Showing posts with label nature. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nature. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Dawn of Man?

1 comments
From the prologue of "Chaos and Life- complexity and order in evolution and thought":

About a hundred thousand years ago, perhaps as many as a hundred and fifty thousand or as little as fifty thousand, the first man was born. In the eyes of his parents he must have been an ugly baby, an outcast from the brood and from the tribe from the moment of his birth. He was lucky to survive, for monstrous births were not generally suffered to live in that time and many more like him would have perished, and would in other times and places perish, by accident or design, and without further consequence. He was different from his tribe: his features to them seemed curiously unnatural: angular, sharp, and distorted. His gracile frame seemed spindly and ill adapted to survive in the rigorous climate, which could vary every few years, alternating between humid–hot and freezing–dry conditions, interspersed with a temperate mediocrity hardly more favorable, since it ill suited the growth of the plants on which the tribes depended. To the society of the race he was a useless individual—an idle jack—spending much time in seemingly depressed, introverted contemplation; staring into space; fiddling with pieces of stone and slate; or making marks in the earth with a stick. Perhaps his social experience was the origin of the story of the Ugly Duckling. The first Outsider, he must have been familiar with loneliness in a time when loneliness was a difficult condition to achieve and an undesirable one.
Let us call him Adam.
Adam sat for long periods between gathering plants or catching animals, when he was not shivering too much to think or too exhausted by the sun’s heat. And in those periods when he was able to reflect, he contemplated the great mystery that was his existence in the world. He could speak in a way—the gift of tongues—that the tribe could not, but he had no one to speak to. He made peculiar guttural and explosive sounds, and he seemed to gesture, in apparent madness, at the beasts and plants and rocks, and even at the sky, as he made these strange noises. This was the birth of language, and he was naming the things around him
.

-Richard J. Bird

"The more things change, the more they stay the same." is a line I've read quite often. I think the truth of this statement is reflected in the excerpt above. Many of us here, I'm sure, will be able to empathize with "Adam", because thinking, leave alone independent thinking, is not something that is encouraged, or sometimes even allowed today. In fact, the conventional "System", particularly the education system, seeks to stamp it out of our minds as quickly and as thoroughly as possible. So much for evolution.

-H

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Mathematical structure of nature

0 comments
For a while now, the correspondence between a mathematical structure and the way nature behaves has puzzled and amazed me. In other words, Why is it that I can write down equations on a sheets of paper and predict something about a natural object?
Newtonian Mechanics had a certain mathematical structure and Maxwell's Electrodynamics had a certain mathematical structure, and these two structures couldn't co-exist. Just by trying make the equations co-variant, we were able to get great insights into the way nature worked. We could get testable predictions which we were ofcourse verified by experiment.
Quantum Mechanics brought in another mathematical structure which takes into account the relationship between the observer and the observed, and gives us the nature of a measurement.

There may be domains where experimental physics cannot yet reach. There may be some underlying physical phenomena which cannot yet be detected by experiments. To probe into those domains, as of now, we may only have mathematical tools at our disposal.
Here is a paragraph from a book on Quantum Mechanics by Bohm ( Ref 3) that I think is worth mentioning:

" Physicists believe that there is something in nature, or in each restricted domain of it, that may be "understood"; that there is a structure in nature. To "understand" means to bring this structure into congruence with some structure in our mind, with a structure of thought objects, with a structure that has been created by our minds. For physics, this structure of thought objects is a mathematical structure. So to understand part of physical nature means to map its structure on a mathematical structure. To obtain a physical theory, then, means to obtain a mathematical image of a physical system. 
For the domains of quantum physics the mathematical structures are algebras of linear operators in linear spaces. The discovery of this, the fundamental properties of the algebra, and the other basic assumptions of quantum mechanics was a very difficult process. " 

I just hope we have the capability to recognise the true underlying structure of nature( however naive this may sound).


P.s. The references are given in the column on the right.