TO: Jonathan
FROM: Roger
RE: Random patterns
JONATHAN:
Things can only be declared patterned or random by reference to external
parameters.
Neither characterestic is intrinsic in any objective sense.
ROGER:
I agree completely. Reality is. 'Patterned 'or 'random' is an
interpretation of experience. Pysicist Paul Davies defines nonrandom as a
number or pattern that can be generated or defined in fewer bits than the
number or pattern itself. Random is that which can't. He also says almost
all numbers are random, but most cannot be proven random.
Do you agree with this definition? If so, it clearly reinforces the MOQ's
view that patterns are metaphysical intellectual constructs. Note that this
does not lead to solipsism though (Rick), as the patterns are intellectual
constructs based on experience or events, which are not subjective in the MOQ.
JONATHAN:
Sorry to keep harping back to thermodynamics, but I just now realized
that Pirsig's words are a direct statement of the Second Law which says
that systems tend towards maximum entropy i.e. towards the state which
offers the greatest number of degrees of FREEDOM.
Does this impress anyone else?
Evidently nobody else was impressed, because there was no response.
Thermodynamics applies this statistical principle to molecular entities.
In the 1930s, Claude Shannon realized that the same statistical principle
could be applied to abstract entities, thus a whole theory of
information/communication science developed.
I am extremely happy that the same ideas find expression in Pirsig's MoQ.
ROGER
Let me again try to clarify terms. Entropy is the amount of disorder in a
system, right? The lower the entropy, the higher the information and
pattern. You agree?
Next, The 2nd law can be defined as stating that "closed systems in thermal
equilibrium should spend nearly all their time at or near maximum entropy."
Again, as there are lots more disordered states than ordered, the 2nd law is
a statistical probability. For example, there are 495 trillion more ways to
disorder a simple pack of 52 cards than there are to order them.
Statistically speaking, the entropy should be pretty constant on the deck
unless you start with the totally contrived and unlikely occurance of the
cards being sorted in order. You ok here as well?
My question is on your statement that "systems tend towards maximum entropy
i.e. towards the state which
offers the greatest number of degrees of FREEDOM." Is an unpatterned state a
higher degree of freedom? I agree it is a more likely arrangement, but a
freer arrangement? Could you explain more?
JONATHAN (from your website):
The laws of diffusion and the gas laws provide a useful and definitive way of
describing the behaviour of populations of molecules. Yet, the "obedience" of
the population to those rules is no more than an expression of the totally
random movements and collisions of individual molecules. There is no external
cause or force which causes a group of gas molecules to spread out by
diffusion. Furthermore, the work done by an expanding gas is an expression of
the same random behaviour. This begs the question "do the individual
molecules really behave randomly?" On the one hand, that was our starting
hypothesis. On the other hand, that behaviour causes the population to behave
non-randomly.
ROGER:
Slow down..... Pressure, volume and temperature (and entropy) are all
emergent statistical averages of the population based upon the specific
context of the experiment. They are patterns that emerge from statistical
random interaction. But the context of the experiment is totally contrived.
We define the experiment. We get the gas, build the container, put the gas
in the the container and set up the context in which volume or temperature or
disorder have meaning.
We are creating a pattern from our experiment that emerge statistically out
of the unpatterned interactions reacting with our test conditions. Do you
agree?
JONATHAN:
The above contradiction may in fact stem from two inherently contradictory
world views, which are both incorporated in scientific theory.
Newtons mechanics regards matter as inherently stable, following constant
trajectories which only change in response to changes in external forces.
Thermodynamics says that all matter has an inherent tendency to dissolve into
disorder unless it is somehow held back.
ROGER:
Hmmm...... I would agree with your take on Newton, but would add that
complexity theory adds that our knowledge of the interactions and
trajectories is imperfect, and hence we lose the ability to pattern or
predict anything about individual particles. Complexity overwhelms our
ability to pattern. However, statistics comes to our rescue and new emergent
qualities (volume, pressure, etc) can be patterned.
Entropy or disorder is just another example of statistical emergence. With
52 cards, you can be sure (495 trillion to one) the distribution is random.
With billions of particles, the certainty is virtually infinite. I would say
that thermodynamics says that that which is ordered is likely to get
disordered. That which is disordered is likely to stay disordered.
JONATHAN:
Randomness (lack of patterned behaviour) is not inherent to the system! It is
a perception of the system. We can consider a gas as a large number of
individual randomly-moving molecules, or as an elastic fluid substance with
the properties summarized by the gas laws. The difference between the random
and non-random viewpoint is one of perception, and has no basis in the
properties of the gas. Thus, randomness cannot be considered an objective
property of the whole system.
ROGER:
Agree.
JONATHAN:
Einstein firmly held that there must be causal mechanisms that determine the
statistical distributions. Einstein would have said that molecular
statistical mechanics was different, since it would be theoretically possible
to track each individual molecule's movements and collisions, and explain its
path in terms of classical mechanics. The dogma of quantum mechanics is that
an equivalent analysis of subatomic particles is theoretically impossible.
But in the final analysis, the question may not even matter. Quantum
mechanics has no need for the classical causal mechanism Einstein sought, and
thermodynamics has no need for a classical analysis of individual molecular
movements. In both cases, statistical considerations provide a perfectly
adequate starting point.
ROGER:
Adequate to explain reality. But it didn't meet Einstein's definitions of
the reducibility of a good quality theory. The highest quality
interpretations of reality are not ultimately reductionist or deterministic.
Albert didn't want to accept this though did he? He somehow could accept it
as long as he could cling to a theoretical belief that the individual
Brownian motion could be tracked. Quantum reality forced him to discard that
(probably incorrect) view. (or have I misstated something here?)
JONATHAN:
....ultimately, when it comes to deciding on which definition of cause best
suits the science of thermodynamics, the tautological description of chemical
reactions given above makes no distinction. Instead, the cause of change
becomes an all encompassing concept which transcends any division of meaning.
ROGER:
What does the last sentence mean?
Oh, BTW the end of your paper goes on to explain one of the classic examples
that contradicts, or perhaps complicates, thermodynamics. Living beings
resist entropy. According to Ilya Prigogene, they bring "order out of
chaos" via irreversible chemical reactions creating self-amplifying feedback.
There is one other major weakness in themodynamics, namely that there is a
lack of scientific understanding of gravitational entropy. The prevalent
view though is that gravity becomes more ordered with more information with
increasing entropy.
In terms of the MOQ, the first two levels of patterns can be said to be
defined by exceptions to entropy. Gravity-- the weakest force-- to a large
extent creates the inorganic level of galaxies, stars, our world, and our
energy source (the sun). Chemical feedback loops create life. I wonder if
this pattern continues within the other two levels?
I have other thoughts and brainstorm ideas on the topic, but I better stop
here for now.
Let me know your thoughts and let me know where I have misinterpretted you.
Roger
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
