Quantum Psychology/Sociology
Jon Slaughter
even if only approximately, of particles and humans are composed of
particles then the domain of human evolution is in the arena of quantum
mechanics. While this doesn't seem all that absurd if you assume that humans
are composed of nothing more than particles it could allow us to understand
human behavior along with human evolution(at least approximately).
Take this scenario for human evolution: A group of atoms formed molecules
which in turn formed higher functions such as biological cells. The
evolution continues in a way that higher and more complex structures
evolved. At the start of what we might call simple life the "psychology" and
"sociology" were simple. Here the "emotions" are in their most basic forms
and are manifestations of the co-ordinate functions of the life form. Energy
must be gathered and converted for existence and reproduction is essential.
The "prime directive" of these basic life forms are simply and only to
reproduce as that is necessary for continual existence. The converse simply
results in a "species" that does not exist for very long and is effectively
not a species. This is not to say that, somehow, a species may not drop that
fundamental drive for existence's but it would soon die out.
The first point here is that procreation is necessary for all species.
Without it the species cannot exist. Procreation is simply an alternate form
of existence's. The real germ is that all "living" things were formed in
some way to have a "need" to exist. I can't imagine that something could
exist, at least very long, without any need/desire for existence and it
wouldn't even come close to forming a species.
What this points to, assuming life is no more than a mass collection of
particles that follow a few basic principles(the "laws" of physics) then the
essence of life is found somewhere in the domain of molecular mechanics.
In any case as the species evolves biological we can expect that those
fundamental "emotions" will become more complex. The moral of the story is
that all emotions we experience are in some way derived from those based
fundamental emotions that all living creatures exist. As we become more
complex so do the emotions. Hate, Love, ignorance, arrogance, etc are all
in some way derivable from the need to exist(which translates into the need
to procreate since immortality does not exist).
But what does this have to do with quantum mechanics? Well, if the essence
of life is governed by quantum mechanics because "life" is really just a
collection of particles that exhibit certain behavior which, ultimately, are
simply seeking out the least energy state can one not expect that
schrodinger's equation is a model for all life forms?
Obviously, a human being, taken as collection of atoms, contains a "state".
The "wavefunction" is extremely complex but, in some sense, finite
computable(a finite number of atoms) and governed by schrodinger's equation.
As a side note, one may argue that the "essence" of life comes from the
unknowably that crops up in quantum mechanics such as the uncertainty
principle or "non-hermitic" operators(the essence of life is not observable,
for example). This is possible but only means that we are limited in what we
can learn about life.
What I'm actually curious about is if it is possible to transform
schrodinger's equation into an equation of psychology/sociology. The idea
is two-fold: First these things in question are "observable" and hence have
a corresponding hermitian operator. Second, Assuming they are only complex
evolution's of more basic operators(ultimately the hamiltonian) there would
probably be an equation that describes them that is similar to schrodinger's
equation but transformed into the more appropriate context.
Of course because these ideas are extremely complex we cannot hope to get
some exact equation but the idea is that it may be possible to get some
approximation of a "love" operator or a "hate" operator. After all, love and
hate are observable if one takes my initial assumptions that all of human
behavior is based on molecular mechanics. We could attempt to get some
approximations of the operators through sampling on the population or how
ever. Ultimately schrodinger's equation describes the psychology and
sociology(as it describes virtually everything... even if only
approximately) but it is not in the correct form to understand those complex
things.
Ultimately the goal is to find a way to link the psychology/sociology of man
with fundamental principles of science. I personally find it self-evident
yet there is no theory of such. Also with a properly formed system we
potentially could find reasons why large populations have certain behaviors.
Think of it analogous to simple quantum systems but applied to large
populations. The idea is that a large sample of humans are not too much
different from a large sample of particles. Even some of the basic quantum
mechanical ideas of scattering, spin, and tunneling could apply.
Example: "Hate" is a manifestation of a more simpilier idea of existance.
One hates because something because it is interfering with one being able to
exist in the manner it desires. But because of the sheer number of atoms
that "decide" this emotion it is very complex. If think of each atom as
behaving in a quantum mechanical way such then we can expect that the total
system would be extremely complex with the wavefunction being composed of a
linear combination of wavefunctions that all exhibt the anomolous behavior
that we all have come to love.
If you sorta get what I'm trying to express and have some inclination
towards it then you can see that life is not much different than any other
physical system. Certain properties of studied quantum systems could
potentially be found in macrosopic populations under the guise of emotional
behaviorism. Entanglement could be, for example, exhibited on a global
pscyhological scale. This could explain psychokinesis, deja vu, out of body
experiences and all that other kinda stuff... not that I believe in any of
that.
RichD
> It dawned upon me that if quantum mechanics governs all
> physical behavior, even if only approximately, of
> particles and humans are composed of
> particles then the domain of human evolution is in
> the arena of quantum mechanics.
>
> contains a "state". The "wavefunction" is extremely
> complex but, in some sense, finite
> computable(a finite number of atoms) and governed
> by schrodinger's equation.
>
> to transform schrodinger's equation into an equation of
> psychology/sociology.
Good idea... find the eigenvalues of the
human body, then answer all questions of psychology.
Have you tried Mathematica?
--
Rich
Uncle Al
>
> It dawned upon me that if quantum mechanics governs all physical behavior,
1) Correspondence Principle.
2) Gravitation.
3) Feigenbaum contants.
4) Fractals.
5) Cellular automata.
6) no
> even if only approximately, of particles and humans are composed of
> particles then the domain of human evolution is in the arena of quantum
> mechanics.
Walk through an Inner City at 2300 hrs and plead renormalization.
> While this doesn't seem all that absurd if you assume that humans
> are composed of nothing more than particles it could allow us to understand
> human behavior along with human evolution(at least approximately).
bullshit
> Take this scenario for human evolution: A group of atoms formed molecules
> which in turn formed higher functions such as biological cells. The
> evolution continues in a way that higher and more complex structures
> evolved. At the start of what we might call simple life the "psychology" and
> "sociology" were simple. Here the "emotions" are in their most basic forms
> and are manifestations of the co-ordinate functions of the life form. [snip clods]
Biology is an emergent phenomenon. The parts do not sum to the whole
at any fundamental level. Reductionism is a failure. There's no
there there when you get there.
> What I'm actually curious about is if it is possible to transform
> schrodinger's equation into an equation of psychology/sociology.
[snip more clods]
1) Isaac Asimov's "Foundation Trilogy."
2) "The Matrix"
3) no
> Example: "Hate" is a manifestation of a more simpilier idea of existance.
1) Tribe lives upstream, ritually defecates into the waterway each
morning.
2) Tribe lives downstream, decides to do something about it.
> One hates because something because it is interfering with one being able to
> exist in the manner it desires.
[snip still more clods]
3) Church of Rome crusades on otherwise isolated Muslim Arabia re
dogma. Arabia had no interface with Europe, nor did it want one.
Arabia was civilized, Europe was a Christ-besotted shithole.
A Damascus steel saber could slice through European plate armor.
Europe pilfered wootz but could do nothing ueful with it. No part of
Spain in the 21st century rivals the 14th century Alhambra. Spain got
rid of its Jews, too. After 80 years of plundering the New World
Spain was left with nothing in Europe and Mexicans in the New World.
Yeah, that was clever. Two sets of books could have saved them.
Where do you suspect Columbus got his intel? Not from
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/jessy.jpg
Columbus comported with pagans, Jews, and Freemasons who in turn
interfaced with Muslims who had preserved and elaborated Greek
knowlege. Europe scraped Library of Alexandria parchments and
overwrote to idiot prayer palimpsests. Arabia read books rather than
burned them.
Show us the wavefunction.
So the bloodily idiotic One True Church dumped on Muslims, Muslims
adopted the Turkish style of blood not assimilation, Constantinople
became Istanbul, and the future was killed.
Show us the wavefunction.
> Entanglement could be, for example, exhibited on a global
> pscyhological scale. This could explain psychokinesis
[snip rest of crap]
Mystics are baffled by the obvious yet possess a complete
understanding of the nonexistent.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Surfer
<Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>It dawned upon me that if quantum mechanics governs all physical behavior,
>even if only approximately, of particles and humans are composed of
>particles then the domain of human evolution is in the arena of quantum
>mechanics.
>
You must bear in mind the phenomenon of "emergence", whereby higher
level behaviours emerge from lower level ones, that differ in quality
from the lower level ones.
For example in calm air the motion of individual molecules is
violently chaotic, but an aircraft flying through calm air can fly
quite smoothly.
At this level, the flow of air over the wings is accurately described
by aerodynamics and quantum theory wouldn't be useful.
However, some alternative cases where quantum theory might be useful
are discussed here.
Why Quantum Theory?
http://www.users.on.net/~kirsty.kitto/papers/why.pdf
".....This article investigates one of the fundamental issues
confronting a field that investigates quantum interaction; namely why
is it necessary? The need to investigate an interaction using a
quantum formalism is argued to arise when the system under study is
sufficiently complex. In particular, if the system is displaying
contextual behaviour then a quantum approach often incorporates this
behaviour very naturally. Thus, a way in which much of the disparte
work in the field of quantum interaction can be both justified to the
broader community and eventually unified is presented. The nature of
contextual behaviour and its relationship to nonlocality is
explored...."
Process Physics: quantum theories as models of complexity
http://www.users.on.net/~kirsty.kitto/papers/ppQTmodelsComplexity.pdf
Surfer
Jon Slaughter
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:26:34 -0600, "Jon Slaughter"
> <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> It dawned upon me that if quantum mechanics governs all physical
>> behavior, even if only approximately, of particles and humans are
>> composed of particles then the domain of human evolution is in the
>> arena of quantum mechanics.
>>
> You must bear in mind the phenomenon of "emergence", whereby higher
> level behaviours emerge from lower level ones, that differ in quality
> from the lower level ones.
>
> For example in calm air the motion of individual molecules is
> violently chaotic, but an aircraft flying through calm air can fly
> quite smoothly.
>
> At this level, the flow of air over the wings is accurately described
> by aerodynamics and quantum theory wouldn't be useful.
It's not useful only because of the complexity involved but not necessarily
any inherent limitation of the model.
The concept of "emergence" is precisely what I'm getting at in paragraphs
that follow the one you quoted. If all particles are governed by the laws
of physics which are summed up in quantum mechanics then it is irrelevant of
the scale. Emergence does not change the fundamental laws but only combines
them in very complex and seemingly chaotic ways.
Hence, analogously I'm trying to end quantum mechanics to apply to the
aerodynamics case. Since we know that the macroscopic scale is simply one
of very large number of elements and that our higher level models such as
Newtonian mechanics are effectively based on the statistical nature of those
complex systems I would expect that we could apply the same logic but in the
realm of psychology and sociology(economics, art/music, and everything
else).
If we can agree that effectively Newtonian mechanics, which are models to
describe the macroscopic world, is only the statistical application of
quantum mechanics, then there should be no reason to apply this to all other
areas.
The idea is that everything, assuming quantum mechanics is a sufficient
model of the physical world, must be based in quantum mechanics and is only
complicated by the sheer size/complexity.
As I see it, quantum mechanics is limited in that it's mathematical model,
at this point in time and from what I have studied, is limited only do
simple systems with either few elements or large systems with identical
elements and generally "nice" properties. Essentially Newtonian based
mechanics are exactly this applied to the large scale, but historically not
derived from QM, for only physical things(as this is easier I suppose). I
believe the next leap though would be to apply the same logic to other
domains of interest(perhaps it has already been done to some degree).
Effectively what we really need is a generalized theory of quantum mechanics
that has highly developed statistical machinery behind it.
I'm not saying we can effectively understand everything exactly but if the
basic premis is true that all higher forms of life are due to "emergence" or
what I call "manifestations" then the same machinery should apply equally to
all and make understanding all easier(as then all of life is "fractal" in
nature).
master1729
(snip crap)
combining the following :
1) creation ( life , universe , soul , will etc )
2) religion
3) physics ( especially QM and string theory )
4) biology
5) sociology
6) psychology
7) evolution
into a topic , discussion , theory or equation
EQUALS CRANKY HIPPY TOE CRAP that i usually snip.
.. as done here ...
Jon isnt an idiot nor a crank , but i would recommend him to stay with pure math !
and reading the other replies , im not the only skeptic it seems.
regards
tommy1729
Androcles
"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hda5mc$43c$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Consider the butterfly effect, now well-known as an example of
chaotic behaviour.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TwoLorenzOrbits.jpg
The long term prediction isn't possible as a very small change
in initial conditions changes it, but nevertheless the short-term
prediction IS possible. The randomness of a 6-faced die or
flipping a fair coin has no predictable outcome for the next
trial, but in the chaotic butterfly effect the next trial IS predictable
within close limits for the next trial if the "distance" (or duration)
of the iteration between trials is close.
In other words we can accurately predict a rocket will reach the
Moon within (say) 10 miles and be captured by its gravity and
crash land, using Newtonian Mechanics, but we have less certainty
that the same rocket with the same calculations will reach Saturn
and be captured, it may miss entirely.
The way this problem is dealt with is to fire the rocket somewhere
along its course to correct the initial error.
I have made no mention of QM, but let me add that the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle is simply chaos in action. Recognition should
be given to Heisenberg as the first to realise what chaos was all
about and his attempt to quantify it.
Tom Potter
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4AF88B78...@hate.spam.net...
It is interesting to see that Uncle Al
is ignorant of the fact
that after Jews migrated en masse from Spain,
Spain soon became the richest, most powerful nation
on the planet, only to be brought down,
because of the cost and failure of the Great Armada
they sent to punish England for pirating their ships.
Note that Germany also rose the poorest
and most depressed nation in Europe
to become the most progressive and powerful nation
on the planet after the Jews migrated en masse to other nations,
only to be brought down by the fact that Jews were able to
get control of FDR and Churchill
and get them, against the wishes of the majority,
to assist the gang that had massacred the Russian Family,
co-opted the Russian Government,
and were using Russia as a base from where to instigate
Class Wars all over the world.
It does not take a system engineer to comprehend that
if FDR had opposed the War-for-profit gang,
rather than sell out to them,
WWII would have lasted six months,
and there would have been no Cold War, no nuclear weapons,
no Korean War, no Vietnam War, no 911, no Religious Wars, etc.
And if Bush had gone after the Religious War Instigators,
rather than getting in bed with them and Sharon,
there would have been no 9/11,
no collapse of the economy,
no shattering of the national budget,
no war against the Iraqi people, etc.
--
Tom Potter
http://tdp1001.spaces.live.com
http://www.tompotter.us/misc.html
http://webspace.webring.com/people/st/tdp1001
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
-----------------------------------------------
Surfer
<Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>The concept of "emergence" is precisely what I'm getting at in paragraphs
>that follow the one you quoted. If all particles are governed by the laws
>of physics which are summed up in quantum mechanics then it is irrelevant of
>the scale. Emergence does not change the fundamental laws but only combines
>them in very complex and seemingly chaotic ways.
>
That is a reasonable idea. But I think its also possible that new
laws may emerge that can't be expressed as combinations of more
fundamental laws.
Eg. Here is a quote from:
Canonical science: its history, goals, and future
JUAN R. GONZ�LEZ-�LVAREZ
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencereports/20083.html
".....The new canonical theory addresses physicists' goal of
unification of physics, chemistry, and biology... but it does by
abandoning reductionism. The degree of unification achieved using
canonical theory is compared with the notorious fiasco of string
theory. This Perspective reports the recent episode when PAUL DIRAC's
reductionist ideas about chemistry were completely wrong. The popular
claims that the Periodic Table of the Elements has been reduced to
quantum mechanics and that any theoretical physicist, using quantum
electrodynamics, could calculate the behaviour of chemical systems are
analyzed and discredited...."
Also here is another quote that might be relevant:
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html
".....In Process Physics we start from the premise that the limits to
logic, which are implied by G�del's incompleteness theorems, mean that
any attempt to model reality via a formal system is doomed to failure.
Instead of formal systems we use a process system, which uses the
notions of self-referential information with self-referential noise
and self-organised criticality to create a new type of
information-theoretic system that is realising both the current formal
physical modelling of reality but is also exhibiting features such as
the direction of time, the present moment effect and quantum state
entanglement (including EPR effects, nonlocality and contextuality),
as well as the more familiar formalisms of Relativity and Quantum
Mechanics. In particular a theory of Gravity has already emerged..."
>
>I'm not saying we can effectively understand everything exactly but if the
>basic premis is true that all higher forms of life are due to "emergence" or
>what I call "manifestations" then the same machinery should apply equally to
>all and make understanding all easier(as then all of life is "fractal" in
>nature).
>
Looking for such machinery would seem a worthy goal. I think the above
two approaches both attempt to do that, though in different ways.
Surfer
Jon Slaughter
<snip>
> A note on chaos:
> Consider the butterfly effect, now well-known as an example of
> chaotic behaviour.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TwoLorenzOrbits.jpg
> The long term prediction isn't possible as a very small change
> in initial conditions changes it, but nevertheless the short-term
> prediction IS possible. The randomness of a 6-faced die or
> flipping a fair coin has no predictable outcome for the next
> trial, but in the chaotic butterfly effect the next trial IS
> predictable within close limits for the next trial if the "distance"
> (or duration) of the iteration between trials is close.
> In other words we can accurately predict a rocket will reach the
> Moon within (say) 10 miles and be captured by its gravity and
> crash land, using Newtonian Mechanics, but we have less certainty
> that the same rocket with the same calculations will reach Saturn
> and be captured, it may miss entirely.
> The way this problem is dealt with is to fire the rocket somewhere
> along its course to correct the initial error.
> I have made no mention of QM, but let me add that the Heisenberg
> Uncertainty Principle is simply chaos in action. Recognition should
> be given to Heisenberg as the first to realise what chaos was all
> about and his attempt to quantify it.
Basically this is what I mean by human evolution. The butterfly effect is a
very complex result from a very basic set of laws. It's complexity is due to
the sheer size of the system. But this does not mean we cannot learn such
things or theoretically compute such things.
Note that the uncertainty principle is not related to chaos. Chaos is
deterministic and is simply a system that looks "chaotic" but is governed,
generally, by very simple structures.
The uncertainty principle is a relation between observables that limit their
simultaneous precise observability. We cannot know both the moment and
position simultaneous. That is not chaos but is limitation of either reality
or the model.
My "observation" is that everything is determistic. Human evolution, along
with many other things, are simply systems that are chaotic but governed by
basic principles. Even though such systems are impractically difficult to
analyze we can still draw certain qualitative conclusions. If, say, the
temperature of the earth was extremely slow then the "butterfly" effect
would not have the same impact and similarly if it was extremely high. That
is a very simple conclusion from molectular dynamics. Too cold and the
density of the air is too create and too hot there is too much "random"
motion that would interfere.
In any case, I could be wrong about the chaos/uncertainty principle thing. I
might not be diving enough into the theory to see it. My understanding of
chaos is simply a complex but completely determinable system(which we can
see many examples such as from the 3 or n body problem) and I don't see how
this relates to the uncertainty principle which is simply inability to
measure two observables simultaneously. Of course I'm using the term chaos
in terms of chaos theory.
Jon Slaughter
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:39:05 -0600, "Jon Slaughter"
> <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> The concept of "emergence" is precisely what I'm getting at in
>> paragraphs that follow the one you quoted. If all particles are
>> governed by the laws of physics which are summed up in quantum
>> mechanics then it is irrelevant of the scale. Emergence does not
>> change the fundamental laws but only combines them in very complex
>> and seemingly chaotic ways.
>>
> That is a reasonable idea. But I think its also possible that new
> laws may emerge that can't be expressed as combinations of more
> fundamental laws.
>
While it's possible I can't see it as logical. Do you know of any real world
examples where such new phenomena occur but are completely unrelated to the
original laws that govern the system? What I interpret you to be saying is
that laws are non-deterministic and sorta "just pop" up at random. The
reason it must be at random is because if it were not then it would be
repeatable and hence in some way determined on previous laws. If some part
seemed new then it would simply mean we missed something.
> Eg. Here is a quote from:
> Canonical science: its history, goals, and future
> JUAN R. GONZ�LEZ-�LVAREZ
> http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalsciencereports/20083.html
>
> ".....The new canonical theory addresses physicists' goal of
> unification of physics, chemistry, and biology... but it does by
> abandoning reductionism. The degree of unification achieved using
> canonical theory is compared with the notorious fiasco of string
> theory. This Perspective reports the recent episode when PAUL DIRAC's
> reductionist ideas about chemistry were completely wrong. The popular
> claims that the Periodic Table of the Elements has been reduced to
> quantum mechanics and that any theoretical physicist, using quantum
> electrodynamics, could calculate the behaviour of chemical systems are
> analyzed and discredited...."
>
Just because it is impractical for such "reductionism" does not mean it is
wrong. Many systems cannot be reduced not because of some innate reason but
simply because of the complexity involved. As far as I know, QM predicts
the periodic table with certainty and this was one of the defining
achievements of it. At most it is simply an incomplete theory but it is not
wrong. (the interpretations may not be correct but it has something right)
> Also here is another quote that might be relevant:
> http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html
>
> ".....In Process Physics we start from the premise that the limits to
> logic, which are implied by G�del's incompleteness theorems, mean that
> any attempt to model reality via a formal system is doomed to failure.
> Instead of formal systems we use a process system, which uses the
> notions of self-referential information with self-referential noise
> and self-organised criticality to create a new type of
> information-theoretic system that is realising both the current formal
> physical modelling of reality but is also exhibiting features such as
> the direction of time, the present moment effect and quantum state
> entanglement (including EPR effects, nonlocality and contextuality),
> as well as the more familiar formalisms of Relativity and Quantum
> Mechanics. In particular a theory of Gravity has already emerged..."
>
Again, this may or may not be a good method it does not necessarily mean
that nature is that way. Hence my only issue with the above is it seems to
state that "formal systems" is a failure. Analogous, statistical mechanics
knows nothing about individual particles yet does a very good job at
modeling macroscopic behavior. This does not mean that the individual
particles do not exist or that the particles's properties are somehow
non-determistic. It is simply another model of a system that works because
of mathematical machinery used is more equipped at dealing with the
macroscopic rather than the microscopic.
For the most part all the "correct" theories must overlap and be essentially
the same but using different mathematical formalisms. After all, the goal is
to predict reality and we can't have some theory claiming to be correct and
not do such things. Quantum mechanics is corret in the sense that it
predicts all current phenomena(99.99% at least) better than any other
system. I'm not saying it is necessarily better to use it for actual
calculations but simply that it is the most tried and true system.
If the quote you gave above is actually true then it seems like we might
have some new machinery in the fight to understand reality. It may or may
not be better than QM but can offer a new perspective on reality which is
beneficial.
>>
>> I'm not saying we can effectively understand everything exactly but
>> if the basic premis is true that all higher forms of life are due to
>> "emergence" or what I call "manifestations" then the same machinery
>> should apply equally to all and make understanding all easier(as
>> then all of life is "fractal" in nature).
>>
>
> Looking for such machinery would seem a worthy goal. I think the above
> two approaches both attempt to do that, though in different ways.
If the system you mention, which I know nothing about, is mathematically
consistent and coherent then it may be a better model to use for what I am
proposing. Quantum mechanics is not geared towards what I am interested in.
It is for the microscopic. But the macroscopic is a manifestation of the
microscopic and hence it, at the very least, has everything I need in it but
may not be plausible to use such a model.
From what I've read in your quote above, my best guess is that I'm thinking
similarly on the lines but in a much less formal way. We cannot hope to
understand the things I suggested in my OP to any significant degree by
using a determistic model such as newtonian mechanics. One may hope that QM
would be more viable since it is based on probability theory. A sort of
non-local statistical approach compatible with quantum mechanics is needed.
It would have to include some basic ideas of chaos theory/fractals along
with a very sophisticated mathematical model based in statistics,
probability, and topology. It would be less about particles and more about
the global nature of such systems. It would be at the opposite end of QM
but overlap, if that makes any sense.
I'm not sure if the "process physics" is sorta similar or not... I'll try to
read up on it and see.
Thanks.
zzbu...@netscape.net
> It dawned upon me that if quantum mechanics governs all physical behavior,
> even if only approximately, of particles and humans are composed of
> particles then the domain of human evolution is in the arena of quantum
> mechanics. While this doesn't seem all that absurd if you assume that humans
> are composed of nothing more than particles it could allow us to understand
> human behavior along with human evolution(at least approximately).
Well, since Psychologists assume humans are composed of nothing
but Behavior-ons, the approximations don't matter, since it wouldn't
make a difference in their idiot Sociology theories if particles do
or do not
control evoution, as long as Fox News controls Evoultion. So Quantum
Mechanics
is perfectly suited to predict the future of internet idiocy
whether it's
right or wrong.
master1729
(snip crap)
> --
> Tom Potter
> http://tdp1001.spaces.live.com
> http://www.tompotter.us/misc.html
> http://webspace.webring.com/people/st/tdp1001
> http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
> http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
> -----------------------------------------------
>
get lost.
master1729
(snip)
> I have made no mention of QM, but let me add that the
> Heisenberg
> Uncertainty Principle is simply chaos in action.
> Recognition should
> be given to Heisenberg as the first to realise what
> chaos was all
> about and his attempt to quantify it.
>
good. i almost believed i was the only one knowing that.
regards
the master
tommy1729
Androcles
"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
Note that the uncertainty principle is the very foundation of chaos theory
and hence very much related.
> My "observation" is that everything is determistic.
Perhaps you mean deterministic, and you may well be right in that the
evolution of the system under consideration is determined by its initial
conditions and the applied function. However, you will not be able to
predict that evolution because you cannot know the initial conditions,
the knowledge of which is governed by the HUP.
In other words, if you know the precise initial conditions then
the outcome will be determined and hence predictable, if you
don't know the precise initial conditions the outcome will still
be determined by whatever those initial conditions may be but
since you cannot know the precise initial conditions you cannot
predict what the outcome will be.
Human evolution, along
> with many other things, are simply systems that are chaotic but governed
> by basic principles.
I don't know what I'll do in the next five minutes. I may go to
the bathroom, I may make a cup of coffee, I may continue with
this message and I may answer the phone. I have free will over
the first three but no control over the phone ringing and I will
have to go to the bathroom within the next 3 hours.
> Even though such systems are impractically difficult to analyze we can
> still draw certain qualitative conclusions. If, say, the temperature of
> the earth was extremely slow then the "butterfly" effect would not have
> the same impact and similarly if it was extremely high. That is a very
> simple conclusion from molectular dynamics. Too cold and the density of
> the air is too create and too hot there is too much "random" motion that
> would interfere.
>
> In any case, I could be wrong about the chaos/uncertainty principle thing.
> I might not be diving enough into the theory to see it. My understanding
> of chaos is simply a complex but completely determinable system(which we
> can see many examples such as from the 3 or n body problem) and I don't
> see how this relates to the uncertainty principle which is simply
> inability to measure two observables simultaneously. Of course I'm using
> the term chaos in terms of chaos theory.
>
We can know the past, we cannot know the future. When a disaster
occurs we want to know the cause in the hope of preventing it
recurring. This may be as simple as erecting a safety barrier at a cliff
edge or as complex as finding a flight recorder on the ocean floor,
but something caused the disaster and finding what that cause is
is called science.
What caused a madman to fly a plane into a skyscraper and
kill 2000 people? Answer : his religion. His stupid belief that he
is immortal and will live on in his paradise. And what caused that
belief? His culture, his environment. All the other crazy Neanderthals
with their crazy beliefs that indoctrinated his pathetic insane mind.
We've seen it again at Fort Hood, and the madman is a trained
psychiatrist. We'll never which synapse, which neuron was the
ultimate cause that triggered the event, it could have a cosmic
particle that happened to decay inside his brain - and that is HUP.
zzbu...@netscape.net
> "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
Well, that's true, but it's also why the non clueless people
in dynamics invented GPS, Digital Terrain Mapping, Self-replicating
machines,
rather than the Big Bamg. And it's also why they invented Cyber
Batteries,
Holographics, Muitipexed Fiber Optics, mp3, Reverse Compilers,
Digital Books,
HDTV, Laser Disks, CD+rw, DVD-rom, Desktop Publishing, On-Line
Publishing,
Home Broadband, Cellular Commmunctions, Weather Satellites, Data
Fusion,
All-In-One Printers, Compact Flourescent Lighting, Atomic Clock
Wristwatches,
Light Sticks, UAVs, Drones, Phalanx, Biodiesel, Pv Cell Energy,
Solar Energy,
neo Wind Energy, Hybrid-Electric Engines, Post Watt Turbines, and
Rapid Prototying,
rather than The New York Times. And it's also why they invented
non Vacuum-Tube Microcomputers, Flat Screen Software Debuggers,
Nanotech,
USB, Flash Memory, Laser-Guided Phasors, Optical Computers,
Microwave Cooling, and
Distributed Processing Software, rather than Quantum Mechanics,
> particle that happened to decay inside his brain - and that is HUP.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Surfer
<Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>Surfer wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:39:05 -0600, "Jon Slaughter"
>> <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The concept of "emergence" is precisely what I'm getting at in
>>> paragraphs that follow the one you quoted. If all particles are
>>> governed by the laws of physics which are summed up in quantum
>>> mechanics then it is irrelevant of the scale. Emergence does not
>>> change the fundamental laws but only combines them in very complex
>>> and seemingly chaotic ways.
>>>
>> That is a reasonable idea. But I think its also possible that new
>> laws may emerge that can't be expressed as combinations of more
>> fundamental laws.
>>
>
>While it's possible I can't see it as logical. Do you know of any real world
>examples where such new phenomena occur but are completely unrelated to the
>original laws that govern the system?
>
Consider conciousness. I don't think that can be readily explained in
terms of particles and quantum mechanics.
I feel something like panpsychism or panexperientialism may be
necessary to explain it.
>
>What I interpret you to be saying is
>that laws are non-deterministic and sorta "just pop" up at random. The
>reason it must be at random is because if it were not then it would be
>repeatable and hence in some way determined on previous laws. If some part
>seemed new then it would simply mean we missed something.
>
Well, although physicists have discovered fundamental laws that
describe low level behavior with a high degree of precision, they
probably don't hold with infinite precision.
If that is the case, then lack of precision could prevent correct
prediction of emergent higher level behavior in some cases.
So new higher level laws might then be required that are not derivable
from our knowledge of the lower level laws.
But that is similar to saying "we missed something" as you suggest.
Good luck with the reading. I tend to agree with most of what you are
saying.
Surfer
Jon Slaughter
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:17:18 -0600, "Jon Slaughter"
> <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Surfer wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 16:39:05 -0600, "Jon Slaughter"
>>> <Jon_Sl...@Hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The concept of "emergence" is precisely what I'm getting at in
>>>> paragraphs that follow the one you quoted. If all particles are
>>>> governed by the laws of physics which are summed up in quantum
>>>> mechanics then it is irrelevant of the scale. Emergence does not
>>>> change the fundamental laws but only combines them in very complex
>>>> and seemingly chaotic ways.
>>>>
>>> That is a reasonable idea. But I think its also possible that new
>>> laws may emerge that can't be expressed as combinations of more
>>> fundamental laws.
>>>
>>
>> While it's possible I can't see it as logical. Do you know of any
>> real world examples where such new phenomena occur but are
>> completely unrelated to the original laws that govern the system?
>>
> Consider conciousness. I don't think that can be readily explained in
> terms of particles and quantum mechanics.
>
> I feel something like panpsychism or panexperientialism may be
> necessary to explain it.
>
It depends. I believe it is possible. It is hard for us to imagine that such
complexity can exist but that is the basis of process physics. Cellular
automata, neural networks, fractals, chaos, etc are all fundamentally simple
things that can produce extremely complex phenomena.
>>
>> What I interpret you to be saying is
>> that laws are non-deterministic and sorta "just pop" up at random.
>> The reason it must be at random is because if it were not then it
>> would be repeatable and hence in some way determined on previous
>> laws. If some part seemed new then it would simply mean we missed
>> something.
>>
> Well, although physicists have discovered fundamental laws that
> describe low level behavior with a high degree of precision, they
> probably don't hold with infinite precision.
>
> If that is the case, then lack of precision could prevent correct
> prediction of emergent higher level behavior in some cases.
>
"Could" is the operative word. Generally when precision is an issue methods
are developed to combat such issues. Even if it were the case it may still
be possible to understand certain processes that the system takes on. We
can't understand the exact behavior of a system of even a mild number of
particles but we can easily grasp certain statistical facts.
> So new higher level laws might then be required that are not derivable
> from our knowledge of the lower level laws.
Yes, but the higher level laws are still based off the lower level ones. I'm
not saying that we can't have such "high level laws" and infact this is
exactly what I'm proposing. Instead of basing psychology off some very
complex operator that involves the hamiltonian we would find an approximate
higher level operator that exibits the high level characteristics but in a
much more direct way. In fact it would all be based on statistics. It may
not be very fruitful but we also might learn some fundamental behaviors.
>
> But that is similar to saying "we missed something" as you suggest.
>
> Good luck with the reading. I tend to agree with most of what you are
> saying.
>
Yeah, I think most of it is actually pretty basic. I tend to make it more
complex than it is. The real point is that it can't hurt to try and might
light to something useful. Even if not extremely precise it might point out
certain flaws such as actual "non-causal" laws. I mean "non-causal" in the
sense that new laws are not fundamentally related.
The point is that one would have a concrete fundamental theory based in a
theory that has proven itself time and again. We know that theoretically,
assuming no "non-causality" exists, that any logically derived results must
hold. Again, it may not be a very useful model as similarly how jefimenko's
equations are not very usefully, even though logical
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefimenko%27s_equations
They, at this point in time, just too expensive to compute... Eventually
though they might be extremely useful and still serve as a theoretical tool.