ESMB Poster "David Mayo"

David Mayo

Patron with Honors
That's the second time you joke about your "fuzzy mind". I remember CBR used, as one of the rare instances where I raised my mental eyebrows on his evaluations, to speak mocking of fuzzy logic.

Do you also think that precise logic is desirable, but one should know that one will never reach it? (Except that one never should think never, of course.)

I wasn't joking. Nor would I joke about fuzzy logic; it is a very workable technology. I believe human minds use fuzzy logic --as well as other very sophisticated methods of thinking.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
I wasn't joking. Nor would I joke about fuzzy logic; it is a very workable technology. I believe human minds use fuzzy logic --as well as other very sophisticated methods of thinking.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Well, I agree with the 'fuzzy' part. I'm not so agreeable about the 'logic'. :whistling:


Mark A. Baker
 

Dean Blair

Silver Meritorious Patron
David Mayo

That was her maiden name. Became Sandy Wilhere. I've recently heard that she is still in SO.

D:bigcry:

I knew Sandy Wilhere quite well. She was the senior CS at AOLA. She went up lines to INT with Greg and she has since died. I believe she contracted multiple sclerosis. She was not being utilized as a tech person for a long time. I was sad to read that she passed away so unceremoniously. She was also good friends with Barbara Thompkins.
 

Caliwog

Patron Meritorious
I hope they don't allow smoking on the premisses.

I would imagine they would have trouble attracting Scientology business if they didn't.

That's one thing that always amuses me - Scientology seems to have a higher percentage of cigarette smokers than the rest of society. Surely they can't all be dramatizing a volcano or trying to ward off cancer...

ML,
Caliwog
http://caliwog.wordpress.com
 

By Design

Patron
What would be warping the space? :whistling:

Seriously, in accordance with einstein: matter/energy is what accounts for the curvature ('warping') of space-time. Where there is spatial warping there is matter/energy and vice versa.

As to how do you distinguish 'dark matter' from 'dark energy' when you can't directly detect either.... :confused2:

The 'go to guy' on that for the board would be 'Student of Trinity'. he's a physicist & professor at Trinity College as well as a sceptic on all things involving the 'S' word.


Mark A. Baker


This is no longer entirely relevant, but I didn't get to this thread a few pages back when dark energy and matter were being discussed, so pardon the digression here. The other caveat is that I'm also a layman.

Re: dark matter -- just about every version of the standard model predicts the existence of particles that are either weakly interactive or entirely non-interactive. We know that galaxies are much more dense and heavier than can be accounted for by counting up all the lit matter in them (by several orders of magnitude). As Mark Baker pointed out, the degree of warping observed around distant galaxies (measured via gravitational lensing) is one of the indicators of unaccounted-for density. We also know that their rotational spin implies (in the strictest sense) more matter than we can see (including all the blackholes, the behaviors and motions of which we can infer by observation of stars around them). We have very good reason to suspect (as mentioned) the existence of particles which can be densely packed yet unlit, particles which allow photons to pass right through them, and if we're correct then they fit the bill as the best explanation.

Re: dark energy -- it's not the same as dark matter, nor could it ever be mistaken for it. Dark energy is the repulsive force responsible for the expansion of the universe (also observed). On very small scales, it is so small as to be negligible. However, across large scales, one can see its effects on objects large enough and diffuse enough (meaning gravity loses out and those objects drift further and further apart with, from their own perspective, greater and greater velocity). It has been measured out to I don't know how many decimal places. Most recently, Steven Weinberg famously used the Anthropic Principle to predict the upper and lower bounds of the dark energy constant, something that has now sparked a furious debate between proponents of rival cosmological theories (referring here to Lee Smolin's Cosmological Natural Selection model vs Leonard Susskind and the Eternal Inflation model). The details of that fascinating debate can be found here.

As a sidenote, in response to others in this thread, I don't think it's quite fair to challenge whether the above constitutes 'observation', unless one is equally skeptical of such things as the existence of exosolar planets (indirectly observed by their gravitational effects on stars) or the orbital path of Pluto (which has yet to be completed since its discovery). Not quite the same as the inferences of dark matter or dark energy, but the difference is one of degree rather than kind, imo.

Also, welcome, David!
 
Last edited:

By Design

Patron
I believe human minds use fuzzy logic --as well as other very sophisticated methods of thinking.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

It's looking increasingly likely that this is the case, and that the kind of sentential thinking we've always fancied ourselves doing is largely a rarity in our daily lives. That's not to say that we can't force ourselves into particular modes of formal rules-governed thought; obviously mathematicians and logicians do it all the time. It's just to say that our workaday thinking is not of this sort, if the behaviors and workings of neural networks (which the brain undoubtedly is) are any indication. Natural selection is a cheap, blind bitch, and a heuristic computational system is a shortcut that satis-ffices in the ancient environment in which our brains were shaped.
 
... Re: dark energy -- it's not the same as dark matter, nor could it ever be mistaken for it. Dark energy is the repulsive force responsible for the expansion of the universe (also observed). ...

Strictly speaking, no it isn't. Dark energy is an (key word) hypothetical explanation which has been proffered to account for this observed anomaly. The actual 'dark energy' has not been observed, nor does it 'fall naturally' out of any physical existing theory. What has been observed is the apparent presence of a greater 'repulsive effect' than for which can otherwise be accounted by existing verified physical theory.

Challenging the character of 'observations' is always 'fair' with regard to the physical sciences. It is an important part of the empirical methodology.

It is also a very different standard to measure the characteristics of an unseen but inferred object by indirect observation of known physical properties. Much of modern physics went past the point of direct observation of significant physical phenomena a century ago. Nothing could be said concerning the properties of atomic structure or quantum mechanics except by reliance on indirect processes of measurement.

Not only are the properties of distant stars & planets commonly inferred by means of an indirect measurement, so are the properties of the atom, molecules, electron, proton, neutron, and almost all the 'observed' quanta. These are all 'detected' through their interactions with each other and their effects on larger 'macro' systems (e.g. brownian motion). [note: I believe the only known quantum level object which is capable of being observed 'directly' is the photon. Student of Trinity could confirm/refute this.]

Thus, in the case where the physics is well established and understood, the presence & behavior of the indirectly observed object is directly inferable and determinable from its effects on other objects in the system. No 'new physics' is required to explain the observations. Thus no 'mystery' exists.

In contrast, the belief in 'dark matter/energy' stems from an inability to account for an apparent measured cosmological anomaly by currently known & verifed physical theory. The actual cause of the anomaly therefore remains uncertain. Thus, no reasonable conclusions can be made affirming the 'actual truth' of such an interpretation. That situation will hold until such time as the relevant physics becomes fully understood and verified.


Mark A. Baker
 

paradox

ab intra silentio vera
Re dark this and that, particle zoos, and other esoteric mathematical modelling of the cosmos - check out this alternate viewpoint from Aussie, Wal Thornhill, one of the co-authors of The Electric Universe hypothesis and theory.

http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php

Wal's articles

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php

http://www.holoscience.com/news/news.htm

Wallace Thornhill (b. May 2, 1942) earned a degree in physics and electronics at the University of Melbourne, Australia, and began postgraduate studies. Before entering university he had been inspired by Immanuel Velikovsky's best-selling book, Worlds in Collision. However, the lack of curiosity and the frequent hostility toward this challenge to mainstream science convinced Thornhill to pursue an independent path outside academia.


http://www.velikovsky.info/Wallace_Thornhill
http://vimeo.com/5424007

Above Vimeo link - "This is the uncut version of The Electric Universe, a beautiful and alternative vision of the universe & the sun." Wal Thornhill, David Talbott, & Prof. Donald Scott.
 
Last edited:
It's looking increasingly likely that this is the case, and that the kind of sentential thinking we've always fancied ourselves doing is largely a rarity in our daily lives. That's not to say that we can't force ourselves into particular modes of formal rules-governed thought; obviously mathematicians and logicians do it all the time. It's just to say that our workaday thinking is not of this sort, if the behaviors and workings of neural networks (which the brain undoubtedly is) are any indication. Natural selection is a cheap, blind bitch, and a heuristic computational system is a shortcut that satis-ffices in the ancient environment in which our brains were shaped.

I don't buy it. Probabilistic based self-adaptive heuristic models are clever ways for creating algorithms for determining 'likely solutions', but there is nothing which relates them to the actual process of consciousness inherent to a mind. Sure a mathematician can develop & use such an algorithm. Yes, engineers are able to implement such algorithms in hardware. But nothing about that process implies consciousness in the device or the implementation. :no:

"I'm from Missouri. Show me." :waiting:

Meanwhile ....

:morecoffee:


Mark A. Baker
 

David Mayo

Patron with Honors
I knew Sandy Wilhere quite well. She was the senior CS at AOLA. She went up lines to INT with Greg and she has since died. I believe she contracted multiple sclerosis. She was not being utilized as a tech person for a long time. I was sad to read that she passed away so unceremoniously. She was also good friends with Barbara Thompkins.

I am very sorry to hear that. She was a good person, whom I've heard was badly treated.

D
 

David Mayo

Patron with Honors
I would imagine they would have trouble attracting Scientology business if they didn't.

That's one thing that always amuses me - Scientology seems to have a higher percentage of cigarette smokers than the rest of society. Surely they can't all be dramatizing a volcano or trying to ward off cancer...

ML,
Caliwog
http://caliwog.wordpress.com

Smoking: They were told that and other stories but there does seem to be a clear correlation between excessive smoking and the high percentage of cancer deaths.

D
 

David Mayo

Patron with Honors
This is no longer entirely relevant, but I didn't get to this thread a few pages back when dark energy and matter were being discussed, so pardon the digression here. The other caveat is that I'm also a layman.

Re: dark matter -- just about every version of the standard model predicts the existence of particles that are either weakly interactive or entirely non-interactive. We know that galaxies are much more dense and heavier than can be accounted for by counting up all the lit matter in them (by several orders of magnitude). As Mark Baker pointed out, the degree of warping observed around distant galaxies (measured via gravitational lensing) is one of the indicators of unaccounted-for density. We also know that their rotational spin implies (in the strictest sense) more matter than we can see (including all the blackholes, the behaviors and motions of which we can infer by observation of stars around them). We have very good reason to suspect (as mentioned) the existence of particles which can be densely packed yet unlit, particles which allow photons to pass right through them, and if we're correct then they fit the bill as the best explanation.

Re: dark energy -- it's not the same as dark matter, nor could it ever be mistaken for it. Dark energy is the repulsive force responsible for the expansion of the universe (also observed). On very small scales, it is so small as to be negligible. However, across large scales, one can see its effects on objects large enough and diffuse enough (meaning gravity loses out and those objects drift further and further apart with, from their own perspective, greater and greater velocity). It has been measured out to I don't know how many decimal places. Most recently, Steven Weinberg famously used the Anthropic Principle to predict the upper and lower bounds of the dark energy constant, something that has now sparked a furious debate between proponents of rival cosmological theories (referring here to Lee Smolin's Cosmological Natural Selection model vs Leonard Susskind and the Eternal Inflation model). The details of that fascinating debate can be found here.

As a sidenote, in response to others in this thread, I don't think it's quite fair to challenge whether the above constitutes 'observation', unless one is equally skeptical of such things as the existence of exosolar planets (indirectly observed by their gravitational effects on stars) or the orbital path of Pluto (which has yet to be completed since its discovery). Not quite the same as the inferences of dark matter or dark energy, but the difference is one of degree rather than kind, imo.

Also, welcome, David!

I will read and re-read this post until finally fully "get it"!

D
 

David Mayo

Patron with Honors
It's looking increasingly likely that this is the case, and that the kind of sentential thinking we've always fancied ourselves doing is largely a rarity in our daily lives. That's not to say that we can't force ourselves into particular modes of formal rules-governed thought; obviously mathematicians and logicians do it all the time. It's just to say that our workaday thinking is not of this sort, if the behaviors and workings of neural networks (which the brain undoubtedly is) are any indication. Natural selection is a cheap, blind bitch, and a heuristic computational system is a shortcut that satis-ffices in the ancient environment in which our brains were shaped.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
 

TG1

Angelic Poster
Re fuzzy logic, satisficing, etc.

For much fun, google and dive into a topic called "fast and frugal heuristics."

TG1
 

Hatshepsut

Crusader
Welcome Julie Mayo :dancer::dancer::dance3::hifive::party::party::party::party::party::party::woohoo::woohoo::flowers::rose::rose::rose::rose::rose::rose::cheers2::heartbeat::dance2::dance2::dance2::dance2::bighug:

You have selected to only receive messages from friends and have not yet befriended anybody. Can I be next?
 
Top