[MD] Chaos and Goldilocks

[David M]

Hi Case

This is a bit on a cup half empty or half
full sort of problem. I accept what you
say, but up to a point, and think that
there are limits to control and some need
to accept these limits and start understanding
how to live with these. And that some stuff
just can't be controlled. Put a man in a room
and shut the door. There's just no knowing
where he will be located when you go back.

Or in reality, there's a whole universe for
us humans to mess with, and most of the non-
human is pretty wild to.

DM

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Case" <Case at iSpots.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 12:23 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Chaos and Goldilocks


> DM: I think this point of view if fully adopted is a fantasy and delusion.
> I think science's ability to deliver on the reductionist programme is far
> from a clear success, so 'stunningly effective' is just an opinion and can
> be argued against see John Horgan's The End of Science for example.
> And what use is any god's eye view when quantum theory could turn
> out,under some interpretations, to mean the genuine indeterminacy of all
> systems.
>
> [Case]
> Ouchie. I think the last 100 years argues completely in the opposite
> direction. We have accomplish so much in science and medicine that our
> ancestors would call use all wizards. In his introduction to a Brief 
> History
> of Time Hawkings talked about all of the predictions of the end of physics
> at the end of the 1800's. Don't hold your breath. Whatever, is going on at
> the quantum level is essentially irrelevant to us. All that uncertainty
> cancels out at our level and becomes static enough for this world to exist
> just find thank you. We might find all sorts of nifty applications for it 
> at
> some point but I really don't think the sky is falling.
>
> DM: Approximate is good, and snooker is pretty predictable,
> but outside of such an artificial set up the 'potential' outcomes in most
> open systems are vast and on a knife edge, such that quantum
> fluctuations means that there is no way to determine outcome for
> any observer. Science is useless here, check out the whether forecast
> for example. I think we overstate the power of science due to what
> in can achieve by artificial., i.e, technological progress. Larger scale
> control, it is pretty useless, just look at social problems and world
> problems.
>
> [Case]
> Yes, but the fact that some much extraneous stuff cancels out and we still
> achieve a fairly high level of predictability seem significant to me. I
> would say the social lag you mention is occurring mostly because of the 
> rate
> of change being forced on us not by any specific set of changes. I also
> think you should be more concerned about how the knowledge we have gained
> through the study of the social sciences is being applied as technology. I
> thought Gladwell's accounts of research in advertising marketing and
> politics was fascinating but at the same time horrifying.
>
> Weather forecasting is a good example. It is a purely probabilistic
> assessment of what might happen. Weather prediction is much better than it
> was 40 years ago and these days the fact that they can give a forecast in
> probabilistic terms and the general public understands it, is actually a
> hopeful sign in my view.
>
> 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/
>