What is the newest installment of 'Random Thoughts' on Physics Forums?

[Asymptotic]

?? Where they each other hands?? Do you mean if they were holding each other's hands?

Precisely not.

Just saw this couple crossing the street while holding hands.

The natural implication is they are walking hand in hand, but this isn't necessarily the case. Other thoughts spring forth when this is prefaced with "Horrible idea", and if the reader has just finished watching "The Walking Dead" marathon.

 

[WWGD]

Precisely not.

The natural implication is they are walking hand in hand, but this isn't necessarily the case. Other thoughts spring forth when this is prefaced with "Horrible idea", and if the reader has just finished watching "The Walking Dead" marathon.

Well, this may turn into the Walking Dead Single-thon if they are not careful.

 

[WWGD]

Precisely not.

The natural implication is they are walking hand in hand, but this isn't necessarily the case. Other thoughts spring forth when this is prefaced with "Horrible idea", and if the reader has just finished watching "The Walking Dead" marathon.

Sorry, my disposition was unusually straight -forward.

 

[Asymptotic]

Sorry, my disposition was unusually straight -forward.

Chalk one up to the wonderful ambiguities of language. ;)

 

[WWGD]

Just heard this lady next to me dictate (EDIT: To her son) a homework paper on improving the environment: " We should find better ways of disposing of the _refuge_ society creates..." . I don't have the level of game to correct it and avoid making her son look like an ignoramus at school.

 

[WWGD]

Chalk one up to the wonderful ambiguities of language. ;)

I also just heard of someone who was " Angry with Jerry". I have never heard of "with Jerry" as a modifier for being angry. I have heard "Angry as Hell", but I can't imagine what it is to have a Jerry when one is angry.
But I can sort of see how one can be angry without Jerry ;). BTW: My brother's daughter is called Denisse. I call her brother, my brother's son " Denefiu" : Denisse and Denefiu.

 

[OCR]

Chalk one up to the wonderful ambiguities of language. ;)

Thank you, thank you... .

An attempted joke, like one of my jokes attempts... . lol

 

[Posy McPostface]

I have an unrefined question that I won't post a thread due to being... unrefined.

Do emergent phenomena exist? Would Godel's incompleteness theorem constitute an indirect proof that some phenomena can arise but be unprovable within the system itself?

 

[WWGD]

I have an unrefined question that I won't post a thread due to being... unrefined.

Do emergent phenomena exist? Would Godel's incompleteness theorem constitute an indirect proof that some phenomena can arise but be unprovable within the system itself?

My non-expert take is that Godel is about how infinite systems cannot be model by finite sets .This may extend to why we need a Supreme Court: an infinite set of possible outcomes/behaviors cannot be by a finite set of laws.

 

[Posy McPostface]

My non-expert take is that Godel is about how infinite systems cannot be model by finite sets .This may extend to why we need a Supreme Court: an infinite set of possible outcomes/behaviors cannot be by a finite set of laws.

Interesting point. Yes, I do see merit to the idea that given an uncountably infinite alphabet every theorem would be provable within the axiomatic system itself.

Obviously, such a system would be uncomputable. Anyway, thanks for the thought.

 

[BillTre]

Do emergent phenomena exist?

Yes, if by emergent phenomena you mean a property of a system (or collection of entities) that has a behavior(s) or structure(s) based upon but not obviously resulting from the properties of its lower level components.
Here is a wikipedia article on emergent phenomena with several interesting phenomena.

 

[Posy McPostface]

Yes, if by emergent phenomena you mean a property of a system (or collection of entities) that has a behavior(s) or structure(s) based upon but not obviously resulting from the properties of its lower level components.

So, is there something 'mystical' about emergent phenomena or can they be formalized given possibly more information about all the interactions between entities?

Thanks for responding.

 

[WWGD]

For some reason, recently, when someone says David, I have been hearing "Dave It".

 

[WWGD]

Amazing how long You Tube keeps playing after you shut down the PC. Is it all sent to cache?

 

[Posy McPostface]

Servers seem a lot faster. Awesome.

 

[BillTre]

So, is there something 'mystical' about emergent phenomena or can they be formalized given possibly more information about all the interactions between entities?

I would say not mystical, but based on the rules of the larger system rather then just the rules intrinsic to the lower level components.
One example in the wikipedia link was snowflake structure (combinations of the ice crystal's lower level component water molecules). There are many possibles ways to make snowflakes from water molecules that can result in many different possible structures.
The details of the resulting structure of a growing ice crystal (snowflake) would be determined by the detailed conditions of temperature and water molecule density and location at a micro-level among the already existing micro-structure of the nearby ice crystals.
Perhaps this is what you meant by "more information about all the interactions between entities".

 

[fresh_42]

Amazing how long You Tube keeps playing after you shut down the PC. Is it all sent to cache?

Yes. And here's what happens if there isn't enough cache:

For some reason, recently, when someone says David, I have been hearing "Dave It".

 

[fresh_42]

The details of the resulting structure of a growing ice crystal (snowflake) would be determined by the detailed conditions of temperature and water molecule density and location at a micro-level among the already existing micro-structure of the nearby ice crystals.
Perhaps this is what you meant by "more information about all the interactions between entities".

I don't think so, if I got you right. This alone would only lead to Descartes' determinism. However, we already know that this is wrong. I also think that a good AI is an example of emergence. I'm not sure whether I would go as far as some philosophers to call conscience a phenomenon of emergence, but I wouldn't know how to measure, decide it either. Maybe deep in our thoughts we're still at the stage of regarding emergent systems as simply underdetermined. No wonder it took half a century to deal with the results of physicists and logicians, and yet we're not arrived at a stage of full understanding. I admit I also like it simple and the thought of underdeterminsm is tempting. I always regarded Godel's work as The diagonal argument thought to the end.

 

[BillTre]

This alone would only lead to Descartes' determinism. However, we already know that this is wrong.

I don't follow your argument.
How is it that snowflake structure is not an emergent property and how is it leads to Descartes' determinism and how is it that we know this is wrong?
Perhaps there is some emergent property definition you are referring to.

 

[fresh_42]

I don't follow your argument.
How is it that snowflake structure is not an emergent property and how is it leads to Descartes' determinism and how is it that we know this is wrong?
Perhaps there is some emergent property definition you are referring to.

I've read your post as "with all variables given we could compute the shape of the flake"

The details of the resulting structure of a growing ice crystal (snowflake) would be determined by the detailed conditions of temperature and water molecule density and location at a micro-level among the already existing micro-structure of the nearby ice crystals.

which is a determinism argument, but I said I might have been misinterpreting it.

 

[BillTre]

But how is that ruling it out as an emergent phenomena?

 

[fresh_42]

But how is that ruling it out as an emergent phenomena?

I understand emergence as a true extension to a system, which doesn't evolve by unknown facts rather by something really new: The sum is more than the sum of its parts and not We don't know all parts.

 

[WWGD]

Most countries seem to go by a 5-2 system: 5 days of work, two of rest ( with variations within the population, but mostly this 5-2 split.) . Only exception I know is Israel, which uses a 6-1 system -- Only Saturday is a rest day, every other day is a work day. Would be nice to see what happens if someone tried a 4-3 system.

 

[fresh_42]

Google and Amazon are already offering their employees the four-day work week. Also in Germany there are more and more companies, which extend the weekend.

(for the record, cause wrong language: http://www.zeit.de/karriere/beruf/2016-09/vier-tage-woche-test-unternehmen-bericht-flexibilitaet)

 

[BillTre]

Humm, I would consider

The sum is more than the sum of its parts

a bit differently.
First I would use something like result here rather than the first use of sum if you are going to use sum again later in the sentence.
Also, I would not include the arrangements and interactions of of parts to be not included in the sum or the parts, just as:
1+2+3 (a sum of a bunch of parts) is equal (numerically) to 3+2+1,
however the arrangement or order is not the same and not predictable simple from a list of all the parts, thus (to me) is not included in the sum of the parts.

Still not clear on what is the definition of emergent phenomena you are using. Clearly you are excluding some of what I would include.
What does:

a true extension to a system

mean?

 

[WWGD]

(for the record, cause wrong language: http://www.zeit.de/karriere/beruf/2016-09/vier-tage-woche-test-unternehmen-bericht-flexibilitaet)

But that depends on just _how_ those days are used ;).

 

[Posy McPostface]

I understand emergence as a true extension to a system, which doesn't evolve by unknown facts rather by something really new: The sum is more than the sum of its parts and not We don't know all parts.

What if thinking back to Godelian terms, you have emergent phenomena happening due to entailment of a smaller system or "state space" by a larger one? What boggles my mind is whether the "set of axioms" or "laws of nature" have to be consistent with the smaller system by the larger one, or if they interact.

I'm probably spouting nonsense.

Thanks!

 

[WWGD]

What if thinking back to Godelian terms, you have emergent phenomena happening due to entailment of a smaller system or "state space" by a larger one? What boggles my mind is whether the "set of axioms" or "laws of nature" have to be consistent with the smaller system by the larger one, or if they interact.

I'm probably spouting nonsense.

Thanks!

Is this some sort of (possibly-inverted) Compactness theorem in Logic: If there is a model of finite cardinality then you can find one of infinite cardinality? Or induction : thruth of finite cases creates emergent result for infinite sets? Also probably nonsense.

 

[Posy McPostface]

Is this some sort of (possibly-inverted) Compactness theorem in Logic: If there is a model of finite cardinality then you can find one of infinite cardinality? Or induction : thruth of finite cases creates emergent result for infinite sets? Also probably nonsense.

I doubt it's nonsense from you; but, fascinating stuff either way. Hope someone else more versed than myself can clarify whatever I'm toying with here.

 

[WWGD]

I doubt it's nonsense from you; but, fascinating stuff either way. Hope someone else more versed than myself can clarify whatever I'm toying with here.

I mean, the truth of the proposition for infinite sets ( for all Naturals) sort of emerges from both the properties of the Naturals as well as the method of induction. The truth may not hold in sets with different "organization" , e.g., without Well-ordering.

 

[Posy McPostface]

The truth may not hold in sets with different "organization" , e.g., without Well-ordering.

This is of great interest to me. It's my impression that every higher ordinal set has to be consistent with every lower one (Compactness theorem as you stated) for at the very least soft-determinism to be true. Otherwise, the landscape of mathematical logic seems awfully strange?

 

[WWGD]

This is of great interest to me. It's my impression that every higher ordinal set has to be consistent with every lower one (Compactness theorem as you stated) for at the very least soft-determinism to be true. Otherwise, the landscape of mathematical logic seems awfully strange?

Although you may also argue that beyond a certain (cardinality) threshold (together with properties of sets) some new properties emerge: like having equinumerous proper subsets, or losing decidability from sentence logic to FOL: Or maybe we can somehow go ( using some sort of categorical inverse- or otherwise limit) from 2-valued logic in Sentence Logic to 3-valued ,...and arrive at (emerge) infinite-valued logic (Probability theory)?
Hey, these new ideas do not usually arrive ready-made, one has to spout some nonsense and see if something sticks.

 

[Posy McPostface]

Although you may also argue that beyond a certain (cardinality) threshold (together with properties of sets) some new properties emerge: like having equinumerous proper subsets, or losing decidability from sentence logic to FOL: Or maybe we can somehow go ( using some sort of categorical inverse- or otherwise limit) from 2-valued logic in Sentence Logic to 3-valued ,...and arrive at (emerge) infinite-valued logic (Probability theory)?
Hey, these new ideas do not usually arrive ready-made, one has to spout some nonsense and see if something sticks.

Well, the compression theorem for computational complexity theory states:

The theorem states that there exists no largest complexity class, with computable boundary, which contains all computable functions.

So, no go?

 

[WWGD]

Well, the compression theorem for computational complexity theory states:

The theorem states that there exists no largest complexity class, with computable boundary, which contains all computable functions.

So, no go?

Well, no, I see it differently. Something may or may not emerge depending on the way things are organized/the intrinsic properties. In some cases parts will fizzle.

 

[Posy McPostface]

Well, no, I see it differently. Something may or may not emerge depending on the way things are organized/the intrinsic properties. In some cases parts will fizzle.

I don't know. It makes the fact of emergent properties noncomputable to some degree, thus mysticism?

 

[Posy McPostface]

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/944329692898664448

Hilarious and awesome.

 

[fresh_42]

I don't know. It makes the fact of emergent properties noncomputable to some degree, thus mysticism?

Even a brief look on only Wikipedia offered a huge variety and complexity within philosophy (the scientific version, not grandma's) and even almost all other natural sciences and mathematics. A label such as mysticism or any other is doomed to ignore this complexity. I very much doubt that we can even scratch the surface here.

For a detailed discussion at least a separate thread would be needed. However, this is against our rules, as we neither have the background nor the tolerance for the endlessness which comes along with such debates. The persistency here tends to evolve into a workaround of these rules. So I appeal to readers to drop this topic. Random thoughts mean varying topics and some kind of randomness. It does not mean to support pseudo-scientific discussions to avoid the rules in technical forums.

 

[Ibix]

From Random Walks In Science:

Oh, Langley invented the bolometer.
It's really a kind of thermometer.
It can measure the heat
From a polar bear's feet
At a distance of half a kilometre.

Random enough?

 

[Posy McPostface]

A label such as mysticism or any other is doomed to ignore this complexity.

I was just interested in the implications of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, which are hard to find outside of academia. For example, some physicists believe that reality is computable, eg. the Church–Turing–Deutsch principle. Would the above discussion about the compression theorem and Godel be an explanation that that would be impossible?

 

[fresh_42]

From Random Walks In Science:

Oh, Langley invented the bolometer.
It's really a kind of thermometer.
It can measure the heat
From a polar bear's feet
At a distance of half a kilometre.

Random enough?

I thought of something like this:

"Oh freddled gruntbuggly,
Thy micturations are to me
As plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee.
Groop, I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes,
And hooptiously drangle me with crinkly bindlewurdles,
Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts
With my blurglecruncheon, see if I don't!" (Jeltz)​

 

[fresh_42]

I was just interested in the implications of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, which are hard to find outside of academia. For example, some physicists believe that reality is computable, eg. the Church–Turing–Deutsch principle. Would the above discussion about the compression theorem and Godel be an explanation that that would be impossible?

Personally, I would be very interested in such topics, but fact is, it is philosophy and discussions in the past revealed, that they are endless, mostly incompetent and if they were about physics at a comparable level, we would immediately close them as substandard. I also think that they were better placed in a technical forum, based on some real peer-reviewed publications which can be read by us, and eventually closer to mathematics (or physics) as the term "emergent phenomena" alone is far too unspecific. I do respect philosophy, so whatever can usually be read here is not.

 

[Posy McPostface]

Personally, I would be very interested in such topics, but fact is, it is philosophy and discussions in the past revealed, that they are endless, mostly incompetent and if they were about physics at a comparable level, we would immediately close them as substandard. I also think that they were better placed in a technical forum, based on some real peer-reviewed publications which can be read by us, and eventually closer to mathematics (or physics) as the term "emergent phenomena" alone is far too unspecific. I do respect philosophy, so whatever can usually be read here is not.

Understood. Won't pursue the matter further. Thanks.

 

[Ibix]

I thought of something like this:

"Oh freddled gruntbuggly,
Thy micturations are to me
As plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee.
Groop, I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes,
And hooptiously drangle me with crinkly bindlewurdles,
Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts
With my blurglecruncheon, see if I don't!" (Jeltz)​

There was a young lady called Bright,
Who traveled far faster than light.
She went out one day,
In a relative way,
And came back the previous night.

 

[Orodruin]

There was a young lady called Bright,
Who traveled far faster than light.
She went out one day,
In a relative way,
And came back the previous night.

https://www.physics.harvard.edu/academics/undergrad/limericks

 

[WWGD]

I tried to convince this acquaintance that going to talk unanounced with the HR people in a company he applied to which did not hire him to ask what they saw wrong in him may not be a good idea. They may suspect he is upset over his rejection and may call security or even police. Bad idea, I say. I tried.

 

[fresh_42]

I tried to convince this acquaintance that going to talk unanounced with the HR people in a company he applied to which did not hire him to ask what they saw wrong in him may not be a good idea. They may suspect he is upset over his rejection and may call security or even police. Bad idea, I say. I tried.

Furthermore, it is senseless. They most likely won't tell the true reasons, and any answer he gets is unlikely to be applicable to further interviews, because of the particularity of the situation. He basically expects a personality study about his person. Good chances he could achieve better results by asking a friend.

 

[Tom.G]

1. He didn't get the job.
2. It bugs him.
3. He is trying for a post mortem.
4. He probably won't get a realistic answer.
5. He certainly won't if he doesn't ASK.
6. Downside, nothing. (He has already been turned down.)
   
7. Upside, maybe he will learn something useful, even if the lesson is 'no response'.

And the harm is where?

 

[WWGD]

And the harm is where?

They may think he is disgruntled and ready to take it out on those who refused to hire him and will call security or the cops on him. It is not a bad idea, but , unfortunately, in today's PC world where everyone has become so delicate, companies, HR will refuse to give you an answer because they worry you will sue. No doubt some things needed to be changed but it seems we have over-corrected towards PC. EDIT: Besides, the time and energy spent going there-- good luck with HR/Hiring Manager dropping everything they're doing to talk with you -- could be spent applying for a new job or polishing skills or learning new ones.

 

[OmCheeto]

• He didn't get the job.
• It bugs him.
• He is trying for a post mortem.
• He probably won't get a realistic answer.

In my experience, he won't even get an answer from HR. HR just does the paperwork. Unless he was applying for a job in HR itself, only the department he was applying for would know the answer.

• He certainly won't if he doesn't ASK.
• Downside, nothing. (He has already been turned down.)

Upside, maybe he will learn something useful, even if the lesson is 'no response'.

And the harm is where?

In my 10 years in management, I was only responsible for hiring 3 people. The department I was in charge of was kind of a "circus", so one hiree's single quality that stood out was: "Worked in a circus". Turned out to be the most outstanding employee, ever.

 

[jim hardy]

They most likely won't tell the true reasons, and any answer he gets is unlikely to be applicable to further interviews, because of the particularity of the situation. He basically expects a personality study about his person. Good chances he could achieve better results by asking a friend.

WWGD hasn't said whether his friend even got past the HR interview, or what kind of job he was applying for.
Chances are he'd do better to call whoever interviewed him last and ask how he could improve his resume to make it more attractive .

I always asked applicants, who by the time they got to me had already survived the HR screening, "Do you change your own oil and sparkplugs?"
Maintenance and Marketing managers are not looking for the same personality traits.
He needs to go to the source to get a meaningful answer.

old jim