Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
I think we're roughly on the same page here .. its very interesting this ..
|
Most certainly
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
I don't think there is a need to invoke a "driving process" between the various levels of scale. If there is no evidence of one in nature and the pattern spontaneously forms in the simulation, I don't think we can say that this is happening.
|
If there is no connection between the scale level processes other than some randomly generated pattern at the macroscale level of structure, then any shape could be generated from the processes...any shape that obeyed all the physical laws which govern the interaction of systems. Maybe we don't "see" a connection in nature because we're too busy looking at the components and not the whole system. It's like saying here we have a human, but that human bears no relation to what their cells are doing. We may not even see the connections simply because we don't recognise any. Did that pattern spontaneously form in the simulation because it was just going to happen, or did the conditions that were programed into the individual components within that simulation, when taken as a whole, generate that spiral pattern due to the interactions between its components. Then, did the spiral become self sustaining because it was just something of consequence or did the pattern that was generated influenced the particles at the smaller scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
I can see that there is iteration at the lower-scale level, (the outputs from one step in time feed back, as inputs to the next), that's actually the function the computer performs in the model.
Maybe there's also a natural feedback process at this same level of scale in the real thing, also.
But once again, I can't see a need for invoking feedback between this level, and say, the next one up, when the simulation forms the pattern without such a mechanism.
|
Again, is it just a matter of consequence and coincidence or do they both interact with one another to produce the results given. It's very easy to just say there's no connection since we can't see one, but that is probably a case of missing the point, so to speak. Nothing happens in isolation, anywhere. It's why you have to be careful when using laws/theories of physics to describe what is happening in the Universe. They can only be approximates. They act as a set of ground rules and initial scaffolding to hang your ideas/observations on, but they never tell you the whole picture. There's always room for improvement. That's why theories come and go. Some theories hold good for a long time, others drop by the wayside rather quickly. But, no theory is immutable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
I really don't think there is any such thing as a "driving spiral density wave". I think the fact that the spiral shape appears spontaneously without any cause, suggests that it is nothing more than an illusion, which our pattern-recognition sensors pick up. There is not necessarily any "driving force" (of nature) behind it. The structure merely self-assembles in this pattern, because of the behaviours of the individual parts, at the lower scale.
|
It's in part because of the spiral density wave moving through the cold, molecular clouds of the galaxies that we have any stars in the first place. A cold cloud of gas is just going to sit there and do nothing unless something prompts it to collapse and form stars.
Now, that's where you're going right out on a limb and stretching quite a few physical laws...spontaneous generation with no causative mechanism. That's tantamount to creation from nothing, which is one reason why laypeople find digesting what scientist say about the BB rather difficult and gives the looney tunes brigade their ammunition to go on with what they do. The reason why scientists say things like the BB (or in this case the spiral pattern in galaxies) has no cause is that they don't understand the mechanisms behind it very well, if at all. You can't have laws of physics saying one thing and then totally disregard one of the underlying principles behind them (cause and effect) just because you can't fathom why something happens, given your present state of understanding. There's quite a bit we do understand, make no bones about that, but we do waffle on too much and dig our own graves when it comes to making pronouncements on areas of knowledge we've barely begun to even figure out, let alone know what's happening.
There's nothing wrong with self assembly in natural systems or even spontaneous generation due to interactions at a lower level in the whole system. However, there has to be a cause and an effect which generates the final result. This could be an area where chaos theory and fractal mathematics excel in because it's pretty clear that it's the patterns created through a vast number of variables interacting with one another at all sorts of levels which eventually build to the structures that we see.
Sometimes, even illusions can have a reality all of their own. We may know they're illusions, but we still perceive their existence and reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
Once again, I don't think there are any "workings" we can attribute as being at cause in creating the spiral structure .. there is no need for any such mechanism, as it appears purely because of interactions between the 'standard' behaviours, of the lower scale components.
|
Mechanisms are not necessarily just one causative "force" driving a system to attain anything in particular. A mechanism can be the sum of a complex set of interactions between an infinite number of variables which ultimately create a "desired" effect within a system. The sum of all the causative behaviours generate the whole which becomes greater than the sum of its parts. The whole then affects the standard behaviours of the lower level components.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
I whole-heartedly agree !
Cheers |
We all have to be careful in our approaches to understanding these things. There's also a downside of seeing too much forest and not enough trees, too. In looking too heavily at the big picture, you can miss the little things which are generating the problems or processes as the case may be. You need to take a balanced, holistic approach. That way, hopefully you won't miss anything important and you might come to an understanding of what you're studying...or, at least, the snotty nosed little undergrad that's going to be a future postgrad student of yours will come to that understanding. After you check into the big science lab in the sky, that is
