"Bill Reid" <hormelfree@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:VPmGj.42721$D_3.39303@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Sorry, but I snipped most of the arrogant sarcasm.
>>
>> ...when any system is persistantly poised at the union or edge between
>> it's opposite extemes in possibility,
>
> Minima and maxima are always zero and infinity, respectively...right?
As to your question above, that is true only for the Dark Age
mathematics you obviously religiously follow. I feel as though
I'm talking to someone from the eighteenth century.
In the 'real world', not the merely self consistant dream world
of the blackboard, but in nature there are always /two/ minimums
and /one/ maximum. Your mistake couldn't be more basic.
And your instinctive, not rational, search for precision and repeatability
is no more a sign of intelligence than watching a moth fly towards a
flame.
Albert Einstein has stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics
refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
are certain, they do not refer to reality."
So of course, even a child could see that your search for certainty
has nothing at all to do with grasping how the real world works.
And in fact defines exactly the wrong way.
You wor****p what matters the /very least/ in understanding reality.
And for one very simple reason.
Can we agree on one point alone?
That market systems, for instance, seem to have the ability to
self tune. They tend to build all kinds of feedback mechanisms
and so on that cause such a system to move towards efficiency
and creativity over time. As do living systems. They evolve
over time to higher forms given half a chance.
Can we agree on that simple assertion?
The properties that cause such complex systems to evolve to the
optimum are these self tuning feedback mechanisms.
And these properties are....emergent. They only exist as a
collective property, when the system is in motion.
The very minute you stop such a real world system in order to 'detail'
it's components, those ethereal emergent system properties VANISH
into thin air. You cannot detail emergent properties, you cannot
count them, weigh them equate them or even prove they exist.
But we know such collective properties exist. We see them every day.
And more im****tantly, it's these emergent system properties, such
as evolution and public opinion and ideas and philosophies that
do more to shape our reality than any fundamental force or
equation of state.
Show me the equations that precisely define all those ethereal
market forces everyone talks about. Where can I go buy one
or two of those forces? Show me how large they are.
If I dropped one on my foot, how much would it hurt?
If I write a really good poem, and ten people throw themselves
into a river as a result, show me equations that explain that?
And how the world was changed by that poem, or a good
book or the Mona Lisa. Show me the initial conditions for sadness
or wars. Simplify a sunset. What's the equation for a cloud
....a pedestrian cloud. Which gives and takes life so regularly.
Define God with your exalted mathematics.
Why do your equations work backwards and forwards, as if
time ran in both directions? Show me just once in all the universe
when that happened... even once? Your equations give the very
same answers each and every time. Show me ...just once in the
enture history of the universe where two things or events
exactly repeated itself.
What was the very first life form? Show me the equations
that detail the path from that first living thing to, say, intelligence.
Please, can your faithfully followed mathematics tell
me anything about anything of substance???
You can't even tell me what that cloud over there will look like
a fraction of a second later. Yet you place all your faith in such
impotent and circular methods of understanding.
Just too many variables you might say, too much noise, the
butterfly effect and randomness and so on prevents those solutions
you might insist. That's just the way the world is you might reply.
Our lives, and our future are shaped by forces your science can't
even begin to deal with. You wouldn't know even where to start
with any of the above questions, let alone answer them.
Clerks in counting rooms!
"If a `religion' is defined to be a system of ideas that contains
unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics
is not only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove
itself to be one." -- John Barrow
One minumum is the Newtonian world. Where a few particles can
be solved, but what about all the people in China? Oh, we have
the other minimum for that, statistical treatments as in the
quantum world.
But what about the messy middle, the fluid realm where we have
too many variables for a particle treatment, but too few for
a statistical one???
If you were to find the one place where neither minimums of
mathematics works, you have the one place Nature and markets
and forests end up given half the chance. The Edge of Chaos.
Or the messy middle of the real non-linear natural world
where nothing ever ever repeats exactly even once.
The optimum, where complexity/uncertainty is at a maximum.
Where both camps of mathematics are needed at once and
neither works well, is the /one place/ all of reality evolves towards.
The one place where no precision or repeatability exists.
The one place as far from initial as is possible.
THE ONE PLACE THAT MATTERS MOST.
Is the one place your methods completely fail.
That is the optimum, that is where nature exists, in the one
and only place you can't see with your objective methods.
Where complexity/uncertainty is at maximum.
A cloud, an emotion or a fluid.
Your search for certainty, 'modern science' is literally the definition
of a backwards science. So completely...exactly...backwards
as to look almost like someone's idea of a joke.
Untill you're willing to completely forget everything you've
learned to date, and start over with an rigorously inverse
frame of reference that rights the backwards state of affairs, you'll
never see the simplicity and beauty of our reality.
Dynamics of Complex Systems....full online text
http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/
What is the opposite of reductionism, what is the opposite of
objective, what is the opposite of simplifying?
True accuracy can only be found in the output, as all variables
are included, nothing at all 'snipped out' for the sake of simplicity.
And only through subjective methods can two observers
agree upon real world complexity.
"But nature is a stranger yet;
The ones that cite her most
Have never passed her haunted house,
Nor simplified her ghost.
To pity those that know her not
Is helped by the regret
That those who know her, know her less
The nearer her they get."
s
|
