sethoflagos

2 hours ago, Externet said:

Thanks.  Yes, a servo does work but strongly prefer something electronically simpler as geared motor with no circuitry as will have to work in corrosive hard-to-reach enclosure and no stepper motion but analog smooth.

Are you looking to operate another mechanism with it?

What's the desired amplitude, cycle period and torque?

How much space is avaiable?

Can you be more specific about 'corrosive'?

Cave troglodytam.

... or was that Diogenes.

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Maybe I am mixing up non-linearity with chaos. Confusion still reins in my head. Need to think!

Chaos is imho an unhelpful word.

As mentioned above I find that replacing it with 'diversity' a great help. We then see complex systems featuring diverse inhomogenies of structure, energy and mass density, chemistry etc., each of which are quantifiable in terms of entropy.

And a little mathematical experimenting with the 2nd Law inequality shows that entropy scales with the logarithm of each of its system state variables (volume, temperature etc)

Boltzmann's (actually Planck's) famous formula for entropy S= k ln W where W is the number of microstates (possible permutations of location, momentum, particle type etc) encapsulate this non-linear logarithmic characteristic to all measures of diversity in a complex system. It's really rather fundamental and built in to macroscopic systems.

Of course a single isolated particle (a normal helium atom to keep things simple) taken in its own frame of reference is completely and uniquely identified. There is only one permutation. W = 1, ln W = 0 therefore S = 0. Entropy does not exist at the level of an isolated particle. It is purely a property of a multiplicity of particles. It is an emergent property that does not exist at the level of its constituent parts.

This is really the basis of most non-linear behaviour in complex physical systems such as weather.

Another time we can extend the discussion to information content and see that this reasoning governs much of our lives. 

4 hours ago, Eise said:

It does not say that the world is completely deterministic. But the more randomness sneaks in, the more difficult it becomes to express out free will.

So causal influences are simply a dichotomy of the determined and the random? Are these the only possibilities? Why do you omit those arising from the infintely larger sphere of the abstract?

Under conditions of physical duress, I might turn my mind to imagining a full-blooded chorus of Ritt der Walküren to summon power and fortitude from its driving ferocity. Where does all this magnificent sound come from? Do I have a high fidelity recording somehow etched into my brain? What if I change the tempo a little - or a lot? What if I decide to try out Kirsten Flagstad as Brünnhilde in place of Birgit Nilsson. I've only heard snippets of Flagstad's Brünnhilde and that was in Götterdämmerung but I can imagine her in Die Walküre, her subtly different timbre and undeniable glamour bringing an altogether different feel to the staging? What if I imagine the all-important bass trombone is thundering a little on the flat side... or god forbid! sharp!?

Each change will impact my mood and my actions on my surroundings (or at least my long-suffering wife).

Nothing of this is 'random' according to my understanding of the word. Nor can it be written into the entropy of any historical arrangement of material particles and be thus determined. And yet the sight, sound, scent, taste and touch of that conscious experience have existed since at least the dawn of time as a distinct potential in the abstract. Every bit as real as the number seven. 

So when I decide seven is greater than six and act accordingly, it's not a random decision; it isn't determined (though it may be expressed) by my environment; it just is. So I affirm that fact with my will. If and when I'm in the mood to do so.    

34 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

The cat associated moving to danger; not moving to safety!

There is also the open (as in open area) and closed context

Cat's hide in brush, run in open areas.

But its more complicated than that, because of an interplay of those and other variables

Indifferent to a stationary human though comforted by a stationary car.

Cautious of a nearby moving human yet terrified of a distant moving car (in a 20 mph zone)

Non-linear responses.

Have we got around to tipping points yet?

37 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

If it's bigger than me; run. If it's smaller than me; eat it or chill.

I've spent quite a lot of time on my birdwatching treks watching the reactions of various wild beasts to my presence and your summary is a good generalisation.

Except when an elephant waves its ears and its me who has to do the running. On second thoughts, it's the same deal.

4 hours ago, guidoLamoto said:

Bump again (I'm bored today.)

My fantasies about smoking and cessation based on 40 yrs of observations practicing medicine  among a large urban, working class population (ie- a lot of smokers):

Short answer to the OP's situation-- he has made the superstitious association between two episodes of acute illnees and a loss of desire to smoke. It wasn't the malaria. It was the hospitalization  itself with it's other worries, points of attention and probably hard fast rules preventing smoking....I've never seen a pt who insisted on smoking while hospitalized.

Nicotine is not really an addictive chemical, when we define addicitng as the combination of two phenomena--  tachyphylaxis (a need to continually increase doses to obtained the desired effect) and withdrawal (a rebound effect with eaggerated physiological response upon sudden discontinuation of the drug. Cf- the DTs- wild neurological firing after discontinuing the tranquilizing ethanol)...

Nicotine is a stimulant in the first place, so stopping it should cause a calming of the nerves upon withdrawal, not increased nervousness if it was a "rebound," and you don't need to keep on smoking more cigs each day. Most smokers have a habitual smoking pattern (note the word habitual)-- one pack a day seems to be the norm-- for years on end.

The ritual of smoking, tapping one out of the pack, knocking the loose tobacco out (you alewya see that in the Film Noir movies), lightining it, all the hand manipulations as you go to your mouth, to the ash tray, etc It becomes mindless habit....It's a RITUAL and when forced to abandon the ritual, the smoker feels like he's forgetting something and has the urge to keep the ritual going.

I think nicotine gum or patches are areally just placebos, if effective at all. My pts had some more success if they used aversion therapy-- either sucking down a half dozen cigs in rapid succession causing some nausea, tachcardia etc, or by saving the butts in a small container for a day or two, adding some water to make a sloppy slurry, then inhaling that deeply every time they wanted to light up over the course of a day or three...can work pretty well, at least for awhile.

The problem for the rest of us is that those who quit often become as insufferable as Born Again Christains or Vegetarians. Sheesh. Give us a break.

Superstitious? Me?

Your post strikes me as a long-winded, pretentious version of "I don't know but trust me, I'm a doctor"

No useful content like 'at least vaping exposes you to nicotine only'. Please feel free to relieve your boredom by other means.

3 minutes ago, geordief said:

Does it see like a big dangerous  animal?

The cat's clear overreaction could well suggest some flight response to a predator. Perhaps the sound of the engine stirs some ancient memory of a leopard's roar. I'll have to investigate their response to a car being started.

1 hour ago, Genady said:

The @studiot's example of counting apples on a tree reminded me of something that I've read too long ago to mention, but thanks to the Internet I could find the quote. It relates to my earlier mention of inventing tools to deal with the world:

(from no less than THE EVOLUTION OF PHYSICS BY A. EINSTEIN AND L. INFELD)

I was outside having a smoke recently and whiled away the time watching a cat cautiously cross the pavement a couple of metres ahead of me seemingly intent on crossing the road.

The view down the road was obstructed by a parked van but from my vantage point I could see a pedestrian approaching on the far side pavement.

The cat  froze in its tracks. At first I thought that this was due to seeing the pedestrian. However, a car suddenly came into view and the cat bolted to hide underneath another vehicle parked off the road beside me.

After it had passed, the cat emerged once more and approached the road only to see a vehicle coming from the opposite direction whereupon it bolted yet again to its place of safe refuge.

Its third attempt at crossing the road passed uneventfully.

The cat clearly was a little cautious of nearby humans. It seemed to have no fear at all of stationary vehicles, indeed seeing them as places of safety, Yet it fled in absolute terror at the sight of a moving vehicle. 

In my experience, cats tend not to survive any degree of impact with the latter, so I was left wondering what the learning process might be. 

8 hours ago, Eise said:

For supervenience this means ontologically we look at same system with different views: we can chemically analyse the paper of a book, measure its dimensions, chemically analyse the ink, and can even describe the form of the ink blobs on the pages. This is the view needed e.g. in forensic investigation, or archaeological research. But we can also just read the book. But it is the same book! Both views are completely OK. But it is clear you will understand nothing about the contents of the book, if you only do physical- or chemical analyses.

I read this and thought that you have just outlined the book definition of weak emergence.

This reference - SUPERVENIENCE, PHYSICALISM AND EMERGENCE - is a little longer than yours but for me, it pulls together many loose strands currently floating around the site. 

The fireworks start when we get on to strong emergence. Fasten your metaphysical safety belts.

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

It seems to me the right amount of religious and atheistic tolerance would be helpful, just as the acceptance of some of the worst aspects would not be.

My wife is of an evangelical persuasion. But her politics are social democrat so we get on fine providing we avoid talking about evolution. Coexistence at the individual level need not be problematic. It's at the institutional level where the real damage is done.

And the 28th vote was the first 'don't know'. That's interesting in itself.

6 hours ago, Eise said:

If you are not interested in the problem, fine. But if one wants to solve an intelligibility problem, then one has to dive deeper.

Okay, but I'm going to have to unpick your post in reverse order since it's the baggage trailing in the wake that I take issues with.

6 hours ago, Eise said:

Because we must live with the old fashioned heritage of our Christian culture, in which our libertarian free will was used to solve the problem of the theodicy?

Can I assume here that your 'libertarian' is the selfish and impulsive spoilt brat of right-libertarianism as understood in American circles?

It's an important point since I'm drawn to a form of libertarianism based on the utilitarian principles of William Godwin. Here, while acknowledging both the validity and value of the base impulses, they are exercised within the framework of a good, solid code of ethics. For me, Aristotle's Golden Mean plus a measure of stoicism works (eg 'make a friend of hunger' counts as sound medical advice).

I try not to take offence when you condemn libertarian values as 'absurd', but I do speak English rather than American. Your point gets lost in translation.

6 hours ago, Eise said:

It shows e.g. when people are baffled about Libet-like experiments: it means that people automatically still assume that consciousness comes first, then the action potential in the brain, and then the action itself. But nothing of that is in my definition!

You oblige me to read The Libet experiment and its implications for conscious will, to understand some guy's work that no-one else can reduplicate.

My impression is that our potential responses arrive in waves starting with the base impulses, with more nuanced influences following on and consciousness emerging somewhere during the process to play a supervisory role in making the choice. Sometimes just to say 'Oops! Sorry' when the action came prematurely. 

Does this script not fit the style of the movie?

6 hours ago, Eise said:

I think the main problem in this understanding is that the ideological concept of free will always sneaks in.

Perhaps. Or perhaps it's the lack of consistency in the degree of determinism necessary in defining 'will'.

6 hours ago, Eise said:

No idea what is obscure in my definition: "to be able to act according to what you want"

One sentence linking at least five distinct concepts all subject to diverse interpretation. Easy as pie!

We differ only on the role of determinism, I think. That's our main outstanding issue.       

24 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No.Not at all. If you read my immediately previous post...

 

I did cite the Ten Commandments as being not bad. I didn't claim they were perfect.

Human nature being what it is we do need to work toward a set of ethics we can hold people to.

In utopia of course you don't need them.

I fully take on your point of not throwing out the baby with the bathwater and agree wholeheartedly.

However, while monolithic organisations are able to claim ownership and flag wave these beneficial ethics as symbols of their fitness to hold sway, rather than see much in way of benefit we tend to get lumbered with all the detestable baggage following on in the wake. 

9 minutes ago, iNow said:

And raped children. Don’t forget about all the child raping. 

Bogus positions of undeserved influence and authority will always attract the walking dog turds of our communities. 

23 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

That reflects on why you think religions are detrimental, and I can partially agree. 

What makes you think we can reach utopia if unburdened by religion?

The goal may indeed be very distant; possibly unattainable for many generations to come. But is that any reasonable excuse to stay clinging on to the old shackles of the distant past that have clearly denied so many the opportunity to realise their full potential for so long? 

50 minutes ago, KJW said:

A while ago, I performed a computer simulation of the second law of thermodynamics. It involved a collection of identical entities that could be in one of two states, X or Y, with X transforming to Y and Y transforming to X at a rate governed by some rate constant. The simulation starts with all of the entities in state X, and proceeds to equilibrium. The conclusions that I drew from this simulation are:

1: The second law of thermodynamics is largely mathematical rather than physical because it is able to be simulated.

2: The rate constant is covariant with respect to time reversal. That is, it satisfies the requirement of general relativity. In other words, the thermodynamic arrow of time does not violate the principle of general relativity because the description remains valid even under time reversal.

3: The transition probability is not time reversible, applying only in the forward time direction. However, because the transition probability is based on entity counts, it is necessarily a positive number, unlike the corresponding time reversed value.

4: The transitions X to Y and Y to X in the forward time direction are not the same as the transitions Y to X and X to Y in the reverse time direction. The notion of microscopic reversibility refers to a transition and its reverse in the same time direction, not a transition in forward and reverse time directions. The transitions in the reverse time direction are not governed by transition probability.

5: Causality is governed by the transition probability and only exists in the forward time direction. The reverse time direction appears to be teleological.

 

Thank you for this.

I believe that there is a general consensus that entropy is Lorentz invariant and much of what you say seems to follow on from this sensibly enough.

Minor-ish exceptions: For 1) I'd say that it may operate equally in both the abstract and concrete realms as one might expect if it were one of the most fundamental of laws (ie holds for all physically possible universes) as some suspect.

5) For similar reasons, I'd be tempted to consider substituting 'non-physical' for 'teleological'. If I understand you correctly, the time reversed transitions appear to be goal-driven (teleological) towards simply restoring the initial state in the absence of any convincing causal mechanism to drive it. 

A bit off-topic perhaps but appreciated here anyway.

51 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Does this relate to Prigogine and self-organizing systems?

He gained his Nobel prize for his work in irreversible thermodynamic processes during my first year chemical engineering course so a few of us dipped into his work out of interest (long before the pop-sci chaos carnival kicked off):

Rather than his self-organisation stuff(which I found hard to grasp) my main take away at the time can be summarised in this little snippet from his Wikipedia page:

Quote

In deterministic physics, all processes are time-reversible, meaning that they can proceed backward as well as forward through time. As Prigogine explains, determinism is fundamentally a denial of the arrow of time. With no arrow of time, there is no longer a privileged moment known as the "present," which follows a determined "past" and precedes an undetermined "future." All of time is simply given, with the future as determined or as undetermined as the past. With irreversibility, the arrow of time is reintroduced to physics. Prigogine notes numerous examples of irreversibility, including diffusion, radioactive decay, solar radiation, weather and the emergence and evolution of life. Like weather systems, organisms are unstable systems existing far from thermodynamic equilibrium. Instability resists standard deterministic explanation. Instead, due to sensitivity to initial conditions, unstable systems can only be explained statistically, that is, in terms of probability.

Maybe that helps frame some of my earlier posts here and elsewhere. I'm averse to hard determinism and not just for religious reasons.

51 minutes ago, TheVat said:

So rather than a world where pure classical chemistry prevailed, fully deterministic, and maybe the complex chemistry of life would not have developed, we needed the unpredictable but still deterministic chaotic systems of quantum superpositions of all possible arrangements? 

If we loosen the thrall of determinism a little, then I can nod my head in agreement.

51 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Would this increase the chances of ACGT bits colliding and starting RNA strands?  The primordial pond tends toward states that are more organized?

Catalytic Synthesis of Polyribonucleic Acid on Prebiotic Rock Glasses has already got us up to sequences of several hundred nucleotides with no resort to 'quantum woo'. 

It isn't so much a question of increasing the number of physical interactions as such. More maybe assembling some virtual low probability microstate within a superposition to which a phenomenon like tunnelling can help bypass the sometimes significant energy barriers to gain access. (Woo alert!) To get around ergodicity issues etc.

A classical, determinist model may be overly pessimistic by orders of magnitude if this isn't merely a pipedream.

34 minutes ago, joigus said:

I think what Seth means is QM allows for the final state in a complex multi-step reaction being "there" as a potentiality, so to speak, in the form of a quantum amplitude driving the process.

Classical thinking, OTOH, seems to require first one step, then another, then another.

Something like that?

Precisely. So happy you butted in there 😁

1 hour ago, joigus said:

I really don't want to butt in on the very interesting discussion you were having with Seth. But here's an interesting point: It is precisely because microscopic variables are so extremely sensitive to initial conditions, these systems (called ergodic) become highly indifferent to initial conditions (reach thermal equilibrium quite efficiently) macroscopically.

Please feel free to butt in! I was hoping someone would raise the topic of ergodicity as it is relevant,

Thermodynamic equilibrium is often presented as a dull, featureless system state, but it seems quite the opposite to me.

If it is interpreted as the condition of maximum quantum entanglement of its constituent parts, each of those linkages existing as superpositions all of their possible outcome states, then in at least some limited sense, thermodynamic equilibrium can be seen as a superposition of all possible arrangements of its constituent parts consistent with its geometry, chemical makeup and total energy content. That is, that all structures that can possibly exist within that state do so simultaneously at least within the non-material abstractions of the mathematical space wherein the superpositions reside prior to 'being looked at' (ahem).  

Ergodicity (the limitation that in the concrete, individual microstates can only be accessed by stepwise progression from a neighbour) places limits on this picture, but I hope there is some truth in it as it helps me get my head around quite a few practical situations that are otherwise difficult to comprehend.

For instance, abiogenesis becomes considerably less problematic if all necessary component building blocks continuously coexist at least to some degree when conditions render it a non-zero possibility, even if that space is temporarily abstract rather than concrete.   

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

This is the nature of weather in the world not predictable with absolute certainty. I may be attributing here a concept of certainty to non-linearity that may be incorrect. Still fumbling with words and their meanings.

From the Lorentz interpretion of chaos I mentioned above, it is possible for some number of associated parameters to evolve under the action of linear operations in entirely deterministic fashion and yet produce significantly unpredictable futures such as the weather phenomena you describe.

The (local) universe is not big enough to define general numbers with suffient absolute precision to prevent this from being the case.

However, it is not the full story. For example, it seems implausible for the above mechanism to produce all emergent properties not explicitly existing in the fundamental low level interactions. Yet, everyday experience tells us that we are likely to hear dull music in supermarkets.  

27 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

What fascinates me most with complexity are sensitive to initial conditions and order in disorder

The beauty of 'diversity' is that it emcompasses elemental domains of both order and disorder within a heterogenous whole, which corresponds with everyday macroscospic experience.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

second link: complexity as in chaos-cmplexity theory? e.g. inherent repetition, patterns, self-organisation, interconnectedness, self-similarity, and constant feedback loops.

Yes.

However, I find the word 'chaos' more misleading than helpful. Lorentz (or deterministic) chaos has the particular sense of

Quote

Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

...which may appeal to mathematicians but not to me.

I much prefer to think in terms of systems that spontaneously trend towards high diversity. This correlates in simple proportion to both maximal entropy and quantum entanglement. As an engineer, this helps give an inituitive feel for how, for example, the system's thermodynamic and chemical equilibria are likely to evolve.  

56 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Can you substantiate on both?

Bien sur. Voila:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Équations_de_Navier-Stokes

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexité

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

If Patrick McGoohan, as Number Six, had really been a "free man" wouldn't he have selected a piece of cutlery from his kitchen and taken it along on his beach runs in order to puncture that giant angry balloon?  Clearly something was keeping him from choosing escape strategies that he wanted to try.  My theory is that all his actions were dictated by an invisible being called a screenwriter.  

'Rover' was a wolf in sheep's clothing and quite lethal. The main theme of the series is the conflict between individualist vs collectivist principles which quite coincidently has been explicitly referenced earlier today by @Phi for All.

Also coincidently, I've just been musing on the difference in moral responsibility for their actions between say, a Macbeth and an actor playing Macbeth obliged to perform his part to the letter. 

Quote

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages.

1 hour ago, julius2 said:

And earth's resources are finite.

Only the radionucleides.

In principle, hydrocarbon reserves can be restored from water and carbon dioxide via photosynthesis which is how they were created in the first place.

Strategic metals can be recovered from wherever their used form was disposed of.

Don't confuse 'financially viable exploitable deposits' with total disappearance. It's a myth perpetuated by those who demand maximum profit from minimum investment.  

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

I am aware of such theories, but might be showing my lack of knowledge, again: are we not mostly still using linear theories to understand our world?

Not in the general case. Navier-Stokes for example are parabolic

Quote

The Navier–Stokes equations (/nævˈjeɪ stoʊks/ nav-YAY STOHKS) are partial differential equations which describe the motion of viscous fluid substances...

... The difference between them and the closely related Euler equations is that Navier–Stokes equations take viscosity into account while the Euler equations model only inviscid flow. As a result, the Navier–Stokes are a parabolic equation and therefore have better analytic properties, at the expense of having less mathematical structure (e.g. they are never completely integrable).

I think a key point to understand is that while Newton's Laws of Motion and Newton's Law of Viscosity (and the underlying quantum laws that give rise to them) are both linear in themselves, when they are employed in combination (as in Navier-Stokes), the nett result is non-linear. In general, the more interactions you add (linear or otherwise) to the analysis, the more non-linear the end product.

This is can be understood as the basis of complexity in the macroscopic world.