This conversation has been fascinating. I cannot help but think that various poster's instructions to those interested - that those interested need several years of graduate study, etc. - are clearly a cop out. It is possible that I missed some crucial step of the conversation somewhere, but I this feeling is persistent because of how straightforward Nick's question was.
As complex as psychology is, if you asked me why a rat in a Skinner box pressed a leaver 20 times in a minute, I could give you a pretty straightforward and understandable-by-the-layman answer. I could also give you a ridiculously complicated and jargon riddled answer, or I could tell you that it takes 10 years of study to even understand the question. All three responses would be true. As I understand Nick's question, he pointed out a seeming contradiction in a relatively simple and mundane phenomenon; or at least, a ridiculously common phenomenon at our bigger-than-a-pinhead, smaller-than-a-house physical scale. I read the initial start of this (series of) thread(s) roughly as follows: 1) There is a system that seems like it is doing X efficiently, and its doing X is a very reasonable explanation for the intrinsic-formation of the system. Hence, they system seems straightforward. However, 2) some simple experiments seem to indicated that the system is not doing X! 3) Why then does the system form and remain stable? In its generic form, this seems like one of the most basic types of questions that face anyone doing systems work. Here, the system is a whirlpool, and "X" is dissipating-energy-by-moving-water-more-efficiently-down-the-drain (i.e., towards the center of the earth). Nick offered a simple experiment, the point of which was to cast skepticism on whether the whirlpool really increases the rate of water falling. This led to the question of why the system would form and remain, for the most part, stable. The issue was phrased, at least initially, as a quest for the gradient being dissipated, or at least the energy being done away with. While I recognize that this is not the type of question I would necessarily expect a high school physics teacher to know off the top of their head, it is also not the type of question I would expect to lead to this level of hand wringing and rationalization. --- Yes, there is clearly a very complex answer that could be given, expressed in the specialized jargon of specific physical disciplines, and draped in some nasty, nasty math. However, the fact that some clear answer has not been given leads me to believe, barring further evidence, that this is a phenomenon that remains poorly understood. At the least, it is not understood well enough to be explained simply, which is a pretty good criterion for judging how well a thing is understood. One reason I enjoy this list is because it has well-educated people explaining their work to other well-educated people. No one has requested an explanation they could tell their grandmother, or their 4 year old child. Sometimes the explanations offered on the list work and sometimes they do not, typically they work for some people but not others. I'm not sure why people are suddenly hiding behind the difficulty of explaining the phenomenon. Eric P.S. Damn, if I missed some posts some where, this email will be ridiculously embarrassing.
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
