[MD] Chaos

Tue Dec 12 08:19:41 PST 2006

> 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 
> interveningspace.
> 
Hi Case,

I was thinking, thinking being the key word, that in the field of 
quantum mechanics, chaos is considered orbits and waves that are 
unpredictable. This, to the best of my limited understanding would be 
what I called quantum chaology, but there is the unknowns from 
electrons reemerging and the connections between electrons and 
photons, all of which I do not understand. Anything I say is only 
questions. I couldn’t possibly know this without being a physicist. 

If I try to answer this question, I would stand a good chance of 
misleading, as I truly don’t know. If ignorance is bliss, I would be 
blistered by qm ;)

As opposed to proving my ignorance, I would rather just admit it. 

In the quotation you offered, I like the word “choice” as Sneddon uses 
it, but that would be another conversation. 

Chin

----- Original Message -----
From: Case <Case at iSpots.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:42 am
Subject: Re: [MD] Chaos
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org

> 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 
> similarnotions 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 
> systemsmove 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 
> otherwords, 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 
> interveningspace.
> 
> 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/
> 