Concerning how quantum mechanics is being explored artistically: (Quantum of Culture at Physics World)
Consider Quantum Sheep, the brainchild of Valerie Laws, a writer who lives in the north of England. In 2002 she spray-painted words onto the fleeces of sheep from a nearby farm. As the flock milled about, the words rearranged and a new “poem” was created every time the sheep came to rest. A spokesperson for Northern Arts, which provided £2000 of funding for the project, said that the result was “an exciting fusion of poetry and quantum physics”. Here is one of the resulting “Haik-Ewes”:
Clouds graze the sky
Below, sheep drift gentle
Over fields, soft mirrors
Warm white snow
Talking to the BBC at the time, Laws explained why she felt the project was worth pursuing. “Randomness and uncertainty is at the centre of how the universe is put together, and is quite difficult for us as humans who rely on order,” she said. “So I decided to explore randomness and some of the principles of quantum mechanics, through poetry, using the medium of sheep.”
One of the things about complexity/chaos theory is that prediction submits to very specific limits, in the sense that with anything but a VERY simple system, we must give up the potential for long-term predictive certainty. This is because very small differences can lead towards extremely large differences later down the line, and we simply can’t account for the effects of these very small differences.
The problem is that one never knows whether a small difference will actually make a difference or not. And in any case, with any non-trivial system, the small differences are all complexly interrelated to larger scale changes, with much cross-feedback.
So SOME kinds of predictions are possible — it’s the RANGE that’s a problem. For example, we can predict with high certainty that certain climatic patterns will continue far into the future — but we can’t predict with any accuracy on any given future date whether it will be cloudy and raining or sunny, because those detailed specifics are precisely what are affected the most by the tiny shifts in today’s weather.
Then there is a completely separate but equally problematic blow to our predictive abilities. If the only problem was the butterfly effect, we might be able to make a computer powerful enough to predict far-future events with accuracy, because it could take everything into account — after all, the universe follows its own laws, right? We just tell the computer what those laws are, the initial conditions, and give it enough time to calculate and we should have an accurate and complete answer, right?
Nope. The problem is two-fold. On the one hand, we simply don’t know how to account for (measure) all the very small initial states that would be required for such a computer to have sufficient information to do its job. It’s simply too huge of a task in a practical sense. You would, for example, need to know (in the case of weather, a good chaotic system) the pressure and temperature of the air… but for WHAT air? Can you generalize and only look at average values for large volumes of air, say, those the size of a city? Or do you need accuracy to within a cubic meter of air, so you can have distinct values for every cubic meter of air on the planet? You see the practical problems associated with this. Other complex systems, such as the body, behave in the same way — measuring hormone levels in the blood, the distance between dendrites and axons, the thickness of their myelination, etc. etc. — there is no practical way to get the information needed.
BUT WAIT, IT GETS WORSE!
Unfortunately for our predictive abilities, it isn’t even just a question of the practical difficulties in obtaining such information, but rather that such information is IN PRINCIPLE, not gettable. This is because, as the quantum mechanics shows, we cannot help but disturb a system when we measure it, and that disturbance always introduces an uncertainty with respect to some other aspect of the system that we can never – IN PRINCIPLE – simultaneously account for so as to know the COMPLETE state of the system at any given instant. We have to do all our predictive work on the basis of PROBABILITIES, not certainties – at least when we are talking about the quantum level.
But here’s the rub: NOBODY knows when it might be okay to ignore quantum effects and stick with much more manageable ‘classical’ (and predictable) rules. It’s a real philosophical and practical problem, because we see more and more that the quantum world and the world of macro-scale qualities are not separate. Of course, it would be quite bizarre if quantum-scale effects simply occurred over a very well-defined set of limits, beyond which different rules took over that needed no reference to the quantum rules. Of course, this is precisely how most scientists actually do their work — they either work in particle physics or other fields that look at very small scales, in which case they use the rules that describe the quantum realm, or they work in engineering or biology and only worry about quantum effects when they have to, otherwise they use classical rules as much as possible.
Chaos theory itself is fractal – it’s laws span all scales. We cannot ignore the potential and actual effects that cross over from one scale to another, decreasing our certainty at each level. The change on one level of a phenomenon may very well cause a change on a completely different level — but in predicting that change to arbitrary accuracy we run into practical as well as principled issues which we cannot overcome. Thus, the built-in indeterminacy at the quantum level can, through the scalar linking effects described by chaos theory, can link single, quantum-scale processes to shifts at the macro scale.
We can always make predictions, and for many situations and circumstances, the above problems are ignorable. But for other situations–those near criticality, for example–the full effects of both quantum indeterminacy and chaos theory may make all the difference.
I have this feeling that appeals to functional equivalence (or even similarity) are somehow, well, disrespectful, or at least intrinsically misleading. Functional appeals ‘work’ because they abstract very specific relations from an otherwise fully real and completely embedded situation, and show how regardless of how those relations come about, if they do, then for the purposes of our inquiry, we are satisfied of their equivalence. In other words, if I want my taxes done, I don’t care whether it is done by a computer, a certified tax accountant, or a 5-year old prodigy, as long as I pay the same amount and get the same results.
My problem with functionalism (in all its forms, not just with respect to functional theories of the mind), is that function accounts necessarily reject aspects of a whole system which,given a different approach, would render any initial functional consideration of equivalence not equivalent.
In other words, given the example above, although considered solely and specifically for the very restricted purpose of ‘having my taxes done’, they three systems are functionally equivalent, the computer, the tax accountant, and the 5-year old are equivalent only in a functional sense. By being only functionally equivalent, and only in this very specific situation and for a very specific purpose, we see that a certain violence is being done with respect to the constancy of the respective wholes under (or rather not under) consideration. There are secondary, tertiary, and n-iary non-trivial effects consequent in each case that are different.
When seen as complex, relational wholes with inextricable and unique qualitative embeddedness in a multilayered and recursively evolving world dialogue, the functional relations identified by functional appeals are revealed as non-generalizable reflections of some particular set of distinctions which, if they were different, would necessitate different functional relations.
More simply, functionalism has no ontology and ignores epistemology.
This is not to say that appeals to functionalism are to be avoided. On the contrary, what makes functional appeals so powerful is precisely their ability to ignore everything that is determined to be unimportant for a given system in order to reveal some higher-order similarity. The problem arises in that functionalist explanations are not very good explanations, because they always avoid asking the question “Who?” That is, who is making the determination concerning the particular functional relation to be considered in a specific circumstance? There is always someone who must initially decide – upon a basis not explicable from within a functionalist standpoint – what the criteria are for a given system to meet a particular functional definition.
This functional blind spot is very similar to the way in which the classic scientific method includes an aspect which is manifestly non-scientific: the hypothesis. In giving a name to this undetermined, mysterious and non-controllable source from which all of its knowledge comes from and returns to, the logic of science seemingly ‘co-opts’ this ‘hole’ in its otherwise orderly workings through a process of more or less complete ignorance. Where hypotheses come from and what they consist of has nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific method, but determines every single piece of scientific knowledge it produces and the entire course of science as a whole. Functional explanations are similar in that they ignore the source of the distinctions upon which every functional identification rests. Science can only say that ‘given such and such a hypothesis, the following logical relations would hold’, just as functional explanations can only say that ‘given such and such a functional role, system A and system B have functional equivalence’. But because every system is non-arbitrarily intra and interconnected, the choice of what constitutes a given function has non-arbitrary consequences that are ignored at the peril of the coherence of the very functional similarity proposed.
Thus functionalism is disrespectful in that it does openly include and account for the source of its functional determinants. When functional appeals are used in a manifestly pragmatic way, I can forgive this oversight. But when functional appeals are used as explanations, I object, because in such cases functionalism begins to overstep itself by disingenuously posing itself in an ontological persona, leading to claims such as “if a computer functions in just the same way as a human being, then it must have a mind, because this is how we explain what a mind is.’ This is ontological violence pure and simple, and basically amounts to saying that to have a mind is to function as if one had a mind. But the hidden move here is one which necessarily already assumes – without any justification whatsoever – the particular distinctions (and not others) which account for what it means to ‘function as a mind’.
In other words, functional appeals are a mask for our ignorance. They are useful because when we are in a state of ignorance, they allow us to make distinctions which ground further thinking, but they outlive their usefulness when the relations they propose are ossified at the expense of the potential – always inherent in any real system – for multiply alternative distinctions to serve as the basis for completely different relations
WARNING: PROJECTIVE GEOMETRY MAY PUT HOLES IN YOUR BRAIN. YOUR MIND MIGHT LEAK OUT – IF YOU WANT YOUR MIND IN YOUR BRAIN STOP READING NOW.
Okay, here is a geometric exercise that I find very interesting (for some context about WHY it is interesting, look here).
It is, however, more complicated than the previous one and will likely require you to actually take out a pencil (not a pen, please, and go for mechanical – 0.5mm lead… do it for me), a ruler, and unlined paper.
HARMONIC POINTS – Phase 1
The short setup first, then construction hints, then process, then comments:
I’d like to make a contribution with regards to circularity/linearity, from a geometrical standpoint. If you don’t like geometry, stop reading, or better yet, read with increased intensity.
The polarity between circle/line is one that is fundamental to many geometries – they are taken to be quite different logical entities. Primarily this arises because of (in a move parallel to Russel’s need to introduce the Theory of Types to avoid paradox) a limited way of dealing with infinity. Cybernetics shows us, by providing a wider view (attention to relations, recursions, and thus relations of relations, etc.) that the Theory of Types is unnecessary and points towards a more flexible and mysterious understanding of paradox. In the same way, projective geometry provides a way of dealing with infinity that encompasses, expands, and re-frames the conventional geometric view. (more…)
Wow – wandering through Powell’s books just turned up this gem – perfect for me! It’s a book with an alchemical basis (the chapters are organized by the seven basic alchemical processes), exploring philosophy, science, history, and consciousness…
but what’s even better is that the book is very visual and creative. It includes seven paper models that can be cut out and constructed into 3D artefacts with philosophic, scientific, and alchemical meanings. It’s kind of like if Nick Bantock was a scientist/philosopher and wrote non-fiction.
How did I not know about this book? Oh well, at least now it was only $18 instead of the $50 list price!
Plus it has an amazing website that anyone can visit to get the flavor:
After working on this thesis for, well, let’s face it, WAY too long, I am finally DONE. It’s actually kind of hard to believe, and I’m pretty sure that my wife was thinking that this day wouldn’t actually arrive. I should have made a bet.
Basically what this means is that in the next… um, period of time, I will be converting my thesis and posting it on the spiritalchemy.com site. Then I guess the question is, will anyone want to read 240 pages online? Probably not, which is why I have a PDF version ready to go as well. Boy am I optimistic!
I also get to categorize this entry as relevant to all my included categories except for poetry, as my thesis contains original work in all the other areas – let’s hear it for generalists!
Oh, in case you were wondering, I decided to call it: The Elements as an Archetype of Transformation: an Exploration of Earth, Water, Air, and Fire. You can get a basic idea of the table of contents (not quite updated to match the final version) at https://spiritalchemy.com/thesis.html.
