### Probability and Patterns: Vagueness beyond your standard drunken memory is nothing more than fact

This happens to be important to the concept/topic I have selected because what I am concerning myself with is has alot to do with probability.

All events occur at random through out the universe but are described as deterministic. Similarly, its is interesting to question if the constants of nature, were any different would life have emerged? Not to mention many more uncanny patterns in fractal geometry and constants such as pi and e. Needless to say, what are the chances of living in a world where the constants of nature are just right to give rise to life? Well, pretty high, considering that this is the case and the only case (so it seems) that this is possible, if the constant of nature in this universe are suitable for the emergence of life in some corner, then life will emerge- and indeed it has seeing that we can talk about it.

Lest not be negligent however of this interesting observation:

SOOOO, lets not all fall in love with our ideas to the point of obscurity!

ANYWAY, coincidental improbable phenomena are suggestive of those which are more discrete, the discrete unlikelihoods that lie hidden in probability are the ones I am interested in. All I can definitely say is its all very mysterious and unlikely! (Yet the chances of being here must be pretty high). Probability is measurable, but probabilities change constantly when variables are subject to their own set of crazy rules. Thats why they are called random. No space for linear logic here!

Truth be told all measurements of physical quantities are subject to inaccuracy as the nature of measurement is subject to ± inaccuracies all the time. In addition to this, we have problems observing reality objectively. For instance, the 1935 paper by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, argued that the Quantum-Mechanical theory is incomplete; that and It can only make statistical predictions on objectively existing physical properties, ‘A sufficient condition for the reality of a physical quantity is the possibility of predicting it with certainty, without disturbing the system.’ (EPR, 1935, 1). The position and momentum of a particle (two properties needed for defining what they are) cannot simultaneously be known: ‘In quantum mechanics in the case of two physical quantities described by non-commuting operators, the knowledge of one precludes the knowledge of the other’ (EPR, 1935, 1) and ‘the scientific observer has to make a decision which to observe, playing an unwilling subjective role in determining the definition’ (Ede, 2008, 21).

Lest not be negligent however of this interesting observation:

*'Knowledge of the external world is "relative" only in the (comparatively harmless) sense that what human beings can know is restricted to the way the human mind is organised.'*(Dieter Freundlieb, 1991).

*"*

*It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature...*

*"*(Neils Bohr)

SOOOO, lets not all fall in love with our ideas to the point of obscurity!

ANYWAY, coincidental improbable phenomena are suggestive of those which are more discrete, the discrete unlikelihoods that lie hidden in probability are the ones I am interested in. All I can definitely say is its all very mysterious and unlikely! (Yet the chances of being here must be pretty high). Probability is measurable, but probabilities change constantly when variables are subject to their own set of crazy rules. Thats why they are called random. No space for linear logic here!

Truth be told all measurements of physical quantities are subject to inaccuracy as the nature of measurement is subject to ± inaccuracies all the time. In addition to this, we have problems observing reality objectively. For instance, the 1935 paper by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, argued that the Quantum-Mechanical theory is incomplete; that and It can only make statistical predictions on objectively existing physical properties, ‘A sufficient condition for the reality of a physical quantity is the possibility of predicting it with certainty, without disturbing the system.’ (EPR, 1935, 1). The position and momentum of a particle (two properties needed for defining what they are) cannot simultaneously be known: ‘In quantum mechanics in the case of two physical quantities described by non-commuting operators, the knowledge of one precludes the knowledge of the other’ (EPR, 1935, 1) and ‘the scientific observer has to make a decision which to observe, playing an unwilling subjective role in determining the definition’ (Ede, 2008, 21).

Anyway, Mathematics IS all around us, we can gauge patterns from observing with our eyes such things as growth and hearing cadence patterns in music. Interpretation of the natural world is vital to our survival. The 'maths' behind these observations is immensely complicated but all of us can experience how a tree grows in some way, but a sense impression is not a guarantee of understanding. We need to know something more than what we sense. Some kind of 'objective message'. Although perhaps mathematics is the in fact a liberal art as it is not always drawn from nature but sometimes completely constructed- yet still completely real , provable and objective in what it means. Which much like ART has an independence in it 'value', you needn't understand art to appreciate it and the maths needed represent reality to 'make sense'.

S O M E C O N S T A N T S

Pi: π is a constant whose value is the ratio of any circle's circumference to its diameter in Euclidean space; this is the same value as the ratio of a circle's area to the square of its radius.

e: The constant e is base of the natural logarithm. I remember asking about e when I was doing my A-Levels and I never got a good enough answer, through example we were taught about it which I think is good but I wish someone had told me in a memorable visual way that it was a constant that existed with a formidable nature: e is the unique number with the property that the area of the region bounded by the

**hyperbola**graph , the x-axis, and the vertical lines and is 1. e = 2.71828183. Sometimes known as Napier's constant, although its symbol (e) honors Euler. (See**this**)There is, as another example known as the golden ratio, which is an irrational mathematical constant much like Pi and e. I will elaborate on this constant as a pre-prelude to my selected topic. The GOLDEN RATIO is approximately 1.61803398...etc, is a line segment divided according to the 'sum of the quantities to the larger quantity' equal to 'the ratio of the larger to the smaller'. BASICALLY, It is a geometric relationship that is

**the midpoint between asymmetry and symmetry**, when "the whole is to the larger as the larger is to the smaller", a proportion that exists as a property. It exhibits itself in many things in nature, perhaps a result of the trial and error in evolution and an example of nature's efficiency. Its an interesting constant a natural development (or emergence/design) which has lead to efficient survival of many a sun-flower (in how economically their seeds are spaced in their flower heads) as well as and beauty in some of the art and technology that humans derive. Nature is good at saving time and space- by nature!There is no magical life substance or super-nature that makes life happen. The universe is (some how) a result of ordinary, inert matter exhibiting 'extra-ordinary behavior' (Davis, P. (2009)

**The Quantum Life**, published in Physics World, Vol. 22, No.7 (July 2009), pp. 24-28). The ordinariness making it even more extraordinary. It seems that energy, in what ever form it may take is self organizing; as if connections between apparently unrelated things.As for objective reality it is important to introduce

**Bells Inequality**. In theoretical physics, Bell's theorem is a no-go theorem, a paradox loosely stating that: No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics. So basically, it is unpredictable by nature. Unless something is observed and measured it can not be shown to exist- a fact which is objective. Weird and logical- all at the same time.*

*"One of the principal features of quantum mechanics is that not all the classical physical observables of a system can be simultaneously well defined with unlimited precision, even in principle."*Even with multitasking quantum computers capable of simultaneous calculation well on their way, it seems that humans are finite, as is their intelligence. There is a limit to our knowledge, which I am frankly relieved at, this is one reason why our mortality is so wonderful.

Please visit blog entry from Wednesday, 4 February 2009: Sir Vival (Author Project: GENESIS)

**One of the principal features of quantum mechanics is that not all the classical physical observables of a system can be simultaneously well defined with unlimited precision, even in principle. Instead, there may be several sets of observables that give qualitatively different, but nonetheless complete (maximal possible), descriptions of a quantum mechanical system. These sets are sets of "good quantum numbers," and are also known as "maximal sets of commuting observables." Observables from different sets are "noncommuting observables".**

**EPR PAPER:**1935

Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen collaborated on a paper arguing hat the quantum theory is incomplete: "It can only make statistical predictions on objectively existing physical properties"

NB: Einstein believed the world was very complex, which is true. But he affirmed that there must be an underlying law that places everything in order from its immense complexity. An order that because it follows a law, must be predicable, that there must be some kind of statistical way of predicting how it works. His view that events occurred in conjunction to some underlying order lead to his view that things 'do not just happen'- (hence the quote: "god does not play dice with the universe", to which Niels Bohr replied ''quit telling god what to do''- Not that either believed in a god-like physical entity). Interesting response. The search for the fabled theory of everything, I think lies with in probability. But what is the difference between causality and randomness if both in effect do occur? If they do then they are both measurable (even if in some cases something is being assumed to be present). In some way they both come from a physical quantity being measured or predicted and lead to a physical reality. But thats not my concern or priority.

In conclusion: I must draw some pictures and stop with these digressive ramblings!

As another digression, here is an amusing parody of one of those high-school educational programs called LOOK AROUND YOU, its ridiculous. Useless information and nonsense definitely has a place in the world.

**http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj2NOTanzWI&feature=related**
## 0 comments:

Post a Comment