Order...disorder....random.....not random.....
"As Bohm (David Bohm - physicist) delved more deeply into the matter
he realized there were also different degrees of order.Some things
were much more ordered than other things, and this implied that there
was, perhaps, nono end to the hierarchies of order that existed in the
universe. From this it occurred to Bohm that maybe things we perceive
as disordered arent't disordered at all. Perhaps their order is of
such an 'indefinitely high degree' that they only appear to us to be
random (interestingly, mathematicians are unable to prove randomness,
and although some sdequences of numbers are categorized as random,
these are only educated guesses).
"While immersed in these thoughts, Bohm saw a device on a BBC
television program that helped him develop his ideas even further.
The device was a specially designed jar containing a large rotating
cylinder. The narrow space between the cylinder and the jar was
filled with Glycerine - a thick clear liquid - and floating
motionlessly in the glycerine was a drop of ink. What interested Bohm
was that when the handle on the cylinder was turned, the drop of ink
spread out through the syrupy glycerin and seemed to disappear. But
as soon as the handle was turned back in the opposite direction, the
faint tracing of ink slowly collapsed upon itself and once again
formed a droplet.
"Bohm writes, 'This immediately struck me as very rlevant to the
question of order, since when the ink drop was spread out, it still
hada 'hidden' (i.e. non-manifest) order that was revealed when it was
reconstituted."
Just some food for thought on order and randomness.
Shalom
David Lind
Trickster@postmark.net
RISKYBIZ9@aol.com wrote:
> TO: Jonathan
> FROM: Roger
>
> RE: Random patterns
>
>
> JONATHAN:
>
> Things can only be declared patterned or random by reference to external
> parameters.
> Neither characterestic is intrinsic in any objective sense.
>
> ROGER:
>
> I agree completely. Reality is. 'Patterned 'or 'random' is an
> interpretation of experience. Pysicist Paul Davies defines nonrandom as a
> number or pattern that can be generated or defined in fewer bits than the
> number or pattern itself. Random is that which can't. He also says almost
> all numbers are random, but most cannot be proven random.
>
> Do you agree with this definition? If so, it clearly reinforces the MOQ's
> view that patterns are metaphysical intellectual constructs. Note that
this
> does not lead to solipsism though (Rick), as the patterns are intellectual
> constructs based on experience or events, which are not subjective in the
MOQ.
>
> JONATHAN:
>
> Sorry to keep harping back to thermodynamics, but I just now realized
> that Pirsig's words are a direct statement of the Second Law which says
> that systems tend towards maximum entropy i.e. towards the state which
> offers the greatest number of degrees of FREEDOM.
> Does this impress anyone else?
>
> Evidently nobody else was impressed, because there was no response.
> Thermodynamics applies this statistical principle to molecular entities.
> In the 1930s, Claude Shannon realized that the same statistical principle
> could be applied to abstract entities, thus a whole theory of
> information/communication science developed.
> I am extremely happy that the same ideas find expression in Pirsig's MoQ.
>
> ROGER
>
> Let me again try to clarify terms. Entropy is the amount of disorder in a
> system, right? The lower the entropy, the higher the information and
> pattern. You agree?
>
> Next, The 2nd law can be defined as stating that "closed systems in thermal
> equilibrium should spend nearly all their time at or near maximum entropy."
> Again, as there are lots more disordered states than ordered, the 2nd law
is
> a statistical probability. For example, there are 495 trillion more ways to
> disorder a simple pack of 52 cards than there are to order them.
> Statistically speaking, the entropy should be pretty constant on the deck
> unless you start with the totally contrived and unlikely occurance of the
> cards being sorted in order. You ok here as well?
>
> My question is on your statement that "systems tend towards maximum entropy
> i.e. towards the state which
> offers the greatest number of degrees of FREEDOM." Is an unpatterned state
a
> higher degree of freedom? I agree it is a more likely arrangement, but a
> freer arrangement? Could you explain more?
>
> JONATHAN (from your website):
>
> The laws of diffusion and the gas laws provide a useful and definitive way
of
> describing the behaviour of populations of molecules. Yet, the "obedience"
of
> the population to those rules is no more than an expression of the totally
> random movements and collisions of individual molecules. There is no
external
> cause or force which causes a group of gas molecules to spread out by
> diffusion. Furthermore, the work done by an expanding gas is an expression
of
> the same random behaviour. This begs the question "do the individual
> molecules really behave randomly?" On the one hand, that was our starting
> hypothesis. On the other hand, that behaviour causes the population to
behave
> non-randomly.
>
> ROGER:
>
> Slow down..... Pressure, volume and temperature (and entropy) are all
> emergent statistical averages of the population based upon the specific
> context of the experiment. They are patterns that emerge from statistical
> random interaction. But the context of the experiment is totally
contrived.
> We define the experiment. We get the gas, build the container, put the gas
> in the the container and set up the context in which volume or temperature
or
> disorder have meaning.
>
> We are creating a pattern from our experiment that emerge statistically out
> of the unpatterned interactions reacting with our test conditions. Do you
> agree?
>
> JONATHAN:
>
> The above contradiction may in fact stem from two inherently contradictory
> world views, which are both incorporated in scientific theory.
> Newtons mechanics regards matter as inherently stable, following constant
> trajectories which only change in response to changes in external forces.
> Thermodynamics says that all matter has an inherent tendency to dissolve
into
> disorder unless it is somehow held back.
>
> ROGER:
>
> Hmmm...... I would agree with your take on Newton, but would add that
> complexity theory adds that our knowledge of the interactions and
> trajectories is imperfect, and hence we lose the ability to pattern or
> predict anything about individual particles. Complexity overwhelms our
> ability to pattern. However, statistics comes to our rescue and new
emergent
> qualities (volume, pressure, etc) can be patterned.
>
> Entropy or disorder is just another example of statistical emergence. With
> 52 cards, you can be sure (495 trillion to one) the distribution is random.
> With billions of particles, the certainty is virtually infinite. I would
say
> that thermodynamics says that that which is ordered is likely to get
> disordered. That which is disordered is likely to stay disordered.
>
> JONATHAN:
>
> Randomness (lack of patterned behaviour) is not inherent to the system! It
is
> a perception of the system. We can consider a gas as a large number of
> individual randomly-moving molecules, or as an elastic fluid substance with
> the properties summarized by the gas laws. The difference between the
random
> and non-random viewpoint is one of perception, and has no basis in the
> properties of the gas. Thus, randomness cannot be considered an objective
> property of the whole system.
>
> ROGER:
>
> Agree.
>
> JONATHAN:
>
> Einstein firmly held that there must be causal mechanisms that determine
the
> statistical distributions. Einstein would have said that molecular
> statistical mechanics was different, since it would be theoretically
possible
> to track each individual molecule's movements and collisions, and explain
its
> path in terms of classical mechanics. The dogma of quantum mechanics is
that
> an equivalent analysis of subatomic particles is theoretically impossible.
>
> But in the final analysis, the question may not even matter. Quantum
> mechanics has no need for the classical causal mechanism Einstein sought,
and
> thermodynamics has no need for a classical analysis of individual molecular
> movements. In both cases, statistical considerations provide a perfectly
> adequate starting point.
>
> ROGER:
>
> Adequate to explain reality. But it didn't meet Einstein's definitions of
> the reducibility of a good quality theory. The highest quality
> interpretations of reality are not ultimately reductionist or
deterministic.
> Albert didn't want to accept this though did he? He somehow could accept
it
> as long as he could cling to a theoretical belief that the individual
> Brownian motion could be tracked. Quantum reality forced him to discard
that
> (probably incorrect) view. (or have I misstated something here?)
>
> JONATHAN:
>
> ....ultimately, when it comes to deciding on which definition of cause best
> suits the science of thermodynamics, the tautological description of
chemical
> reactions given above makes no distinction. Instead, the cause of change
> becomes an all encompassing concept which transcends any division of
meaning.
>
> ROGER:
>
> What does the last sentence mean?
>
> Oh, BTW the end of your paper goes on to explain one of the classic
examples
> that contradicts, or perhaps complicates, thermodynamics. Living beings
> resist entropy. According to Ilya Prigogene, they bring "order out of
> chaos" via irreversible chemical reactions creating self-amplifying
feedback.
> There is one other major weakness in themodynamics, namely that there is a
> lack of scientific understanding of gravitational entropy. The prevalent
> view though is that gravity becomes more ordered with more information with
> increasing entropy.
>
> In terms of the MOQ, the first two levels of patterns can be said to be
> defined by exceptions to entropy. Gravity-- the weakest force-- to a large
> extent creates the inorganic level of galaxies, stars, our world, and our
> energy source (the sun). Chemical feedback loops create life. I wonder if
> this pattern continues within the other two levels?
>
> I have other thoughts and brainstorm ideas on the topic, but I better stop
> here for now.
>
> Let me know your thoughts and let me know where I have misinterpretted you.
>
> Roger
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:39 BST