Threads that led to these thoughts
- Windfall Earnings for Minimal Services: As gov’t bleeds OFWs dry
- The Big Insurance Scam
- Amassing wealth. A crime against humanity.
"Economically viable", a phrase which should be eradicated from the minds of the people, along with whatever it symbolizes, whatever notions, ideas, practices or even concepts is associated with. It opens up wider routes to think about, what the role of states and governments is. Gives a wider perspective what the states and governments supposed to do.
It is directly connected with the most revered tenets of chaos embodied in the phrase 'butterfly's wing flap', the tiny change that should be effected in societies, at the level of the single individual, which will radically re-structure the societal complexities current, and adjust the social fibre to only amenable to states, emergent for that matter, where the human individual is at its core.
Its goal to proliferate human values, values for which any association with monetisation, any attempt to be looked at with economic criteria would be regarded, as is, an insult in the minds of the people and therefore scornfully rejected.
There is no need to appeal to the good will of any individual regardless its position or its clout, planetarch, read currently Barack Obama, presidents, prime ministers, ministers, governments and state officials as the authorities structures already in place, fought hard and gained by the struggle of innumerable individuals, our forefathers in countless generations before us, taken and not given, will assure that any change, minuscule by the matters of societies scales, in the minds of people, is sufficient to effect the re-structuring, societies should undergo.
Sunday, 30 November 2008
Saturday, 29 November 2008
I am not the same person I was a moment ago. Why?
... follow up a trajectory ... rigidly adhered ... rigidly structured consciousness ... concept deepens ... properties previously ignored, gain focus ... rise in a prominent position ... new stimuli are allowed in ... a different view is seen ... a different kind of consciousness ... paradigm shift ... new dimensions are revealed ... my previous self seems alien to my current self ... I do not recognize 'me' in the past ...
Labels:
consciousness,
paradigm shift
Tuesday, 25 November 2008
Bootlegging, a term for delving into the chaotic world of creativity and innovation.
My search on leads on bootstrapping led to the term of bootlegging. Interesting connotations out of the the Wikipedia entry on bootlegging that gives another aspect of the word chaotic, one that does not agree with the commonly held notion of mayhem and destruction
"The main reason for the occurrence of bootlegging is the lack of ‘free space’ for creativity. In particular rigid planning ignores the nature of experimental trial and error research. Bootlegging, as a kind of self-regulating element, bridges the mechanistic world of organisation (hierarchy, project proposals, MBO, decisions can only be made after some initial findings) with the chaotic world of creativity and innovation. The theory of path dependency explains why bootleg innovations are (most often) in line with the strategic objectives of the firm: corporate competencies define the search paths for its future. In this respect are the learning processes, beside the tangible output of bootlegging beneficial for the firm."
So, bootlegging refer to as the way out of the conundrum of the lack of 'free space' for creativity? That was brought about by the rigid planning this form of human activity favours? No wonder. Being scared to loose whatever is thought as being accomplished, among them the cushy jobs, the office in the corner (why did I think of that?).
Is that so, or is it borne out of the competitiveness in that sector which instead of promoting, it stifles innovation? That everything they do is geared towards making up a penny, the economically viable prerogative. Services, products and lives of individuals take up a second place, lost in the chase for the monies as they are strained through a monetising sieve that if it does not restrict, it barely lets them through.
Constantly loosing touch of what is of value for human individuals, as gradually reach or reached the point that services and products become irrelevant, as it can be anything, even human excrement as long as it yields profits.
What difference does it make whether bootleg innovations are 'in line with the strategic objectives of the firm'? They would never be. The corporate world's only objective, strategic or not, is to make lots and lots of money. What kind of 'free space' for creativity can be accommodated there? Creativity extremely warped and distorted. It can hardly be recognised as such.
It is clearly a practice that they are ashamed of, as they called it bootlegging, a word borrowed from a distasteful past. Their origins.
"The main reason for the occurrence of bootlegging is the lack of ‘free space’ for creativity. In particular rigid planning ignores the nature of experimental trial and error research. Bootlegging, as a kind of self-regulating element, bridges the mechanistic world of organisation (hierarchy, project proposals, MBO, decisions can only be made after some initial findings) with the chaotic world of creativity and innovation. The theory of path dependency explains why bootleg innovations are (most often) in line with the strategic objectives of the firm: corporate competencies define the search paths for its future. In this respect are the learning processes, beside the tangible output of bootlegging beneficial for the firm."
So, bootlegging refer to as the way out of the conundrum of the lack of 'free space' for creativity? That was brought about by the rigid planning this form of human activity favours? No wonder. Being scared to loose whatever is thought as being accomplished, among them the cushy jobs, the office in the corner (why did I think of that?).
Is that so, or is it borne out of the competitiveness in that sector which instead of promoting, it stifles innovation? That everything they do is geared towards making up a penny, the economically viable prerogative. Services, products and lives of individuals take up a second place, lost in the chase for the monies as they are strained through a monetising sieve that if it does not restrict, it barely lets them through.
Constantly loosing touch of what is of value for human individuals, as gradually reach or reached the point that services and products become irrelevant, as it can be anything, even human excrement as long as it yields profits.
What difference does it make whether bootleg innovations are 'in line with the strategic objectives of the firm'? They would never be. The corporate world's only objective, strategic or not, is to make lots and lots of money. What kind of 'free space' for creativity can be accommodated there? Creativity extremely warped and distorted. It can hardly be recognised as such.
It is clearly a practice that they are ashamed of, as they called it bootlegging, a word borrowed from a distasteful past. Their origins.
The whole societal construct held by fragile, precarious threads that a snap is imminent, and will lead the construct to collapse?
A thought in need of pondering. It follows up what I read years ago, which in my mind is connected with the word, bootstrapped. Though that word came up in my mind with a meaning different for what the author in that paper used it for.
The bootstrapped mentioned by this author, was used to explain reality as a construction being created out of nothing, and sustained in existence, by being bootstrapped to its origins by future events. I do not know whether actually I give a full or even a partial account of what the author implied, mostly haphazard recollections in an attempt to re-create the image portrayed by the author's words.
I feel very little sense coming out from this recollection. However
But why did I? In my mind, assumed it to be, a way to explain the current state of societies in the world?
As if, the principles monetising societies are sustained by, are instantiated by the acts of individuals, who simultaneously resent what is supported.
Monetising societies as being the whole, the emergent product out of a series of unwilling, half-hearted, resented acts of the units-agents, the individuals amidst them?
Their thoughts, their minds, their feelings, every inch in them, being against, what by their acts effectively sustain? What they can be without?
They have to give support what they want to destroy, what they despise?
The whole structure is suspended by unwilling acts of individuals, a volatile construct held in place by so fragile, precarious threads which at any moment might snap? And the whole construct will descent into oblivion?
The bootstrapped mentioned by this author, was used to explain reality as a construction being created out of nothing, and sustained in existence, by being bootstrapped to its origins by future events. I do not know whether actually I give a full or even a partial account of what the author implied, mostly haphazard recollections in an attempt to re-create the image portrayed by the author's words.
I feel very little sense coming out from this recollection. However
But why did I? In my mind, assumed it to be, a way to explain the current state of societies in the world?
As if, the principles monetising societies are sustained by, are instantiated by the acts of individuals, who simultaneously resent what is supported.
Monetising societies as being the whole, the emergent product out of a series of unwilling, half-hearted, resented acts of the units-agents, the individuals amidst them?
Their thoughts, their minds, their feelings, every inch in them, being against, what by their acts effectively sustain? What they can be without?
They have to give support what they want to destroy, what they despise?
The whole structure is suspended by unwilling acts of individuals, a volatile construct held in place by so fragile, precarious threads which at any moment might snap? And the whole construct will descent into oblivion?
Friday, 21 November 2008
Consciousness surpass infinities, to grasp emergence instantiating imagination?
Threads that laid the path
- The uses of infinity: a philosopher looks at emergent phenomena in physics
- Thoughts about the origins of imagination?
- Chapter 2 The foundations of science are shaking
An extract from 'The uses of infinity: a philosopher looks at emergent phenomena in physics'
"`Emergence', and its contrary reduction, are buzz-words in both physics and philosophy. Both physicists and philosophers disagree about the extent to which we can understand large-scale or complex phenomena in terms of their microscopic parts. Examples include both everyday phenomena like the freezing and boiling of liquids, and fancy ideas like fractals. In this talk, Jeremy Butterfield will pour some oil on these troubled waters. First, he will adopt the philosopher's usual tactic of distinguishing different senses of the contentious terms. Then he will use examples such as freezing and fractals to describe how we understand emergent phenomena by appealing to various kinds of infinity."
what I find interesting, is the appeal to 'various kinds of infinity' for understanding emergent phenomena. The connection with scale is intriguing, coming out from the mention of 'understand large-scale or complex phenomena in terms of their microscopic parts'. Infinities inherent in each scale level, which in sensical(?) terms, points toward infinities of parts that make up the emergent entities, in each successive level.
The infinity, let's say for the sake of following up the thought, of strings which give rise to the quantum particle entities, the somewhat next level up in the scale. Infinities of microscopic parts chunked-up in bundles, easier to handle and the same goes for entities, in each level of emergence organisation, what is referred to as the various kinds of infinities.
It brought into mind thoughts that occurred to me some time ago and recorded them in 'Thoughts about the origins of imagination?' post
"Shrinking to the quantum level, expanding to cosmos, slowing down to Planck time speeding up to eons, journeying back and forth to the beginning and the end of time? The foundations of imagination? Are there no bounds?"
infinities traversed effortlessly? What our mind, our consciousness can handle? Revealed to us, by way of the faculty of imagination? Traces of omnipotence?
- The uses of infinity: a philosopher looks at emergent phenomena in physics
- Thoughts about the origins of imagination?
- Chapter 2 The foundations of science are shaking
An extract from 'The uses of infinity: a philosopher looks at emergent phenomena in physics'
"`Emergence', and its contrary reduction, are buzz-words in both physics and philosophy. Both physicists and philosophers disagree about the extent to which we can understand large-scale or complex phenomena in terms of their microscopic parts. Examples include both everyday phenomena like the freezing and boiling of liquids, and fancy ideas like fractals. In this talk, Jeremy Butterfield will pour some oil on these troubled waters. First, he will adopt the philosopher's usual tactic of distinguishing different senses of the contentious terms. Then he will use examples such as freezing and fractals to describe how we understand emergent phenomena by appealing to various kinds of infinity."
what I find interesting, is the appeal to 'various kinds of infinity' for understanding emergent phenomena. The connection with scale is intriguing, coming out from the mention of 'understand large-scale or complex phenomena in terms of their microscopic parts'. Infinities inherent in each scale level, which in sensical(?) terms, points toward infinities of parts that make up the emergent entities, in each successive level.
The infinity, let's say for the sake of following up the thought, of strings which give rise to the quantum particle entities, the somewhat next level up in the scale. Infinities of microscopic parts chunked-up in bundles, easier to handle and the same goes for entities, in each level of emergence organisation, what is referred to as the various kinds of infinities.
It brought into mind thoughts that occurred to me some time ago and recorded them in 'Thoughts about the origins of imagination?' post
"Shrinking to the quantum level, expanding to cosmos, slowing down to Planck time speeding up to eons, journeying back and forth to the beginning and the end of time? The foundations of imagination? Are there no bounds?"
infinities traversed effortlessly? What our mind, our consciousness can handle? Revealed to us, by way of the faculty of imagination? Traces of omnipotence?
Thursday, 20 November 2008
Human experience. What if, our human resolving time was on a par with the resolving time of a fast electronic device?
Threads that led to these thoughts
- Coherence
- Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics
A fundamental attribute of the human cognitive apparatus? One that determines the kind of experience amassed? It guides experience? Human resolving time T is responsible for the instantiation of experience? Experience is what is, because of our resolving time
"Suppose that the waves are detected by an apparatus with resolving time T, that is, T is the shortest interval between two events for which the events do not seem to be simultaneous."
Our cognitive apparatus, with our senses, with its own resolving time T, the time length, the time interval between two events that is needed in order to make out each, as been distinct from the other. Definiteness, at stake? During which, we will be able to resolve the events as being separate. To discern the information that each event carries. The separateness of the events, as distinct entities. The information discerned is used to build experience. It determines its depth and breadth and its accuracy. Wholesome experience?
Phase?
Experience, as such described , it defines observation. It provides the foundation of our subjectiveness.
In the Answers.com entry of coherence it mentions that
"For the human eye and ear, T is about 0.1 s, while a fast electronic device might have a T of 10 billionths of a sec (10^-10 s). If the relative phase δ(t), given by Eq. (3), does not, on the average, change noticeably during T, then the waves are coherent."
Human resolving time T should bear a significance on the way we see the world. How would a fast electronic device with a T of 10 billionths of a sec (10^-10) would see the world? What would the world look to us, if we had an equivalent resolving time T as that of a fast electronic device?
Highly coherent to a fast electronic device? But incoherent to the human ear? Coherent waves in phases that represent states? Superposition of states? The observer?
In 'Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics'
"In fact, scientists most righly claim that the purpose of science is to describe human experience, not to describe “what really is”; and as long as we only want to describe human experience, that is, as long as we are content with being able to predict what will be observed in all possible circumstances (. . . ) we need not postulate the existence—in some absolute sense—of unobserved (i.e., not yet observed) objects lying at definite places in ordinary 3-dimensional space."
If science can only describe human experience, then what would science be, if instead of our familiar human resolving time T, our cognitive apparatus had the resolving time of a fast electronic device? Would our fast electronic device equipped human resolving time, have revealed and made part of our experience, any currently unobserved objects?
- Coherence
- Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics
A fundamental attribute of the human cognitive apparatus? One that determines the kind of experience amassed? It guides experience? Human resolving time T is responsible for the instantiation of experience? Experience is what is, because of our resolving time
"Suppose that the waves are detected by an apparatus with resolving time T, that is, T is the shortest interval between two events for which the events do not seem to be simultaneous."
Our cognitive apparatus, with our senses, with its own resolving time T, the time length, the time interval between two events that is needed in order to make out each, as been distinct from the other. Definiteness, at stake? During which, we will be able to resolve the events as being separate. To discern the information that each event carries. The separateness of the events, as distinct entities. The information discerned is used to build experience. It determines its depth and breadth and its accuracy. Wholesome experience?
Phase?
Experience, as such described , it defines observation. It provides the foundation of our subjectiveness.
In the Answers.com entry of coherence it mentions that
"For the human eye and ear, T is about 0.1 s, while a fast electronic device might have a T of 10 billionths of a sec (10^-10 s). If the relative phase δ(t), given by Eq. (3), does not, on the average, change noticeably during T, then the waves are coherent."
Human resolving time T should bear a significance on the way we see the world. How would a fast electronic device with a T of 10 billionths of a sec (10^-10) would see the world? What would the world look to us, if we had an equivalent resolving time T as that of a fast electronic device?
Highly coherent to a fast electronic device? But incoherent to the human ear? Coherent waves in phases that represent states? Superposition of states? The observer?
In 'Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics'
"In fact, scientists most righly claim that the purpose of science is to describe human experience, not to describe “what really is”; and as long as we only want to describe human experience, that is, as long as we are content with being able to predict what will be observed in all possible circumstances (. . . ) we need not postulate the existence—in some absolute sense—of unobserved (i.e., not yet observed) objects lying at definite places in ordinary 3-dimensional space."
If science can only describe human experience, then what would science be, if instead of our familiar human resolving time T, our cognitive apparatus had the resolving time of a fast electronic device? Would our fast electronic device equipped human resolving time, have revealed and made part of our experience, any currently unobserved objects?
Wednesday, 19 November 2008
Building up a list of 'quantum chaos' links.
Connections to these thoughts
- Abstractions and their significance.
- Quantum Chaos, Martin Gutzwiller, Scientific American, January 1992
A case brought forward about quantum chaos
"At about the time of Poincare's seminal work on classical chaos, Max Planck started another revolution, which would lead to the modern theory of quantum mechanics. The simple systems that Newton had studied were investigated again, but this time on the atomic scale. The quantum analogue of the humble pendulum is the laser; the flying cannonballs of the atomic world consist of beams of protons or electrons, and the rotating wheel is the spinning electron (the basis of magnetic tapes). Even the solar system itself is mirrored in each of the atoms found in the periodic table of the elements. Perhaps the single most outstanding feature of the quantum world is its smooth and wavelike nature. This feature leads to the question of how chaos makes itself felt when moving from the classical world to the quantum world. How can the extremely irregular character of classical chaos be reconciled with the smooth and wavelike nature of phenomena on the atomic scale? Does chaos exist in the quantum world'? Preliminary work seems to show that it does. Chaos is found in the distribution of energy levels of certain atomic systems; it even appears to sneak into the wave patterns associated with those levels. Chaos is also found when electrons scatter from small molecules. I must emphasize, however, that the term 'quantum chaos' serves more to describe a conundrum than to define a well-posed problem. "
No solid base? Quantum chaos not been irrevocably confirmed or in a milder version surely footed? The term only used to describe a conundrum faced up with, a curiosity but not the processes, quantum processes, themselves?
"Considering the following interpretation of the bigger picture may be helpful in coming to grips with quantum chaos. All our theoretical discussions of mechanics can be somewhat artificially divided into three compartments [see illustration] although nature recognizes none of these divisions. Elementary classical mechanics falls in the first compartment. This box contains all the nice, clean systems exhibiting simple and regular behavior, and so I shall call it R, for regular.
Also contained in R is an elaborate mathematical tool called perturbation theory which is used to calculate the effects of small interactions and extraneous disturbances, such as the influence of the sun on the moon's motion around the earth. With the help of perturbation theory, a large part of physics is understood nowadays as making relatively mild modifications of regular systems. Reality though, is much more complicated; chaotic systems lie outside the range of perturbation theory and they constitute the second compartment. Since the first detailed analyses of the systems of the second compartment were done by Poincare, I shall name this box P in his honor. It is stuffed with the chaotic dynamic systems that are the bread and butter of science. Among these systems are all the fundamental problems of mechanics, starting with three, rather than only two bodies interacting with one another, such as the earth, moon and sun, or the three atoms in the water molecule, or the three quarks in the proton. Quantum mechanics, as it has been practiced for about 90 years, belongs in the third compartment, called Q."
Mechanics, stretching that notion wider, to include anything that is described by, and, as systems such as social, mental, psychological and therefore social, mental, psychological mechanics? Attempting such an act based broadly on chaos self-similarity principle, and even further, by its virtue to go ahead and look at social, mental, psychological mechanics in novel ways?
And what about that elaborate mathematical tool called perturbation theory, which is used to calculate the effects of small interactions and extraneous disturbances to regular systems? Could it be of any use in social, mental, psychological systems? Or should we take stalk of what Henri Poincare surmised, as it is mentioned in the same website.
"So thereafter, the great French mathematician-astronomer-physicist Henri Poincare surmised that the moon's motion is only mild case of a congenital disease affecting nearly everything. In the long run Poincare realized, most dynamic systems show no discernible regularity or repetitive pattern. The behavior of even a simple system can depend so sensitively on its initial conditions that the final outcome is uncertain."
That there is, no discernible regularity or repetitive pattern, in most dynamic systems. That the behaviour of even a simple system can depend so sensitively on its initial conditions, that the final outcome is uncertain. Even a simple system? What is simple, but a construct, our minds devise, by removing all information contained in a system, or object, apart from what our minds deem as necessary? And being doing it, on and on, in individual or collective level alike? An act of abstraction that help us gain knowledge?
The necessary information, within the range defined by the maximum of our cognitive apparatus potential and the minimum needed for the overall information to make sense. What our minds can handle, but in reality systems possess a lot more information than we actually see (likened to a tip of the iceberg?), observe, and by virtue of that, no system is as simple as it looks, and therefore, it can not be predicted, as Henri Poincare surmised.
Is that a blessing or a curse? It is certainly a blessing.
So perturbation theory, dealing with the minute differences, in initial conditions. A precursor of that feature of chaos? I remember reading about mathematical calculations of hard problems, riddled with infinities, which perturbation theory have been removing. Does these menacing infinities have anything to do with the dynamics of chaotic states? In a way, describing the pull or push to the path of an unfolding trajectory? That is pulled towards infinity?
And what could we make out of the statement
"With the help of perturbation theory, a large part of physics is understood nowadays as making relatively mild modifications of regular systems."
or even
"The main connection between R and P is the Kolmogorov-Arnold-Moser (KAM) theorem. The KAM theorem provides a powerful tool for calculating how much of the structure of a regular system survives when a small perturbation is introduced, and the theorem can thus identify perturbations that cause a regular system to undergo chaotic behaviour."
How much can a system take? When a small perturbation is introduced? A small change of rule, or norm or a habit? Referring to the quality of the perturbation. Its overall effect in a regular system or just a system. Taken in to account that from all the perturbations possible, it is bound to be, that only a few would actually have a profound effect on the structure of a regular system, the state of a system, the stable state attractor. Most of the perturbations would have a negligent effect.
Why did I think about conservative values? The attractors, which we will not want to change? Content with the status-quo? We do not want changes.
- Abstractions and their significance.
- Quantum Chaos, Martin Gutzwiller, Scientific American, January 1992
A case brought forward about quantum chaos
"At about the time of Poincare's seminal work on classical chaos, Max Planck started another revolution, which would lead to the modern theory of quantum mechanics. The simple systems that Newton had studied were investigated again, but this time on the atomic scale. The quantum analogue of the humble pendulum is the laser; the flying cannonballs of the atomic world consist of beams of protons or electrons, and the rotating wheel is the spinning electron (the basis of magnetic tapes). Even the solar system itself is mirrored in each of the atoms found in the periodic table of the elements. Perhaps the single most outstanding feature of the quantum world is its smooth and wavelike nature. This feature leads to the question of how chaos makes itself felt when moving from the classical world to the quantum world. How can the extremely irregular character of classical chaos be reconciled with the smooth and wavelike nature of phenomena on the atomic scale? Does chaos exist in the quantum world'? Preliminary work seems to show that it does. Chaos is found in the distribution of energy levels of certain atomic systems; it even appears to sneak into the wave patterns associated with those levels. Chaos is also found when electrons scatter from small molecules. I must emphasize, however, that the term 'quantum chaos' serves more to describe a conundrum than to define a well-posed problem. "
No solid base? Quantum chaos not been irrevocably confirmed or in a milder version surely footed? The term only used to describe a conundrum faced up with, a curiosity but not the processes, quantum processes, themselves?
"Considering the following interpretation of the bigger picture may be helpful in coming to grips with quantum chaos. All our theoretical discussions of mechanics can be somewhat artificially divided into three compartments [see illustration] although nature recognizes none of these divisions. Elementary classical mechanics falls in the first compartment. This box contains all the nice, clean systems exhibiting simple and regular behavior, and so I shall call it R, for regular.
Also contained in R is an elaborate mathematical tool called perturbation theory which is used to calculate the effects of small interactions and extraneous disturbances, such as the influence of the sun on the moon's motion around the earth. With the help of perturbation theory, a large part of physics is understood nowadays as making relatively mild modifications of regular systems. Reality though, is much more complicated; chaotic systems lie outside the range of perturbation theory and they constitute the second compartment. Since the first detailed analyses of the systems of the second compartment were done by Poincare, I shall name this box P in his honor. It is stuffed with the chaotic dynamic systems that are the bread and butter of science. Among these systems are all the fundamental problems of mechanics, starting with three, rather than only two bodies interacting with one another, such as the earth, moon and sun, or the three atoms in the water molecule, or the three quarks in the proton. Quantum mechanics, as it has been practiced for about 90 years, belongs in the third compartment, called Q."
Mechanics, stretching that notion wider, to include anything that is described by, and, as systems such as social, mental, psychological and therefore social, mental, psychological mechanics? Attempting such an act based broadly on chaos self-similarity principle, and even further, by its virtue to go ahead and look at social, mental, psychological mechanics in novel ways?
And what about that elaborate mathematical tool called perturbation theory, which is used to calculate the effects of small interactions and extraneous disturbances to regular systems? Could it be of any use in social, mental, psychological systems? Or should we take stalk of what Henri Poincare surmised, as it is mentioned in the same website.
"So thereafter, the great French mathematician-astronomer-physicist Henri Poincare surmised that the moon's motion is only mild case of a congenital disease affecting nearly everything. In the long run Poincare realized, most dynamic systems show no discernible regularity or repetitive pattern. The behavior of even a simple system can depend so sensitively on its initial conditions that the final outcome is uncertain."
That there is, no discernible regularity or repetitive pattern, in most dynamic systems. That the behaviour of even a simple system can depend so sensitively on its initial conditions, that the final outcome is uncertain. Even a simple system? What is simple, but a construct, our minds devise, by removing all information contained in a system, or object, apart from what our minds deem as necessary? And being doing it, on and on, in individual or collective level alike? An act of abstraction that help us gain knowledge?
The necessary information, within the range defined by the maximum of our cognitive apparatus potential and the minimum needed for the overall information to make sense. What our minds can handle, but in reality systems possess a lot more information than we actually see (likened to a tip of the iceberg?), observe, and by virtue of that, no system is as simple as it looks, and therefore, it can not be predicted, as Henri Poincare surmised.
Is that a blessing or a curse? It is certainly a blessing.
So perturbation theory, dealing with the minute differences, in initial conditions. A precursor of that feature of chaos? I remember reading about mathematical calculations of hard problems, riddled with infinities, which perturbation theory have been removing. Does these menacing infinities have anything to do with the dynamics of chaotic states? In a way, describing the pull or push to the path of an unfolding trajectory? That is pulled towards infinity?
And what could we make out of the statement
"With the help of perturbation theory, a large part of physics is understood nowadays as making relatively mild modifications of regular systems."
or even
"The main connection between R and P is the Kolmogorov-Arnold-Moser (KAM) theorem. The KAM theorem provides a powerful tool for calculating how much of the structure of a regular system survives when a small perturbation is introduced, and the theorem can thus identify perturbations that cause a regular system to undergo chaotic behaviour."
How much can a system take? When a small perturbation is introduced? A small change of rule, or norm or a habit? Referring to the quality of the perturbation. Its overall effect in a regular system or just a system. Taken in to account that from all the perturbations possible, it is bound to be, that only a few would actually have a profound effect on the structure of a regular system, the state of a system, the stable state attractor. Most of the perturbations would have a negligent effect.
Why did I think about conservative values? The attractors, which we will not want to change? Content with the status-quo? We do not want changes.
Saturday, 8 November 2008
The minds we make overall stupid despite being generated by an underlying remarkable ability to draw inferences?
Threads which spontaneously associated and brought out these thoughts
- FROM SIMPLE ASSOCIATIONS TO SYSTEMATIC REASONING: A Connectionist representation of rules, variables, and dynamic bindings using temporal synchrony
- Abstract
- Neural processes beat rational thinking.
- Consciousness a byproduct of brain functions? Or even so a waste product?
- Hints for imperfect minds?
- Tractable and intractable computations human individuals are faced with.
- Unconscious knows better ... Indulge yourself.
- Neurons have built-in solving power, churning out solutions fast. Better keep consciousness away.
- Chaos in my mind. Channels tapped
- The brain, as a quantum computer?
- Human individual, a quantum mechanical entity?
- Would the mind know but would not tell?
- Is thinking an automatic process?
- Unconscious knows better ... Indulge yourself.
- You are stupid, he is stupid, she is stupid, they are stupid ... I am stupid ... We are all stupid!!!
- The human mind is an invaluable asset to be wasted by the monetising societies
What is that? There is a wealth of knowledge out there and bit by bit is dug out. At least from my personal perspective as pioneering individuals did and do the digging in the first place.
The title 'From simple associations to systematic reasoning: A connectionist encoding of rules, variables, and dynamic bindings using temporal synchrony' impressed me, though having only the abstract limits my exposure. Hoomf, I spoke to soon, I got the pdf.
The authors Lokendra Shastri and Venkat Ajjanagadde, published this paper in 1993, in the 'Behavioral & Brain Sciences' journal, Volume 16 Issue (03). Their objective coming out in the following extract from the abstract. of the paper,
"We show how a connectionist network can encode millions of facts and rules involving n-ary predicates and variables, and perform a class of inferences in a few hundred msec."
Their 'connectionist network' handles millions of data, data that, as I could gather, are not simple ones or twos but a lot more complex, facts and rules. Without the need to refer to the n-ary predicates and variables, in order to grasp the complexity of the data and the enormity of the task, and despite all that, it performs inferences in a few hundredths of a msec.
Their network is outstanding just for its own sake, but the main reason, I focus on that, is because their 'connectionist network', is put forth, in order to simulate or emulate, (whatever), our brain. The human mind. Everyone's mind.
As they admit
"Human agents draw a variety of inferences effortlessly, spontaneously, and with remarkable efficiency -"
effortless, spontaneous, efficient hallmarks and
" — as though these inferences are a reflex response of their cognitive apparatus."
Reflex responses? No need to consciously think, to produce these inferences, without being accompanied by a feeling of ownership, that we are the owners of these responses. Which thereafter, puts into perspective the function of our consciousness, its role being to assure us that a tree is a tree and not something else. Only a pat in the shoulder.
Whereas the hard task of dealing with the harshness of life, the intractable computations we face in our daily lives, is left upon an underlying level of consciousness, be called unconscious or subconscious, or any other term someone feels comfortable with, as either of them have bundles of meanings with tarnished or distracting connotations. The main feature is that underlies our familiar, cherished consciousness, which certainly we are not aware of, when at work, or we were taught, indoctrinated, or learned not to be aware of, to ignore it. Myself, I let it do the work for me.
"Furthermore, these inferences are drawn with reference to a large body of background knowledge. This remarkable human ability seems paradoxical given the results about the complexity of reasoning reported by researchers in artificial intelligence."
A remarkable human ability but despite that, it seems paradoxical? Unreal?
The reason they are dumbfounded is because, as they state
"How can a system of simple and slow neuron-like elements represent a large body of systematic knowledge and perform a range of inferences with such speed?"
In other words, how can a system, (read: human individual), can be stupid and at the same time brilliant.
- FROM SIMPLE ASSOCIATIONS TO SYSTEMATIC REASONING: A Connectionist representation of rules, variables, and dynamic bindings using temporal synchrony
- Abstract
- Neural processes beat rational thinking.
- Consciousness a byproduct of brain functions? Or even so a waste product?
- Hints for imperfect minds?
- Tractable and intractable computations human individuals are faced with.
- Unconscious knows better ... Indulge yourself.
- Neurons have built-in solving power, churning out solutions fast. Better keep consciousness away.
- Chaos in my mind. Channels tapped
- The brain, as a quantum computer?
- Human individual, a quantum mechanical entity?
- Would the mind know but would not tell?
- Is thinking an automatic process?
- Unconscious knows better ... Indulge yourself.
- You are stupid, he is stupid, she is stupid, they are stupid ... I am stupid ... We are all stupid!!!
- The human mind is an invaluable asset to be wasted by the monetising societies
What is that? There is a wealth of knowledge out there and bit by bit is dug out. At least from my personal perspective as pioneering individuals did and do the digging in the first place.
The title 'From simple associations to systematic reasoning: A connectionist encoding of rules, variables, and dynamic bindings using temporal synchrony' impressed me, though having only the abstract limits my exposure. Hoomf, I spoke to soon, I got the pdf.
The authors Lokendra Shastri and Venkat Ajjanagadde, published this paper in 1993, in the 'Behavioral & Brain Sciences' journal, Volume 16 Issue (03). Their objective coming out in the following extract from the abstract. of the paper,
"We show how a connectionist network can encode millions of facts and rules involving n-ary predicates and variables, and perform a class of inferences in a few hundred msec."
Their 'connectionist network' handles millions of data, data that, as I could gather, are not simple ones or twos but a lot more complex, facts and rules. Without the need to refer to the n-ary predicates and variables, in order to grasp the complexity of the data and the enormity of the task, and despite all that, it performs inferences in a few hundredths of a msec.
Their network is outstanding just for its own sake, but the main reason, I focus on that, is because their 'connectionist network', is put forth, in order to simulate or emulate, (whatever), our brain. The human mind. Everyone's mind.
As they admit
"Human agents draw a variety of inferences effortlessly, spontaneously, and with remarkable efficiency -"
effortless, spontaneous, efficient hallmarks and
" — as though these inferences are a reflex response of their cognitive apparatus."
Reflex responses? No need to consciously think, to produce these inferences, without being accompanied by a feeling of ownership, that we are the owners of these responses. Which thereafter, puts into perspective the function of our consciousness, its role being to assure us that a tree is a tree and not something else. Only a pat in the shoulder.
Whereas the hard task of dealing with the harshness of life, the intractable computations we face in our daily lives, is left upon an underlying level of consciousness, be called unconscious or subconscious, or any other term someone feels comfortable with, as either of them have bundles of meanings with tarnished or distracting connotations. The main feature is that underlies our familiar, cherished consciousness, which certainly we are not aware of, when at work, or we were taught, indoctrinated, or learned not to be aware of, to ignore it. Myself, I let it do the work for me.
"Furthermore, these inferences are drawn with reference to a large body of background knowledge. This remarkable human ability seems paradoxical given the results about the complexity of reasoning reported by researchers in artificial intelligence."
A remarkable human ability but despite that, it seems paradoxical? Unreal?
The reason they are dumbfounded is because, as they state
"How can a system of simple and slow neuron-like elements represent a large body of systematic knowledge and perform a range of inferences with such speed?"
In other words, how can a system, (read: human individual), can be stupid and at the same time brilliant.
Labels:
conscious mind,
human kind,
imperfect minds,
stupid
Friday, 31 October 2008
The mass media of (very soon) yesteryear fighting back tooth and nail to keep their spoils
Irritated me, offended my sensibilities, I felt anger when I read the article Thinking is so over, in Times Online, attributed to 'net entrepreneur' Andrew Keen. When I started to write a comment I came up against a barrier, a count of words, unable to fully express myself. Demeaning readers contributions from the start, indicative of how much they value their readership opinions.
Even that little space would not have been there, if it was for them, alas, now, they can not ignore it, as the norms put forth by blogs demand it. Blogs that not only invite but rely upon their readers contribution. And thanks to the blogging medium, the forums where individuals can express their views without the need to comply to worthless rules. The omniscient mass media is in peril.
The views expressed by Andrew Keen, a blatant attempt to discredit and eventually kill what threatens and undermines their position. Trying hard to nurture and spread a trend, a 'bad-hair-day' sort of fad, against blogging. They must be cornered, loosing a long established grip, in human affairs, as how can otherwise explain their vehement attack. Playing their trump cards, offending individuals. Assaulting with a two-pronged attack, first branding blogs as monkey's business and trying to sway the public away from blogs. Pour scorn and ridicule for the already established scene and hoping to discourage any one else from following that path.
Ignoring that it is the system, that breeds monkeys, as they want monkeys, since only monkeys can digest, the monkey food they serve. A system, that they themselves are a big part of. If individuals behave like monkeys, it is because they are victims of a system with a horde of socially prescribed norms, of what is trendy or not, that the mass media faithfully implement. Stuffing into the people's minds that what is the goal in the individual in life, is to be in the spotlight, to rub shoulders with or become a celebrity, to be seen on TV or news tabloids, or the 20-second fame, or make money or be recognised in the streets.
All these things, that not only, do not contribute, but rob the individual, erode its potential. Behave like monkeys if they persist working along these guidelines the system prescribes, awaiting for recognition from the likes of the author and journalist.
Instead of concentrating and develop what is meaningful for them. Individuals that have aspirations ideas, that guide them in their pursuits, provide the framework, streamline their efforts towards succeeding in their goals. Put their viewpoint as a guide, not anybody's else, no matter how expert they profess to be. It is not left to pure chance.
Your quote states
"if you provide an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters one of them will eventually come up with a masterpiece."
playing dice, bets, that everything in life is down to pure chance, ignoring the powerful influence of chaos, that everything that exists in nature, in our minds, in our societies are down to the initial conditions, and these initial conditions carefully picked and chosen, sway away chance elements, greatly diminishes pure chance. It is not just monkeys and typewriters, but meanings that develop in individuals, left free to choose for the themselves, shape their initial conditions and by the sensitive dependence upon these initial conditions, that chaos prescribes, create new meanings, make life meaningful to them.
These initial conditions, which you try so blatantly to manipulate but you will fail, if judging by the fervour in your attack you have already failed.
"net entrepreneur Andrew Keen"
One and foremost, for what your kind of experts say, are hard to swallow since always, in the back of my mind I know that whatever is said, has no value as their opinions are biased, as they are out there to make a buck, and whatever they say or do, it depends on how much monies they will make out of it, and don't give a dime for the individual. Out there protecting the spoils of their employers.
I want you the journalist and the fellow that expressed these views, to be ashamed, to have second thoughts ever use and revere in the sound of these words.
I had enough of best minds. Why should you think of a dictatorship at all, be that fools or yours. And all you woes about
"killing our culture, assaulting our economy and destroying time-honoured codes of conduct."
Individuals do not need that kind of culture, there is nothing there worth preserving, and don't get me going on the time-honoured codes of conduct. Codes that include and guided your current outburst, codes that make you feel it is right to offend, mine and others, sensibilities. Do you think it is appropriate to honour your codes of conduct? I think not.
We had enough of entrepreneurs.
I will be damned, if I swallow the meaning of any expert without first crunch it through my brain, scrutinize it to the hilt, before I bring it forth and use it. Making it mine, my meaning, not anybody else, not even the expert as such.
Thinking is over? You are so right, since certainly your way of thinking is over, whereas the thinking that serves the individual, by the individual and for the individual is strong and it will continue unabated.
And as for the mass media accept the rules the blogs have brought forth and comply with them, instead of being a reactionary force be a contributory power, in the thinking rush that has overtaken our societies.
There is more in life than making money.
The mass media of (very soon) yesteryear fighting back tooth and nail to keep their spoils.
Even that little space would not have been there, if it was for them, alas, now, they can not ignore it, as the norms put forth by blogs demand it. Blogs that not only invite but rely upon their readers contribution. And thanks to the blogging medium, the forums where individuals can express their views without the need to comply to worthless rules. The omniscient mass media is in peril.
The views expressed by Andrew Keen, a blatant attempt to discredit and eventually kill what threatens and undermines their position. Trying hard to nurture and spread a trend, a 'bad-hair-day' sort of fad, against blogging. They must be cornered, loosing a long established grip, in human affairs, as how can otherwise explain their vehement attack. Playing their trump cards, offending individuals. Assaulting with a two-pronged attack, first branding blogs as monkey's business and trying to sway the public away from blogs. Pour scorn and ridicule for the already established scene and hoping to discourage any one else from following that path.
Ignoring that it is the system, that breeds monkeys, as they want monkeys, since only monkeys can digest, the monkey food they serve. A system, that they themselves are a big part of. If individuals behave like monkeys, it is because they are victims of a system with a horde of socially prescribed norms, of what is trendy or not, that the mass media faithfully implement. Stuffing into the people's minds that what is the goal in the individual in life, is to be in the spotlight, to rub shoulders with or become a celebrity, to be seen on TV or news tabloids, or the 20-second fame, or make money or be recognised in the streets.
All these things, that not only, do not contribute, but rob the individual, erode its potential. Behave like monkeys if they persist working along these guidelines the system prescribes, awaiting for recognition from the likes of the author and journalist.
Instead of concentrating and develop what is meaningful for them. Individuals that have aspirations ideas, that guide them in their pursuits, provide the framework, streamline their efforts towards succeeding in their goals. Put their viewpoint as a guide, not anybody's else, no matter how expert they profess to be. It is not left to pure chance.
Your quote states
"if you provide an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters one of them will eventually come up with a masterpiece."
playing dice, bets, that everything in life is down to pure chance, ignoring the powerful influence of chaos, that everything that exists in nature, in our minds, in our societies are down to the initial conditions, and these initial conditions carefully picked and chosen, sway away chance elements, greatly diminishes pure chance. It is not just monkeys and typewriters, but meanings that develop in individuals, left free to choose for the themselves, shape their initial conditions and by the sensitive dependence upon these initial conditions, that chaos prescribes, create new meanings, make life meaningful to them.
These initial conditions, which you try so blatantly to manipulate but you will fail, if judging by the fervour in your attack you have already failed.
"net entrepreneur Andrew Keen"
One and foremost, for what your kind of experts say, are hard to swallow since always, in the back of my mind I know that whatever is said, has no value as their opinions are biased, as they are out there to make a buck, and whatever they say or do, it depends on how much monies they will make out of it, and don't give a dime for the individual. Out there protecting the spoils of their employers.
I want you the journalist and the fellow that expressed these views, to be ashamed, to have second thoughts ever use and revere in the sound of these words.
I had enough of best minds. Why should you think of a dictatorship at all, be that fools or yours. And all you woes about
"killing our culture, assaulting our economy and destroying time-honoured codes of conduct."
Individuals do not need that kind of culture, there is nothing there worth preserving, and don't get me going on the time-honoured codes of conduct. Codes that include and guided your current outburst, codes that make you feel it is right to offend, mine and others, sensibilities. Do you think it is appropriate to honour your codes of conduct? I think not.
We had enough of entrepreneurs.
I will be damned, if I swallow the meaning of any expert without first crunch it through my brain, scrutinize it to the hilt, before I bring it forth and use it. Making it mine, my meaning, not anybody else, not even the expert as such.
Thinking is over? You are so right, since certainly your way of thinking is over, whereas the thinking that serves the individual, by the individual and for the individual is strong and it will continue unabated.
And as for the mass media accept the rules the blogs have brought forth and comply with them, instead of being a reactionary force be a contributory power, in the thinking rush that has overtaken our societies.
There is more in life than making money.
The mass media of (very soon) yesteryear fighting back tooth and nail to keep their spoils.
Labels:
mass media attack bloggers
Friday, 24 October 2008
Chaos in quantum systems, could provide new solutions to problems, not yet known?
The threads responsible for these thoughts
Quantum Chaos Unveiled?,
Chaos in my mind. Channels tapped
Raw ideas, grab them as they come
Moving the consciousness subject too far ...
Quantum tunneling? Access is denied.
I stopped there. I found something profound mentioned. Brian Saam, physicist from Utah University explores the relationship between chaos theory and modern quantum physics and states:
"When you look at all the technology governed by quantum physics, it's not unreasonable to assume that if one can apply chaos theory in a meaningful way to quantum systems, that will provide new insights, new technology, new solutions to problems not yet known."
What to say? That I agree with this approach? Certainly I do? So what? Yes, it is something that was always in my mind and as yet I have not found anything relevant to corroborate towards it. Does that make any sense? Probably not. Maybe not, not even to my myself. So why do I go on writing about it? Is it not, what I always do? Nagging my brain for a lead to the next thread to follow? A thread which eventually will or could lead me to meaning? Meaning for my own sake to say the least?
One thing for sure. Chaos is going to give an answer to a lot of problems or questions, and not only in quantum mechanics but in almost (why almost?) all matters, that fall under the umbrella which we call knowledge.
Quantum Chaos Unveiled?,
Chaos in my mind. Channels tapped
Raw ideas, grab them as they come
Moving the consciousness subject too far ...
Quantum tunneling? Access is denied.
I stopped there. I found something profound mentioned. Brian Saam, physicist from Utah University explores the relationship between chaos theory and modern quantum physics and states:
"When you look at all the technology governed by quantum physics, it's not unreasonable to assume that if one can apply chaos theory in a meaningful way to quantum systems, that will provide new insights, new technology, new solutions to problems not yet known."
What to say? That I agree with this approach? Certainly I do? So what? Yes, it is something that was always in my mind and as yet I have not found anything relevant to corroborate towards it. Does that make any sense? Probably not. Maybe not, not even to my myself. So why do I go on writing about it? Is it not, what I always do? Nagging my brain for a lead to the next thread to follow? A thread which eventually will or could lead me to meaning? Meaning for my own sake to say the least?
One thing for sure. Chaos is going to give an answer to a lot of problems or questions, and not only in quantum mechanics but in almost (why almost?) all matters, that fall under the umbrella which we call knowledge.
Labels:
chaos in the quantum realm
Monday, 20 October 2008
Quantum tunneling? Access is denied.
The link I followed, brought me into the article 'Chaos-assisted tunneling in microlasers with partially chaotic resonators', by Podolskiy, V.A. and Narimanov, E.E.. Chaos involvement implied?
"Summary: We demonstrate that in lasers with non-integrable resonators, chaos-assisted tunneling leads to dramatic changes in the emission spectrum, removing the near-degeneracy of symmetry-related doublets and changing the lifetimes of high-Q modes by several orders of magnitude. Our theory is in quantitative agreement with numerical simulations."
Chaos-assisted tunneling? Quantum tunneling? Quantum events? In the quantum realm, a process which implicates chaos? It would be interesting to know the viewpoints of the authors, but unfortunately access is denied. A monetary induced prohibition. Payment is required.
"Summary: We demonstrate that in lasers with non-integrable resonators, chaos-assisted tunneling leads to dramatic changes in the emission spectrum, removing the near-degeneracy of symmetry-related doublets and changing the lifetimes of high-Q modes by several orders of magnitude. Our theory is in quantitative agreement with numerical simulations."
Chaos-assisted tunneling? Quantum tunneling? Quantum events? In the quantum realm, a process which implicates chaos? It would be interesting to know the viewpoints of the authors, but unfortunately access is denied. A monetary induced prohibition. Payment is required.
Labels:
chaos in the quantum realm
Wednesday, 8 October 2008
Amassing wealth. A crime against humanity.
Western societies have accumulated wealth, which could cover the needs of their citizens and not only. It could cover the needs of the citizens the world over.
But instead what do they do? Squeeze individuals in an incessant struggle to work all their lives away to sustain themselves and when they manage this they push them further to work even more, to possess things that they do not need, that they would never use. On top of this, they make everything possible, that whatever is left of their mental capacity, is drained down, in a useless endeavour for the most trivial details ever imagined.
An endeavour that suits the current established order of the few individuals that benefit heavily from such an arrangement and whereas they have everything anybody could ever imagine, they push themselves to have even more and as there are no more things to be had, they accumulate the medium for having the things they desire, in the first place.
Millionaires, billionaires and may be multimillionaires is not enough and who knows may be in their minds the idea of trillionaires or quadrillionaires is brewing up. They accumulate money, and they get more and more and since the drive never looses momentum, they try to make even more. They speculate, they perpetuate a false state of growth, in states economies. They are allowed to amass so much money that even states fall prey into their clutches. Idolized and revered incessantly by the media which they possess and control. Even by the media that are supposedly in the service of the public.
Instead of being despised for the sinister role they play, they are made role models for everyone to aspire to, a useless dream of becoming a millionaire as if the possession of things, will make anyone better than anyone else.
Amassing wealth should be taken as a crime against humanity and the biggest perps, who ever these might be, cases for the Hague tribunal to be tried and punished severely.
But instead what do they do? Squeeze individuals in an incessant struggle to work all their lives away to sustain themselves and when they manage this they push them further to work even more, to possess things that they do not need, that they would never use. On top of this, they make everything possible, that whatever is left of their mental capacity, is drained down, in a useless endeavour for the most trivial details ever imagined.
An endeavour that suits the current established order of the few individuals that benefit heavily from such an arrangement and whereas they have everything anybody could ever imagine, they push themselves to have even more and as there are no more things to be had, they accumulate the medium for having the things they desire, in the first place.
Millionaires, billionaires and may be multimillionaires is not enough and who knows may be in their minds the idea of trillionaires or quadrillionaires is brewing up. They accumulate money, and they get more and more and since the drive never looses momentum, they try to make even more. They speculate, they perpetuate a false state of growth, in states economies. They are allowed to amass so much money that even states fall prey into their clutches. Idolized and revered incessantly by the media which they possess and control. Even by the media that are supposedly in the service of the public.
Instead of being despised for the sinister role they play, they are made role models for everyone to aspire to, a useless dream of becoming a millionaire as if the possession of things, will make anyone better than anyone else.
Amassing wealth should be taken as a crime against humanity and the biggest perps, who ever these might be, cases for the Hague tribunal to be tried and punished severely.
Friday, 3 October 2008
Understanding observation and why Schrödinger's cat is dead?
Understanding observation. What is there that really matters when we consider the impact observation has in quantum phenomena and not only? Interactions. I read in 'What is reality' website, in 'Quantum decoherence' chapter
"What happens in the real world is that a particle is not perfectly isolated: a particle inevitably interacts with the environment. These interactions have the effect of the particle "being observed" by the environment"
... particles, quantum entities, in isolation? And while, or more likely, if in isolation, exist in a superposition of states? However, isolation is a situation hard to come by. Particles everywhere, interactions ensue. Interactions which have the effect of particles 'being observed'. Observation being one way to trigger interactions. And as in the example cited
"when you take the temperature of an object using a thermometer, you have to remove a very small sample of heat from the object."
even by seeing an object we take in, no matter how imperceptible, an amount of the electromagnetic energy inherent in an object, carried by the photons that hit our retina. And, as it is further mentioned
"The measuring device has altered the object-"
The measuring device, our retina, alters the object? The observing human individual, the measuring device, measurement a form of interaction, interactions ongoing since the birth of the universe or even earlier, eliminating any anthropic principle notions? The universe does not need us?
And even though in the macroscopic world that amount, amounts to nothing, it is not the case for the microscopic, the quantum world. Each photon that enters our retina hits first the object. Trillions or zillions of particles in the object are hit. Zillions of electrons in the outer orbits of the object's surface atoms excited by the incoming photons, jumped to higher orbits. Their superposition of states decoheres. Zillions of decohered electrons combine into the object? The object altered, collectively? Collective decoherence?
But the object was already decohered, being a part of a massively populated, by objects, environment. Where interactions are constant. And have being going on for eons. So the world is there. A mass of objects, (decohered? Yes.) of every size possible, living or non-living where observation does little, in its day-to-day rigmarole. It is already decohered, it does not alter further.
Where observation plays a role is where state superposition still exists, in remote and safe isolation, as it is in the deep recesses of atoms, where Planck scales considered, quantum entities are thousands of miles away from other particles or where it is artificially induced, in physics lab as it is mentioned
"... recent experiments have managed to delay decoherence by decoupling quantum particles from their environment."
where decoupling quantum particles from their environment effectively isolates them. But not in a hermetically sealed box, where the poor Schrödinger's cat is dead, long before any benevolent soul opens the hatch. The interactions already established, the decohered poison kills the cat instantly and observation or not, amounts to nothing.
"What happens in the real world is that a particle is not perfectly isolated: a particle inevitably interacts with the environment. These interactions have the effect of the particle "being observed" by the environment"
... particles, quantum entities, in isolation? And while, or more likely, if in isolation, exist in a superposition of states? However, isolation is a situation hard to come by. Particles everywhere, interactions ensue. Interactions which have the effect of particles 'being observed'. Observation being one way to trigger interactions. And as in the example cited
"when you take the temperature of an object using a thermometer, you have to remove a very small sample of heat from the object."
even by seeing an object we take in, no matter how imperceptible, an amount of the electromagnetic energy inherent in an object, carried by the photons that hit our retina. And, as it is further mentioned
"The measuring device has altered the object-"
The measuring device, our retina, alters the object? The observing human individual, the measuring device, measurement a form of interaction, interactions ongoing since the birth of the universe or even earlier, eliminating any anthropic principle notions? The universe does not need us?
And even though in the macroscopic world that amount, amounts to nothing, it is not the case for the microscopic, the quantum world. Each photon that enters our retina hits first the object. Trillions or zillions of particles in the object are hit. Zillions of electrons in the outer orbits of the object's surface atoms excited by the incoming photons, jumped to higher orbits. Their superposition of states decoheres. Zillions of decohered electrons combine into the object? The object altered, collectively? Collective decoherence?
But the object was already decohered, being a part of a massively populated, by objects, environment. Where interactions are constant. And have being going on for eons. So the world is there. A mass of objects, (decohered? Yes.) of every size possible, living or non-living where observation does little, in its day-to-day rigmarole. It is already decohered, it does not alter further.
Where observation plays a role is where state superposition still exists, in remote and safe isolation, as it is in the deep recesses of atoms, where Planck scales considered, quantum entities are thousands of miles away from other particles or where it is artificially induced, in physics lab as it is mentioned
"... recent experiments have managed to delay decoherence by decoupling quantum particles from their environment."
where decoupling quantum particles from their environment effectively isolates them. But not in a hermetically sealed box, where the poor Schrödinger's cat is dead, long before any benevolent soul opens the hatch. The interactions already established, the decohered poison kills the cat instantly and observation or not, amounts to nothing.
Wednesday, 1 October 2008
Unraveling thoughts on decoherence.
The ideas brought forth in this website got me going and I felt, I let my own thoughts unravel, unrestricted.
I read in the text, under the title 'How the environment eliminates interference effects',
"In the page on The Quantum Casino we have seen that when a measurement of an observable is performed, the quantum state appears to "jump" to a particular eigenstate (with the observable taking the associated eigenvalue). This apparent jumping puzzled physicists for many years because it was not understood how and why the usually linear time-evolution of the Schrödinger equation should suddenly decide to make a sudden jump."
A measurement of an observable been performed? Eigenstates and eigenvalues, as referring to states being part of a superposition? Simultaneously, with regard to the element of time, existing states? Superposed states? Or, would it make any difference if these superposed states are thought with regard to the element of space? States that occupy, in a sense overlapping, the same space? So, their simultaneous existence in the superposition can be attributed to the element of time? Existing or co-existing in the same space but at different times? Or, that thought can be turned around and assume the superposed states as existing at the same time but differ in the space that each superposed state occupies? A sort of time-like space and space-like time? Connected with the many worlds and many histories quantum interpretations? Quantum entities simultaneously existing in all worlds possible and at all times possible and by the measurement of an observable one of the superposed states decoheres? A particular eigenstate with its associated eigenvalue instantiates into a world state? unravelling
But what about the Schrödinger equation? Is that so significant? Bringing forth the thought that entered my mind often enough, that maths is a tool to stretch the human mind imagination. To break through a deadlock. And once this is done, to stay aside and let the imagination create. It is not the Schrödinger equation that decides to make a sudden jump. Its job is to set the stage for further thoughts to unravel. Trying to explain how the tool works would not provide new insights, new ways to conceive a phenomenon, new concepts. You can not explain a phenomenon with a tool. This over-reliance in maths and equations and rigorous solutions bears unyielding fruits. Moreover, as it is contained in the phrase 'the usually linear time-evolution', usually and not at all cases point towards the end of its usefulness in unraveling further the phenomenon.
I read in the text, under the title 'How the environment eliminates interference effects',
"In the page on The Quantum Casino we have seen that when a measurement of an observable is performed, the quantum state appears to "jump" to a particular eigenstate (with the observable taking the associated eigenvalue). This apparent jumping puzzled physicists for many years because it was not understood how and why the usually linear time-evolution of the Schrödinger equation should suddenly decide to make a sudden jump."
A measurement of an observable been performed? Eigenstates and eigenvalues, as referring to states being part of a superposition? Simultaneously, with regard to the element of time, existing states? Superposed states? Or, would it make any difference if these superposed states are thought with regard to the element of space? States that occupy, in a sense overlapping, the same space? So, their simultaneous existence in the superposition can be attributed to the element of time? Existing or co-existing in the same space but at different times? Or, that thought can be turned around and assume the superposed states as existing at the same time but differ in the space that each superposed state occupies? A sort of time-like space and space-like time? Connected with the many worlds and many histories quantum interpretations? Quantum entities simultaneously existing in all worlds possible and at all times possible and by the measurement of an observable one of the superposed states decoheres? A particular eigenstate with its associated eigenvalue instantiates into a world state? unravelling
But what about the Schrödinger equation? Is that so significant? Bringing forth the thought that entered my mind often enough, that maths is a tool to stretch the human mind imagination. To break through a deadlock. And once this is done, to stay aside and let the imagination create. It is not the Schrödinger equation that decides to make a sudden jump. Its job is to set the stage for further thoughts to unravel. Trying to explain how the tool works would not provide new insights, new ways to conceive a phenomenon, new concepts. You can not explain a phenomenon with a tool. This over-reliance in maths and equations and rigorous solutions bears unyielding fruits. Moreover, as it is contained in the phrase 'the usually linear time-evolution', usually and not at all cases point towards the end of its usefulness in unraveling further the phenomenon.
Wednesday, 24 September 2008
Mutually exclusive!!!!
Threads that sparked these thoughts
- Using emergence to elucidate emergence. Thoughts emerging or thoughts about emergence.
- What powers the rise of emergent properties?
Incompatible tendencies, that each in itself exerts its influence on an object, a common object, to opposite directions, unreconciled? Yet, despite their incompatibility, they are reconciled (they are forced to?) and their net effect on the object combined. Potential for emergence and emergent states chaotically derived. A dynamic structure, a precarious one, is established. The combined state, fragile as is, possess properties that neither of the pre-existing states has, a direct consequence of the incompatibility intrinsic within. However, the newly emergent state is as stable as the conditions in the surrounding environment permit and it will remain as such as long as these conditions are at force.
If for any reason these conditions cease to be, then the antagonistic alliance ceases too, bringing about the collapse ... Collapse? Is there anything here apart from a tentative connection, an outcome out of the different meanings implied by the use of the word collapse? The word collapse connected with the wavefunction collapse of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics? Whereas in that particular case I refer to the collapse of the precarious combination of incompatible, mutually exclusive states? The collapse of the emergent state? Leave for later.
The incompatibility angle is evident in fundamental issues in nature. What comes out of Jonathan CW Edwards mention of
"Moreover, in an ontological analysis the wave and position must play quite different roles, an issue beyond the scope of this paper."
In an ontological approach, the wave and position, the quite different roles they play, point towards wave and position being incompatible, mutually exclusive providing the grounds for an understanding of the uncertainty principle?
What the uncertainty principle is all about? As it is mentioned in Wikipedia
"... the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that locating a particle in a small region of space makes the momentum of the particle uncertain; and conversely, that measuring the momentum of a particle precisely makes the position uncertain."
Momentum and position incompatible? The dynamic combination of these two mutually exclusive quantities create a force field, and the focus, their combined actions instantiate, constantly shifting? Lying on chaotically developing trajectories? Eludes detection, measurement? Therefore the ensuing uncertainty?
and
"In quantum mechanics, the particle is described by a wave. The position is where the wave is concentrated and the momentum, a measure of the velocity, is the wavelength. Neither the position nor the velocity is precisely defined; the position is uncertain to the degree that the wave is spread out, and the momentum is uncertain to the degree that the wavelength is ill-defined."
A dynamically developing relationship which makes it impossible to precisely define position and momentum, even more it makes it a useless pursuit. The dynamic relationship renders it useless, more precisely a redundant concept, baggage carried by the collective human thought from a society dominated by the classical physics tenets, and as it entered the quantum era should be discarded.
Incompatibility is implied and in this extract by Natika Newton about the concept of person, in the Emergence of consciousness book. As I read in page 54,
"Note that the emergent experiential concept of a person as having both objective and subjective aspects is not itself objectively unifiable: objective and subjective (outer and inner) perspectives on the same entity are mutually exclusive, at least within our common perceptual framework. Nevertheless, we do experience 'personhood' in a unified way, at least when we do not try to analyse the experience."
The objective and subjective facets, the incompatible states interwoven chaotically and the conditions stipulation, under which such a combination instantiates 'personhood', inherent in the common conceptual framework? The conceptual framework responsible for the rise of our identity? The concepts we amass through our lives constantly influence our 'personhood'? Acquiring new concepts, discarding fallacious concepts, delving deeper into each and every concept in the 'common conceptual framework', directly affects the image we hold for ourselves?
- Using emergence to elucidate emergence. Thoughts emerging or thoughts about emergence.
- What powers the rise of emergent properties?
Incompatible tendencies, that each in itself exerts its influence on an object, a common object, to opposite directions, unreconciled? Yet, despite their incompatibility, they are reconciled (they are forced to?) and their net effect on the object combined. Potential for emergence and emergent states chaotically derived. A dynamic structure, a precarious one, is established. The combined state, fragile as is, possess properties that neither of the pre-existing states has, a direct consequence of the incompatibility intrinsic within. However, the newly emergent state is as stable as the conditions in the surrounding environment permit and it will remain as such as long as these conditions are at force.
If for any reason these conditions cease to be, then the antagonistic alliance ceases too, bringing about the collapse ... Collapse? Is there anything here apart from a tentative connection, an outcome out of the different meanings implied by the use of the word collapse? The word collapse connected with the wavefunction collapse of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics? Whereas in that particular case I refer to the collapse of the precarious combination of incompatible, mutually exclusive states? The collapse of the emergent state? Leave for later.
The incompatibility angle is evident in fundamental issues in nature. What comes out of Jonathan CW Edwards mention of
"Moreover, in an ontological analysis the wave and position must play quite different roles, an issue beyond the scope of this paper."
In an ontological approach, the wave and position, the quite different roles they play, point towards wave and position being incompatible, mutually exclusive providing the grounds for an understanding of the uncertainty principle?
What the uncertainty principle is all about? As it is mentioned in Wikipedia
"... the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that locating a particle in a small region of space makes the momentum of the particle uncertain; and conversely, that measuring the momentum of a particle precisely makes the position uncertain."
Momentum and position incompatible? The dynamic combination of these two mutually exclusive quantities create a force field, and the focus, their combined actions instantiate, constantly shifting? Lying on chaotically developing trajectories? Eludes detection, measurement? Therefore the ensuing uncertainty?
and
"In quantum mechanics, the particle is described by a wave. The position is where the wave is concentrated and the momentum, a measure of the velocity, is the wavelength. Neither the position nor the velocity is precisely defined; the position is uncertain to the degree that the wave is spread out, and the momentum is uncertain to the degree that the wavelength is ill-defined."
A dynamically developing relationship which makes it impossible to precisely define position and momentum, even more it makes it a useless pursuit. The dynamic relationship renders it useless, more precisely a redundant concept, baggage carried by the collective human thought from a society dominated by the classical physics tenets, and as it entered the quantum era should be discarded.
Incompatibility is implied and in this extract by Natika Newton about the concept of person, in the Emergence of consciousness book. As I read in page 54,
"Note that the emergent experiential concept of a person as having both objective and subjective aspects is not itself objectively unifiable: objective and subjective (outer and inner) perspectives on the same entity are mutually exclusive, at least within our common perceptual framework. Nevertheless, we do experience 'personhood' in a unified way, at least when we do not try to analyse the experience."
The objective and subjective facets, the incompatible states interwoven chaotically and the conditions stipulation, under which such a combination instantiates 'personhood', inherent in the common conceptual framework? The conceptual framework responsible for the rise of our identity? The concepts we amass through our lives constantly influence our 'personhood'? Acquiring new concepts, discarding fallacious concepts, delving deeper into each and every concept in the 'common conceptual framework', directly affects the image we hold for ourselves?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)