With particular regard to computer simulations of
celestial mechanics, Gerry Sussman wrote a paper
sometime in (IIRC) the late 1970s, about the
ultimate instability of the solar system (one
of the classical motivations for celestial
mechanics in general and the 3-body problem
in particular).
I
A Digital Orrery, James Applegate, M. Douglas, Y. Gursel, P Hunter, C.
Seitz, Gerald Jay Sussman, in IEEE Transactions on Computers, *C-34*, No. 9,
pp. 822-831, September 1985, reprinted in Lecture Notes in Physics #267 --
Use of supercomputers in stellar dynamics, Springer Verlag, 1986.
But also
Nick,
you are an expert in evolutionary psychology.
Do you agree with Humphrey's hypotheses that
human consciousness is an adaptation to living
in a society of selves and Pinker's similar idea
that language is an adaptation to the cognitive
niche? see http://bit.ly/dOeRLZ
-J.
Jochen,
I'm not Nick, but we usually think pretty similarly about these issues, so I
will attempt a short answer:
The most obvious problem with Humphrey's hypothesis is that lots of things that
are not humans are conscious.
The problems with Pinker's hypothesis are much more awkward to explain.
more re eventual chaos in classical mechanics: Rich Murray 2011.02.19
fromRoger Critchlow r...@elf.org
to The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group friam@redfish.com
dateSat, Feb 19, 2011 at 9:19 AM
subject Re: [FRIAM] does classical mechanics always fail to predict or
Jochen,
I CRINGE when anybody calls me an expert, but I have to admit that in my last
job, I served as an evolutionary psychologist. Before that, I was a
comparative psychologist, ethologist, and sociobiologists, more or less in that
order. Unfortunately, any of these roles would
