Is there evidence of " Cleverness " in Nature and it's processes ?

[swansont]

I want to prove it first by observation . , then make an argument around the results. Which could contradict my inclination of course. ,! Although I doubt it , otherwise I would not be setting out to try to prove it.

 

 

Except that's backwards. You are supposed to try and falsify the idea, rather than just looking for examples to prop it up, because you don't want confirmation bias to skew your results.

[Bignose]

I wish to take the formal definition of entropy...

I find this disingenuous at best, since the 'formal' definition of entropy is mathematical and firmly rooted in thermodynamics. It was only later co-opted in its use as a measure of disorder. A term that fails as being based on a human aesthetic of order vs. disorder -- as I showed previously. Using it as a synonym for cleverness fails the same test -- it is all in how you define it. If you wish to use the formal definition of entropy, then it is mathematical and you should be able to define cleverness mathematically. I'm not holding my breath as we're 120+ posts into this and if you had this in your holster, you should have pulled it out by now. But feel free to show me wrong here. Please back up your statement here and use the 'formal definition' of entropy.

[Acme]

Except that's backwards. You are supposed to try and falsify the idea, rather than just looking for examples to prop it up, because you don't want confirmation bias to skew your results.

I am reminded of a passage from Caroll's Through the Looking-Glass, where the over-arching theme is one of bass-ackwardness. As you have asserted that life's too short not to laugh, I hope this is not out of context here.

 

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't 'til I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "

"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less."

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.... ----------------------------------------------DEFINITION -------------------------------........ .

 

The Word I Choose and define is :- . " SHE MOOGLE ME GONSH ME GOE "

 

 

I wish to consentrate on :-

 

" SHE MOOGLE ME GONSH ME GOE " Which by my definition means :-

 

" useful, patterns of effective and practical systems of order that [i believe ] are being generated in the universe in equal quantities as the useful energy is being lost to entropy.
I believe we may have on our hands a universe which is in fact in a balanced system , between on the one hand movement to order and on the other hand movement to disorder .. In equal measure and therefore balance. "

. This is my Theory: Mike Smith March 4th 2014

" How clever is that ? " if proved ? Not me clever but the system clever. "

 

 

Now if for simplicity I use the expression " moving to order or Entropy decreasing "

 

I mean what I said above in the quote under :- " SHE MOOGLE ME GONSH ME GOE "

 

 

 

ps. This is not in any way intended to be rude to anyone . Just for clarity sake .

 

pps By the way . The Definition of Entropy that I used was Taken from :-

the COLLINS ENGLISH DICTIONARY Essential edition Pub 2006 under Entropy ( en-trop-ee)

 

entropy n 1. formal . lack of pattern or organisation 2. physics. a thermodynamic quantity that represents the amount of energy present in a system that cannot be converted into work because it is tied up in the atomic structure of the system. [ Greek word turning towards ]

 

the Concise Oxford Dictionary adding under entropy ; measure of the degradation or disorganization of the universe

 

mike

 

The Scream" - lithograph version from 1895.

"The Scream" is one of the world's most recognizable works of art. It depicts a man in a private moment of anguished despair and anxiety, while the other people in the painting, perhaps his friends, seem blissfully unaware of the man's situation.

The Norwegian painter Edvard Munch (1863-1944) did several versions of "The Scream,"

Edited March 4, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Again, a dictionary is not a technical resource. Science demands more rigor, i.e. math.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Again, a dictionary is not a technical resource. Science demands more rigor, i.e. math.

Two observations

 

 

Mike

Edited March 4, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

What is the graphed function?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

What is the graphed function?

This is a Standard Deviation Grid where :-

the x axis is MY Entropy number ( between 0 = order , 10 = disorder ) as defined on post # 129 .

The Y axis is the Sample count , where each sample has a value of 1 unit

 

Obviously this is only for the first two samples. it would not expect to show any meaningful information apart from trends until between ( 30 - 100 ) samples.

 

If my theory is right I would anticipate a standard deviation bell curve like :-

 

 

Mike

Edited March 4, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

So it's data? How was it collected? How did you quantify the entropy?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

So it's data? How was it collected? How did you quantify the entropy?

Data

The first set of data ( as it is underground and out of reach is by Search, Book, Computer Internet, Library etc Some will be first hand observation, visits, viewing , museums, as it goes into Space and back in time it again will be by book search and internet search. some interviews.

 

Quantify of Entropy

As explained this is a self defining scale ranging from Order =0 to Disorder =10

 

The following list is/will be, used as a discrete value chart : -

 

0= Order Patterns, alignment, symmetry, compact, ........................beauty (?)

1=

2=

3=

4=

5=

6=

7=

8=

9=

10=Disorder Chaos , Random, fragmented, featureless, spread out,....... Ugly (?)

 

 

mike

Edited March 4, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Bignose]

the COLLINS ENGLISH DICTIONARY Essential edition Pub 2006 under Entropy ( en-trop-ee)

 

entropy n 1. formal . lack of pattern or organisation 2. physics. a thermodynamic quantity that represents the amount of energy present in a system that cannot be converted into work because it is tied up in the atomic structure of the system. [ Greek word turning towards ]

You're so close, now. Definition #2 there. That's the thermodynamics definition. So let's go all the way:

 

[math]\Delta S = \frac{\int dQ_{rev}}{T}[/math]

 

So, now you've claimed to use the 'formal' definition, and even your citation supports this (even if it isn't the #1 definition that suffers from the same problems I showed above). So, are you actually going to do something with this? Apart from draw a graph that is basically unrelated, unlabeled, and made up...

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

You're so close, now. Definition #2 there. That's the thermodynamics definition. So let's go all the way:

 

[math]\Delta S = \frac{\int dQ_{rev}}{T}[/math]

 

So, now you've claimed to use the 'formal' definition, and even your citation supports this (even if it isn't the #1 definition that suffers from the same problems I showed above). So, are you actually going to do something with this? Apart from draw a graph that is basically unrelated, unlabeled, and made up...

 

Steady on, I am a 70 year old man , with a dog pestering me to take her for a walk, a wife who is organising a business party for her Cafe venture, and I have a brain that was Cauterised by Maths during 6 years of University Degree Electronics, that now only wants to paint pictures, sit in the sun and think great thoughts. And die sitting under a tree while gazing at saggitarius A* at the Centre of our Galaxy ! .

 

What do you want of me ? ??

 

Of course , Ludvic Boltzman was tied up in all this Thermodynamics - entropy malarci , then he met a sticky end by hanging himself , which does not give entropy a good track record

 

Mike

I have had a small insight, too small to be called an epiphany, but perhaps both relevant to this thread and independently interesting.

 

Humans have an innate ability for original thought. Only persons much more intellectually gifted than I should succumb to the temptation to explore that ability.

 

I have been trying to unravel what you said here. . Are you saying you have had an insight, about the idea of having original thoughts as humans? Like my dog dose not have an original thought grrr . or do you think I should try harder ? Or we as humans are the ONLY living thing on the planet that can have an original thought.

 

Ureeka ! I can use that in my research . I am bound to come upon another human as I come up from underground part of my project. a good score [0] perfect order ..

 

0= Order Patterns, alignment, symmetry, compact, ........................beauty (?) [ not sure about this bit ?]

 

 

mike

Edited March 4, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Data

The first set of data ( as it is underground and out of reach is by Search, Book, Computer Internet, Library etc Some will be first hand observation, visits, viewing , museums, as it goes into Space and back in time it again will be by book search and internet search. some interviews.

 

Quantify of Entropy

As explained this is a self defining scale ranging from Order =0 to Disorder =10

 

The following list is/will be, used as a discrete value chart : -

 

0= Order Patterns, alignment, symmetry, compact, ........................beauty (?)

1=

2=

3=

4=

5=

6=

7=

8=

9=

10=Disorder Chaos , Random, fragmented, featureless, spread out,....... Ugly (?)

 

 

(emphasis aded)

 

So, IOW, it's BS.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

(emphasis aded)

 

So, IOW, it's BS.

 

That is not very nice ! I thought you were a gentleman .?

 

mike

Edited March 4, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

 

That is not very nice ! I thought you were a gentleman .?

 

mike

 

My other option is being a liar, so pardon me for being stuck between a rock and a hard place.

 

Look, this isn't a high society ball, it's science. You have to be prepared to be called out when you're wrong. And, I should point out, you were/are not prepared. If your argument had merit you'd be able to give supporting arguments instead of repeating your hand-wavy claims, but instead your defense is simply that a gentleman would not point such a thing out. So be it. That doesn't make your conjecture not be BS. (We're >120 posts in before I called it BS. I think an argument can be made that I've shown considerable restraint)

 

You also have to be prepared to modify your arguments when they are shown to be inadequate. Aside from some superficial tweaks, you haven't done this. IOW, you aren't doing science. Of the two behaviors (being a gentleman and doing science), one is required here. I (and others) have practically begged you to do something that resembles science, and you have thus far resisted. Shouldn't refusing to behave according to expectations be considered ungentlemanly as well?

[Bignose]

Of course , Ludvic Boltzman was tied up in all this Thermodynamics - entropy malarci , then he met a sticky end by hanging himself , which does not give entropy a good track record

Not sure how this helps or hurts the mathematical concept of entropy which has proven itself to be supremely valuable at making predictions that agree with reality. How one of the pioneers in thermodynamics conducted his life's affairs doesn't change the fact that your definitions of cleverness and order have yet to be shown to be scientific.

 

And you ask "what do I expect?"

 

I expect you to follow up with your use of the words. You declared that you were going to use the formal definition of entropy. Why is it so hard to believe that I actually expect that? If you didn't actually intend to do that, then why that word choice?

 

And then, really, the overarching comment of what I expect is that: if you post on a forum dedicated to science, I expect at least some adherence to the principles of science. (And based on the comments, it's not just I alone in this.) Which means defining terms in an objective, clear-cut, repeatable and statistically significant way. This doesn't have to be math, but math usually helps quite a lot in fulfilling the above.

 

So, what do I expect? I expect at least a modicum of science, and so far this thread is clearly lacking.

 

Lastly, that's ok if you can't provide it. I just think it would be fair for you to acknowledge that what has been posted to date hasn't been scientific.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

So, what do I expect? I expect at least a modicum of science,.........................

 

OK. You have all had your say as to how I am not offering a Scientific contribution.

 

That has gone far Enough !

 

Unless I have mis understood all I have read about Energy, Entropy, Cosmology .

 

The current understanding is ,That an immense amount of Energy Got into the Universe 13.7 billion years ago, and according to your current belief of these three mentioned things [ Energy, Entropy Cosmology ] all that is destined to happen . In the fullness of time the whole lot will end up[ Run down Run up and Useless] in that order , to go with [ Energy, Entropy, Cosmology] .

 

My attempted contribution to science is to attempt to prove a theory which I believe could show that rather than [Energy, Entropy, Cosmology] going into {Run down Run up and Useless} , Rather they will be put back into the Universe as[ Energy being released into the useful environment , Entropy being reduced to Zero ,, The cosmos being Revitalised ] . The Ultimate symmetry .

 

Now if that is not a reasonable contribution to Science , " i will eat my hat, in fact all my hats , and more to boot." . And i think you might find out shortly , I am not the only scientist who thinks this. Some far more well known than I .

Proving it might be far more difficult than Hypothesising , I appreciate.

However I am making my contribution.

 

Mike

Edited March 4, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Bignose]

I am not the only scientist who thinks this. Some far more well known than I .

If they are good scientists, they will readily acknowledge the differences between science and their personal opinions and beliefs. The 'far more well known' ones would at least have known to define their terms before trying to find evidence for them.

 

MSC, I am sorry if I upset you. And in no way am I trying to impugn your beliefs or belief system. But,I am saying that by posting this on a science forum, you are invoking at least implicitly the rules of science. Which again are looking for objectivity, repeatability, and significance to results.

 

Your ideas as presented here would probably go over well on a new age forum, or a philosophy forum, or several other venues. But, I'm sorry, it just isn't scientific. The last 120+ posts have been attempts to get you to see that, and help direct you towards a more scientific discussion. Getting upset at the people who are trying to prod you in that way really isn't going to get you anywhere.

 

So, in my mind, the choice before you is: Do you 1) drop it? 2) refine it to be significantly more scientific? or 3) take it to a venue where it will be more appreciated? Because the simple truth is that what you have here just isn't appropriate for how this forum is normally operated. I think the moderators have been exceptionally patient considering what is essentially your perpetual breaking of the rules of the Speculations section of the forum by refusing to make your ideas more objective, repeatable, and significant.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

If they are good scientists, they will readily acknowledge the differences between science and their personal opinions and beliefs. The 'far more well known' ones would at least have known to define their terms before trying to find evidence for them.

 

MSC, I am sorry if I upset you. And in no way am I trying to impugn your beliefs or belief system. But,I am saying that by posting this on a science forum, you are invoking at least implicitly the rules of science. Which again are looking for objectivity, repeatability, and significance to results.

 

Your ideas as presented here would probably go over well on a new age forum, or a philosophy forum, or several other venues. But, I'm sorry, it just isn't scientific. The last 120+ posts have been attempts to get you to see that, and help direct you towards a more scientific discussion. Getting upset at the people who are trying to prod you in that way really isn't going to get you anywhere.

 

So, in my mind, the choice before you is: Do you 1) drop it? 2) refine it to be significantly more scientific? or 3) take it to a venue where it will be more appreciated? Because the simple truth is that what you have here just isn't appropriate for how this forum is normally operated. I think the moderators have been exceptionally patient considering what is essentially your perpetual breaking of the rules of the Speculations section of the forum by refusing to make your ideas more objective, repeatable, and significant.

 

Well, you astonish me, I thought that was exactly what I was doing.

 

1] I had been making definitions so there was no ambiguity,

2] Making the project more mathematical. by applying graphs numbers etc and

3]reasoning in scientific terms like Entropy rather than Clever

 

A couple of posts ago you were so near, or so it seemed to helping me. Now you seem to have gone all .....crushing.. do not get it.

I was going to ask how your formula translates to non thermodynamics entropy , to do with order and disorder,

 

 

mike

[swansont]

I think that the people giving feedback of this nature in the thread have been pretty clear: what is required is a mathematical model. Drawing a graph based on subjective numbers you have assigned doesn't count. For starters, somebody else has to be able to repeatably get the same numbers. How can you ensure this?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

All

 

O.K. I will sort as much as I can of what you all say . But all I ask is to be reasonable.

All my threads are well thought up approaches to what I see as fundamental issues.

They are not coined lightly and my responses are pretty genuine usually.

 

I am. I believe, a genuine scientist. You just do not see it the way I do.

 

mike

[Acme]

All

 

O.K. I will sort as much as I can of what you all say . But all I ask is to be reasonable.

All my threads are well thought up approaches to what I see as fundamental issues.

They are not coined lightly and my responses are pretty genuine usually.

 

I am. I believe, a genuine scientist. You just do not see it the way I do.

 

mike

OK. First, understand [we] all are reasonable as well. Consider that you just do not see it the way [we] all do. [The reverse of what you just wrote and a reflection on Swans on tea's earlier post about you having things backwards] While you may put a "lot" of thought into your threads, this is not equivalent to "well" thought up insofar as scientific thinking/reasoning accord the denomination "well". Even in my harshest criticism I did not suggest or think you weren't genuine in your convictions, and so I was likewise giving my genuine opinion(s).

 

Now my genuine opinion on this thread is that your continuing with writing to it is beating a dead horse. But fear not, because you can ride on if you secure a new mount. ??? you say? Well Mike, you know the old saw that a picture is worth a thousand words and it is your art work that draws me to your influence and not your rhetoric. You see I'm an artist myself and understand something of that sensibility. So my thought is you take not only your ideas about whatever it is you are trying to communicate here, add to it the overall confusion evidenced by all the posts, and paint it.

 

Let the artwork speak for itself. Let the viewers take what they will from it. Don't get all balled up with trying to explain it. Get this particular idea out of your system and free yourself up [and the rest of us] to move onto your next inspiration. Rembrandt isn't around to explain his works and what's more we don't need him to appreciate them.

 

I trust I communicated that all in a manner appreciable if not acceptable to all.

[Ringer]

 

 

A couple of posts ago you were so near, or so it seemed to helping me. Now you seem to have gone all .....crushing.. do not get it.

I was going to ask how your formula translates to non thermodynamics entropy , to do with order and disorder,

 

 

mike

 

Here is a way to understand this using order/disorder from one of your examples. When you looked at the stones they were very smooth and nice looking right? So what caused that? To smooth out the stone pieces of the stone had to be broken off, this increases the amount of material scattered around (i.e. more disordered). So even though that stone looks more ordered because our minds like smooth things, the system has more useless pieces so it's less ordered than it was before.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Here is a way to understand this using order/disorder from one of your examples. When you looked at the stones they were very smooth and nice looking right? So what caused that? To smooth out the stone pieces of the stone had to be broken off, this increases the amount of material scattered around (i.e. more disordered). So even though that stone looks more ordered because our minds like smooth things, the system has more useless pieces so it's less ordered than it was before.

Your colleague acme. The post before you said go and paint it. Today I net to an art class doing drawing in pastels . The subject was folded cloth. So I thought I will try the order / not ordered idea with the material .

..

it.Let the artwork speak for itself. Let the viewers take what they will from it. Don't get all balled up with trying to explain it. Get this particular idea out of your system and free yourself up [and the rest of us] to move onto your next inspiration. Rembrandt isn't around to explain his works and what's more we don't need him to appreciate them.I trust I communicated that all in a manner appreciable if not acceptable to all.

See here :-

 

 

Now the scaf was arranged crumpled one half, smoothed out flat the other end , I drew it like that . But which end had the higher entropy .? Which end had the low entropy ?

 

Drawing of it ? Bit naff though ?

 

 

Mike

Edited March 5, 2014 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Acme]

Your colleague acme. The post before you said go and paint it. Today I net to an art class doing drawing in pastels . The subject was folded cloth. So I thought I will try the order / not ordered idea with the material .

..

See here :-

Now the scaf was arranged crumpled one half, smoothed out flat the other end , I drew it like that . But which end had the higher entropy .? Which end had the low entropy ?

 

Drawing of it ? Bit naff though ?

image.jpg

 

Mike

I just don't think entropy is the right descriptor. For one, as the others have pointed out, entropy is first/primarily/rigorously a mathematical artifact and only second/later/subjectively a term of order. Even as a term of order, entropy is not well-applied to the scarf or the painting of the scarf because the order 'seen' in the scarf or the painting of the scarf is relative to scale. Put either down the street from you and they look like nothing more than a blot. Put a microscope to both and they look busy. That busy is different for the scarf than for the drawing and even within each the busy may 'appear' ordered in one place and not in another.

 

So what one 'sees' in the scarf or the painting of the scarf in the way of order is completely arbitrary by virtue of scale alone, whereas the prime/rigorous meaning of entropy is not at all arbitrary and not scale dependent.

 

If 'subjective' were the same as 'objective', then one of those words would be redundant. It's not and neither is.

 

PS Well drawn.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Acme