Mike Smith Cosmos

.There is not a problem , as far as I am concerned. I am having a philosophical discussion about science . That seems great. If you mean , because I stated that science took a wrong turn , a long way back possibly ( possibly more recent). I agree with your list of how science works ( with the one proviso now ) . There possibly in view of this ' creative issue ' needs to be more emphasis in the early part, ( application of creative thinking . ) Possibly running through the early stages particularly and the revision , refining loop stages . . No I am very interested in the testing , experimenting , revising , retesting process. All I am trying to establish is this ' creative edge ' to various things , so as to add the possibility of some form of flexibility into the ' loops ' The only problem being with me . I come from an era , when you tried a different resistor, winds on a coil , or build a new circuit, Nowerdays is all blinking computer programming . Mike

?My early 'inkling ' on this matter is that for creativity to have its sway , it can operate in an orthogonal ( 90 degree ) dimension. In such a way as not to (a) disturb , or be (b) disturbed by the other two orthogonal dimensions that contain , say , rigorous science , and deterministic action. Having had its creative ' ' foray ' ( which contain a spectrum of alternative ideas) . Tests can then be undertaken as to the validity or usefulness or otherwise of these creative , vaporous , excursions . These are just thoughts ! Mike Ps . I had the understanding , that this is what Philosphers did, :- While away the hours on the steps in Rome or between the columns of the Acropolis in Greece discussing with each other and thinking great thoughts ! I am not so totally sure about what you are saying here. One could spend hours and years studying up a subject , that becomes completely redundant. My first bout at electronics in the early 1960'/65s , taught us about mechanical adding machines ( actual wheels and gears, it taught us about valves, all while I used a slide rule and log books to do math. My second session in university in the 1990/2000 was all about digital filters that were software and probabilities in communication. I joined a local radio ham group the other day , hoping for some exciting experience with great power valves and coils , and they are all using hand held button operated ( not a knob in sight ) software controlled devices. Nowerdays I wonder if hitch hikers guide to the Galaxy might just be more useful study ! Mike

. It is not a problem , or at least does not need to be ! These appear to be modes of thinking which are ' diacotomy ' style opposed to each other . So can cause a problem if not recognised as such . Hence my accident in ending up in the ditch while thinking about art ! A distinct problem ! Mike

. With all due respect ' Strange ' , I think you may be dismissing the two styles of thinking , a little hastily . This problem , irrelivent of , how or where in the brain this mental process physically resides, nonetheless has had a universal impact on human behaviour and thinking , since the year ' Dot ' . On a time to time basis , it is possible , and almost essential , for artists and now I would say , scientists too, to put their brain into different ' modes ' at different times . Not even sure what the name is for the logic , based thinking , is ? ( Rational ? Perhaps . This is experimented with in ' art ' by painting , upside down . Not the person , the picture . The two different modes ( right and left brain ) even if this is, as some research has found , not the actual location in the brain , is nonetheless less a ' mode of thinking ' . ( scientifically logical mode ) mode 1...........( creatively artistically mode ) mode 2 None of these words in brackets are correct in detail , but there is a 'dichotomy ' at play here , which makes for confusion . Men and women often have this issue in there homes , when the man wants to dismantle a machine on the dining room table and the woman wants her bowl of flowers there as it looks aesthetic. Clearly both these modes of thinking are important , that's why we are , what we are ! BUT , BIG BUT . " Houston , I think we have a problem ? " Mike Ps . Here is proof ! I was on my way to an art lesson , thinking about art and how I could create a nice image in acrylic paint . Oops !

. Creativity has been identified with ' right brain ' style of activity. ( even if it is not always located in the right hemisphere ) . Which to many can be viewed as ' woolly , and 'semi- unscientific , ' as it tends to be thought of as non logical, art'y , non mathematical in origin, not accurate , not specific enough . And yet I have felt and on your prompting read a few reviews about the roll of creativity in the research arena. I Need to do a bit more thinking on this , but I would not be surprised to find that , it is in this area that the ( dichotomy) , if that is the correct word * ) , lays . Uncontrolled creativity , has Been ' frowned on ' by some ( not all ) stalwart science zealots . And yet those articles quoted show that creativity of thought has a vital role to play in research. I can see something interesting coming out of this ! Mike * dichotomy dʌɪˈkɒtəmi,dɪ-/ noun 1. a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different. "a rigid dichotomy between science and mysticism" synonyms: division, separation, divorce, split, gulf, chasm; More

.I am going to give this post some serious thought. In the meantime, to show I am not ignoring the situation , I have looked into what I suspect is at the root of ' possible ' problems that I could see getting in the way of some science progress in developing the Picture of Reality . That is :- The place of 'Creativity ' in the Science Process ( your 1-5 list above ) Link :- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3341649/ Mike

. Well then , I think we ought to review the very ,very early in time , foundations of SCIENCE,. Somebody went stark, staring ,bonkers , somewhere along the line somewhere ? Somebody took a wrong turn , way way back , and nobody noticed it. We are up a stream , without a paddle . Mike

. It is not that I do not understand . I have investigated both Astronomy and Geology . Both amaze me as to the engineering , science , design , some things beyond understanding it is true. But through and through it is an absolutely amazing ' bit of kit ' . Now if all THAT has come from ' Nowhere' then I am a ' monkey's Uncle ' ! There has just got to have been some input , somewhere , for goodness sake . . If no . It would be like landing on a space ship from another world , on this planet earth , and getting out as a visitor , who they then the visitors asking " where did all this infrastructure , technology, transport system , machinery, Internet , I pads, ear pods , throat pads, and goodness knows what " where did it all come from ' And we told them " well it just sort of came about , by itself " .. They would think we were stark staring bonkers ! Mike

. No . I refute your judgement of my argument . It has as its base the history of the Earth . ( let alone the rest of the Universe ) It has as its POINT , the very sober point that we have no excuse , we are sitting on the very example of ' things getting better ' . Look at the earth 4,500,000,000 years ago . It was a mess . Although as Laplace said , it is incalculable , the EVIDENCE for the reasoning and argument are in front of our eyes as ' evidence '. This has far more weight than any possible or impossibility of calculations . EVIDENCE ( BASE ) :- .----------- Getting worse Venus , . ---------------Getting better Earth , ---------------- ( this does not include the current human condition , which needs fixing, I agree ) Earth 4 / 4.5 Billion years ago . Better Earth Now . Mike

. A. Experienced designers would find in any processing mechanism that resultant outputs would go off target after any reasonable quantity of time . We as civilisation have designed mechanism to serve societies needs as well as individual needs . Our recycling centres are full to bursting with machines that have failed with years activity say 10- 20 years. Not 20 million years . Yet the universe including our earth have reached 5 to 12 billion years . B and C . I could not ( as Laplace said ) and do not need to calculate it. It is an instantaneous , incalculable self stabilising system , that has within its nature , and exists in the fabric of the universe . I believe the philosophers like Decart and Laplace reasoned on this subject . About a possibility of the universe being predictable by a superhuman . If anyone ever needed an example of superb control , integral in the system . This past 13,000,000,000 year running mechanism , is still going , and I would say getting better . There appear to be two counter flowing systems entropy ( going apart ) and counter entropy ( going together ) . I am suggesting the " getting together ' better ' will win or achieve equality . Mike

Quote ( Strange ) I didn't ask how old it is, I asked why you say it would be unlikely to last 12 billion years? Yes , I meant , the universe MUST have an internal structure ( in favour of betterment ) . If there were no internal structure or outside intervention , the universe would have fallen enough to have NOT survived 12 billion years. . Stars have there life 'X' millions of years producing higher atomic number atoms in their insides. As they reach the critical pressure , they often expand as a red giant to explode , and blast their contents across space. Much later these dust clouds condense to become new stars ( reproduction ) . These secondary Suns have more spread of elements , so thus are ' better ' . And so it goes on in cycles of improvement . . I can recognise in my own career the difficulties in getting ' things ' working . Hence the comments about design in simple things like survival equipment like a 'pump' so the inlaid designs prompt human reason into believing in the evidence of design criteria , such as this correction when things make an improvement . Mike

. There is often a problem among scientists when you wind the clock totally Back to ' Zero ' Many scientists like to start the story from some extremely small period of time onward from Zero , not from the Big Bang or the beginning . Yet that is the time of highly philosophical issues ( like what preconditions existed, what happened at time zero, who or what made it happen . Many scientists are willing to take it from some small time onward of zero , as then energy or matter exist somehow and they are prepared to take it from there. However that area AT and FROM time zero, to begin with is a ' no go ' area for many . Herein possibly lay the answers to previously raised matters . Mike

You have made me laugh , that must be good ! I am afraid I am off for the next couple of hours , to a cafe meeting , to discuss deep scientific ideas about ' visualisation ' , so be prepared . And walk the dog .

. Boy! You guys are giving me a hard time. Make my day . Why can't you just say . Mike you are a jolly nice guy, and we think your ideas sound great ! Then I will feel great . You will feel great for being generous hearted Mike

I thought most eminent scientists agreed that " if the universe , or parts of the universe are not " OBSERVED" then the whole thing , the universe, is completely pointless. So if , the universe , is observed , as it clearly is , then the inanimate objects are the subject of desire and satisfaction , as well as effectiveness. Mike

.I would think that by the time our sun goes supernova ( say 5 billion years ) our ability to move about the universe would have improved ( bettered ) and we could change our home to a new younger star. Perhaps to a more satisfactory and effective star. I think the ' jury is still out ' , on the far future of the universe . Maybe that too has the ability to move on to a better, more effective , satisfactory , universe, home, ?????, ( whatever) . Be interesting to see what it is ? .Well I thought it was an established fact that the Big Bang to now was 13 billion years of effective growth. The flora and fauna recognise beneficial change by better suiting the environment . Well it has been mooted by cosmologists that stars and galaxies can go through a sort of growth, division on collision with another galaxy, and stars can supernova ,producing material for future generations of stars. All the time ' I would suggest ' the universe is getting better, ( more effective, satisfactory , and Desirable ) Mike

. The Google definition of ' better ' as :- ˈbɛtə/ adjective " " more desirable, satisfactory, or effective." The subject of design of the universe depends on your point of view . ( A) If you go the self design route then you can take the ' selection process ' whereby better solutions do better in the universe , and so thrive more effectively . So a great balancing , and jostling between respective parts self perpetuates " better ness " namely more desirable , more satisfactory, more effective " ( B) if you take the Creationist route , then better could follow the same route as (A) perhaps with intervention from time to time . Mike

.My point in the original post was : the basics of the universe , or a fundamental characteristic of the universe is that : Things must progress to become better with time . If this were not the case , namely things get worse , as time goes by . Then the universe would be on a decline , and would have been unlikely to have lasted 12/13 billion years . If things remained static then the universe would still be a massive dust cloud , dissipating into infinity. The fact that it is progressing into developing stars and galaxies and galaxy clusters , and a world of minerals , life , and weather systems , testify that things are getting better , all the while as time moves forward. For most of these ( mentioned in the last paragraph ) there needs to be a system for reproduction, something that recognises beneficial change , and the changes themselves . ( an overview description ) These are present on Earth and so there is evidence here for the statement . "Things can and will get better ultimately . " if this were not so we would not be here , would we not ? Now if you are meaning getting out of our political , economic , behavioural , resource, crisis , that is a separate matter . That needs another solution . If not ,... Well the natural , inbuilt systems of the universe will be thwarted here on earth . But I do not think that is going to be left, let to happen . I suppose we could be left to just fizzle out or blow ourselves to bits . But I do not think that is what is going to happen . Mike

.Three of the mechanisms that are necessary and in place are :- 1.)reproduction , 2)recognition/application of benefit ( things can get better ) , 3) and change . All accepted by the science community . ( mechanisms none -the -less ) ---------------------------- ---------------- ------------------------- Your comments about " science fiction (or Creationism). " I would be surprised if there was not a physics scientist in our reader list that did not have an interest ( one way or another ) in either/or one of these two subjects. Most of today's scientific inventions , have been preceded by a science fiction version 50 years previously. And creationism was the norm for 80 to 90 % percent of civilised human history ( say from 4000 BC - 1600 AD ) . So again this has had a major impact on civilised human experience and history . ---------------------------- ----------------- ------------------------ Mike

Although not always the case , I am sure it could be shown that many of the foundation scientific theories , certainly , by the known names, Originated with an Observation. Perhaps blowing water into the sunlight and seeing a spectrum of colours. Perhaps seeing lamps in a vaulted roof swinging all with the same regularity. Many scientists went on to develop these Observations with postulations , experiments, tests, mathamatical models , conclusions ,Theories and Hypothesis and their publication resulted in much of the science we have today . The observations often seemed , meaningless to many at the time , but individuals often braved harsh criticism , only to deliver accepted theories later. Perhaps a discussion of new , current , observations could provide a welcome ' lightness ' to debate . This while it is still in the observation area and Not Yet , a proven scientific theory or even a structured speculation. Say , I noticed as I was looking at the ............. The other day ...................that the .......................... Mike

.I am sorry , I have clearly not explained this particular point clearly enough . .. I was in no way trying to criticise any way past and present ship design , in any way being in deficit. I was trying to use the example of the dangers of sea travel and the human state ,of the inability to survive. Humans at sea , as an example of a problem needing a solution . And as such there is a clear requirement for designs needed when ships are designed. This is of course met , by ship designers. The analogy , though clearly ambiguous , is that the existing whole Earth population ' appears to be ' in a bit of a state of crisis. Namely , at sea , without a paddle ( or a pump for that matter ) . No doubt somewhere in the structure of this complex Earth system , are the equivalent of , the life boats and other survival equipment. But typical of even ship disasters, there is a certain degree of ' panic ' going on . Rushing about , not sure what to do . No clear direction , as to what clearly to do, to survive the current crisis. Perhaps , as with some historic sea disasters , we will be rescued , or some internal safety equipment will be found in time . However this latter solution does not look the promising option. Returning to the original proposal of the thread, that " there usually are inbuilt designs or mechanisms , for 'things to get better ' .." Then there is hope and anticipation that , that is the result for the future of the Earth. Things will , one way or another , ' will get better ' Mike ( I hope that is 'clearer than mud' ) Ps this comment in the original post :- " Well if I were designing anything , say a boat to go to sea . Because of the intrinsic nature of the sea , if you fall in , or sink into the sea , you usually die ! I would make sure , that in my design , above all else , there must be some means , like a water pump , to pump any ingress of water OUT . " I was, meaning at a very simplistic level , meaning , the first thing in a design for safety in a boat , is a pump to pump out the leaking water coming into the boat , so the water would get pumped out of the boat , and we hopefully would not sink .

.I am trying to say that , I have reasoned things through , by going right back to the beginning. This is not entirely a new venture for me as I have been reasoning this out and discussing it with others since my 20's in the 1960's . Which seems a long time ago but a lot has happened since then . My father was a designer , I was a designer ( engineering ) , some of my children are designers, and I have taught young people about design, ......so .. Although not a nautical designer , I am saying if I designed a people carrying boat to sail the high seas , I would design in many layers of back up, should an accident occurs , for survival . Then survivors go on to have a happy and fulfilled life ( better life ) . As of course is the current case with most modern nautical design . Similarly , if I designed the Universe. ( which I clearly didn't ) , but I have often thought back to the very very early , very , very earliest of times .. what would I do ? I know that is fanciful , but it's possible to have a 'thought experiment ' . What would I do , if there were only me there ? Etc etc . Would I design a universe that was going to deteriorate , stay the same , or get better ? I would certainly , even by logic design a system / universe that would get better.! Now if a universe just happened , the evidence is , that the trend , ( not individual declines and boosts ) , is that the universe is getting better ) . There seem to be in built mechanisms , where things 'get better ' . We might be in a very tough bit at the moment ,where political and economic systems, may well go into serious decline and failure . But ultimately , I am optimistic that things will , with manifold style changes be world changingly better ! Mike Parts may be running down and spreading out , but equally parts are also coming together into better systems . Take the earth once a swirling mass of lava , now a beautiful world full of complex life . Scientifically / the environmental / material universe ,then things are getting better . But politically , economically , and behaviourally , things might well be getting ' horrifically ' worse . This needs sorting ! Other parts of the universe are growing from explosive hot gas to galaxy upon galaxy of wonderful and beautiful better structure. Our turn as a peopled wonderful world is yet to come , somehow ! Mike .Which ever way you look at it , there are 'inbuilt mechanisms' , whereby things change with time for the better , whether they be animal , vegetable , or mineral level . There is everywhere an inbuilt selective system . Except for the human , political , economic , and other systems have got into a real muddle . That is the real area that needs , wants and demands drastic immediate change . When that happens ..... ....Then , Things will then , as always ultimately get better ? ". In the long term . Surely ? Mike

Having quested for ultimate bedrock. Namely , what is at the bottom of " EVERYTHING" .? One could make the statement , ..." Things are bound to ultimately get better " ... Well if I were designing anything , say a boat to go to sea . Because of the intrinsic nature of the sea , if you fall in , or sink into the sea , you usually die ! I would make sure , that in my design , above all else , there must be some means , like a water pump , to pump any ingress of water OUT . So things would get better , always , as living is better than drowning , always ! Hence , it would stand to reason , that however the universe came about , there must be by design or otherwise a mechanism to stop the Universe going ' belly up ' or dying . Otherwise it would be either bad design or it would not have got to the age it has . 13-14 Billion years . So despite ups and downs , even humongous , creative and destructive times, :- ............. ...... " Things will always ultimately get better ? " ... Hopefully ? ........... .......... Mike

. I thought it was something like that . I get them appearing from time to time on my upstairs study wall . I track them down by getting my eye , starting up close to the wall ( or wherever it is showing ) and following my head down the light beam ( not easy ) . It ' homes in ' on the Source. Quite fun ! By the extremely slightest of head movement , one can traverse the spectrum ' ROYGBIV' . Red, orange, yellow , green, blue, indigo, Violet . I imagine Isaac Newton had a similar experience during his ' musings' about light! If you can capture that in your software. ' Bingo ' , we will be in for an amazing Light Show ! Mike Ps . if I use this technique in my ' ripples' experiments . I get dangerous ,' near misses 'and wet feet !

. Is that computer generated by a math orientated route ? Or by an optical route , like a prism ? Mike