tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post7659307773405354661..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Loads of papers on our feathered friendsSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-27278574888491464982014-12-16T04:24:45.508+11:002014-12-16T04:24:45.508+11:00Thank you for reminding me of 'The Eternal Gol...Thank you for reminding me of 'The Eternal Golden Braid' sub-title of Gödel, Escher Bach a volume I studied some time ago and have just dug out my copy to look at again, particularly now I have collected both 'The Well Tempered Clavier' (two versions one on piano and one on harpsichord - not Glen Gould but I have him playing 'The Goldberg Variations') and 'Musical Offering' (Kuijken, Kuijken, Kuijken & Kohnen) to savour in the background as I read again, but these pieces, like the works on the deep scientific questions can be overwhelming if not inter-missed by other lighter works. <br /><br />I think, the much neglected, Lewis Carroll would have appreciated the self-referential nature of GEB-TEGB.<br /><br />My reading has taken me into quantum, string-theory (Facebook does not recognise some of the tiles I used) and cosmology, the idea of recursion fascinated me since those mid-1980s days messing with fractals, Feynman, Penrose, Hawkin, Krauss, Smolin and yet to find the answers I don't think we ever will discover the truth of the fundamental origins of life and the universe but it is certainly interesting finding out what those brighter than me think. Do I buy into the anthropic principle? Good question, my mind is open. I consider matter at the quantum level, or origins of the universe(s) whilst trying to sleep (pain keeps me awake), maybe I will work out something fundamental with a flash of insight about the fascinating questions around DE or DM as I sleep.Lionel Ahttp://lionels.orpheusweb.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-84094461106954271872014-12-15T15:58:47.841+11:002014-12-15T15:58:47.841+11:00There is no Chaos at the Quantum level as every th...There is no Chaos at the Quantum level as every thing is quantised! I do not know whether string theory will give us any insight. We have enough problems with the Dark Matter and Dark Energy that seems to be about 95% of the Universe as we currently understand it. <br /><br />The understanding of bird evolution is even more problematic. I do know they do more with less brain weight than we do. Try having half your brain asleep while gliding over the southern oceans 24/7. bert<br /><br />Bert from Elthamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-60216007266528987452014-12-15T14:55:52.313+11:002014-12-15T14:55:52.313+11:00Try reading Gödel Escher and Bach by Hofstadter. T...Try reading Gödel Escher and Bach by Hofstadter. This is just a precursor to Chaos Theory and Fractals. All of this exists on top of a Quantum indeterminacy of reality that by the way does not suffer from any sort of chaos or starting value indeterminacy. Can you see the beauty in this situation! How can an indeterminate state that is theoretically a wave function spread through all of space and time have any sort of value until it is observed. BertBert from Elthamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-61008881547091680542014-12-14T13:26:58.605+11:002014-12-14T13:26:58.605+11:00This is simply fantastic, Sou. Thank you for posti...This is simply fantastic, Sou. Thank you for posting this! I'd heard about the APP a while back, but had mostly forgotten about it. Over a decade ago, one of my university lectures was about the back and forth debates on various aspects of bird evolution....if I ever end up teaching again in my retirement years, that lecture will have to be updated significantly. <br /><br />--DanDan Andrewsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-59768948618754109742014-12-14T02:28:06.386+11:002014-12-14T02:28:06.386+11:00Lionel, I read Gleick's excellent book when I ...Lionel, I read Gleick's excellent book when I was in college, but couldn't remember the author. Most of what I know of chaos, which is to say the very basics, comes from that reading. I could certainly do with a refresher and an extension, thanks for reminding me of the full title.Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-85893305453454149842014-12-13T23:45:20.576+11:002014-12-13T23:45:20.576+11:00Well the answer is probably something like this.
...Well the answer is probably something like this.<br /><br />All adaptations cost the organism energy which must be weighed against other imperatives of survival. Those organisms which have expended energy in spectacular appearance have little need for the costs involved in developing the adaptations required for attractive song.<br /><br />Such things, like the spectacular tail of a male Peacock requires a strong physique to be able to support such and escape predators. Get the balance wrong and procreation fails. Richard Dawkins and E O Wilson have plenty to say in their various books.<br /><br />I really appreciate this topic Sou for it is one where some theoretical physicists can be so blind.Lionel Ahttp://lionels.orpheusweb.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-42526848778354018342014-12-13T23:35:57.778+11:002014-12-13T23:35:57.778+11:00Of course James Gleick wrote about Lorenz years ag...Of course James Gleick wrote about Lorenz years ago, this was at a time when I was into programming of strange attractors, Mandelbrot sets and also biomorphs (introduced by Richard Dawkins in 'The Blind Watchmaker), in his book 'Chaos'.<br /><br />'Chaos: Making a New Science' by James Gleick is worth a read if you can find a copy and are new to the topic.Lionel Ahttp://lionels.orpheusweb.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39081084878369026952014-12-13T20:14:40.427+11:002014-12-13T20:14:40.427+11:00Could somebody please explain the evolutionary imp...Could somebody please explain the evolutionary imperative that determined that Australian birds with spectacular appearances must have desperately unattractive songs whilst those of the blandest plumage almost always have spectacular voices. (the Kookaburra being the outlier. It being utterly spectacular full stop).PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10807913317731807617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-85466865706061221682014-12-13T17:49:22.088+11:002014-12-13T17:49:22.088+11:00Sou,
For a quick note, that was rather prodigious...Sou,<br /><br />For a quick note, that was rather prodigious. Coloured bird feathers is a pet interest of mine. Long story.<br /><br />Speaking of papers, one of my various amusements of the day derives from this seminal work by Edward Lorenz: http://www.astro.puc.cl/~rparra/tools/PAPERS/lorenz1962.pdf<br /><br />I consider it a personal failing I'd never read it before today. But the irony of having been turned onto it by this comment from a WUWTer effectively salves my shame:<br /><br />"phlogiston<br />December 12, 2014 at 9:55 am<br /><br />Brandon Gates<br /><br />Bounded by what? By an attractor. The message of Lorenz – the original topic of this sub-thread – is that a climate system with no change in parameters can “spontaneously” oscillate and jump to different plateaus, showing an ongoing variation that is only really bounded by the log-log fractal distributions – i.e. small changes often, big changes more occasionally.<br /><br />Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow 1963 by Lorenz is the foundation of climate science and while the majority know of it only a tiny minority are willing to take on board its message. Anyone seeing a change in global temperature and experiencing a need to find a “forcing” to explain that change, is ignorant of Lorenz’ discovery. Climate can change all by itself. Forcing is not a useful term."<br /><br />There's a lot I think I know about chaos, and x100 that which I don't. But in reading that one paper it is so abundantly clear that climatologists have learned more from Lorenz than phlogiston can apparently comprehend. I had a great deal of fun ripping him to shreds for referencing a paper whose conclusions were based on, you guessed it, models. Oh the humanity!Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.com