"J-word"? ----------------------------------- 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, 11:55 AM Jon Zingale <jonzing...@gmail.com> wrote: > @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 >
============================================================ 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
