its funny how on paper these logical cats can point out the existence of elements such as chaos in the universe
yet
it proves difficult to manifest this understanding in everyday life
for the longest time it seemed to me that a published book in a bookstore had some significance
as tho the contents of the book were some how reaching out to, and impacting a audience
only over the last few years have i come around to the understanding that the reach of a particular syllable-word-phrase-sentence-idea is limited in comparison to these over-riding themes that we are all raised with in this society
a tip-of-the-hat acknowledgement of chaos does not seem to be enough to counter-attack the formative-year-experience of being raised to chase money by any means necessary
or defense mechanisms of those touched with a strain of social awkwardness
or those bitten by the desire for the limelight that comes along with winning awards in elementary school for track meets or math contests or essay writing
"did you get the highest mark?"
all these observations of chaos - they get washed down the drain
we can make the observation
but
then we want to take credit for it or do something impossible with it
perhaps 'easier said than done' could be the theme of this discourse - but i have a hunch it goes deeper than that
over the last couple of years i have had opportunity to build with yall here and observe where exactly these chaotic elements exist
how they manifest in the universe we are experiencing
the unpredictability within each individual person
the things that are not possible to determine:
A) how much pressure a person can handle
B) how they will react when that threshold has been breached
sure there are trends - these may be particular to a demographic or geographic location
but
there is no way to tell with any accuracy what a particular circumstance will turn a man into
the more one looks for these instances of chaos and inconsistency - the more they become clear as day
my favorite topic of all time - the flaws of communication - are also testament to this
misunderstandings -
the way you can deliver a message with a intent and have it interpreted with a intent other than the one with which you delivered it
the worst crime to commit is accusing somebody of something that they did not do
- there are no winners in a situation like that
observe the situation of a logical mind getting frustrated at his inability to explain chaos to a audience
he gets mad at his audience
or
begins to question his own ability
meanwhile - the whole time - the elements he was trying to discuss were at play ruining the discussion
perhaps his motives were in the wrong place
perhaps the room was too hot
perhaps the same words he was using would have worked the next day
shit aint easy
its better to be lucky than good
but its best to be good and lucky
the Luck Plane is no joke
ask a SubGenius
I don't get it :wink:
:mittens:
It's a tough sell, because scientists are finding "rules" for chaos. That's what chaos theory is about. Not how to deal with chaos, but finding rules of motion for seemingly chaotic events.
So, a scientist explaining chaos is much different than an Erisan. In fact, I think a layman would understand the Erisian view before the scientific.
However, I also think a layperson would be incredibly tough to convince that embracing Disorder to achieve Chaotic balance is a positive thing.
i guess in a way - we are observing the chaotic elements in 'rules'
the opposite of trying to apply rules to chaos
in terms of embracing disorder - perhaps the balance is that you have to embrace order just as much?
Well, yeah-- the original point of the PD being that Humans have been leaning towards Order for too long, so going ballistic with disorder is just a way of balancing the scales.
Also, we're running into problems again with the word "Chaos". A scientist would see it as seemingly unpredictable motion, like a trail of cigarette smoke. And they're trying to find rules of motion for it.
We, on the other hand, are taking the word "Chaos" in a much larger, almost metaphysical sense, and grafting it onto the Human Condition.
it seems like acknowledging and accepting the presence of unpredictable motion is a lot like submitting to the will of Allah
isnt there a bit of a trend for the most dedicated and intense scientists to eventually jump on the spiritual path?
Quote from: LMNO on May 10, 2007, 04:17:55 PM
Well, yeah-- the original point of the PD being that Humans have been leaning towards Order for too long, so going ballistic with disorder is just a way of balancing the scales.
Also, we're running into problems again with the word "Chaos". A scientist would see it as seemingly unpredictable motion, like a trail of cigarette smoke. And they're trying to find rules of motion for it.
We, on the other hand, are taking the word "Chaos" in a much larger, almost metaphysical sense, and grafting it onto the Human Condition.
Which is kind of ironic because as you point out, a layman would probably better understand the Erisian
concept of "chaos" vs. a scientific approach. Yet, the same layman would probably tend to think of "chaos" in terms more closely aligned with the scientific definition(s).
It would seem the biggest victory we could ever hope to acheive is to somehow, once-in-for-all get everyone on the same page when it comes to using the term "chaos". Because as soon as you mention chaos, and one joe thinks x and another thinks y, you're already defeated before you begin.
What's worse, I have found through experience that even when you specifically define and set out your meaning of "chaos", they ignore it, and keep going with their own definition.
sounds chaotic
But it doesn't deal with motion, per se.
It usually seems we deal with the chaos of the character, the chaos of human interaction with itself, its environment, and with others. That's a kind of chaos that cannot be mathematically defined.
Well, maybe with game theory and probabilities, but not hard, fast numbers.
could it be that these chaotic elements of human interaction have their basis in the chaotic elements of mathematics?
hard fast numbers can be seen as a fallacy or inconsistency in and of themselves
In a word: No.
Not until neurobiology and socioanthropology invents ways to numerize the process.
Quote from: LMNO on May 10, 2007, 04:45:39 PM
But it doesn't deal with motion, per se.
It usually seems we deal with the chaos of the character, the chaos of human interaction with itself, its environment, and with others. That's a kind of chaos that cannot be mathematically defined.
Well, maybe with game theory and probabilities, but not hard, fast numbers.
Which is precisely why it fascinates me so much more than science. Because its socially constructed rules, at best, and thus can be overturned with different starting axioms.
yeah, me too.
By the way, I just got slammed at work, but remind me of the epiphany I had today that links teaching and education with Eris and Discordia, as they both bring confusion and self-doubt to a merehume.
Quote from: LHX on May 10, 2007, 05:47:21 PM
could it be that these chaotic elements of human interaction have their basis in the chaotic elements of mathematics?
hard fast numbers can be seen as a fallacy or inconsistency in and of themselves
yeah I don't think so. Math and numbers are man-made.
Of course the thing about fractals is that things up close look just like things far away. If you understand how monkeys mate, you
basically understand how humans mate. The patterns found in real life are also found in mathematics, but I don't think one arose from the other.
Quote from: LMNO on May 10, 2007, 07:06:34 PM
In a word: No.
Not until neurobiology and socioanthropology invents ways to numerize the process.
ok wait tho - dont numbers and numerology have their roots in society?
the number 2 wasnt lying on the ground waiting for people to find it
numbers are very flawed man
they may be useful as units of measurement - but their utility is limited
at best - they are place holders just like any other symbol
plus all those basic problems like zero and infinity
and the fact that there is infinite space in between any two digits
Quote from: Cain on May 10, 2007, 07:08:45 PM
Which is precisely why it fascinates me so much more than science. Because its socially constructed rules, at best, and thus can be overturned with different starting axioms.
exactly - that aspect of being able to constantly refine
pursue from a certain angle - and then back track or discard all findings in favor of persuing a different angle
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on May 10, 2007, 07:15:04 PM
Quote from: LHX on May 10, 2007, 05:47:21 PM
could it be that these chaotic elements of human interaction have their basis in the chaotic elements of mathematics?
hard fast numbers can be seen as a fallacy or inconsistency in and of themselves
yeah I don't think so. Math and numbers are man-made.
Of course the thing about fractals is that things up close look just like things far away. If you understand how monkeys mate, you basically understand how humans mate. The patterns found in real life are also found in mathematics, but I don't think one arose from the other.
i disagree man - i think we can say that math sprung from real life
Yes, but current high science (since einstein) are about removing the arbitrary and the subjective from the experiement. Including the observer. That's the basis behind einsteins special relativity, and almost all important physics since then.
Numbers are a human creation, but now humans are finding ways to remove themselves from their equations.
is anything coming of it?
Quote from: LMNO on May 10, 2007, 04:11:05 PMIt's a tough sell, because scientists are finding "rules" for chaos. That's what chaos theory is about. Not how to deal with chaos, but finding rules of motion for seemingly chaotic events.
hm that's odd, because what i know of chaos theory, is exactly the other way around. maybe we're trying to say the same thing with different words, but:
chaos theory is not about finding "rules" for chaos. we already got the rules. or at least a pretty good approximation to these rules. it's just that these rules act on an enormous amount of separate particles/agents. this has the effect that the resulting system is incredibly (exponentially) sensitive to initial conditions, so it doesn't help to simulate these systems with computers cause it is impossible to build one fast enough with enough memory. (even taking into account Moore's law)
so instead of trying this, trying to find exact solutions,
chaos theory is trying to deal with the chaos. we will use the rules (or approximations), simulate (more approximations) of the systems, and look very carefully what patterns emerge in these systems. the hypothesis is then, that while the exact events are different, the general rules on which these patterns operate can be known and predicted.
the emergence of general rules (which are very different from the partial rules of the separate particles/agents) in chaotic systems is (afaik) what chaos theory is about.
probably you were trying to say this, but with different words :)
Quote from: LHXand the fact that there is infinite space in between any two digits
this is not a fact. i've been trying to explain this a few times, but it only holds for numbers mathematicians call "Real numbers", which is pretty much a misnomer. because in reality, things are only finitely divisable. sure, we have found new and smaller "atoms" (indivisble units) a few time, but no physicist will tell you this will go on for ever.
you can have natural numbers (
N), you can have fractions of natural numbers (rational numbers,
Q), if you add to
Q the irrational numbers, you will get
R, the set of "real" numbers. unfortunately, irrational numbers do not exist in nature/reality, they only exist on paper or in a mathematical mind, and in reality only appear as approximations.
not strictly an argument to this point, but an interesting illustration:
Pi is an irrational number. It can be rounded to about 52 digits, making it a rational number, is enough to calculate the circumference of a circle the size of the currently known universe to the precision of one proton.
i see what youre saying 000, but it sounds a bit shaky
you are still rounding the number
and who knows how big a proton is
http://www.desy.de/f/hera/engl/chap1.html
In 1956 Hofstadter and his collaborators measured the size of the proton for the first time, by using the world's biggest (at that time) linear accelerator to shoot high energy electrons at hydrogen (Nobel prize 1961).
They found a size of about 10-13cm, which is about 1/10 the size of a nucleus.
And yeah, numbers are pretty much an abstract concept.
the point is
1) a proton is pretty fuckin small. like really really really really small:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Helium_atom_QM.svg
"A semi-accurate depiction of the helium atom. In the nucleus, the protons are in red and neutrons are in purple. In reality, the nucleus is also spherically symmetrical."
that's REALLY small. (ok an electron would be smaller)
2) the known universe (and by this i mean that sphere of what light has been able to reach us since the big bang) is pretty fuckin big
3) 52 decimals is really not very much. if you google for "Pi", you'll find you're gonna have a hard time to find a site whcih mentions
less than 52 decimals, cause most of them list over 100.000 or so. those krazy japanese kids make a sport to memorize up to 500 (or so) of the things.
Pi has an infinite amount of decimals, but for all practical intents and purposes, you really need only the first 52 of them.
and LMNO:
Quote from: LMNO on May 22, 2007, 03:07:41 PMThey found a size of about 10-13cm
fixt for not giving the poor physicists nightmares about HUMONGOUS protons :lol:
but really, that Pi/proton/universe thing was just an illustration of the arbitraryness of irrational numbers. there's more solid arguments to the "they don't exist" theory, namely that it is possible to construct all of mathematics without them. (it's just that they provide useful shortcuts when you need to work with numbers, but that's what language symbols are for)