OT Pluto as planet redux

[jillery]

Now here's a controversy which is worth arguing about:

<https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/you-wont-like-the-consequences-of-making-pluto-a-planet-again-3019b2077129>

<https://tinyurl.com/y75862n8?>

From the article:
********************************
There are some out there who are desperate to save Pluto’s planetary
status, and would be willing to open the floodgates and bestow
planethood on every moon, asteroid, and ice ball out there that’s
massive enough to be round. There are others who spend 100% of their
time looking down at their feet on whatever world they’re considering
when it comes to planethood, and to them, everything with enough mass
will be a planet. But for the rest of us, where you are in the
Universe is an inseparable part of what you are.
*******************************

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[zencycle]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 8:05:04 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>
> Now here's a controversy which is worth arguing about:

All it needs is a sound track

>
> From the article:
> ********************************

> There are others who spend 100% of their
> time looking down at their feet on whatever world they’re considering
> when it comes to planethood, and to them, everything with enough mass
> will be a planet. But for the rest of us, where you are in the
> Universe is an inseparable part of what you are.
> *******************************

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoegazing

[jonathan]

On 10/10/2018 8:02 AM, jillery wrote:
> Now here's a controversy which is worth arguing about:
>
> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/you-wont-like-the-consequences-of-making-pluto-a-planet-again-3019b2077129>
>
> <https://tinyurl.com/y75862n8?>
>
> From the article:
> ********************************
> There are some out there who are desperate to save Pluto’s planetary
> status, and would be willing to open the floodgates and bestow
> planethood on every moon, asteroid, and ice ball out there that’s
> massive enough to be round. There are others who spend 100% of their
> time looking down at their feet on whatever world they’re considering
> when it comes to planethood, and to them, everything with enough mass
> will be a planet. But for the rest of us, where you are in the
> Universe is an inseparable part of what you are.
> *******************************
>

Do you believe the status of Planet-X should be reconsidered?

Of course it should. This is an artifact of objective
reductionist mindsets, which seek to precisely define
everything. In nature variation is in general a continuous
sequence but we feel the need to place artificial dividing lines
to make us feel better, more secure. As if arbitrary definitions
make the universe more sensible and understandable.

To me a planet is when it's large enough for gravity
to cause it's internal structure to be differentiated
and it's not in close orbit to a larger planet as
with our moon, which would qualify as a planet
if it were flying solo.

And Pluto is big enough, so it's a planet.

> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
>

--

[jillery]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 19:17:54 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 10/10/2018 8:02 AM, jillery wrote:
>> Now here's a controversy which is worth arguing about:
>>
>> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/you-wont-like-the-consequences-of-making-pluto-a-planet-again-3019b2077129>
>>
>> <https://tinyurl.com/y75862n8?>
>>
>> From the article:
>> ********************************
>> There are some out there who are desperate to save Pluto’s planetary
>> status, and would be willing to open the floodgates and bestow
>> planethood on every moon, asteroid, and ice ball out there that’s
>> massive enough to be round. There are others who spend 100% of their
>> time looking down at their feet on whatever world they’re considering
>> when it comes to planethood, and to them, everything with enough mass
>> will be a planet. But for the rest of us, where you are in the
>> Universe is an inseparable part of what you are.
>> *******************************
>>
>
>
>Do you believe the status of Planet-X should be reconsidered?

That depends. What do you think is the status of Planet-X?

>Of course it should. This is an artifact of objective
>reductionist mindsets, which seek to precisely define
>everything. In nature variation is in general a continuous
>sequence but we feel the need to place artificial dividing lines
>to make us feel better, more secure. As if arbitrary definitions
>make the universe more sensible and understandable.
>
>To me a planet is when it's large enough for gravity
>to cause it's internal structure to be differentiated
>and it's not in close orbit to a larger planet as
>with our moon, which would qualify as a planet
>if it were flying solo.
>
>And Pluto is big enough, so it's a planet.

Of couse, "big enough" is only one metric of planethood. As the cited
article points out, if that were all there was to it, our Solar System
would have literally hundreds of planets. OTOH there is a meaningful
distinction between "big enough" objects which have cleared their
orbits, and those which have not, so Ceres is not a planet anymore
than is Pluto.

The cited article makes another relevant point, that the definition of
"planet" should not be so restrictive that it excludes exoplanets.
ISTM a minor rewording of IAU's definition would eliminate that
problem.

[John Bode]

I always feel compelled to point this out whenever this comes up - Pluto doesn't
care *what* we call it.

There's a different but related problem that people don't really talk about - "planet",
by itself, is so general a term as to be almost meaningless. It basically means "bigger than
an asteroid, smaller than a star", but that category includes ice dwarfs like Pluto,
rocky planets like MVEM, gas giants, ice giants, gas supergiants, brown dwarfs,
and God knows what else.

It's like the word "animal" - it includes a lot of wildly different organisms, from elephants
to clams, and *by itself* is insufficient to adequately describe something except to say
"this isn't a plant or a rock".

So, my proposal is to throw out the use of the term "planet" to describe an object *except*
to distinguish it from a star or an asteroid or other object. Otherwise, use a different term
like "gas giant" or "ice giant" or "dwarf" or "rockball" or whatever. Now that we have a
big enough bestiary, we can start naming things a bit more precisely.

[jillery]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 14:37:13 -0700 (PDT), John Bode
<jfbod...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 7:05:04 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> Now here's a controversy which is worth arguing about:
>>
>> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/you-wont-like-the-consequences-of-making-pluto-a-planet-again-3019b2077129>
>>
>> <https://tinyurl.com/y75862n8?>
>>
>> From the article:
>> ********************************
>> There are some out there who are desperate to save Pluto’s planetary
>> status, and would be willing to open the floodgates and bestow
>> planethood on every moon, asteroid, and ice ball out there that’s
>> massive enough to be round. There are others who spend 100% of their
>> time looking down at their feet on whatever world they’re considering
>> when it comes to planethood, and to them, everything with enough mass
>> will be a planet. But for the rest of us, where you are in the
>> Universe is an inseparable part of what you are.
>> *******************************
>>
>

>I always feel compelled to point this out whenever this comes up - Pluto doesn't
>care *what* we call it.
>
>There's a different but related problem that people don't really talk about - "planet",
>by itself, is so general a term as to be almost meaningless. It basically means "bigger than
>an asteroid, smaller than a star", but that category includes ice dwarfs like Pluto,
>rocky planets like MVEM, gas giants, ice giants, gas supergiants, brown dwarfs,
>and God knows what else.
>
>It's like the word "animal" - it includes a lot of wildly different organisms, from elephants
>to clams, and *by itself* is insufficient to adequately describe something except to say
>"this isn't a plant or a rock".
>
>So, my proposal is to throw out the use of the term "planet" to describe an object *except*
>to distinguish it from a star or an asteroid or other object. Otherwise, use a different term
>like "gas giant" or "ice giant" or "dwarf" or "rockball" or whatever. Now that we have a
>big enough bestiary, we can start naming things a bit more precisely.

You raise an important point, one also attributed to Abraham Lincoln,
that one can say a dog's tail is a leg, but the dog still has four
legs. The point being, labels don't change reality.

It should go without saying that labels are for the convenience of the
labeler, not the labelee. People whose job it is to study
astronomical objects have a need to classify them in a coherent way.
Before the recognition of Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud objects, and of
exoplanets, the meaning of "planet" was straightforward if ad hoc;
planets were stellar objects which "wandered" against the fixed
background of stars. The Moon and Sun were grandfathered into that ad
hoc definition. But as the different kinds of astronomical objects
increased, it became obvious that planets were, to borrow a word from
cladistics, paraphyletic.

As my cited article shows, there's no way to include Pluto as a planet
without diluting the word into uselessness. I disagree that the meme
associated with the word is no longer useful. Based on my
understanding of astronomical facts, to say our Solar System has 8
planets is a coherent and reasonable statement. Pluto is not a planet
because it doesn't behave like a planet.

[John Bode]

I'd say that compared to MVEMJSUN, Pluto is a weird outlier (inclination and eccentricity);
compared to other KBOs, it isn't. So yeah, it makes sense to class it differently from
MVEMJSUN.

But again, I'd also class JSUN differently from MVEM, I'd class JS differently from UN, I'd
class Mercury differently from VEM, etc. Jupiter and Mercury are as different from each
other as elephants and clams, so it's a *little* silly to say both of them are "planets"
while KBOs like Pluto and Eris and Makemake and Haumea are not.

[jillery]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 07:15:39 -0700 (PDT), John Bode

Correct, and more to the point, it makes sense to class Pluto as a
KBO, which weren't known when Pluto was discovered. Had Pluto been
discovered after KBOs were known, my impression is it never wouldn't
have been classed as a planet in the first place.

>But again, I'd also class JSUN differently from MVEM, I'd class JS differently from UN, I'd
>class Mercury differently from VEM, etc. Jupiter and Mercury are as different from each
>other as elephants and clams, so it's a *little* silly to say both of them are "planets"
>while KBOs like Pluto and Eris and Makemake and Haumea are not.

My impression is you make a category error here. Just as elephants
and clams are different kinds of animals, Jupiter and Mercury are
different kinds of planets. Do you have problems dealing with
different kinds of stars? If not, why get bent over different kinds
of planets?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 14:37:13 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by John Bode
<jfbod...@gmail.com>:

>On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 7:05:04 AM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> Now here's a controversy which is worth arguing about:
>>
>> <https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/you-wont-like-the-consequences-of-making-pluto-a-planet-again-3019b2077129>
>>
>> <https://tinyurl.com/y75862n8?>
>>
>> From the article:
>> ********************************
>> There are some out there who are desperate to save Pluto’s planetary
>> status, and would be willing to open the floodgates and bestow
>> planethood on every moon, asteroid, and ice ball out there that’s
>> massive enough to be round. There are others who spend 100% of their
>> time looking down at their feet on whatever world they’re considering
>> when it comes to planethood, and to them, everything with enough mass
>> will be a planet. But for the rest of us, where you are in the
>> Universe is an inseparable part of what you are.
>> *******************************

>I always feel compelled to point this out whenever this comes up - Pluto doesn't
>care *what* we call it.
>
>There's a different but related problem that people don't really talk about - "planet",
>by itself, is so general a term as to be almost meaningless. It basically means "bigger than
>an asteroid, smaller than a star", but that category includes ice dwarfs like Pluto,
>rocky planets like MVEM, gas giants, ice giants, gas supergiants, brown dwarfs,
>and God knows what else.

IIRC, it derives from the Greek "planetes" and means
"wanderer", and thus could apply to anything we see in the
sky which visibly moves. The current highly-restricted
meaning is just that - current - and has changed
significantly over the past couple of millennia.

>It's like the word "animal" - it includes a lot of wildly different organisms, from elephants
>to clams, and *by itself* is insufficient to adequately describe something except to say
>"this isn't a plant or a rock".
>
>So, my proposal is to throw out the use of the term "planet" to describe an object *except*
>to distinguish it from a star or an asteroid or other object. Otherwise, use a different term
>like "gas giant" or "ice giant" or "dwarf" or "rockball" or whatever. Now that we have a
>big enough bestiary, we can start naming things a bit more precisely.

Good luck.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 07:15:39 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by John Bode
<jfbod...@gmail.com>:

Since that would multiply classes nearly to uselessness (by
having a distinct classification for nearly every member,
which are *not* as abundant as individuals in a species),
why not simply use the individual names?

(No, I'm not serious, but I believe you can see the
drawbacks.)

[jonathan]

Problem is Pluto's orbit would make it difficult at best
to clear it's orbit, and remember Pluto has a sizable moon
of it's own which Ceres doesn't.

So are we to call Pluto a dwarf planet, a plutino,
a subplanet or a planetoid?

Ya know the name we give it doesn't change a single fact
about Pluto.

As the cited
> article points out, if that were all there was to it, our Solar System
> would have literally hundreds of planets.

Nope it would still have the exact same number
of objects of varying size, orbits and geology.

I've just decided, instead of calling my car
a Mini, I'm calling it a Ferrari. Should
make my car go must faster~

OTOH there is a meaningful
> distinction between "big enough" objects which have cleared their
> orbits, and those which have not, so Ceres is not a planet anymore
> than is Pluto.
>
> The cited article makes another relevant point, that the definition of
> "planet" should not be so restrictive that it excludes exoplanets.
> ISTM a minor rewording of IAU's definition would eliminate that
> problem.
>

Dear Emily lamented this problem long ago and expressed
her dismay at objective reductionism and it's obsession
with classifying every damn thing.



"Arcturus" is his other name
I'd rather call him "Star."
It's very mean of Science
To go and interfere!

I slew a worm the other day
A "Savant" passing by
Murmured "Resurgam" -- "Centipede"!
"Oh Lord -- how frail are we"!

I pull a flower from the woods --
A monster with a glass
Computes the stamens in a breath --
And has her in a "class"!

What once was "Heaven"
Is "Zenith" now --
Where I proposed to go
When Time's brief masquerade was done
Is mapped and charted too.

What if the poles should frisk about
And stand upon their heads!
I hope I'm ready for "the worst"
Whatever prank betides!

Perhaps the "Kingdom of Heaven's" changed
I hope the "Children" there
Won't be "new fashioned" when I come
And laugh at me -- and stare-



s

>
>
> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
>

--

[jonathan]

I got an idea, how about we merely say the naming
of the planets in our solar system ceased after 1930.
After that you can call all the other objects we find
any damn thing you want.

The objective minded like categories, why not
categorize by date?

Besides if you lined up every solar system body
in a row by size and orbital debris you'll
find there's a continuous sequence from
small to large, debris ridden to clear
and everything in between.

Where we place the dividing lines exactly says more
about us than the plan...uh, I mean dwarfoids
or plutinys, planet-roids, subcrusted or whatever
cute name the next planetoidy scientist comes up with
to get his paper published.

I disagree that the meme
> associated with the word is no longer useful. Based on my
> understanding of astronomical facts, to say our Solar System has 8
> planets is a coherent and reasonable statement. Pluto is not a planet
> because it doesn't behave like a planet.
>
> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
>

--

[jillery]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 19:45:19 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

If you're into ad hoc, dogamitc definitions, that's your problem. My
understanding is science is into definitions based on evidence. These
are not the same thing.

[jillery]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 19:34:01 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>

As I pointed out to John Bode elsethread, labels don't change reality,
they just describe them for the convenience of the labeler.
Nevertheless, if one is involved in the understanding of a phenomenon,
then the definition of labels matter to understanding. Not sure how
you *still* don't understand this.

[satoshi]

Maybe you wish you were an astronomer instead of a wannabe bird expert.
It's a little late for that now, don't you think?

[jillery]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 18:12:09 -0700 (PDT), satoshi
<travellin...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Maybe you wish you were an astronomer instead of a wannabe bird expert.
>It's a little late for that now, don't you think?

Since you asked, it's never too late until the fat lady sings. You're
welcome.

[jonathan]

On 10/13/2018 12:15 AM, jillery wrote:


> As I pointed out to John Bode elsethread, labels don't change reality,
> they just describe them for the convenience of the labeler.
> Nevertheless, if one is involved in the understanding of a phenomenon,
> then the definition of labels matter to understanding. Not sure how
> you *still* don't understand this.
>

I understand just fine, what you don't get is I reject
the reductionist notion that nature is understood by
counting/classifying things.

And the reason is easy enough for a child to understand.

Science, ultimately, is about figuring how nature and
reality works, but what you simple-minded reductionists
refuse to learn is your cause-and-effect simplicity
is only useful for the simplest the universe and
nature have to offer.

As one goes up the complexity ladder cause-and-effect
relationships become less and less valid.

Once a certain level of complexity is reached my hobby
of effect-then-cause system/emergent mathematics take
over.

And the dividing line, loosely stated would be roughly
at geology and chemistry and below for your objective
simplicity, and above that for complex systems such as
evolution, life and mind, which is the realm of
holistic/emergent concepts.

You reductionists refuse to accept this fact of the
universe, because like a child you've been enamored
with all the shiny things objective reductionism has
given you over the decades.

It USED to be that reality consisted of two broad realms.
The hard sciences and the soft sciences of art, sociology
and so on.

NOW the two great realms are your objective simplicity
and the complex realm of emergence.

No longer is half of reality to be considered 'more art
than science.

Someday you'll realize you've been mired in the half of
reality that tells you nothing about how nature and
reality really work, the simple half, and decide
it's time to grasp how the other half, the complex
half works.

IT'S THE COMPLEX HALF THAT SHOWS HOW REALITY AND NATURE
WORKS.

And again, Dear Emily had all this figured out long ago
without so much as a math book to help her, what's
your excuse?

As Emily states so well, the fluid forces, the more
complex that are so vexing and beautiful are not
going to be figured out by reductionist simple minded
'clerks in counting rooms'.



You've seen Balloons set -- Haven't You?
So stately they ascend --
It is as Swans -- discarded You,
For Duties Diamond --

Their Liquid Feet go softly out
Upon a Sea of Blonde --
They spurn the Air, as t'were too mean
For Creatures so renowned --

Their Ribbons just beyond the eye --
They struggle -- some -- for Breath --
And yet the Crowd applaud, below --
They would not encore -- Death --

The Gilded Creature strains -- and spins --
Trips frantic in a Tree --
Tears open her imperial Veins --
And tumbles in the Sea --

The Crowd -- retire with an Oath --
The Dust in Streets -- go down --
And Clerks in Counting Rooms
Observe -- "'Twas only a Balloon" -



s

[Earle Jones]

****
....and maybe, one of these days, complexity and/or chaos theory will
give us some shiny things.

earle
*

[jillery]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 19:28:20 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 10/13/2018 12:15 AM, jillery wrote:
>
>
>> As I pointed out to John Bode elsethread, labels don't change reality,
>> they just describe them for the convenience of the labeler.
>> Nevertheless, if one is involved in the understanding of a phenomenon,
>> then the definition of labels matter to understanding. Not sure how
>> you *still* don't understand this.
>>
>
>
>
>
>I understand just fine, what you don't get is I reject
>the reductionist notion that nature is understood by
>counting/classifying things.

Your injection of stupid strawmen does not an argument make. You
really need to learn how to read written English. Look up Feynman's
story about knowing the names of birds in different languages. My
impression is most people, reductionists and otherwise, don't claim
nature is understood by counting/classifying things. But even Feynman
would have agreed that if there isn't consensus on what those names
mean, then discussion is practically impossible, as your posts
illustrate time after time. Since you refuse to seek and accept
consensus of meaning, it's no wonder you have trouble posting a
coherent comment.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 19:28:20 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
<WriteI...@gmail.com>:

>On 10/13/2018 12:15 AM, jillery wrote:
>
>
>> As I pointed out to John Bode elsethread, labels don't change reality,
>> they just describe them for the convenience of the labeler.
>> Nevertheless, if one is involved in the understanding of a phenomenon,
>> then the definition of labels matter to understanding. Not sure how
>> you *still* don't understand this.
>>
>
>
>
>
>I understand just fine, what you don't get is I reject
>the reductionist notion that nature is understood by
>counting/classifying things.

Since almost no one, and certainly no competent scientist,
thinks that understanding, as contrasted with convenience in
discussion, comes from "counting/classifying things", you're
in good company.

And that being said, the rest of your post is apparently a
case of fleeing non-pursuit.

You have a positive genius for attributing things to
Victorian-era poets which are not apparent to anyone else,
at least not that I've seen.

Just curious...

Other than personal bias, what keeps you from seeing a
prediction of nuclear war in that poem?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 11:13:43 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 19:28:20 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
><WriteI...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On 10/13/2018 12:15 AM, jillery wrote:
>>
>>
>>> As I pointed out to John Bode elsethread, labels don't change reality,
>>> they just describe them for the convenience of the labeler.
>>> Nevertheless, if one is involved in the understanding of a phenomenon,
>>> then the definition of labels matter to understanding. Not sure how
>>> you *still* don't understand this.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>I understand just fine, what you don't get is I reject
>>the reductionist notion that nature is understood by
>>counting/classifying things.
>
>Since almost no one, and certainly no competent scientist,
>thinks that understanding, as contrasted with convenience in
>discussion, comes from "counting/classifying things", you're
>in good company.
>
>And that being said, the rest of your post is apparently a
>case of fleeing non-pursuit.

[Crickets...]

[Crickets...]

[jonathan]

On 10/16/2018 12:01 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 19:28:20 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/13/2018 12:15 AM, jillery wrote:
>>
>>
>>> As I pointed out to John Bode elsethread, labels don't change reality,
>>> they just describe them for the convenience of the labeler.
>>> Nevertheless, if one is involved in the understanding of a phenomenon,
>>> then the definition of labels matter to understanding. Not sure how
>>> you *still* don't understand this.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I understand just fine, what you don't get is I reject
>> the reductionist notion that nature is understood by
>> counting/classifying things.
>
>
> Your injection of stupid strawmen does not an argument make. You
> really need to learn how to read written English. Look up Feynman's
> story about knowing the names of birds in different languages. My
> impression is most people, reductionists and otherwise, don't claim
> nature is understood by counting/classifying things.

So how is nature understood? Again as usual you dodge
the point. Reducing to parts, counting and classifying
is very useful EXCEPT for the core purpose of science.

Understanding the truth behind nature and reality.

> But even Feynman
> would have agreed that if there isn't consensus on what those names
> mean, then discussion is practically impossible, as your posts
> illustrate time after time. Since you refuse to seek and accept
> consensus of meaning, it's no wonder you have trouble posting a
> coherent comment.
>

My response is entirely accurate and coherent, you refuse
to respond to any of the points I raise as usual.

> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
>

--

[jonathan]

> .....and maybe, one of these days, complexity and/or chaos theory will

> give us some shiny things.
>

Complexity science provides a theoretical model that
can provide the ability to design, diagnose and
understand the workings of any system that has...

....*many independent parts freely interacting with time.*

I dare you to list a single thing in the ENTIRETY
of the universe that doesn't fit within the above
range.

You have the entire universe and all of science
to choose from. Everything from the A's, say art
to the Z's, say zoology.


'A'

Complex Systems in Aesthetics and Arts
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/complexity/si/847358/cfp/


'Z'

Zoology Chapter 1 - Life: Biological principles And The
Science Of Zoology
https://quizlet.com/115736562/zoology-chapter-1-life-biological-principles-and-the-science-of-zoology-flash-cards/



And everything in between...a couple from the C's..



'C'


The Search for a Theory of Cities
https://meetingoftheminds.org/search-theory-cities-23642

Cities and Complexity
Understanding Cities with Cellular Automata,
Agent-Based Models, and Fractals
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/cities-and-complexity



I'll use a random letter generator and pick a few
letters and see what comes up, could be
interesting to see what pops up.
http://www.dave-reed.com/Nifty/randSeq.html



'I' came up first. Googling...



When complexity science meets implementation science:
a theoretical and empirical analysis of systems change
https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-018-1057-z



'H'



The challenge of complexity in health care
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1121189/


'M'



Where Military Professionalism Meets Complexity Science
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0095327X07310337



'E'


COMPLEXITY THEORY TAKES EVOLUTION TO ANOTHER LEVEL
https://www.wired.com/2008/02/complexity-theo/


'R'


Complexity and Real Computation
https://www.amazon.com/Complexity-Real-Computation-Lenore-Blum/dp/0387982817



'Q' ...Never heard of this one before, btw, Nursing
seems to have taken this concept by the tail



Quantum Leadership, Fourth Edition
Building Better Partnerships for Sustainable Health
http://www.jblearning.com/catalog/9781284050684/



American Nurse Today
Quantum leadership: Upside down
https://www.americannursetoday.com/quantum-leadership-upside-down/



'E'



Oh crap, here's a list of ALL the letters.
Should've started with this one.

Sorry for providing more shiny examples
than you can count just from the link
below.


Complexity Explorer
https://www.complexityexplorer.org/explore/resources




*One* abstract concept for them all.

Whereas before each discipline or system needed
it's own unique explanations. And this allows us
to see for the first time what all that exists
has in...*common with each other*.

And what everything in the universe has in common
wrt it's creation and evolution provides the
theory of everything, btw.















> earle
> *
>


--

[jonathan]

On 10/16/2018 2:13 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 19:28:20 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
> <WriteI...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On 10/13/2018 12:15 AM, jillery wrote:
>>
>>
>>> As I pointed out to John Bode elsethread, labels don't change reality,
>>> they just describe them for the convenience of the labeler.
>>> Nevertheless, if one is involved in the understanding of a phenomenon,
>>> then the definition of labels matter to understanding. Not sure how
>>> you *still* don't understand this.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I understand just fine, what you don't get is I reject
>> the reductionist notion that nature is understood by
>> counting/classifying things.
>
> Since almost no one, and certainly no competent scientist,
> thinks that understanding, as contrasted with convenience in
> discussion, comes from "counting/classifying things", you're
> in good company.

You reject this statement?

"For the sciences, application of methodological reductionism
attempts explanation of entire systems in terms of their
individual, constituent parts and their interactions."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism

If so, that's a good first step in realizing the
emergent whole is how systems are understood.

[jillery]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 19:00:53 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 10/16/2018 12:01 AM, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 19:28:20 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/13/2018 12:15 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> As I pointed out to John Bode elsethread, labels don't change reality,
>>>> they just describe them for the convenience of the labeler.
>>>> Nevertheless, if one is involved in the understanding of a phenomenon,
>>>> then the definition of labels matter to understanding. Not sure how
>>>> you *still* don't understand this.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I understand just fine, what you don't get is I reject
>>> the reductionist notion that nature is understood by
>>> counting/classifying things.
>>
>>
>> Your injection of stupid strawmen does not an argument make. You
>> really need to learn how to read written English. Look up Feynman's
>> story about knowing the names of birds in different languages. My
>> impression is most people, reductionists and otherwise, don't claim
>> nature is understood by counting/classifying things.
>
>
>So how is nature understood? Again as usual you dodge
>the point. Reducing to parts, counting and classifying
>is very useful EXCEPT for the core purpose of science.

To the contrary, counting and classifying are necessary for the core
purpose of science, but are not sufficient. That's the difference
between what I wrote and your stupid strawman.

>Understanding the truth behind nature and reality.
>
>
>
>> But even Feynman
>> would have agreed that if there isn't consensus on what those names
>> mean, then discussion is practically impossible, as your posts
>> illustrate time after time. Since you refuse to seek and accept
>> consensus of meaning, it's no wonder you have trouble posting a
>> coherent comment.
>>
>
>
>My response is entirely accurate and coherent, you refuse
>to respond to any of the points I raise as usual.

Really? Are you claiming that somebody else posted "what you don't

get is I reject the reductionist notion that nature is understood by

counting/classifying things."? If so, identify that poster. If not,
then admit I responded to the point you posted. Pick your poison.

[jillery]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 20:08:25 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 10/16/2018 2:13 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 19:28:20 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
>> <WriteI...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On 10/13/2018 12:15 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> As I pointed out to John Bode elsethread, labels don't change reality,
>>>> they just describe them for the convenience of the labeler.
>>>> Nevertheless, if one is involved in the understanding of a phenomenon,
>>>> then the definition of labels matter to understanding. Not sure how
>>>> you *still* don't understand this.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I understand just fine, what you don't get is I reject
>>> the reductionist notion that nature is understood by
>>> counting/classifying things.
>>
>> Since almost no one, and certainly no competent scientist,
>> thinks that understanding, as contrasted with convenience in
>> discussion, comes from "counting/classifying things", you're
>> in good company.
>
>
>
>You reject this statement?
>
>"For the sciences, application of methodological reductionism
>attempts explanation of entire systems in terms of their
>individual, constituent parts and their interactions."
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism
>
>If so, that's a good first step in realizing the
>emergent whole is how systems are understood.

I don't reject that statement. Too bad for you that statement doesn't
say that nature is *understood* by counting/classifying things. To be
honest, I have no idea how you associate counting/classifying things
to your Wiki quote.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 20:08:25 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
<WriteI...@gmail.com>:

>On 10/16/2018 2:13 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 19:28:20 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
>> <WriteI...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On 10/13/2018 12:15 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> As I pointed out to John Bode elsethread, labels don't change reality,
>>>> they just describe them for the convenience of the labeler.
>>>> Nevertheless, if one is involved in the understanding of a phenomenon,
>>>> then the definition of labels matter to understanding. Not sure how
>>>> you *still* don't understand this.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I understand just fine, what you don't get is I reject
>>> the reductionist notion that nature is understood by
>>> counting/classifying things.
>>
>> Since almost no one, and certainly no competent scientist,
>> thinks that understanding, as contrasted with convenience in
>> discussion, comes from "counting/classifying things", you're
>> in good company.
>
>
>
>You reject this statement?
>
>"For the sciences, application of methodological reductionism
>attempts explanation of entire systems in terms of their
>individual, constituent parts and their interactions."
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism

Not at all; that's exactly how reductionism works. What I
reject is your insistence that complexity theory is
something brand-new, and what you repeatedly dodge is the
fact is that science isn't composed solely of reductionist
techniques, and that science has been using your vaunted
complexity theory for decades:

https://medium.com/@junp01/an-introduction-to-complexity-theory-3c20695725f8

From that article:

"Complexity Theory and its related concepts emerged in the
mid-late 20th century across multiple disciplines, including
the work of Prigogine and his study on dissipative
structures in non-equilibrium thermodynamics, Lorenz in his
study of weather systems and non-linear causal pathways
(i.e. the butterfly effect), Chaos theory and its new branch
of mathematics, as well as evolutionary thinking informed by
Lamarck’s perspectives on learning and adaptation (Schneider
and Somers, 2006)."

For some things reductionism works just fine, and always
has; for others it doesn't. Your problem is that you think
*everything* requires complexity theory.

>If so, that's a good first step in realizing the
>emergent whole is how systems are understood.

....something known for quite a while.

Well?

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 21:06:40 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

He seems to think that the fact that reductionism exists
supports his assertion that science operates in no other
way.

[jonathan]

What is the core purpose of science?


> but are not sufficient.


What more is needed? You couldn't be more vague
if you tried.

> That's the difference
> between what I wrote and your stupid strawman.
>
>
>> Understanding the truth behind nature and reality.
>>
>>
>>
>>> But even Feynman
>>> would have agreed that if there isn't consensus on what those names
>>> mean, then discussion is practically impossible, as your posts
>>> illustrate time after time. Since you refuse to seek and accept
>>> consensus of meaning, it's no wonder you have trouble posting a
>>> coherent comment.
>>>
>>
>>
>> My response is entirely accurate and coherent, you refuse
>> to respond to any of the points I raise as usual.
>
>
> Really? Are you claiming that somebody else posted "what you don't
> get is I reject the reductionist notion that nature is understood by
> counting/classifying things."? If so, identify that poster. If not,
> then admit I responded to the point you posted. Pick your poison.
>

Oh I see now you want to turn this into a he said she said
debate instead of talking to the points being raised.
Nice dodge.

Do you reject this statement?

"For the sciences, application of methodological reductionism
attempts explanation of entire systems in terms of their
individual, constituent parts and their interactions."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism

Don't wait the for the translation, yes or no????

And please explain where the above method holds
and where it does not.


I'll tell you, since your reply is sure to be
another transparent dodge.

The more complex the system, the more chaotic
it's part behavior. And the reverse, the simpler
the system the more definable become the parts

So with something as complex as life, does the
reductionist statement quoted give any chance
to understand how nature (the whole) works?

>
> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
>

--

[jonathan]

On 10/17/2018 9:06 PM, jillery wrote:

That's just a stupid reply, I mean come on.
To explain entire systems in terms of their
parts requiring a detailing of the parts
and their interactions.

If you can't read, what's the point?

>
>
> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
>

--

[jillery]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 19:42:41 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>

You sound like a five-year-old with a bad attitude. You didn't even
try to connect your last argument to your previous argument. So I
assume you have abandoned your previous argument altogether, and I can
focus on just your last one.

Once again, consider the screen you're looking at right now. There
are multiple levels of understanding:

1) how you interpret the words.

2) how you recognize the text which make up the words.

2) how the images are formed you interpret as text.

3) how the data which defines the images is transferred from my
computer to your screen.

There are other levels, but these will illustrate the point. Each of
these levels are a system, and each of these systems are a part of a
larger system. Within each level, there are details relevant to that
system only. In order for the larger system to work, the only thing
other levels need to know are what the levels below send as output,
and what the levels above require as input.

So when you explain the larger system, you can treat each level as a
black box, and ignore the details inside those boxes. And when you
explain an individual level, you can ignore the details of the larger
system. It all depends on what system you're explaining.

It should go without saying that it's pointless to explain the
top-level system based on details relevant only to a lower level, and
it's pointless to explain any of the lower levels based on the details
of the top level. But ultimately, in order to explain the *entire*
system, meaning each of the lower-level systems and how they interact
within the top-level system, you need to explain all of those levels

in terms of their parts requiring a detailing of the parts and their
interactions.

I have explained this to you before. Not sure how you *still* don't
understand this. Perhaps I used too many words.

>If you can't read, what's the point?

Your argue as if the top-level is the only one that matters, and that
would be a *really* stupid thing to think. So a better question to
ask yourself is: If you can't think, what's the point?

[jillery]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 19:40:55 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On 10/17/2018 9:06 PM, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 19:00:53 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/16/2018 12:01 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 19:28:20 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/13/2018 12:15 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> As I pointed out to John Bode elsethread, labels don't change reality,
>>>>>> they just describe them for the convenience of the labeler.
>>>>>> Nevertheless, if one is involved in the understanding of a phenomenon,
>>>>>> then the definition of labels matter to understanding. Not sure how
>>>>>> you *still* don't understand this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand just fine, what you don't get is I reject
>>>>> the reductionist notion that nature is understood by
>>>>> counting/classifying things.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your injection of stupid strawmen does not an argument make. You
>>>> really need to learn how to read written English. Look up Feynman's
>>>> story about knowing the names of birds in different languages. My
>>>> impression is most people, reductionists and otherwise, don't claim
>>>> nature is understood by counting/classifying things.
>>>
>>>
>>> So how is nature understood? Again as usual you dodge
>>> the point. Reducing to parts, counting and classifying
>>> is very useful EXCEPT for the core purpose of science.

If you're going to answer your own stupid questions with your own
stupid answers, what's the point of asking them?

>> To the contrary, counting and classifying are necessary for the core
>> purpose of science,
>
>
>What is the core purpose of science?

Don't you know? Since you asked, a simplified answer is: The core
purpose of science is to explain how nature works. You're welcome.

>> but are not sufficient.
>
>
>What more is needed? You couldn't be more vague
>if you tried.

To the contrary, if I tried, I could be as vague as you. What else is
necessary isn't relevant to show that your expressed argument is
stupid. It's enough that the details you identified isn't sufficient.

But since you asked, and if you mean what more is needed to explain
how nature works, that would be fitting data derived from counting and
classifying into a working theory which explains the data. For
someone who likes to lecture everybody about science, you sure don't
know much about it. You're welcome.

>> That's the difference
>> between what I wrote and your stupid strawman.
>>
>>
>>> Understanding the truth behind nature and reality.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> But even Feynman
>>>> would have agreed that if there isn't consensus on what those names
>>>> mean, then discussion is practically impossible, as your posts
>>>> illustrate time after time. Since you refuse to seek and accept
>>>> consensus of meaning, it's no wonder you have trouble posting a
>>>> coherent comment.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My response is entirely accurate and coherent, you refuse
>>> to respond to any of the points I raise as usual.
>>
>>
>> Really? Are you claiming that somebody else posted "what you don't
>> get is I reject the reductionist notion that nature is understood by
>> counting/classifying things."? If so, identify that poster. If not,
>> then admit I responded to the point you posted. Pick your poison.
>>
>
>
>Oh I see now you want to turn this into a he said she said
>debate instead of talking to the points being raised.
>Nice dodge.

No, it's always a case of you said, you ignore what you said. You
really need to work on your convenient amnesia.

>Do you reject this statement?
>
>"For the sciences, application of methodological reductionism
>attempts explanation of entire systems in terms of their
>individual, constituent parts and their interactions."
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism

Answered elsethread, and you know it. so repeating your question here
is a stupid waste of time.

<snip asinine argument repeated in another post>

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 10:25:35 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

No response? No surprise.

[jillery]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 01:54:49 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>3) how the images are formed you interpret as text.
>
>4) how the data which defines the images is transferred from my

Instead of posting elsetopic your usual inane tu quoques, you would
have done better to post an intelligent reply to the above. Apparently
backing up your bald assertions is something too complicated for you
to do. Poor baby.