samedi 4 décembre 2010

A quoi penserai-je dans 5 minutes?


Comme j'entame la rédaction du billet je prévois, sans le savoir précisément, à peu près à quoi je penserai dans 5 minutes : à ce que je serai en train d'écrire. C'est à dire que mon attention sera concentrée sur un thème, des arguments, une exposition, enfin tout ce qui fera la nature de mon activité cérébrale alors.

Mais je ne penserai pas qu'à cela, ou plutôt bien d'autres micro éclairs de pensée me traverseront l'esprit une fraction de seconde pour ne plus revenir et être immédiatement remplacés par d'autres. 

C'est un flux permanent émanant de la micro activité électrique que génère mon système neurologique qui envahit ma conscience et m'impose son activité et qui se manifeste par un permanent fourmillement parasite d'images et de pensés non sollicitées.

Dans ce cas précis hic et nun je prévois à peu près ce que je penserai dans X minutes car ma conscience s'est donnée un but auquel elle se tient mais je ne prévois pas tout, loin de là.

Si je fais l'expérience de n'avoir aucune activité délibérée pendant ne serait-ce que 3 minutes, il m'est absolument impossible de prévoir le torrent de pensées qui submergera ma conscience. Je suis à la merci de tout un mécanisme chimico-biologique qui s'appuie sur mes acquis culturels, eux-mêmes intégrés dans mes neurones et synapses en tant que mémoires et souvenirs.

Livrée à elle-même, la conscience sans maîtrise de la volonté n'est plus que spectatrice purement passive de sa propre impuissance au regard des forces qui en sont le substrat et la condition même d'existence.

Le corps, notre corps et ses instincts, ses besoins et ses désirs est bien le véritable maître de ce que nous croyons être et décider.

En termes schopenhauériens, notre intelligence est au service de notre Volonté à laquelle nous pouvons avoir accès (du moins l'intuition) par notre corps précisément, ce miracle absolu écrivait-il. Comment peut-on croire que nous soyons libres de quoi que ce soit et de quelque façon que ce soit quand toute notre conscience n'est au fond que l'exécutrice des volontés de notre corps?

A chacun ce flux de conscience s'impose sans la plupart du temps que nous y prêtions attention et pourtant tous nous sommes comme les marionnettes des pulsions instinctives de nos organismes.

Notre activité cérébrale étant incessante, ce sont des milliards de fragments de pensées et d'images qui auront affleuré notre conscience (et je laisse de côté l'inconscient freudien!) tout au long de notre vie, jour et nuit, sans que nous le sachions. Vivons-nous vraiment notre vie ou l'essentiel ne se déroule t-il pas à notre insu?

Et encore, il n'est question ici que d'une conscience à l'état dit normal mais qu'en est-il de l'absorption de quelques verres d'alcool ou de la présence de quelque milligrammes de lithium dans le cerveau? Nous n'aurions plus la moindre illusion sur la maîtrise que nous croyons détenir sur nos choix et délibérations au regard des réactions que ces substances induisent en notre corps.

On peut penser à la théorie du chaos appliquée aux phénomènes mentaux ou se consoler de notre insignifiance, si même consolation est possible, en lisant l'expression littéraire de ce flux de conscience qui fait de nous des coquilles de noix sur l'océan de nos vies.

"...I was a Flower of the mountain yes when I put the rose in my hair like the Andalusian girls used or shall I wear a red yes and how he kissed me under the Moorish wall and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes. "


(Gardons à l'esprit que l'œuvre de Joyce était tout ce qu'il y a de maîtrisée cependant)

64 commentaires:

Anijo a dit…

Ah, the stream-of-consciousness post has reappeared !

Flocon a dit…

Encore un billet qui ne doit pas être trop long (sinon Ned me fracasse la tête -et l'ego en passant) ni trop court (sinon merbel va dire que ce n'est pas clair, c'est confus, ambigu, peut mieux faire etc.).

En attendant je vais me faire un café et je mets une autre video de jazz...

Anijo a dit…

On peut penser à la théorie du chaos appliquée aux phénomènes mentaux

Flocon

J'avais pensé à la théorie du chaos apres avoir lu quelques paragraphes de ton billet !

Alors je vois la complexité d'arriver au tel au tel conclusion logique utilisent tel ou tel système philosophique. Il y a toujours le , "oui, mais"..

Par exemple, une pensée philosophique serait peut-être raisonnable si elle est appliquée à un individu, mais pas aussi raisonnable si appliquée à une société. Let's say that helping some complete stranger who's in danger might result in our own self being injured. On an individual level it is more reasonable to not help the stranger, but on a societal level, it is more reasonable to help the stranger. If we look at it on a societal level, then one might end up doing a cost analysis of the situation considering how grave the injury to ourselves and how worthy the person we might attempt to save... and on and on and on..

Anijo a dit…

cost analysis

cost-benefit analysis

Anijo a dit…

Livrée à elle-même, la conscience sans maîtrise de la volonté n'est plus que spectatrice purement passive de sa propre impuissance au regard des forces qui en sont le substrat et la condition même d'existence.

Cela me fait penser à Bicameralism

L'explication de Bicameralism de l'article Wiki en français omet cette paragraphe importante je crois:

The term was coined by psychologist Julian Jaynes, who presented the idea in his 1976 book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, wherein he made the case that a bicameral mentality, that is to say a mental state in which there are two distinct sections of consciousness, was the normal and ubiquitous state of the human mind as recently as 3000 years ago. He used governmental bicameralism to metaphorically describe such a state, in which the experiences and memories of the right hemisphere of the brain are transmitted to the left hemisphere via auditory hallucinations. This mental model was replaced by the conscious mode of thought, which Jaynes argues is grounded in the acquisition of metaphorical language. The idea that language is a necessary component of subjective consciousness and more abstract forms of thinking has been gaining acceptance in recent years, with proponents such as Andy Clark,Daniel Dennett, William H. Calvin, Merlin Donald, John Limber, Howard Margolis, Peter Carruthers, and Jose Luis Bermudez.

Flocon a dit…

"tel ou tel système philosophique. Il y a toujours le "oui, mais".."

C'est sûr qu'on ne peut en philosophie obtenir un résultat définitif et indiscutable ayant valeur universelle. Et c'est la même chose en psychologie.

Tout est en devenir, rien n'est stable, la vie est mouvement et dynamisme alors les idées, les concepts ne peuvent apporter une réponse que partielle et provisoire en attendant mieux.

C'est une des idées centrales de la philosophie de Karl Popper en matières de sciences.

De même en astrophysique, for what I know, il y a des théories (théories des cordes par exemple), mais il y a toujours des "mais".

Same with archeology or paleontology,il y a des théories et il y a toujours des "mais".

As regards your second paragraph, doesn't it pertain to the previous thread dealing with morality?

Tu en sais des choses Anijo! Je ne connaissais pas du tout ce concept de bicaméralisme appliqué à la psychologie.

Some more reading for tonight... Plus le lien de ZapPow (déjà donné par Ned il y a quelques jours), vous m'en donnez du travail tous les quatre!!!

Comme je l'ai déjà dit, les théories de la connaissance m'intéressent vraiment comme la philosophie morale, bien plus que la philosophie politique.

Speaking of politic, it's been three weeks without a post about politics since you don't like it. ;-)

Anijo a dit…

Merci pour les liens Flocon. Moi aussi, some more reading... on my favorite topic.

As regards your second paragraph, doesn't it pertain to the previous thread dealing with morality?

Mais oui. It is for this reason that I don't adhere to any religion or any philosophical movement. They all have something to add to the discussion though. There are many ideas in the Bible that I find interesting.

Comme je l'ai déjà dit, les théories de la connaissance m'intéressent vraiment comme la philosophie morale, bien plus que la philosophie politique.

Speaking of politic, it's been three weeks without a post about politics since you don't like it. ;-)


☺☺ ♥

Thank you for an interesting and enjoyable way to begin a Saturday morning.

Anijo a dit…

Something else similar to what is being discussed here are Fractals

It is too irregular to be easily described in traditional Euclidean geometric language.

Similar to chaos theory, there is a logical explanation, but the explanation is so complex that it appears to be chaotic at first blush.

Chaotic dynamical systems are sometimes associated with fractals. Objects in the phase space of a dynamical system can be fractals (see attractor). Objects in the parameter space for a family of systems may be fractal as well. An interesting example is the Mandelbrot set. This set contains whole discs, so it has a Hausdorff dimension equal to its topological dimension of 2—but what is truly surprising is that the boundary of the Mandelbrot set also has a Hausdorff dimension of 2 (while the topological dimension of 1), a result proved by Mitsuhiro Shishikura in 1991. A closely related fractal is the Julia set.

Fractals are related to chaos because they are complex systems that have definite properties.

Anijo a dit…

théorie des cordes

Ah, String Theory. Allow me to say that this should be called "String Hypothesis" because a "theory" is falsifiable. It's interesting to contemplate though.

Anijo a dit…

Ah, l'article lui même dit:

The theory has yet to make testable experimental predictions, which a theory must do in order to be considered a part of science

Flocon a dit…

"an interesting and enjoyable way to begin a Saturday morning".

Du fait des fuseaux horaires il y a je crois 7 heures entre Paris et le Nouveau Mexique. Your saturday morning is my saturday evening... ☺

Don't know why I linked to paleontology, like you needed me to find it... :-(

Il est déjà 10.30 pm et je dois lire les articles sur le bicamérisme, Julian Jaynes et les liens de ZapPow.

Anijo a dit…

I had mentioned falsifiability re String Theory and then I'm reading about Karl Popper and what do I find?

In work beginning in the 1930s, Popper gave falsifiability a renewed emphasis as a criterion of empirical statements in science.

Anijo a dit…

And Flocon I know how busy you are, so I'm not expecting a reply. Not to worry ☺

ZapPow a dit…

Je pense que dans cinq minutes, je me demanderai à quoi je pensais il y a cinq minutes.

Flocon a dit…

Anijo,

"I had mentioned falsifiability re String Theory and then I'm reading about Karl Popper and what do I find?"

C'est pour ça que je t'ai donné le lien vers Karl Popper puisque c'est lui qui a théorisé la réfutabilité des théories scientifiques.

Avec ta formation scientifique tu connaissais bien sûr ce concept mais ne savais peut-être pas qui était Popper.

Which goes to show how great minds think alike... ;-). Karl Popper certainly knew about Winnetou....

Think of it there may exist some supernatural/paranormal links between the German philosopher and the innocent little Indian girl living in Mesilla?

I lag far behind you re sciences Anijo so I have much difficulties to follow these sort of discussion.

A quick look at your link (falsifiability) led me to the Precambrian rabbit... knowledge is boundless

Une info personnelle : I've heard about the fractals theory about 30 years ago since at that time I was a salesman for an important French publisher which was the editor of Mandelbrot's works.

See here and you'll know which publishing house it was.

(évidemment l'info n'est pas disponible sur la page en anglais qui donne les éditeurs américains).

Flocon a dit…

ZapPow,

Tu fais très fort là car en une (courte) phrase tu intègres le présent ("je pense") le futur ("je me demanderai") et le passé ("je pensais").

Respect!

Cela dit tu supposes que tu sais déjà à quoi tu penseras dans 5 minutes. On est proche du hors-jeu là...

Parlant de métaphore sportive, suis-tu la finale de la Coupe Davis avec Gaël Monfils en possible sauveur de la Nation?

Anijo a dit…

Flocon,
T'as raison. Je ne savais pas qui ètait Popper.Aussi, je ne savais pas que Henri Poincaré was really the Father of Chaos Theory

I must read more about this man.

Anijo a dit…

Flocon,
I follow tennis but I haven't been keeping up with the Davis Cup. Go France! ;)
I also didn't know that Monfil's mother was from Martinique.

Anijo a dit…

Think of it there may exist some supernatural/paranormal links between the German philosopher and the innocent little Indian girl living in Mesilla?

ha ha!

Well, there is the Butterfly Effect

The Butterfly Effect reflects how changes on the small scale affect things on the large scale. It is the classic example of chaos, as small changes lead to large changes. An example of this is how a butterfly flapping its wings in Hong Kong could change tornado patterns in Texas

Popper → Flocon → Anijo

Flocon a dit…

Monfils' mother is from Martinique and his father is from Guadeloupe. He now lives in Switzerland where he pays next to no taxes...

Many French rich people after they've made their education and training in France where they achieved success chose to "emigrate" to Switzerland.

Last time I checked Switzerland never did anything for them when those people where not wealthy.

Anyway, we've lost the final.

Popper, Chaos theory, Butterfly effect, Poincaré etc. this blog has turned into a Wikipedia subsidiary now.

That must be it ...

Anijo a dit…

He now lives in Switzerland where he pays next to no taxes...

Many French rich people after they've made their education and training in France where they achieved success chose to "emigrate" to Switzerland.

Anijo a dit…

that must be it..

Ah, San Albino...
Flocon, you do pay attention, no doubt about that... ;) ☺

Anijo a dit…

Many French rich people after they've made their education and training in France where they achieved success chose to "emigrate" to Switzerland.

Johnny Halliday comes to mind.. and forgive me for even mentioning his name !

Anijo a dit…

And while we still remain discussing that which is so on topic and yet esoteric, that is, chaotic, and having to do with that which is fractal... fractal music, or music having to do with algorithmic composition, Edgar Varèse comes to mind.

Frank Zappa was inspired by Varèse.

I don't think that you, Flocon, nor Ned, nor ZapPow, nor SemperFi, nor Merbel, have any interest at all in electronic music or fractal music. And yet our discussion of stream-of-consciousness, chaos theory, butterfly effect and the Franco/American connection leads me to Varèse ♪ ♫

Flocon a dit…

"Flocon, you do pay attention, no doubt about that..."

and

"I don't think that you, Flocon/.../ have any interest at all in electronic music or fractal music"

Don't be so assertive young innocent lass. Flocon pays attention indeed and he has a not too bad memory.

re Varese look here please...

(Forget your first paragraph, Ned may hear about it and my ego will go into trouble again...)

Flocon a dit…

Rue Edgar Varese (picture courtesy Flocon)

Also George Harrison recorded an electronic music LP back in 1969 (but I didn't buy it).

Also I was flabbergasted with Revolution number 9 when I was 17 and I still consider that piece as a must listen to.

J'aime bien les compositeurs comme Lutoslawsky, Penderecky, Messian etc.

Anijo a dit…

Don't be so assertive young innocent lass. Flocon pays attention indeed and he has a not too bad memory.

re Varese look here please...


lol..

wow! It's official. You have the memory of an elephant

You leave me with some enjoyable homework... Lutoslawsky, Penderecky, Messian etc.

Anijo a dit…

The composition was influenced by the avant-garde style of Ono as well as the musique concrète works of composers such as Edgard Varese and Karlheinz Stockhausen.

I did not know this ! I'll have to listen to R#9 again with this in mind.

Merci

Ned Ludd a dit…

L'idée de "la volonté" est problematique. Même avec la technologie la plus recente, je ne connais personne qui l'a mesurée. C'est comme "le libre arbitre". Autant que je sache, cela n'a jamais été identifié dans le cerveau.(Je reviens à B.F. Skinner, dont j'en ai parlé ailleurs.)

D'après mon dictionnaire, Rousseau parlait de la "volonté generale": "expression par tous les citoyens des choix du gouvernement en vue du bien commun." Et selon Nietzsche, la "volonté de puissance": "volonté d'un surplus de puissance propre à un type d'hommes forts qui affirment la vie." Dan les deux cas, "la volonté" est ambigue et peut-être exprime un function inconscient du cerveau.

Il y a deux jours j'ai vu un documentaire sur ARTE ou France 5 sur les autistes brillants. Avec les techniques modernes, des chercheurs ont trouvé des differences physiques entre leurs cerveaux et les cerveaux "normaux". Ils ont la capacité de se souvenir de tous les details des textes ou faire des enorme calculs sans erreur, mais le plus souvent ils ne peuvent pas faire des actes de la vie ordinaire, comme traverser la rue.

Il y a certains qui arrive à les apprendre, mais où peut-on parler de "volonté"? Nous faisons presque toutes nos activités, tel que conduire une voiture, par des réactions qui nous avons appris et integrés et qui restent dans notre sous-conscience.

Il me semble que "la volonté" est une réaction du cerveau que nous ne connaisson pas encore la mode de fonctionnement.

D'habitude ARTE laisse sur l'internet pendant une semaine ces programmes, mais je n'ai pas trouver celui-là, qui doit être sur ARTE Decouverte. Peut-être c'était à France 5. Un des ces autistes à lu des milliers des livres et se souvient de tout. Il peut lire un page avec un oeil and une autre page avec l'autre en quelques secondes.

Il est trop long et difficile de décrire tout les decouvertes dans ce documentaire.

Ned Ludd a dit…

As to string theory, one of its foremost defenders is physicist Brian Greene.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=186849324750028115&postID=2433974487682891095&page=1&token=1291654050254_AIe9_BHgitM6l_J-fRv-115aXJfmekEwvmCe8dh6fChmgRJVpZovNmKoZQn1MWGlxtzCYgpvtNNe0ehf4jVftLv-HBczEJAPNPmGBfenDU3BSsSTT7tLNZfYi4nwbkWyGGcInUTQbveemPBAavFXcYqeyDKKaYW41Z_fhefKp0Ehmi_Py-rufoMC9FUq_Ekul2rI8NaHMndV_sHA-B1_fDCtlBg4CbXLfhMbIds-cU7_Nn_mt58ykilWDg_WcDHjK1aCh2iTpa7x_YZEySPNKl5lwyScZZUFDsNzINlHnwjjfq-AsFJiueXWCktcy-OhRXbKRIYcZvvpZxhmOqdXkXieUgKu-oWqnlMfNEmokIzVp9KHyWXyLVN7rdzOV6ZqmvKi4E8TuYyzSx_26t80DFXczE5YilnTal6z7FpecwGiKpCZgrORZuAyIfIayoNai7NyPXKw_YRxP31CbAZGSxnRhuV78T8NI_dzk7dSP7Du8YrFhJB9136Df4WE-K3Ayb8s3YFC7vgD_E_X30rOgovTkEiAhwAilsdwMJxmArq9G3ZiJB9g1Pq1R5dv4GV-eWxOPQVkFnciPlbyZgvr-4Xv19SsApXKl4YYNDkMjA-JlZzBXk8C4vj42Hr3T5iM_KdWLZdoaGvN_Krx4k3mcfZlmnMTqllhIH_X3Xn2QlaZYFVN4vqlvZ5_4A-8FSmVVmtiNJhKgsi4GkXBwggUfs_O52NJ9c316yHQiEdD4JWXi1ssMEOEBWIqtMTzaFCQB-UCHrLpXnVapGcI5ASKT_1Z8kxdMk7xm-ZlzbFsWUQ3l4ebQFPWLMSnJbL00YIAGXMTdEhYTv5PDREO5tWnKug-EzWlZfVpaIbvhNQadw2_Yj5JcJg1ugXdr-LYqasQusQHV7xTCjHMEngAAxmm6dEmwqCdiyYMeymjlxb1bLWGo-gwH5V8mqsXdDDYtmJjPhwVsUBxxtdNwbT18h2oztF3IsllNAtCcI0JSujUIrduHmVJrCHC7CB20odsmWHNl-Bf_9MZUUagXlgygWqrf7dazRpbKUQ3liqQXa1yohTxwqEMYTHKH7gbhDlxSWDqA5-DP9OMnOP-_qrQQ3viilzFqJsWIEqnvTwt7y_feZG2rCzeMKuqKxOmJHGaFkdo1A6szkWylc6gltNqfR2Ykd3akIFlqYOLtrHQuisuwZthTLxBXaXR4m1x9oJDoQdlHnfbLzeKlM3rP0K8POx-duWytktojM8AQQ6pIzaN4A9XWG8o9b9XuKicS5qyT8bav7wdLkRt5fsXdDple2lRE2T-DOVJF2ybn9f65fyPjvBYjCYEleDhSfPO0Iuwx-0j4wWoZSi5iOPSJBChFeKHQ1GtNTz1FOvBPRqmQtBgikHDnPv3RubqgTxmy4BhZvzE_MLHMFpUg60_O6vZFxQJx2Qc4KSsIfaV7ognO9v8yendz_oAn8L13QHJ5e8xUkAyy2NYHwbLuv1h2xzoNtw4JM-rkQlnCVDN1JCRxOIg9WACIK1BA6WGPrlfsT3HnywFhPCYo-Jjvux9bmHjlOjORLY08hcoZVSA3gbRBFcOWymmBP_K-ZoifBBbfxHCrreO8t3kMxCuti_o96Bvj-TL2-46XDjyjLKWdi39XMbRLq01n4CytX7iEKHlZ2BNHd-nZt-RL82NNCub1bl1wnrt4qpFAMda52-MlvhMJ_FwYPaNWrtkvQQo_kpCFfdfvKcK2QhftLVDdvZan123TyHiw1q2YBsS78xMqpVq3Uia6haHhcatEeQ4pp2im0p89yZallEisV8UAmx_

That link may be too long, but look him up with google. He has made an interesting video called "The Elegant Universe" which is linked at the link above, if it works. I don't know if he is right, but it is an entertaining show.

As to chaos theory, there are many books, like James Gleick's, "Chaos: A new science" and the magazine's book: "New Scientist's Guide to Chaos".

Ned Ludd a dit…

As to string theory, one of its foremost defenders is physicist Brian Greene.

He has an interview on Nova and a video about it called "The Elegant Universe". I don't know if he is right, but the show is very entertaining and explains what the "theory" should be. I don't give a link because they are too long, but look him up on google.

As to chaos theory, I would recommend James Gleick's "Chaos: A new science" and the magazine's book "New Scientist Guide to Chaos".

Flocon a dit…

Ned (back from her Norman cottage)

Effectivement le mot "volonté" est beaucoup trop général pour qu'il soit possible de l'utiliser sans connaître le contexte.

Entre la volonté de Nietzsche, la Volonté de Schopenhauer, le conatus de Spinoza, l'Élan vital de Bergson, la volonté générale de Rousseau, la volonté divine d'Augustin et les théologiens musulmans et juifs (sans compter ce qui existe dans les systèmes orientaux), on utilise un mot fourre tout qui nécessite à chaque fois une définition.

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

Le paragraphe sur les autistes...

Il y a des cerveaux "normaux" such as ours (well, wild guess here...) et des hommes (I think it's more a matter of men than women) qui peuvent extraire la racine √ 13 d'un nombre à 225 chiffres en quelques minutes! Huh?

La complexité des activités neuronales possibles est incompréhensible.

Now imagine that we, the so-called normal ones, were the minority and these people with extra powerful mental possibilities were the majority, the Chaos theory would become reality.

Which world would we live if so?

------------------------
Volonté ou libre arbitre peuvent-ils se "trouver" dans les neurones, synapses ou ailleurs?

C'est la question essentielle de savoir comment l'esprit est parvenu à émerger de la matière.
Il y avait la glande pinéale de Descartes (ô-Ô) mais on ne l'a pas encore trouvée...

Cela fait partie des questions qui ne seront jamais résolues je crois.
De même, ce qui fait qu'un individu a tel ou tel "caractère" (moralité) nous restera sans doute toujours inconnu.

L'homme, le vivant, ne peut pas se réduire à un tableau 100% exhaustif de données biologico-chimico-physiques ni de formules mathématiques.

Le vivant est irréductible à ce genre de données.

La vie est une insaisissable dynamique dont on ne connaîtra jamais l'ultime étape car il n'y en a pas.

C'est comme les mathématiques. Il n'y aura pas un jour où l'homme pourra dire: "j'ai achevé la connaissance du monde mathématique."

Flocon a dit…

"That link may be too long"

You bet! :D

All the more since it leads to the page comments.

Ned, until you master the fine art of the blue links this one may be helpful to you.

It reduces your 1922 characters link to a much, much shorter one.

http://tinyurl.com/33dadp8

here it is.

But we wtill don't know where you wanted us to go.

Flocon a dit…

The elegant universe:

Il y a une série en 20 parties sur YouTube. Part one

A rough calculation gives me a viewing time of about 3 hours!

Je vais lire ce qu'il y a sur Wiki...

Flocon a dit…

J'ai oublié les compliments pour le premier commentaire en français!

"Autant que je sache" m'a ébloui! ;-)

Thumbs up!

Anijo a dit…

Hi Bernarda,

String Hypothesis is not falsifiable. It cannot be tested. So called "Intelligent Design" is not falsifiable. It cannot be tested.


Both of these notions might be interesting to contemplate, but neither one of these ideas is scientific. For something to be scientific it must be falsifiable/testable..

Anijo a dit…

Flocon,

Tu te fus ébloui alors?



Now I know had to seduce you.

Anijo a dit…

When I said above it should called "string hypothesis", I was being generous.

It's a 'string conjecture'.

Really, string theory isn't a theory at all. Creationists who oppose the teaching of Darwin have taken to deriding natural selection as "just a theory," and Darwin's defenders have rightly replied that in science, "theory" does not mean idle speculation. Rather, it is an honored term for an idea that has been elaborately analyzed, has not been falsified, and has made testable predictions that have later proven to be true. The ordering of scientific notions is: conjecture, hypothesis, theory. Pope John Paul II chose his words carefully when in 1996 he called evolution "more than a hypothesis." Yet the very sorts of elite-institution academics who snigger at creationists for revealing their ignorance of scientific terminology by calling evolution "just a theory" nonetheless uniformly say "string theory." Since what they're talking about is strictly a thought experiment (just try proving there are no other dimensions), from now on, "string conjecture," please.

Flocon a dit…

Anijo,

Le verbe éblouir n'était pas celui que je voulais employer. I thought of "épaté" (dumbfounded) but wasn't sure if it would go down well.

You're right in the sense that éblouir, here, would be too emotionally loaded. Like Ned had raptured my mind.

But when I remember the ego shattering episode some times ago... oh well...


(And it should be: tu fus ébloui?. Je peux m'éblouir if I direct the light coming from a lamp in my own eyes.)

Flocon a dit…

Anijo,

You know how poorly wired my brain is compared to yours re sciences, maths etc.

"For something to be scientific it must be falsifiable/testable.."

Which means the Darwin theory isn't scientific isn't it?

But then only chemistry, physics and biology can be tested and falsifiable?

On second thought, I undestand there's nothing scientific with psychology theories, anthropology, sociology and all that pertains to men.

Where am I wrong?

Ned Ludd a dit…

Dans je ne sais quel "talk show", un journalist a demandé à la nouvelle ministre des sport ce qu'elle pensait des joueurs de l'équipe de la Coupe Davis qui ne payaient pas d'impots en France. Elle a repondu que ils devraient vivre en France et les payent. C'était clair.

Recemment, le joueur de foot, Anelka a dit qu'il ne chanterait "La Marseillaise". Je ne suis pas fan des telles demonstrations de "patriotisme", mais je trouve Anelka ingrat. Il était formé dépuis sa jeunesse dans les institutions payée par l'état et la Féderation Française du Football. S'il n'avait pas été ne en France, est-ce qu'il aurait fait la carrière qui est la sienne? C'est le même pour les joueurs de tennis, où d'autres sports. Ils en ont profité de l'infrastructure et l'enseignement sportifs de la France, et maintenant ils ne montrent pas de reconaissance.

Une exception est le basketeur Tony Parker qui a investi dans les clubs et la formation de jeune joueurs.

-------

Anijo et Flocon, je vais ajouter à vos listes déjà longues de lecture. Tant aux fractals, je peux proposer le livre de Hans Lauwerier, "Fractals: Images of Chaos".
Des jolies photos incluses.

Aussi, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos" par Ian Stewart. Il a écrit plusieurs livres pour faire comprendre les mathematiques modernes au publique.

John Casti a écrit "Complexification: Explaining a paradoxical world through the science of surprise". Une citation, "Surprising behavior only results from complicated, hard to understand interactions among a system's components." Il cite Werner Von Braun, "Basic research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing."

John Allen Paulos a aussi écrit plusieurs livres des mathematiques pour le publique. "Once Upon a Number: The Hidden Mathematical Logic of Stories". C'est court est drôle.

Ned Ludd a dit…

Flocon, you are wrong on Darwin, whose theory is one of the most tested in the world. Anthropology has also been tested and is in a sense part of evolutionary theory.

Today, scientists don't like the term "Darwinism" because science has gone far beyond what he knew. It suffices to "evolution".

Ned Ludd a dit…

The entire program by Greene, which is 3 hours, I recorded on VHS and can be found here.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/elegant-universe-einstein.html

Anijo, I don't contest your point about the lack of falsibility testing of it, but this program at least gives a description of the conjecture and is entertaining.

As to the interview with Greene.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/greene.html

I don't know why the first time it gave such a long url, but I know about Tiny Url and would have used it. A mistake must have happened somewhere.

Ned Ludd a dit…

NB, if string "theory" is true, it requires 11 dimensions. Greene does a good job of explaining a 5th dimension and maybe a 6th, I don't remember exactly.

Flocon a dit…

"Flocon, you are wrong on Darwin"

Logically I can't be wrong since I was asking a question ;-)

It's just that I don't know.

Of course I don't doubt what you write about evolution having been tested or anthropology too but how can these fields of knowledge be tested the way chemistry, physics and biologie can?

It's probably because I don't understand the verb "To test" the way it should be in epistemology.

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

Les joueurs de tennis ou de foot,

Yannick Noah a bénéficié de toute l'infrastructure française pour lui permettre d'obtenir les résultats qu'il a obtenus. Ces infrastructures (plus le personnel) ont été financées par les contribuables français (me and you included) and now he lives in New York after he lived in Switzerland.

Mais c'est la personnalité préférée des Français paraît-il.

On ne parviendra jamais à convaincre un esclave qu'il est exploité par son maître.

Anijo a dit…

Flocon,

For someone who claims that his brain is not as wired towards science as mine is, you ask a very good question! Remember that link to the Precambrian Rabbit? You had something in mind, now didn't you?

Anyway, I have been doing some research on this so that my answer would be complete. I have learned a few things in this process.

I'm still working on the response which I'll post later this morning.

Anijo a dit…

Ned,
Thank you for the links.

I do agree that the idea of String Conjecture is entertaining. It could be true. I have a number of things that I imagine in attempting to understand our unusual situation here on this planet Earth in this galaxy and universe.

Anijo a dit…

Okay, Flocon. This is my attempt to answer your question. The best information I could find usually came from the talkorigins.com website.

Also, I get an error message of too many characters, so I'll have to break up this post into multiple parts.

From what I've been reading, it is important to first establish a definition of evolution

Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population.

Anijo a dit…

But then only chemistry, physics and biology can be tested and falsifiable?

Note that the defintion of "evolution" fell under the Evolutionary Biology category.

Anijo a dit…

And then this from the talkorigins site.

Back to evolution. It becomes clear why the simple-minded parroting, even by scientists, that if it can't be falsified it isn't science, is not sufficient to rule out a theory. What science actually is, is a matter for extreme debate. The rediscovery post-Merton of the social nature of science has thrown eternal Scientific Methods out the window, but that doesn't mean that science is no longer distinguishable from non-science. It just isn't as easy as one would like in an ideal world. Last I looked, it wasn't an ideal world, anyway.

However, on the ordinary understanding of falsification, Darwinian evolution can be falsified. What's more, it can be verified in a non-deductive sort of way. Whewell was right in the sense that you can show the relative validity of a theory if it pans out enough, and Popper had a similar notion, called 'verisimilitude'. What scientists do, or even what they say they do, is in the end very little affected by a priori philosophical prescriptions. Darwin was right to take the approach he did.

It is significant that, although it is often claimed that Darwinism is unfalsifiable, many of the things Darwin said have in fact been falsified.

Anijo a dit…

Again, from talkorigins

1.There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could
falsify evolution. For example:

•a static fossil record;
•true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;
•a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
•observations of organisms being created.

Anijo a dit…

Now to tie this into "String Theory". It is theoretical physics, but its importance is diminished because it cannot make any observable predictions.

It's interesting to contemplate because what occured "before" the big bang is something interesting to contemplate.

But then even this gets complex. Does time even exist before the big bang?

Anijo a dit…

One more thing !

This is the best explanation, in English, of the scientific method that I could find:

I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

Flocon a dit…

You didn't tell us everything Anijo: At one time or another you were a teacher!

Merci de tes recherches et de tes efforts. Some more reading for tonight and tomorrow I'll be a little less ignorant.

Please pray, promise me that I won't have to sit for an examination tomorrow.
Pleaaaseee m'am ;-)

(I didn't know that Joe Dassin song you linked to the other day)

Flocon a dit…

Does time even exist before the big bang?"

At the acme of my understanding and knowledge I thought that time was a concept which permitted to measure the movements of matter within space.

Hence time depends on the existence of matter.

I thought that time as a concept doesn't exist per se but is only a mean/tool for us to observe the world and its phenomena.

Time and space are the a priori forms of our sensitivity wrote Kant. But now he's dead so maybe I'm 2 centuries late?

Anijo a dit…

Merci pour avoir posé la question. Des bonnes questions nous mèneront ver une meilleure connaissance. Et maintenant, j'en comprends plus qu'avant.

Tu sais que chui fan de Joe Dassin. J'ai une grand collection de sa musique.

Teacher, no, but I spent too many years as a student.. ;)


I am still a student... always will be..

Anijo a dit…

Thank you for the mention of Lutoslawski, Penderecki, Messia, Stockhausen et Nono. I shared this with some friends which led to other things. But then this opens up another topic... Could it be that this string-of-consciousness thread leads to one thing, then another, then another, ad infinitum?

At the acme of my understanding and knowledge I thought that time was a concept which permitted to measure the movements of matter within space.

Admit it Flocon. You know much more about all of this than you are willing to admit.

Ned Ludd a dit…

Flocon, I have read a couple of articles for which I can't find the links where scientists explain why there has to be something rather than nothing, and apparently Stephen Hawkins takes this up in his new book.

As to testing and falsibility, quantum theory, for example, has been tested many times and always gives the right answer. How does it work? As foremost physicist on the subject, Richard Feynman, said, if someone says he understands quantum theory, he doesn't understand quantum theory.

Flocon a dit…

Ned,

FWIW, this question (why is there something rather than nothing?) was first asked by Leibnitz as far as I know.

It is interesting to consider the historical context when this question arose.

The question implicitly suggests that if there's something it's because there's a divine creator at the basis of the existence of the universe.

Un peu comme quand Voltaire (je crois) concluais que le monde était une si parfaite et extraordinaire mécanique que seule une volonté supérieure pouvait en être à l'origine.

I've just made a 5 seconds research on Google in English and links simply abound.

Here is an article which gives an answer (it happens to be in the vein that I indicated above = theism wanting to check mate scientists and reason).

There are many other such articles such as that one.


"if someone says he understands quantum theory, he doesn't understand quantum theory."

A witty one which evoques the snake eating his tail...

Anijo a dit…

Stephen Hawking's new book is The Grand Design.

If you read only the news stories on Stephen Hawking’s The Grand Design, you might be forgiven for thinking it focuses on the claim that

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.

But this claim is only discussed in two chapters. Nor is it a new claim. Hawking’s atheism, and his (not so rare) belief that recent physics shows the universe can create itself from “nothing,” have been known for over a decade.

Moreover, the book does not even argue that the universe created itself from nothing, as nothing is usually conceived. Instead, Hawking argues that the universe will create itself from the pre-existing vacuum energy of “empty space,” which, is not really empty. Some physicists might idiosyncratically call that “nothing,” but philosophers and ordinary people certainly would not. Moreover, on Hawking’s model, this quantum vacuum energy is only known to exist after time 0 (the “beginning” of the universe). So if you’re looking for an explanation of how the universe could create itself from nothing, you won’t find even an attempt at the answer in Hawking’s book.

Flocon a dit…

The Ladies' page probably wasn't a good idea but a Scientist ladies' page is now worth contemplating...

Ned Ludd a dit…

Another look at nothing/something(I forget if it has already been mentioned): The Biggest Question of All.

http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/michael-shermer/the-biggest-big-question-of-all

Shermer presents 10 theories, among them "M" theory, which I indirectly referred to earlier.

"The dual wave/particle models of light are an example of model-dependent realism, where each one agrees with certain observations but neither one is sufficient to explain all observations. To model the entire universe, Hawking and Mlodinow employ “M-Theory,” an extension of string theory that includes 11 dimensions and incorporates all five current string theory models. “M-theory is the most general supersymmetric theory of gravity,” Hawking and Mlodinow explain. “For these reasons M-theory is the only candidate for a complete theory of the universe. If it is finite — and this has yet to be proved — it will be a model of a universe that creates itself.” Although they admit that the theory has yet to be confirmed by observation, if it is then no creator explanation is necessary because the universe creates itself. I call this auto-ex-nihilo."

Ned Ludd a dit…

I meant to add that the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is loaded.

Perhaps "something" is the "normal" state or even a universal state(or nearly so), and "nothing" is a rare exception, or nothing.

So the question would be, "Why is there nothing?" or could there even be "nothing"? As Shermer asks, what is "nothing"?

Our universe seems to be made of at least 70% of dark energy and dark matter which we know nothing about.

Anijo a dit…

Ned,
Did you click on the links that Flocon mentioned above? He linked to this article by Victor Stenger who says that something is the normal state because nothing is unstable.