@Merle Girls *are* usually more adjacent than men. Personally, I would like to hear your voice more often on this forum.
@Lee *You're *just* trying to get a rise out of Nick, right?* My experience has been that throwing around the `J-word` will often get a rise out of Nick. Does `getting a rise out of` have type nudge? Does speaking of adjacent possibles require a specifiable space of possibilities? More generally, by the mathematical unprestatability of the "phase space" (space of possibilities), > no laws of motion can be formulated for evolution. -- No entailing laws, but enablement in the evolution of the biosphere > <https://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.2069.pdf> It would appear that in some contexts, describing adjacent possibility as being dependent upon a prescribed `phase space ` misses something. Perhaps it is more desirable to imagine that agents and worlds co-create, and that possibilities emerge locally in the process. To these ends, it seems reasonable to me that we can characterize adjacent possibles as a kind of *modal realism* a`la David Lewis. Sure, there are a number of philosophical objections to be made and Wikipedia will outline a good number of them for interested parties. Still, my remark was not meant to be meaningless. I do think that such modeling is a potentially useful technology. As Dan Piponi outlines, in an inspired moment of blogging, Evaluating Cellular Automata is Comonadic <http://blog.sigfpe.com/2006/12/evaluating-cellular-automata-is.html>. Unlike classical conceptions of cellular automata, it appears likely that generalizing to the level of comonad may allow us to escape `pre-stating the phase space` and by it's very nature the associated co-bind operator develops locally. Sure my previous comment was pithy, but not meant to troll. On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 10:00 AM <friam-requ...@redfish.com> wrote: > Send Friam mailing list submissions to > friam@redfish.com > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > friam-requ...@redfish.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > friam-ow...@redfish.com > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..." > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Friam Digest, Vol 189, Issue 40 (lrudo...@meganet.net) > 2. Re: Friam Digest, Vol 189, Issue 40 (lrudo...@meganet.net) > 3. Re: Friam Digest, Vol 189, Issue 40 (Merle Lefkoff) > 4. new studies confirm existence galaxies almost-no-dark-matter > (glen) > 5. Re: new studies confirm existence galaxies > almost-no-dark-matter (Gillian Densmore) > 6. Re: new studies confirm existence galaxies > almost-no-dark-matter (David Eric Smith) > 7. Re: Friam Digest, Vol 189, Issue 40 (Nick Thompson) > 8. Re: > 15555-10253-closing-a-gap-to-normal-hearing---white-paper.pdf > (Nick Thompson) > 9. Re: new studies confirm existence galaxies > almost-no-dark-matter (glen??) > 10. Re: new studies confirm existence galaxies > almost-no-dark-matter (Eric Smith) > 11. math-induced vs. math-described creativity (was Re: > TheoremDep) (glen??) > 12. Re: > 15555-10253-closing-a-gap-to-normal-hearing---white-paper.pdf > (Frank Wimberly) > 13. Re: new studies confirm existence galaxies > almost-no-dark-matter (lrudo...@meganet.net) > 14. Income Equality (Steven A Smith) > 15. Re: new studies confirm existence galaxies > almost-no-dark-matter (Gillian Densmore) > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: lrudo...@meganet.net > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2019 15:04:14 -0400 (EDT) > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Friam Digest, Vol 189, Issue 40 > > Adjacent possibles are neighborhoods in a comonad. > > You're just trying to get a rise out of Nick, right? > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: lrudo...@meganet.net > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2019 15:13:00 -0400 (EDT) > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Friam Digest, Vol 189, Issue 40 > > An equation that captures the theory of > > the adjacent possible is available. > > I have recently been reminded that Quine, in "On What There Is", posed the > question (presumably rhetorical and/or tendentious; my reminder came in > the form of just the following sentence with attribution but no other > context, and I haven't yet been moved to actually look up that context) > "How many possible men are there in that doorway?" However many there > are, I presume some are more adjacent than others. Perhaps Quine's > question should be revived to be about possible girls-next-door. > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Merle Lefkoff <merlelefk...@gmail.com> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2019 13:23:42 -0600 > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Friam Digest, Vol 189, Issue 40 > "girls" are usually more adjacent than men. > > On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 1:13 PM <lrudo...@meganet.net> wrote: > >> > An equation that captures the theory of >> > the adjacent possible is available. >> >> I have recently been reminded that Quine, in "On What There Is", posed the >> question (presumably rhetorical and/or tendentious; my reminder came in >> the form of just the following sentence with attribution but no other >> context, and I haven't yet been moved to actually look up that context) >> "How many possible men are there in that doorway?" However many there >> are, I presume some are more adjacent than others. Perhaps Quine's >> question should be revived to be about possible girls-next-door. >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> > > > -- > Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D. > President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy > emergentdiplomacy.org > Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA > merlelefk...@gmail.com <merlelef...@gmail.com> > mobile: (303) 859-5609 > skype: merle.lelfkoff2 > twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: glen <geprope...@gmail.com> > To: friam@redfish.com > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2019 14:25:14 -0700 > Subject: [FRIAM] new studies confirm existence galaxies > almost-no-dark-matter > > https://news.yale.edu/2019/03/29/new-studies-confirm-existence-galaxies-almost-no-dark-matter > > > The finding was highly significant because it showed that dark matter is > not always associated with traditional matter on a galactic scale. It also > ruled out several theories that said dark matter is not a substance but a > manifestation of the laws of gravity on a cosmic scale. > -- > glen > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Gillian Densmore <gil.densm...@gmail.com> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2019 17:24:41 -0600 > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] new studies confirm existence galaxies > almost-no-dark-matter > So it's possible that what we think of as dark matter could be more to do > with a whole lot of magnets/lots and lots and lots of gravity energy and > makes things go weird? > Or weirder? > > On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 3:25 PM glen <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> https://news.yale.edu/2019/03/29/new-studies-confirm-existence-galaxies-almost-no-dark-matter >> >> > The finding was highly significant because it showed that dark matter >> is not always associated with traditional matter on a galactic scale. It >> also ruled out several theories that said dark matter is not a substance >> but a manifestation of the laws of gravity on a cosmic scale. >> -- >> glen >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: David Eric Smith <desm...@santafe.edu> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 08:32:01 +0900 > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] new studies confirm existence galaxies > almost-no-dark-matter > Thank you for this Glen, > > This is a really great result, which I had not been following. > > Eric > > > > On Apr 1, 2019, at 6:25 AM, glen <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > https://news.yale.edu/2019/03/29/new-studies-confirm-existence-galaxies-almost-no-dark-matter > > > >> The finding was highly significant because it showed that dark matter > is not always associated with traditional matter on a galactic scale. It > also ruled out several theories that said dark matter is not a substance > but a manifestation of the laws of gravity on a cosmic scale. > > -- > > glen > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" < > friam@redfish.com> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2019 23:20:46 -0600 > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Friam Digest, Vol 189, Issue 40 > > While we are all flinging around jargon and links, am I so wrong to say > that “nudges > <https://www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happiness/dp/014311526X>” > are a way of moving to the adjacent possible? > > > > Speakingof the non-adjacent impossible, I woke up the other morning with a > fantasy of being in some sort large community meeting, and standing up and > asking the question: > > > > *"Why **èexactly**ç is it that everybody shouldn't have the same annual > income?"* > > > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of > lrudo...@meganet.net > Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 1:04 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Friam Digest, Vol 189, Issue 40 > > > > > Adjacent possibles are neighborhoods in a comonad. > > > > You're just trying to get a rise out of Nick, right? > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" < > friam@redfish.com> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 01:04:36 -0600 > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] > 15555-10253-closing-a-gap-to-normal-hearing---white-paper.pdf > > I will have to look at these. They can’t parse words on first hearing, > can they? Mike knows a little about this area and he has told me some, > but I need to know more. What I think he has told me is that a relatively > primitive input with relatively few leads gives a tremendous benefit, much > more than one would expect from the complexity of the cochlea itself. > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Frank > Wimberly > *Sent:* Sunday, March 31, 2019 12:08 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < > friam@redfish.com> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] > 15555-10253-closing-a-gap-to-normal-hearing---white-paper.pdf > > > > Except for the young children. They some and laugh. > > ----------------------------------- > Frank Wimberly > > My memoir: > https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly > > My scientific publications: > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 > > Phone (505) 670-9918 > > > > On Sun, Mar 31, 2019, 11:55 AM Frank Wimberly <wimber...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Nick, > > > > Have you read about cochlear implant surgery? When I worked at Eye and > Ear Hospital of Pittsburgh, the lab I worked in was doing early research in > the area. These are pieces of hardware that transform sound into > electrical signals meaningful to the brain. > > > > Have you seen the videos of people who have been deaf since birth who get > such a device. They inevitably sob when they hear sound for the first time. > > > > Frank > > ----------------------------------- > Frank Wimberly > > My memoir: > https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly > > My scientific publications: > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 > > Phone (505) 670-9918 > > > > On Sun, Mar 31, 2019, 11:23 AM Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote: > > Hi, Everybody, > > > > In the home congregation, we have had many interesting conversations about > hearing in difficult environments, a conversation not only of intense > interest to people interested in computer analysis and representation of > sounds but also to a bunch of old guys shouting at each other in a crowded > college dining area surrounded by hard surfaces. Recently, we have been > trying to assemble our limited knowledge of the cochlea and to grasp the > fact that it is not a bank of discrete resonators doing a Fourier > Transform, but an innervated sliver of meat with liquid on both sides > coiled up in a tiny snail shell. We are eager for any signs that a > hearing aid company has started to reach beyond differential amplification > by means of FFT to actually focusing on the cues that really matter for > speech comprehension. > > > > Anyway, …. Anyway….. . I skimmed through the “white paper” below and > thought that, even though it is “captive” research, it had some interesting > features. Consequently, I thought I would pass it around to the list > before I lost track of it. My friend Jon Zingale accuses me of crowd > sourcing my reading and that is EXACTLY what I am doing. So, beware. > > > > > https://wdh.azureedge.net/-/media/oticon-us/main/download-center/white-papers/15555-10253-closing-a-gap-to-normal-hearing---white-paper.pdf?la=en&rev=0FC7&hash=B7D7D58F75093770CA7E148F72520C1D6BE28CB1 > > If anybody on the list knows of somebody doing advanced research on how > the cochlea passes sound on to the brain and how the brain analyses it, we > would love to hear from that person. > > > > And has for you young folks who think this will never happen to you: have > you noticed that your students and young associates and your daughter’s > boyfriends MUMBLE. The moment you find yourself saying, “Curse these > millennials, why don’t they speak up like normal people,” you should be > taking an interest in hearing technology. > > > > Just sayin’ > > > > N > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "glen∈ℂ" <geprope...@gmail.com> > To: friam@redfish.com > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 01:55:55 -0700 > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] new studies confirm existence galaxies > almost-no-dark-matter > I'm not sure how magnetism plays into all this. But it is interesting > that these are ultra diffuse galaxies. Maybe there is something wrong with > how we extrapolate the rules in flat space to the rules in very bent space, > where everything gets so weird. It seems (to me) that a regular galaxy > would be more like a colloidal solution, with lots of little clumps of bent > space (heavy things like brown dwarves[†] and such). Such a pock-marked, > bristly, region of space must be more difficult to model than something > relatively well-behaved like an ultra diffuse galaxy. Right? In the > vicinity of "almost singularities" (very heavy objects), any measurement or > calculation error will have more of an impact on the result. > > [†] I forgot to turn off the real-time spell checker on this new-to-me > computer and, lo and behold, "dwarves" is not the plural of "dwarf"! WTF? > https://grammarist.com/usage/dwarfs-dwarves/ tells me it's a neologism > popularized by Tolkien. So, by using it, I'm wearing my Dork on my sleeve. > > On 3/31/19 4:24 PM, Gillian Densmore wrote: > > So it's possible that what we think of as dark matter could be more to do > > with a whole lot of magnets/lots and lots and lots of gravity energy and > > makes things go weird? > > Or weirder? > > > > On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 3:25 PM glen <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> > https://news.yale.edu/2019/03/29/new-studies-confirm-existence-galaxies-almost-no-dark-matter > >> > >>> The finding was highly significant because it showed that dark matter > is > >> not always associated with traditional matter on a galactic scale. It > also > >> ruled out several theories that said dark matter is not a substance but > a > >> manifestation of the laws of gravity on a cosmic scale. > >> -- > >> glen > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Eric Smith <desm...@santafe.edu> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:14:15 +0900 > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] new studies confirm existence galaxies > almost-no-dark-matter > Hi Glen and Gil, > > What you have below, Glen, is right I think. To begin with the summary, > and put the TLDR afterward, it looks like these diffuse-galaxy results say > that gravity stays a clean theory, and we need to identify the origin and > nature of dark matter as a separate thing. While a hard problem, it is a > problem that respects the structure of physics as we have been using it. > Gravity is gravity, we can treat matter as “living on it” at all the > energies where we have ever done physics, and we need to figure out how > they unify, which we don’t really have a theory for at all, but which we > have good reason to believe only comes into play at extremely high > energies. > > The longer version: > > We know Einstein’s GR not only changes the picture of gravity from > Newton’s, but for comparable predictions (locations and rates of orbits, > their stability, etc.) it requires corrections from Newtonian gravity in > the strong-field regime. The calculations become complicated and hard to > do with pencil and paper, but this is okay, because once it is in its > geometric language, the Einstein version is in a conceptual sense “cleaner” > than the Newtonian version. > > The above view says that Newton becomes a better and better approximation > to Einstein the weaker the field gets. On the whole, galaxy dynamics on > the large scale is governed by very weak fields. So for the > radius-dependence of orbital velocities to deviate far from the Newtonian > prediction (as they do in most known galaxies) requires either ordinary > gravitation with out-of-the-ordinary matter, or a _different_ deviation > from Newton, which would exist in the weak-field limit, but only become > visible on very large scales. Since Einstein -> Newton in the very weak > field limit, the latter possibility would require a deviation from Einstein > too. I am not sure that could be done conceptually “cleanly” in the same > way GR is clean. > > So to find that the diffuse galaxies lacking dark matter go back to > orbital predictions that converge to weak-field Einstein with no Dark > Matter, which is also weak-field Newton with no DM, favors the > interpretation that gravity really is just gravity, and that we have to > figure out where some additional matter is coming from, just as the > accelerating expansion tells us we have to figure out where some “Dark > energy” is coming from. The cosmological constant is an important lynchpin > because it is the only observation about the structure of the vacuum for > which we really don’t have a “theory” at all. Anything else we can measure > is handled well by standard model physics, though with still some > unexplained parameters. > > In a way, this result is the one that could have been expected. There are > now lots of images from gravitational lensing that show “clouds” of DM > off-center from galaxies that we can see in the visible. This especially > happens when galaxies collide. So DM was behaving like matter already, and > it is not very surprising to see that maybe it could be all-but-stripped > from a galaxy, leaving only a scattering of visible matter. It would not > surprise me if at some point somebody can show that it was a long-ago > collision that did this stripping, and much later the diffuse ball of stars > re-settled to an ellipsoid. > > Keep in mind, in all of this, that the strong-field limit of GR is getting > better and better constrained with the gravitational-wave detections, in > addition to all the astrophysical stuff that it has successfully modeled > for decades. So some muddying of GR that only shows up at weak fields > would be strange. > > Finally, n.b. that my understanding of this doesn’t qualify as > professional — I got off the train too soon. But I think everything I have > said above is a correct account. > > All best, > > Eric > > > > On Apr 1, 2019, at 5:55 PM, glen∈ℂ <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I'm not sure how magnetism plays into all this. But it is interesting > that these are ultra diffuse galaxies. Maybe there is something wrong with > how we extrapolate the rules in flat space to the rules in very bent space, > where everything gets so weird. It seems (to me) that a regular galaxy > would be more like a colloidal solution, with lots of little clumps of bent > space (heavy things like brown dwarves[†] and such). Such a pock-marked, > bristly, region of space must be more difficult to model than something > relatively well-behaved like an ultra diffuse galaxy. Right? In the > vicinity of "almost singularities" (very heavy objects), any measurement or > calculation error will have more of an impact on the result. > > > > [†] I forgot to turn off the real-time spell checker on this new-to-me > computer and, lo and behold, "dwarves" is not the plural of "dwarf"! WTF? > https://grammarist.com/usage/dwarfs-dwarves/ tells me it's a neologism > popularized by Tolkien. So, by using it, I'm wearing my Dork on my sleeve. > > > > On 3/31/19 4:24 PM, Gillian Densmore wrote: > >> So it's possible that what we think of as dark matter could be more to > do > >> with a whole lot of magnets/lots and lots and lots of gravity energy and > >> makes things go weird? > >> Or weirder? > >> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 3:25 PM glen <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > https://news.yale.edu/2019/03/29/new-studies-confirm-existence-galaxies-almost-no-dark-matter > >>> > >>>> The finding was highly significant because it showed that dark matter > is > >>> not always associated with traditional matter on a galactic scale. It > also > >>> ruled out several theories that said dark matter is not a substance > but a > >>> manifestation of the laws of gravity on a cosmic scale. > >>> -- > >>> glen > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "glen∈ℂ" <geprope...@gmail.com> > To: friam@redfish.com > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 03:03:25 -0700 > Subject: [FRIAM] math-induced vs. math-described creativity (was Re: > TheoremDep) > There's a lot to respond to, as always. But, also as always, I'm most > attracted to potential conflict. 8^) And I'm going to be offensive and > claim to know you better than you know yourself. >8^D > > I'd argue that your personal creativity as a kid wasn't based in math, but > based in something more concrete like your physiology and brain wiring. > The math simply turned out to facilitate whatever twitch you'd already > manifested. I'll try to use my go-to anecdote to make my point clearer. > As a kid, my dad consistently accused me of "making excuses" in stead of > "providing reasons". He saw some non-ambiguity in the (social) world that > I never saw (still don't see to this day). Had he been more *logically* > inclined, he might have been able to make the distinction clear to me. > After I learned some of the concepts from control theory, I began to > realize he (as a former drill sergeant and practicing Catholic) understood > personal responsibility as a very interactive, dynamically controlled, > always on the lookout, theistic, process. I tend to be a bit more > essentialist and look for critical paths, shaving off the parts of the > system that may have less (or negligible) impact on the particular outcome > of interest/conflict. > > This intolerance for ambiguity, in me, manifested VERY early. From my > incompetent understanding of pop-psy like "All I really Need to Know, I > Learned in Kindergarten", my guess is math facilitated your innate > creativity as opposed to *founding/basing* your creativity. > > But my claim that math would be less successful describing creativity in > children than it is in, say, estimating the mass of ultra diffuse galaxies, > has more to do with the ambiguity (distinct from uncertainty) in how we > understand children. I suspect you would temporarily abide the claim that > a nerd kid who spends all her time playing video games can be just as > creative as a more artsy kid who spends her time making up songs on a > keyboard. If we were talking about *adults*, it would be trivial to parse > out, disambiguate, how one can be just as creative as another. But because > our understanding of development is so impoverished, it can be difficult to > *model* how a child meshes with (relaxes into) the control surface of a > keyboard versus that of a game console. > > It's not really because "creativity" is ill-defined. It's because > "children" is ill-defined. Creativity can (and has been) disambiguated in > various (inconsistent[†]) ways by various researchers. We've seen less > success disambiguating children. > > [†] And, contrary to popular belief, math allows for inconsistency. > > On 3/29/19 3:01 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: > > I would claim that more than a little of my own personal creativity was > > based IN mathematics as a child/adolescent. It was the abstract > > language of math that allowed me to see (and manipulate?) patterns > > across more disparate domains than "natural language" allowed. It > > wasn't the lack of ambiguity (because my clumsy application > > re-indroduced ambiguity) in Math that drew me, but the ease and > > expressiveness of abstraction. > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Frank Wimberly <wimber...@gmail.com> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 06:17:59 -0600 > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] > 15555-10253-closing-a-gap-to-normal-hearing---white-paper.pdf > I think some people can understand speech pretty quickly but I don't > know. The babies probably learn to do so as well as their age peers but I > don't know that either. Mike probably knows. > > Frank > > ----------------------------------- > Frank Wimberly > > My memoir: > https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly > > My scientific publications: > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 > > Phone (505) 670-9918 > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2019, 1:04 AM Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote: > >> I will have to look at these. They can’t parse words on first hearing, >> can they? Mike knows a little about this area and he has told me some, >> but I need to know more. What I think he has told me is that a relatively >> primitive input with relatively few leads gives a tremendous benefit, much >> more than one would expect from the complexity of the cochlea itself. >> >> >> >> Nicholas S. Thompson >> >> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology >> >> Clark University >> >> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Frank >> Wimberly >> *Sent:* Sunday, March 31, 2019 12:08 PM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >> friam@redfish.com> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] >> 15555-10253-closing-a-gap-to-normal-hearing---white-paper.pdf >> >> >> >> Except for the young children. They some and laugh. >> >> ----------------------------------- >> Frank Wimberly >> >> My memoir: >> https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly >> >> My scientific publications: >> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 >> >> Phone (505) 670-9918 >> >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019, 11:55 AM Frank Wimberly <wimber...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Nick, >> >> >> >> Have you read about cochlear implant surgery? When I worked at Eye and >> Ear Hospital of Pittsburgh, the lab I worked in was doing early research in >> the area. These are pieces of hardware that transform sound into >> electrical signals meaningful to the brain. >> >> >> >> Have you seen the videos of people who have been deaf since birth who get >> such a device. They inevitably sob when they hear sound for the first time. >> >> >> >> Frank >> >> ----------------------------------- >> Frank Wimberly >> >> My memoir: >> https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly >> >> My scientific publications: >> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 >> >> Phone (505) 670-9918 >> >> >> >> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019, 11:23 AM Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> >> wrote: >> >> Hi, Everybody, >> >> >> >> In the home congregation, we have had many interesting conversations >> about hearing in difficult environments, a conversation not only of intense >> interest to people interested in computer analysis and representation of >> sounds but also to a bunch of old guys shouting at each other in a crowded >> college dining area surrounded by hard surfaces. Recently, we have been >> trying to assemble our limited knowledge of the cochlea and to grasp the >> fact that it is not a bank of discrete resonators doing a Fourier >> Transform, but an innervated sliver of meat with liquid on both sides >> coiled up in a tiny snail shell. We are eager for any signs that a >> hearing aid company has started to reach beyond differential amplification >> by means of FFT to actually focusing on the cues that really matter for >> speech comprehension. >> >> >> >> Anyway, …. Anyway….. . I skimmed through the “white paper” below and >> thought that, even though it is “captive” research, it had some interesting >> features. Consequently, I thought I would pass it around to the list >> before I lost track of it. My friend Jon Zingale accuses me of crowd >> sourcing my reading and that is EXACTLY what I am doing. So, beware. >> >> >> >> >> https://wdh.azureedge.net/-/media/oticon-us/main/download-center/white-papers/15555-10253-closing-a-gap-to-normal-hearing---white-paper.pdf?la=en&rev=0FC7&hash=B7D7D58F75093770CA7E148F72520C1D6BE28CB1 >> >> If anybody on the list knows of somebody doing advanced research on how >> the cochlea passes sound on to the brain and how the brain analyses it, we >> would love to hear from that person. >> >> >> >> And has for you young folks who think this will never happen to you: >> have you noticed that your students and young associates and your >> daughter’s boyfriends MUMBLE. The moment you find yourself saying, “Curse >> these millennials, why don’t they speak up like normal people,” you should >> be taking an interest in hearing technology. >> >> >> >> Just sayin’ >> >> >> >> N >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: lrudo...@meganet.net > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 11:14:21 -0400 (EDT) > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] new studies confirm existence galaxies > almost-no-dark-matter > > https://grammarist.com/usage/dwarfs-dwarves/ tells me it's a neologism > > or, perhaps, a neoarchaeologism? > > > popularized by Tolkien. > > The OED's only record of it (in a usage citation for "dwarf, n.") is "1818 > W. Taylor in Monthly Mag. 46 26 The history of Laurin, king of the > dwarves." > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Steven A Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> > To: friam@redfish.com > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 09:17:42 -0600 > Subject: [FRIAM] Income Equality > > > On 3/31/19 11:20 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > > > Speakingof the non-adjacent impossible, I woke up the other morning with a > fantasy of being in some sort large community meeting, and standing up and > asking the question: > > > > *"Why **èexactly**ç is it that everybody shouldn't have the same annual > income?"* > > Try it and you will get a very quick and probably series of blunt answers. > > I've had my version of that fantasy and the next step in it is to find the > person in the room with the lowest income (the shabby homeless person > lurking in the back is a good start) (or just arbitrarily pick some one > standing next to you) and offer to "average incomes" with them. > Repeat. Not everyone will participate, maybe only those with "similar" > incomes will share, but the exercise would be useful, even with Monopoly > Money. > > Ultimately this can become a "sorting exercise". It would be much easier > to "share" what you have with someone just a little less well off than > you. As a bottom up exercise, (least wealthy shares with next least, > repeat) it might work well until you hit the big disparity gaps... The > billionaires won't want to share with the millionaires nor they with the > upper-middle-class but there might be a trickle-up effect that relieved a > LOT in the meantime. Just sayin'. > > I am in the midst (literally today) of a complex of "pay it forward" > exercises with friends, organizations and acquaintances who either are, or > support folks living in or near homelessness. A little bit of $$, Time, > Attention goes a *LONG* way with these folks. I'm not averaging my income > with them, but in the spirit of religious tithing, I probably do give order > 10% of my income and time to these kinds of exercises and *I* believe that > provides a several X leverage factor for what I do give. It can be > tedious, it can feel risky, it can be disappointing sometimes, but it feels > a lot more connected than writing a check to one of the big charities. I > AM a fan of some of those (many not), so don't want to dissuade that kind > of giving, just encourage more personal, local, engaged "sharing". > > -Socialist Steve > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Gillian Densmore <gil.densm...@gmail.com> > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 09:58:10 -0600 > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] new studies confirm existence galaxies > almost-no-dark-matter > Ok you my good sir make this make sense. Sorry for the confusion about my > magnetics anology btw. I find this kind of stuff fascinating. > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 3:14 AM Eric Smith <desm...@santafe.edu> wrote: > >> Hi Glen and Gil, >> >> What you have below, Glen, is right I think. To begin with the summary, >> and put the TLDR afterward, it looks like these diffuse-galaxy results say >> that gravity stays a clean theory, and we need to identify the origin and >> nature of dark matter as a separate thing. While a hard problem, it is a >> problem that respects the structure of physics as we have been using it. >> Gravity is gravity, we can treat matter as “living on it” at all the >> energies where we have ever done physics, and we need to figure out how >> they unify, which we don’t really have a theory for at all, but which we >> have good reason to believe only comes into play at extremely high >> energies. >> >> The longer version: >> >> We know Einstein’s GR not only changes the picture of gravity from >> Newton’s, but for comparable predictions (locations and rates of orbits, >> their stability, etc.) it requires corrections from Newtonian gravity in >> the strong-field regime. The calculations become complicated and hard to >> do with pencil and paper, but this is okay, because once it is in its >> geometric language, the Einstein version is in a conceptual sense “cleaner” >> than the Newtonian version. >> >> The above view says that Newton becomes a better and better approximation >> to Einstein the weaker the field gets. On the whole, galaxy dynamics on >> the large scale is governed by very weak fields. So for the >> radius-dependence of orbital velocities to deviate far from the Newtonian >> prediction (as they do in most known galaxies) requires either ordinary >> gravitation with out-of-the-ordinary matter, or a _different_ deviation >> from Newton, which would exist in the weak-field limit, but only become >> visible on very large scales. Since Einstein -> Newton in the very weak >> field limit, the latter possibility would require a deviation from Einstein >> too. I am not sure that could be done conceptually “cleanly” in the same >> way GR is clean. >> >> So to find that the diffuse galaxies lacking dark matter go back to >> orbital predictions that converge to weak-field Einstein with no Dark >> Matter, which is also weak-field Newton with no DM, favors the >> interpretation that gravity really is just gravity, and that we have to >> figure out where some additional matter is coming from, just as the >> accelerating expansion tells us we have to figure out where some “Dark >> energy” is coming from. The cosmological constant is an important lynchpin >> because it is the only observation about the structure of the vacuum for >> which we really don’t have a “theory” at all. Anything else we can measure >> is handled well by standard model physics, though with still some >> unexplained parameters. >> >> In a way, this result is the one that could have been expected. There >> are now lots of images from gravitational lensing that show “clouds” of DM >> off-center from galaxies that we can see in the visible. This especially >> happens when galaxies collide. So DM was behaving like matter already, and >> it is not very surprising to see that maybe it could be all-but-stripped >> from a galaxy, leaving only a scattering of visible matter. It would not >> surprise me if at some point somebody can show that it was a long-ago >> collision that did this stripping, and much later the diffuse ball of stars >> re-settled to an ellipsoid. >> >> Keep in mind, in all of this, that the strong-field limit of GR is >> getting better and better constrained with the gravitational-wave >> detections, in addition to all the astrophysical stuff that it has >> successfully modeled for decades. So some muddying of GR that only shows >> up at weak fields would be strange. >> >> Finally, n.b. that my understanding of this doesn’t qualify as >> professional — I got off the train too soon. But I think everything I have >> said above is a correct account. >> >> All best, >> >> Eric >> >> >> > On Apr 1, 2019, at 5:55 PM, glen∈ℂ <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > I'm not sure how magnetism plays into all this. But it is interesting >> that these are ultra diffuse galaxies. Maybe there is something wrong with >> how we extrapolate the rules in flat space to the rules in very bent space, >> where everything gets so weird. It seems (to me) that a regular galaxy >> would be more like a colloidal solution, with lots of little clumps of bent >> space (heavy things like brown dwarves[†] and such). Such a pock-marked, >> bristly, region of space must be more difficult to model than something >> relatively well-behaved like an ultra diffuse galaxy. Right? In the >> vicinity of "almost singularities" (very heavy objects), any measurement or >> calculation error will have more of an impact on the result. >> > >> > [†] I forgot to turn off the real-time spell checker on this new-to-me >> computer and, lo and behold, "dwarves" is not the plural of "dwarf"! WTF? >> https://grammarist.com/usage/dwarfs-dwarves/ tells me it's a neologism >> popularized by Tolkien. So, by using it, I'm wearing my Dork on my sleeve. >> > >> > On 3/31/19 4:24 PM, Gillian Densmore wrote: >> >> So it's possible that what we think of as dark matter could be more to >> do >> >> with a whole lot of magnets/lots and lots and lots of gravity energy >> and >> >> makes things go weird? >> >> Or weirder? >> >> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 3:25 PM glen <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> https://news.yale.edu/2019/03/29/new-studies-confirm-existence-galaxies-almost-no-dark-matter >> >>> >> >>>> The finding was highly significant because it showed that dark >> matter is >> >>> not always associated with traditional matter on a galactic scale. It >> also >> >>> ruled out several theories that said dark matter is not a substance >> but a >> >>> manifestation of the laws of gravity on a cosmic scale. >> >>> -- >> >>> glen >> > >> > ============================================================ >> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> >> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> > _______________________________________________ > Friam mailing list > Friam@redfish.com > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
