|killJoy| do you have any topic you'd like to joust? Otherwise to bed to bed, or off with head or something. <|killjoy|> ok, how's this: in any system of sufficient size and complexity stabilities will form through random means...t/f? what do you mean by stabilities? Self organizing <|killjoy|> stable subsystems attractors <|killjoy|> not necessarily it is the mathematical term what do you mean by random means? <|killjoy|> even if it's a subsystem formed by the only components equally repelled by the rest of the system, but not by each other? Sort of like a glass of sand, which you shake. <|killjoy|> yep, or proteins in a primoridal ocean, or universes Or cereal in a freight car. <|killjoy|> yep, 'any' system kj: linear systems do not do that only non-linear systems will Only systems that have differentiation? or I should say that in general, linear systems will not <|killjoy|> it seems to me that if it's linear it's not a system, but a process differentiation is a linear operator kj: there are linear systems <|killjoy|> this is new to me, give me an example addition: linear schroedingers equation: linear <|killjoy|> that's not a system, that's a construct mathematically speaking there is no difference real gas in a jar, non-linear <|killjoy|> he who defines the terms controls the dogma <|killjoy|> as opposed to imaginary gas? but even the gas, if non-reactive, will not self organize. additional restrictions are needed So when is entropy overcome then (NOT), so it requires energy to organize. as opposed to an ideal gas <|killjoy|> organization could be from the result of energy loss Then in a closed system, differential decay organizes. <|killjoy|> perhaps real gas in a jar is of insufficient size and complexity Ord: what do you mean by differential decay? khj: you can make the jar as large as you want <|killjoy|> i shouldn't go for walks, this just came to me today when i was out walking Not everything changes at the same rate. as long as the gas is non-reactive it will not self-organize <|killjoy|> fr8: but it would always be non-complex killjoy: non-complex compared to what? how are you defining complexity? <|killjoy|> perhaps i should say insufficiently complex but still, the definition of complexity is important here so we know what we are rambling on about <|killjoy|> no, the surest way to kill any concept is to dissect each word kj: unless the definitions of the words are clear, communication is impossible dissecting each word may kill a conversation; however it will not kill the concept if the concept is sound <|killjoy|> we're communicating very well, well enough to debate this but we are getting no where but then again, your question is an important one and complexity does have a formal definition :-) basically, the question is this: is there an attractor or many attractors in the system. But a Bose-Einstein Condensate would probably organize itself, so an ideal gas under what conditions.-> so that Bosons versus (whatever they call them) which would do the opposite. <|killjoy|> how about "any physical system with sufficient size and complexity will develop stable subsystems"? Nope. and is there gaurnateed to be an attractor given sufficient complexity for any configuration of system "evolutions" Depends on content. <|killjoy|> not vague enough? Ord: ideal gas is a referent to a classical simplification of the behavior of gasses, i.e., P*V = nRT. Yes, by definition. a Bose-Einstein condensate is self organized by definition pv=nRT does not apply in general to quantum weirdness. ;-) So would a group of photon self Organize - probably. depends <|killjoy|> actually i'm having second thoughts about the physical part, since social systems behave the same, so perhaps linear systems by their very limitation are insufficiently complex kj: *shrug* Entropy striikes again I think. Ord: how so? <|killjoy|> i just thought i might have found a logically acceptable definition of god To account for when a system self organizes. kj: I dont think there are any social systems that can be described with much precision by a linear system so I think you are safe. ;-) Ord: In what respect? What systems can you think of that are one way? 2nd law was what I thought of. the breaking of glass; one way the release of poison; one way the death of a cat; one way Same thing. <|killjoy|> if my statement (size+complexity=stable subsystems) turns out to be true, true enough to be proven or at least accepted, then that might be a good definition of god (as a process, not a being) What we percieve as time. kj: we organize stuff, can we be god too? You can be if you want to be. <|killjoy|> fr8: i can't claim stability, can you? <|killjoy|> also, we're not processes kj: I'm hardly stable My protons will be here longer than I will. All of them, it would be a fluke even if one decayed while I was alive. <|killjoy|> i might have hit upon the beginnings of the second declaration of my new religion anyway, it is interesting to note that the popular association of increased entropy with structural order is not, in general, a rule. I don't think we can call it the killjoy religion. <|killjoy|> nah, i'll be long dead before it rules the world :) I agree freightoi, but associated somehow. Maybe no. simple example: metals the material forms a lattice; it organizes; heat it up and it condenses into a nice lattice; the atoms are very ordered But then fluids are different, how about an association with phases. yes, indeed phases are important Gas, liquid, plasma versus solids and bosons. <|killjoy|> if dissecting individual words can kill a conversation, couldn't dissecting individual processes kill the larger process? plasmas (if you accept that as a phase, many don't) anyway, heat up a metal, cool it down in a closed system, entropy goes up, metal is ordered. what gives? ;-) Yes, but it is not a rule, it's just like set theory. <|killjoy|> not seeing the forest for the quarks in one atom of one leaf Ord: phase has a rigorous definition related to singularities in aspects of the system. plasma results in one such singularity. KJ: or the electrons in the case of a metal Plasma has the electron completly stripped. Free that is <|killjoy|> then again, intense close focus could be a form of avoidance yeah kj: u calling me anal? ;-) Uh oh. <|killjoy|> what's the opposite of anal? penile? Opposite dwarf. <|killjoy|> anal is a term that gets much more use than it should, but it seems it should have an opposing concept Ord: actually a plasma results when the valence electrons are striped, the core electrons are most likely still in place in most plasmas made with heavier elements. I vote for penile all in favor say fuck <|killjoy|> penile doesn't make much sense, given the meaning of anal sure it does Aren't even the core electron raised out of their normal base states? instead of being stuck in the anal phase, the penile person is stuck in the, hey, what is this, its realy cool, I'm gonna play with it all day long, phase Ord: they can be but that is not a requirement <|killjoy|> anal comes from the act of infants not wanting to let go of their feces, how would you draw a parallel to penile? killjoy: in broader terms it refers to a failure of the infant to evolve past a given phase At least I didn't start this one. <|killjoy|> i've never heard it used in any other context other than the refusal to let go the attributes of that phase vary along the devolopment cycle of the infant Well how about simply anti-anal. KJ: in the penile stage the subject, will let it go...go stick into everything else that is nope <|killjoy|> the actual term is 'anal retentive', so someone once suggested 'anal expulsive', but i don't know if there's any real human act associated with that boring Diarrhea yeah, it is called copraphasia <|killjoy|> that's a tad literal or skatatology amoung the practisioners or just skat for short or just fucking disgusting <|killjoy|> perhaps you mean coprophilia? <|killjoy|> you've just demonstrated coprolalia :) coprophillia is a fascination of poop, coprophasia is the desire to eat it <|killjoy|> i'm glad i'm not familiar with that term then :) heheheheheheh <|killjoy|> i wonder if that applies to the recent fad of urine drinking? so, instead of failing to let it out, it is eagerly allowed in. hmmm, perhaps not opposites. nope completely different OK, stop please. hehehehehehehe fresh pee was used as a disinfectant in the civil war <|killjoy|> you prefer eschatology to scatology? :) Apparently. I'll use beer. sewing machine add <|killjoy|> assuming the donor is healthy it would be better than water from a puddle blach indeed pee is your friend :-) * |killjoy| is learning a bit too much about fr8 tonight :) hehehehehehehehe oh, don't mind me. I have kids. bodily functions mean little to me anymore. How about self-ordeing systems - when does it occur? <|killjoy|> i'm not really happy with that term, but it occurs everywhere when a sufficiently deep attractor appears :-) I've had kids, and it still grosses me out. Ord: do you change the diapers? <|killjoy|> i also don't like limiting it to attractors As little as possible. kj: attractor is just the term. That is what it is called in mathematics. <|killjoy|> which is why i avoid mathematics wimp ;-) Ok, do all solids follow this premise? Henon attractor... that is a strange attractor indeed. a subset of attractors <|killjoy|> an eddy in a stream would be a steady subsystem, with no attractants involved No the diaper is not an attractor. remind me what an eddy is, is it a whorl of sorts? * Skyman shivers <|killjoy|> yeah, those little whirlpools hehehe, those are most certainly attractors Even liquids requird energy to organize. remember, attractor does not mean there is some magnet sitting there bringing the stuff in Define attractor. <|killjoy|> interesting how everyone tries to bring in their favorite science Ord: except hyperfluids :-) math is not a science <|killjoy|> if your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail Excuse me while I drink some liquid helium. amen, KJ if you are talking about the evolution of physical systems and wish to communicate those ideas in a rigorous manner then mathematics is the tool o choice. I thought I told you the reason for my nick. <|killjoy|> rigorous science is a tool of destruction The Only Tool : hammer. kj: ur being silly now <|killjoy|> fr8: not at all yes, you are <|killjoy|> no i'm not^infinity :) you are attempting a scientific inquiry into the nature of reality and branding science a tool of destruction. The favorite tool of physics. Accelerate it as much as possible and then crash it together. hehehehehe <|killjoy|> science is simply a religion with extremely specific dogma oh brother Don't we all take things apart. sure kj, what ever. have a good evening *** freightoi has left channel #mensa <|killjoy|> he gave up far too easily Unusual. He's normally very persistant. <|killjoy|> not the first time we've had that convo :) Well, thank you |killJoy|, I am heading off for bed, I have though about your idea before, but the lines eluded me. Criteria that is. <|killjoy|> pleasant dreams, i'll be off as well