#Radio Animation?
33 messages in this thread
>> I have trouble accepting Choas theory as an explanation for anything…
>Really. I think its a very interesting explanation for how things happen which
otherwise don't make sense. The idea that a little thing can have a profound
impact on the overall scheme of things is very powerful. <
In the early days of modern science, the general observation was that the
universe is approaching a grand form of organization, or unification. Take for
example, the assemblance of life from a random scatter of elements. The top.
Now, Choas theory suggests that the universe is a chain of mathematically
unpredictable events that ultimatley lead to disorganization. The bottom.
Reality is either both or neither. 😉
— James — Choreo Motion —
James, PMJI and PMCY <Pardon My Contradicting You> <g> but I don't think that
Chaos theory really "suggests that the universe is a chain of mathematically
unpredictable events that ultimatley lead to disorganization."
What Chaos theory REALLY says is that there IS ORDER in events which might at
first seem random. That there is a specific reason and point at which a system
might change from linear to non-linear (chaotic). That while specific events
may be unpredictable over the long term, short-term events and medium-term
trends CAN be predicted with reasonable accuracy.
In fact, many (though not all) GOOD events/systems are those that ARE chaotic.
For example, a heart-attack (ie the transition from sinus rythmn to
fibrillation) is an example of BAD chaos (a linear system becoming non-linear).
On the other hand, one's brainwave activity while solving a problem is
highly-chaotic — and this is good. In fact, studies show that a normal
person's brain waves are chaotic and their heart functions are linear. That
same person, under the influence of drugs (I don't remember for sure, but I
THINK it was cocaine) shows a LINEAR brain wave and a CHAOTIC heart rythmn.
There are some med schools where they've got chaos theorists working with
cardiologists!
I'd really recommend picking up James Gleik's book on Chaos. It's a pretty
easy read, and VERY interesting. Also, there was a NOVA episode several years
ago that you might be able to find. Chaos theory, IMHO, is more a COMFORT than
a threat.
Dave
That's right, David. I found that an understanding of Chaos relationships may
help predict weather patterns very accurately into the next century, but our
data collection methods need to improve. Chaos theory is very enlightening. It
helps explain things that do seem chaotic at first glance.
>> Now, Chaos theory suggests that the universe is a chain of mathematically
unpredictable events that ultimatley lead to disorganization. The bottom. <<
The first part I can partially accept, because there is unpredictability, but
there is a higher degree of predictability. So it does not follow that
everything leads to disorganization. For instance if water gets below a
certain temperature it freezes. That is quite predictable. But how water
molecules in the air react depends on the circumstances, which vary, which
accounts for changing weather patterns from day to day. Weather patterns are
predictable to a certain degree for a certain time of year, but can also
deviate considerably, ie snow in Paris once every 10 to 20 years.
If you were god, and had to think of a scheme by which there would be order in
the universe and at the same time allow for change, (not necessarily decay) you
would have to build in a "chaos" factor, or a random uncertainty. Otherwise
everything would be predictable. Chaos theory explains the uncertainty by
accepting the non-linearity of predictability. Mostly in math we deal with
linearity because it is neat and orderly, but there is a whole side to math
which is not, and that is non-linear equations. But even within that
non-linearity there are patterns, and these patterns while random are at the
same time orderly. Clouds are one of many good examples.
I recently learned that all of mankind that is alive today is related to the
same original mother some 50 million years ago. Anthropologists have discovered
a portion of the DNA strand which is unique to us, which we all have in common,
that can be traced back that far. Peking man, for instance, is no longer
thought to be a pre-chinese ancestor, but an extinct species of man. Several
others have had to be reclassified as well. That one small twist (a random
mutation) in the DNA strand, caused the dominance of our species of mankind. Of
all the benign mutations, and some not so benign, none was a significant as
this one. A butter fly that caused a typhoon. So while there is order and a
certian degree of predictability, say in how a DNA gene is passed on, there is
also room for a mutation, an element of unpredictability and that is what Chaos
theory attempts to accounts for.
John
As data on our universe approaches infinity, all events within our universe
become predictable, given that we are able to tabulate that data. I believe
this can be true including thought and behavior of animals. Chaos theory
assumes that there are no unpredictable events, only events that we don't have
enough data to predict the outcome that seem chaotic. Your clouds example is a
perfect example. If we had all the data required to predict the size and shape
of the cloud we could predict it. It's like a pool break. When the Q ball
hits the balls react in a very predictable manner but to one who has no
understanding of the laws of physics the balls reactions seem chaotic and
unpredictable. Water vapour molecules in a cloud, wind molecules, gravity,
heat, etc. help shape the future events of cloud formation and motion and
weather. If we had all the data and could tabulate it we could predict all
future events.
PMFJI
< If we had all the data required to predict the size and shape of the cloud we
could predict it.>
Dosnt the Hiesenburg Principle state that in the process of collecting all the
data, the data is changed?
Ed (in over my head but interested) Harvey
The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle really only applies at the sub-atomic
level (the micro-scopic as opposed to the macro-scopic), and basically states
that you can not know, with complete accuracy, both the position and velocity
of a particle. You can know absolutely where a particle is, but nothing about
its velocity — or you can have a rough idea of both its position and velocity
— or alsolutely know its velocity but have no idea of its position. The more
you know about one, the less you can know about the other.
Yes, Quantum Mechanics DOES state that the act of observing a system alters
that system. The most famous example of this is the mind experiment known as
Schroedinger's Cat. You put a cat in a box, along with a mechanism for
releasing a poison gas. The poison-trigger is an isotope that has a 50/50
chance of decaying by half in a minute, say. So, if the isotope decays, the
cat dies — if not, the cat lives. Now, the question is, what happens if you
don't open the box. The theory goes that all the possibilities (in this case
two: cat=dead / cat=alive) co-exist simultaneously as wave functions as long as
the system (cat/poison) remains unobserved. So until the VERY moment that you
open the box, the cat is both alive AND dead. At that precise instant, one
waveform collapses and the other is actualized. (Although, in the many-worlds
theory, BOTH events happen, as the universe constantly fractures at every
decision-point into multiple realities — so suddenly there would be two
universes — one where the cat lived and one where the cat died. Again,
remember that this is a THOUGHT experiment, and just meant to illustrate a
concept. Again, the real theory only applies at the sub-atomic level, so don't
try this at home, kids!<g>
For those interested in Quantum Mechanics, I'd reccommend the book "The Dancing
Wu Li Masters".
Dave
I was thinking about the way that any "our scale" attempt to get enough data
points to, for example, predict the weather would inevitably change the data
collected if only slightly, in the same manner that putting a themometer in a
glass of water will change the temp of the water.
My overall point would be that whether or not it is theoretically possible to
collect enough data to to predict the weather it will always be practically
impossible.Another thing that interests me is how we have the experience of
choice, not the feeling that every thing we think or do is determined. I
couldnt help sending this message.<G>
Ed
No, there are some systems, like the weather, that I think are just too large
to be able to collect enough data about. I seem to recall an example in the
Chaos, the Making of a New Science book that said even if you covered the globe
with a grid of sensors at 1' intervals both horizontally and vertically, that
the variations in between would still be enough to scramble your long-range
forcasts. The more initial info you have, the better you can predict the
short-range stuff, but the further into the future you look, the more those
predictions just go awry. And you're right, sticking a thermometer/sensor
somewhere absolutely has an effect on the ambient temperature it measures.
I knew exactly where your message would be, but not at what velocity!
Dave
Thanks a lot David for the info on Quantum Mechanics. Ever since reading a few
of Richard Bach's books I've had an interest. That's where I first heard of
Schroedinger's Cat but until now never knew what it was. Sure is an interesting
theory. If you haven't read it Bach's book "One" is a distillation of the many
worlds theory into a fascinating story, great reading.
DM
I think the only Bach book I ever read was JL Seagull. Take a look at "The
Dancing Wu Li Masters" — it's an exploration of Quantum Mechanics with nods
toward ancient eastern philosophies, and how, in many ways, the two are quite
similar. I think you'll like it.
Dave
I'm actually going to Barnes and Noble tonight to see if I can pick up a copy.
Can't wait to read it. Bach's books are wonderful IMO. They don't actually deal
with Quantum Mechanics but they are based somewhat in it. Well worth reading,
I've read just about all of his books. Well, thanks for the info. and I will
keep you posted on the book.
DM
Don: <data and tabulation> Always been fascinated by Chaos Theory, some of the
math left me unable to pursue. However, Wegner and Tyler's Fractint Program is
a rather amazing piece of software and directly applicable to 3-DS. DXF and
bitmaps with rhyme and reason, mathematical plot and predictable outcome. Nice
spice to add to the cooking process, as subtext in an animation. I might sneak
in a little question here, Don.:-> When you render TGAs for compression to the
PAR, do you render your TGAs compressed or uncompressed? Forever tweaking I
hope sometime something I know can help you. P.S. This is the week the BetaSp
1800s get installed. Jeffrey
I render to compressed TGA's for the PAR as 3DS uses lossless compression for
TGA's. I avoid JPEG to go to PAR as it would be double jpeg compression which
is severly lossy. Congrats on getting the 1800 If you have a good controller
you will be pleased with it.
Don: TGA 3-DS lossless> That's what I was betting on. Still astounded at the
quality of the PAR output! Regarding the conroller: I just couldn't resist the
Sony Pro discount, and got the FXE100 which will give me good post control,
including keying. There are many crossfades, effects and overlays I would
rather do in Post, tape to tape. Really like the feel of hard-wired editing.
BTW, are you all going to continue discussing Chaos Theory and making me design
an entire multi-verse with SYSTEM SEED REALTIME? I just don't have the time to
enjoy these exchanges as much as I have! <VBG> Jeffrey
Sounds good. Let me know how you do with that FXE-100. I was torn last summer
between the FXE-100 and the FAST VM. It almost came down to a coin toss before
I decided. <G>. I've only heard a few negatives regarding the quality of the
digital moves in the wipes. Let me know how smooth it is. How is the
aliasing? I have yet to see one in action.
Chaos? Keep me out of it. I shouldn't have butted in as this deep theory
stuff gives me a headache when I should be concentrating on business of
exchanging ideas for animation and video. <G> It's fun to read but if I have
to think too long on it I don't get any work done. Speaking of which, it's
time to switch tapes on the duplicators again… see ya!
>> As data on our universe approaches infinity, all events within our universe
become predictable… <<
Interesting interpretation. My conclusion is quite a bit different, because as
long as there is the possibility of one unpredictable event, all is potentially
unpredictable. We can assume that as we collect more data -> infinity that our
predictions will become more and more accurate. Therefore being a useful tool
in determining with greater accuracy weather systems for instance. But how do
we account for a volcano errupting, which itself is a Chaos driven phenomena,
which can influence the weather, and if we do take into account the volcano,
how can we predict what will happen, unless we model the volcano to try to
determine when it will errupt… At minimum we would have to model our Solar
system, but that still doesn't take into account an asteroid entering our solar
system…. and so on.
But assuming that it is even theoretically possible to collect all the data and
account for all the interaction of all the elements, (we would have to recreate
the universe in its entirety as a model). We would also have to be able to
advance that model ahead of time itself to determine what will happen. This
would be the only way that we could predict with a 100% certainty what would
happen. In fact the best we could hope for, is that our model would operate in
real time with the known universe, as other wise it would be creating the
future in advance of our time. Which is theoretically impossible. And according
to the physics that I know, just the fact that you had created an alterate
model would influence the reality of the universe as we know it. Kinda like the
mirror reflecting the mirror reflecting the mirror etc.
>> Chaos theory assumes that there are no unpredictable events. <<
But is that the same as "all events are predictable"? I don't think so, because
you can't know all the factors to predict an event.
Brain teaser that one. 🙂
John
PMJI, But, The general theory of relativity can be used with a great degree of
accuracy to calculate the positions of heavenly bodies at a given time. If on
knew where everything was at any given moment one could then predict where
everything would be at some given measure of time in the future. Of course when
we get invaded by aliens it isn't going to matter anyway. 🙂
DM
>> The general theory of relativity can be used with a great degree of
accuracy…. <<
David, lets just say you could know where everything was at a given moment. Can
we assume that we would be able to predict where everything will be in the next
moment? Only if there is one possible choice for each and every object. Quarks
supposedly can be in two places at the same time, so you might expect that the
quark was in two places at the moment before you made your prediction. But it
may be that quarks only show up in two places at the same time when in an
excited state. If that were the case how could you have enough knowledge to
know where a quark might be once it had reached the point of being at two
places at the same time. Unfortuneately this can go nowhere fast, so I'm
inclined to leave it, unless someone knows for sure whether an object can have
two possible courses of action but is not impelled to favor one over the other.
John
John, Well, actually, both the general theory of relativity and quantum
mechanics can not both be correct. I was just citing a basic premise that
relativity makes in that it can predict future events. Currently there is not
enough data to make predicitions about much but take for instance the Moon. We
can tell exactly where it will be 5 years from now. If we had _all_ the data
the predicitions could be scaled down to storms etc and conceivably even
further. The many worlds theory of Quantum mechanics states that _everythiing_
happens in alternate realities. I've thought of some interesting ideas based on
the many worlds theory. Assuming it is true, then all of us are in this reality
based on our quantum signature. It oscillates at a given rate and keeps us
affixed in this "dimension." By changing our quantum signature we could also
change our reality. This would give you the power to observe the outcome of
every decision you've ever made in your life. I was thinking that if one knew
what a quantum signature was then one could build a quantum microwave oven.
You'd get in to it and it would emit a wave that would change your quantum
signature. I suppose a pocket sized one would be more practical though. I think
I'm approaching the deep end…
DM
David,
>> I think I'm approaching the deep end… <<
I know what you mean. I go into a time warp just thinking about it. <g>
John
<<I was thinking that if one knew what a quantum signature was then one could
build a quantum microwave oven. You'd get in to it and it would emit a wave
that would change your quantum signature.>>
I tried the same thing with an egg but it exploded, which I guess can be
considered an alternate reality <g>
In the future will there be "Quantum Signature Salons", much like tanning
salons, where you pay for a certain number of minutes in the oven? I just hope
they have a rotissery for added fun!
P.S. I'm well aware that a quantum signature oven isn't like a normal microwave
oven. I should know I've got a PANASONIC Signature Shifter 3200 in the kitchen.
David "Overcooked left-overs" Gould
The difference is that planetary motion is a LINEAR system. Sensitivity to
Initial Conditions (the thing that makes non-linear systems difficult to
predict) is not a characteristic of linear systems, and hence, one has no
trouble predicting EXACTLY what will occur. Newtonian physics is all about
linear systems. Until Chaos theory, non-linear systems were just considered
unsolvable and unknowable and random.
Dave
Dave,
<<Until Chaos theory, non-linear systems were just considered unsolvable and
unknowable and random>>
I've been reading along and just picked this point to jump in.
This thread is full of discussion of predictability, and while prediction of
real world events is a good measure of a model, one should never confuse a
model with the real world. One of the things that is great about Chaos theory,
is showing how the application of simple rules can generate mind numbing
complexity. Looking at the complexity of our "real" world and trying to deduce
root causes or actual rules is IMHO ultimately futile. Besides, creating your
own rule systems to generate new universes is more fun and intellectually
honest. I'd rather be surprised by the the unpredictability of my own
creations than to be able to absolutely predict this one I'm living in.
-Paul "I've been enjoying the thread" Lempke
Paul
>> …rather than be able to absolutely predict this one I'm living in.
You mean like, if I said, "Hey, Jonas! Is 3DS ever gonna be available
on NT?"
That's an example of a LINEAR system, 'cause the outcome is
absolutely predictable every time! <g,d&r>
Hi David,
<< >> …rather than be able to absolutely predict this one I'm living in.
You mean like, if I said, "Hey, Jonas! Is 3DS ever gonna be available on NT?"
>>
Am i really that predictable?.. boy I must be boring..
Nah, not boring… loveable! <g>
Dave
<<You mean like, if I said, "Hey, Jonas! Is 3DS ever gonna be available on
NT?"
That sounds more like the Heisenberg uncertainty thing, where you can
know the product, but not the platform; or the platorm, but not the
product and if you make a claim to know both, then Autodesk informs
you that you don't know, unless you signed nondisclosure in which
case you are just in trouble 🙂
Touche! <BG>
Dave
<<but can also deviate considerably, ie snow in Paris once every 10 to 20
years.>>
Or when I arrive <g>
If I ever want to find you John I can simply jump into a thread discussing
philosophy or alternate subjects and I'm bound to find you.
<<I recently learned that all of mankind that is alive today is related to the
same original mother some 50 million years ago.>>
That's great hey! So I guess I'm related to everyone. You now tell me that I've
got billions of brothers and sisters throughout the world and they'll all
probably want Christmas and birthday presents from previous years. It's a good
thing I'm from another world.
David "Buy your own presents!" Gould
>> If I ever want to find you John I can simply jump into a thread discussing
philosophy or alternate subjects and I'm bound to find you. <<
Among other things. But you're right I do have a tendency to get into these
kinds of discussions. One can only look at polygons and vertices so long,
before the mind begins to seek food.
>> same orginal mother some 50 million years ago <<
My error, its supposed to be 50 thousand years. Its only be a few million years
that "humans" have appeared on the scene. The single mother relationship is
accurate, so you're my long lost cousin David. <g> Were ya been? 🙂
John
John <mind begins to seek food> polygons and vertices, properly mapped and
textured, are delicious. I already said that these notes are too much fun. Now
you have strayed into my ground-zero topic, falling through an iterated fractal
pool, right into anthropology. Swimming in Lake Victoria, a waterproof PC,
animating the birth of mankind<splash> Jeffrey
>> polygons and vertices, properly mapped and textured, are delicious. <<
Well you're right Jeffrey, but for me its a pretty steady diet except for an
occassional box of oreo cookies and a bowl of chocolate ice cream. I've even
tried some variations but the cookies got all over the keyboard instead of on
the polygons as I intended. They're tasty but don't stay where you put them,
not like a good polygon.
John "Somewhere between Ground zero and 3D Space"