[FRIAM] Friam Digest, Vol 190, Issue 1
Frank Wimberly
wimberly3 at gmail.com
Mon Apr 1 14:53:28 EDT 2019
"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 <jonzingale at 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-request at redfish.com> wrote:
>
>> Send Friam mailing list submissions to
>> friam at 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-request at redfish.com
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> friam-owner at 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 (lrudolph at meganet.net)
>> 2. Re: Friam Digest, Vol 189, Issue 40 (lrudolph at 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 (lrudolph at meganet.net)
>> 14. Income Equality (Steven A Smith)
>> 15. Re: new studies confirm existence galaxies
>> almost-no-dark-matter (Gillian Densmore)
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: lrudolph at meganet.net
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at 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: lrudolph at meganet.net
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at 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 <merlelefkoff at gmail.com>
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at 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 <lrudolph at 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
>> merlelefkoff at gmail.com <merlelefoff at gmail.com>
>> mobile: (303) 859-5609
>> skype: merle.lelfkoff2
>> twitter: @Merle_Lefkoff
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: glen <gepropella at gmail.com>
>> To: friam at 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.densmore at gmail.com>
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at 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 <gepropella at 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 <desmith at santafe.edu>
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at 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 <gepropella at 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 <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
>> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <
>> friam at 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-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of
>> lrudolph at meganet.net
>> Sent: Sunday, March 31, 2019 1:04 PM
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at 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 <nickthompson at earthlink.net>
>> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <
>> friam at 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-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Frank
>> Wimberly
>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 31, 2019 12:08 PM
>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>> friam at 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 <wimberly3 at 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 <nickthompson at 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" <gepropella at gmail.com>
>> To: friam at 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 <gepropella at 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 <desmith at santafe.edu>
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at 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 <gepropella at 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 <gepropella at 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" <gepropella at gmail.com>
>> To: friam at 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 <wimberly3 at gmail.com>
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at 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 <nickthompson at 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-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Frank
>>> Wimberly
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 31, 2019 12:08 PM
>>> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
>>> friam at 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 <wimberly3 at 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 <nickthompson at 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: lrudolph at meganet.net
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at 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 <sasmyth at swcp.com>
>> To: friam at 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.densmore at gmail.com>
>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at 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 <desmith at 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 <gepropella at 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 <gepropella at 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 at 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20190401/d6985c61/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list