Re: Raving responds to Perplexed in Peoria - Part 1


On Sep 11, 3:40 pm, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Raving" <raving.loo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1189531932.600372.178680@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sep 11, 11:30 am, "Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"Raving" <raving.loo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:1189378917.596857.55270@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Sep 9, 3:43 pm, inhttp://tinyurl.com/36548k"Perplexed in Peoria"
<jimmene...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[Long, and to me incoherent preamble by Raving snipped by PiP]
[On a whole 'nother thread, Raving had written:
/snip/

Hmmm. A quote from Jaynes seems appropriate here. It is from section
20.5.1 of "Probability Theory: The Logic of Science". The section title
is "Final Causes". Jaynes writes:
/Jaynes quote is shifted down/

Now, I pretty much agree with this, though I am not sure that it
answers all questions. But my question to you, Raving, is whether
it seems that Jaynes is talking about the same subject as you are.
Because, if he isn't, then I must confess that I don't have a clue
what you are talking about.
My intuition concerning the *macroscopic* is to agree with Jaynes.
It's confusing enough <mumble, mumble>

Setting consideration of *macroscopic* aside. ...
Focusing in on the question of counting ...

Here are some links (Raving waves hands, sufficient for purpose.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumeration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degeneracy_%28mathematics%29

Introducing the notion of 'Statistical ensemble' ...

Raving's comments continue below the annotated Wiki paste-in and
annotated Jaynes down shift ...

Raving rudely annotated:
In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_ensemble Wikipedia wrote:
Statistical ensemble (mathematical physics)

In mathematical physics, especially as introduced into statistical
mechanics and thermodynamics by J. Willard Gibbs in 1878, an ensemble
(also statistical ensemble or thermodynamic ensemble) is an
idealization consisting of a large number of mental copies (sometimes
infinitely many) of a system, considered all at once, each of which
represents a possible state that the real system might be in. This
article treats the notion of ensembles in a mathematically rigorous
fashion, although relevant physical aspects will be mentioned.
A) Raving understands this to mean that the 'idealization' is milled
into a zillion fragments of sufficiently fine granularity such that
each fragment can be treated as temporally independent, one to
another, save for the INTENSELY IMPLICIT assumption that each fragment
connects *only* with it's corresponding IMMEDIATE neighbor(s) at the
granularity determined "delta T".

In the parlance of cellular automata ...

- ... and ripping prose from Wikipedia so as to be crisp in my
communication ...

- ... acknowledging and IGNORING that aliasing introduced by
discretization introduces distortion which propagates throughout the
analysis. ...

"..Time is also discrete, and the state of a cell at time t is a
function of the states of a finite number of cells (called its
neighborhood) at time t 1. These neighbors are a selection of cells
relative to the specified cell, and do not change (though the cell
itself may be in its neighborhood, it is not usually considered a
neighbor). Every cell has the same rule for updating, based on the
values in this neighbourhood. Each time the rules are applied to the
whole grid a new generation is created...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automata

B) Raving emphasizes that "biological process" brings, requires or
reveals a degeneracy to the 'statistical ensemble'

... explicitly, a conditional probability ... the codependent
outcomes of fragments/cells sufficiently removed by integrated
coupling of distance and time as to indicate degeneracy.

As in ...

'Action at a distance' .... ( yuk .. echoes of Rupert Drake)
'Faster than light' ... (yuk ... impossible.)
'Irreversibility' ... (yuk)

... theoretical physicists are 'supposed' to be O.K. with this. I'm
out of the loop but I suspect that then notion remains obscenely
offensive to their sense of order and harmony (????)

I am guessing that 'Irreversibility' *implies*, (pointing to it with
Jaynes words) ...

.... "The wielder of final cause is not suspending physical law; he is
merely choosing the Hamiltonian with which some system evolves
*according to physical law*. " ...

I infer that this means that the experiment that we call 'the
universe' is only run *once* and that irreversibility is indicative of
the fact that "Who gets where first" is IMPORTANT. Each moment sets
the scene for the moments that follow beyond that.

It seems to be *crucially* important to get these picky details nailed
down clearly. It will become even more apparent as I extend my
argument. I admit that I'm not certain that I have done a sufficiently
good job here .. or that confusion might be creeping back into play.
Nevertheless, continuing ...

/halted/

I live in a vacuum and have nothing to contribute.


Physical considerations

The ensemble formalises the notion that a physicist repeating an
experiment again and again under the same macroscopic conditions, but
unable to control the microscopic details, may expect to observe a
range of different outcomes.
C) Raving suspects that he problem

The notional size of the mental ensembles in thermodynamics,
statistical mechanics and quantum statistical mechanics can be very
large indeed, to include every possible microscopic state the system
could be in, consistent with its observed macroscopic properties. But
for important physical cases it can be possible to calculate averages
directly over the whole of the thermodynamic ensemble, to obtain
explicit formulas for many of the thermodynamic quantities of
interest, often in terms of the appropriate partition function (see
below). Some of these results are presented in the article Statistical
mechanics.

Note on terminology

* The word ensemble is also sometimes used for smaller sets of
possibilities, sampled from the full set of possible states. Thus for
example, an ensemble of walkers in a Markov chain Monte Carlo
iteration.

* The word ensemble is particularly used in thermodynamics; by
some physicists working in Bayesian probability theory; and by
mathematicians whose work in probability theory is heavily influenced
by physicists, especially those working on random matrices. Most
"pure" mathematicians working in probability theory do not use the
term, preferring to use the terminology of probability spaces.

Ensembles of classical mechanical systems

... The normalizing factor of the probability measure is referred to
as the partition function of the ensemble. Physically, the partition
function encodes the underlying physical structure of the system.

When the measure is time-independent, the ensemble is said to be
stationary. ...

Properties of "good" ensembles

The following properties are considered desirable for a classical
mechanical ensemble.

* Representativeness

The chosen probability measure on the phase space should be a Gibbs
state of the ensemble, i.e. it should be invariant under time
evolution. A standard example of this is the natural measure (locally,
it is just the Lebesgue measure) on a constant energy surface for a
classical mechanical system. Liouville's theorem states this measure
is invariant under the Hamiltonian flow.

* Ergodicity

==============[End Quoting]===========

Jaynes once wrote:

It seems that every discussion of scientific inference must deal,
sooner or later, with the issue of belief or disbelief in final
causes. Expressed views range all the way from Jacques Monod
forbidding us even to mention purpose in the Universe, to the
religious fundamantalist who insists it is evil not to believe
in such a purpose. We are astonished by the dogmatic, emotional
intensity with which opposite views are proclaimed, by persons
who do not have a shred of supporting factual evidence for their
position.

But almost everyone who has discussed this has supposed that by a
"final cause" one means some supernatural force that suspends natural
law and takes over control of events (that is, alters positions and
velocities of molecules in a way inconsistent with the equations
of motion) in order to ensure that some desired final condition
is attained. In our view, almost all past discussions have been
flawed by failure to recognize that operation of final cause does
not imply controlling molecular details.

... When a chemist imposes conditions on his system which forces it
to have a certain volume and temperature, he is ... truly the wielder
of a final cause dictating the final thermodynamic state that he
wished it to have. A bricklayer and cook are likewise engaged in
the art of invoking final causes for definite purposes. But - and
this is the point almost always missed - these final causes are
*macroscopic*; they do not determine any particular 'molecular'
details. In all cases, had those fine details been different in
any one of a billion ways, the final cause would have been satisfied
just as well.

The final cause may then be said to possess an entropy, indicating
the number of microscopic ways in which its purpose can be realized;
and the larger that entropy, the greater the probability that it
will be realized. ...

In other words, while the idea of a microscopic final cause runs
counter to all the instincts of a scientist, a macroscopic final
cause is a perfectly familiar and real phenomenon, which we all
invoke daily. ... The wielder of final cause is not suspending
physical law; he is merely choosing the Hamiltonian with which
some system evolves *according to physical law*. ...


---------------

Confident of WHAT?

I'll pause, here and wait for further response before attempting to
elaborate or summarize, further.

You are apparently not insane, but you are DRIVING ME CRAZY!

Would you please get to the fucking point and say what it is you
think you know and stop playing guessing games with clues leading
you to what you think you know?

Final warning.
Forgive me. Nothing personal, however I don't do abandonment too well
these days.

I have paid too high a price. I feel forced. I re-act and I go
stupid.

You may or may not see where I am going with what I have provided.

There is something wrong with the structure of the microscopic.

Biological entities make assumptions .. guess. This is based on
understanding of that which resides elsewhere. ... Of having an
implicit understanding of such.

Example: .. we implicitly expect to find like elsewhere in the
universe. We have some notion as to what to expect as a consequence of
life existing elsewhere. Notwithstanding our lack of knowing in a
real manner ( purely assumed ) we alter what we decide, accordingly.

Yes, this is at a ridiculously high level. Nevertheless, the same
expectation phenomenon is much more prevalent at a much simpler level.

Very quick and dirty example ....

Natural Selection:

Two different phenotypes that has contribution to foraging ... call
them phenotype 'F' and 'G'

When a biologist sets up the description .. assigning a survivorship
fitness to such phenotype ... the biologist is only considering the
tip of a very much submerged ice berg.

It is assumed by the "evolutionary god"* ( *tineg ) that the organism
carrying phenotype 'F' will find a reliable supply of food at reliable
intervals, most of the time.

Why do I say this? Why is it significant?

Supposed that newly created organism carrying genotype 'F' is
introduced into an environment with a very sparse supply of food. The
organism will *DIE* NO PROVISION HAS BEEN MADE for a strongly
enhanced foraging requirement.

The expectation .. a guess by evolution is that such sparsity of
resource won't occur.

Thus selection is taking place between 'F' and 'G' with the 99% of the
significance, external, and common to both strategies.

Let's say that almost all of the time .01 of 'F's and .01 of 'G's
ATTRIBUTE is involved w.r.t differential survivorship
...

If .8 of 'F's and 'G' ATTRIBUTE came into play w.r.t. differential
survivorship ... but would never do so because it is never expected
to be so .. ( unsurvivable for any organism) ... the shape ( as in
the manner/form of the phenotypes 'F' and 'G' would be very
different. )


Another way of describing it? ... It's like assuming that both
contestants will always fight with their hands tied behind their
backs. It is DELIBERATELY ASSUMED that the hands will never be
untied.

Assuming that the hands remained TIED is a huge advantage. .. an
economy which is much more desirable than what would be given unaware
ignorance.

I'll try to come back to this later.

Given your ultimatum, I doubt that you will have any desire to do so.

.