Can anyone help???
Jay Mendham
Chuck Rothman
Jay Mendham wrote:
> I'm looking for a particular word, (or short series of words) to
> describe a phenomena that occurs in various science fiction
> stories.
>
> In the case of time travel, when one travels into the past and
> makes a very slight change to the flow of things, it is theorized
> that it often has major ramifications when the person involved
> returns to his present time.
I don't know of a single word, but it's sometimes referred to as "the butterfly effect,"
referring to Ray Bradbury's "A Sound of Thunder." (This is different from the Butterfly
Effect in Chaos Theory).
--
Chuck Rothman
http://www.sff.net/people/Rothman/
Join Albacon '97! E-mail for details.
Paris Flammonde
"The Skewing Potential"
"The Asymetric Attitude"
"The Sinister Slant"
"The Deviation Dynamic"
"The Trip-time Tendency"
"The Misstep Proposition"
and I have scores I haven't even used yet. PF #118 2/23/97
Dan Goodman
In article <5ojv4n$s...@news.interlog.com>,
Jay Mendham <jmen...@interlog.com> wrote:
>
>
>Can anyone help???
>
>I'm looking for a particular word, (or short series of words) to
>describe a phenomena that occurs in various science fiction
>stories.
>
>In the case of time travel, when one travels into the past and
>makes a very slight change to the flow of things, it is theorized
>that it often has major ramifications when the person involved
>returns to his present time.
>
>least labels it. I'm not sure if it was in a Sci-Fi short story or
>an article, or who the original author or authors were.
I suspect you mean "Butterfly Effect". This is actually from chaos theory
rather than from sf. The idea is that a butterfly flapping its wings can
seriously affect the world weather.
Ray Bradbury's "The Sound of Thunder" has a time traveller stepping on a
butterfly; which results in noticeable changes when the group returns to
our time.
Terry Pratchett's _Interesting Times_ has a clear explanation of the
Butterfly Effect.
By the way, you're probably already paying someone to answer that kind of
question. If you have a decent local library, it should have a reference
librarian -- or at least, someone whose duties involve answering that kind
of question.
While it's not as memorable a question as "Where can I buy clothes for
concrete geese?" it would probably be a welcome change from "I'm looking
for a book published 20 years ago. It was about a little girl in England,
and it had a red cover."
--
Dan Goodman
dsg...@visi.com
http://www.visi.com/~dsgood/index.html
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.
Jacques E. Bouchard
Jay Mendham wrote:
>
> In the case of time travel, when one travels into the past and
> makes a very slight change to the flow of things, it is theorized
> that it often has major ramifications when the person involved
> returns to his present time.
>
> I've read somewhere a word that describes this phenomena, or at
> least labels it. I'm not sure if it was in a Sci-Fi short story or
> an article, or who the original author or authors were.
You mean a paradox? Traveling back in time to kill your mother before
you were born?
jaybee
Kat91
jmen...@interlog.com (Jay Mendham) says:
<<Can anyone help???
I'm looking for a particular word, (or short series of words) to
describe a phenomena that occurs in various science fiction
stories.
In the case of time travel, when one travels into the past and
makes a very slight change to the flow of things, it is theorized
that it often has major ramifications when the person involved
returns to his present time.
I've read somewhere a word that describes this phenomena, or at
least labels it. I'm not sure if it was in a Sci-Fi short story or
an article, or who the original author or authors were.
If someone could tell me what that word is, I would be eternally
grateful.
Many thanks in advance to anyone who can help out.>>
"Cliche" would certainly describe this scenario. ;-) Seriously, a story
that deals with the ramifications of a slightly altered timeline is called
an "alternate history" story.
-- Kim
Kimberly Rufer-Bach, writer & editor
Ka...@aol.com
AOL Editors Forum Host
Email for info about the Editors Forum or freelance editorial services from ALCHEMY EDITORIAL
"Dream other dreams, and better!" - Mark Twain, "The Mysterious Stranger"
Jim Meritt
In article <5ojv4n$s...@news.interlog.com>, jmen...@interlog.com says...
>In the case of time travel, when one travels into the past and
>makes a very slight change to the flow of things, it is theorized
>that it often has major ramifications when the person involved
>returns to his present time.
There is a nonfictional phenomena, initially developed due to some
meterological models but subsumed by chaos theory called "the butterfly
effect" i.e. "the beat of the wings of a butterfly (in China) affect the path
of a hurricane" That?
--
James W. Meritt
The opinions expressed above are my own. The fact simply
are and belong to none.
Paine Ellsworth
Jacques E. Bouchard wrote:
>
> Jay Mendham wrote:
> >
> > In the case of time travel, when one travels into the past and
> > makes a very slight change to the flow of things, it is theorized
> > that it often has major ramifications when the person involved
> > returns to his present time.
> >
> > least labels it. I'm not sure if it was in a Sci-Fi short story or
> > an article, or who the original author or authors were.
>
> you were born?
>
> jaybee
yes, paradox is what i've heard it called most often, not quite
as focused as JayBee means it, though -- this is akin to the most
recent offering of Star Trek where Picard takes his crew back to
the "First Contact" with aliens on Earth -- and this because the
Borg had gone back in time and changed Earth's history (killed
all the mothers <g>) --
Time Paradox
Time Stream Paradox
Alternate History Paradox
Etc. Paradox
you get the idea -- the Butterfly Effect is also used, and is
similar to the Butterfly Effect of Chaos Theory, in that a
relatively tiny change in one time (or one part of the world)
can have a profound effect in a later time (or a faraway part
of the world in the same time stream) --
"A butterfly flaps its wings in Peking, and in Central Park
you get rain instead of sunshine." - Dr. Ian Malcolm, a
chaotician played by
Jeff Goldblum
in "Jurassic Park" --
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine (he was describing the behavior of a T. Rex -- GROWL!)
Ellsworth
news:---.Smoking.is.one.of.the.leading.causes.of.statistics
news:---.-Fletcher.Knebel
Jacques E. Bouchard
Paine Ellsworth wrote:
>
> you get the idea -- the Butterfly Effect is also used, and is
> similar to the Butterfly Effect of Chaos Theory, in that a
> relatively tiny change in one time (or one part of the world)
> can have a profound effect in a later time (or a faraway part
> of the world in the same time stream) --
"Chaos Theory", pshaw... don't get me started.
More like "Inaccurate and Insufficient Data Collection Theory"; or
"fudging"...
jaybee
SpoonsWork
>In the case of time travel, when one travels into the past and
>makes a very slight change to the flow of things, it is theorized
>that it often has major ramifications when the person involved
>returns to his present time.
I once traveled back to 1928 and sat in a drawer, idle for 2 days. I
think it indirectly caused the great stock market crash.
SW
_____________________________
1. A Spoon's Work Is Never Done
2. Spoons Work (99.999999999999% reliable)
Paine Ellsworth
Jacques E. Bouchard (jaybee) wrote:
>
<shear> (butterfly fantasy???)
> "Chaos Theory", pshaw... don't get me started.
>
> More like "Inaccurate and Insufficient Data Collection Theory"; or
> "fudging"...
okay "Mr. Saturday Night" <g> --
Chaos Theory is still very much in its infancy -- and as such,
you are the first person i've run into (other than Gleick and
other scientist/authors who have published stuff on CT) who
seems to have read enough to understand enough to draw a
reasonably coherent conclusion about it --
so we appear to differ, as i see some interesting possibilities
in CT --
allow me to forge a disclaimer: my purpose, in addition to
learning more about CT, is to keep articles brief and to the
point, to arouse a spirit of friendly controversy in our
gentle readers, and to prove beyond any shadow of doubt,
using so-called Chaos Theory, the existence of God -- please
forgive any clumsiness on the part of this writer based upon
lack of acumen and experience --
such proof can be, at best, deductive in nature, and much can
be left to interpretation, as always -- so the atheists among
us can take heart --
now a quick summary of some past great proofs:
1) The Ontological Argument -- God is a being than which
nothing greater can be conceived to exist, that it cannot
even be conceived not to exist --
2) The Cosmological Argument -- inertia dictates that all
things in motion had to have been set in motion -- all
effects and causes can be traced back to a "first cause" --
3) The Teleological Argument (my fave proof before the advent
of Chaos Theory) -- that which is complex in makeup and in
design had to have had a "designer," a "manufacturer" -- this
is the "watch on the desert" proof: a nomad wandering in the
desert comes across a timepiece .... --
each of these arguments have been thoroughly refuted down
through the ages -- yet feel free to refute them again if
you like -- more detail can be found in:
"Classic Philosophical Questions" edited by James A. Gould
and now, a fourth argument based on "Chaos Theory":
4) The Dynamic Disturbance (Turbulence) Argument -- a strictly
defined ORDER exists that can be discerned and observed, that
is comprised of DISORDER of all kinds, all levels and all
timings --
the above is a mere summary -- i shall endeavor to write and
apply details in a future article, as this post is becoming
long and "teejus" --
thanks, JayBee, for the inspiration! -- for the impetus to
write a theory that screams:
GO AHEAD !!!! JUST TRY AND REFUTE ME !!!!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine (remember the Heisenberg deathbed story?* <g>) Ellsworth
*Note: see "Chaos - Making a New Science" by James Gleick,
(Strange Attractors, A Problem for God), p. 121
news:---.Every.revolution.was.first.a.thought.in
news:---.one.persons.mind.-Ralph.Waldo.Emerson
Mike Huber
Marty Fouts wrote in article ...
...
>
>On the other hand, the existence of "sensitive dependence on initial
>conditions" (the so-called butterfly effect) as demonstrated by
>"strange attractors" and Mandelbrot's pretty pictures does exist.
And that's no basis for a proof of the existance of God. It's more of a
refutation. Essentialy, the order in the universe can easily be explained
as a kind of generalized Mandelbrot-type picture that we assign meaning to
as a side effect of cognitive processes that evolved for the purpose of (in
the male) impressing females and outwitting other males and (in the female)
dealing with males.
But I don't let that interfere with my relationship with God (if any).
Mike Huber
n...@execpc.com
Paine Ellsworth
Marty Fouts wrote:
>
> >> Paine Ellsworth writes:
>
> Paine> and now, a fourth argument based on "Chaos Theory":
>
> Paine> 4) The Dynamic Disturbance (Turbulence) Argument -- a
> Paine> strictly defined ORDER exists that can be discerned and
> Paine> observed, that is comprised of DISORDER of all kinds, all
> Paine> levels and all timings --
>
> Huh? That an object have a property is no insurance of the agency of
> that property.
gimme a brake, Farty -- as a physicist, i ain't too bright --
knowwaddamean? --
i jus' now about two years ago thought o' this, and although
i think it has interesting possibilities, i haven't even begun
to begin to start formulating anything that could remotely be
conceived as the least bit arguable, let alone palatable --
the important thing is that turbulence is such a (forgive the
sarcasm) turbulent area of science that i figured that such as
the above would capture the hearts and minds of the wild men
of science, whereas the conventionals will just shrug it off
because there's no way they want to tackle turbulence --
besides, there is some truth in the above when one considers
the gathering of data for the Lorentz curve, as well as other
aspects of so-called Chaos Theory --
never did like that name, though -- too trendy -- it's more
like "Natural Order Out Of Chaos" and it's more a hypothesis
than a full-fledged theory -- NOOOCH -- that ain't so bad i
guess, but if *does* ever become a full theory, then it will
be NOOOCT -- talk about faddish and trendy! --
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine (and passé) Ellsworth
news:---.Do.not.make.loon.soup
news:---.-Valuable.advice.from.the.Eskimo.Cookbook
Paine Ellsworth
this is an interesting tack, Mike -- if i read you correctly,
Mandelbrot perceived and studied his data, and came up with
his profound imaging (which, like Lorenz's was a graphical result
of the gathered data) in order to impress his girlfriend? --
and the result of showing it to her was that she was better able
to (1) see that he was scads above other males, and (2) better
able to deal with Mandelbrot on a female vs. male level? --
leading to the important conclusion that if a man shows Mandelbrot's
"etchings" to his s.o., she will experience meltdown, and he will
be inundated with loving affection? -- hey! i have a really sexy
Mandelbrot Attractor screensaver (if i can just get it to work) --
i'm gonna try this and let you know! --
--------------------------------------------
onward to the more mundane -- my overzealousness in putting
forth the idea that so-called Chaos Theory is a basis for an
argument to prove the existence of God is the result of wanting
to see if anyone else sees what i see -- or am i, as many
believers have done in the past, seeing things that aren't
really there? --
for example, the Lorenz Attractor curve, which if i am
correct, was the result of graphing the data on the study of
the turbulence of boiling water -- (i'll have to double-check
that -- yes, the convective currents of rising gases and
fluids), is to me a set of observations showing that:
even with all the perceived chaos in the world (universe),
there is an overall order (using the meaning "order shows
a general pattern that is discerned to be finely structured
and non-chaotic, a pattern that may have been installed by an
intelligent being rather than happening in a random fashion"),
an order that is separate and apart from entropy -- an order
heretofore perceived in only an intuitive way by the vast
majority of people who have lived, and are living, on planet
Earth (leading to the various religious faiths) -- an order
that is a subtle force in the universe -- a force that guides
the other "natural" forces and generalizations ("laws") in a
seemingly chaotic manner --
could this subtle force be God? --
------------------------------------------
okay -- let me see if i got this straight -- i get my Mandelbrot
screensaver working, then i invite Suse over to my computer with
a suave "Hey doll! Come on over and see my etchings" -- and
she'll be putty in my big slow hands? -- okay, i think i've got
it --
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine (stay tuned for more Chaos) Ellsworth
news:---.Do.not.make.loon.soup
news:---.-Valuable.advice.from.the.Eskimo.Cookbook
Ken Bodnar
In article <33B416...@worldnet.att.net>,
ron.le...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> even with all the perceived chaos in the world (universe),
> there is an overall order
Could it not be reversed .. even with all the perceived order in the world
(universe), there is an overall chaos? Life, income tax, conciousness and
cogitation could all be a pinch of coon crap if a big cosmic comet
chaotically collides with earth.
(using the meaning "order shows
> a general pattern that is discerned to be finely structured
> and non-chaotic, a pattern that may have been installed by an
> intelligent being rather than happening in a random fashion"),
If you go back to one of the most preliminary works of Chaos, (Scientific
American back in the early 80's), they expounded on a chaos program with 3
simple steps. If you ran this program long enough, you would get fractals
and snowflakes etc. Order is a result of certain conditions somewhere in
the timeline, and if you don't have them, wait some and other conditions
will arise that are similiar and will give similar results. Ergo, chaos
produces the initial conditions, produces the order for a while on the
timeline, and then disintegrates (because it is chaos). If you wait long
enough, you will get order again for a while. Therefore, I believe, that
it is not inherent, or at least chaos is just as inherent as order (which
is part of chaos).
> an order that is separate and apart from entropy
I suspect that entropy is a lot like chaos. The big bang was an
entropy-defying moment, then entropy takes over. If the oscillationist
theories of the universe are correct, then the dark matter hauls back the
universe from expansion until we get a big bang again -- much like the
Chaos program mentioned above. Wait long enough on the arrow of time, and
you will see order come and go, you will see chaos come and go, you will
see entropy come and go, you will see fractals come and go if you are in
the right value range for them to happen in differential equations, etc.
etc.
-- an order
> heretofore perceived in only an intuitive way by the vast
> majority of people who have lived, and are living, on planet
> Earth (leading to the various religious faiths) -- an order
> that is a subtle force in the universe -- a force that guides
> the other "natural" forces and generalizations ("laws") in a
> seemingly chaotic manner --
>
> could this subtle force be God? --
The concept of God is anthropomorphic. In our overblown opinion of
ourselves, we are vital to the universe. I live in the vast expanse
called Canada. It is possible, by going into wilderness, that the
particular piece of land that you step on, has never had a human footstep
on it before. When you look around, it is beautiful. The trilliums bloom
in a riot of whites and pinks. Lakes and rivers sparkle like gems. Trees
grow emerald and majestic. And yet, I am the only person to visit and
appreciate the nature. It is humbling to know that this goes on for no
person's benefit. By extension, the universe does too. The universe, and
life is like shit, it just happens. For most of the billions of years, it
is uninhabitable, just like the Arctic. Then a brief warm interlude
happens, and all sorts of life springs up, just to be wiped out by the
next cosmic winter. That too is chaos. Even time is an attribute of this
universe, and this universe only (happens to be one of the strings that
came out of the big bang). Wrapping your head around this stuff is
mindblowing. But it all comes down to the one true sentence in the Bible
(In the beginning, there was light). Okay you Bible scholars, correct me
-- it probably says in the beginning there was darkness and light came or
something.
Ken
--
-- When responding by email, take the xxx's out of the address. They are there to kill the email spammers.
Jacques E. Bouchard
Ken Bodnar wrote:
>
> In article <33B416...@worldnet.att.net>,
> ron.le...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> > even with all the perceived chaos in the world (universe),
> > there is an overall order
>
> Could it not be reversed .. even with all the perceived order in the world
> (universe), there is an overall chaos? Life, income tax, conciousness and
> cogitation could all be a pinch of coon crap if a big cosmic comet
> chaotically collides with earth.
Could it be that you two are confusing order and symmetry?
jaybee
Colin
Jacques E. Bouchard wrote:
> Jay Mendham wrote:
> >
> > In the case of time travel, when one travels into the past and
> > makes a very slight change to the flow of things, it is theorized
> > that it often has major ramifications when the person involved
> > returns to his present time.
> >
> > I've read somewhere a word that describes this phenomena, or at
> > least labels it. I'm not sure if it was in a Sci-Fi short story or
> > an article, or who the original author or authors were.
>
> You mean a paradox? Traveling back in time to kill your mother
> before
> you were born?
>
> jaybee
Oh yeah! Ray Bradbury wrote a shot story about that sort of thing. A
guy returns to the age of dinosaurs and steps on a plant, or something
like that, and creates MAJOR changfes. Cant' remember the name though.
Colin
Mike Huber
Marty Fouts wrote in article ...
>
> Mike> And that's no basis for a proof of the existance of God.
>
>Of course not. I have no idea why you chose to quote it and then make
>your observation. I was discussing the debunking of "chaos theory,"
>not the existence of god.
Somebody else proposed using chaos theory to prove the existance of God.
The chaos effects (I agree - it's not a single coherent theory, more a
collection of interesting effects.)
>
> Mike> It's more of a refutation. Essentialy, the order in the
> Mike> universe can easily be explained as a kind of generalized
> Mike> Mandelbrot-type picture...
>
>No. It is not a refutation either. You can not infer a casual
>relationship simply because two things co-exist in either time or
>space.
My unclearness. It's a refutation of the "so much order - somebody must
have planned it" argument. The nifty pictures show that very simple causes
can have very elaborate looking effects.
>The "order" in the universe can not be "easily" explained -- trust me,
>I know the math ;-) -- and it certainly can't be explained by a
>coincident with an instance of a Julia set.
Well, a lot of order is just a matter of the human mind organizing
unrelated phenomena. Julia sets, and related graphics, show that it's easy
to generate the kinds of things the mind likes to see as order. As to the
particular order observed, well, I will have to trust you.
>Also, there is no evidence that cognitive processes evolved for any
>purpose.
>It is a common misunderstanding of Darwinian evolutionary theory to
>assume that the random throw of the evolutionary dice has a "purpose."
>It does not. ...
Certain primates that were able to out-clever their co-specifics were more
successful in reproducing, and this pattern continued for a long time,
creating an ex-post-facto illusion of purpose - I stand corrected.
I must plead guilty to "wavering into language."
> Mike> But I don't let that interfere with my relationship with God
> Mike> (if any).
>
>What evidence there may be for a deity can be found neither in
>particle theory nor in population biology. It certainly doesn't exist
>in mathematics -- unless you believe that in beauty lies truth.
Exactly - faith is not a matter of proof, and what I meant was that I enjoy
a certain degree of faith despite my having refuted every proof I've ever
seen for the existance of God. Except for William James', which isn't
exactly a proof (WJ had a way of side-stepping proof - "Does it work?") and
only applies to certain individuals.
Tom Ed White
On Wed, 02 Jul 1997 21:31:14 -0500, Colin <cg...@vvm.com> wrote:
>Jacques E. Bouchard wrote:
>
> Oh yeah! Ray Bradbury wrote a shot story about that sort of thing. A
>guy returns to the age of dinosaurs and steps on a plant, or something
>like that, and creates MAJOR changfes. Cant' remember the name though.
>Colin
>
"A Sound of Thunder" or maybe "The Sound of Thunder," by Ray Bradbury.
Tom Ed White
Paine Ellsworth
Ken Bodnar wrote:
>
> In article <33B416...@worldnet.att.net>,
> ron.le...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
> > even with all the perceived chaos in the world (universe),
> > there is an overall order
>
> Could it not be reversed .. even with all the perceived order in the world
> (universe), there is an overall chaos? Life, income tax, conciousness and
> cogitation could all be a pinch of coon crap if a big cosmic comet
> chaotically collides with earth.
of course, anything can be "reversed" -- the usefulness in
this case seems to be to show how scary such reversal can
be --
by re-reversing, a usefulness, stemming from the possibility
that there might be a greater power that helps protect us
from certain spontaneous moments of imbalance and chaos such
as the "cosmic comet," returns into play --
as i am a simple man, my understanding of the Lorenz Attractor
is rudimentary, so i shall describe the best i can:
the graphing of turbulence was used in an effort to study the
subject, an understanding of which has eluded the best efforts
of scientists until the advent of Chaos Theory --
one of the pioneers was a guy named Lorenz -- he found that
by using a simple machine like a water-wheel, he could gain
a stream of data similar to that gained studying convection
fluid, like boiling water --
water drops from above filling buckets on the wheel -- if the
water flows down slowly, the top bucket never fills up enough
to overcome friction, and the wheel never starts turning --
if the water flows faster, the weight of the top bucket sets
the wheel in motion -- if the flow of water gets real fast,
then the motion of the wheel becomes chaotic -- the motion of
the wheel can slow, and even reverse direction --
in plotting a graph, Lorenz discovered that, over long periods,
the spin of the water-wheel can reverse itself many times,
never settling down to a steady rate and never repeating itself
in any predictable pattern --
his graph of the data came to look like this:
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/9477/lorenz.gif
please note that this is a two-dimensional image trying to
depict a three-dimensional X-Y-Z set of data points --
this image was dubbed the Lorenz Attractor, and eventually
added to the "Strange Attractor" list of Chaos Theory --
the following quote is from "Chaos - Making a New Science"
by James Gleick:
"This magical image (the Lorenz Attractor), resembling an
owl's mask or butterfly's wings, became an emblem for the
early explorers of chaos. It revealed the fine structure
hidden within a disorderly stream of data. ...
...Because the system never exactly repeats itself, the
trajectory never intersects itself. Instead it loops
around and around forever. Motion on the attractor is
abstract, but it conveys the flavor of the motion of the
real system. For example, the crossover from one wing of
the attractor to the other corresponds to a reversal in
the direction of spin of the waterwheel or convection
fluid." --
i really don't think that scientists yet have an inkling
of the far-reaching and profound effects of the many
strange attractors in Chaos Theory -- perhaps when another
Robert Ardrey comes along, capable of getting and writing
about a general, overall combination of disciplines studied
using the latest math of Chaos Theory, perhaps then they
(and we) will receive another shaking up roughly equivalent
to that caused by Darwin -- only "reversed" <g>
> The concept of God is anthropomorphic. In our overblown opinion of
> ourselves, we are vital to the universe. I live in the vast expanse
> called Canada. It is possible, by going into wilderness, that the
> particular piece of land that you step on, has never had a human footstep
> on it before. When you look around, it is beautiful. The trilliums bloom
> in a riot of whites and pinks. Lakes and rivers sparkle like gems. Trees
> grow emerald and majestic. And yet, I am the only person to visit and
> appreciate the nature. It is humbling to know that this goes on for no
> person's benefit. By extension, the universe does too.
your first sentence is debatable -- the rest of the above is
poetry!
and yet, still magnificently debatable <g>
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine (Ah! Canada!) Ellsworth
news:---.A.good.man.is.always.a.beginner.-Martial.(c40-c104).
Paine Ellsworth
Jacques E. Bouchard wrote:
>
> Ken Bodnar wrote:
> >
> > In article <33B416...@worldnet.att.net>,
> > ron.le...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >
> > > even with all the perceived chaos in the world (universe),
> > > there is an overall order
> >
> > Could it not be reversed .. even with all the perceived order in the world
> > (universe), there is an overall chaos? Life, income tax, conciousness and
> > cogitation could all be a pinch of coon crap if a big cosmic comet
> > chaotically collides with earth.
>
>
> jaybee
is symmetry not a concept of order? -- order may or may not
be symmetric, but isn't symmetry of an orderly nature?
to answer your question, i really don't know <g> -- the
chaotic plottings on the graph of the Lorenz attractor at
first glance appear to result in symmetry as well as
orderliness -- as do those of the Mandelbrot and Julia
sets as well --
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
news:---.A.good.man.is.always.a.beginner.-Martial.(c40-c104)
Paine Ellsworth
Mike Huber wrote:
>
> Marty Fouts wrote in article ...
> > >> Mike Huber writes:
> >
> > Mike> And that's no basis for a proof of the existance of God.
> >
> >Of course not. I have no idea why you chose to quote it and then make
> >your observation. I was discussing the debunking of "chaos theory,"
> >not the existence of god.
>
> Somebody else proposed using chaos theory to prove the existance of God.
that would be moi -- and i am merely proposing that the
"interesting effects" of Chaos equations may lead to a
systematic reduction of science vs. religion arguments that
would have the equivalent effect of Darwin's "Origin of
Species" -- only in the opposite direction --
> The chaos effects (I agree - it's not a single coherent theory, more a
> collection of interesting effects.)
> >
> > Mike> It's more of a refutation. Essentialy, the order in the
> > Mike> universe can easily be explained as a kind of generalized
> > Mike> Mandelbrot-type picture...
> >
> >No. It is not a refutation either. You can not infer a casual
> >relationship simply because two things co-exist in either time or
> >space.
here, Marty, did you mean "causal?" -- and if so, i strongly
agree with you, yet some co-existences can be strangely
attractive, don't you agree? -- and some can be downright
compelling? --
> My unclearness. It's a refutation of the "so much order - somebody must
> have planned it" argument. The nifty pictures show that very simple causes
> can have very elaborate looking effects.
here, Mike, i'm not sure that i understand -- you sound as if
you are refuting the Teleological Argument, which, although
somewhat related to the "Chaos Argument," does not begin to
approach its complexities --
and your "very simple causes" are the data streams of complex
phenomena like fluid convection, turbulence, that have
heretofore been unsatisfyingly described by scientists using
linear equations -- the "nifty pictures" are graphs of such
complex data streams using messier nonlinear equations --
in other words, it's just not as simple as "so much order -
somebody must have planned it" -- it's more like, "there is
order found where none before have expected it to be, and
found in such a manner that the unexpected results are too
profound to yet be understood, and are therefore too easily
cast off and debunked as "trendy" and "faddish" by those who
would fear its esoteric possibilities --
sort of accusing scientists of the same offense that the
church officials were guilty of when they "strongly suggested"
that Galileo forget what he saw through his evil telescope --
so is such censure any more palatable coming from a scientist
than from a pope? --
> >The "order" in the universe can not be "easily" explained -- trust me,
> >I know the math ;-) -- and it certainly can't be explained by a
> >coincident with an instance of a Julia set.
>
> Well, a lot of order is just a matter of the human mind organizing
> unrelated phenomena. Julia sets, and related graphics, show that it's easy
> to generate the kinds of things the mind likes to see as order. As to the
> particular order observed, well, I will have to trust you.
there is much truth in this, no one can refute that the perceived
is affected and changed by the perceiver -- yet the more nonlinear
a study becomes, and the less it is reduced to linear equations,
the more objective it also appears to be -- Lorenz plotting his
graph had no idea what to expect, nor did Mandelbrot, et. al. --
yet their works revealed an order and symmetry (thanks JayBee) that
were heretofore unknown and unexpected, and are presently still out
in the la-la-land of the extreme edges of science and math --
and this is to be expected, why should scientists want to open
such a potentially religious can o' worms? --
> >What evidence there may be for a deity can be found neither in
> >particle theory nor in population biology. It certainly doesn't exist
> >in mathematics -- unless you believe that in beauty lies truth.
>
> Exactly - faith is not a matter of proof, and what I meant was that I enjoy
> a certain degree of faith despite my having refuted every proof I've ever
> seen for the existance of God. Except for William James', which isn't
> exactly a proof (WJ had a way of side-stepping proof - "Does it work?") and
> only applies to certain individuals.
it seems to me that faith and doubt are directly proportional --
the less doubt one possesses, the more certain one is about
something, then the less one needs to have faith -- if one has
no doubts, then one has no need for faith -- if one has a "strong"
faith, then it implies that one has great doubts --
personally, i consider it fun to try to prove things that people
don't believe in -- i thoroughly enjoy the looks on the faces
of those who experience a new truth for the first time --
and i laugh like hell at the poor souls who, when staring truth
in the face, still continue to go to their graves believing the
truisms that govern their lives, rather than to accept the truth,
refashion their lives governed by the new truth, resulting in
fuller and more meaningful living (and dying) --
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine (purpose? purpose? we don' need no stinkin' purpose!)
Ellsworth
news:---.A.good.man.is.always.a.beginner.-Martial.(c40-c104)
NSMitchell
In article <33C176...@worldnet.att.net>, Paine Ellsworth
<ron.le...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
Symmetry is balance, or equilibrium. If I understood my chemistry and
physics instructors correctly, all things act to attain and maintain
equilibrium. The process of achieving and maintaining equilibrium is
dynamic as entities constantly act upon each other, exchanging and
swapping characteristics. Symmetry itself would exist only during the
fleeting moments when something in nature has attained equilibrium before
something else can act upon it, stealing away part of it and creating
disequilibrium again.
Are symmetry and order related at all?
Is order found in the achievement of symmetry, or does order exist in the
absence of symmetry as long as the dynamic exists?
Can the dynamic be considered chaotic?
Is order simply a state of chaos?
NSMitchell
You wrote:
<< There are about four threads going on around the topic of chaos, order
and god. Rather than drop messages into each of them, I'm going to
post some observations here.
I'll stay with this thread until it turns into a chocolate sheep, but
I can't stay in all of the others. >>
< I've snipped a fabulous essay and thought provoking essay >
I had a chocolate lamb at Easter. Does that count? ;)
Iconduit2
Paine wrote:
> personally, i consider it fun to try to prove things that
> people don't believe in -- i thoroughly enjoy the looks
> on the faces of those who experience a new truth for the
> first time --
>
> and i laugh like hell at the poor souls who, when staring
> truth in the face, still continue to go to their graves
> believing the truisms that govern their lives, rather
> than to accept the truth, refashion their lives governed
> by the new truth, resulting in fuller and more meaningful
> living (and dying) -
Perhaps the poor souls have no Faith in your Proof.
I sometimes hear friends say " Lately I've been doubting my faith." I
don't say anything.
Anyway between mailbombs, subsims, and the flame that shall remain
nameless, I just thought I would post to the thread I've nicknamed
"lectures I skipped at school"
Peace,
Byron
Anna McN
Marty Fouts wrote:
>
> There are about four threads going on around the topic of chaos, order
> and god. Rather than drop messages into each of them, I'm going to
> post some observations here.
>
> I'll stay with this thread until it turns into a chocolate sheep, but
> I can't stay in all of the others.
>
>
> There are really three topics here, and I'll discuss them in this
> order: "chaos theory" as valid mathematical research; order, symmetry
> and chaos; and chaotic behavior and the existence of god.
Thank you Marty, I really enjoyed that and apologies for clipping
what followed..but I wished to get a word (or two) in edgeways!
>From seven years of age, I have had a conceptual problem.
Now as I see it, mathematics is the tool which enables
the observations of events physical or otherwise to be
measured, compared and quantised.
That "chaos theory" did not reach mathematical fulfilment
may be on account of the technological imperfections in
the physical tools as they are today.
This does not depreciate the value of pursuing the study.
If neccessary, it will wait until further bodies of
knowledge wrt measurements and the probability of
events spur the investigators on to further illumination.
Enlightenment has always occured in leaps and bounds and troughs.
For instance, at the moment we cannot distinguish
exactly where a given particle may be at any given
moment, or where a particle may be at a given
time...The wave/particle duality..when it is at or near
to the speed of light. Schroedinger helped us to
use, quantify and manipulate observations (within 'limits')
of these events.
And essentially these are reliable observations within limits.
Upper and lower bounds, error bounds...and inevitably limits.
Limits ever decreasing to ...or ever expanding or boundless to
(the intriguing concept of) infinity.
Yet....where is infinity?
That place where parallel lines meet?
Chaos becoming a chessboard of predictability?
How can it be approached even as a thought experiment?
Who can go to the edge of their mind and look over?
Who can go to the end of the universe and say "there is
no more".
There is always more....and more ...to infinity.
Is that why God was created?
The 'hunger@ for the apple of the tree of knowledge?
Finally, I say that from our known infinitesimal to
the macroscopic lies the extent and the scope
of the human.
We need to get cleverer.....faster!
I await your observations. Thank you for 'listening'.
Anna (Why couldn't I have been extra terrestial?
...such a limited human.) McN
Paine Ellsworth
Iconduit2 wrote:
>
> Paine wrote:
> > personally, i consider it fun to try to prove things that
> > people don't believe in -- i thoroughly enjoy the looks
> > on the faces of those who experience a new truth for the
> > first time --
> >
> > and i laugh like hell at the poor souls who, when staring
> > truth in the face, still continue to go to their graves
> > believing the truisms that govern their lives, rather
> > than to accept the truth, refashion their lives governed
> > by the new truth, resulting in fuller and more meaningful
>
> Perhaps the poor souls have no Faith in your Proof.
> I sometimes hear friends say " Lately I've been doubting my faith." I
> don't say anything.
a wise choice -- entering a dialectic with one who is
questioning his/her faith could be akin to loaning
money to a friend --
> Anyway between mailbombs, subsims, and the flame that shall remain
> nameless, I just thought I would post to the thread I've nicknamed
> "lectures I skipped at school"
"Tales of the Internet" revisited -- you sound as if your
"buttons" have been pushed, yet you persistently remain calm --
admirable!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine (anarchy! chaos! then someone constructs a damn alphabet! --
which leads to . . . writing!) Ellsworth
news:---.Never.go.to.bed.mad.--.Stay.up.and.fight.-Phyllis.Diller
Paine Ellsworth
Marty Fouts wrote:
>
<shear> (some parts for bw)
> ...here goes:
>
> There are really three topics here, and I'll discuss them in this
> order: "chaos theory" as valid mathematical research; order, symmetry
> and chaos; and chaotic behavior and the existence of god.
>
> I) " Chaos theory" as valid mathematical research:
>
> My dismissal of chaos theory as a "dead end" isn't really equivalent
> to the church's dismissal of galileo.
yes, perhaps more a cul-de-sac of sorts, on a bay -- shall we
trespass and build a boat? -- there are risks --
> Mathematics is full of
> "interesting" branches that don't lead anywhere. After twenty years of
> serious investigation, study of chaotic behavior has pretty much lead
> to a dead end. It hasn't provided any insights in any disciplines, it
> hasn't made any mathematical processes easier. All it has done has
> led to some pretty pictures.
yet there are some who would picture CT as "open-ended" due to
its being a significant "cry in the wilderness" of abstract
mathematics -- sort of a "calm before the storm" as it were --
or a light bulb? that eventually leads to a crt? that eventually
leads...? --
> In the now 35 years since Lorenz first published, there has been *no*
> other result from the study of chaotic behavior. This lead the AMS to
> declare that "chaos theory" is not now a viable place for research.
this is not surprising -- yet there remain those wild ones of
science that i previously mentioned -- those who won't give
up even with the loss of grant-approved respectability -- this
slows them down, but to dead-stop in the face of the potential ...
Marty, perhaps you have an update on the following info, or
maybe you know an interesting link or two -- we may have covered
this ground before, yet if you have an update i would be most
interested --
suppose you are working on the manufacture of life in the
lab -- suppose you have recreated conditions as they were a
few billion years ago here on Earth, and after years of
meticulous study and slow progress, by very carefully
experimenting with the elusive spark window, you have
observed as, say, sixteen of the twenty or so amino acids
that are necessary to life have "spontaneously" come together --
yet try as you may, the other four or five elude you -- you
work many years in attempts to refine, yet nothing works --
finally, Daddy Warbucks puts a cork on your work -- you are
orphaned once more -- what would you do? --
(apart from the posed question, it would be interesting to hear
your take on the present status of this research) --
> This doesn't mean that it won't be some day, perhaps as the result of
> advances elsewhere in mathematics. A lot of numerical analysis was
> understood in theory centuries ago, but wasn't interesting until
> computers became available.
>
> In some ways, authors like Gleick have turned the study of chaotic
> behavior in mathematical systems into a form of cold fussion, making
> almost mystical claims for what, to a mathematician, is pretty cut and
> dried stuff. [How cut and dried? It was in my undergraduate junior
> "engineering math" texts in the early 70s.]
understood, yet, was it "glossed over" as Gleick maintains
that most colleges do? -- or did it interest you enough to
do more digging? -- i can understand how it might not --
there are many curious directions in which to go in the
field of mathematics --
it would be interesting to find out if Uncle Albert ever
got wind of the early works, and what if anything he may
have thought of CT before it actually came to be called
CT -- Einstein never considered himself to be much of a
mathematician, but he was scads above my rudimentary
comprehensions --
> II) Order, Symmetry and Chaotic behavior.
>
> ...And, as you've probably already guessed, chaotic behavior is
> independent of both order and symmetry. It is possible, as Lorenz
> determined, to have ordered systems that have chaotic response to
> initial conditions, and it is possible to construct chaotic symmetric
> systems. It is also possible to have symmetry without chaos, as do
> most of the interesting laws of particle physics, and to have ordered
> systems without chaos. [Most ordinary differential equations produce
> systems which are well ordered but not chaotic.]
there is much to ponder in your words, Marty -- even math is
frought with all three -- math is what most people hate in
school, and after -- writers hate math, because even one
equation in their work, or one graph, sometimes just saying
"two plus two equals four" can result in reader trauma --
from the Darwinian perspective, one would think that math
would have been selected out eons ago <g> -- there must be
a subtle survival value there somewhere {where x>1, gæš–=geez} --
> III) Chaotic behavior and the existence of God.
>
> This is the easiest to dismiss. Let's take a standard example from
> probability theory: a run of 15 "heads" in a row when flipping
> coins. The chances of this happening are 1 in 2^15 (or 1 in 32768.) So
> you don't really expect it to happen. Now take a penny and flip it 15
> times, keeping track of the sequence. I just did, and got
>
> HTTHTTHHHTTHTTH
>
> Guess what? The odds of that happening are *exactly* the same as the
> odds of getting HHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
>
> And that's the problem with using "coincidental" arguments. It doesn't
> matter how much the odds are against what happened, the fact that it
> happened doesn't prove that it wasn't random chance.
>
> As rare and unusual as life may be, it is here, it has the properties
> it has, and their simple existence can neither prove nor disprove
> anything about a possible god.
sad but true -- your snowflake and coin-toss examples can
also be extended to humans, and are superb refutations of
the "Teleological Argument for the existence of God" --
yet we are not just talking about "life" -- we are not just
talking about present humanity (some early hominids evidently
practiced a form of "religion" before evolving into H. sapiens) --
we are not just talking about humans in general (elephants
do some interesting things with their dead, which some construe
as being somewhat "religious" --
and we are not just talking about life, in the context of
life being something that seems to possess order and/or
symmetry set against a background of chaos --
we are plotting data points in the sky, chaotic and humble
though they may be, none of us can truly say where they
may lead -- we are like Lorenz in the time before the
pretty picture -- he knew not what to expect and neither
do we --
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine (i wonder how far along Lorenz was when he became
"impressed" by the thickened plottings?) Ellsworth
news:---.Never.go.to.bed.mad.--.Stay.up.and.fight.-Phyllis.Diller
Paine Ellsworth
NSMitchell wrote:
>
<shear> (to enhance bw balance)
> Symmetry is balance, or equilibrium. If I understood my chemistry and
> physics instructors correctly, all things act to attain and maintain
> equilibrium. The process of achieving and maintaining equilibrium is
> dynamic as entities constantly act upon each other, exchanging and
> swapping characteristics. Symmetry itself would exist only during the
> fleeting moments when something in nature has attained equilibrium before
> something else can act upon it, stealing away part of it and creating
> disequilibrium again.
please allow a humble effort from this entity to exchange and
to swap --
> Are symmetry and order related at all?
just a gut feeling, i'd say yes -- "symmetry" is as a Rolls Royce,
where "order" is as a vehicle -- just as a Rolls is a vehicle,
but a vehicle is not necessarily a Rolls, symmetry is order, but
order is not necessarily symmetry --
order appears to be a more general concept, and symmetry a more
specific kind of order -- although i could be wrong --
> Is order found in the achievement of symmetry, or does order exist in the
> absence of symmetry as long as the dynamic exists?
yes, and yes (IMHO) -- both would seem to be plausible --
> Can the dynamic be considered chaotic?
this may be the question of the moment -- perhaps the
"dynamic" is like the concept of infinity, which can
be expressed in many curious ranks:
vv^2
vv^3
vv^vv
where "vv" is the closest my font will come to "omega" --
are we too bold to suggest more than one level of dynamic?
> Is order simply a state of chaos?
even more momentous? -- to find evidence of this in the
strange attractors of Chaos Theory? --
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine (and the plots thicken) Ellsworth
news:---.Never.go.to.bed.mad.--.Stay.up.and.fight.-Phyllis.Diller
Jerry Kindall
In article <wksoxd3...@MJF.VIP.BEST.CO>, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
>I've often wondered what the root cause of math anxiety is. Math is
>about the simplest, most predictable, and most comprehensible of any
>of the subjects, yet it sure seems a lot of people get scared.
I've discovered recently that a lot of people are used to making decisions
based on instinct. Their hunches and feelings are generally trustworthy.
They make important life decisions based on what their gut is telling
them, and usually the decisions are the right one for them.
I can't do that. In fact, when I try to make decisions based on feelings,
I end up doing exactly the wrong thing more often than not. It amazes me
to no end that other people find this method of decision-making at all
useful.
But perhaps someone who is not used to having to think about things to
make the correct choice would find mathematics difficult to grasp.
--
Jerry Kindall <kin...@manual.com>
Manual Labor <http://www.manual.com/>
Technical Writing; Internet & WWW Consulting
Web Quote of the Weak: "Please spade and nuter your pets."
Jerry Kindall
In article <wk7meom...@MJF.VIP.BEST.CO>, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
> >> Jerry Kindall writes:
>
> jerry> In article <wksoxd3...@MJF.VIP.BEST.CO>, Marty Fouts
> jerry> <fo...@null.net> wrote:
>
> >> I've often wondered what the root cause of math anxiety is. Math
> >> is about the simplest, most predictable, and most comprehensible
> >> of any of the subjects, yet it sure seems a lot of people get
> >> scared.
>
> jerry> I've discovered recently that a lot of people are used to
> jerry> making decisions based on instinct. Their hunches and
> jerry> feelings are generally trustworthy. They make important life
> jerry> decisions based on what their gut is telling them, and
> jerry> usually the decisions are the right one for them.
>
> jerry> I can't do that. In fact, when I try to make decisions based
> jerry> on feelings, I end up doing exactly the wrong thing more
> jerry> often than not. It amazes me to no end that other people
> jerry> find this method of decision-making at all useful.
>
> jerry> But perhaps someone who is not used to having to think about
> jerry> things to make the correct choice would find mathematics
> jerry> difficult to grasp.
>
>I can see how that is true later in life, but I wonder how they got
>to the point where they aren't used to reasoning about things so
>early. Math anxiety supposedly starts in the lower grades.
Well, I know you don't give much credence to the MBTI, but apparently even
very young children show preference for certain ways of processing
information, and there's speculation that it might be hereditary.
>I think you did hit indirectly on one important aspect, though. Math
>requires both analysis and intuition, but the traditional Math
>teaching approach relies on analysis through high school and sometimes
>some distance into an undergraduate program. I've seen otherwise
>bright people fall apart in freshman calculus classes because they
>couldn't hand the intuition necessary for integration-by-parts, for
>example.
I had no problem with that part of it -- in theory it was clear. My main
problem with calculus is that I had very little experience studying, since
I'd rarely had to do it before college.
>I wonder if the "discovery" approach to Math education would ever
>work. I think it is a great way to get kids interested, but discovery
>approaches take a lot longer and there isn't enough time in the
>curriculum.
Paine Ellsworth
Marty Fouts wrote:
>
> >> Paine Ellsworth writes:
>
>
> Paine> Royce, where "order" is as a vehicle -- just as a Rolls is a
> Paine> vehicle, but a vehicle is not necessarily a Rolls, symmetry
> Paine> is order, but order is not necessarily symmetry --
>
> Paine> order appears to be a more general concept, and symmetry a
> Paine> more specific kind of order -- although i could be wrong --
>
> As I've pointed out elsewhere, symmetry is not a kind of order in the
> way that a Rolls is a kind of vehicle. It is easy to generate
> symmetrical but unordered systems. (Many of the fundamental laws of
> particle physics are about preserving symmetry in the presences of
> quantum randomness, for instance.)
this may be ignorance on my part, or it may be that we have
different definitions for the words "symmetry" and "order"
in our dictionaries --
yet i must stick to my gut feeling as stated above --
Marty, is it possible to prove this with numbers? -- your
snowflake example doesn't quite do it for me -- we can concede
that the set
{all snowflakes}
is not an orderly set, yet i see no symmetry in the full set,
either -- the symmetry regarding the subject of snowflakes is
found in the set
{one snowflake}
and this set exhibits both symmetry and order, isn't this so? --
and to say that an entity that exhibits symmetry, such as a
snowflake, is not an orderly structure as well is
inexplicable --
a snowflake, a diamond, almost any crystalline substance
illustrate a previous point that order and symmetry are an
important property of some natural entities that are
considered by us to be "non-life" -- that order and symmetry
are not restricted to just those entities that are "alive" --
so how can an entity that exhibits "symmetry" not be
considered to be "orderly" as well? --
is the Mandelbrot set not an "orderly structure?" --
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine (symmetry? beauty? the mirror!) Ellsworth
news:---.Go.the.extra.mile.--.Its.not.crowded.-anon
Paine Ellsworth
Marty Fouts wrote:
>
> >> Anna McN writes:
<shear> (brain-zapping goodies!)
> Anna> Is that why God was created? The 'hunger@ for the apple of the
> Anna> tree of knowledge?
>
> Good question, but you aren't going to find the answer in
> math. Mathematics is a system invented by man and its abstractions are
> limited by exactly the limits of human thought.
whoa, Kimosabi, if math is a system invented by man, then
why do we consider it to be universal enough to send it
messagewise into space on Voyager as a "universal language?" --
is this just human hubris? -- or would it be more accurate to
say that mathematics was "discovered" by man rather than
"invented?"
and if "discovered," would it be correct to believe that we
cannot associate human limitations with its abstractions? --
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine (doesn't math occur in Nature?) Ellsworth
news:---.Things.may.come.to.those.who.wait.--.but.only.the
news:---.things.left.by.those.who.hustle.-Abraham.Lincoln
Paine Ellsworth
Marty Fouts wrote:
>
> Paine> . . . CT (is) a significant "cry in the wilderness" of
> Paine> abstract mathematics . . .
>
> "Cry in the wilderness?" CT has been the darling of the media and way
> overfunded. No wilderness at all, especially in terms of the return on
> the investment.
perhaps not a "wilderness" to a mathematician such as yourself,
yet one nonetheless to many who find abstract math bewildering --
ROI's are elusive sometimes -- many a good breakthrough took
place after the mainstream discarded the ideas, then the
devotees took their financial needs to the private sector
and . . . viola! --
overfunded? thus far perhaps -- only time will tell --
> I'd find something else to work on that I was likely to get funding
> for.
hmm -- all that blood, sweat and tears down the tubes and
all you would do is kiss it off and change to a non-sinking
boat? -- 'tis the easier way out, i suppose -- yet i cannot
help but admire those who stay with the sinking ship, and
who keep working to keep it afloat -- against all odds --
sorta like the story of Paul and early Christianity --
> I don't know what the current state of research to "reproduce" the
> initial conditions for life on this planet are. I do have a personal
> opinion that they are a big waste of time, that I don't want to defend
> just now.
nor do i wish to defend a line of research that wishes
to show that life can develop "spontaneously" by proving
beyond any shadow of doubt that some kind of intelligence
is needed to control the factors -- might be too much of
a religious inference developed -- if a man must be
around to strictly control the zap window, then some
intelligence must've been around billions of years ago
to strictly control the UV (or other energy) window --
that sort of thing --
but then, just because someone else pours their heart and
soul into a lifelong project doesn't mean that *we* have
to consider it to be worthwhile, does it? --
> Paine> . . . was it "glossed over?" . . .
>
> The work by Laplace is critical to studying differential
> equations. Lorentz was given a chapter in a senior class, which is not
> a "gloss." I didn't do any more personal digging because I'm more
> interested in pure math and the Lorentz work is applied systems analysis.
one man's "gloss" is another's "adequate coverage," i suppose --
> Einstein worked with very good mathematicans, especially when he was
> at the IAS. He died in 55, which was years before Lorentz, but he
> certainly knew Laplace's work. There really isn't much relevance to
> field theory, which is where most of the math he was interested in
> comes from.
i have my own ideas about said "relevance," having to do with
explaining why E=mc^2, while elegant, doesn't really come
very close to reality --
> I've often wondered what the root cause of math anxiety is. Math is
> about the simplest, most predictable, and most comprehensible of any
> of the subjects, yet it sure seems a lot of people get scared.
kinda like getting a shot -- i can still remember the first
shot i ever got in school -- it was at Mount Pleasant
Elementary School in Cleveland, Ohio --
i sat on the bench with the other kids; one kid would disappear
into the nurse's room, and the rest of us scooted closer to
The Door -- i had heard from the other kids ("who Knew") that
getting a shot was "painful" and "scary," so when it came my
turn, i was visibly shaking -- then i disappeared through The
Door --
the nurse was a jovial fat lady who very professionally
distracted my attention to a painting on the wall in front
of me -- in no time at all i heard, "Okay, you're done. You
can go now," and i said, "Huh?" -- hadn't felt a thing, not
even a prickle -- ever since then, i have had no problem
at all with shots --
to me, this proves that if early teachings use effective
means, they can overcome the anxieties caused by our
parental and peer "programming" -- but this is not yet
being done with math, or shots for that matter, as i
still know lots of people who are deathly afraid of
needles --
as for the roots of math anxiety, it probably stems from
early math's connection with early "sciences" that were
little more than esoteric and scary mystique to most
people --
early "scientists" did more to promote the mystique and
thus to scare people than do modern scientists -- today,
the trend seems to be to try to put the science into
lay terms so lay people can perhaps benefit more from
the scientific findings -- hence your Isaac Asimovs
and your "Scientific American"-type zines --
i see a day coming in the near future when all men and
women, boys and girls will find that mathematics is
a subject both to enjoy, and essential to success --
and people will laugh at how people in our era shook
in trauma at the mere mention of the "demon" math --
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine (do serial-killers lose count?) Ellsworth
news:---.Things.may.come.to.those.who.wait.--.but.only.the
news:---.things.left.by.those.who.hustle.-Abraham.Lincoln
Paine Ellsworth
Marty Fouts wrote:
>
> On defining symmetry and order.
>
> Remember that we are talking about "chaos theory" and therefore in the
> realm of mathematics where 'order' and 'symmetry' have precise
> definitions.
>
> "order" comes from measure theory and has to do with distances from
> the expected.
>
> "symmetry" comes from geometry and has to do with mirroring a property
> across a border.
<shear> (examples)
please forgive my slowness in understanding -- your examples
do help to clarify it for me --
so back to JayBee's premise, that we might be confusing the
two terms, "order" and "symmetry," it appears that he was
correct --
staying with the precise definitions, what chaoticians have
done (with their pretty pics) seems to be akin to tossing
furniture into an empty room at random, then finding that
every chair, every lamp, every piece of furniture is in its
proper place --
kind of reminds me of the classic (how did it go? something
like) "set a thousand monkeys in front of a thousand
typewriters and, given enough time, they will produce the
entire works of Shakespeare:"
-------------------------------------------
JJOFojjao[0ou0oujojoajohoiodfJHOAJOJO'J'ojo'l;j
lls0jo9joij8sj i ujfofuu oiuouorwiuo[a ao[a[[=]]goeriuoug[
pjjgljjjfahOHOOJERJUJJJJjoljlfjj
K'LKPOJJPEPdrkl;jgjgpgpkjpgpkpptpjm;;;mb bpoouigpre00e8088 'lkl
kjjojo'a ag a aj GEJP T O- TO BE OR NOT TO BE . . .
-------------------------------------------
yet the sets of CT are repeatable; they can be reproduced
over and over again, like a magician with mirrors -- how
can this be? -- as a mathematician, do you, Marty, see
the results as illusory? or real? -- and if real, how can
this be?
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine (it seems that we should all be "Da Vinci's" from
the moment we are old enough to hold a paint brush)
Bill Oliver
In article <33D746...@worldnet.att.net>,
Paine Ellsworth <ron.le...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Paine (do serial-killers lose count?) Ellsworth
>
Not usually. Usually they keep notes.
billo
Paine Ellsworth
Jerry Kindall wrote:
>
> In article <wk7meom...@MJF.VIP.BEST.CO>, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
>
> >to the point where they aren't used to reasoning about things so
> >early. Math anxiety supposedly starts in the lower grades.
>
> very young children show preference for certain ways of processing
> information, and there's speculation that it might be hereditary.
>
> >work. I think it is a great way to get kids interested, but discovery
> >approaches take a lot longer and there isn't enough time in the
> >curriculum.
if discovery approaches are effective, then the extra time
they take is not allowed to be a factor -- since present
approaches are so ineffective -- take more time to do it
right, instead of taking less time to do it wrong? --
as a product of parental and peer pressure to fear math, i
consider myself "normal" up to the seventh grade -- the
first grading period, i made a "D" in Miss Dunlap's class,
and she took me aside and counseled me -- i really wish
that i could remember exactly what she said to me, but
whatever it was, it worked --
up until then, i had done poorly in math, very poorly --
after her talk, i made a "B" in the second grading period --
from then on, i was placed in the highest math classes and
made straight "A's" -- to this day, i love math, and i
apply it in some way to all my activities --
perhaps if discovery approaches were to be started long
before kindergarten? by parents? -- perhaps if some
overworked and harried mathematician came up with a
book that explained how to do this? and used lay terms
to reach the largest audience? --
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine (naaaahhhhh <g>) Ellsworth
news:---.Things.may.come.to.those.who.wait.--.but.only.the
news:---.things.left.by.those.who.hustle.-Abraham.Lincoln
Bill Oliver
In article <kindall-1807...@ppp.manual.com>,
Jerry Kindall <kin...@mail.manual.com> wrote:
>In article <wksoxd3...@MJF.VIP.BEST.CO>, Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net> wrote:
>
>>I've often wondered what the root cause of math anxiety is. Math is
>>about the simplest, most predictable, and most comprehensible of any
>>of the subjects, yet it sure seems a lot of people get scared.
>
>based on instinct. ...
>
>I can't do that. In fact, when I try to make decisions based on feelings,
>I end up doing exactly the wrong thing more often than not...
>
>But perhaps someone who is not used to having to think about things to
>make the correct choice would find mathematics difficult to grasp.
>
First, a caveat. When I write "mathematics" I mean areas that
aren't too esoteric. There are plenty of areas of mathematics that
are pretty inpenetrable without a lot of directed preparation, if not
because the concepts are difficult, then because the jargon, notation,
and references presume a specific knowledge base. The same is true of
any area -- there are esoteric and dense areas of literature, medicine,
music, art, etc.
That being said, I think that most folk who find mathematics difficult
to grasp do so not because of some inherent "leaning" or inability.
I think it's because they never mastered the basic skills
necessary to achieve mathematical "literacy." I say that as someone
who learned to enjoy mathematics later in life, and who had to pay
that price.
Most of us who are avid readers, who have a trained eye for art, or who
have an easy hand or ear for music learned the basics as a child and have
been working on them since. We don't remember the rather prodigious
effort it took to learn our ABCs and vocabulary, to get to a good
basic reading level, and then to learn to read or write with style.
Think about the hours that most adult musicians spent as children with
the drudgery of doing scales. You want to watch someone struggle? Spend
time coaching a truly illiterate adult as he or she starts from scratch.
But, doing this kind of drudgery is exactly what is needed to become
facile at any skill. The problem is that many Americans get introduced
to some of that drudgery in mathematics *relatively* later in life -- when
we have less patience for it, and are less easily intimidated into it.
Oh, sure, there are windows in life when learning such things is harder
or easier, and there are folk with gifts and talents, but the bottom line
for becoming proficient in a journeyman sort of way is just the
investment of time and intellectual sweat. And we aren't willing to do it.
When I was a resident in Pathology, I decided I wanted to become proficient
in image processing. Math courses were never my strongest, but I decided,
what the hell, I might as well give it a try. I enrolled as a graduate
student in the Department of Computer Science at the University of North
Carolina, and was admitted with the idea that I could probably pick up
what math I needed as I went along. After one semester my *advisor* gave
me a failing grade in one of his courses. Those of you who went through
grad school can imagine how that caused my sphincters to pucker.
I went to my advisor (Steve Pizer) and asked him what was going on.
I was losing a nontrivial amount of income by committing some years
to grad school, and was this his not-so-subtle way of telling me
I should be in private practice? Not quite, he said. But, he told me,
he was recommending that I *not* be allowed back into the graduate
program the next semester. He told me that he didn't think I would
ever be a world-class computer scientist (hard truths are a bitch
sometimes). **But,** he said, my desire to be a good pathologist who
was a *competent* computer scientist was still realistic. The bottom
line, though, was that I was just going to have to pay some dues to
learn the mathematics. Computer vision, graphics and image restoration are
fairly math-intense areas of computer science ,and I would have to at
least be able to read the literature.
He made it my choice -- I could forget grad school and go back into a
straight Pathology residency, or I could take a leave of absence from
grad school, return to the residency for one year only, and he would
be willing to tutor me in the afternoons and evenings for a year
in mathematics and readmit me to the grad program the following year.
I took the latter option. I did a year fellowship in forensics and spent each
lunch hour and the occasional afternoon in Steve's office with him
making me feel like an imbecile. After that year, I was able to do
the course work and projects, and got my Master's.
I usually tell this story (with appropriate embellishments) to young
grad students at UNC to show them the kind of commitment that Steve Pizer
has to his grad students. He has a bit of a reputation of being a
hard taskmaster, and he never cut me any slack, but there is
commitment behind those demands. I was lucky to have him there for me;
other advisors would have watched me flounder completely.
But that's an aside. The point is that some years ago I was the product
of the traditional lick-and-a-promise education in math in the US. I both
thought I knew more than I did (and thus resented having to do work that
I didn't think I needed to do), and didn't know enough to appreciate
style, nuance, or beauty in math. Only *after* I went back and
spent that time doing the drudgery of learning the basics well did I
get to the point that I actually enjoy recreational mathematics,
can pick up just about any math text and get through it, etc.
I am a master forensic pathologist and a journeyman mathematician,
and I can appreciate the difference. I am always "on" as a pathologist.
When dining out, I reflexively analyze the health of folk at the
next table by their appearance. When I walk through the store, I
reflexively try and figure out what kinds of wounds I could make
with the objects I see. My subconscious thinks in the terms and
images of forensic pathology. I eat the literature like candy.
There are many who are better than me, don't get me wrong. But
it all seems so natural. It feels *good.* One colleague of
mine (a pediatrician) actually told me she felt I had a
"dark aura" -- that I would be a necromancer, if there really were
such things.
In contrast, when I pick up a math journal, I have
to sit down and spend conscious effort to make sure I understand
everything I read. I have to work out the steps of a proof or
derivation for myself. It's *not* trivial. But I can do it, and
I can derive enjoyment from the understanding and from the basic
*act* of doing it. I can take an idea and develop it for my
own use or application -- but it will never have the natural flow
that my work as a forensic pathologist has.
Most folk who wait to pick up a musical instrument until they are
adults do not become technically outstanding. They may have a spirit for
music, and may transcend their technical limitations,
but there is often little substitute for lifelong exercise.
It takes time to develop the habits of thought and action of a
technical master -- it's a lifestyle as much as a vocation. However, they
*can* become technically *competent.* One doesn't have to win the
Van Cliburn to enjoy playing the piano, or to play it well. The same
it true for mathematics. Like reading, it adds a tremendous amount
to one's understanding and enjoyment of the world around him or her.
As with music, there is an joy to appreciating structure.
It's a pity that most folk are not taught to get past the mathematical
equivalent of basic phonics in standard education. Folk who are never
taught to read well never enjoy reading. Folk who are never taught
mathematics never enjoy exploring that field. Unfortunately, some
of that basic work just isn't fun. The payoff is later, and it takes
a little discipline to get through it.
There *are* natural talents and limitations, don't get me wrong. But
most of this "math anxiety" stuff is simply a reflection of poor
training, bad education, and our societal aversion to instilling
discipline and responsibility in our youth.
billo
hino truet hoesli
Yeah guys, you know and I know what mathematics means to Chaos Theory,
but when you discuss Lorenz's POV and Hofstafter's "Number Numbness",
please give the rest of us a clue as to how germane the discussion
below is to Chaos Theory.
There is possible a bifurcation in approaches to Chaos Theory.
1/ Closed systems -- finite -- does not recognize CT.
2/ Open systems -- infinite -- cosmos<->quarkiest
3/ DOH rationale -- Disinformation On Hiatus
Have fun boys,
H!notru
----------------------------------
On 24 Jul 1997, Marty Fouts wrote:
> Date: 24 Jul 1997 14:14:21 -0700
> From: Marty Fouts <fo...@null.net>
> Newsgroups: misc.writing
> Subject: Re: Chaos Theory (was Re: Can anyone help???)
>
> >> Paine Ellsworth writes:
>
> Paine> Marty Fouts wrote: [and snips]
>
> Paine> but then, just because someone else pours their heart and
> Paine> soul into a lifelong project doesn't mean that *we* have to
> Paine> consider it to be worthwhile, does it? --
>
> doesn't mean we should pay for it either. ;-)
>
> You didn't ask me what I'd do if I couldn't get funds for what I
> thought of as "my life's work," by the way ;-) Different answer.
>
> Paine> . . . was it "glossed over?" . . .
> >> The work by Laplace is critical to studying differential
> >> equations. Lorentz was given a chapter in a senior class, which
> >> is not a "gloss." I didn't do any more personal digging because
> >> I'm more interested in pure math and the Lorentz work is applied
> >> systems analysis.
>
> Paine> one man's "gloss" is another's "adequate coverage," i suppose
>
> By undergrad standards, a chapter in a senior class is a good deal of
> time. After all, the idea is to give the students a solid background
> in the basics and an broad exposure to the field.
>
> >> Einstein worked with very good mathematicans, especially when he
> >> was at the IAS. He died in 55, which was years before Lorentz,
> >> but he certainly knew Laplace's work.. There really isn't much
> >> relevance to field theory, which is where most of the math he was
> >> interested in comes from.
>
> Paine> i have my own ideas about said "relevance," having to do with
> Paine> explaining why E=mc^2, while elegant, doesn't really come
> Paine> very close to reality --
>
> Huh? "E=mc^2" is an oversimplification for public consumption, but
> what part of the actual theory "doesn't come very close to reality?"
>
>
> >> [snip]
>
> Paine> as for the roots of math anxiety, it probably stems from
> Paine> early math's connection with early "sciences" that were
> Paine> little more than esoteric and scary mystique to most people
> Paine> --
>
> Paine> early "scientists" did more to promote the mystique and thus
> Paine> to scare people than do modern scientists -- today, the trend
> Paine> seems to be to try to put the science into lay terms so lay
> Paine> people can perhaps benefit more from the scientific findings
> Paine> -- hence your Isaac Asimovs and your "Scientific
> Paine> American"-type zines --
>
> I guess we remember the history of science differently. ;-)
>
> Flipped through a copy of SA recently. Talk about dumbed down ;-(
>
> Paine> i see a day coming in the near future when all men and women,
> Paine> boys and girls will find that mathematics is a subject both
> Paine> to enjoy, and essential to success -- and people will laugh
> Paine> at how people in our era shook in trauma at the mere mention
> Paine> of the "demon" math --
>
> it would be nice.
>
> marty
>
> The trouble with Oakland is that when you get there, there isn't any
> there there. -- Gertrude Stein
>
>
Paine Ellsworth
Marty Fouts wrote:
>
> >> Bill Oliver writes: [and I snip much excellent material from for
> >> brevity. Do go back and read his points.]
<shear> (dubble-ditto)
once again, Billo and Marty impress deeply -- this all
reminds me of Don Burger:
Mr. Burger was a substitute math teacher in one of my
high school classes -- we had him for about a week,
during which he derailed the usual curr. and gave us
a treat(ise) of sorts on Boolean algebra --
the thing about Don is that he was . . . funny -- a really
funny person -- he made us laugh and learn at the same
time -- he effortlessly (or so it seemed) got us all
interested -- and i learned more from him in a week than
in three or four from other teachers (keeping in mind that
i loved math in the first place, unlike most of my peers) --
which brings me back to CT and things like the "butterfly
effect" -- what could be funnier than the look on faces of
people to whom you describe such a thing? -- yet see small
aerosol can grow in number, and gradual getting away from
"iceboxes" toward refrigeration/air-conditioning, then see
hole in ozone layer grow, <giant leap> and on to gradual
dissipation of all energy in universe --
gives new meaning to the ol' "Let there be light" line?
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth
news:---.Day.after.day.let.me.be.joy.--.be.hope!
news:---.Let.my.life.sing!.-Mary.Carolyn.Davies
Paine Ellsworth
Marty Fouts wrote:
>
<sheared> (here 'n there)
> >> Paine Ellsworth writes:
>
> Paine> Marty Fouts wrote: [and snips]
>
> Paine> but then, just because someone else pours their heart and
> Paine> soul into a lifelong project doesn't mean that *we* have to
> Paine> consider it to be worthwhile, does it? --
>
> doesn't mean we should pay for it either. ;-)
point taken --
> You didn't ask me what I'd do if I couldn't get funds for what I
> thought of as "my life's work," by the way ;-) Different answer.
this is what i meant, not a project that you can easily walk
away from, but one that you pour your heart and soul into --
> Paine> one man's "gloss" is another's "adequate coverage," i suppose
>
> By undergrad standards, a chapter in a senior class is a good deal of
> time. After all, the idea is to give the students a solid background
> in the basics and an broad exposure to the field.
true, and someone who goes on to specialize in about any given
area probably sees other subjects as you do, that is, not
"glossed over" but given adequate basic coverage -- perhaps only
when one's own field becomes financially challenged and
jeopardized does one grasp for every straw they can find in
order to save the funding? -- hence the feeling that your own
specialty is glossed over in undergrad studies --
> >> Einstein worked with very good mathematicans, especially when he
> >> was at the IAS. He died in 55, which was years before Lorentz,
> >> but he certainly knew Laplace's work. There really isn't much
> >> relevance to field theory, which is where most of the math he was
> >> interested in comes from.
>
> Paine> i have my own ideas about said "relevance," having to do with
> Paine> explaining why E=mc^2, while elegant, doesn't really come
> Paine> very close to reality --
>
> Huh? "E=mc^2" is an oversimplification for public consumption, but
> what part of the actual theory "doesn't come very close to reality?"
<grin> even Uncle Albert had some major areas of doubt -- one
of the most obvious is that the formula represents the amount
of energy that mass will "become" when it moves at a velocity
equal to that of light squared -- as there is no mass that can
travel at or above the speed of light <RED blink-blink-blink> --
(allow me to repeat this for the Sci-Fi buffs, as i'm sure to
get some interesting sparks) --
<ahem> as there is no mass that can travel at or above the
velocity of light, this in itself lends a marked fantasy to
the otherwise elegant formula -- also, it is conceded that
there are significant corollaries that lend integrity to the
equation; however, no one has been able to produce more than
a small fraction of the energy predicted by the formula, even
where matter/antimatter energy is computed -- what's up with
that? --
> Paine> as for the roots of math anxiety, it probably stems from
> Paine> early math's connection with early "sciences" that were
> Paine> little more than esoteric and scary mystique to most people
> Paine> --
>
> Paine> early "scientists" did more to promote the mystique and thus
> Paine> to scare people than do modern scientists -- today, the trend
> Paine> seems to be to try to put the science into lay terms so lay
> Paine> people can perhaps benefit more from the scientific findings
> Paine> -- hence your Isaac Asimovs and your "Scientific
> Paine> American"-type zines --
>
> I guess we remember the history of science differently. ;-)
oh come now, Marty, surely you remember guys like Tycho Brahe,
who did astrology to help fund their astronomy research -- is
more mystique needed? -- even today, some engineers and
scientists are notorious for veiling useful ideas that keep
them secure in their positions, and that do nothing to allay
public fears -- how many lay people do you know who are still
deathly afraid of spiders? sharks? asteroids or comets
colliding with Earth? -- yet these same laypersons climb
into a road vehicle almost daily to go to work, the store,
etc. -- compare the chance of a comet colliding with Earth to
the chance that you might be involved in a serious car
accident --
> Flipped through a copy of SA recently. Talk about dumbed down ;-(
LOL -- absolutely! so even dummies like me can understand! --
> Paine> i see a day coming in the near future when all men and women,
> Paine> boys and girls will find that mathematics is a subject both
> Paine> to enjoy, and essential to success -- and people will laugh
> Paine> at how people in our era shook in trauma at the mere mention
> Paine> of the "demon" math --
>
> it would be nice.
shit can happen!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine (in excremental increments of course) Ellsworth
news:---.He.could.never.learn.to.be.brave.and.patient.if
news:---.there.were.only.joy.in.the.world -Helen Keller
Paine Ellsworth
Bill Oliver wrote:
>
> In article <33D746...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Paine Ellsworth <ron.le...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >
>
>
> billo
hmm! -- and what do you suppose happens to said notes when
they are captured -- oh never mind, Billo, they're probably
milked in the MEMOIRS --
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine (kill a few, get caught, then write about it -- hmm)
Paine Ellsworth
hino truet hoesli wrote:
>
> Yeah guys, you know and I know what mathematics means to Chaos Theory,
> but when you discuss Lorenz's POV and Hofstafter's "Number Numbness",
> please give the rest of us a clue as to how germane the discussion
> below is to Chaos Theory.
<shear> (said discussion)
> There is possible a bifurcation in approaches to Chaos Theory.
>
> 1/ Closed systems -- finite -- does not recognize CT.
>
> 2/ Open systems -- infinite -- cosmos<->quarkiest
>
> 3/ DOH rationale -- Disinformation On Hiatus
>
> Have fun boys,
hey! -- we're just trying to help! <g> -- would you care to
expound? -- and please keep in mind that any chaotic points
you might make will likely be part of a profound order that
as yet remains undiscovered --
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine (and may even result in a pretty picture!) Ellsworth