the next instruction and execute it. For simplicity the tape is often thought of as TWO DISTINCT TAPES: A program A data tape The program tape is read and acted on by the tape reader but does NOT modify anything on it. It **CAN** add to the program tape at the end. If the program can modify parts of itself - instead of specifically separate parts of the tape, then it is said to be SELF-PROGRAMMING. The Data tape is given as being readable and writable -- ie, any portion can be modified. "Niceities" =========== In generalising, we may extend this to include *convenient* commands such as, GET My_string; READ (a synonum for GET, but can access different tapes and devices). where part of the tape (acting as memory) indicates that My_string is a sequential string of characters that starts at XYZ address and continues for either a given LENGHT or until an "END-OF-LINE" character indicates the end of the stored string. PUT My_string AT <address> WRITE (a synonum for PUT but can access different tapes, and devices). Note a PRINTER or other "high-level" device is "seen" by the computer as just a differnt kind of TAPE that can only be written to. We assume that the printer is always ready, on-line, has paper, etc. Similarly KEY_BOARD (aka KEYBOARD) is seen as an input-only tape. A "file" (eg, a random-access file in a database) is seen as a ORGANISED TAPE where there are "logical records" of fixed (or not) record lenghts and accessed via a fixed set of READ / WRITE sub-programs (routines). Thus, we "may" define a high-level language which might look like this: READ ON Database_2001 RECORD NUMBER 1729 INTO My_buffer; The operation of such a system can be broken down into the basic Turing Machine operations - in a deterministic manner. Results of Turing's Concepts of the Turing Machine ================================================== Primariliy, such a simple computer: Move tape forward/backward Read tape at current location Read tape at loation "x" Write tape at current location Write tape at location "x" Compare value at location "x" with "y" If condition returend (eg, equals, greater than, etc) then Can be used to (in theory) represent *any* computer system that can be concieved of. This would include such things as stochasitc computers, super computers, etc. Of course such an implementation is not very efficient since it only has a very small number of instructions. Some modern computers tend to model this; eg, RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computers) and tend to be very efficient at certain tasks. Regardless, the model (when formally defined - which i most certainly have *not* done here) can be treated in strict *formal* mathematical fashion and present several problems of a similar nature to those un-covered with Kurt Goedel's undecidability investigations. Chief among these is the so-called "stopping problem". Given a general tape of data, can it be determined whether the turing machine will reach a "conclusion" -- that is: In every case, can it have a FINITE set of computations/decisions that it will go through? For small, and finite tapes this problem can be solved by simply submitting every possible combination to the machine and see if it does in fact *terminate*. For large problems (eg, factoring large numbers, or almost all operations research problems) the answer can some-times be proven mathematically. In many cases (such as modeling or with systems with "open input tapes") the answer can only be "at best" bounded by "guesses" -- even though they are v. good guesses. SIDE BAR --20-- By the way a good cross-reference: A Beautiful Mind some of his (like Ramajaunan's) results are so unbelievable, that i can't believe they can even be concieved up, let alone shown to be true. That is: Game theory lends itself (as does Operations Research as well), to many problems that can in theory by solved (but just not in a finite number of steps). The problem is that if we adopt a "strategy" that will solve a problem - it may involve either a countable or un-countable (non-poly time) number of steps. And the prize goes to: An algorithm that specifies other algorithms that when coded can be shown to "solve" a problem". And the GRAND prize goes to: If the algorithm for specifing algorithms (at any point) is ITSELF is un-bounded un-countable - and yet able to be un-ambigously specified. Eg, (from "Stories about Sets" ??author??) Take an infinite (but countable) number of bellboys Have them move the person from room X to X + N where N = the number of people that that bellboy must move TIMES the number of bellboys So, to solve this problem, all we need is an infinite number of counters to count to some countable number. Now, what if any of the values is a (countable) number... This problem is easily solved by using Maxwell's Demons to do the calculations. But, in a sympathy vote to the train porter's union they have threatened to strike if management doesn't agree to return to the bargaining table - in good faith (Satre-ian, or otherwise). Meanwile in Selma.... Reports posted as they come in... --30-- (listening to "The Three Penny Opera") go figure... "open input tapes" include things like a keyboard. If a person is allowed to type ANYTHING into the keyboard, then a general "input program" may in fact not have a "stopping state" due to the limitless input possibilities. This doesn't mean that is may not in fact stop (ie, reach a conclusion), but that there "may" be input sequences which cause the program to not stop. That's about all that i know.

Turing Realities and the Matrix

The idea is that we can "save the state" of a system onto disk (or onto a tape of course; a tape is "just" a sequential disk-file). This means that in theory as a system changes, we can save EVERY state of the system, thus: System: State n (saved) Input(s): X (or, x, y, z, ....) but a finite number of them changes the system System: State n+1 (saved) And thus in theory we can re-create all of the steps at any step. This goes back to the "God's eye view" of a determinstic universe of the Deists (eg, Alexander Pope, Voltaire, etc). Now note: That it "seems" (steps out on limb) that we can construct a computer system which is not limited by the quantum. This means that certain systems would have to be determined by random (actually psuedo-random) inputs - but these can all be stored as alternate world-lines. But, meanwhile back in our universe which DOES have quantum effects and (presumably) actual random processes. (whether these are "merely" pi-random or "treu-random" - whatever that means remains an open question).... regdarless... The problem in such a model is that in reality there would not be a single computer that encompases all of the system as well as all inputs at any given instant of time. There must almost necessarily be some FIRST and THEN... seqence in which the inputs are processed. This problem becomes unbounded in many cases where the inputs are infinite or at least can potentially be of any value. The simplest representation of this idea is that of the observer/observed issues of Quantum Mechanics. This extends into classical philosophy that not only can't we step into the same river twice, but that by stepping into it (or even contemplating to do so) we affect the river itself. The other problem (in various states of "solution") is whether *every* computational problem can be modeled by a Turing Computer. This includes the idea of being able to *analytically* specify an algorithm to model various components - even if there are an infinite number of them - so that it can be shown that in an infinite amount of time, we could in theory construct a Turing Machine that would solve the given problem -- again, whicn in itself might be infinite. The problem arises from there as to the various kinds of infinity we are talking about: 1) A countable infinity which we can map 1-to-1 to the integers (1, 2, 3, ....) - even though there are an infinite number of them. 2) Un-countable infinity #1 (the real numbers) which we can specify some method (algorithm) by which the mappings are to be constructed - even though we can't count them - and by a series of (again countable) algorithms produce a scheme to model the system we are looking at. These concepts arise out of "cross products" (if i may be so bold) between things like: 1) Georg Cantor's various infinities 2) Kurt Goedel's undecidability theories; two main one, and many variants since his original work. Althought totally un-related, see: {Goedel's non-time Theory} 3) Self-referential problems; first highlighted by Bertand Russell in his review of Otto Friche's Set Theory work; see also, "Russell's Paradox". This has been (partially) solved by one of Russell's stuedents, G. Spensor Brown and his work in "The Laws of Form". And out of this came all of the "stuff" on modal and non-modal, etc. logics. It's all a big mess, but of course with films like "The Matrix" (or like Scotty's teleporter on Star Trek) it can "magially happen" in the realm of SciFi. Of course in terms of either "simple" iconospheric double and triple cross products, we might write things like: Philo x Jazz ("I'm lying") ---> Goldberg Variations written in terms of Jazz (or, eg, "The Bull on the Roof" by Darius Milhaud), etc Or that it might lead to something like live performance work; eg, Nam Jun Paik, etc. and variations of interactions there-in. (just another of my random thoughts), frank 2008.03.24


Geology is the study of the physical and historical processes of the Earth. The general areas are: Physical geology, including minerology, hydrology, vulcanology, oceanology, atmospheric studies, etc. Historical geology - an attempt to piece together the history of changes that have occured on the Earth in its almost 5 billion (ie, 5 thousand million) year history. In addition, geology has been expanded to study the structures of the various planets in the solar system, which consist of several types: Terestrial - ie, earth-like; eg, Mars, Mercury, Venus. Gaseous giants - ie: Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus. Planetesimals (also known as "asterioids) - most are located between Mars and Jupiter's orbits and are thought to be a planet that dien't quite form. Moons - which in many cases include captured asteroids, as are presumed (by some) as in the moons of Mars, and some moons of Jupiter, Saturn, etc. Cometary, Kupier, and other objects - the so-called Kupier belt begins with Pluto and Charon (the currently known closest plutons to the sun), the so-called "Oort Cloud" (named after the scientist who studied) contains much comet-like materials. Note: The the geological study of such systems is tied closely to the astronomical and chemical studies as well.


Our special guests today are three rather odd groups of people: The Brother's Grimm Ferdenand de Sausure and his students And the magician Kurt Goedel (with special arragement with Jacques Derrida and the Alfred Jarry institute for 'Pataphysics) For the most part of human history, linguistsics (and primarily a "linguist" (also known as a "polyglot" -- Greek "many tongues") was a person who studied or knew many languages. Not until recent times, was the idea of language itself as a subject study given *any* consideration. Of course "linguists" of old would compare and contrast how languges were related to each other, and once discarding the myth of the "tower of Babel" (not much more than a ziggurat mound, that (like several early attempts in Egypt) didn't quite "get off the ground" - or rather fell to ground all too well). Anyway, linguists would surely noted that the old Sanscrit name for bread is "nana" while the much more modern language of Hindi in the form of the word "nan". Such thinking led to the concept of languages evolving, intermixing and even dieing out (the most usual example of a "dead" language is usually can-tied-to-tail: Latin. To which i can only respond: Verbum sapientius (Latin: "Words of wisdom" - although i may have confused the 3rd and 4th declinsions; again). Finally, as Dr. Johnson was in England compliting the first dictionary of the English Language (The King's English, no doubt) this sort of thinking culminated with our good friends from childhood: The Brother's Grimm (??names??), in addition to compiling the first dictionary of the German Language (perhaps the Hapsberg's German? - searches, vainly for copy of "The Fall of Eagles", but does find a penguin paperback copy of "Polotical Anthropology"). NOTE: This idea of "The King's English" is NOT a moot point (actually a moot point is one that is debatable and not already decided). In the case of Spain, the so-called "Castillian" Spanish was considered the only proper one. The Castillian family being affected by a slight king of lisp, and the word "Castillian" would either be pronunkiated: Cass-tiLL-yun or Cas-stee-yohn depending upon ones local/ethnic background, education, loyalties to the crown, etc. One has only to read George Bernard Shaw's "Pygmallian" or view the very nicely expanded musical film "My Fair Lady" to see see what power language has. Anyway, the main thing (other than the stories colllected from German, Bavarian, Hungarian, and Gypsy) origins) that we thank the brother's Grimm for was the first idea of how languages evolve; namely, the so-called "Grimm's Laws". For example, "father" in Latin is "patter", which in German became "vatter" (pronounced "Fah-tur"), and then into Old Englush as "Faether" and finally becoming "Father". By studying how common words changed in a CONSISTENT manner, led to the early stirrings of language as a living/evolving thing. Finally, a man died (but not without students) and they published his lecture notes (which were then re-vised by scholars) and so we have at least TWO versionf of "A General Course in Linguistics" by Ferdinand de Sausuare. Which lays down the very means by which words mean and stnd for things, how the human voice can create different sounds with subtle distinctions. The utility of these studies are indicated by exposing the myth that the Chevy Nova car didn't sell well in Mexico because "no va" (pronounced "noh vah") means "won't go". This myth was laid to rest (formally, and i tip my towel to the fine folks at) http://www.snopes2.com In that "no more than a speaker of English would mistake "therapist" for "the rapist" would a native speaker of Spanish make a similar mistake." And oddly enough as at almost the exact same moment on a certain blue, green planet (Earth: see map) Georges Brach and Pablo Picasso "discovered" that words could be put into a "painting" (or as artist/chess player Marcel Duchamp was to call the process "assemblage") TEXT, WORDS, and things like that to create a totally new meaning outside of the usual path of the artist. Other's beside Frenchman and Spaniard (and the ever evervescent Duchamp) said "Huh?" and then began to sell "Dada Fire Insurance" policies without a permit - but that is another story. Recommended reading: "Word Play" by Peter Farb. Bon appetite! Meanwhile: As more and more people are forced into a kind of King's English thinking (eg, via American Psychologist Association formating), and of course the need for proper citation and reliability (ie, no wiki!)... Hmm, we may have already reached the so-called Asimov-Clarke limit of information storage. (although i might argue tht it should be called the LeGuin-ensbible limit, we set this assid next to Harpo Marx's harp) So, who watces the watchers? In the Sartrean sense: we watch ourselves, but always be open to RFC (Request for Comment). And of course to self-censure (or mutual-censure in the case of ego's). But: They did bring in these hugh wooden structures, every day i walked by (and i just thought it was like mall area - but without the parking lots). And there *were* skate bording demonstrations in the evening. I mean at that point, i didn't even know Marcel Duchamp existed - i mean other than the general idea that The Mona Lisa with a Moustache was just common revvelllry by some rambunctious rabble. odd thing, time? So: The duck test can be reversed, and then we end up with: Yes, it's not a forgery - it was done by the artist's daughter and so paradoxically - her work is even more valuable (money-wise) than her father's. Et tu Tintcurinni? -^_6


Note: Logic (including mathematical logic) has been moved under philosophy, and is therefore in spiritualist. [
Logic as Such] (in spiritualist) -[Spiritualist Philo(Logic))]- ??LINK?? ERROR In this section: {Lost Mathematics} {Mathematical Trees} (latices, decision trees, etc) {Randomness} {Laws of Form} See also: [] Algebra: 1. What ever you do to one side of the = sign you have to do to the other. 2. To sneak up on X (who we know done it) we start as far away as possible (so as not to alert the suspect). 3. When something is going on (conversations say like 4+5 or 7*9) we do the "opposite" it's the last thing they'd expect; eg, 4 -5 or 7 / 9 4. Finally when have X, we release it since it was just acting the part of the perputrator all the time. 5. In real life, things are rarely so clear - let alone rewarding or organised. --30--

Laws of Form

See also: -[
Laws of Form]- (index entry) In this section: {<>Intro<>} History and Ideas of Delta-evolution G. Spencer Brown The Distinguishing Mark The Catalog and Folder Problems - psuedo-infinites, infinities, etc.


Physics is one of the oldest of sciences (part of it, Astronomy may actually be the first science after medicine) and deals with the observable physical phenomena of the universe, earth, and so forth down to atoms, and then own down to electrons, protons, and neutrons, and then down to quarks, photons, and then to the substance of space and time themselves, with speculations about the universe as a whole. The great success of physics (especially in the way that it can be used to construct devices (inventions, machines, etc) is primarily based on the fact (some would say design, others would say coincidence, while other speculate that it is a total misuderstanindg) of: The fact that mathematics is completely compatible with expressing, elucidating, and extending the ideas of physics. Physics is genrally broken down into the basic areas of: Methanics - the movement of both rigid bodies, as well as deformable masses (eg, liquids, the movement of air, etc). Electricity & Magentism - studying the properties of both static and moving charges (electrons (negative) as well as the positive protons). This area also extends into the study of the Earth's magnetic field and the "northern Lights" and "Southern Lights" which result from the interplay between it and the sun's outstrea of energy and atom fragments. Optics - the study of the behaviour of light - both visible, as well as infrared (heat), ultraviolet, xrays, radio waves, etc. With the proof by James Clark Maxwell that electricity and magnetism are simply different manifestations of light, many areas of physics became tied together. Condesnsed matter physics - this is the area in physics corresponding to chemistry; eg, solid state physics. Plasma physics - dealing with super heated gasses; eg, as found in the sun. Quantum Mechnaics - the area dealing with the almost contradictory effects of the very small realm of the atom and below. Relativigy and Cosmoology - When Einstein's famouse equation unified matter and energy, hop arose that a so-called "unified theory" could be found unifing all of the forces of the universe. Not so far. Relativity, as well as the study of gravity, space time, etc deal with the very lage scale things in the universe. Astrongomy - physical astronomy deals with cateloging and understanding the matter and energy in the universe, as well as working in with the ideas of cosmology, gravity mechanics, and other (current) speculations such as dark matter, dark energy, etc. Problems to be dealt with include how the universe came into being, why it is expanding (and possibly going faster/slowing down, as well as why the galaxies themselves stay together since they are rotating, they should fly apart. Also, the life and death of stars, planets, etc are studied as well.


Psychology (Greek: "Psyche" one of the greek gods, also "mind" in a way) is the study of human and animal behaviour - particularly with the reasoning, learning, and maturation processes involved. Psychology (like biology, to which it is closely linked) also has applications in treating various disorders: Clinical psychology. Since humans are psychological creatures, the way that they act in various arenas of society (eg, war, politics, tribes, family, etc) are of interest in studying man with an aim to make things less chaotic. So far, the speclulations of philosopher/futurist Isaac Asimov that a so-called science of "Psycho History" have not yielded a "magic formula" by which the ancient dream of utopia might be realised; research in this area continues not only in psychology, but in sociology which clearly closely linked. Behavioural psychology (refer to the debate between humanist/mathematcian Jacob Bronowski and behaviourialist B.F. Skinner for much on this) is the idea of styding the patterns of behaviour of both humans and animals. As yet, no known *scientific* evidence exists for the psychological behaviour of plants, the earth itself, its air, etc. - such systems of thought are classifed as "spritualist: gaist or animistic and generally regared as religion rather than science).


Sociology is the collection of oher sciences needed to understand human behaviour in groups. This includes the individual to some extent (anthropology and psychology) but mainly on the relation of one or more humans with each others (siblings, friends, lovers, enemies, etc), as well as families, tribes, etc. Sociology takes many of the findings of anthropology (eg, individual gestures, speech patterns, etc) and sees how they fit into a group dynamic. An interesting dynamic was observed when the end credits song from the Monty Python film "The Life of Bryan" ("Always look on the bright side of life") began to be sung at football (socre) games during the last minutes of the game by the LOSING side. Important popular treatments include: "Sacred cows, pigs, cabbages and kings", by Marvin Harris. "Man Watching" and "The Naked Ape" byt Desmond Morris. This concludes our "gift section" of tonight's evening's viewing.

Science: A Quick history

Science is the "fair haired lad" of the so-called "Western Reductionist Philosophy".
================= INSERT CARTOON HERE ================= Mr. R. (as "ring master) Hello, good-evening, and welcome gentle beings, today we present Ogg and Agaa, played by our very own Meepo and Gleeba... Meepo: (stubs toe on rock) YOW!!!! Gleeba: (rolls eyes) Again with the toe! Oig! If i'e told you once, i've told you four times: If you'd watch where you were going then you wouldn't stub your toe! Meepo: Yes, but then i wouldn't be able to see the stars. (fade to) Mr. R. Thus were born the sciences of physics and medicine. As may have notices, the first doctor - Agaa - was a woman and the first scientist - Ogg - was a man. And of course Ogg also played the part of the first patient. And like most patients, they never listen to their doctors. ===================== END CARTOON =============== One should note that i don't even DRAW the cartoons anymore. They've become text only. Think about this (ie, cf/qv) with many new cartoons (eg, "Red Meat") that have no moving images but only the text (with a CHARACTER + simple SET) carrying the CONTEXT. Thus, my cartoons have become text objects. Sooner or later we'll ALL become "just" text objects, me-thinks. Initially (many eons ago), no one knew much of anything; possibly the only things really known were such basic things as bodily functions and emotions. It has been speculated that the first science (if such it could be called) was medicine. Evidence for this is supported by early attempts at surgery. The next science would have been a mixture of animal husbandry (or at least the study of migration of animals in the case migratory cultures), animal behaviour (in either nomadic or hunter/gatherer cultures), and finally culminating in a knowledge and study of agriculture and astronomy; the former as a practice of increasing the "yield" of land and the latter as necessary to understand the concept of "crop seasons". Finally, early philosophers (or scientists -- in those days there could not be any difference) came up with the so-called "4 elements". Fire, Earth, Water, Air Actually, other philosophers came up with 3 or 5 or almost any number of elements. It was from these elements that all other things were said to have been made from (of). Still other philosophers decided that there was a 5-th (or n-th) element which was outside of the entire process. The various names for this "outside" element have been "god", "gaia", "the dau" (or "the tau" as i often use it), etc. Still other philosophers came to the conclusion that EVERYTHING was the "other" -- that is, there is NO OTHER: All are one. Regardless of the numerous religious wars that were fought or not, finally a series of in-escapable things occured. These were called "experiments". The foundation of which are the concepts of "repeatability" and "cause/effect". As it turns out the universe of discourse (our universe, commonly refered to as "Reality Structure 3") apparently has both of these two properties; ie, repeatability and cause/effect. As such, science abandoned all non-materialistic view points in favor of the observable, measurable, and tangible. Once these areas of "natural philsosophy" had given rise to "sciences"; eg, naturalists became biologists, astrologers became astronomers, alchemists (seeking the "elixr of life", etc) became chemists, and "natural philosophers" became physicists, and all the rest. All was well and good until the advent of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. Although it is beyond the scope of this work to explore these in any great detail, we will deal with these in the area of philosoph; {below} With that, the absolute nature of physics, biology, and even mathematics was called into question. And thus, we find ourselves in the beginning of the 21st century (2000c).

The Scientific Method

Although in reality, there IS a scientific method, it is NOT the way that new theories are made. Actually, the process of OBSERVATIONS reveals much about the world/universe/reality around us. It then is the CREATIVE process that makes the "leap" to find a PATTERN or a MODEL that can explain or at least help to make clearer what is observed and what is already "known". Useful links: [
sci buddies pages] [wiki entry] Briefly, as Santiago Ramon y Cajal has said, I shall assume that the reader's general education and background in philosophy are sufficient to understand that the major sources of knowledge include observation, experiment, and reasoning by induction and deduction. "Advice for a Young Investigator", [More here] And now for our feature presentation: [isd77.k12.mn.us] 1. Make initial observations (see what is going on and see what seems the same/different, worse/better, etc). 2. Gather information (attempt to organise into "data" -- ie, try to systemise how you gather data so that it is as complete and un-biased as possible). 3. Create a project. (Title, the purpose, and hopefully a working hypothesis of what you hope to find out). 4. Make the hypothesis (or hypotheses, me-thinks). 5. Design experiments to TEST the hypotheis. Make sure that you include ways to FALSIFY (dis-prove) your hypothesis. 6. Make observations and/or experiments -- record carefully. 7. Analyze your data and work it against your hypothesis. Note carefully observations/results that both DO and DO NOT support your hypothesis. 8. Draw conclusions and then repeat the process until everything (mostly) can be explained. If you do this correctly your work will contribute a greater understanding of the world/universe/things around us (usually refered to as Reality Structure Number 3). If you don't then you are not practicing science but either psuedo-science or some sort of art/performance thing at worst case, you're in the realm of spirituality -- in which case: You're on your own, kiddo! --30--

And now... The key concepts in the sciences

Keys: {Matter} {Energy} {Za-car} {Space} {Time} {Universe} {Matter} {Energy} {Za-car} {Space}
Time See also: -[
time]- (futurist pespective) -[time]- (spiritualist perspective) -[Time Travel]- via: Fut x Abs (time) Note: There is NO absurdist, artistic, fractalist, humanist, or jazzist perspective of time; everything is "just" is; that is, "is is" -- (commonly refered to as "the is that is now"). -[(map entry)]- In this section: physics of time relativity and time travel physiological/biological time (physical) perceptual time (thought) (this section still under construction; we appologise for the in-convenience) See also: -[Fut x Abs (time)]- (major time travel entry) relativity and time travel


A key idea is that the laws of the universe form a coherent whole.

What is Science?

Core Concepts} {Reductionism (per se)} {Analysis/Reduction via Bifurcation} {Science and its "opposties"}

Science as REDUCTIONIST system

Core Concepts

Quick idea-jogger: Systematic, Consistent, Analytical, Skeptical (not true until proved), Experimental, Produces the technical (engineering, medicine, etc)

Reductionism; per se.

Note: Determinism is dealt with BELOW {
maths section}. The CORE concept of "reductionism' (often refered to - a bit scathingly - as "western reductionism"). It states that the whole is exactly the sum of the parts. There is no mysticsm, synergy of interactions, etc. That is: What you see is what you get. It also postulates that things (real things; eg, processes, toasters, people) can be broken down into a set of processes that act on forms. And that these lawas are un-varying (invariant in time), understandable (the universe is rational and predictable), and CONSTANT. Of course, in view of such things as quantum phenomenon, {chaotic, catastrophic, and glpytic} (below) systems there "are complications".

Analysis/Reduction via Bifurcation

One concept is that the dis-assembly of an object is usually using the scientific method to keep things straight. NOTE: Here we do NOT take that as reading as "deconstruction" in the philo/literature sence. However, an example of this is given in the SCI x ART (text) ---> formal to semi-formal views of art objects See: -[
Scientist x Artist (text)]- Bifurcation is basically the two-way branching of things. This was made immensely popular by the classical Greek concept of "the excluded middle"; eg, That is A is either X or not X. This works nicely with biology (tips towel to Lineaus) Given "x" let us proceed to derive its taxonomy, Is x an animal; eg, a dolphin? no. Is x a macroscopic object; eg, tulip bulb? no. Is x a mega-scopic object; eg, a rain forest? no DEDUCES: x is MICRO SCOPIC. Is this true? yes. and so forth (in this case, it turns out that x is either a red fungus or a volvox colony. Unfortunately, which is the case will have to wait until i get back from taking my Mom shopping.... , -^_6


In this section: {
Intro} {The Big Bang} {Black Holes} {Quasars, White Holes, and Worm Holes} {M Theory; Parallel Universe Mechanics}

Black Holes

white/black holes Hawking: Leaking black holes lead to the signularity exposed. or not: the quanum limit the htac/black-hole super computer, etc

Quasars, White Holes, and Worm Holes

energy balance - a star per year into a central black hole

M Theory; Parallel Universe Mechanics

11 dimensions overlapping waves - one time occurence, causes a universe to begin, mutliple overlaps cause new universes to begin. martin rees just six numbers but, if there are other universe, there might be more than just six numbers in fact there might be a whole slew of special numbers like c, h, G, q, etc but in our universe, they are all set to zero.

E & M

This section describes the seeming incompatible ideas of Electricity and Magnetism. The ancient greeks (and thence) had the idea of a magnet - basically from naturally occuring iron ores. As it turns out, you can make a magnet by using the Earth. Take a piece of iron and point it pretty much north/south and hit it with a hammer. After a while, it will become magnetised. What you are basically doing is lineing up the nucleuses of the iron atoms in alignment with the Earth's magnetic field. Of course this is a *static* magnet. An example of a static "electric" (if we can talk about such a thing) is where we create an object with an excess of negative (or a deficienciny of) charges - electrons. When Benjamin Franklin flew the kite in the lightening storm, he mainly showed that lightening was just a very large version of static electricity that had been studied for a century or so. In the same way, when Michael Faraday started experimenting with magnetic fields and electrical phenomena, he was gathering the experimental evidence that would later go into the analytical (maths) expressions that are usually connected with the physicists who studied them; eg, Ampere's Law, Volta's observations and building of the first battery, the Biot-Savart (French: Bee-yoh, Suh-Varh), etc. So, what follows is a QUAD (Quick and Dirty) view of things... Electrical fields are created by either protons (positive) or electrons (negative). We can use a so-called Van de Graff generator to "separate charges". This builds up on the sphere of the generator a large negative (or positive - depends on how we make the generator) charges. When we touch it, the hair on our heads stands out in all directions (if we have long hair ;) because the charges are transfered to us, and since "like charges repel", the hairs repel each other. This goes back to what is called Gauss's Law. Imagine a metal sphere (made of, eg, copper or aluminum) and we introduce just two electrons. They would position themselves as far as possible from each other and thus form a "NORTH and SOUTH" ELECTRICAL POLE - note that this is *similar* to (but not really like) a magnet with its "NORTH" and "SOUTH" MAGNETIC POLES. As far as scientists know, there are NOT any NORTH or SOUTH magnetic particles, as such where was an electorn is an "electical monopole" (of negative charge), and a proton is an "electrical monopole" (of a positive charge), there are no such things as "magnetic monopoles" - but the search continues. Faraday was one of the first (if not the first) to notice two important things: If we take a piece of wire (preferably copper) and move it across the magnetic pole of a magnet - and perpendicular to it. As the wire "cuts" the lines of magnetic force, it creates an electrical flow in the wire. If the wire is in the form of a loop, we have a generator. As it turns out, the more wires that cut the lines of magetic force, the more electical flow (current) we will get. Thus, a generator uses a large number of loops to cut the lines of a magnet's field to create the familiar electricity that we get out of the wall (110 volts or 220 volts depending mostly on tradition). By the same way, if we put electricity into a *slightly modified* generator, we can get it to turn - and thus, an electrical motor. Finally, it fell to James Clerk (Bristish English: "Clahrk") Maxwell to unify all of the experimental information into his so-called "4 laws". Although a bit more complex than Einstein's famous relativity formula, their simplicity even predicted some of the ideas of relativity - about 25 years before Einstein (studying just "pure light") came to the first of this two equations. As it turns out: Light is an electro-magetic wave (normally the E (electrical) and M (magnetic) fields are at right angles and travel at the same speed - the speed of light. That is, the speed of light in a vacuum. If light goes thru a medium (eg, glass, water, or even through a wire), it's properties change. Mainly the so-called "index of refraction" comes into play. We know that light that goes into a glass of water at an angle will be bent by it. An important equation (again for a perfect vacuum) c (speed of light) = wave length x frequency Finally, just to get everyone on the same page: Visible light is just one tiny part of the total RANGE of electro-magnetic spectrum. From the very low frequency (and thus large wavelenght) radio waves (eg, 100 MegaHertz (FM band on your radio dial) has a wave lenght of about 3 metres). Compare this with a so-called microwave oven where the wave lenghts are in the range of 1 or 2 cm or so (ie, 0.01 - 0.02 metre) and the frequencies in the gigahertz range. Heinrich Hertz was the first one to show that electrical waves could be "transmitted" across empty space - not needing wires. Of course, elecrticity in the home is only 50 or 60 Hz so it needs a wire) - this allowed people like Marconi, Zworkin, Pharnsworth, etc, to start making radios. If you google, "electro magnetic spectrum", you'll see 'em all: Infrared, visible, ultraviolet, xrays, cosmic rays, etc. And this final bit of mind bending stuff: Just like we can create a permanent magnet by using coils of wire wrapped around a soft iron rod. We can use an electrical field to create a permanent sort of "electical magnet" - called an "electret"; it turns up high quality microphones, and other applications. The electrical field is "permanently" frozen into the material, in much the same way that a magnetic field is "permanently" frozen in a magnetc. I say permanently, since if the magnet or electret is mistreated (banged around, heated up - see "The Curie Temperature" of a magnetc), the device goes back to being random instead of highly organised. Also remember: The electrical properties of matter is mainly due to electrons (and to a certain extent protons of course), but a magentic field is almost entirely a NUCLEAR phenomenon - the nucleus'es of atoms become "flipped" and then allign themselves, adding up to a large effect. And finlly, when you are in an MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) machine, a MASSIVE magnetic field is using the nuclear spin flips in the hydrogen atoms in your body to "see" what is inside you. And remember: 40 years ago, MRI's were someone's experimental idea - just like Franklin thinking about flying a kite into a MASSIVE electrical field; btw: Others tried the experiment, they weren't so lucky - and when you think about it: He was v. lucky. **** FINAL BONUS TRACK **** The only real difference between a LASER (and all of it's "weird" properites) is that the atoms in a laser tube are caused to fire at almost the same instant - and in synchronisation. In a incandescent or fluorescent light (or the sun for that matter), the atoms are fire-ing at random, as such the light spreads out in all directions pretty much out of sync, and at different colours. We describe the light of a laser beam as being mono-chromatic (Greek: One colour) and coherent (read that as "in step" we might imagine a set of troops all marching in parade formation).


-^_6 In the maths division: {
Intro} {Lost Mathematics} {Mathematical Trees} (latices, decision trees, etc) {Randomness} See also: -[spiritualist (philo (logic))]- Which also covers: Logic Goedel and the Failure of Logic Grammars While it could be argued that THE maths entry belongs on every page, we defer to the wisdom of the late, great author/mathematician, Eric Temple Bell who often refered to maths as "The Queen of the Sciences". Mathematics (see also: [Bistro Maths]) is the reasoned, causal and logical system by which many things in non-space are proved. That is while it IS true that maths helps to explain much of the "Universe of Discourse" (as Albert Einstein often refered to what here-in is refered to as "Reality Structure 3"), it can be argued either of the following two ways: 1) Mathematics is a property of our universe. As such (and in keeping with a brief conversation that i had with Wolfgang Rindler), in the formation of the universe, maths was created first. 2) Mathematics is a purely arbitrary system of thought, indedendent of any actual (or non-actual) universe. It is a tribute to the power of mathematical thinking that so much of maths can be applied to the universe at hand. For instance, it "seems" completely arbitrary and quite surprising that such a simple thing as the so-called "counting numbers" could actually be used to count ANYTHING in a universe that is clearly fractalised (in the physical sense of the word) as well as (less clearly so) quantised. There are between these two extremes, many POV's (points of view) that are possible/impossible, logical/il-logical, etc. -^_6

Lost Mathematics

} This section summarises some concepts of maths which although of vital imporatance never seem to "quite: get covered Set Theory Numbers from 1..3 to 0 to negative to fractions to ... Transfinite Numbers Goedel numbers Number Theory Analysis Calculus Topology Algebra Matrices Distribution Theory


Goedel and the Failure of Logic


Mathematical Trees

(latices, decision trees, etc) See also: -[
Bifurcation]- (in fractalist) Binary, N-ary Trees In order, pre-order, post-order Decision trees -^_6


See also: -[
fractalist entry]- {Determinism} (below) -[Creativity Search for Patterns]- -[<>]- Note: Althought, technically NOT related to randomness, i have included Chaotic, Catastrophic, and Glyptic systems to this section. In this section: {Intro} {Intro} {Intro} {Intro} {Completeness} (and the rest... {Chaos / Chatoic Systems} {Catastropy Theory / Catastrophic Systems} {Glyptal / Glyptic Systems} One of the key aspects of the scientific view is that there ARE patterns in the chaos; see the link ABOVE. However, the randomness DOES manifest itself in ways that are seemingly in-explicable. That is why the ideas of probablities and statistics are so important. the "full treatment" the "whole ball of vax"


Randomness is one of the most profound concepts in many universes. It is of course quite possible (and probably probable) that randomness is NOT a property of some universes; but, we lay aside the metaphysical. {
Intro} {Gambling} {Completeness}


Chaos / Chatoic Systems

Main ref: James Gleick, James (1987). Chaos: Making a New Science. Chaotic systems appear to be stable and in fact can either be (apparently) completely static or "oscillate" slightly without deviating noticibly from a given set of conditions. Then, spontaneously (usually due to internal, but obviously can be triggered by external factors) change to another state - which in term may turn out to be either completely stable (static) or a new These "places" of semi-stability are refered to as "strange attractors" - that, is the given set of variables that describe (even if incompletely) the conditions of the system. The oscillations around the stragn

Catastropy Theory / Catastrophic Systems

Main ref: Rene Thom (discoverer of the idea) The simplest example of a catastrophic system is a snow slide or avalanch. The system is (to all appearances) in a stable state - it may change slightly, or even alternate beween different behaviours - but they all reside in the same restricted "space". Then due to some factor (i'm not sure if these phenomenon can occur completely without any stimulus) which can be either internal or external, the system changes RADICALLY (often) to a new state. Which in turn creates a new meta-stable state.

Glyptal / Glyptic Systems



One of the "opposites" of randomness is determinism. See also: -[
spiritualist (determinsm/free will)]- {The Illusion of Control} (below) -^_6 The ability to WILL ourselves sick ma humanist.html#health hypdocondria the "full treatment" the "whole ball of vax"


ref notes on feedback, ai, and cybernetic systems goes here

The Illusion of Control

See also: {
control} (above: general notes, feedback, theory, etc) Systems Lecture #12 -- The illusion of Control: Falacies of non-evolving systems. -^_6 Many years ago on the planet Earth (see map), some psychologists wanted to examine the idea of "Management". To do this, they desigend the following experiment Of course phyto plankton are one of the least understood (by the lay public) as to their important role in the Earth's eco system. Hardly, will the 2007 El Nin~o's impact on the weather be hardly recognised especially when considering the potential damage to the phyto-sphere of. There are two monkies in two different cages. In one cage the monkey gets random shocks. In the other cage the monkey is trained that when a light comes on, that if it acts quickly enough and pushes a button, then the shock will NOT be applied. Both monkeys get exactly the same shock. The monkey with the button is refered to as the "manager monkey" and the other monkey is the "employee monkey". Variations in the experiment increase the shock over time, and also introducing the fact that even if the button is pushed, the shock comes anyway. The only realy result (that i recall) is that in EVERY CASE the Manager monkey dies first. That's the essence of chaos theory as applied to the illusion of control. The problem is that most systems are not so critically designed that it's that obvious that we don't have control. For the most part preservative systems (ones that tend to continue their system in a non-changing form) pay good rewards to the members of the system that preserve the system and its operation. The fact that some (usually many) of the participants in the system do not benefit from the system is of little regard to the privlidged few that maintain the system. Naturally (or by a natural system of argument), for the ones who suffer the most, there is almost always a much smaller group of privledged few that reap the most benefits. Thus, the system preserves itself out of social inertia. It would be interesting to investigate non-social systems and how they might work. But, the only examples of non-dominant/dominated preservative systems are such things as sand dunes, strange attractors in weather patterns, etc. With the advent of new AI programming, it would certainly be worth modling such a non-social preservative system; mainly from a mathematically intriguing POV. Of course, the problem with all reactionary systems (and here, specifically concerning preservative, social systems) is that they are prone to catastrophic failure if any simple variable gets too far out of its normal bounds. Take for example, the problem of electrical power outages in modern society. Depending upon the scale, the worst thing is the collapse of the sanitary sewer/water system which leads to disentry, and eventually cholera. In these cases, since the systems are (for the most part) non-evolutionary and extremely reactionary (being "market driven" and run as "investiments" instead of public utilities with open-ended engineering considerations meaning that many preventative measures are unlikely to be implemented due to their low ROI (Return On Investment) projections. Thus, in reactionary systems, even a minor (chatoic, catastrophic, or fractal) change in any variable (and not just in "covered variables", but un-disclosed, un-known, or un-covered variables) can lead to systems failure. The normal means of creating failure-resistant (if not in fact failure-proofish) solutions would be of course to simulate the behaviours of the various systems from a varieity of POV's using a variety of models with varying components; eg, queuing theory, chaos theory, catastrophy theory, evolutionary theory, etc. Regardless, the prevalence of reactionary systems makes for an interesting study of discarded assumptions that occur during the reduction/simplification of the implementation model. Thus, even though brute-force methods are meant to compensate for "possible" functionality losses in the modeling process, we know that over-buidling the system merely introduces more hidden variables -- some of which are clearly covered, and just as un-clearly un-covered (and un-disclosed - worst case scenario). So, what can be done? We should approach this realistically: 1) That a problem even exists is likely to be ignored, or if persistently promoted to be consistenly dismissed as being important. Public relations comes into play here. If the system progenitors are caught having ignored some (any) aspect of the system and possible problems, then some sort of face-saving ploy must be put forth. One common example is that for every con-critic of the system having legimate credentials, the reactionary progenitors of the system will bring up a corresponding number of pro-critics to counter the arguments. (The falacy here is clear. When informed that the Nazi's had had some hundred or so scientists testifying that the theory of relativity was wrong, Einstein replied: If the theory is wrong, it would only take one scientist to prove it). 2) In accordance with Murphy's Laws inside of each seeminly simple problem (and hence an obvious and simple solution), is a larger, more cunning problem waiting to get out. This perceptual falacy leads naturally to the "quick fix" mentality and approach to problem solving. And of course introducing yet another new (and seemingly simple) sub-system into the system increases the probablity of creating un-known (or even un-knowable) side-effects into the system and of course concomitant with that: Creating new hidden variables, new hidden relationships, and of course altering or even removing known variables, relationships, etc. This leads to having to re-characterise the behaviour of the sysem each time that a change (any change) is made -- an expense un-likely to be undertaken. In keeping with another of Murphy's Laws: If you don't test a system, then it bound to show no problems until it is too late. 3) In the process of releasing, fixing problems, re-relasing, adding new features, re-releasing (even with testing), cascade failures as well as thrashing are almost certain. Again, a feature that was introduced into the system (or a fix to a problem) early on in the time line, will have effects that are non-predictable. Further, problems introduced as the system is updated (that it is NOT evolving is a given, it's simply getting more complex) lead to a persistent thrashing of performance caused by fix/un-fix cycles. So, what can be done? 1) Carefull design of the system with a strict adherence to Murphy's Laws (especially those dealing with un-decidability, fault tollerance, non-predictability, and independent validation) may certainly help -- it can only hurt when the system enters the non-releasability trap of "perfection". 2) Often thinking in terms of smaller and independent sub-systems as well as of course, evolutionarily may help. Or not: Depending on how old the system is, how little attention has been paid to upgrading and replacing various components. 3) Avoid quick-fix, large-scale-changes, and other philosophically appealing but often disasterous ways of thinking about the problem. 4) When in doubt: Test? Ask? Think? (imagine that ;)


See also: -[
Humanist Philsosophy]- (man as the measure of all things) -[Science's View of Philo] (in scientist) -[Spirutalist Philsosophy]- (philosophy with or without man) -^_6 The philosophy of science is several fold: 1) Using the scientific method {above}, one can determine a large body of facts. These facts are based on observation and repeatability. Also, the facts *must* be self-consistent and non-contradictory. 2) If there is some problem (ie, facts which do not match), then the "lessor" fact MUST be rejected. This has in fact led to problems when a "major" fact turned out to be false. One example of this, is that when the geologist Alfred Wegner first postulated that the continents moved and when the naturalist Charles Darwin first postulated that life forms on earth evolved -- both required the lengths of time and forces of nature that PHYSICS simply said could not exist. As such, both theories were rejected. As it turns out the calculation for the age of the earth did not take into account radioactivity and as such the earth was some several BILLION (thousand million) years older than Physics predicted. As for plate techtonics, again the physics was wrong since it was using a simple model instead of one even anywhere approximating the dynamic form that IS the Earth. 3) And then came quantum mechanics and relativity in the 1900c (the so-called 20th century -- go figure). With the loss of "certainty" and "an absolute reference point", respectively, physics limps along as best it can. Most of the other sciences were less disruppted. But, in general the scientific POV is usefull for making things that don't have anything to with emotion; eg: penicillin (good), atomic bomb (bad), etc. During one of the wars (there are so many, they all run together after a while), Fleming wanted to share the discovery of Penicillin with "the enemy" -- nix to that!, during yet another war, Leo Sillard (who created the theory of the chain reaction), pleaded for the Atomic Bomb to be dropped on a deserted island -- nix to that! Science has NO morality; the scientists should though, me-thinks. But, of course once the Genie is out of the bottle, then ANY ONE can use/mis-use it. The results of this "scientific point of view" result in things ranging from anti-spiritualistic skepticism to quantum-thinking acceptance of the (currently) in-explicable phenomena. Regardless of the position along the philo-scientific axis one chooses, a few points are in order: a) Absolutest thinking is probably wrong. This doesn't mean that if you drop a hammer on your foot there is much of a probabiliby that it won't hurt. Refered to as the so-called "Mind over Matter Syndrome". b) Total reduction of the world to the Material is probably not a good thing. This is not to say that if cut down all of the rain forests, melt all of ice caps, and kill off all non-edible/non-pretty/non-tasty plants and animals, that the wealthy can not STILL have their cotillions like nothing is wrong. Refered to as the so-called "Ostrich-head in Sand Effect". c) Most of liff (or life if you prefer) adheres to the laws of nature which the laws of science try to understand. When one brings "an agenda" to table and tries to "pick and choose" exactly which findings of science you feel "comfortable with", then you are probably in trouble. Refered to as "up the creek" syndrome number five.

Psychic Powers (ESP)

See also: -[
spiritualist entry]-

ESP - Intro

Interestingly enough, Einstein wrote an introduction and recomendation to a book on Psychic Phenomenon (early in the 1900c). But later retracted his support when the author maintained that psychic energies traveled at infinite speeds. Einstein's theories maintain that nothing can travel faster then the speed of light. Despite the enquiries and theories by some scientists, this theory has not been contradicted. Oddly enough, if pychic energies were (like other forms of "normal" energy) limited to the speed of light. Then the author might have simply mis-interpreted the very LARGE speed of light (186_000 miles per SECOND - 300_000 km/sec or 700_000_000 miles per HOUR - or about "a hunred and ten billion kilometers an hour!" -- woosh!!) with infinite; hard to believe this, but it has a LOT more zeres than "just" a million or a billion! above}-. This involved the equivalance of matter and energy (think of it as a "rate of exchange"; eg, Dollars $ to Euros E), given by the equation: E = m c2 c is the speed of light (the exchange rate if you will to change matter into energy) The first thing was Max Plank's discovery of the "quantum". His equation has a similar simplicity: E = h v h is "Plank's Constant" (the exchange rate to turn frequency (v) into energy) Oddly enough (or not), c is very large and h is very small. Expressed in *compatible units they are: 3_000_000_000. metres/sec .000_000_000_000_000_000_000_000_000_000_6623 Joule seconds (sort of like watts) As it turns out this isn't so odd (the vast difference in their sizes) isn't so supprising. What it;s saying these equataions are saying is: 1. In terms of the cosmos (powering the sun, and even the atomic bomb which puts out only a FRAGMENT of the energy of the sun) one tiny little bit of matter contains a hugh amount of energy; 2. But to do that, that energy is held up in the very smallest recesses of space. (sort of). As it turns out this creates a couple of really "weird universes" (and they're both THE universe that we live in). We now look at that micro micro micro universe called the quantum. Realise of course that the quantum is a way of looking at the very smallest parts of our universe; eg, atoms, electrons, photons, quarks, etc.

QM: The two views

Two of the major pioneers of QM were Niels Bohr (renowned as both a thinker and a teacher -- under his tutildge many of the quantum scientists (generations 1 an 2) were born) and Albert Einstein (renowned as a thinker, and a pretty decent teacher as well). The quantum of course postulates a randomness to the way that the universe operates. Niels Bohr accepted this, while for the most part Einstein rejected much of it; recall his dictim that "God doesn't play dice with the universe". One of Einstein's major sucessors, Stephen Hawking, was later to note: Not only does God play dice with the universe; but he throws them where you can't see them -- namely into a black hole. Neils Borh often told Einstein, "Albert, stop telling God what to do". Thus the two views: 1. The quantum (apparently random) layer lays on top of an underlaying deterministic (predictable) layer. This model is commonly refered to as "The Matrix Mechanics View" of the the quantum world. 2. The quantum is the only layer and the best we can do is to get "odds" on what is happening. This model is refered to as "The Probability Mechanics View" of the quantum world. Actually the matrix/probability mechanics terms have become so overlapped (we'll a bit of why in a moment). That most of the time we refer to them as the "Einstein" and "Borh" views, respecively", mainly because... Einstein maintained that there were "hidden variables" connecting the two layers in Model #1. Bohr rejected this idea, prefering to accept the totally random Model #2. As it turns out there are certain things that neither model explains even though it *mainly* looks like Model #2 is the correct one describing our universe. In certain expeiments (for example in radioactive decay which scientists can observe and even simulate using "Atom Smashers"; more properly "particle accelerators". Google: "CERN". Sometimes two electrons are created and spin off in opposite directions. As it turns out an electron has a "spin". As, the sf author/futurist Frederic Pohl points out in his story "Star Burst", even the idea that electrons have "spin" (like some micro-scopic top) borders on the absurd. Regardless, when the electrons fly off, we can "test one of them" as it goes by to see if it has a "+" or a "-" spin. One of the ideas of "balance" in the universe (commonly refered to as the CPT theorem states that at all times, charge (C), Parity (P), and Time (T) are preserved. This is an extended idea of the dictim that "Matter can neither be created or destroyed; it can be converted to energy -- but nothing can be lost." This prdicts that one electron has a "+" spin, it's mate (created at the same moment and thus "ooupled") MUST have "-" spin. We can represent these (badly) by saying that we have e1 (electron 1) having a spin wave function psi+ and e2 psi- (a wave function also slightly the same as a "probability function; see ????) Now,as it turns out there's no problem (so far). The two electrons are created and ZING off in opposite directions. At some point, we "test" one of them and find it has either a + or - spin. And then we can either check the other one to see that it has the opposite spin -- which accoring to the CPT theorem is "should". The problem arises that we can "force" the issue. We can do experiments that only a psi+ electron can pass. As an electron approaches, we set the experiment to either pass a psi+ electron (and thus reject a psi) or we set it the other way so that this time a psi+ electron is rejected instead passing. The problem is this: Until we ACTUALLY measure (test, pass, etc) an electron it can have EITHER a + or a - wave function. But, the moment that we DETERMINE which it is, the other electron correspondingly (an important word in QM: correspond) has the "right" value as well. Enter the speed of light: Since nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, if we perform the "test" on one electron at a distance such that there isn't time to send any signal to the other electron saying, "Hey, I'm about to take on (or expose to the outside world) a + value". Then "how" does the other electron "know" to take on a - value? Modesl #1 as well as "hidden variables" explains this. It supports that there is a deterministic set of variables that we can't see (yet?) but the electrons "know about" and use to "communicate" with each other. But, this violates the idea of the speed of light being the ultimate velocity. Things, get more complicated than this, but you get the idea. This problem has never been completely explained. And it's one of the simpler ones. As it turns out the way that QM fields (eg, probability functions) interact comes in over and over. One of the most important ones is the so-called "Pauli Exclusion Principle" which came up early in the 1900c before they had particle colliders. The same idea applies: Two particles "bound" in the same atom can NOT have the same "quantum states" (including spins and other properties).

Enter Heisenberg

Finally, we just note a few imoportant points of Hiesenber's contribution to the whole mess. Werner Hiesenberg (not a Jew) stayed behind in Nazi Germany and almost certainly due to his diliberate misguiding of their nuclear weapons development program they didn't develop a bomb. Part of this was due to Hitler not understanding what it was they might be able to due, he was more fascinated with rockets -- a much simpler concept. delta-x times delta-p >= h / 2 pi delta-E times delta-t >= h / 2 pi x is the position of a quantum particle (like an electron or a photon, etc) p is its momentum (speed times mass); ie, how much "punch it has" moving. E is its energy content (same old "E" as in Einstein's and Plank's equations) t is time The fall out is this: 1. We can not SIMULTANEOUSLY know the exact position or the exact momentum of a particle. If we try to measure one, the other value becomes "uncertain". 2. Similarly, we can not SIMULTANEOUSLY know its exact energy content and the time within which that content was at that value. Thus, in the world of the quantum, while things might (or might very well not) be chaning: We can never know what's going on entirely. Also, a very subtle result is that the energy of a system can never actually be zero - if it was, then it would be a known state (there is only ONE zero). But, even this is a flawed view. See: {"zero point energy"}, below. Finally it turns out that psi (the mathematical wave function which is a pure "naked" entity) has as it's SQUARE (psi times psi) the PROBAILITY of what ever psi is a funcion of. Thus, we might have psi (position) and psi (momentum) and we might hope to fiddle with these. but, once we compute psi (position) squared we get a probability, and then automatically psi (momentum) "spreads out" -- becomes MORE uncertain. Again, Bohr ane Einstein argued about what this meant. Einstein maintining that "somehow" inside of psi itself (un-squared) were the hidden variables, and some way to "take things down". No really good experiment or theory has ever confirmed Einstein's view.

Redux of The Quantum

Quantum mechanics says that ONLY the square of the wave function(a "pure" mathematical number) has any meaning. That is, the square of psi gives us an "idea" of where the electron is. But, in theory it is the psi functions (naked probability/wave clouds) that are inter-acting. The electrons don't carry around calculators. Or do they? (this is the iconosphere after all). Use our "atom smasher" to create two separate electon pairs (e1,e2) and (e3,e4). e1/e2 e3/e4 ee ee e e e e begin separating them e e e e e e e (not bound) e we then bind the two "neighbor" electrons. The Pauli principle tells us that one will be come psi+ and the other must become psi- right? But, again the distant electrons MUST (EPT theorem; btw, the celebrated experimental physicst Madam Wu showed that in "certain cases", CPT fails! But, that's a whole 'nother story; google: "Richard Feynman") the electrons MUST flip to the right state. As it turns out this coupling can cause "problems" if one of the electrons goes into a black hole (Hawking's ideas of relativity again) -- how do the "hidden variables" communicate then? Finally, the delta E, delta t form of Heisenberg's equation leas us to the fact that a vacuum isn't empty. For a small enough time, a large amount of energy can be created out of NOTHING. But, with the CPT theorem, that can't occur. Unless: we cerate an electron and an anti-electron: The much touted "anti-matter" of Star Trek fame. In most cases (in a vacuum) the elctron/positron (when anti-electrons were first observed in nuclear decay scientists just thought they were some NEW kind of particle instead of the electron's "anti" particle) -- in most cases the two particles will almost instantaneously recombine into: Nothing. Since one is a particle and and one is its exact anti particle the CPT theorem is not violated. In *theory* a mass the size of the Earth (and an equal anti-earth) could be created for a VERY shrot time. Chance are (unless they are quickly separated, they would re-combine: Again, into nothing. The probability of that is MUCH smaller than for an electron. electron mass: .000_000_000_000_000_000_000_000_000_931 kgm earth's mass: 6_000_000_000_000_000_000_000_000. The "delta time" is something like: .000_000_000_000_000_000_000_000_000_000_1 fractions a second Computers typcially access data in about this fractions of a second: .000_000_1 seconds An eye blink: .1 seconds So, there "could" be earth/anti-earths being created and then destroyed all around us (not that they'd even necessarily look like a planet), but of course it's so short of a time, that "if you blink; you'd miss it". Fianlly, i hinted (with the mention of Madam Wu and Richard Feynman) that there was more to all of this than that. Feynham (and others) used the information that Madam Wu (and others) gave them and found out: The "fundamental paricles" like electrons, protons, and neutrons (at one time there were over 120 of them) were actaully made up of (big drum roll) QUARKS. And that there are only a small, handfull of those. As if this wasn't enough, at the "other end of the universe", there are things not just like matter and anti-matter, but dark matter (which we can't see; eg, black wholes) and "dark energy" (even harder to see). That stuff comes under the study (in Physics) of {cosmogony} (above). Or you can look at: ... We will look at more "philsophical" aspects of QM in the spirituality section with the discussions of Quantum Reality. -[jump there now]-

QM -- results

So much for theory, let's talk about results and begin (icosopherically speaking) quantum leaping.


LASER -- Light Amplication by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. The MASER (microwave radiation...) was invented Charles Townes (and others; bit a controversy there) in 1953). As it turns out the Pauli Exclusion principle has a big impact on atoms that are trapped together. Another of Einstein's ideas was the so-called "Einstein Radiation Co-efficients" (they were named in his honor). If we have a tube of gas (the little red pointer pens use a mixture of the two inert gases Helium and Neon) and we start "pumping" in energy. What will happen (if the laser is designed correctly), is that some of the electrons will go from their normally low energy state (call it psi0) to an excited state (call it psi*). psi0 + photon ---> psi* (photon: light "particle" of just the right frequency, v) No problem, after a small amount of time, the the electron will decay back to it's old state: psi* -----> psi0 + photon (emits a photon of the SAME frequency as the one that excited it in the first place. Richard Feynman's father asked him if it was the SAME photon. To which Feynman had to say, "We don't know". With the mixture of gases (or any sufficiently complex system of atoms or molecules) we can "trap" electrons with the "Pauli Exclusion Principle" psi0 + phonon (freq 1) ---> psi* psi* + photon (freq 2) --->2; psi** (a new excited state) Now, the poor electron "wants" to get back to its ground state (psi0), but it turns out that such a "transition" (jump/fall/decay) is forbidden (in a manner similar to the Pauli Exclusion Principle). So, it must wait there forever. Not quite. After a while there are MORE electrons in this excited state than there are in the "normal" (ground) state -- this "weird" state of affairs is what the "Einstein Radiation Co-efficients" are all about. Finally *something* happens and one of the electrons manages to "decay" psi** ---> psi0 + photon (freq 3) !!!! And then ALL Hell breaks loose (Hell is located just South of Trongheim, Norway; the Hell in Texas is ????). All of sudden more and more atoms (and there litterally "billions and billions" of them (even in that tiny little laser pointer pen) are decaying. It's an "avalanche" -- technically it's classified as "a cascade effect". And out shines the light. Not just any light. The light from light bulb is a mixture of a lot of different frequencies, and the photons (light particles) come out at random. With a laser, all of the photon come in bursts that are going almost exactly in the same (parallel) direction and they are all almost entirely of the EXACT same frequency. This gives laser light two important features: 1. Momonchromatic. (Greek: One colour). Ordinary lightbulbs are polychomatic (many) . 2. Choherence. The fact that the light waves are "lockstep" in phase. Oddly enough the theory of "coherent light" had been advanced using pre-quantum optics in the early 1900's long before the idea of HOW to accompolish had come even as a possibility. These properties of laser light allow us to have things like "holograms" -- since the PHASES of all the lightwaves are in sync they "carry with them" not just intensity information (like ordinary light reflected from an object), but PHASE information about the object they are reflected off of. Since it takes shorter or longer to reflect off a three dimensional object and these changes the phase (marching bands know this -- they have to march faster if they have to go around an object to stay in step (phase) with the other marchers) can be reproduced: Hence re-creating not just a flat image, but a three dimensional image.

QM: CAT, PET, MRI Scans, The "TEM", and Infinity

Once the way that atoms respond to different frequencies of light and to magnetic fields, we can build "Dr. McCoy's MedBed" from Star Trek. Having computers helps; lots of mathematical calculations to "render" the reflected data into a usable image. The farthest we can go is to see pictures of individual atoms. This is done by taking things to the "next" level: that is smaller: Closer to the "Quantum Limit" imposed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, etc. That device is called the "Tunnerling Electron Microscope"; the "tunneling" is a form of applied propability mechanics called "tunneling" where the electron can pass through a barrier that it shouldn't be able to penetrate. So it can't so, instead: One moment its on one side, and the next its on the other side of the barrier. We squeeze one part of the corrct form of the Heisenberg Principle and: Well, imagine what Houdini could have done with such ideas? Other experiments (often using lasers as well) allow computers to be made smaller and smaller. Eventually instead of pumping electrons through a computer circuit, we will probably be able to pump photons. So, what would you do with a computer that's a billion times faster and more powerful than the ones we have today?

zero point energy

Well, despite what the super hero "Syndrome" used with his "zero point energy" cuffs - if you COULD harness that then it might be a source of unbelievable power. But,.... As we said earlier the fact that we can never simultaneously determine position and momentum (or alternatively, time and energy) means that the energy of the system can NEVER be zero. After all, if it's zero and we have it nicely isolated, then it would be a knowable state. Well, rather than counting quantum states dansing on a pin head (as many as may want to), it boils down to this: For a physical system (eg, a nice Helium atom) we can never freeze it to actual, absolute zero. It will always have that underterminable inner energy. But, it *might* be zero - we just have no way of knowing. Of course, we can come unbelievably close by using lasers and such to "cool" the system to something like a millionth of a degree above zero (absolute zero of course). And important result of this (when we convert from "normal" thermodynamics (eg, of physical but real systems) to "statistical" and possibly "ideal" systems) is that the INFORMATION content can't be fixed either - well without disturbing it, and in by measuring, setting the internal state to an unknown value. You know - you just can't win! Now, "in theory" - we could have two systems and then send in a pulse that "might" set one of them to actually zero energy - but we can never measure it - because, if we do, then we'd be disturbing it while it's PREVIOUS value might have been measured as zero it's new state is??? Sound like something we know? Yep: That's the great break through of Stephan Hawking: That near a black hole, we have (potentially) a zero-point system! Now, it's not enough that his beautiful equation relates entropy (and therefore information as such) to GRAVITY -- i mean, no wonder Einstein couldn't find his "unified field theory" - the missing element wasn't a field at all - it was information itself!! - well, at least the measure of information content. So, where are we? Current thinking (well as i understand it) is that in the first few fraction's of a second after the big bang, the fields that we "see" as gravity, electrical, and the strong and weak nuclear forces separated - and thus, they appear to us as separate things. But, this leads to two views: 1) At something like "Asimov's temperature" (take every bit of energy in the universe and put it into a single atom) then all of the FORCES in nature actually one force. 2) That the forces are ONLY the same, if we view that our universe has more than 3 (or arguably 4 - time) dimensions. And since ALL things in our space are really vectors in (eg) a 26-dimensional space, that's why gravity seems to be different from electrical, and in turn, weak and strong forces. Now this make me think (steps shakily out on a very thin limb) of this: 1. If temperature has nothing to due with the "unification" of forces. This would mean that the quantum singularity (that gave rise to the big bang and thence our universe; see map), has a NON-trivial value - that value is of course the universe itself; i don't mean "meaning" in a philosophical sense, but it's worth considering; ??philo-link?? Thus if we sum the value of the unvierse, we get the universe - but in some sort of QS form like a seed. Naturally, this pleases our need for beginnings coming from something. Yes, but then where did the quantum-sub-space come from... 2. That the whole problem higher dimensions begs the question: Maybe there isn't a unified field theory. That our universe if composed out of a set of incommensurable (can't be inter-converted no matter what) properties/fields. A brief note on the 4th dimension being time. {
Goedel's non-time Theory} All i know, is this one bit of a conversation that i love to quote: me: so, when the universe was formed mathematics was formed first. rindler: Yes! Exactly. However, we were interrupted by some one who wanted Rindler's autograph; c'est la vie. But, it does make you think: What if the irremovable singularity that gave rise to our universe IS maths? Then the maths of our universe form part of its physical structure. But, alas, this leads us into meta (or at least quasi-pata) physics. ??link?? {

Goedel's non-time Theory

A brief note on the 4th dimension being time. (a brief nod to film: "IQ" - you just can't go wrong when you have Walter Matthau as Einstein and Lou Jacobi as Goedel ;) As it turns out, Goedel (whom we must remember to be a PURE mathematician) took to analyse Einstein's theory. And came up with the curious idea that in "a universe where Einstein's theories of relativity were true", time as we know it might not exist. This has intrtued me in my own ways of thinking (being the time travelor that i am) that maybe time itself doesn't exist. So, that every time we "see" something that looks time-like, we should be taking derivatives with respect to energy content or with respect to entropy. Anyway, i'll read some more and see what it might suggest (well, at least iconospherically speaking, natch ;)


See also "Action" (see -[
"map-entry"]-) "Dolphins" -(see map)- "Humanist" -[Robots entry]- One of the earlist attempts to put robotics into some sort of scientific/engineering contexts was put forth by the futurist/writer/ominiologist Isaac Asimov in his so-called "Three Laws of Robotics" (he always gave co-authorship to felllow futurist/writer John Campbell). This are: 1. A robot may not harm a human or thruough in-action allow a human to come to harm. 2. A robot must obey all orders given to it by a human unless this would conflict with the first law. 3. A robot must protect itself unless this would conflict with wither the first or second law. (not an exact quote; probably) As pointed out, this way of regulating the "actions" (see map) of the robot was hoped to take robots out of the "moster" classification of then existent science fiction and place them into the category of "charfully engineered things". For example, we (as good scientists/engineers/technologists/etc) test a new invention (esample, the parachutte) before we would just let any one just use it. The early days of aviation led to the idea of a parachute (possibly inspired by birds as well as the writings of Leonardo da Vinci). There are early "test flight films" of the inventors falling off the sides of cliffs and into water when the parachutes didn't work propely. So, successful was the EVOLUTION fo the parachute that it has even given rise to its RECREATIONAL use, as well as safe-landing of payloads on Mars, etc. In the same way, the safe engineering of robots should be approached. And, even a casual bit of experimentation with the iconosphere would show that in the same way we should approach cautiously the idea of createing "thinking" computers and robots. -[Thinking]- (see map) The ramifciations of the morality of creating a new slave race stagters the imagination (as well it should). From a purely technologist point of view, if i "mis-treat" a toaster by tossing it across the room to "punish it" for burning my finger -- that is different than if i perform equally callous actions to a person or an animal (what about a plant?). What about a robot? This has been explored by every resaonsing writer of science fiction including a landmark episode of "Star Trek The Next Generation" ??title?? when an officer orders Commander Data (technically a robot, but on the series they insist that he is an android; i defer to their wisdom) to submit to "examination" -- presumably to see what makes him tick. Commander Data resigns (is this free will, or simply some built-in self-preservation form of Asimov's 3rd law?). A court hearing ensues and guided by the wisdom of the mysterious alien "Guinan" ??sp? (portrayed by Whoopi Goldberg), the Captain (porgrayed by Patrick Stewart) begins a very emotional investigation into the "morality" of "owning" Commander Data. The question is raised: Is Data a man or a toaster? Using the iconosophere we quickly see, that in the same way that we are admonished to use "non-violence" in approaching the world via many areas of spiritualism and philosophy, we should approach the problmes of robotics with even more caution than we would exercise towards a toaster. INSERT CARTOON HERE Meepo: This is all non-sense. I created my robot, I can treat it anyway I want. Besides, just because its avoiding me, doesn't mean its "cringing in terror". Really, you're assigning my robot emotions and capabilities that it simply doesn't have! Gleeba: Then why are you shouting? Meepo: And what's all this mush about "using the iconosophere?". (scrolls up and down) All I see is a bunch of new-age text about the morality invovled in throwing the toaster across the room. Now, i can see that you shouldn't hurt an animal, but... Gleeba: You're using the iconosphere right now. In exactly the way it was intended to be used. END CARTOON -^_6

Sci: Systems Theories

In this section: {
Intro} {Hidden Variables}

Hidden Variables - First Thoughts of the Aesthetic of the Quantum

Prelude: What are the aesthetic "atoms" of a painting? the canvas, wood, staples, gesso, ... the paint, scrape-ed paint, lines, cuts into the canvas, ... paint strokes, etc...... ... ..... .../... .......... what we end up with is (as Marcel reminds us) is "just an assemblage" - which "happens" to be a painting. In the discussion of time travel - try some Grieg: Holberg Suite? futurism x absurdism (time) ---> time travel (which is of course absurd - but, i take on "faith" many of the physicists who regard it as not) At any rate (now about $0.1575 per KWH !), i discussed the common idea of a "cusp" in time travel -[LINK THERE]- This is i would say *of course* this is a conceptually linked idea to the cusps that occur in catastrophe theory LINK HERE -[]- Regardless, i want to concentrate on a process of reasonsing which we notice when we study how we do derivations (particularly in the sciences as opposed to in maths). A phrase which occurs is soemthing like this: We have equation 107 (a random number if you please; it's a SCRIPT) Now, we notice that blah, blah, and blah are something blah. and, so WITHOUT LOSS OF GENERALITY we may write blah, blah, and blah this now allows us to solve the equation using a simple Bessel Function (or if you prefer, gentle reader" a blahdy blahdy, blahhhh), and thus, it is easily shown that... The idea is that in order to solve a particular problem, we make simplifications, substitutions, translations (usually from one co-ordinate system or system of things to another), and as such the result that we get has certain DETAILS that automatically are dropped from the solution. Take the following as read: If we want to describe the motion of waves (eg, water waves), we can write a so-called "wave equation". And it turns out that in general these are not too difficult to solve. And it turns out to be a fairly simple LINEAR EQUATION (a 2nd order partial differential equation as i recall; very elegagnt) ** PUT GIF HERE ** For argument's sake (ah more SIMPLIFICATIONS !!!) let's say the equation looks like this: y" - y = 0 (which it "sort of does") (here "y" is the wave height or wave motion, and "x" (displacement along the direction of wave travel; eg, towards the shore) and "t" (time variance of the wave; eg, as it might disipate/grow in time, etc) AND specificically any "odd" things about "x" and "t" are made to "disappear". This would give us the description of an IDEAL wave - the water has no viscosity, it has some sort of "ideal" specific gravity (density), etc. The model does very well for many cases; eg, we can describe the movement of sound waves in air, the movement of tides (over a very short distance at sea), etc. But, then we want to deviate from the IDEAL of waves and introduce things like turbulence, the crash of waves, tsunamii's etc. We take it as read that these are NON-LINEAR phenomena. Now, one way to solve this is by "tacking on" a coupld of non-linear terms, so we might write y" - y = g(x) + h(t) Where in we take the g() and h() functions as something that we can figure out from experiment, observation, simulation, or other maths operations. But. By doing this, we are thowing away the original problem we just don't tell ourselves that we are doing this. What we *really* need to do, is to go back to the original problem and NOT making simplifying assumptions to begin with. As it turns out, if we do this, it turns out that "simple" or "ordinary" maths in most cases CAN NOT solve the problem. That is, we can't get a nice little equation like the y" - y one that we had above. Our only solution is to use computer simulations, numercial approximations, etc. But. This violates the idea that the underlaying simplicity of nature should manifest itself in simple terms that we can understand. That's what Einstein's E=mc^2 equation is all about. Einstein often would say that he liked what a fellow physicist (or even himself) was saying, but that the maths (equations) were simply to ugly to be true. The odd thing here is (sed, i, stepping out on a limb) is... 1) That so many powerful systems CAN be described by some very amazing equations that are simple. 2) That so many things can be understood by such a simple set of "laws" means that there *should* be a underlaying simplifying system of "things" governing the apparently complex behaviours of the world around us. But. It would behoove us to question the universe as being simple. I *feel* that it is inherently un-understandable and that what we see IS just the patterns in the chaos -- and that we're missing the chaos itself and what it has to say. Well, Dave chalenged me to come up with an aesthetic of the quantum; i'd say it's at least a "start" ?? -^_6 frank 6_^- -^_6


The basic laws of thermo dynamics can easily be given as follows (in a cute and yet some-what accurate manner:) 1) You can't win, you can only break even. 2) You can only break even at absoute zero. 3) You can never reach absolute zero. And the zeroth law is: There is this thing called temperature and you can measure it. That work produces heat had been observed in the machine age for the first time as a correlative property of matter. So, naturally the idea of "heat content" came up - "caloric content" and that "stuff" was the caloric that flowed around like a liquid. There were two ideas of course that (like electrical charges) there was a HOT and a COLD caloric substance. Carnot simplified the idea by having a pool of "heat" and "cold" and a conduit between them - "the working substance". His theory was fine EXCEPT that there is NO cold caloric. Joule who was the first to show that energy could change forms and in an exact way, also showed that Carnot's "cold caloric" was wrong. As such Carnot's theory lay on the shelf from 1824 (when it was published) and 1844 ??date?? when Lord Kelvin realised the flaw in the theory might be explained and began working towards a resolutio n. It turned out that Clausius set things straight by (in 1850) separating Carnot's "law of heat" (and its supposed cold and hot calorics) into TWO laws of thermo: 1. Heat is a form of energy and can be inter-converted as such - in keeping with Joule's demonstration that gravitational energy could be used turn a paddle wheel in water and thus heat it up. 2. Conservation of energy. This implied (using Carnot's ideas) that the flow of energy is always "down hill". That is from HOT TO COLD - always. The only way that there could be a "cold caloric" is that if you used MORE energy than you moved, then you could cool one thing down. But the other thing would end up warmer - energy was "lost" to useless heat. Of course, this "useless" heat is what starts a from from kindling when a dowel is rotated against it. Thus, releasing the energey stored in the chemical bonds of the wood. By 1865, he (and Clapeyron) had put all of the equations in proper order and necessarily "discovered" (defined) - ENTROPY. Ultimately, entropy (the measure of how much useless energy is generated in a process) - and how efficient the conversion of energy and work performed is - turned out to be related to the RANDOM-NESS of the system. This was added by Boltzman. It's important to note two ways of thinking about thermo: 1. As a property of the universe (see map) and as such things like the conversion of energy, entropy, and "organsiation" (order vs chaos) are PROPERTIES of the universe. 2. That systems of pure information can be described by the same ideas - having little or no actual connnection with our universe (or so i would say). This sort of idea is developed in the book on thermo by Charles Kittel (best known for his work in Solid State physics). Finally, in theory as ANY sort of thing happens in the universe, the process is always less than 100% efficient (it would only be 100% efficient at absolute zero, but this would mean that even the smallest energy would not be lost to the so-called "zero point energy" of the atoms; and hence since it "can't be known to be zero" (and thus violate the uncertainty principle), you can't REACH absolute zero. Therefore, the entropy of the over-all universe is increasing no matter what. One day it will all "run down" into what is called "the heat death" of the universe. (About 3 degress above absolute zero). Interestingly enough, Hawking has found a relation between gravity and entropy!! (Something along the lines of Einstein's search for the "unified field theory" -- but not as "universal" as what Einstein searched for in vain. But, it is (apparently) a limiting equation that strictly speaking only applies to regions of space next to a black hole. Curious stuff, huh?

A Bit more Formally

This all has to do with how work gets done in the universe. In order to change the state of a system you need to expend energy. Thus, take a building crane and the motor is pulling on the cable and that cable is hauling up a load. In "theory" the system should be close to ideal, that is there is no friction on the pulley at the top of the crane. But in reality, the old equations from Newton don't quite balance out: There is always some energy lost. That energy usually shows up as heat which is one of the least useful forms of energy. To express this relationship, scientists write the equation: U = Q - W U is the "systems total energy" - pretend we put a giant bubble around the crane and everything. Q = The heat (raw energy) that we are supplying to do the work. W = The work that is done by the system (here our crane). Note that "W" is preceded by a minus sign. The usage here is that anything coming into the system (eg, heat, energy) is positive, and anything going out is negative. Imagine as if you the system is a planet and you are standing on its surface looking up out into the universe. Work is being produced and operating on the universe, as such it just goes out and up from the system. That "planet" would be like Carnot's ideal "Carnot Engine"! In reality, there is heat lost in almost all real systems. But in thermo, there are "ideal cases". One of my favs is the "adiabatic system" - in which case NO energy is lot. In this case, we can write things like: delta U = Q - W Where delta (greek letter like a triangle) means "the change in" But, in an ADIABATIC (idealised) system the change in system energy is zero, so: delta U = Q - W = 0 (ie, no net gain/loss) Q = W That is whatever engergy/heat (Q) that comes in shows up 100% as work performed. And thus, we hae the long sought-after perpetual motion machine! On of my fav books on this is by Lord Ord-Hume and is called: "Perpetual Motion - The history of an obsession". Very readable. Now, so far we haven't violated any laws of thermodynamics (were just using the zeroth law (measure temperature by comparing one thing (the system) to another (usually a thermometer) and the first law - the definition of relation between heat and work. Such a system can't really exchange even information with the outside world (ie, the us out here in the universe). It would be like (in SciFi) a "suspended animation field". Larry Niven comes closest to it in his "Known Space" SciFi series, by saying that the "thing" enclosed in the suspended animation field (which he calls "stasis fields") would look perfectly SILVER (as in a mirror), since we can't influence it in any way. Inside it, time would completely stop - like inside a black hole (in theory). Ref: "World of P'tavs".

A brief stop: The Idea Gas Law

As it turns out, this is where things get messy - the 2nd law of thermo. Before i get lot, let's look at one more thing. The "ideal gas law". This was the fall out of several early laws (Charles' Law, The Guy-Lussac Law, Boyle's Law, etc) and was dealing with trying to make a refriderator (sort of). Anyway, what came out was the elegant little equation: p V = n R T In a system (again we can assume a closed system, imagine an engine, with an attached piston - say to inflate a tyre) p - pressure V - volume n = (ahem) number of moles (remember Avagadro's number?) of the gas R = The Rhydberg constant T = Temperature (but convert to "Kelvins" T = C - 273.15 if C is Celcius degrees. (anyway, this is all v. fab stuff, and i'll you google it as you will), but litterally get the iconosphere balloon off the ground: Say we bring in one of the Mongolfier brothers (it doesn't matter say Jacques-Étienne, meanwhile Joseph-Michel can continue running the print shop - and, *yes* i had to google their first names, you know how bad i am with names). -[
chm.bris.ac.uk]- So, their first balloons are (i would assume) made of paper... Hmmmm ??EDIT?? Anyway, here's were the ideal gas law comes in: Let's keep the volume of the balloon (made of a fine PrintMaker's paper!) constant, and we seal it off so that "n" is constant, thus, with a bit'o the old Algebra, we can write: pV = nRT - but, n and V are constant (and Rydberg's constant is, well, uhh, constant, natch!) pV/T = nR or p --- = nR/V T Thus, as we heat the air up the nR/V is constant, so p MUST increase. ANd of course the balloon explodes! Let the volume NOT be fixed (suddenly we take a nice elastic/rubber balloon of enormous size back in time to Jacques) In this case the VOLUME increase directly in proportion to the Temperatute and the pressure remains constant. But Jacqques and Joseph's balloon is made of paper, so what they do is: Open the hole at the bottom, and allow excess air to escape as the baloon's interior air heats up. What? in this case the pressure inside remains constant, the temperature increases and the volume remains constant. SO,.... (again with Illa's magic algebra mix) n --- = R/pV T So, the number of moles is increasing but they are escaping! So, thus our system is violated and no longer subject to the laws of thermodynamics! Not really. What happens is that the molecules of air as they are heated begin to move faster, and thus a smaller number of molecules (n) can take up the same volume but at a higher temperature. But, then (from Bernoulli's principle or at the very least Archimedes' principle), the balloon FLOATS! It's really quite beyond me. Floating: Because inside the balloon a smaller number of molecules occupy a given space then outside the balloon. The inside ones are "hotter" push otherones asside more often than the colder ones in the "normal" atmosphere. But this is the point: Even something as "simple" as a hot-air balloon (there are not any moving parts - well other than invisible air molecules). And the explanation via science is already pretty complex - so when you start hearing about perpetual motion, don't believe it! (But, if you have a spare million to invest in my own almost perpetual machine, please email, soonest! ;) To return to the pure, ideal world of thermo (away from molecules and any such physical messiness)... As it turns out the maximum work that you can get out of a system is related to the DIFFERENCE between the starting and ending temperatures. All measured in degrees Kelvin, and usually written delta T = T2 - T1

Carnot's Engine

By the early 1800's everyone was trying to improve on James Watt's steam engine to make them more efficient, and of course having mixed success. Anyway a French chap by the Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot (prunskiated "car noh") came up with a sort of "universal ideal engine" which got labeled the "Carnot Cycle" (aka "The Carnot Engine" - if one could be built based on it.) We take a piston and put steam into it under pressure and it drives the piston out - which we've hooked up to a wheel or some machine that we want to "do something" - a wheel: A steam engine locomotive. Of course, then we have to "somehow" pull the piston back to the starting postion, let in some more steam. So, where does that energy come from? As it turns out, no matter what SOME energy is lost. This is because it can go thru an entire cycle (using an ideal gas)of having pressure put in (say by a steam boiler) and then the piston pushing out to do work, and then "somehow" the energy is recovered and the engine starts another cycyle - ad inifinitum! So, the goal is to make the engine more efficient -- better fittings, less friction, etc. -[a href="http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/carnot.html" target="_blank">gsu.edu
]- cute carnot calculator! The point is, that it is the basis for almost all physical (ie, real, engineered) systems and of course we know that because of friction, heat loss, inefficient couplings, etc - that energy is lost. Of course in an ideal system, the work done would exactly equal the energy put in, and as such could run forever - but never really accomplishing anything. All real engines run at less than 100% efficiency (cars are around 10 - 20% (max) at present). Of course, reduce the friction, loss, etc - higher efficiency. Now enter the 2nd Law - which is a lot more complicated, but essentially says that the larger the heat difference between the SOURCE energy and the WASTE (end) energy sources, then the greater the efficiency CAN be. As the late, great Issac Asimov once calculated: If you took every bit of matter in the universe and converted it into energy and then put it into a single atom (as i recall) then that would be the MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE possible. And then borrowing Asimov's maximal particle to do some thermodynamic work, and IF we ended up with ZERO energy left, then THAT (physical) system would be 100% efficient. Note that technically even we can't be in the universe to observe it (hyperspace?!!) and the experiment can only be done once - and once it is finished then the enitre universe is finished as well -- there is NO energy left. (Well not quite - there's always Quantum Mechanics and the {"zero point energy"}) But, of course, we can't do that since there's always lots of molecules bumping into things (and thus draining little bits of energy away) - which is nice if you're trying to cool off your cabanna chair with some cooling breeze. And as it turns out, the only systems that even come close to being 100% efficient are those that are plunged into liquid Helium a few FRACTONS of a degree above absolute zero. And it's at this point that things get weird. At such low temperatures there is so LITTLE energy present that we run into the fact that our little systems are NOT ideal thermodynanic systems (such as massless particles, perfect energy exchanges, zero loss systems, etc) - but real atoms, molecules. And of course, they're all part of the QUANTUM MECHANICAL UNIVERSE !!! (now showing on a big screen near you) So, as such there's this thing called "the zero point energy" which is contained in the atoms themselves (yes, even nice, nobel Helium - a mono-atomic molecule (unlike, eg, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen).


See also: Cascade Phenomena -[here]- (cross products, theory section) Since we can't ever reach absolute zero (due to a quantum restriction at the "small" end of the universe, similar to the fact that we can't go faster than the speed of light at the "large" end of the universe), we must now deal with irreversability. Carnot Engines at infinity, black hole super computers, and again QM Basic equations of processes, entropy information theory (thermo aspects of)

Maxwell's Demon

The idea of Maxwell's demon was introduced in order to explore certain aspects of a perfect machine. Consider a box dived into two sections. The border between the two sections has a small door in it. At the door is positioned a Maxwellian Demon of the 1st kind. He (she? neh?) performs as follows: a) As a fast moving molecule approaches from the left it is allowed to pass through to the right chamber. If it is a slow moving molecule approaching from the left, then the demon closes the door and the molecule bounces off and goes back into the left chamber. b) For a slow moving molecle that approaches from the right, it's allowed to pass, and so forth. Thus, after a while the left chamber will be filled with the slower moving (cooler) molecules and the right chamber will be filled with faster moving (hotter) molecules. The question is then: Since the entropy of the system is REVERSED (violating the main three laws of thermodynamics) - is this possible?? After all, it can be argued that the demon's own entropy is increased since he/she/neh must dart about quickly to see how fast the molecule is moving, then either slam the door closed or make sure it is open. From elementary thermodynamics there is no problem: We can in theory have (build? hire?) a maxwell's demon and voila! all of our air conditioning problems are solved. Forgetting the state. ==================== There is an article in Scientific American ??year?? ??link?? where they were able to show that ONLY problem is that the demon must forget it's previous actions. The gist of the argument is that when we consider INFORMATION as part of the thermodynamic state of the system -- then the demon itself violates the laws of thermodynamics (well, at least the main three ones). What it says is that since the door is either open or closed and for the NEXT molecule it has to either remain open or closed or CHANGE its state. That single BIT (computer-wise: a single 0 or 1 !!) is what causes the Maxwell's demon (or its action/existence) to violate the laws of thermodynamics. Odd, huh? Of course, there isn't anything to prevent an actual "demon" from performing the work - but then it means that the OVERALL energy of the system and the demon will be no more efficient than any other engine. Which is of course by default one of the {
"Carnot's Engines".} physics and maths of the demon Enter sisaphus - the daemon as etenal truth seeker... and of course, there is nothing to prevent the demon from evolving - ie, i would think that the demon would rather be of Camus' Sysiphys or at the very least Stopard's Rosenkrantz and Guildernstern, etc. Gogo? Didi? ie, ultimately the demon (what ever its "original programming" -- as per example the "Morarity" character on Star Trek - The Next Generation's "Elementary My Dear Data" ??title?? and it's very important ending -- also that can be tied back to the "The Measure of a Man" ep as well as OuterLimits, I Robot, and of course Lester del Rey's idea that once we know what an ego is (and as his scientist shows) and once we can legitimise it, then we get Didi and Gogo, as well as the two inventor robots in Stanislof Lem's "The Cyberiad" (Romans Robatika). link to ma-humanst.html#hum-certainty-descartes-evil-demon

Science and its "opposites"

Agains, by examining what something is NOT, gives us insights into what it is. Is religion the opposite of science? Is philosophy? Is new-age spiritualism? etc One of the age old "conflicts" surrounds "science vs. religion". From one point of view, there can be no conflict; from another POV, there's bound to be conflict. In the film "The dish" (which rather charmingly re-tells the story of a radio telescope in Parkes, New South Wales, Australlia and how it was involved in receiving the "moon walk" of Apollo 11), on a Sunday a priest gives a sermon (excerpted from memory) And we pray also, for those three brave astronauts who even as we speak are exploring God's Great Universe. I've also encountered quite tradtional (what-ever that means) Christian theologians who have no problem with evolution and their religious beliefs. On the other hand: If there's one thing to be sure; humans can be the most annoyingly hard-headed of species. I mean, we tried to tell God: Like i sed, you you should have given the hands to the dolphins. -- adopted from an old "Frank and Ernest" comic. You were expecting a yes/no answer? Why waste my breath. It all goes back to a bit from the late, great Douglas Noel Adams' trilolgy of five novels, "The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy". Two philosophers want the computer Deep Thought shut down before it solves the great question of "Life, the Universe, and Everything" saying that what's the good of arguing if there is (or is not) a God, when the next day this computer gives us his home telephone number? How many angels can danse on the head of a pin? The argumetns abound. My favourite arises from what is classically known as part of the "Chance vs Necessity Argument". It invovles something commonly refered to as "free will". How many angels can danse on the head of a pin? As many as want to. See also: -[
Free will]-] (in spiritualist) So, then is science the opposite of "pseudo science"? This is sort of philosophical falacy (begging the question, in-exact premises, etc, etc). If science gets to define what is NOT science and tags it "psuedo" (meaning false, wrong, or "pretending to be"), then of course it must be so. So? Yes, so. So? Yes. What? What? So, what? Yes, exactly. Let's take an example: Acupuncture. It had been used in China (ah the mysterious lure of "The inscrutable orient"!) for centuries. It finally got demonstrated to scientists (primarily medical doctors -- not at all the same as scientific researchers or what-ever IS a scientist; many physicists would argue that the so-called "social sciences" are not science at all, but a sort of statistical mish-mash of observational athropology coupled with far too much ancedotal ramblings passing itself off as "scientific data"!!). Meanwhile: Accupuncture. As it turns out, there were these chemicals called "endorphins" which act as the body's own painkillers. And "somehow" the accupuncturist uses their needles to activate these via the so-called "merridians of the body". Now that science (medial science) has "blessed" accupuncture (the practice, not the theory) with its discovery of a properly validated SCIENTIFIC principle -- it can accept the "illusion" of accupuncture. Of course, the "court" is still out on the placebo effect, an exact explanation of how hypnosis works, why some patients spontaneously remit cancers while others die of seemingly innocuous things such as SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). Note that science is in much the same position today as "The Church" (read that as the Holy Romman Catholic Church) was in centuries past. If science was able to wield THAT kind of power, then researchers in new age, border science, speculative reasoning, and the so-called pseudo sciences would be FORBIDDEN on pain of torture to explore possible new pathways of understanding. Much, in the same way that Galilelo was "show the instruments of torture" and consequently recanted his beliefs, and of course much in the same way that the churdh "did" allow Copernicus' theory to be published noting, that if the astronomers were too stupid to understand God's great earth-centered universe and had to rely on the crutch of Copernicus' "great lie", then that was their own come-upance for not having enough faith. Anyone see any parallels here? The argument about science vs religion, or one religion vs another always reminds me of a couple of things. The old saw about the blind men describing an elephant (religion) and each one insisting that they alone knew what it was -- despite the fact that none of them knew the entire "truth" about the elephant. And the other thing is the joke about the chap who lost his car keys and another person comes up to help them and asks, where did you lose them. The chap sez: Over there. (blink, blink). The second person asks, "Then why are you searching over here?" The first chap replies: Because this is where the light is. Or to put it another way: If the only tool that you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail. That is, science is pretty good at lot of things. And despite the speculations of many writers and others its probably not going to be possible to construct a machine that writes really good poetry, paints really interesting paintings of an EMOTIONAL kind. (I'm reminded here of the prediction just a few years back that computers would never be able to play a good game of chess). Regardless, the computer is a tool (at present, it's not a thinking self-aware entity; see: [Thinking]) nothing more. It's also (with the help of the internet -- sometimes) an "intellegence amplifier". In the same way science is "just" a tool. It's just one way of thinking about a problem or at least SOME problems. In the same way, that i would hardly recommend using analytical cubism to aid in the removal of an inflamed appendix, it would hardly recommend using western reductionist physics to paint Guernica. Neither works very well in a practical sense. But. This doesn't mean that we can't explore and think about such things -- you never know what such illogical ideas might lead to. Remember that the theoretical concept of a completely flooded planet and the waves that might occur on it lead to some very interesting results in quantum physics -- even though the two problems seem totally un-connected. Ernst Mach's refutation of Einstein's theory of relativity is totally flawed, but it turns out to completely and accuraately describe trans-sonic flight about 10 years before ANYONE was flying anything other than hot air baloons. Serendipity requires you to be searching and to have open eyes. And of course: An open mind.