[MD] Chaos

[ian glendinning]

Good spot Case.

And another reason why the Sneddon thesis is worth a closer read.

That's a good summary of "Chaos" from my general reading knowledge. I
tried Prigogine (End of Certainty) a while ago, and was not impressed.
I must read him again.

Ian

On 12/12/06, Case <Case at ispots.com> wrote:
> Chin,
>
> I do not have as much time as I would like to analyze the Sneddon Thesis but
> from what I have read so far he is presenting an alternative to the mystical
> view widely held in this forum. I have tried many times to present similar
> notions although I was and still am very unfamiliar with Whitehead. I like
> the fact the Sneddon has Chaos front and center in his introduction. In his
> description of Prigogine's thinking he summarizes with the quote below. It
> is a very succinct description of Chaos. Ham would do well to paste it on
> his refrigerator.
>
> "The world is made up of systems which are in contact with their
> environments. These systems exchange energy with the environment. A stable
> system--one that is not suffering dramatic change- - is said to be at
> equilibrium. Once upon a time, it was thought that equilibrium was the rule
> and disorder the exception. Prigogine thinks the reverse is true, and shows
> how change actually produces order.
>
> A system that is disrupted from its history of order--due, perhaps, to some
> change in the environment--moves from equilibrium to a state 'far from
> equilibrium. Equilibrium functions as an attractor state, meaning systems
> move from one state of equilibrium to another--systems far from equilibrium
> are caught up in the process of the change. At a far from equilibrium
> position, a system is at a 'bifurcation' point--its future cannot be
> predicted from what is known about its history. It can jump to a new, higher
> (become more complex, and requiring more energy) state of equilibrium, or it
> can drop to a condition of less order, and hence less complex. In other
> words, the choice for the system is one between order and chaos."
> -Sneddon, 1995
>
> I wonder if this applies to the quantum issue of electrons seeming to jump
> from shell to shell without apparently existing at all in the intervening
> space.
>
> Case
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of
> PhaedrusWolff at carolina.rr.com
> Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 7:33 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Chaos
>
> Hi all,
>
> Case) Feel free to jump in anytime. I have forgotten an awful lot
> about this Chaos
> stuff so any help would be appreciated.
>
> Chin) You've probably forgotten more than I ever knew. You're doing a
> fine job, and I have just learned to accept what chaos tells us, and
> that is pretty much that things, including our understanding change.
>
> Ian said to Ham,
> > You said to Case
> > "the assertions you and Chin have made about chaos contradict the
> > universal meaning of this term."
> >
> > Contradict is not the right word.
> > The "universal" meaning you have in mind is largely a theoretical
> > concept - the idea of "total chaos" (defined by the Greeks ?)
>
> Chin) Total Chaos may have been what Marsha was referring to, and this
> is not what I answered to. What I answered to was to more modern Chaos
> Theory beginning with Poincare and still with us in quantum chaology.
> Pirsig made mention of Poincare in ZMM, and Phaedrus' thoughts about
> how a multitude of hypotheses could grow from one experiment. He
> called this science creating "scientific chaos." Maybe I'm too simple
> minded, but it made sense to me, or maybe I too am a little insane.
> Science is not immune to favoring one hypothesis over another any more
> than theology is of favoring one book of the bible over another. With
> probabilities, the physicists seem to be able to make enough sense out
> of chaos to continue with their experiments (and once again, no I am
> no physicist).
>
> Just simply stating as Poincare did with math, there are no scientific
> facts, and you cannot draw from all the information, data and
> hypotheses all that can be measured, tested or considered leaves us
> open to new discoveries as we do not place our prejudices on what we
> might otherwise consider 'Fact'. Even if you could, measure, test and
> consider all, there would still be the selection prejudices of
> discarding that which does not make sense in our current
> understanding. Chaos Theory serves a purpose.
>
> I didn't even consider any validity to Total Chaos, but then again
> that may be my own preconceived prejudices.
>
> Chin
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>