Are we limiting our view of science , as most things are a mixture of predictable contents , as well as flexible unpredictable contents. " .

[Mike Smith Cosmos 94]

A continual observation of the world at large , shows most things being a fairly equal spread of having a solid ridged , predictable element , as well as having a vague, flexible , unpredictable content.

 

Are we limiting our understanding of the Universe by always expecting and testing for ridged , predictable , content , before taking a scientific subject area as a serious contender , as a model for reality ?

 

Mike

 

Edited November 3, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[blue89 19]

Dear ...

I do not know the clear reply. but I have this idea.

everyone says that I am handsome and cultured well. (in my real life)

but as you see ,I have shown my stressed portrait many times in this forum.

do you know the reason?

 

While I believe that I have highly perspective approaches to do science,sometimes I fear to miss this ability if I miss my this nice apperance (quite anxious)

And economic matters may cause this.But I believe I am studying hard.

Edited November 3, 2016 by blue89

[swansont 7440]

A continual observation of the world at large , shows most things being a fairly equal spread of having a solid ridged , predictable element , as well as having a vague, flexible , unpredictable content.

 

 

You're going to need to explain what you mean by this. It's incredibly vague. What "things"? It will help to give some examples.

 

For starters, do you mean ridged or or is it possible you meant rigid?

[Raider5678 51]

Dear ...

I do not know the clear reply. but I have this idea.

everyone says that I am handsome and cultured well. (in my real life)

but as you see ,I have shown my stressed portrait many times in this forum.

do you know the reason?

 

While I believe that I have highly perspective approaches to do science,sometimes I fear to miss this ability if I miss my this nice apperance (quite anxious)

And economic matters may cause this.But I believe I am studying hard.

Dear ...

This isn't on topic. At all.....

 

 

Mike

This is quite interesting actually, though if I may, can you give me example of a real world model that isn't rigid?

[Mike Smith Cosmos 94]

.

Rigid ( now spelled correctly ) . I would think of say as a " Rigid thin steel rod " .

You could conceivably describe it mathematically by saying ( x = 2 , z= 4 to 8 ) inches .steel Rod 1 mm thick . That would be reasonably repeatable by any engineer or scientist as a :- 1 mm rod , sticking straight up in the air , some 2 inches away , raising from 4 to 8 inches above the surface ( say of a table ) . The steel rod is rigid and where it is held ( by whatever means ) positions it accurately sticking up in the air for all to find and see . You might want to add another coordinate y = 5 to describe rigidly in space where exactly this steel rod is ( relative to you at coordinates x= 0, y=0, z=0. ) .

 

Now it so happens this thin steel rod has a set of human hairs attached to the top waving about looking beautiful. So fine you can hardly distinguish them individually . But catching the sun light it looks attractive , and something to pick up and keep .

 

The rod is easily put in scientific , mathmatical terms . The beautiful hair is not either easily understood or described in normal scientific nomenclature ( ways ) .

 

 

Mike

Edited November 3, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont 7440]

.

Rigid ( now spelled correctly ) . I would think of say as a " Rigid thin steel rod " .

You could conceivably describe it mathematically by saying ( x = 2 , z= 4 to 8 ) inches .steel Rod 1 mm thick . That would be reasonably repeatable by any engineer or scientist as a :- 1 mm rod , sticking straight up in the air , some 2 inches away , raising from 4 to 8 inches above the surface ( say of a table ) . The steel rod is rigid and where it is held ( by whatever means ) positions it accurately sticking up in the air for all to find and see . You might want to add another coordinate y = 5 to describe rigidly in space where exactly this steel rod is ( relative to you at coordinates x= 0, y=0, z=0. ) .

 

Now it so happens this thin steel rod has a set of human hairs attached to the top waving about looking beautiful. So fine you can hardly distinguish them individually . But catching the sun light it looks attractive , and something to pick up and keep .

 

The rod is easily put in scientific , mathmatical terms . The beautiful hair is not either easily understood or described in normal scientific nomenclature ( ways ) .

 

image.jpeg

 

Mike

 

 

That doesn't really clear much up.

 

Are you asking why science doesn't describe beauty? It's the difference between objective and subjective observation. We can all measure the rod and compare notes, and all get the same answer (if we are in the same frame of reference) within measurement error. We are comparing length to a standard/ But there is no objective standard for beauty.

 

Are you asking why we can measure the one rod, but measuring the many hairs is hard? We see this in many ways in physics. It's a calculational impossibility to predict individual behavior of a large number of targets. Errors propagate and render any solution meaningless after some number of iterations. It's why it's hard to predict weather with accuracy over a long time span. We shift to collective behavior at some point. Mechanics applied to some small number of objects becomes thermodynamics (edit: or fluid dynamics) of a system of particles, for example. We can't tell what one specific object does, but we know what an average one, or the collective, will do.

[Strange 4271]

The rod is easily put in scientific , mathmatical terms . The beautiful hair is not either easily understood or described in normal scientific nomenclature ( ways ) .

 

 

Hair (as well as fluids such as liquids or gasses) can be described scientifically.

 

You might have seen some of the recent animated feature films with animals in. A great deal of work goes in to accurately (i.e. mathematically) modelling the physics and behaviour of fur and hair.

[Ophiolite 1814]

We can measure the total mass of the attached hair.

We can measure a sample of the hairs, determining the distribution of length, mass, diameter, colour, tensile strength, composition, internal structure, etc.

We can investigate the mechanism by which they are attached to the rod

We can use FEA to model their behaviour when subject to a variety of forces

And so on.

 

In short, Mike, we can achieve a comparable level of specification for the hair as we did for the rod. Since the hair is more complex it is not surprising that it takes more effort to achieve this, but that extra time/effort does not justify the dichotomy you feel exists.

[blue89 19]

Dear ...

This isn't on topic. At all.....

 

 

Mike

This is quite interesting actually, though if I may, can you give me example of a real world model that isn't rigid?

 

I think you are just such ones who are using very very traditional ways to do science.look and see the relevance please

(I generally use very very different approaches.)

look;

mike asks whether we are limiting our view of science via giving some instructions.

(I also think given instructions are suffıicient to make at least short interpretations furthermore please do not miss that everything might have relevance at the top of science but I will provide clear relevance)

look I believe somethings encourage and also give us potency to create new/novel approaches (like youth ,like beauty ,or like respect , like energy ,handsome appearance ..... at real we need novel approaches to reach different results.however ,that is quite clear that these are not the consistence of all ways how to reach novel approaches and so great results.

in addition , only novelty is not sufficient really,it should be useful.

Edited November 3, 2016 by blue89

[Raider5678 51]

 

I think you are just such ones who are using very very traditional ways to do science.look and see the relevance please

(I generally use very very different approaches.)

look;

mike asks whether we are limiting our view of science via giving some instructions.

(I also think given instructions are suffıicient to make at least short interpretations furthermore please do not miss that everything might have relevance at the top of science but I will provide clear relevance)

look I believe somethings encourage and also give us potency to create new/novel approaches (like youth ,like beauty ,or like respect , like energy ,handsome appearance ..... at real we need novel approaches to reach different results.however ,that is quite clear that these are not the consistence of all ways how to reach novel approaches and so great results.

in addition , only novelty is not sufficient really,it should be useful.

Hey adamım, değil demek için ama ya İngilizce öğrenmek ya da kendi ana dili konuşuyoruz. Mike instrutions hakkında hiçbir şey söylemedi, bu nedenle ilgili talimatlar hakkında bir parçası neydi?

[Mike Smith Cosmos 94]

That doesn't really clear much up.

 

Are you asking why science doesn't describe beauty? It's the difference between objective and subjective observation. We can all measure the rod and compare notes, and all get the same answer (if we are in the same frame of reference) within measurement error. We are comparing length to a standard/ But there is no objective standard for beauty.

 

Are you asking why we can measure the one rod, but measuring the many hairs is hard? We see this in many ways in physics. It's a calculational impossibility to predict individual behavior of a large number of targets. Errors propagate and render any solution meaningless after some number of iterations. It's why it's hard to predict weather with accuracy over a long time span. We shift to collective behavior at some point. Mechanics applied to some small number of objects becomes thermodynamics (edit: or fluid dynamics) of a system of particles, for example. We can't tell what one specific object does, but we know what an average one, or the collective, will do.

.

We can measure the total mass of the attached hair.

We can measure a sample of the hairs, determining the distribution of length, mass, diameter, colour, tensile strength, composition, internal structure, etc.

We can investigate the mechanism by which they are attached to the rod

We can use FEA to model their behaviour when subject to a variety of forces

And so on.

 

In short, Mike, we can achieve a comparable level of specification for the hair as we did for the rod. Since the hair is more complex it is not surprising that it takes more effort to achieve this, but that extra time/effort does not justify the dichotomy you feel exists.

Both of you have tried to explain how very complicated calculations could be brought to bear on the individual hairs , so as to calculate and understand the reason for the hairs existence, even as one could work out the use of the steel rod .

 

However by looking at complex , not easily defined , flowing hair , it might be necessary to look from a different approach .

 

.

 

From a different view point , the meaning and understanding need very little explanation . We become fooled that understanding every detailed movement and position , is necessary for understanding . In this case , even if you could work it out mathematically , it would be meaningless.

 

Mike

Edited November 3, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange 4271]

However by looking at complex , not easily defined , flowing hair , it might be necessary to look from a different approach .

 

 

Why? And what sort of "different approach"?

 

Anyway, as my example of computer animation shows, this is not true.

[blue89 19]

Hey adamım, değil demek için ama ya İngilizce öğrenmek ya da kendi ana dili konuşuyoruz. Mike instrutions hakkında hiçbir şey söylemedi, bu nedenle ilgili talimatlar hakkında bir parçası neydi?

 

really I hope I will never be in such failings like you did about politeness.

this and string's words are the worst expressions in turkish. probably you do not believe about my english & turkish & native language

 

I have decided a thing.

I will try to write my comments short and comonly with passive voices. I think these last allegations are insultive. We have warned many many times.

 

the reasons (computer falings,caused by economic matters)

the explanations relevant to moral (ethics)

the intellectuality

 

anyway. at last ,I would strongly remind that *** blue89 **** does not need anyone to learn academic knowledge.

you are free. but I am missing the time with repeating this time to time so commonly.

I am going to apply patent institutes and I am sure I am able to write great articles. you and that rude one do not know what I have written in my paper.

it was not easy. it was containing strict formulas.and as it expressed. to think that any mathematician would be unable to do hard science is ridiculous.

 

continue your insultings or failings.

Edited November 3, 2016 by blue89

[swansont 7440]

.

Both of you have tried to explain how very complicated calculations could be brought to bear on the individual hairs , so as to calculate and understand the reason for the hairs existence, even as one could work out the use of the steel rod .

 

However by looking at complex , not easily defined , flowing hair , it might be necessary to look from a different approach .

 

.image.jpeg

 

From a different view point , the meaning and understanding need very little explanation . We become fooled that understanding every detailed movement and position , is necessary for understanding . In this case , even if you could work it out mathematically , it would be meaningless.

 

Mike

 

 

 

IOW, you didn't read what I wrote: When looking at the individual parts becomes too complex, you look at collective behavior.

 

IOW, we already do what you are bemoaning we don't do. What is your point?

 

However by looking at complex , not easily defined , flowing hair , it might be necessary to look from a different approach .

 

 

 

You still haven't explained what behavior of the hair you are trying to model.

[Mike Smith Cosmos 94]

IOW, you didn't read what I wrote: When looking at the individual parts becomes too complex, you look at collective behavior.

 

IOW, we already do what you are bemoaning we don't do. What is your point?

 

 

You still haven't explained what behavior of the hair you are trying to model.

.

Well , yes we do already do ( not usually viewed as a science context ) . Namely us males , we do get attracted by a ladies flowing hair , very much . In fact I would say it is one of the initial , attractive drivers, of a man to a woman .

 

Yes we understand the attraction of an electron to a positive proton in an atom , in a science context . As with all charges in particles. But it is , a very similar process on a different scale . This is not ' glib ' and the point I am making is serious .

 

As regards ' modelling hair ' I think women spend a great deal of success in modelling their hair .

 

Mike

Edited November 3, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[DrP 591]

I just looked up the Turkish translation of that paragraph above to see what was so offensive about it.

 

Translated by google "Hey man, not to say, but we either learn English or speak their native language. Did not say anything about Mike instructions, what was part of the instructions about that?"

 

Seriously blue, what was it that you found so offensive about this?

QUOTE: "The worst expressions in Turkish" - Really? I was expecting something much juicier than some friendly advice.

[blue89 19]

because Turkish is very very sensitive language.my native language is kurdish. but again turkish people say that My turkish was very very elite.

they are right at a point. this language requires very very careful and high balance and also ability.

generally arabic , france and persian people cannot reach the elite version before 10 years. because this language does not accept some pronunciation versions and also conflict with these filologies.

 

the offensive thing is just repeating this. also they do not believe anything which I say. but aren't they are ridiculous to use such a big words like "your english is not poor,worse than that.We are feeling us tired. I have been feeling me quite nervous and. although I may use "naughty boy "version ,I did not do this anytime. so they are offensive and also IMPOLITE (but more non-objective (the origin of problem).

to be honest,there exists stronger scientific contexts,but I cannot understand the reason why someones are repeating the same thing ("your english is not good").

Generally I hate to see repeated actions.

 

probably this would be another relevance with this thread.

--- they limit their view of science ---

 

the result of I saw about this issue.

Edited November 3, 2016 by blue89

[Ophiolite 1814]

.

Well , yes we do already do ( not usually viewed as a science context ) . Namely us males , we do get attracted by a ladies flowing hair , very much . In fact I would say it is one of the initial , attractive drivers, of a man to a woman .

 

Yes we understand the attraction of an electron to a positive proton in an atom , in a science context . As with all charges in particles. But it is , a very similar process on a different scale . This is not ' glib ' and the point I am making is serious .

 

As regards ' modelling hair ' I think women spend a great deal of success in modelling their hair .

 

Mike

Frankly Mike, some of the time you make as much sense as Blue89.

 

If you are trying to say that one can appreciate some things better through poetry, or art, or internal reflection, or a sense of spirituality I might well agree.

 

But if you say we can understand some things better that way, then I would tend to disagree. Science is designed to construct models of reality. It is not there to provide reasons, or purpose, or to answer the why questions?. If you are looking for it to do so you are looking in the long place?

 

You say you are making a serious point. What is it please?

to be honest,there exists stronger scientific contexts,but I cannot understand the reason why someones are repeating the same thing ("your english is not good").

Generally I hate to see repeated actions.

People are repeating that your English is not good because you have refused to accept that it is not good.

 

If you would say this : "I realise that my English is of poor quality. I would like you all to help me improve."

Then we would stop telling you that your Enlgish is not good and we would work to help you improve it.

 

I also hate to see repeated actions. The repeated action I hate just now is your repeated refusal to accept that your English is not good. That is all I have to say on the matter. You are now on Ignore.

[blue89 19]

I think I am not such pinerous that hide my achievements in my comments there. but in my opinion ,surely you have no empathy to understand me.

look :

"I still have no money "

but I also have no published academic materials at NPG (meanwhile I would write only at NPG)"

because of these lacknesses ,I normally feel me hurt when someones say something like blaming me via such following sentence "You do not use scientific methods"

I say when I took an acceptance you will be paralyzed both for your critiques which are relevant to language and science. I perfectly accept critiques. but do not repeat please the same critique and try to make more objectively and also meaningful.

and as result ,we are not willing to write there our all scientific materials...

but surely this cannot mean that we were pinerous nor use methods which are not scientific.

We never accept insultive expressions.

look what "uncultured " means for further help about our initial discussion relevant to that rude member.

it is also quite surprising while you are willing to help someones,he/she insults you and cause somethings which reminiscents like "punishment"

UNACCEPTABLE....

could someone speak more intimately please,what they would me to do?

if they would me to leave there ok. that is not so much difficult.

SOME PRINCIPLES

 

please do not be concise at anything except scientific laws.

please do use polite tongue

please do not think that you are the best or better than anyone

remember please ,all we are here

[Raider5678 51]

 

really I hope I will never be in such failings like you did about politeness.

this and string's words are the worst expressions in turkish. probably you do not believe about my english & turkish & native language

 

I have decided a thing.

I will try to write my comments short and comonly with passive voices. I think these last allegations are insultive. We have warned many many times.

 

the reasons (computer falings,caused by economic matters)

the explanations relevant to moral (ethics)

the intellectuality

 

anyway. at last ,I would strongly remind that *** blue89 **** does not need anyone to learn academic knowledge.

you are free. but I am missing the time with repeating this time to time so commonly.

I am going to apply patent institutes and I am sure I am able to write great articles. you and that rude one do not know what I have written in my paper.

it was not easy. it was containing strict formulas.and as it expressed. to think that any mathematician would be unable to do hard science is ridiculous.

 

continue your insultings or failings.

*Face palm*

How about this, Turkish grammar can't be used in the same context the english is used in. They are two entirely different things. While you may understand English words, you surely do not understand the grammar that takes twelve years for native speakers to learn in schools. If you do not need anybody or anything to teach your self, then I applaud you, but you still need to learn. I would suggest comparing the two different grammar formats for English and Turkish so that you can understand the difference between them easier.

[Strange 4271]

I think I am not such pinerous ...

 

I have had enough and I have reported your incoherent, incomprehensible, rambling, egotistical, arrogant and off topic post to the moderators. I don't suppose they will ban you. But, at this point, I would.

[blue89 19]

anyway ...

I am leaving permamently..

someones uses apparently insulting word

"arrogant" cannot be acepted!!!!...

I am closing this account via closing the mail.

I hate impolite ones!

anyway ...

 

I have had enough and I have reported your incoherent, incomprehensible, rambling, egotistical, arrogant and off topic post to the moderators. I don't suppose they will ban you. But, at this point, I would.

 

you are not speaking honestly.

you have understood everything and you are complaining incoherence just remember that almost all of my queries have been answered by yourself (!)

Edited November 3, 2016 by blue89

[swansont 7440]

.

Well , yes we do already do ( not usually viewed as a science context ) . Namely us males , we do get attracted by a ladies flowing hair , very much . In fact I would say it is one of the initial , attractive drivers, of a man to a woman .

 

Yes we understand the attraction of an electron to a positive proton in an atom , in a science context . As with all charges in particles. But it is , a very similar process on a different scale . This is not ' glib ' and the point I am making is serious .

 

As regards ' modelling hair ' I think women spend a great deal of success in modelling their hair .

 

Mike

 

 

You are using two different definitions of attraction here. Surely you can see that. It is not a similar process. Not at all.

 

One hairstyle may be attractive to you, but not to someone else. This is subjective. It's difficult if not impossible to do this objectively. It's not something for science to do.

[Mike Smith Cosmos 94]

You are using two different definitions of attraction here. Surely you can see that. It is not a similar process. Not at all.

 

One hairstyle may be attractive to you, but not to someone else. This is subjective. It's difficult if not impossible to do this objectively. It's not something for science to do.

.

Well I think , ' herein lays the problem ' . We currently think science understanding , must be couched in the current, ' centre stage ' language of science , namely mathematics. And exactness.

 

In order to succeed in her attraction. A woman will spend a great deal of creative activity to attract her male prey. Also , So with the peacock , although I beleive the sexes are reversed in this instance.

 

Whether 'set charge ' in the case of particles , the principle of attraction with ' women's hair ' . It is the same , perhaps with more sophistication. Maybe humans require a higher level of sophistication.

 

So if I am right with what I am suggesting . Maybe there is a requirement for looking for more sophisticated mechanisms , amongs the mysteries of " how the universe works " , than logical mathematics? Only a suggestion ! It is worth a try . After all the universe has built up to be pretty sophisticated in both the way it is both there in a material form and also in a living form .

 

Some of the mechanism in life forms , from amoeba to human , are pretty sophisticated. So why not ' a sophisticated mechanism ' for sophisticated life ? Or sophisticated ' non living systems across the Universe?

 

Mike

Edited November 3, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Ophiolite 1814]

.

Well I think , ' herein lays the problem ' . We currently think science understanding , must be couched in the current, ' centre stage ' language of science , namely mathematics. And exactness.

Wrong. Completely wrong.

 

We have discovered that being exact, using mathematics, having a precision of language all contribute to the immense success of science in building our understanding of the world.

 

Conversely, we have learned that using subjective perspectives, employing loose terminology because it evokes positive "feelings" and paying undue attention to analogies and simplifications leads to ineffective models, with poor predictive abilities and very little connection with reality.

 

In order to succeed in her attraction. A woman will spend a great deal of creative activity to attract her male prey. Also , So with the peacock , although I beleive the sexes are reversed in this instance. Whether 'set charge ' in the case of particles , the principle of attraction with ' women's hair ' . It is the same , perhaps with more sophistication. Maybe humans require a higher level of sophistication.

(I do wish you would write in proper sentences.) It is not the same. The only similarity between the two is the use of the word attraction which has two distinct meanings.

 

Attraction, in the context of sexual attraction, involves consideration of instincts, pheromones, evolutionary pathways, cultural constraints, physiology and a host more besides. This is not sophistication, this is a complex interplay of physical, chemical, biochemical and social factors. Sophistication might be applied as poor metaphor, but metaphors are meant to clarify not obfuscate.

 

Attraction, in the context of attraction between charged particles as a well investigated, documented, quantified phenomenon cannot be mapped to sexual attraction. This is not because one is simple and one is spohisticated, it is because they cannot be so mapped. They are wholly different phenomena. You are not comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing F type main sequence stars with Imperial typewriters.

 

So if I am right with what I am suggesting . Maybe there is a requirement for looking for more sophisticated mechanisms , amongs the mysteries of " how the universe works " , than logical mathematics? Only a suggestion ! It is worth a try . After all the universe has built up to be pretty sophisticated in both the way it is both there in a material form and also in a living form .

Emergence is a well studied and debated phenomenon. Scientists already use both holisitc and reductionist approaches. They do so based upon careful consideration of the implications, constraints and potential of each approach, not based upon weak and inappropriate analogies between charge and haute couture.

 

Some of the mechanism in life forms , from amoeba to human , are pretty sophisticated. So why not ' a sophisticated mechanism ' for sophisticated life ? Or sophisticated ' non living systems across the Universe?

Because, to purloin the words of La Place, I have no need of that hypothesis.