Haints.
What is intuition? Some suggestions might be:
1. It is the source of highest knowledge, a cornucopia of ultimate truths if only we could be still long enough to hear it clearly.
2. It is the primary betting strategy of the folks who leave Las Vegas broke.
3. It is the greatly diminished level of perception we once had as a more advanced species.
4. It is nature (instinct). 5. It is nurture ( learned technique of perception).
6. It is our brains version of flipping a coin.
Another way of asking the question is whether we can become aware of something
within our environment that can be communicated to others without utilizing one or more of the five senses. My answer is no, of course not... not really, but then... Right away, I want to totally differentiate my view from any known, forgotten, or yet to be discovered, "extra sensory" perceptive powers claimed by anyone, anywhere; nor do I believe there is some undiscovered technique we can use to develop such abilities. I equally differentiate my views from those of the "professional sceptics" making the talk show rounds. So once we remove the charlatans and the debunkers from the room, is there anything left? All I can say about that is "I'm not sure". But if there is anything left, I think it might be in this direction and maybe look a little like----
[Class note: I understand that some of you are getting impatient and want to know what my point is. Sorry, but if you insist on having a point at this juncture, you will just have to make it yourself. But on the assumption that there is a point, here are some things one might find nearby.]
Jim's Banana Observation
Assume a tabula rasa subject sitting at a table in an isolation room reading a document. The document is an attempt to explain to the subject what a banana tastes like. Impossible. The researcher enters the room, sits down across the table from the subject, peels a banana, and hands it to the subject to taste. The subject now knows what a banana tastes like, and will remember it permanently. Now the subject is blindfolded. The researcher enters the room, sits down and begins to peel a banana. The subject is asked to identify what the researcher has and quickly states "the researcher has a banana". When asked how she knows, the subject replies "I smelled it". Etc.
Now assume the same room. A banana hangs in midair, held up by a magical force impossible to detect. The room is equipped with a machine reputed to be able to measure everything. An analysis of the air currents shows that there is an oblong, curved solid object several inches long in the room. The machine even detects the shape of the ridges where the peeling is connected to itself. It measures the reflected light waves and concludes that the object is basically yellow, but has several small areas of black. Gravity forces are measured and the mass is determined. Density readings show the object is covered with a thin layer of material substantially more dense than the inner core. The scent molecules escaping through the peeling are analyzed. The machine measures some other things along dimensions we can't perceive. The machine concludes the object is a banana.
Jim's Banana Observation Conclusions:
1. We can notice things we are not conscious of noticing. Sometimes, in some circumstances, we can recall these things we are not aware of knowing.
2. Everything has an impact on everything around it.
As I argued in the last two chapters, even though we can't trust our language, or religion , or science, or leaders to provide us with final answers--- about anything, we are still usually able to utilize our five senses to understand our environment enough to get by. The economy wobbles on; for the most part we are able to predict what others are doing well enough to drive down the street without crashing into each other; voting doesn't seem to totally disrupt our social structure. You know, we make do with what we have got.
But there is, to cop a phrase from somewhere in the Old Testament, a fly in the ointment. Over time, for whatever reasons, we have deceived ourselves into believing our totemic entities will eventually provide perfect answers to everything, and until then we can trust them to steer us in the right direction. We originated and maintain that ultimate deception primarily by the development of a single skill: the ability to not notice things. We even made not noticing things part of the scientific method.
Not noticing things can serve many useful purposes, tuning out the radio in the next dorm room while studying for a final, not feeling the pain in your legs as you break the finish line tape, ignoring your pounding heart as you decide to cut the blue wire- -- stuff like that. Then again... here's an example that is not right on point but I will use it anyway because I can't get the images out of my mind. Channel surfing, I came across a nature show with a segment about some idiot that picked up black widow spiders. Apparently there was something odd about this one's behavior because just as I tuned in he released the spider on his left hand, and said "she's alright now" as the spider started crawling around on his hand. Then he said "she just bit me". The narrator took note of the tiny red mark on the idiot's finger, who then pointed to the middle of his hand and said the pain was already up to that point. He said something about he would be in the hospital in an hour or so, and for some inexplicable reason, the show moved on to another segment without revealing what had happened to Mr. Black Widow Idiot. And that is a rather sloppy way of making the point that sometimes not noticing things can be harmful, even deadly.
With all the talk about the billions and billions of synaptic connections in our brains and our ability to instantly process massive amounts of data, one might imagine that we could notice damn near everything at once, but we are really not all that aware of our surroundings. In sports, top athletes spend years developing the ability to notice more of the action at once. Toward the end of his career, John Elway had the ability to instantly notice the entire playing field with a single glance. Early in his career however, it took him what must have seemed like an eternity to notice that he had rushed out of the huddle and shoved his hands under the crotch of the left guard.
Somewhere along our evolutionary wanderings we seem to have learned that since we can't notice everything, we had best develop ways to prioritize incoming data. We began to develop techniques to notice the essential things in our environment and not be distracted by unimportant elements. From statistical formulas, to double blind medication studies, to expert analyses, to opinion polls, to Ouija boards, to political platforms, we constantly seek to hone in on the essential elements. And once we lock on the sacred kernel of truth at the heart of the matter our guidance systems seem to go on full automatic. Therein lies both the heaven and the hell of the lucubration. This noticing process is a central issue in my world view. In addition to my Unified Field Theory of Banana Noticing, here are some other conceptual tools I find useful, which is to say here are current ideas I decided to rip off and run with.
Far and away the most productive contributor to my viewpoint is chaos theory, the basics of which I have already presented in several contexts. When an ostensible steady state system becomes chaotic it is almost a certainty that the strange attractor producing the disintegration originated in the least noticed part of the system. Here is an example of the contextual framework within which I am using Chaos Theory terms. [ Once again, I am making no attempt to use terms definitively, a process that I hope to justify at some point. For now, if you have a technical objection to my use of a term, feel free to substitute a term you consider more suitable.] Very recently, there was a news story about the crash of a seaplane that killed all twenty people on board. Video of the crash showed clearly that the right wing had separated from the fuselage before the plane hit the water. From 1947 until the crash, the twin-engine Grumman G-73T Turbine Mallard seaplane had existed as a steady state, periodic system. Its structural integrity permitted it to take off, fly, and land in an entirely predictable manner. There was no reason to predict otherwise on this particular flight. Jumping the gun on the official NTSB report, it seems clear that at some point metal fatigue led to a tiny stress fracture in the framework attaching the wing to the fuselage. This tiny stress fracture, (part of the originating condition) became a strange attractor in that it began to develop aperiodic behavior within the planes structural integrity. Apparently unnoticed by the maintenance crew, once the plane took to the air this period doubling stress attractor rapidly strengthened to the point where the structural integrity of the plane became chaotic and the previously periodic stress forces caused the wing to tear away.
The next major contributor is string theory. The most succinct way of getting to that is to refer you once again to that superb Nova program at this location.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
Assuming you are now familiar with that information, you will recall string theory revealed that rather than some tiny particle being the basis for everything, the real bottom of the universe consisted of one dimensional, vibrating strands of energy billions of times smaller than anything imagined in particle physics. Despite the mathematical elegance of string theory, it posited a universe so radically different from the views of established science that it was not widely accepted. One of the most difficult constructs to visualize was that the theory required six spacial dimensions in addition to the time honored three plus time. That is, that strings could move in six more directions than we knew existed, directions that are curled up so small they are impossible to detect directly, and possibly even untestable indirectly. As work continued theorists recognized five different string theories, making the field even more unpalatable to the gentry. Just as things appeared to be headed toward chaos, Einstein's heir apparent, Ed Whitten, came to the rescue.
"Behold" he said at a 1995 string theory conference. There are not five different string theories, but five ways of looking at one theory. And the perspective from which this became apparent was yet another dimension, the eleventh. Strings existed not only as tiny vibrating loops or open ended bits of energy, but also, given enough energy could stretch much larger. Large enough so that the three dimensional universe we have grown to know and love exists entirely on a single membrane of energy expanding along the 11th. dimension. Also, our "brane" as the kool guys dubbed it may be just one of many branes floating around in a vast higher dimensional existence. At last, a theory we can chew on. All of existence as we can perceive it is contained in a single slice of WonderBread !
The first thing I need to say about Steven Wolfram is that if he is a crackpot, he is a well credentialed one. Wolfram is a British-born mathematical prodigy. At age 20, he received a Ph.D. in theoretical physics from the California Institute of Technology. Within two years he was awarded a MacArthur Foundation genius award for his work in physics and computing. Rebelling against the "if you are so smart why ain't you rich mindset" he founded a software company called Mathematica that developed software programs for engineers, scientists and mathematicians and made Steverio a multimillionaire.
The second thing I need to say about Steven Wolfram is that in the early nineties he basically locked himself in his room and placated his cacoethes scribendi, producing 1200 pages of A New Kind of Science, which he believes will revolutionize the way scientific research will be done, and which I shall synopsize with grace and concision in just a few paragraphs. *Ahem*
Wolfram's discoveries began to take shape as a result of his tinkering around with what was basically a computer game called cellular automata. A sheet of graph paper is divided up into lines of square shaped cells. The game starts with a single black cell in the middle of the first line. A simple rule is applied to compute the next line. For example, if the cell above you is black, you be white. If the cell on the above line is white and is next to a black cell or cells, you be black. The computer prints the next line on the graph, and follows the iterative process of applying the same formula to each successive line. Such that.
What is intuition? Some suggestions might be:
1. It is the source of highest knowledge, a cornucopia of ultimate truths if only we could be still long enough to hear it clearly.
2. It is the primary betting strategy of the folks who leave Las Vegas broke.
3. It is the greatly diminished level of perception we once had as a more advanced species.
4. It is nature (instinct). 5. It is nurture ( learned technique of perception).
6. It is our brains version of flipping a coin.
Another way of asking the question is whether we can become aware of something
within our environment that can be communicated to others without utilizing one or more of the five senses. My answer is no, of course not... not really, but then... Right away, I want to totally differentiate my view from any known, forgotten, or yet to be discovered, "extra sensory" perceptive powers claimed by anyone, anywhere; nor do I believe there is some undiscovered technique we can use to develop such abilities. I equally differentiate my views from those of the "professional sceptics" making the talk show rounds. So once we remove the charlatans and the debunkers from the room, is there anything left? All I can say about that is "I'm not sure". But if there is anything left, I think it might be in this direction and maybe look a little like----
[Class note: I understand that some of you are getting impatient and want to know what my point is. Sorry, but if you insist on having a point at this juncture, you will just have to make it yourself. But on the assumption that there is a point, here are some things one might find nearby.]
Jim's Banana Observation
Assume a tabula rasa subject sitting at a table in an isolation room reading a document. The document is an attempt to explain to the subject what a banana tastes like. Impossible. The researcher enters the room, sits down across the table from the subject, peels a banana, and hands it to the subject to taste. The subject now knows what a banana tastes like, and will remember it permanently. Now the subject is blindfolded. The researcher enters the room, sits down and begins to peel a banana. The subject is asked to identify what the researcher has and quickly states "the researcher has a banana". When asked how she knows, the subject replies "I smelled it". Etc.
Now assume the same room. A banana hangs in midair, held up by a magical force impossible to detect. The room is equipped with a machine reputed to be able to measure everything. An analysis of the air currents shows that there is an oblong, curved solid object several inches long in the room. The machine even detects the shape of the ridges where the peeling is connected to itself. It measures the reflected light waves and concludes that the object is basically yellow, but has several small areas of black. Gravity forces are measured and the mass is determined. Density readings show the object is covered with a thin layer of material substantially more dense than the inner core. The scent molecules escaping through the peeling are analyzed. The machine measures some other things along dimensions we can't perceive. The machine concludes the object is a banana.
Jim's Banana Observation Conclusions:
1. We can notice things we are not conscious of noticing. Sometimes, in some circumstances, we can recall these things we are not aware of knowing.
2. Everything has an impact on everything around it.
As I argued in the last two chapters, even though we can't trust our language, or religion , or science, or leaders to provide us with final answers--- about anything, we are still usually able to utilize our five senses to understand our environment enough to get by. The economy wobbles on; for the most part we are able to predict what others are doing well enough to drive down the street without crashing into each other; voting doesn't seem to totally disrupt our social structure. You know, we make do with what we have got.
But there is, to cop a phrase from somewhere in the Old Testament, a fly in the ointment. Over time, for whatever reasons, we have deceived ourselves into believing our totemic entities will eventually provide perfect answers to everything, and until then we can trust them to steer us in the right direction. We originated and maintain that ultimate deception primarily by the development of a single skill: the ability to not notice things. We even made not noticing things part of the scientific method.
Not noticing things can serve many useful purposes, tuning out the radio in the next dorm room while studying for a final, not feeling the pain in your legs as you break the finish line tape, ignoring your pounding heart as you decide to cut the blue wire- -- stuff like that. Then again... here's an example that is not right on point but I will use it anyway because I can't get the images out of my mind. Channel surfing, I came across a nature show with a segment about some idiot that picked up black widow spiders. Apparently there was something odd about this one's behavior because just as I tuned in he released the spider on his left hand, and said "she's alright now" as the spider started crawling around on his hand. Then he said "she just bit me". The narrator took note of the tiny red mark on the idiot's finger, who then pointed to the middle of his hand and said the pain was already up to that point. He said something about he would be in the hospital in an hour or so, and for some inexplicable reason, the show moved on to another segment without revealing what had happened to Mr. Black Widow Idiot. And that is a rather sloppy way of making the point that sometimes not noticing things can be harmful, even deadly.
With all the talk about the billions and billions of synaptic connections in our brains and our ability to instantly process massive amounts of data, one might imagine that we could notice damn near everything at once, but we are really not all that aware of our surroundings. In sports, top athletes spend years developing the ability to notice more of the action at once. Toward the end of his career, John Elway had the ability to instantly notice the entire playing field with a single glance. Early in his career however, it took him what must have seemed like an eternity to notice that he had rushed out of the huddle and shoved his hands under the crotch of the left guard.
Somewhere along our evolutionary wanderings we seem to have learned that since we can't notice everything, we had best develop ways to prioritize incoming data. We began to develop techniques to notice the essential things in our environment and not be distracted by unimportant elements. From statistical formulas, to double blind medication studies, to expert analyses, to opinion polls, to Ouija boards, to political platforms, we constantly seek to hone in on the essential elements. And once we lock on the sacred kernel of truth at the heart of the matter our guidance systems seem to go on full automatic. Therein lies both the heaven and the hell of the lucubration. This noticing process is a central issue in my world view. In addition to my Unified Field Theory of Banana Noticing, here are some other conceptual tools I find useful, which is to say here are current ideas I decided to rip off and run with.
Far and away the most productive contributor to my viewpoint is chaos theory, the basics of which I have already presented in several contexts. When an ostensible steady state system becomes chaotic it is almost a certainty that the strange attractor producing the disintegration originated in the least noticed part of the system. Here is an example of the contextual framework within which I am using Chaos Theory terms. [ Once again, I am making no attempt to use terms definitively, a process that I hope to justify at some point. For now, if you have a technical objection to my use of a term, feel free to substitute a term you consider more suitable.] Very recently, there was a news story about the crash of a seaplane that killed all twenty people on board. Video of the crash showed clearly that the right wing had separated from the fuselage before the plane hit the water. From 1947 until the crash, the twin-engine Grumman G-73T Turbine Mallard seaplane had existed as a steady state, periodic system. Its structural integrity permitted it to take off, fly, and land in an entirely predictable manner. There was no reason to predict otherwise on this particular flight. Jumping the gun on the official NTSB report, it seems clear that at some point metal fatigue led to a tiny stress fracture in the framework attaching the wing to the fuselage. This tiny stress fracture, (part of the originating condition) became a strange attractor in that it began to develop aperiodic behavior within the planes structural integrity. Apparently unnoticed by the maintenance crew, once the plane took to the air this period doubling stress attractor rapidly strengthened to the point where the structural integrity of the plane became chaotic and the previously periodic stress forces caused the wing to tear away.
The next major contributor is string theory. The most succinct way of getting to that is to refer you once again to that superb Nova program at this location.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html
Assuming you are now familiar with that information, you will recall string theory revealed that rather than some tiny particle being the basis for everything, the real bottom of the universe consisted of one dimensional, vibrating strands of energy billions of times smaller than anything imagined in particle physics. Despite the mathematical elegance of string theory, it posited a universe so radically different from the views of established science that it was not widely accepted. One of the most difficult constructs to visualize was that the theory required six spacial dimensions in addition to the time honored three plus time. That is, that strings could move in six more directions than we knew existed, directions that are curled up so small they are impossible to detect directly, and possibly even untestable indirectly. As work continued theorists recognized five different string theories, making the field even more unpalatable to the gentry. Just as things appeared to be headed toward chaos, Einstein's heir apparent, Ed Whitten, came to the rescue.
"Behold" he said at a 1995 string theory conference. There are not five different string theories, but five ways of looking at one theory. And the perspective from which this became apparent was yet another dimension, the eleventh. Strings existed not only as tiny vibrating loops or open ended bits of energy, but also, given enough energy could stretch much larger. Large enough so that the three dimensional universe we have grown to know and love exists entirely on a single membrane of energy expanding along the 11th. dimension. Also, our "brane" as the kool guys dubbed it may be just one of many branes floating around in a vast higher dimensional existence. At last, a theory we can chew on. All of existence as we can perceive it is contained in a single slice of WonderBread !
The first thing I need to say about Steven Wolfram is that if he is a crackpot, he is a well credentialed one. Wolfram is a British-born mathematical prodigy. At age 20, he received a Ph.D. in theoretical physics from the California Institute of Technology. Within two years he was awarded a MacArthur Foundation genius award for his work in physics and computing. Rebelling against the "if you are so smart why ain't you rich mindset" he founded a software company called Mathematica that developed software programs for engineers, scientists and mathematicians and made Steverio a multimillionaire.
The second thing I need to say about Steven Wolfram is that in the early nineties he basically locked himself in his room and placated his cacoethes scribendi, producing 1200 pages of A New Kind of Science, which he believes will revolutionize the way scientific research will be done, and which I shall synopsize with grace and concision in just a few paragraphs. *Ahem*
Wolfram's discoveries began to take shape as a result of his tinkering around with what was basically a computer game called cellular automata. A sheet of graph paper is divided up into lines of square shaped cells. The game starts with a single black cell in the middle of the first line. A simple rule is applied to compute the next line. For example, if the cell above you is black, you be white. If the cell on the above line is white and is next to a black cell or cells, you be black. The computer prints the next line on the graph, and follows the iterative process of applying the same formula to each successive line. Such that.
Example of cellular automata computer program. The computer is instructed to perform a series of calculations and to print the results of each calculation on a single row. This graphic depicts the first five iterations of a program with the following rules.
Start with a single orange swirl in row 1. [Black cells are so yesterday.]
For each cell in the next row, if the previous cell in that column has an orange swirl, leave the cell blank. If on the previous row either or both neighboring cell(s) has an orange swirl, put an orange swirl in that cell. [Nevermind the batch of blank cells at the top right and left of the diagram.]
Start with a single orange swirl in row 1. [Black cells are so yesterday.]
For each cell in the next row, if the previous cell in that column has an orange swirl, leave the cell blank. If on the previous row either or both neighboring cell(s) has an orange swirl, put an orange swirl in that cell. [Nevermind the batch of blank cells at the top right and left of the diagram.]
Wolfram determined that there were 256 simple rule permutations if the cellular neighborhood is defined as a cell with two possible states and its adjacent cells on either side. He then programmed his computer to run all 256 possible rules, sometimes computing millions of iterations of a single rule. Typically, this process of determining the contents of a cell by referring to its neighbors in the preceding line produces a graph composed of simple patterns such as in the above example. Wolfram's apple on the noggin came when he ran rule number 30 on his computer. Rather than settle down to a discernable regularity, the cells began to produce extremely irregular and complex patterns. Occasionally similar sections would emerge only to disappear in a totally random, clearly chaotic manner. Eventually he defined four classes of outcomes, but the bottom line moral of the story is that simple rules and simple originating conditions were capable of producing enormous complexity.
[Intelligent design central argument exit stage left.]
Wolfram argues that this iterative computational process duplicates the development of the universe. That is that essentially everything we observe, the way a flag flaps in the wind, the evolution of life, brain wave patterns, all stem from a process of continuous computational iterations that over time become indecipherably complex, but that are themselves products of simple rules about the way things interact.
The next purloined ort I scooped up from a concept Wolfram calls computational equivalence. Here Wolfram argues that everything we observe, both everything produced by humans and every natural process, can be viewed as a computation. The stretch is that when we typically think of computations we think of an algorithm designed to measure a given function, but Wolfram contends that the same process occurs spontaneously as a function of the basic laws of nature. Irrespective of how fast a computer is, it still produces results one straight line at a time. In nature, the "iterations" are not discrete events but a continually evolving process involving "cells" that might differ in many respects, including the rate at which they change "states". Wolfram's long and convoluted conceptual journey from the tangible world of computer printouts of cellular automata calculations to his very abstract contention that existence itself derives from a similar process is a fascinating and controversial narrative, some of which I even understood. A major Anschauung along the way concerns the concept of universality, a hypothetical system wherein different tasks can be performed just by programing the identical underlying construction differently, with the added benefit of being able to emulate any other system and to be able to produce behavior as complex as any other system. Wolfram contends that universality is not rare at all, as historically thought; that any system that is not obviously simple can be shown to be universal; that all such systems are capable of achieving the identical level of computational sophistication; and that the root rules governing such systems are quite simple. And for my less grandiose purposes, if it walks like a duck...
From my intuitive perspective, Wolfram's coop de grass is something he calls computational irreducibility, which in its simplest sense just means a computation that can not be sped up by devising a shortcut. Perhaps ironically, an aperçu of Wolfram's path from cellular automata to mathematically computational irreducibility, proves to be linguistically irreducible. Rather than entangle myself in that maze I will show how the concept applies, at least for my purposes.
Far and away the greatest emphasis of traditional science has been to devise formulas that predict the outcome of an event without reproducing the event step by step. The process starts out with understanding the underlying forces governing an event, and then creating a mathematical formula that describes how these forces interact. Plug in the numbers from the concern at hand, and presto, one is able to predict an outcome. For example, this process allows us to predict with confidence that ten years from now New Horizon will reach Pluto, billions of miles away. That is truly amazing, and results from the scientific process of understanding how inertia, gravity, energy etc. interact with the mass of the rocket. Using successful predictions such as this, especially in the last couple of hundred years has led us to believe mathematics is the true language of the universe; that eventually we will understand the theory of everything and be able to devise formulas to predict any outcome. But as Wolfram demonstrates, these amazing feats are really very isolated incidents that are successful only in very limited circumstances. Further, that
rather than bringing us closer to an understanding of how things work our scientific methodologies are leading us far afield.
This is not an exposé of scientific misadventure, the deception is not a deliberate attempt to scam us. Science itself states that until a theory is reduced to formulae that allow outcomes to be reproduced in the lab, far from the natural environment, it is not science, it is simply philosophy. More and more, our scientific progress is proceeding in directions that do not, in fact can not be useful to our everyday lives. To conclude (abandon) this section, consider an everyday example from our space program that governs the journey of New Horizon. It would seem that science has a firm understanding of the basic laws of mass, inertia, gravity etc. to predict the movement of objects. But try and adapt those same formulas to predict where in the stream a leaf fallen from a tree will be in ten seconds. The actual real life elements impacting this event are computationally irreducible. There is not, nor can there ever be, a computational shortcut to determine the leaf's location in ten seconds. The only way to know is to watch the leaf and see where it is in ten seconds. The most effective tools are perception, intuition and serendipity---- all bared from crossing the sacred threshold of scientific discovery, and all within the reach and control of each of us.
*Author clutches his little bag of ill gotten snippets, and, laughing fiendishly, scurries away to his secret lair to have his way with them.*
[Intelligent design central argument exit stage left.]
Wolfram argues that this iterative computational process duplicates the development of the universe. That is that essentially everything we observe, the way a flag flaps in the wind, the evolution of life, brain wave patterns, all stem from a process of continuous computational iterations that over time become indecipherably complex, but that are themselves products of simple rules about the way things interact.
The next purloined ort I scooped up from a concept Wolfram calls computational equivalence. Here Wolfram argues that everything we observe, both everything produced by humans and every natural process, can be viewed as a computation. The stretch is that when we typically think of computations we think of an algorithm designed to measure a given function, but Wolfram contends that the same process occurs spontaneously as a function of the basic laws of nature. Irrespective of how fast a computer is, it still produces results one straight line at a time. In nature, the "iterations" are not discrete events but a continually evolving process involving "cells" that might differ in many respects, including the rate at which they change "states". Wolfram's long and convoluted conceptual journey from the tangible world of computer printouts of cellular automata calculations to his very abstract contention that existence itself derives from a similar process is a fascinating and controversial narrative, some of which I even understood. A major Anschauung along the way concerns the concept of universality, a hypothetical system wherein different tasks can be performed just by programing the identical underlying construction differently, with the added benefit of being able to emulate any other system and to be able to produce behavior as complex as any other system. Wolfram contends that universality is not rare at all, as historically thought; that any system that is not obviously simple can be shown to be universal; that all such systems are capable of achieving the identical level of computational sophistication; and that the root rules governing such systems are quite simple. And for my less grandiose purposes, if it walks like a duck...
From my intuitive perspective, Wolfram's coop de grass is something he calls computational irreducibility, which in its simplest sense just means a computation that can not be sped up by devising a shortcut. Perhaps ironically, an aperçu of Wolfram's path from cellular automata to mathematically computational irreducibility, proves to be linguistically irreducible. Rather than entangle myself in that maze I will show how the concept applies, at least for my purposes.
Far and away the greatest emphasis of traditional science has been to devise formulas that predict the outcome of an event without reproducing the event step by step. The process starts out with understanding the underlying forces governing an event, and then creating a mathematical formula that describes how these forces interact. Plug in the numbers from the concern at hand, and presto, one is able to predict an outcome. For example, this process allows us to predict with confidence that ten years from now New Horizon will reach Pluto, billions of miles away. That is truly amazing, and results from the scientific process of understanding how inertia, gravity, energy etc. interact with the mass of the rocket. Using successful predictions such as this, especially in the last couple of hundred years has led us to believe mathematics is the true language of the universe; that eventually we will understand the theory of everything and be able to devise formulas to predict any outcome. But as Wolfram demonstrates, these amazing feats are really very isolated incidents that are successful only in very limited circumstances. Further, that
rather than bringing us closer to an understanding of how things work our scientific methodologies are leading us far afield.
This is not an exposé of scientific misadventure, the deception is not a deliberate attempt to scam us. Science itself states that until a theory is reduced to formulae that allow outcomes to be reproduced in the lab, far from the natural environment, it is not science, it is simply philosophy. More and more, our scientific progress is proceeding in directions that do not, in fact can not be useful to our everyday lives. To conclude (abandon) this section, consider an everyday example from our space program that governs the journey of New Horizon. It would seem that science has a firm understanding of the basic laws of mass, inertia, gravity etc. to predict the movement of objects. But try and adapt those same formulas to predict where in the stream a leaf fallen from a tree will be in ten seconds. The actual real life elements impacting this event are computationally irreducible. There is not, nor can there ever be, a computational shortcut to determine the leaf's location in ten seconds. The only way to know is to watch the leaf and see where it is in ten seconds. The most effective tools are perception, intuition and serendipity---- all bared from crossing the sacred threshold of scientific discovery, and all within the reach and control of each of us.
*Author clutches his little bag of ill gotten snippets, and, laughing fiendishly, scurries away to his secret lair to have his way with them.*
1
2
3
4
5
 |
||||||||
 |
 |
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Back to Precipitous Patterns Table of Contents
