Re: GLOBAL EXTINCTION WITHIN 18 - 34 MONTHS

Having no fear is unusual but it's not pathological. It means one can

*think* about risk rationally.

I have essentially no fear or panic reflexes. I think that's an advantage in our business and in our world in general. It wouldn't be for, say, a surgeon, but we don't kill people or do a great deal of damage when we take risks and mess things up. Write an ECO maybe.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin
Loading thread data ...

Name one. If you read about it on Anthony Watt's web-site expect to be abused for gullibility (again).

New "causalities" aren't going to be big - otherwise they'd have been obvious - so "trashing" isn't the obvious adjective. Models are always imperfect, and that doesn't stop them being useful.

No useful model is complete enough totally predictive, and an old model could have been useful even when a new model might be better.

John Larkin doesn't think about what he posts - he just grabs stuff from denialist web-sites and recycles it here. He doesn't seem to mind looking like a gullible idiot who can't do critical thinking.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

But some systems can be usefully predicted for millions of equivalent time constants. And some are so sensitive to tiny perturbations that quantum effects or floating point errors or butterfly flaps will radically change the system state in a hundred tau.

There's a limit to how well we can simulate, but no limit to how badly we can simulate.

Some real systems are chaotic. And some people pretend they are predictable. Sorry.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

And obviously no anxieties about looking like an under-informed idiot.

You would think that, since you spend zero time thinking about the conseque nt risks. Donald Trump's business career - while it lasted - reflected the same kind of foolhardiness, and ended in a long series of huge bankruptcies , which cost everybody silly enough to invest in his schemes pretty much al l they had put in. Trump's accountant found some huge tax losses which Trum p was able to claim. which is why he hasn't paid any income tax since then (and won't publish his tax records in consequence).

You admit to having had two failed businesses before you found a business m odel that worked for you (and probably an accountant who was blunt enough t o discourage you from being particularly stupid).

--
Bill Sloman. Sydney 

> It wouldn't be 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
bill.sloman

:

emies, they're tools.

l solution.

data,

t,

Name one. And identify what you mean by "equivalent time constants.

The solar system would seem to fit into that category, and orbital periods would seem to be the obvious "time constants" there.

That "sensitive" systems exist isn't a useful observation - classing a phen omenon as "chaotic" put it in a huge class of very different systems, and p ointing out that an (unidentified) chaotic system is peculiarly sensitive i sn't any kind of helpful observation.

The quality of a simulation is testable. You don't seem to have access to a ny information about the test results, which isn't surprising. The denialis t web-sites - which seem to be your only sources of information on the subj ect (like Cursitor Doom's reliance on Russia Today) - aren't going to talk about climate models that work.

Julia Slingo has modelled a thousand years of Chinese monsoon data

formatting link

The pretense is all yours. You want to pretend that labeling a system as "c haotic" is all you need to do discard all the work that has been done on mo delling such systems. It doesn't happen to be true, but since it saves you from the intellectual effort of learning anything about the subjects you po ntificate about - or recycle Anthony Watts' pontifications about - you are not going to try to step up from being obviously gullible idiot.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

You'd die quickly if the laws of thermodynamics weren't in play. The increase in entropy that allows your metabolism depends on the 'chaotic' uncorrelated output that we call body heat. Chaos is your friend; and a vital necessity. When you speak, hot air comes out: that's chaos.

There's no pretense required to make a prediction. 'Some people' is a cop-out, classic weasel words that (in a world with billions) guarantees insignificance. A claim about 'some people' does not indict any person.

A reference like 'systems are chaotic' is a cheap shot, it indicts no theory, claim, or prediction, and has some limited applicability everywhere. It is cop-out, encouraging those with a weak grasp to let go entirely.

What are you sorry about?

There's a wonderful book 'The Evolution Cruncher' that has even more misconceptions, distortions, and sophistries than you've been spouting. It can take a dozen complete sentences to answer a dozen provocative words. The book is just like your postings.

Reply to
whit3rd

John Larkin wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Like you thinking that a coin can be predictable or be physically fashioned or tossed so as to be predictable.

You are such a hypocrite.

Reply to
DLUNU

It can. Easily, in fact.

You are always wrong, AlwaysWrong.

Reply to
krw

I can say "pencil" today, and say it again a year later, and various listeners will understand the word identically both times. That's not chaos.

I guess you disapprove of statistics.

You might read up on chaotic systems; there's a lot of literature and it's interesting.

Some classic electronic circuits are chaotic, and some newer ones are beautiful.

formatting link

formatting link

formatting link

formatting link

The old Levy/Armstrong superhet is chaotic. It's an interesting circuit.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

Chaotic systems have unpredictable future states, but they can still have statistical behavior.

A coin flip involves some basic mechanics. I'm sure you could build a machine that launches quarters into an arc with exactly five flips, and lands heads-up 75% of the time.

A skilled person with practise can do impressive physical things.

I had a badminton teacher who could scoop up a shuttles off a pile on the floor one at a time with his racquet, and, without looking, whack them and make a pile in the opposite corner of the court. He'd only play with the ones that hit the corner exactly.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

John Larkin wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

I regularly shoot three rail bank shots in pool. It is one of the harder shots in the game. But you won't find me betting on any outcomes. Even the easiest shots can be missed by the most skilled players. You fail to realize the factors involved. It is not a machine designed to flip a coin five flips and a plop on a face landing. Something still arguably not repeatable. Just like the rebounds in a break shot are chaotic regardless of cue ball strike point, the five flips will have a chaotic outcome because the bounce after the fall will vary. You have too narrow a view of it all. You know... that bigger picture thing.

Reply to
DLUNU

Yet, you are a heat engine, and chaos is what keeps it running. You are a chaotic system with very good repeatability on tasks like pronouncing 'pencil'. Like a trapatt diode oscillates, driven by internal chaos.

My complaint is, you find an instance of chaos, and generalize to all aspects of a physical system (worse, to all models of a physical system).

Why would you guess? I've got a math degree, I do statistics, and other calculation, but cannot imagine why 'disapprove' could apply to such. What on earth ARE you talking about?

Chaotic: not a magic word creating support for random claims. Statistics: not a magic word creating support for random claims.

Reply to
whit3rd

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.