Thermodynamic footprints

[GliderGuider]

I've been developing a concept I call the "Thermodynamic Footprint". It's sort of like an ecological footprint, but it has different goals.

This work has two purposes: to measure the entropy a nation's energy use is bringing into the world, and also to measure the change in entropy per person (or collectively) over time. I'm measuring entropy because it's fundamental to the formation of both physical and social structure in the world. I don't know how "useful" it will turn out to be as a measure, but it's interesting.

Calculating a TF is very simple: it's the ratio of the total amount of energy a person uses in their daily life to the amount they would use if they used no external energy except for food. the result is a number that says how many peoples' worth of entropy an individual creates. If someone used no additional energy beyond food, their TF value would be 1.0.

To keep it simple, I use the ratio of CO2 per capita for a country (or the world as a whole) over the 0.9 kg/day of CO2 an average person at rest generates from burning food. I then multiply the ratio by a calculated factor to account for the addition of hydro and nuclear electricity, since all energy use creates entropy.

Here are some preliminary results.

First, the global average TF at various times since 1800:


The average individual TF in 1800 was just over 1, since not much fossil fuel or electricity was in use yet. By 1900 it was about 5, meaning that each person was creating the entropy of five "unassisted" people. by 2010 the TF of an "average" world citizen was about 19.

Now let's see how TF compares across different nations:


The USA is about 65, while Bangladesh is just over 2 - no big surprises there.

I find the next graph very interesting. By multiplying the TF figures from the first graph by the world population in those years, I calculated the "Thermodynamic Population" of the world through time, reflecting both increasing energy consumption and the growing world population.


In 1800 the actual world population was just under 1 billion, and the "thermodynamic population" was just over a billion. By 2010, the world's numeric population was 6.85 billion, while the thermodynamic population had ballooned to the equivalent of 132 billion people.

There is potentially much more to be discovered here, but one thing jumps out at me immediately. TF is probably a very good proxy for the "AT" term in the infamous I=PAT equation. From this we can determine that the total impact humanity is having on the planet today is about 130 times the impact we were having 200 years ago. Is it any wonder we're getting into a jam?

[napoleon_in_rags]

1. Looks like good work.

Seeing the world in terms of fundamentals like energy is SO important right now. We get so blinded by secondary things like economic metrics.
I have to ask though, is entropy the right concept? I mean is it meaningful in the context of an open system with energy always pouring in from the sun?

Okay, off my tablet so I can actually type. Yeah, what I was wondering is, we always have this increase in entropy, but we also have this increase in terms of what comes in from the sun. So ... My question is, could we express things in terms of a deficit? I mean, solar power manifests as:
1) collectible solar energy
2) energy held in plants that can be used in bio-fuel solutions (the kind that don't get rid of food, like the algae of course)
3) Thermal differences that create wind, so wind energy.

(A few other energy sources exist in tidal and geothermal, not directly traceable to current sunlight. )

So all that makes up our natural energy revenue. The energy in fossil fuel comes from sunlight millions of years ago making plants. So we're spending more than we make right now. But what exactly is that deficit?

[GliderGuider]

2. My first thought is

We're not actually spending a "deficit". What we're doing by burning fossil fuel is reducing a potential energy gradient we've discovered - turning the stored energy into work and waste heat. In other words we're maximizing entropy, and in the process using the "work" to (temporarily) increase the order in our own, human system.

The "purpose" of life, as far as the universe is concerned, is to allow entropy to be maximized faster than it can be by non-living systems. And intelligent life maximizes entropy as fast as humanly possible.

Maximizing entropy as fast as possible given the constraints is what the universe is all about.

You might be interested in reading the background for my current thinking. This is a comprehensive, but fairly straight-forward 1997 paper by Rod Swenson, discussing the 4th Law of Thermodynamics that he discovered in 1989, and how it's responsible for creating order on the universe, from bottom to top: http://rodswenson.com/humaneco.pdf

In terms of my lifelong search for root causes, reading this paper earlier in the week was the greatest "Eureka!" moment I've ever had in my life. Even more than losing my virginity or my first acid trip. But then, I've always been a little strange, don't ya know...

Post script for those who are interested in life's twists and turns. The author of the above paper, Rod Swenson, is a legitimate ehro of science for doing this. He was also a rock and roll impresario in the 1980s, who produced shows for the likes of Blondie, The Ramones and Patti Smith. He came up in the NY punk scene that formed around CBGB's, and was the man who created the Plasmatics and Wendy O. Williams. Talk a bout a polymath...

Here's an interview with him that covers both the evolutionary aspects of his theory and his revolutionary days with Williams and the NY music scene. It also has some cool performance pics of Williams to whet one's boyish appetites and set the hook for the serious science it contains:

http://www.vice.com/read/revolution-evolution-and-rock-n-roll-an-exclusive-interview-with-plasmatics-founder-rod-swenson

[CRH]

3. I think some of your statements, ...

depend on perspective, and are all inclusive when perhaps some other avenues are present.

It seems this post is another step down the Maximum Power Principle path, (MPP) that you posted last week. I think the MPP has validity when discussing life forms in general, but not inclusive of all situations or capabilities for humans.

If we are talking a petri dish and cellular life the theory is spot on, and I think it holds true for most life forms. I think that to an extent it could explain early human behavior as much as for other animals, but I can't agree it has entered our instinctual or genetic code as inclusive as you infer, as to be a sole motivation of our actions.

In following our evolution humans reached a state of awareness and intelligence no other known terrestrial life form has accomplished to date. We learned to use tools, make materials from industrial processes, practice agriculture, manipulate our environment, and yes develop energy for our use.

However we developed in other ways as well, and beyond that of other species. We developed free choice that separated us from sole instinctual behavior. We could measure, analyze, form concept of consequence, and then act on decisions using a different basis than innate instincts.

-- The "purpose" of life, as far as the universe is concerned, is to allow entropy to be maximized faster than it can be by non-living systems. And intelligent life maximizes entropy as fast as humanly possible. It gives me pause when I read this, because intelligent life has a free choice and measured response to consequence. We can maximize our use of energy yes, but equally we can calculate the effect. And if we continue to maximize energy at the cost of a liveable environment, (consequence), and manufacture our own extinction, then I think we need to define, 'intelligent life'.

Maximizing entropy as fast as possible given the constraints is what the universe is all about. I can agree with this in the petri dish, and in all species except the most evolved homo sapiens. For the universe entropy works in explaining chemistry, biology, physics, but not multidimensional intelligent life. Intelligent life has the tools to travel beyond instinctual drive.

Perhaps this is 'humanist', but I feel it is more. It is not confined to humans, it is a concept liberated by intelligence.

[GliderGuider]

4. Yes, you're seeing the humanist blockage up close and personal.

"That's OK for everything else in the universe, but dammit, we're special!" I'm glad you can acknowledge the disconnect inherent in that view.

I see "free choice" and intelligence simply as an emergent means to let us look for and use more energy more effectively. It has given us a much wider choice of energy sources than any other animal, and that's the whole ballgame. My view is that the universe doesn't give a damn whether our species dies out, and as products of the universe, on some level neither do we. As a species we care most about sticking with the program, and if it means we have to put up with inconveniences like global warming - oh well, that's the price we have to pay.

The reason we can't get a handle on all our growth-related issues like climate change, population growth, consumption growth, urbanization, resource depletion and the increasing disparity between rich and poor is that those are all part of the thermodynamic process we're fulfilling.

The core message is, "You can't fight Mother nature." And Mother Nature IS the laws of thermodynamics. The horrifying dilemma is that we may be able to figure out what's going on, but we can't stop it.

The idea of "motivation for our actions" is an interesting one in this context. There's a general distaste in science for teleological explanations: "Nature wants us to do thus and so," or "Evolution has this goal." But we're all quite content to use those formulations for choices that come from our own minds. My take on it is that our actions are shaped by these underlying universal laws, but we rationalize our choices in order to make them personally and culturally acceptable. Our cultural superstructure (values, beliefs etc.) is much more of an explanatory device than a directive mechanism - especially where matters of energy and entropy are concerned.

[CRH]

5. I think we agree more than we disagree, ...

I agree with the 'thermdynamic process, but not as an excuse for behavior. As to not being able to fight Mother nature. Nature is honestly represented in the petri dish. Eat, consume energy, reproduce, shit, and die from overcrowding, ambient degradation and lack of sustenance. On an animal level, eat, reproduce, over crowd, starve or migrate or evolve. Humans are only special because exercising maximum energy is a choice.

Then there is the 'we are special rap'. Well, we are, in comparison to the rest of nature's ability to manipulate environment and circumstance. We must live within the laws of thermodynamics by which nature is define and determine consequence, because those laws are not going to change because we are special. It is opposite, because we are special, we can confine ourselves within limitations and not eat the last of the food in the petri dish or reproduce until the resources dictate dieoff. Our motivation is not confined only to instinct or genetic coding but rather is enhanced with 'intelligence'. To say humans could not have avoided the crisis they face, we were compelled by entropy; denies we can determine boundaries and live within.

As far as teleological explanations and 'special' interpretations, how about confining the universe to machinations of human perception of absolute scientific theories, that determine intelligent life has no destiny beyond limitations of perceived genetic coding. Note in the universe there is nothing confining intelligent life to human concepts, except our perceptions.

[kristopher]

6. "reading this paper earlier in the week was the greatest "Eureka!" moment I've ever had in my life"

Do you know how often you've written lines like this? I'd suggest you stop looking for the ""Eureka!" moment" and concentrate on building a more integrated, holistic and thoughtful understanding of the materials you are studying.

2 cent fee waived.

[GliderGuider]

7. Building an "integrated, holistic and thoughtful understanding" is exactly what I'm doing.

If one is lucky, the learning process is a succession of Eureka moments. Over the last few years I've had such moments with Harris, with Odum and now with Swenson's material. At each stage, the previous material has been subsumed into a larger structure that is at once simpler and more comprehensive - more holistic if you will. You may not have noticed this process, being out there at several removes on the internet (as well as being indisposed to seeing value in what I do or the way I do it.)

As I wrote to another friend I've been discussing this with:

Swenson's work has slipped in as the foundation underneath the Harris and Odum principles that I found first. I felt intuitively that there was something wobbly about the MPP on its own, and it turns out that Odum developed it before Swenson published his findings and declared the 4LoT. The same goes for Harris' work on the primacy of infrastructure. So while both Odum's and Harris's observations were correct, and truly deep empirical insights, the foundation did not exist yet to make them scientifically rock solid on their own. Now that's in place thanks to Swenson.

Swenson's LMEP, Odum's MPP and Harris' Infrastructural Determinism form a seamless pyramid, with Swenson as the base, Odum illuminating the middle ground of self-organizing systems, and Harris applying the result to human culture.

I feel as though I can now stand at the very peak of human culture and look backwards all the way to the beginning of time in one seamless glance, using a single framework. The view is quite breathtaking. Wish you were here.

[kristopher]

8. This is what I see

"I feel as though I can now stand at the very peak of human culture and look backwards all the way to the beginning of time in one seamless glance, using a single framework. "

When we last discussed this (where you inexplicably deleted all of your posts) I attempted to convey to you the fact that you were not, in fact, talking about Infrastructural Determinism (ID) as explained by Harris. You version of it is a compete corruption of the theoretical framework that Harris developed which lends the role of ID validity. Perhaps if your studies had included more applied anthropology and you'd acquired deeper understanding of how Harris' work is validated by observed cultural structures, you'd understand better how significant a deviation you are making from the actual theory.

CRH has made some excellent observations.

[GliderGuider]

9. And I have no doubt that Swenson and Odum would think I'm bastardizing their work as well.

The thing is, I'm not that interested in anthropology qua anthropology. To hold my interest, the underlying principles must be able to stand on their own in a larger context, and answer other questions - in particular those questions I'm interested in asking. That is what I've asked the principles of both Harris and Odum to do. After a bit of further learning on my part, they are doing rather well at it, IMO.

That "further learning" was what I realized I needed back when I deleted those posts. Rather than get into a wrangle over them, I decided to take a break and let the picture clarify a bit more. Now it has.

[kristopher]

10. Recall please...

That you were just as sure of your world view when you were carping on the inevitability of peak oil.

Determinism and inevitability are very similar concepts.

[GliderGuider]

11. Yes, and in fact my view on determinism hasn't changed.

It's becoming more subtle, but it's not changing its nature. The more i discover, the more convinced I become that events have their own momentum that is little influenced by human choices. Harris is a big part of the reason I believe that.

[kristopher]

12. No he isn't

You can't cherry pick his work to the gross extent that you have and still call it his work. He EXPLICITLY REJECTS your view.

[GliderGuider]

13. Well he's out of luck.

He's dead.

But even if he was still alive, why would I care if he rejected my view? Any more than I care if you do, or anyone else?

Let's say I don't tag Harris' name or connection to CM onto to it. Lets say I simply use the tripartite view of society (cherry-picked from Marx, just as Harris did) and the notion that humans do most of what we do to enable energy and resource acquisition down in the infrastructure, but I didn't say a word about Uncle Marvin. Would your opinion change? Because that's essentially what I've done.

We all cherry-pick ideas, after all - you, me, Marvin Harris and every other thinker under the sun. When we like what's been done with the cherries we call it intellectual progress. When we don't, we call it misappropriation...

ETA: You make a good point though. I think I'm at a point with this work where I can call a lot of it my own, and simply acknowledge Harris, Odum and Swenson as the source of some of the ideas.

[kristopher]

14. You can't explain why Harris rejects your assertions regarding ...

the absolute nature of infrastructural determinism.
Therefore you really aren't in possession of the understanding you believe you have.

You can disagree with Harris as much as you wish, but his detractors have never yet proven their case.

[GliderGuider]

15. I don't make absolute assertions about that - at least not any more.

I fully accept Harris' use of the word "probabilistically" in his definition of the principle. I don't disagree with him on that score at all. The determinism is indeed probabilistic, but as Harris notes, the probability is weighted in favour of the upward flow of cultural influence from the infrastructure compared to the downward flow from the superstructure.

This also ties in with the field of Ecological Psychology, especially in its Gibsonian form:

James J. Gibson, too, stressed the importance of the environment, in particular, the (direct) perception of how the environment of an organism affords various actions to the organism. Thus, an appropriate analysis of the environment was crucial for an explanation of perceptually guided behaviour. He argued that animals and humans stand in a 'systems' or 'ecological' relation to the environment, such that to adequately explain some behaviour it was necessary to study the environment or niche in which the behaviour took place and, especially, the information that 'epistemically connects' the organism to the environment.

It is Gibson's emphasis that the foundation for perception is ambient, ecologically available information – as opposed to peripheral or internal sensations – that makes Gibson's perspective unique in perceptual science in particular and cognitive science in general. The aphorism: "Ask not what's inside your head, but what your head's inside of" succinctly captures that point. Gibson's theory of perception is information-based rather than sensation-based and to that extent, an analysis of the environment (in terms of affordances), and the concomitant specificational information that the organism detects about such affordances, is central to the ecological approach to perception.

Given that Gibson's tenet was that "perception is based on information, not on sensations", his work and that of his contemporaries today can be seen as crucial for keeping prominent the primary question of what is perceived (i.e., affordances, via information) – before questions of mechanism and material implementation are considered. Together with a contemporary emphasis on dynamical systems theory and complexity theory as a necessary methodology for investigating the structure of ecological information, the Gibsonian approach has maintained its relevance and applicability to the larger field of cognitive science.

Given that perception is the origin of most behaviour, this appears to dovetail quite well with Infrastructural Determinism.
It's also worth noting that Swenson subscribes to this school of thought.

[Ghost Dog]

16. Very nice.

But the predicted sudden collapse, then, of this complex, highly-ordered/organised, highly energy-consuming and high thermodynamic footprint human culture (and all that accompanies it) will cause a commensurate drop in the level of production of entropy, violating the principle.

ACK-LMEP, surely, would imply there should instead be a greater tendency for this culture to 'evolve' rather than to collapse?

[GliderGuider]

17. I don't think it would be a violation.

All the principle says is that self-organizing systems transform energy as fast as they can, and that the degree of transformation governs the degree of organization. If a potential energy gradient isn't as steep any more, the system that uses it may progressively lose organization until it can no longer retain coherence. There are a couple of ways (at least) that a system can fight to retain its coherence in such a situation. The obvious one is to find another gradient - a different energy source. Another is to increase its efficiency at turning the remaining potential energy into work.

We're seeing this at work in human society already, in the push to develop alternative energy sources and the drive to increase energy efficiency. That doesn't necessarily mean that we are on the brink of losing coherence though, because healthy ACK systems use the same techniques to increase their growth and organization. However, it's the behavior I would expect in a system that recognizes an imminent threat to its coherence and is trying to stave off decoherence. I'm of course talking about the threat of climate change here.

The Green Revolution was a similar defense mechanism. Starvation and the stagnation of population growth due to food supply limits was the threat to coherence. The response was to increase production efficiency through the use of fossil fuels. From a thermodynamic perspective that move can be seen as inevitable, because it had the benefit of hugely increasing the entropic component of agricultural activity. The evidence that it worked as expected is the increase of order and hierarchy within the agricultural system (i.e. the appearance of corporations like Cargill and Monsanto).

[napoleon_in_rags]

18. Eureka! I love that.

I mean those moments where you get a breakthrough in insight. As I get older, those are the moments I value more than anything. Its quite something to understand the universe in a deep way. I liked Einstein's terminology "Understanding the mind of the ancient one". There is a sense of gaining intimacy with universe as a being or friend when you understand it better.

On completion: Your post really got me thinking, and I sort of used this response as a sort of sketch board to put my own ideas together. I do that. Open source thinking I guess. But as a result its long, don't feel obliged to read it, I sure don't have time for every long post. If you don't just take a thanks for putting out some interesting things to think about, as I take these ideas into my own life

Entropy is such a powerful idea because its so simple, and it applies to everything. At its simplest level I think of it as:

s1 = s2 + e.

Which is to say, state of things 1 equals state 2, (the higher entropy state) plus something lost, e. (often energy.) So a cart on top of a hill is s1, it releases harnessable energy e as it rolls down, but once in state 2, the higher entropy state. Or with gasoline combustion.

2 C8H18 + 25 O2 = 18 H2O + 16 CO2 + E

S1 is the octane oxygen mix in the cylinder, S2 is the water vapor and CO2 that comes out the exhaust pipe, and E drives the car. Its important to note if you mix the elements of S2 together, you get club soda, not gasoline and oxygen. You would have pour energy in through hydrolysis and other things to recover the octane and oxygen, because that's the lost ingredient.

Thermodynamic and information entropy are probabilistic, so the lost element for the former is called "order"
s1 = s2 + order
Or certainty/simplicity for the latter, depending on how you look at it. Their so related their equations can be swapped. For instance, suppose you have a hot frying pan, you are going to put it in a tub of cool water. Let p1 be the probability that an arbitrary hot molecule (defined as above the mean temp they will both eventually arrive at) is in the pan, and p2 be the probability that its in the water. Than the probability vector (p1, p2) moves from (1, 0) to (1/2, 1/2) as the heat disperses from the pan. Plug this into the equation for Shannon Information Entropy, and you get a smooth transition from entropy 0 to 1. Look here to see what chart looks like for entropy, where measured are probabilities of hot molecule being in pan vs. water: (Note right half of chart is reverse, if water were hotter than pan. Central point is max entropy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_%28information_theory%29#Example

But wait! Information entropy is the measure of how much information is in a channel. Well, if each hot molecule were a bit, and whether its in the pan or water is determines whether its in the pan or water, (let pan = 0, water = 1) then it does work as a channel. At first, the channel is a endless stream of zeros, (all hot molecules are in pan) so it clearly contains no information, but has no uncertainty about what the next bit will be. But finally, it has an equal amount of 1's and 0's, so it has as many bits of information as molecules, and total uncertainty about what the next bit will be.

So information entropy and physical entropy are intimately linked. The solution to Maxwell's Demon, which is a PROFOUND result that too many people overlook, makes this fact clear: The demon can't make the observations and computations (involving information entropy) to decide which particles to let through without changing the equation for the physical entropy, which its supposed to be reversing. In simple terms, computation takes energy, CPU's get hot, which we knew.

So anyway, the thing about information entropy is that its reciprocal is soooo important in using it. For instance, when we are doing detective work to solve a problem (computation) we are actually moving from max uncertainty (entropy) to certainty, so entropy is decreasing. But in another framing of the equation, entropy is increasing.

Example: Let's view evolution as a computational process, which determines which species is most well adapted to a given unchanging environment. For simplicity, we have one gene, which produces two different kinds of birds: The poorly adapted, and the well adapted. Now we know that the poorly adapted are going to die out and the well adapted will thrive. If we set up the equation as the probability that a given bird is well adapted or poorly adapted, we will actually see entropy decrease. But now suppose (again for simplicity) that we have the well adapted birds in the east, and the mal adapted birds in the west of the ecosystem. Now we set up the equation as the probability of finding a well adapted bird in the west, vs. the east, sort of like we did with the hot molecules. Now the entropy actually increases as the poorly adapted birds die off and the well adapted birds move in to their habitats. And there are a million other ways to rephrase equation which will show an increase or decrease in entropy depending on whether we have chosen to measure an entropic process, or its reciprocal as it progresses. The main thing is, both have the quality of irreversibility:

S1 = S2 + E

In the first formulation, E was genetic diversity which left the system. In the second, E was maladapted birds which have died, which left the system. They left the state just like energy leaves a chemical equation. Same locally irreversible phenomenon, different formulations, one which appears to make entropy increase one which appears to make it decrease. But that's just how you look at it, under it all, the same thing applies.

But the thing is, entropy is locally irreversible, and irreversible on the whole. Once E leaves, the bolder doesn't roll back up the hill unless you put E back in. But you can put E back in, it just has to come from somewhere else. The birds model assumes an unchanging environment. But that environment is hot, and the maladapted birds are actually cold adapted, and an ice age comes, then the entropic process "reverses", for a new environment, and the cold adapted birds take over. If you leave a frying pan out in the sun so it gets hot, then at night rain fills the tub around it, the same process unfolds. But if it clears up the next day and the water evaporates, and it heats up again, entropy "reverses" locally. Its just the simple equation above reversed, the E comes from the sun. Similarly, CO2 and H20 were the max entropy state these chemicals were in before life on earth. But if hydrocarbons come from ancient life, then ancient plants took in C02 and H20 and plus the E of sunlight, made them (or their precursors) within. So that stored energy you reference very clearly came from somewhere.

So let's stand back and look at the whole scene with a plant getting sunlight:
1) The entropy in the solar system is continuously increasing as energy moves out from the sun to surrounding space
2) The entropy for the cube on earth the plant lives in increases every evening as the heat absorbed from the sunlight by certain balances out to surrounding materials, but decreases every morning as more energy pours in and is absorbed by certain materials.
3) The information entropy of the genetic system increases through evolution for the environment, but decreases as the environment changes, unless we reformulate our metric.

So the bottom line is, there are an infinitude of different metrics of entropy, depending on what we are measuring. Entropy always increases in isolation, but a local measure of it can decrease with energy coming in from the outside.

So taking all this back to what you're saying, I'm sure you're right... For many metrics. But by my accounting, there is no single universal metric of entropy, there are an infinitude of them, especially when you include information entropy. So statements about entropy increasing aren't meaningful without tracking on which metric you're using. For instance, the idea of life speeding up entropy makes one kind of sense for the ancient plants which turned sunlight into fossil fuel precursors, and another kind of sense for the humans who burn those fossil fuels, but not for both because those are opposite activities.

But at the same time, I think you've touched on something, you're on so something really, really powerful. Really really big.

Even more than losing my virginity or my first acid trip. But then, I've always been a little strange, don't ya know...

Lol! Ah, the first acid trip. Did you ever read The Old Man and the Sea by Hemmingway? Its the sad story of an old fisherman with a little boat, who goes out to deep waters, and snags a giant fish. he fights with it for days to reel it in, but in the end its too big for his boat, and he has to lash it to the side. Just a tiny mistake makes a cut in the fish, so it starts to bleed. This draws the sharks. In the end, he arrives back to shore, to society, with only bits of the skeleton, and weeps. Only the wise old veteran fisherman sees the skeleton and says "that must have been a big fish". But does it matter to the rest? No. He didn't bring the fish to shore.

Its a metaphor for genius. The fish is the concept, the boat is the mind. Anybody can snag a big fish, (have a genius concept) only those with an appropriate boat can bring it back to shore, to society. So when somebody with a background in biochemistry, having done all the discipline (big boat) takes acid, you get this:

Nobel Prize-winning father of modern genetics, was under the influence of LSD when he first deduced thedouble-helix structure of DNA nearly 50 years ago.

When they don't, you get a hippy saying "Oh man! I can see life, its like a spiral man!"

A large concept swimming below the water here. But whether there is a boat large enough to bring it to shore is a separate question!

Peace!

[GliderGuider]

19. Sweet!

I just wanted a framework that would let me think about our various problems with systems, growth, order/structure and irreversibility in an organized way. This is where it has ended up, so far. The combination of LMEP, MPP and infrastructural determinism is a powerful drug indeed.

What keeps me awake at night these days is my monkey-mind chattering on about how my boat's not big enough. I tell it to take some more acid and go back to sleep...

Thanks for writing that.

[napoleon_in_rags]

20. Well, the boat can always get bigger.

I went back to school in my late 20s, and started at trig and pre-calc. Painstaking plank by plank, I've made my little boat bigger. Calculus, discrete math, probability... My latest conquest is the trig functions: Seeing them as fundamental, as simple. Geometry, probability, information all related. Understanding why the normal distribution used by stats guys includes pi. Euler, DeMoivre, Guass, Fourier, all these great mathematicians, lonely souls who took the time to the time to learn the language of the universe while 99% of the population didn't care. And I myself am unashamed to be a quiet student of that same truth, while the world moves on, esteeming things less fundamental and more illusory. I have nothing to offer, except for what I turned away from life to know.

The fundamental message I'm sharing is that if you actually do take that acid, if you do move through intuitive leaps in your appreciation and understanding of the universe, than you really are dealing with the fundamentals of truth. You really are seeing the universe. If you have the math chops (which is rare) to turn those big concepts into fish fillet: equations that empower people like e=mc^2 or Shannon entropy, than you have in those moments of meditation the power to absolutely change and transform the world. That's really something. If you take a look at 20th century history you can discard the nonsense, and look at these leaps in knowledge which warped the whole world in their new direction.

and its beautiful and fun and good to look at these things. Its beautiful and fun to gain knowledge as to the nature of self, which is what we're always ultimately dealing with when we inquire as to the nature of the universe.

We should all:

Just take a pen, or a pencil, and write it down. Keep working with the new concepts as they come. Until they build a temple worthy of living in.

PEace, and thanks again for inspiring great thoughts, Glider!
Nir

[GliderGuider]

21. I know what you mean.

I went back to university after ten years out being a hippie photographer, and got a degree in comp sci. I don't have serious math chops, but I did three years of reasonable math courses so I can maybe tell a ring from a vector space But that was all 30 years ago. My forte seems to be the ability to form mental images of complex abstract ideas and use them as models for reality. It has something to do with the lef-brain/right-brain combination of being both an artist and a software designer. I remember in first year "getting" what a computer's inner world looked like, what it felt like to be an ALU or a memory bus. It's a very heady feeling. I spent the next 20 years doing assembly language programming as a result.

I tend to be more intuitive than formal in my thinking, though, which is where I can run into communication problems with people who are formalists. I don't mind if my ideas get a little loose around the edges so long as they fully express the core of the idea, and that can drive formalists crazy. That's why I have a sense of caution about heading into the project of using thermodynamics to explain the universal origins of form, the evolution of life and the structure of human civilization.

I haven't let it all hang out here on DU, but with my latest insight this idea has truly become a "temple worthy of living in". It has clarified into such a beautiful, elegant, parsimonious framework that I have to tell its story. So a math-free book on the idea is now in the works. I take a lot of heart from Rod Swenson's writing. He's been able to do much of this without using any heavy-lifting math, just word pictures and illustrative examples.

We'll see where the next year of writing leads, but with this as a jumping off point it promises to hold some magic.

[napoleon_in_rags]

22. I relate to that actually.

I tend to be more intuitive than formal in my thinking, though, which is where I can run into communication problems with people who are formalists.

I think that's were much of the powerful stuff is, in the intuition. Einstein presented his ideas, in their raw intuitive form to Hilbert, one of the greatest mathematicians of the time. It was only an act of sheer mercy that prevented Hilbert from being the father of relativity and publishing them then and there. Einstein didn't have the math chops, so he spend months putting together the formal statement of his theory that would have taken Hilbert weeks or days. But it was Einstein, not Hilbert, who had the intuition.

I'm not a big formal guy or math guru either. To me its a language. I'm to the point where I can order a "cerveza" and locate "el bano", which opens enough doors I can now go places with it. I'm to the point where I enjoy it. But I'm no Pablo Neruda. I just understand the importance of being formal. It was those months of hammering out the formalisms that made Einstein who he is.

But at the same time, there is a lot to be said for forgetting about formalism, and just embracing the proverbial motion of the ocean, the mysterious side of life:

but with my latest insight this idea has truly become a "temple worthy of living in".

Before reading your response, I was thinking of all the folks who have gotten dragged under by a powerful concept (gone insane). I was reminded of Leviathan, the great sea monster from the Bible and this came to mind:

In the Talmud Baba Bathra 74b it is told that the Leviathan will be slain and its flesh served as a feast to the righteous in [the] Time to Come, and its skin used to cover the tent where the banquet will take place. The festival of Sukkot (Festival of Booths) therefore concludes with a prayer recited upon leaving the sukkah (booth): "May it be your will, Lord our God and God of our forefathers, that just as I have fulfilled and dwelt in this sukkah, so may I merit in the coming year to dwell in the sukkah of the skin of Leviathan. Next year in Jerusalem."

What is it, to dwell in a concept? I wondered. Then I come back and see your response, where you put forth the same idea. So you know what it is. And let me know that before I asked. That be the motion of the ocean, the mysterious connectedness of things which exists with or without any formal explanation.

I hope you will send me a link to the Amazon page when your book is published!