Re: Where Math and Logic are Insufficient
On 07/12/2008, at 4:29 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: (The Court Jester wrote): What you cannot say is what is determining the order in the chaos once it arrives. That's closer to what I mean. 2 men start to dig a hole. They are instructed to make it reach a depth of 5 feet. One of them murders the other with his shovel. Nobody predicted that would happen. >>> How do you know that? Maybe it was quite predictable. >>> >> >> >> Except nobody did predict it. That's my point. It was perfectly >> obvious why only after the event. Police checks, medical checks etc. >> revealed the pattern that pointed to the causation. Before the event, >> this information was available too. Nobody saw anything tending or >> pending in the information beforehand. >> > > Some people saw it. For example W saw a report titled "Bin Laden to > strike in U.S." An FBI agent was told that some middle eastern guy > was > taking lessons in flying an airliner but wasn't interested in learning > to land it. I'd say that in this case the difficulty is that while > the > relevant information was available, so was irrelevant information and > the irrelevant information was so much greater it swamped the > relevant. Yessir!. So - we are surely in agreement that we MUST get some technique happening for looking at information with more effective starting concepts! If we just say - "give me all the data and I'll sort through it" we've got ten years of bloody work ahead of us. Meanwhile, the terrorists have struck and we haven't even left the starting gate. That's what I mean by "the evolving and accelerating universe". In fact, the guy who murdered his co-worker with the shovel was a fundamentalist Islamic. His co-worker said to him as they dug the trench "did you hear about that guy who stuck a copy of the Koran down a toilet in the USA and filmed it to post on YouTube? What a lark" "ALLAHU AKHBAR" - DOING!! (with the shovel) The police knew this guy attended a dodgy, fundamentalist Madrassah when he was a kid, and even that he had pinups of Bin Laden in his bedroom. But then - so what? Lots of Islamics have pinups of Bin Laden in their bedroom.are they all murderers? The problem is that information arrives PIECE by PIECE - one item at a time. Even if it arrives as a tsunami of data on your computer, you can only successfully review it piece by piece (if you appreciate the limitations of how the brain works) and you are doing your job properly. The temptation to shove it all into some "wonder (Microsoft?) application" which will sort through all of it and find the patterns, becomes overwhelming, once the data reaches a critical volume. I mean - fuck!!! - what were computers invented for?? One can only make the optimum use of the AVAILABLE information at any one moment. You have a massive problem here where you are drowning in the available information - as the 9/11 observers were. There are TRILLIONS of web pages floating around in cyberspace. Which are the good ones and which are the dodgy ones? How can you tell? Do you actually have the TIME to sort through all this shit, dear Brent? Your boss wants an outcome and a decision by YESTERDAY > >> Schoolteachers have to do "Risk assessments" to evaluate the >> possibility of harm to students on excursion. Studies have shown that >> risk assessments do nothing to reduce the incidence of accidents or >> misadventure. > Of course predictions an analyses, however accurate, are useless if no > one acts on them. If the schoolteacher notes that sunburn is a likely > hazard but she doesn't bring any sunblock is it an accident? Yes, where the teacher was instructed to fill out a risk assessment accurately and that was the end of the matter (it usually is). NOBODY told her she actually had to READ the bloody Risk Assessment and ACT on what it suggests. Teachers aren't taught to THINK for themselves or to "join up the dots". They merely do what they are told in their Diploma of Education which is usually taught by over-superannuated academics with no experience of life or teaching ability themselves, lecturing off yellowing handwritten notes they slung together in the 1960s. They then pass this servile, dickhead mentality on to the kids they teach. And the world goes down the toiletbut I can see from later on that you probably agree with me on this! > I'm very > familiar with risk assessments and how worthless they are. I work at a > major missile test range where risk assessments are required for every > test. I love people who get down and get their hands dirty - you are my hero Brent (truly - no condescension implied here) > The main reason they are worthless is that they *necessarily* > include only risks we've thought of. EXACTLY dear boy! So - how can we do the "quantum leap " (love that term) in our thinking and simulate alte
Re: Where Math and Logic are Insufficient
Kim Jones wrote: > On 07/12/2008, at 3:00 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > >> Kim Jones wrote: >> >>> On 06/12/2008, at 6:18 PM, A. Wolf wrote: >>> >>> >>> > I guess what I am on about is a bit closer to the 80s idea of > "chaos" > - something that is inherently unpredictable; at least if you adopt > the stance of always launching your prediction from a single > present - > the one you happen to find yourself in. > > I think you mean randomness, not chaos. Chaos theory deals with deterministic systems that vary widely in result based on small changes in initial starting conditions; these systems are 100% predictable. >>> Don't believe in randomness. "Random" means we don't understand what >>> determines it. Like "Junk DNA"; it's only junk up until we work out >>> what it's really for. >>> You can predict with 100% accuracy that systems with varying initial >>> conditions will bifurcate and become chaotic once driven beyond a >>> certain point. What you cannot say is what is determining the order >>> in >>> the chaos once it arrives. That's closer to what I mean. >>> >>> 2 men start to dig a hole. They are instructed to make it reach a >>> depth of 5 feet. One of them murders the other with his shovel. >>> Nobody >>> predicted that would happen. >>> >> How do you know that? Maybe it was quite predictable. >> > > > Except nobody did predict it. That's my point. It was perfectly > obvious why only after the event. Police checks, medical checks etc. > revealed the pattern that pointed to the causation. Before the event, > this information was available too. Nobody saw anything tending or > pending in the information beforehand. > Some people saw it. For example W saw a report titled "Bin Laden to strike in U.S." An FBI agent was told that some middle eastern guy was taking lessons in flying an airliner but wasn't interested in learning to land it. I'd say that in this case the difficulty is that while the relevant information was available, so was irrelevant information and the irrelevant information was so much greater it swamped the relevant. > Schoolteachers have to do "Risk assessments" to evaluate the > possibility of harm to students on excursion. Studies have shown that > risk assessments do nothing to reduce the incidence of accidents or > misadventure. Of course predictions an analyses, however accurate, are useless if no one acts on them. If the schoolteacher notes that sunburn is a likely hazard but she doesn't bring any sunblock is it an accident? I'm very familiar with risk assessments and how worthless they are. I work at a major missile test range where risk assessments are required for every test. The main reason they are worthless is that they *necessarily* include only risks we've thought of. Any risk we've thought of has already been the object of efforts to reduce it's probability to a very low level, typically 0.001. Of course the probability there is some risk we haven't thought of is greater than 0.001 - so it's almost always the risk we hadn't thought of that bites us. > Accidents simply happen. Accidents are still determined > by something. We call it an accident only because we have no way > before it happens of knowing that the cotter pin in the driving arm > was about to shear off leaving the train without an effective brake > system. Once the plane crashes, the black box reveals most of what we > wish we had known beforehand. > > The problem is TIME - the sequence of the arrival of information > determines how we look at it > The problem is also TIME as in the man hours it takes to know about things. We have a way to knowing whether that cotter pin was about to shear off - but it's expensive and time consuming to implement; so we don't go around x-raying cotter pins for micro-cracks. We may require replacing the periodically, but that can be expensive to. So a some level we decide things are *good enough*. For example, do you know how many people were killed in accidents, hijackings, and terrorist events on U.S. airlines and airliners flying in U.S. airspace between Nov 2001 and Oct 2005? The answer is zero. > > > >> >>> We can 'determine' the reasons for this >>> event only AFTER it happens, even though it was determined by >>> something that we might have noticed prior to the event if only we >>> had >>> been able to. All action can be seen as logically determined in >>> hindsight. >>> >> You must not have heard of quantum mechanics. >> > > > I have. I am clearly speaking about the macro world where time travels > (apparently) in one direction only and there is this tendency for an > action to be followed by an effect or another action. 'Action' in this > context refers mainly to the activity of conscious agents, humans. It > may yet be shown that protons and quarks
Re: Where Math and Logic are Insufficient
On 07/12/2008, at 3:00 AM, Brent Meeker wrote: > > Kim Jones wrote: >> On 06/12/2008, at 6:18 PM, A. Wolf wrote: >> >> I guess what I am on about is a bit closer to the 80s idea of "chaos" - something that is inherently unpredictable; at least if you adopt the stance of always launching your prediction from a single present - the one you happen to find yourself in. >>> I think you mean randomness, not chaos. Chaos theory deals with >>> deterministic systems that vary widely in result based on small >>> changes in >>> initial starting conditions; these systems are 100% predictable. >>> >> >> >> Don't believe in randomness. "Random" means we don't understand what >> determines it. Like "Junk DNA"; it's only junk up until we work out >> what it's really for. >> You can predict with 100% accuracy that systems with varying initial >> conditions will bifurcate and become chaotic once driven beyond a >> certain point. What you cannot say is what is determining the order >> in >> the chaos once it arrives. That's closer to what I mean. >> >> 2 men start to dig a hole. They are instructed to make it reach a >> depth of 5 feet. One of them murders the other with his shovel. >> Nobody >> predicted that would happen. > How do you know that? Maybe it was quite predictable. Except nobody did predict it. That's my point. It was perfectly obvious why only after the event. Police checks, medical checks etc. revealed the pattern that pointed to the causation. Before the event, this information was available too. Nobody saw anything tending or pending in the information beforehand. Schoolteachers have to do "Risk assessments" to evaluate the possibility of harm to students on excursion. Studies have shown that risk assessments do nothing to reduce the incidence of accidents or misadventure. Accidents simply happen. Accidents are still determined by something. We call it an accident only because we have no way before it happens of knowing that the cotter pin in the driving arm was about to shear off leaving the train without an effective brake system. Once the plane crashes, the black box reveals most of what we wish we had known beforehand. The problem is TIME - the sequence of the arrival of information determines how we look at it > > >> We can 'determine' the reasons for this >> event only AFTER it happens, even though it was determined by >> something that we might have noticed prior to the event if only we >> had >> been able to. All action can be seen as logically determined in >> hindsight. > You must not have heard of quantum mechanics. I have. I am clearly speaking about the macro world where time travels (apparently) in one direction only and there is this tendency for an action to be followed by an effect or another action. 'Action' in this context refers mainly to the activity of conscious agents, humans. It may yet be shown that protons and quarks have 'agency' but that is not really at issue here > And how can you know the > causes seen in hindsight are correct. Not causes - merely that there existed a logical pattern of connections that led from A through to D that we were blind to at the time. If, in hindsight we do not spot the logical connections then we have no way of understanding the event at all. I guess there may well be examples of that, too > Modeling the past is hard too. > In what sense do we know why the terrorists flew planes in the WTC? Because everything we already knew about them before the event was still available to us after the event. After the event, everyone could see the powerful pattern in the data that they were blind to before the event. In a sense we knew this COULD happen. We simply could not predict that they would make the decision to act on what everybody (intelligence agancies, CIA etc.) already were aware of. > > >> Before something happens is where we would like to be more >> on top of things. Intelligence exists on terrorism but usually this >> usually fails to determine our actions to prevent terrorist acts, >> interestingly enough. If you look closely at what I am saying, it is >> the rather messy human consciousness part of the equation that SPOILS >> the mathematical modelling in most cases. > > Sure. Humans and even most animals are extremely complicated. Even > things like weather and viscous flow over an aircraft are to > complicated > to model except approximately over a limited range. > >> I am saying that a full >> perceptual scan of the situation often takes us way beyond what the >> data suggests. Just like the Mumbai massacre - intelligence WAS >> available that suggested it could happen. Yet the massacre was >> "allowed" to happen, because nobody could see the looming pattern in >> the data until after it happened by which time it was bleeding >> obvious >> to one and all. It seems that in many situations the sheer volume of >> i
Re: Where Math and Logic are Insufficient
Kim Jones wrote: > On 06/12/2008, at 6:18 PM, A. Wolf wrote: > > >>> I guess what I am on about is a bit closer to the 80s idea of "chaos" >>> - something that is inherently unpredictable; at least if you adopt >>> the stance of always launching your prediction from a single >>> present - >>> the one you happen to find yourself in. >>> >> I think you mean randomness, not chaos. Chaos theory deals with >> deterministic systems that vary widely in result based on small >> changes in >> initial starting conditions; these systems are 100% predictable. >> > > > Don't believe in randomness. "Random" means we don't understand what > determines it. Like "Junk DNA"; it's only junk up until we work out > what it's really for. > You can predict with 100% accuracy that systems with varying initial > conditions will bifurcate and become chaotic once driven beyond a > certain point. What you cannot say is what is determining the order in > the chaos once it arrives. That's closer to what I mean. > > 2 men start to dig a hole. They are instructed to make it reach a > depth of 5 feet. One of them murders the other with his shovel. Nobody > predicted that would happen. How do you know that? Maybe it was quite predictable. > We can 'determine' the reasons for this > event only AFTER it happens, even though it was determined by > something that we might have noticed prior to the event if only we had > been able to. All action can be seen as logically determined in > hindsight. You must not have heard of quantum mechanics. And how can you know the causes seen in hindsight are correct. Modeling the past is hard too. In what sense do we know why the terrorists flew planes in the WTC? > Before something happens is where we would like to be more > on top of things. Intelligence exists on terrorism but usually this > usually fails to determine our actions to prevent terrorist acts, > interestingly enough. If you look closely at what I am saying, it is > the rather messy human consciousness part of the equation that SPOILS > the mathematical modelling in most cases. Sure. Humans and even most animals are extremely complicated. Even things like weather and viscous flow over an aircraft are to complicated to model except approximately over a limited range. > I am saying that a full > perceptual scan of the situation often takes us way beyond what the > data suggests. Just like the Mumbai massacre - intelligence WAS > available that suggested it could happen. Yet the massacre was > "allowed" to happen, because nobody could see the looming pattern in > the data until after it happened by which time it was bleeding obvious > to one and all. It seems that in many situations the sheer volume of > information available is as much a part of the problem as the decision- > making process. How do we decide? Data alone are incapable of making > decisions. You still need a wet, messy human brain with a perceptually > skilled mind to do that > And apparently that doesn't work all that well either. > > >> >>> Isn't this kind of like an act of faith? >>> >> No. Faith isn't based on evidence. When we use math to model >> things in >> reality, we do so empirically. If a distribution doesn't fit after >> testing >> it, we don't use it to model that set of data, for example. How we >> use math >> functionally is different from math itself. >> > > > Sure, but correlations occur between sets of data and there is a > tendency for them to look like causations. Most scientists and data > collectors are trained to say "correlations do not necessarily imply > causations" which is great advice up until the correlation turns out > to BE a causation > You just seem to on a rant against everyone who thinks, calculates, predicts, etc. > > >> >>> If we could perfectly model where things are heading then >>> please tell me why all the BTSOAPs of the dismal science of the >>> economics world could not arrange a more stable financial future for >>> us than the one we are currently moving into? >>> >> The problem with (for example) economic forecasts is not that the >> mathematics is flawed; the math is fine. It's the data collection >> that's >> flawed. >> > > > I would say that it is the premises - the starting assumptions that > are probably flawed, not the collection method, unless by collection > method we include the starting assumptions which are unavoidably > guiding the triage of the data. It depends on the problem. Calculating the flow over an aircraft isn't hard because of data collection, it's hard because there are no closed form solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations and because the airplane has a complex shape. Calculations about what humans will do is hard both because knowing what's in their brains is hard and because there are no good models > The biggest flawed assumption of a
Re: Where Math and Logic are Insufficient
On 06/12/2008, at 6:18 PM, A. Wolf wrote: > >> I guess what I am on about is a bit closer to the 80s idea of "chaos" >> - something that is inherently unpredictable; at least if you adopt >> the stance of always launching your prediction from a single >> present - >> the one you happen to find yourself in. > > I think you mean randomness, not chaos. Chaos theory deals with > deterministic systems that vary widely in result based on small > changes in > initial starting conditions; these systems are 100% predictable. Don't believe in randomness. "Random" means we don't understand what determines it. Like "Junk DNA"; it's only junk up until we work out what it's really for. You can predict with 100% accuracy that systems with varying initial conditions will bifurcate and become chaotic once driven beyond a certain point. What you cannot say is what is determining the order in the chaos once it arrives. That's closer to what I mean. 2 men start to dig a hole. They are instructed to make it reach a depth of 5 feet. One of them murders the other with his shovel. Nobody predicted that would happen. We can 'determine' the reasons for this event only AFTER it happens, even though it was determined by something that we might have noticed prior to the event if only we had been able to. All action can be seen as logically determined in hindsight. Before something happens is where we would like to be more on top of things. Intelligence exists on terrorism but usually this usually fails to determine our actions to prevent terrorist acts, interestingly enough. If you look closely at what I am saying, it is the rather messy human consciousness part of the equation that SPOILS the mathematical modelling in most cases. I am saying that a full perceptual scan of the situation often takes us way beyond what the data suggests. Just like the Mumbai massacre - intelligence WAS available that suggested it could happen. Yet the massacre was "allowed" to happen, because nobody could see the looming pattern in the data until after it happened by which time it was bleeding obvious to one and all. It seems that in many situations the sheer volume of information available is as much a part of the problem as the decision- making process. How do we decide? Data alone are incapable of making decisions. You still need a wet, messy human brain with a perceptually skilled mind to do that > > >> Isn't this kind of like an act of faith? > > No. Faith isn't based on evidence. When we use math to model > things in > reality, we do so empirically. If a distribution doesn't fit after > testing > it, we don't use it to model that set of data, for example. How we > use math > functionally is different from math itself. Sure, but correlations occur between sets of data and there is a tendency for them to look like causations. Most scientists and data collectors are trained to say "correlations do not necessarily imply causations" which is great advice up until the correlation turns out to BE a causation > > >> If we could perfectly model where things are heading then >> please tell me why all the BTSOAPs of the dismal science of the >> economics world could not arrange a more stable financial future for >> us than the one we are currently moving into? > > The problem with (for example) economic forecasts is not that the > mathematics is flawed; the math is fine. It's the data collection > that's > flawed. I would say that it is the premises - the starting assumptions that are probably flawed, not the collection method, unless by collection method we include the starting assumptions which are unavoidably guiding the triage of the data. The biggest flawed assumption of all is the belief that data collection of itself will give rise to ideas and concepts. Data do not do that. We choose our starting points and assumptions in all cases. Often we aren't even aware of these because - well, they are assumptions and nobody really questions assumptions much. Our way of looking at the data is not itself present in any way in the data. I'm saying that if reality conforms to our model of it, then the danger is we are looking at only a part of the situation. The issue in question is the WHOLE situation, not just that part we CHOOSE to look at. How can we ever be ccertain that we are in fact looking at the whole situation. We only see what our assumptions and premises allow us to see - we are blind to many things up until we get clobbered by them > We have access to incomplete and imperfect information with which > to make predictions, so we're occasionally wrong. Hence my whole argument. I would say you are being somewhat kind!! > That's exactly what > happened with the banking system in the US, actually...they tried to > use > mathematical models developed on responsible lendees to apply to other > lendees who were much less lik
Re: Where Math and Logic are Insufficient
> I guess what I am on about is a bit closer to the 80s idea of "chaos" > - something that is inherently unpredictable; at least if you adopt > the stance of always launching your prediction from a single present - > the one you happen to find yourself in. I think you mean randomness, not chaos. Chaos theory deals with deterministic systems that vary widely in result based on small changes in initial starting conditions; these systems are 100% predictable. > Isn't this kind of like an act of faith? No. Faith isn't based on evidence. When we use math to model things in reality, we do so empirically. If a distribution doesn't fit after testing it, we don't use it to model that set of data, for example. How we use math functionally is different from math itself. > If we could perfectly model where things are heading then > please tell me why all the BTSOAPs of the dismal science of the > economics world could not arrange a more stable financial future for > us than the one we are currently moving into? The problem with (for example) economic forecasts is not that the mathematics is flawed; the math is fine. It's the data collection that's flawed. We have access to incomplete and imperfect information with which to make predictions, so we're occasionally wrong. That's exactly what happened with the banking system in the US, actually...they tried to use mathematical models developed on responsible lendees to apply to other lendees who were much less likely to pay back the bank, and after a while the amount of fail exceeded the ability of banks to handle it. I think you're forming a straw man of mathematics, because I don't think that math does all the things you're suggesting. Mathematics is not the science of fitting math to the natural world, and flaws in the latter don't suggest a fundamental incompleteness (Godel aside) to the former. Anna --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Where Math and Logic are Insufficient
On 06/12/2008, at 12:59 PM, A. Wolf wrote: > >> Can mathematics describe an EVOLVING universe as accurately as it can >> describe a static one? Newton's laws and Einstein's relativity and >> all >> the subtle variants on these help to do so. Bruno's comp hyp seems to >> address an 'eternal' if not somewhat static reality that might even >> be >> taken as 'transcendental'. >> >> Who is dealing with the CHANGING nature of the universe? > > I don't think "change" is any different from a static model with extra > dimensionality. At least in our universe, time is tightly tied to > space, > and can be run backwards and forwards in a sense, from what we can > determine. Change is not something that is unapproachable to > mathematics, > or inherently metaphysical...many branches of mathematics (analytical > calculus, for one) are solely purposed for descriptions of change. > > Anna > I can certainly agree with you on all of that, Anna. In a way this is not what I am talking about. True - If maths could not predict change, then the armaments industry for one would never have arisen. Flight would never have become possible. Getting a satellite into orbit would be a fantasy not to mention the whole uncertain certainty of quantum probability measurement Math will usually cope with change when we assume a static background against which to measure something evolving. Some fields of math will even predict behaviour where no absolute background is assumed. We are getting better and better by the day at this kind of thing. I guess what I am on about is a bit closer to the 80s idea of "chaos" - something that is inherently unpredictable; at least if you adopt the stance of always launching your prediction from a single present - the one you happen to find yourself in. What I am asking is: can we RELY on mathematical reasoning to predict future outcomes with precision? Isn't this kind of like an act of faith? If we could perfectly model where things are heading then please tell me why all the BTSOAPs of the dismal science of the economics world could not arrange a more stable financial future for us than the one we are currently moving into? If mathematical modelling of alternative futures is so efficient Why is it that we can now see the inevitability of: water wars rising sea levels economic stagflation food shortages/riots runaway greenhouse warming endemic terrorism the catastrophic reduction of biodiversity to name but a few glowing futures ahead of us at this time. You cannot blame the politicians for everything. It is no use telling me that the politicians and the people in power are not listening to the number crunchers and that short term gain, political expediency and human greed are to blame. Problem solvers often complain that they have worked out ideal solutions but that no one will use the solutions. They complain that they have solved the problem brilliantly with their modelling but that the person or entity who has to carry through the solution refuses to do so. If this is the case, they have not solved the problem at all. Isolated problems are not real problems. Real problems include not only the specified problem situation but also the "person situation" which includes the people who have to accept and act on the solution. It may be better to have a suboptimal solution which everyone will accept rather than an optimal solution which no one will accept. Why for example, is humanity wasting its intellectual energy on this ridiculous argument about who or what is responsible for global warming? As if it would make any form of difference to the situation if someone were to "win" the argument. As David Deutsch said in his 2005 TED Talk, it was probably too late to do anything about it by the mid 70s of last century. We should be doing everything in our power to plan for living on a warmer planet. So what if Nature throws up these things - so what if mankind has buggered the planet - we still have to cope with the outcome! Just because I am right and you are wrong (or vice versa) does not make the problem go away. Humans seem to endlessly want to fidget about with logical argument because they believe (with Socrates) that all you have to do is remove all logical error, then what you are left with must be the truth. The "truth" is simply where our thinking ran out of puff. Something may well be academically "correct" (it takes two hours for two men to dig a hole five feet deep, so 10 men will dig a hole 25 feet deep over the same period) - but the simple fact is it probably WILL NOT TURN OUT THAT WAY!! (in the real, evolving, changing chaotically unpredictable universe) A car is driving down the highway. The car comes to a halt, having run out of gas. The people inside get out and dance about and congratulate each other on "having arrived at the destination". Truth is like that. regards,
Re: Where Math and Logic are Insufficient
> Can mathematics describe an EVOLVING universe as accurately as it can > describe a static one? Newton's laws and Einstein's relativity and all > the subtle variants on these help to do so. Bruno's comp hyp seems to > address an 'eternal' if not somewhat static reality that might even be > taken as 'transcendental'. > > Who is dealing with the CHANGING nature of the universe? I don't think "change" is any different from a static model with extra dimensionality. At least in our universe, time is tightly tied to space, and can be run backwards and forwards in a sense, from what we can determine. Change is not something that is unapproachable to mathematics, or inherently metaphysical...many branches of mathematics (analytical calculus, for one) are solely purposed for descriptions of change. Anna --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Where Math and Logic are Insufficient
Notes from the Court Jester:
Math can describe the universe as it is - our most powerful mental
ability; no question about it
You have to be "right" at every step of the way when you use math -
inconsistency points to a lack of logical connection between steps and
is tantamount to error
Why people spend so much time trying to be 'right' and checking each
other's calculations, trying to catch each other out somehow
It's a very absorbing game to play and does lead to genuine insights.
Real science can be done in this way and mostly is
However
The universe is evolving and changing at all scales from moment to
moment, just as the cells in our bodies are in the constant act of
renewing themselves continually
One observer moment is probably never going to be the same as another
etc.
Can mathematics describe an EVOLVING universe as accurately as it can
describe a static one? Newton's laws and Einstein's relativity and all
the subtle variants on these help to do so. Bruno's comp hyp seems to
address an 'eternal' if not somewhat static reality that might even be
taken as 'transcendental'.
Who is dealing with the CHANGING nature of the universe?
I believe that human consciousness is probably a kind of time machine
which, when fully cranked up, can visualise or simulate alternative
futures
We need to be able to do this as well as we can to avoid 'drift' or
'vortex' by the most obviously gravitating future tugging our present
into its flow
'The past can be studied but the future can only be created' (Edward
de Bono) - well, we might say on this list 'selected' - I won't dare
to try and relate this to the "Free Willy" debate!!!
Rather than describe "What IS"
Isn't it time to talk about "What COULD BE"??? We have very little
mental apparatus set up and well-rehearsed to do this
This is also where Math and Logic (IMHO) fail to meet our (rather dire
by now) needs
Lateral Thinking ("possibility thinking") and Critical Thinking
("vertical thinking")
Critical thinking is primarily concerned with judging the truth value
of statements and seeking errors. Lateral thinking is more concerned
with the movement value of statements and ideas. A person would use
lateral thinking when they want to move from one known idea to
creating new ideas. It can also be put as, critical thinking is like a
post-mortem while lateral thinking is like diagnosis
Example 1 of Lateral Thinking (Full Perceptual Scan)
It took two hours for two men to dig a hole five feet deep. How deep
would it have been if ten men had dug the hole for two hours?
A standard high-school arithmetic question; but who can be certain of
the ultimate value of the right answer if the universe is changing
between the time the problem was posed and the answer was arrived at?
The "right" answer appears to be 25 feet deep. This answer assumes
that the thinker has followed a simple mathematical relationship
suggested by the description given. Vertical thinking quickly arrives
at this academically correct, though potentially simplistic or crude
result. Anyone proclaiming that "25 feet is the only correct answer"
would not want to be in a job as an engineer or works foreman.
Lateral Thinking (which can involve intentional humour or other
provocative statements) involves a thorough perceptual scan of the
situation BEFORE any attempt at an answer is made. Using this
technique, we can generate the following highly pertinent observations
that make the "correct answer" seem almost useless by comparison:
• Time remaining the same, the answer (25 ft.) assumes a linear
proportionality between the Number of men and the Work quantity, which
is not necessarily true. There
can be quantitative/qualitative factors affecting the
relation and thus the answer. The following points for instance may
alter the relation:
• A hole may need to be of a certain size or shape so digging might
stop early at a required depth.
• The deeper a hole is, the more effort is required to dig it, since
waste soil needs to be lifted higher to the ground level. There is a
limit to how deep a hole can be dug by
manpower without use of ladders or hoists for soil removal,
and 25 feet is beyond this limit.
• Similarly, the men need to be able to get out of the hole later -
which depending on how steep the sides are. Normally, getting out of a
25 foot deep hole requires
ladders, rope or other equipment.
• Ten men would need more room to work side-by-side, and so may need
to dig the hole wider rather than deeper. Each man digging needs space
to use a shovel.
• Deeper soil layers may be harder to dig out, or we may hit bedrock
or the water table.
• Digging in soil, clay, or sand each present their own special
considerations.
• Ten men are more likely to disagree on a digging method than two men.
