Sorry for any confusion.
It was the videos that I thought people might like... and then any discussion
it generated might be bonus. Maybe I shouldn't have said anything, and just
forwarded the videos.
The demonstrator in the video has been teaching physics at the University of
Sydney for quite a long time. He uses information-speak in a few places. One
example is when he explains that the bottom does not move:
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
"until the bottom end gets the information that
the tension has changed. It takes time for that information to propagate down
through the slinky to reach the bottom end. It is propagating down as a
compressional
wave."
The host/narrator in the video then throws in the term 'know' a couple of
times, and the demonstrator goes along with it smoothly.
In contrast, Bruce gave a perfectly good explanation without any of that
additional baggage. So why do so many people (including professional
physicists) find the 'information' and 'know' language so appealing?
Eric
P.S. I thanked Bruce off list for the very cool and insightful explanations
regarding the speed of light, but I'll mention my thanks again here.
On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 12:58 AM, "Nicholas Thompson"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>
>Hi, Eric,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>I agree that using the term signal to describe “anything that happens” or
term “information” to describe “anything related to anything that
happens” is bad form.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>But who did that? Certainly not Bruce.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>When you (eric) wrote
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Why would you want to take that perfectly good explanation and insert things
like "The bottom part of the slinky doesn't know to move until it gets
information indicating that the top part is falling." The idea that you enhance
the physical description of the slinky by anthropomorphizing it in that way is
weird
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Who were you quoting? I know people who talk like that. But the “you”
was a “one-you” not a “you-you”, right?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>And what about hero Gibson’s use of the term? Doesn’t he refer to
“information pickup” as if the physical relation between two thing
constitutes knowledge about the one provided by the other?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>I haven’t looked at the videos yet.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of ERIC P. CHARLES
>Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2011 9:44 PM
>To: Bruce Sherwood
>Cc: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Droping a Slinky (Q&A)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>
>Bruce says:
>Until the ("sound" or "mechanical") wave in the slinky propagates down to
lower parts of the hanging slinky, there is no reason/cause for the lower parts
of the slinky to change position, and they don't. And as long as the lower
parts of the slinky are stretched, they will continue to support the load below
them just as they had been doing before the top of the slinky was released.
Hence the bottom of the slinky will not move until the wave has propagated down
far enough that the slinky just above the bottom is no longer stretched.
>
>I says:
>Yes, exactly!
>Why would you want to take that perfectly good explanation and insert things
like "The bottom part of the slinky doesn't know to move until it gets
information indicating that the top part is falling." The idea that you enhance
the physical description of the slinky by anthropomorphizing it in that way is
weird. (Note, this clearly isn't a Shannon 'information' thing either... at
least not as far as I can tell. I cannot see anything analogous to a decision
being made after a clarification of uncertainty. There is no analog to signal
and noise.)
>
>
>
>
>
============================================================
>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
Eric Charles
Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
