Re: entropy and bio-evo


"g" <gillawton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dbvc50$n1h$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> g

Guy,

You are rare in that you have stated (in effect) that some of my ideas
"differ" from those of others. You catch on fast.

The street meaning of "chaos" is like the street meaning of, say, "life."
Unless it is not rigidly defined, it is a nebulously useful notion. When
any attempt is made to define it rigidly, it becomes elusive, and
argumentations abound, in which people argue about what chaos is, and what
it does, where there is NO PRIOR AGREEMENT on
any definition for it.

Heisenberg is quoted as having said, "When I meet God, I am going to ask him
two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence?

If by "chaos" one means "turbulence"... and if by "turbulence" one means
that for which no prediction can be made by humans as to the relative
uncertainty (and the complement thereof, which is relative certainty), then
that says something about the equipment man has (both cognitively and
machine-wise) to measure the ingoing variables with sufficient accuracy and
sufficient speed of calculation to predict them. Since I am merely sharing
my "view" of something here, and respecting your right to have a different
one (along with any other person's having one still different from either of
ours) I see no cause for anyone to get upset or consider it an ego issue
(though you and I see that happen a lot).

Thus, if someone wants to define "chaos" or "turbulence" in such a way as to
say that the ability to measure and predict some things is BEYOND human (and
human machine) capacity, I have not problem with that. To say it has no
order, on the other hand, strikes me as a subjective judgment (vis a vis "I
cannot measure or predict it so, therefore, it is without order.") Humans
seem to do that, however.

Speaking of predictability, let me tell you a thought experiment to run by
some of your friends who have not read this message beforehand (or heard of
the outcome elsewhere). Ask some guys to predict, via thought experiment,
what would be the outcome in ratio of heads to tails if you take 1,000
pennies, stand each on edge and spin it by thumping it. Tell them each
penny will be removed before the next penny is spun, so as not to interfere
with the outcome of any spinning penny by accidentally striking another. If
you can, see if you can get them to argue about it. (Arguing seems as
though it helps to raise the level of accuracy of thought experiments in
some people's minds.)

I read recently of an experiment done by two mathematicians in which they
used three different "operations" to measure a heads or tails uncertainty
result.

First each "flipped 1,000 pennies, once each, onto a felt topped table (a
billiard table), removing each penny that had landed on the table before
flipping the next. (Keep in mind that human kinetic control is not
consistent in determining the height nor rate of flips per second, nor
number of flips per distance traveled between flipper's hand and table top.)
The distribution of heads results versus tails results came out roughly as
expected, in the neighborhood of 50 % each.

Next each spun each of the 1,000 pennies, standing it on its side on a hard
topped table and thumping it, and let the penny spin until it came to a
halt. Results were comparable for each, but may surprise you. (Will tell
you the result after telling the next method.)

Next they each stood 1,000 pennies on their sides on the hard top table and
then banged the table with a fist, and counted the heads up and tails up.
(Again, the results were a surprise.)

Don't take my word for this. Do the experiment yourself if it sounds
counter-intuitive to you. The results went something like this: The second
procedure ended up with 60-70 % more heads up. The third procedure with
60-70 % more tails up.

Because this was not what was expected, necessarily, the experiment was
tried again, and the results were similar.

How often, in doing thought experiments with regard to GUESSES about
biological evolution, do the thought experiments THINK they have considered
all the angles necessary to come out with a pretty good after-prediction of
what occurred several million years ago. (Same question applies to
cosmologists and other thought experimenters.)

How often do you see arguers that insult one another's intelligence, and get
all riled up about the one's SUBJECTIVE bias on the experiment and the
other's SUBJECTIVE bias?

In a prior discussion between us, you agreed with my observation that many
estimations by evolutionary biologists and others of cause and effect are
comparable to one's taking the results of several spins of a roulette wheel,
and saying, in effect, "Okay, 13 was followed by 8, 8 was followed by 32,
and 32 by a zero. Now let me ponder what it was about 13 that caused 8 to
happen. What was it about 8 that caused 32 to happen. And why did 32 cause
zero to happen?"

When I try to read the "thought experiment observations" and the "cause and
effect analyses" of evolutionary biologists (even the most popular ones with
"academic insiders") I get a strong feeling there is a lot of biased
after-predicting, and a lot of assignment of cause and effect to things that
are anything but.

In saying that, I do NOT judge what others wish to believe. I simply am
stating how it looks to me.

As before, I predict there will be some who will make disparaging remarks
about my judgment and understanding, because I have said this. I do not
judge them. I only wish to say to them, in advance, "Maybe you are right.
But is there any possibility in your mind that you also could be wrong?"

g


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why online poker is better for the money player.
    ... When a coin is tossed, ... >> that most people prefer to guess heads. ... >when I look at a US penny, it seems to me that the heads side has more metal ... >a little bit convex on the heads side and concave on the tails side. ...
    (rec.games.backgammon)
  • Re: The Philosophy of War
    ... might be where the conclusion is: "the nature of the philosophy of war ... In a set of flips of a fair coin (defined as heads and tails each having ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • [BLOG] separated by a common language
    ... Observations on British and American English by an American linguist in the UK ... Indeed, the plural version is the AmE version, and the singular the BrE version. ... Growing up with the AmE version, I visualied the things that one 'could not make heads or tails of' to be chaotic things--sort of like a Breughel painting as done by Jackson Pollock, where you wouldn't be able to find the heads or the tails of the beings in it. ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: statistics [was something else]
    ... So would tails, using a different logic. ... Your problem is that you think choosing heads is also ... It's not a fair toss, and is under the control of the tosser or ... I don't know in what way tails would be a logical choice. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: Martial law comes to New Orleans.
    ... Two flips, four possible combinations ... 50% of the outcomes are 1 head, ... 37.5% of the outcomes are 2 heads, 2 tails. ...
    (rec.martial-arts)