indeterminacy, chaos, and complexity -L3
One of the things that I would like to do is break the cycle of repeated arguments, that tend to exist after mostly the same people cover mostly the same territory. One thought I had was triggered by the use of the word "rational" in several posts. I started thinking about framing the argument in terms of axiomatic systems, seeing what is derived from various sets of axioms, and what just appears to be derived from a casual use of the axioms. >From this, possibly, a more fruitful discussion might emerge. In addition to this, it would be worthwhile to discuss indeterminacy, chaos, and complexity with regards to physical systems, humans, and social systems. There are a lot of ideas concerning this thrown about in this discussion, and differences in understanding these can lead to don't loop arguments (keeps on looping and don't do nutting). First, let us consider randomness and chaos. My favorite example of this is a random number generator. Remember when you just started division with whole numbers and used remainders? For example, 7/3 = 2, remainder 1. Random numbers are typically generated in this manner. The overflow of the 32 bit unsigned integer is usually used. That is to say, one obtains c = a* b, where a, b, and c are all integers. With a 32 bit unsigned integer, clock arithmetic is commonly used. So, when this is done on a computer, we automatically get c/2^32= d remainder e. We are not interested in d, but e is the next random number. We then get f = a*e, f/2^32 = g remainder h. h is the next random number. This is a random number generator because there is no correlation between e and h. If one looked at the h(e-1) and h(e+1), one would find the same pattern one would see of one looked at h(e-49724835) or h(50928345083). This is also a chaotic system. A change in only 1/(2^32) of the full range results in a number that has a flat probability distribution over the full range. Further, this random number generator is not really random: it is pseudo-random. That is to say, if one runs it a thousand times, starting with the same a & b values, one gets the exact same sequence every time. That is why varying the seed is always an option. Some random number generators also allow one to vary a. Random number generator quality is determined by two factors: the lack of correlations and the periodicity. The one I've given has a periodicity of 2^32, which is good enough for most purposes. The book on random number generators that I used to write my first generator (the standard DEC ran() function wasn't pseudo-random) has a very illustrative example of how one needs to be very structured in setting up a random number generator. He gave an example of doing about 10 different "random" things, like taking the sine, an exponential, etc. of the number before returning it as the seed for the next calculation. He ran it, and found it had a periodicity under 20. Seemingly "random" actions ended up in establishing a very tight pattern. These random numbers describe chaotic behavior. Minimal changes in the input value can result in full scale changes in the output value. There is no way to predict the next state of the system from the present state, or the present and previous state, the present and the two previous states, etc. (except by knowing the algorithm.) There are physical systems that are like this. I've given some examples of this before. Even if one were to assume that air molecules were classical perfectly elastic hard spheres, we see that the we need to know the position of air molecules in a 1 meter cube with (practically) infinite precision to know if the position of a given molecule is closer to the left or the right, to the top or the bottom, to the front or the back of this cube at 1 second. Both the random number generator and the model of air molecules as little hard spheres are examples of classical chaos. In theory, one could make the predictions (with the random number generator one actually could), but the complexity gets in the way. With real air molecules, of course, one cannot do this even in principal. Quantum effects insure that the results are indeterminant. Quantum mechanics is truly random. Let us consider a thin slit experiment, where the light source is dim, and emits one photon at a time. (I tried an ASCII drawing of this, but it didn't parse right.) Knowing everything possible to know about the source, we cannot determine where the photon will hit. We have a probability distribution, given by the one slit diffraction pattern, but that is just a probability pattern. It is impossible to know where a given photon will hit. When QM was first developed, this caused some discomfort. People like Einstein thought that there must be some underlying determinism (God does not roll dice with the universe). But, after >75 years, experimental and theoretical advances have shown that it is impossible to have a local hidden variable theory underlying QM.
Re: What are the real rules? and a bit on unions
From: Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: What are the real rules? and a bit on unions Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 21:29:00 -0700 On Sep 17, 2004, at 8:45 PM, Dan Minette wrote: 1) Are we not to differ with him? I don't think it was the differing; what I saw was JDG taking on a fairly condescending tone which was returned in kind, and then (apparently) a gang-up, three against one. The Brinellers do everything in threes... -Travis _ Take advantage of powerful junk e-mail filters built on patented Microsoft® SmartScreen Technology. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Week 2 NFL Picks
My Internet access has been fritzy the past few days, so let me quickly register my picks before the game starts. So far, I am 9-7 for the year, and the Upset Special is 1-0 as Detroit won on the road for the first time in two years. Speaking of Detroit, I expect them to lost at home to Houston, as the Texans rebounnd from the Week 1 Upset. In Jacksonville, I do not expect the Jaguars to get lucky twice in a row. The Broncos will win. Chicago, ever just getting upset by Detroit is nowheres near good enough to go into Green Bay and win. I like the Packers. Baltimore,however, may have been exposed last week by the Browns. Even at home, Pittsburgh always gives them fits. ILll take the Steelers. UPSET SPECIAL The game of the week is Indianapolis at Tennessee. The Colts are too good to lose two in a row, especially after the heartbreaker loss last week. The Titans also did not look sharp in Miami last week. I Lll take the Colts. With Carolina at Kansas City, its hard to believe that one of these teams will be 0-2. With the injuries mounting to the Panthers, who will be without their two best offensive players, its hard to see them keeping pace with the Chiefs in Arrowhead. PickN: Chiefs Meanwhile, New Orleans was spared hurricane Ivan,and should be spared an 0-2 start as well. I like the Saints over the 49ers.. I think. Its going to be a long year for the New York Giants, the Redskins will win in New York. Once upon a time, St. Louis at Atlanta would be a marquee matchup. Now, neither team is really expected to make the playoffs. I like Michael Vick to run wild on a St. Louis defense that isnLt all that good - despite last weekLs evidence to the contrary. ILll take the Falcons. In Tampa Bay, I think Seattle has a great chance to go 2-0, with both games on the road. ILll take the Seahawks, as the stars continue to align for this team. In Oakland, its hard to see the Bills doing well in this one. Drew Bledsoe has been horrible on the road for two years now, and the N Black HoleNwill hardly be friendly confines. The BillsL defense will keep it close, but they canLt score points. Pick: Raiders Its really difficult to see one of the worst teams in football, Arizona, beating one of the best teams - even at home. Pick: Patriots The New York Jets in San Diego is the lock of the week... the Chargers Lupset win last week notwithstanding. One of the most intriguing games is Cleveland at Dallas. The Browns are fresh off an upset win, whereas the Cowboys were clobbered in Minnesota. Dallas is looking for a RB, and despite shutting down Jamal Lewis last week, I think that the Browns can be run on. Playing on emotion at home, I see the Dallas defense giving Jeff Garcia fits. Pick: Cowboys In Cincinnati, I like the Bengals a lot - and expect them to contend for the playoffs. Still, their defense looked positively awful against the Jets last week, and I have a nagging suspicion that the Dolphins have enough talent to sneak up on people. In a mild upset, I Lm going with Miami. Minnesota at Philadelphia - Both offenses looked outstanding last week, and Philadedelphia looked like they had the defense to go with it. And theyre at home. Pick: Eagles. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: some thoughts and quotes.
Gautam Mukunda wrote: > --- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> then he seems to just follow whatever neocon policy >> is presented. >> He doesn't stand out in the crowd for me, other than >> being a bit >> better looking than most polititians. >> >> xponent >> The Law Enforcement Guy Maru >> rob > > He does Tequila shots with style, if that helps any > :-) Well.it helps with his drinking buddy cred fer shur. Won't help me vote for him, but that is no impediment to having a modicum of respect for the guy. Heck, I'd even salt his shot glass! xponent Lime, No Salt Myself Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: some thoughts and quotes.
--- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > then he seems to just follow whatever neocon policy > is presented. > He doesn't stand out in the crowd for me, other than > being a bit > better looking than most polititians. > > xponent > The Law Enforcement Guy Maru > rob He does Tequila shots with style, if that helps any :-) = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: some thoughts and quotes.
Julia Thompson wrote: > Gautam Mukunda wrote: >> Speaking of Texas Republicans, what do you think of >> Mike McCaul? Isn't his district near you? > > Yes. I'm not quite sure exactly *where* his district is, since the > Texas House got creative with the district map. From what I read and > heard during the primaries, I liked him better than his opponent, but > that's about as much opinion as I've formed at this point. Once he's > in, I'd need to look at his voting record. > His district is northwest of Houston, containing both Brenham and Tomball. If one can go by his webpage, http://www.mccaulforcongress.com/issues.php then he seems to just follow whatever neocon policy is presented. He doesn't stand out in the crowd for me, other than being a bit better looking than most polititians. xponent The Law Enforcement Guy Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: some thoughts and quotes.
Gautam wrote: I note, in my occasional gesture at systemic reform, that the legendary "smoke-filled rooms" got us Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman. Among others. The primary system got us...well, everyone since LBJ. Does this seem like an improvement to anyone? I give you Reagan as a success - it's unlikely that a non-primary system would have selected him. But other than that? This may, actually, explain the generally greater success of Republican Presidential candidates. They are nominated by a more elite-driven electorate than their Democratic counterparts, so they tend to be more like the "smoke-filled rooms" than their opposite numbers. I agree. The primary system sucks and it elongates the process. Dump it. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: some thoughts and quotes.
Bryon Daly wrote: > > On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 18:02:44 -0700 (PDT), Gautam Mukunda > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > True enough. Oh, what the hell, I'm not going to get > > that job anyways. I have no idea who I'm voting for. > > I find the Bush Administration to be brutally inept, > > almost frighteningly incompetent across a wide variety > > of areas, and wrongheaded in a fair number of others. > > I think the second President Bush has been the worst > > President since Jimmy Carter. > > > > Had the Democratic party nominated someone other than > > a Massachusetts Senator who has raised political > > opportunism to the level of performance art, been > > wrong on every major issue of foreign policy in his > > entire public career, and believes that four months of > > his life 30 years ago are important enough to vote for > > him while his entire public life is unimportant...I'd > > definitely be voting for him. As it is, I still > > would...but the problem is his supporters. There are > > plenty of people like that on this list - one might > > call them the "no enemies to my left" crowd. Or the > > Michael Moore crowd and his enablers. The Michael > > Moore crowd is obvious - people who hate the US. > > That's not a very large part of Kerry's supporters. > > The far larger problem is the humongous group of his > > supporters who are patriotic people who are, > > nonetheless, so consumed with hatred for the Bush > > Administration that they don't have a problem with > > Michael Moore. People who look at Bin Laden and John > > Ashcroft and think we should understand Bin Laden and > > hate Ashcroft. People who sneer at NASCAR. As > > someone without firm partisan commitments, I tend to > > look at these people and think, "If these people are > > right, I'd rather be wrong." If John Kerry displayed > > any sign of coherent principle I'd say, okay, he's a > > good guy who's served his country, once he's become > > President he'll tell these guys to go to hell. But he > > appears to be, in Winston Churchill's marvelous > > phrase, "The Spineless Wonder". Since Presidential > > candidates cater to their supporters, I fear that he > > might actually _do what they want_, and, say, become a > > protectionist, stop offshoring, surrender our national > > security to our French enemies, and so on. This would > > be a problem. So I look at Bush and think - this guy > > is a D- President. And I look at Kerry and think, > > this guy _wants to be_ an F President. So who do I > > vote for? I honestly have no idea. > > I've gone through some of the same thought process, myself. I don't > know about the protectionism stuff, but I have seen one or two > speeches from him saying the US did not need UN permission to defend > itself (ie: surrender to the French). The quote the Republicans are > airing to the contrary is 30 years old and he has long since > repudiated that belief. > > As for Iraq, I was concerned that his failure to support the $87 > billion Iraq funding showed he was non-serious about achieving success > there, but what doesn't get mentioned in the press is that Kerry was > supporting an alternate version of the bill that would provide the > same money, but the funding would come from revoking some of the tax > cuts. > http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh071604.shtml > quote: > KERRY: When say I voted for it, I was willing to vote for the $87 > billion providing we paid for it! Providing we asked Americans to > sacrifice, all of us together. So Joe Biden and I...brought an > amendment to say, Hey America—rather than have a $690 billion tax cut > for everybody over the next ten years who are earning over $200,000, > why don't we take just $600 billion, and that way we pay for the war > right up front and not add it to the deficit. Guess what? George Bush > said no. The Republicans said no. And what they're doing is trying > once again to mislead America as they do so effectively, make a joke > out of something that's serious. > > It was also my fear was he'd support a Vietnam-like abandonment of > Iraq, but it's pretty clear he believes failure is not an option: > http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0430.html > snippet: > > "I believe that failure is not an option in Iraq. But it is also true > that failure is not an excuse for more of the same. > > Here is how we must proceed." ... > > I think Kerry grossly overestimates the willingness of France, et al > to help us out there, even if he asks nicely, but it seems clear he > isn't planning to back out. > > IMHO, Kerry has been doing a lousy job at making people confident in > his leadership on security issues. He was forced to shift left to win > the nomination, and I think he's worried that too strong a stance will > turn off the anti-war and ABB crowds, so he's walking a fine line, and > it's left him something of a "rorschach candidate", where people are > left to form their own vision of his presidency, and the Republic
Re: Br!n: some thoughts and quotes.
Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > --- Julia Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I vote in Republican primaries. I'd be very > > interested in 2008 as to > > your opinion of the various candidates going into > > the primaries. (I'd > > be very interested in the opinions of a good number > > of other people > > here, as well.) > > > > Julia > > Speaking of Texas Republicans, what do you think of > Mike McCaul? Isn't his district near you? Yes. I'm not quite sure exactly *where* his district is, since the Texas House got creative with the district map. From what I read and heard during the primaries, I liked him better than his opponent, but that's about as much opinion as I've formed at this point. Once he's in, I'd need to look at his voting record. I'm still pretty steamed about Austin getting broken up into 3 districts that all have tendrils reaching to somewhere else. While I'm glad about how my own district's boundaries were adjusted, I think it's just a bad idea to break an urban district like 10 was into little pieces and link them to areas that don't have as much in common with them. (A lot of people in rural districts weren't happy, either, since it diluted their power into urban areas.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: some thoughts and quotes.
Bryon Daly wrote: > > On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 22:05:41 -0700 (PDT), Damon Agretto > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Why can't we find better people to run the country? > > > > We CAN...it's just that they don't get nominated. I > > might've thought very long and hard about who to > > actually vote for in the last election if McCain had > > won the nomination. Hindsight being 20/20, I probably > > would have gone for him instead of Gore. > > > > There are plenty of people that would make excellent > > presidents. However we have to rely on the Democrats & > > Republicans to actually NOMINATE them before we can > > vote for them... > > So what if there was a "none of the above" checkbox on the > presidential ballots? I've heard this rejected as "fundamentally > non-serious", but it seems to me that it'd possibly be a way to send a > message to the parties to provide better candidates. In the Republican primary here, there were 2 options for nominee for president: George W Bush and Undecided. At least there was an option offered for those who didn't want to nominate Bush for re-election Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Br!n: some thoughts and quotes.
On Sat, Sep 18, 2004 at 05:25:51PM -0700, Gautam Mukunda wrote: > Or our own dear Doctor's stuff about NASCAR. I note that > (unsurprisingly) the only person on the list who raised an objection > to that was...wait for it...me. If you are referring to the NASCAR thing, then let's talk about priorities. Which is more important to object to: a disparaging remark about an ethnic group by a pundit (who is unknown to the majority of Americans, and has almost no political power), or holding hundreds of people prisoner for years while denying them basic human rights such as a lawyer and a fair trial? With limited time, it would seem prudent to limit one's objections the most important issues. If you are referring to the Walmart comment, then I was already composing (in my head) some objections to Brin's Walmart comment when I read your response (and you covered most of the same points I would have, although I would not have gone on about Brin not liking Walmart becauses he's a snob, which although it may be true, I realized from a similar situation here recently that pointing it out doesn't further the discusssion). And then Brin signed off for at least a fortnight. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
