Luc Turpin

I do not understand the meaning Please substantiate! I am grasping at straws to understand, but straws will be replaced by something more solid as I progress. I understand that non-linearity/linearity are part of the tools, but what does it say that they are required to deal with the world? Are they required to deal with the world or are they just there, static being part of the tools. The former implies implications for the world, right? I have a formidable advantage over all of you; I don’t understand as much as all of you

Very interesting, I need to think about it. Like how your are leading the discussion With effects on the world? With effects on the comprehension of the world? Like leading a camel (me) to water

Upon reading it a second time and thinking about it, i would now say a greater yes than before

Yes

I have comments-questions on your last post before this, but that will wait. Yes, meant interaction, not deliberately trying to communicate. Boundary between us and the universe is there, but there might be "bleeding" between the two. I might post something in neuroscience on mind. Far from being proven though. Linearity-non-linearity was reiterated in this post as a response to my debate with genady. And, I would like a deeper dive on this. As much conditioned by human nature of mind as of nature of external world – yes, an interplay of both Limited by sense – yes. Brain as a computer – it is an older model of the brain The act of measuring (apologies to Joigus; their words; not mine) disturbs the system….. – can you substantiate? And the change from CM to QM was brought about by science prodding the universe and getting results that were inconsistent with CM; which comes back to science being the tool, not the subject matter as indicated in one of my previous posts

First line: interesting, need to think about it; Kuhn I like very much Second line: I am a hopeless case in math, but will try

On science and the world, physics and non-linearity! I did a lot of thinking yesterday with little to show except for this: that science telling us what the world is all about as some people think, feels awkward. Should it not be that the world (universe) ought to be telling us through science what it wants to reveal to us? Science is the tool, not the subject matter!. In physics, at least for someone looking outside-in like me, it seems that there is a high rate of theorizing and calculating in comparison to experimenting. This theorizing-experimenting ratio appears to be much different in physics than in other sciences. I am aware that its the nature of the beast. Physics requires it. But what impacts this has on physics, I don’t know! Also, I cannot use math to corroborate things as I am too weak in it. And I found out that I cannot use key words to convey thoughts because the physics sense varies greatly from the conventional one. So, I am stuck in a pickle. What I can claim though with some degree of certainty is that probing the universe with science has put into light some of the non-linear features of complex systems. Seeing us no longer seeing ourselves. I will read this post very carefully! Thanks!

And i use world as the one that surround.use, still need to think before answering

What is your definition of world?

Is it not what i am trying to say that absolute certainty does not exist

Noted Noted, need to think before answering

And outcome not predictable with absolutely certainty?

Is everything in the world not dependent on initial conditions?

But, does the implications of linearity not manifest themselves on the world? Imprecise measurement -imprecise world; we are not living in a clockwork world, even trains get delayed by the unexpected

Helpful! Thank you for not leaving me behind in the discussion. The opposite. world is non-linear and models linear. Both should be non-linear. However, with the discussion that I followed, it appears that non-linear models are readily in use. My understanding is that weather models are non-linear and that the decision to go skiing or not depends on the precision of the forecast. Today, I might go skiing because one day forecast are relatively good, while deciding to go skiing next week with forecast in hand, is frought with more imprecision. The forecast says nice weather, but it can change. Out in the world, everyone knows that forecasts have imprecision baked into them and that the more we advance in time, the more the imprecision grows. This is the nature of weather in the world not predictable with absolute certainty. I may be attributing here a concept of certainty to non-linearity that may be incorrect. Still fumbling with words and their meanings.

A simplistic way on my part of seing it; we use non-linear equations to obtain the weather and determine whether or not we go skiing

Vey well said

What fascinates me most with complexity are sensitive to initial conditions and order in disorder

Merci, french text was very useful in understanding first link second link: complexity as in chaos-cmplexity theory? e.g. inherent repetition, patterns, self-organisation, interconnectedness, self-similarity, and constant feedback loops.

I am contemplating leaving this thread, because i am extracting a lot out of it, but not contributing much.due to my limited knowledge of the subject matter

Thank you for the correction I will llok up inequality right away

Strange indeed! Can you substantiate on both? I think that i know what linear means, but for most of your response to my post, i admit in struggling to understand. As for the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, i know too that it is a principle, not an equation. Maybe i didi not use the right terms in formulating my question. Equations are frequently mentioned to “justify” (probably not the right word) qm and “apply” qm

Thanks Jogus; I gotten that from your post preceeding the one above. Non-linearity is what makes the world really go "round and round". Joigus that is: you gals-guys know much; I pale in comparison to all of you!

Yup! I am aware of such theories, but might be showing my lack of knowledge, again: are we not mostly still using linear theories to understand our world? And, maybe the most obvious answer to you, but still need to ask the question even if I look stupid! Qm equations are linear or non linear?

Loud and clear; it was more than my original impression of what it meant. i may be going off on a tangent again, but to me we live in a non-linear world, and if it is such, should we not have non-linear theories trying to explain it?