Chaos Theory

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

In any case, 86 would be having fits if he knew "Chaos" were so popular!!!

… whilst adding to the confusion !

… Agent 86's nemesis was "Kaos" !! (Not "Chaos") …

It seems the usage of the word is riddled with problems !
I vote we change it to "Messy Theory" !


But there again .. that might turn me into a "Control" freak .. wouldn't it ?

Cheers
PS: Good to have ya back, Carl !

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Great point Shane.
I have encountered other folks who actually believe the equations rule their lives.
Not me.

In this case, the mathematics is used as a descriptive language for describing the behaviour observed. The steps (or processes) which nature has followed to arrive at the patterns we see, are very simple steps which can occur over very long timeframes or, in the case of the river bed, could occur rapidly (if there was a flood, etc). What computers allow us to do, is to speed up and simulate those same steps, so that we can see how it happens, right in front of our own eyes, on a screen.

Nature does its own thing, and there is no way there could be some magic computer inside a stream of water, which computes the next step as it is growing a tributary. There is no evidence that we live inside some big 'computer' called the universe. Some people may think this, but it can only ever be an analogy for the way nature behaves, and what it was always going to do.

As mysterious and as uncanny as the connection between mathematics and nature is, it would take a lot for this 'little black duck' to accept that there is something conscious and intentional behind it all.

Hope this makes sense ?

Cheers

If there is a computer and a program behind it all, let's hope Microsoft have nothing to do with it!!!!

You're right about that....nature does it's own thing, it works and we don't have a clue as to what it's doing.

Maybe we can't see any consciousness or intention because it's a case of not seeing the forest for the trees...the evidence maybe everywhere and in plain sight. We deny it because we're more interested in the "mechanics" of the leaves than the totality of the forest, and since we just barely know the mechanics how can we know the whole. For instance, if there are a set of fundamental principles/equations that underpin the universe, where did those equations/principles come from. To say that they spontaneously arose out of nothing is just as big a load of twaddle as saying a guy sitting on a big golden chair in the clouds invented them. To come out and definitively say this or that when we barely understand anything that's going on is the height of intellectual hubris and arrogance. That is one of the greatest problems with science...it tries in vain to divorce reality from reality in order to remain "objective" and fails miserably to understand that you cannot know something by excluding parts of it just because you think they have no use, function or don't exist. Nothing is truly objective...it must always be seen through a filter of some description and in the case of science that is inevitably through consciousness, as it is for everything else.

You cannot ignore something and hope it goes away (or dismiss it) just because it's unpalatable and doesn't sit well with what you believe to be the case.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

… whilst adding to the confusion !

… Agent 86's nemesis was "Kaos" !! (Not "Chaos") …

It seems the usage of the word is riddled with problems !
I vote we change it to "Messy Theory" !


But there again .. that might turn me into a "Control" freak .. wouldn't it ?

Cheers
PS: Good to have ya back, Carl !

That's why I put "chaos" in inverted commas

You do know, we'll have to continue this conversation under the "cone of silence"

[Satchmo]

Originally Posted by CraigS

If we can work out which algorithm, we can precisely replicate the unpredictable behaviour, in a computer simulation, and get useful information about the underlying phenomenon, from that.

Fractal mathematics cannot `precisely replicate ' the unpredictable behavior. It just predicts that it will be unpredicatable and in what manner. That alone can be very useful in many fields.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Satchmo

Fractal mathematics cannot `precisely replicate ' the unpredictable behavior. It just predicts that it will be unpredicatable and in what manner. That alone can be very useful in many fields.

Hi Mark;
Perhaps we can quote all of what I said:

Originally Posted by CraigS

The branching structure is the fractal pattern which is the indicator for an underlying chaotic system. Such a fractal pattern can be generated by some algorithm in a computer. If we can work out which algorithm, we can precisely replicate the unpredictable behaviour, in a computer simulation, and get useful information about the underlying phenomenon, from that.

If you read this carefully, I didn't exactly state that the algorithm could precisely replicate the actual riverbed structure we see in nature. This is purely because we can never precisely know the initial conditions under which it formed. This was discussed early on in this thread.

The 'macro scale' chaotic behaviour is easily replicable in an algorithm designed to create generalised branching patterns. In this sense, we have replicated 'precisely' the macro scale branching pattern/phenomenon but, as you say, (I agree), this does not mean that we can say where and when, certain branches of the self replicating pattern will appear or disappear.

I think we may be in 'violent' agreement, and my original words are still perfectly valid (at a certain macro scale).

Cheers
PS: This is a super-tricky topic for discussion. The documentary left gaping holes for me, and perhaps for Shane as well (?). Certain statements about Chaotic behaviours (& fractals) may be valid at certain scales but completely invalid at others. The same goes for chaotic behaviours at certain times and complete order at other times. The whole topic is like a slippery bar of soap, and I think, as Bert has hinted, the potential for misunderstandings seems pretty big ! Cheers

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Maybe we can't see any consciousness or intention because it's a case of not seeing the forest for the trees...the evidence maybe everywhere and in plain sight. We deny it because we're more interested in the "mechanics" of the leaves than the totality of the forest, and since we just barely know the mechanics how can we know the whole. For instance, if there are a set of fundamental principles/equations that underpin the universe, where did those equations/principles come from. To say that they spontaneously arose out of nothing is just as big a load of twaddle as saying a guy sitting on a big golden chair in the clouds invented them. To come out and definitively say this or that when we barely understand anything that's going on is the height of intellectual hubris and arrogance.

I agree with the bold bit.
I don't deny it, (so I don't agree with the underlined bit).

Originally Posted by renormalised

That is one of the greatest problems with science ...it tries in vain to divorce reality from reality in order to remain "objective" and fails miserably to understand that you cannot know something by excluding parts of it just because you think they have no use, function or don't exist.Nothing is truly objective...it must always be seen through a filter of some description and in the case of science that is inevitably through consciousness, as it is for everything else. You cannot ignore something and hope it goes away (or dismiss it) just because it's unpalatable and doesn't sit well with what you believe to be the case.

I agree again (with the bits not underlined).
I don't see it as being a problem with science. The warnings/messages are in the underlying philosophies of Science. That people don't take time to fully 'get' the messages, is an entirely different matter .. and does cause problems.
However paradoxically, I assert that the only way we know of, (to maintain visibility of, or remain conscious of), the 'filters' through which we're always viewing nature through, is to detach ourselves as much as we possibly can, from the reality we make up within our own minds. I call this "Individual Reality" .. it exists within my own mind, but not necessarily in the physical world ("Physical Reality"). To see things in the Physical reality, we need to be masters of understanding the filter biases we're constantly perceiving nature through.

Its weird .. its like being constantly aware when one is wearing sunglasses (ie: the filter). To remain aware one is wearing them, one has to constantly dwell on them … what they look like, how they feel, take 'em off every now and again to see if things have changed whilst they've been on. But never forget that they're constantly on, and its very difficult for us to remove them for long periods. (I don't think you'd be human if you did that).

In summary and generally speaking, yep .. I agree with the 'gist' of what Carl is saying here.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

When I said "we deny it", I didn't mean you specifically, Craig. I meant science and scientists in general. If something makes them uncomfortable, most scientists try and avoid confronting the problem and many just dismiss things offhandedly. Especially if the thing which makes them uncomfortable is going to take them into areas they believe aren't "kosher".

Thinking you can detach yourself from what you observe is a delusion many scientists have and make every day. It's a play in the mind. In any case, what is "physical reality", other than a consensus opinion for the most part. Even the opinion is a filter. Thinking you can be objective is a filter. There's no escaping it. Reality is most likely so far from the consensus opinion as to what it is that we may never really know what we're looking at...simply because we're a part of it to begin with.

[CraigS]

Yes I understand where you're coming from Carl.

However, rather than just lying down and pretending these biases don't exist, I'm saying, (generally), let's get in touch with exactly what those biases are, and do something about restoring some conscious ability to remove them, when appropriate. (Like when we visit this forum ! )

The first way I know of, is to define what realities might exist, and really get in touch with these definitions, and observe examples of each type. Even write 'em down when you find something which coresponds with one of them!

When anyone does this, they are a step towards getting on the front foot, and closer to seeing the real world as it may be. The philosophies underpinning science, get us way closer than lying down in a hammock, guzzling a coldie and askin' ya mate what he reckons !

I would say not many people, (including scientists), do this !

But I am saying more people, (including scientists), would benefit if they did! … and so would Science, and Science Forums discussions !

Cheers
PS: Some hints for the definitions which work for me, are here. These are suggestions, and are merely offered as a suggestion/contribution to those who might be interested in taking this approach. Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Yes I understand where you're coming from Carl.

However, rather than just lying down and pretending these biases don't exist, I'm saying, (generally), let's get in touch with exactly what those biases are, and do something about restoring some conscious ability to remove them, when appropriate. (Like when we visit this forum ! )

The first way I know of, is to define what realities might exist, and really get in touch with these definitions, and observe examples of each type. Even write 'em down when you find something which coresponds with one of them!

When anyone does this, they are a step towards getting on the front foot, and closer to seeing the real world as it may be. The philosophies underpinning science, get us way closer than lying down in a hammock, guzzling a coldie and askin' ya mate what he reckons !

I'm not saying many people, (including scientists), do this !

But I am saying more people, (including scientists), would benefit if they did! … and so would Science, and Science Forums discussions !

Cheers
PS: Some hints for the definitions which work for me, are here. These are suggestions, and are merely offered as a suggestion/contribution to those who might be interested in taking this approach. Cheers

Oh, the biases do exist, I'm in total agreement. However, they're filters just like everything else. And trying to take steps beyond them is also filtering as well. You can't get away from it...."reality" is always subjective. We can only arrive at an approximation of what it is through consensus.

As per above, definitions of reality are filters through which we put labels onto whatever it may be. In defining what reality is, you create it, whether you realise it or not.

I thought that's how the philosophies were created!!!!

Better than sitting in a darkened room for hours contemplating your navel

[CraigS]

We're way off topic .. sorry Shane … happy to come back onto topic once we've exhausted this (perhaps), never-ender !

Carl .. one way of testing whether some idea, coming from a devious mind, is real or not, is to run it through the other filters to see if it passes through them. One test is your 'Reality by Consensus' (which you refer to).

Each distinction can be 'used', 'triangulated' or 'cross-correlated', as a test, to yield something which may as well be real, as I cannot see that there would be any other way of confirming or rejecting something as real.

There's your ultimate test. Can't be done without a firm grip on the distinctions, though.

Cheers

[shane.mcneil]

Go for it guys, I enjoy reading everything.

Regarding the doco, how much would you say is "consensus" and how much the presenters own opinion.

For me the doco made a few leaps that I couldn't quite see how they got there. But time is limited in these things.

[CraigS]

Hi Shane;

I reckon 'twas a good documentary.

As far as I could see, everything presented, had solid mathematics backing it up. Alan Turing, Benoit Mandelbrot and Edward Lorenz were giants in the field, and I don't think any of their work has ever seriously been challenged. As such, what was presented definitely falls in the "Physical Reality" category.

I don't know much about the presenter, "Professor Jim Al-Khalili", but he seemed to ooze credibility, to me. There's a wiki page giving a run down on who he is in the world of Theoretical Physics. Wiki also states of Al-Khalili:

I have nevertheless ended up without a religious bone in my body.
and …
Al-Khalili has describes himself as an atheist.

Whilst I don't care much about his religious beliefs, I suppose the 'filters' he wears, are those associated with what he says he represents. (Always handy to know when listening to information such as this).

The following words/sequences have plenty of demonstrable mathematics backing them up:

i) Where the geese are flying in a flock (about 75% of the way through):

We know they’ll produce a kind of pattern, but we can’t predict the exact shapes.
The big question is: can nature’s ability to turn simplicity into complexity in this mysterious and unpredictable way, explain why life exists ?
Can it explain how a universe of simple dust, can turn into human beings ? How inanimate matter can spawn intelligence ? ….
If nature’s rules are unpredictable, should we give up ?
Absolutely not !

and then, right at the end:

ii) Inherently Unpredictable:

All the complexity of the universe, all its infinite richness, emerges from mindless, simple rules, repeated over and over again. But remember, powerful as though this process is, it is also inherently unpredictable. So, although I can confidently tell you that the future will be amazing, I can also say with scientific certainty, that I have no idea what it holds.

… All solid stuff, well and truly embedded in "Physical Reality" because of the mathematical certainty backing it all up.

There's another documentary I've seen on the same topic ... its pretty old called "The Colours of Infinity", and it is more about Fractals and Benoit Mandelbrot. It might be on Youtube (I haven't looked).

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

All the complexity of the universe, all its infinite richness, emerges from mindless, simple rules, repeated over and over again

Are they?? I wonder.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Oh....BTW....don't you think Al Khalili looks a bit like Alexei Sale

[shane.mcneil]

Hi Carl, isn't the execution of the rule mindless? Or are you talking about the origin of it?

[bartman (Bart)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Oh....BTW....don't you think Al Khalili looks a bit like Alexei Sale

After watching Warrens post, I thought that Leonard Susskind was ( maybe is.....)............
LEON!!!!!!

A theoretical physicistin our midst..........cruzin our South West at his own leisure........:rolleyes :
hehehehe

Good on you Leon(ard)....
Bartman

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by shane.mcneil

Hi Carl, isn't the execution of the rule mindless? Or are you talking about the origin of it?

The origin....and even if something is left to its own devices, no matter what its origin, it's never mindless.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

The origin....and even if something is left to its own devices, no matter what its origin, it's never mindless.

.. and never predictable !

(I could say something about the sexes in this, but I'm in enough hot-water around here today … )

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

.. and never predictable !

(I could say something about the sexes in this, but I'm in enough hot-water around here today … )

Cheers

Well, if you were a Kiwi, you'd say "yeah....they go to all parts of the ground and you never really know where"

[shane.mcneil]

But surely a process that follows a simple formula is mindless. Like software on a compter, just following instructions. Or water flowing down a drain, it's behaviour is predictable but it doesn't know it is doing it.