Re: Friam Digest, Vol 164, Issue 29

[jon zingale]

yeah you guys are all right, fluorescent

lights forever. They feel totally great and

gee whiz, we can even think under them.

best idea of the 20th century.

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 7:20 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Send Friam mailing list submissions to
        [hidden email]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        [hidden email]

You can reach the person managing the list at
        [hidden email]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Na?ve physics question (Nick Thompson)
   2. Re: Why depth/thickness matters (glen ?)
   3. Re: Na?ve physics question (Barry MacKichan)
   4. Re: Why depth/thickness matters (Vladimyr Burachynsky)
   5. FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs (Nick Thompson)
   6. Re: Na?ve physics question (Steven A Smith)
   7. Re: FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs (Steven A Smith)
   8. Re: FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs
      (Vladimyr Burachynsky)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 10:20:31 -0700
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Naïve physics question

Frank, ‘n all.

 

It looks like I am… not to put too fine a point on it… WRONG about this.  I hate when that happens.  It seems WILDLY counter intuitive to me, but so, I should admit, does most of physics. 

 

You are all going to have to explain it to me VERY patiently, perhaps over coffee, perhaps on Friday.

 

Nick

 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 1:54 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Naïve physics question

 

Nick,

 

Over the last 2 or 3 years I have replaced most of our incandescent light bulbs with equivalent (light output) LED bulbs.  Our electric bill has gone down about 20% summer and winter.

 

When I worked in the Robotics Institute I was leader of a project to put sensors all over a fluorescent lamp factory to increase yield.  That is, to reduce the number of defective bulbs (out of millions).  The Westinghouse engineers told us that certain large office buildings were optimized for minimum energy use for lighting and heat in a method that involved keeping the lights on all night.  This, however, caused a public relations problem in that people who saw them lit up complained about their wasting energy.

 

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone [phone]

 

On Feb 15, 2017 1:37 AM, "Nick Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:

All—

 

Can I piggy back on to Gary’s question with one of my own.  Much more naïve.  Even tho I am an ardent conservationist, I believe that claims for energy saving from light bulbs that don’t spill heat only approach truth in the warmest parts of our country.  Where yearly annual temperature average is less than human comfort, the cost from heat loss from incandescent bulbs is compensated by a diminishment in the cost of heating by other means.  This works particularly well with a reading lamp, which is warming you while it lights you.  Now in summer, the loss of heat from bulbs is actually a very bad thing because it has to be compensated for with airconditioning.  But summers in most of the country are way shorter than winters. 

 

I am sure I am going to get some sort of a lecture on the second law, here.  Spilled heat from inefficiently deployed light sources is STILL more expensive than heat directly extracted from gas or oil.  Not sure how to think about that.

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 11:11 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Naïve physics question

 

Seems like from a thermodynamics question you can first think of having two identical systems with identical energy inputs. Unless one of the systems is capable of storing energy in some form differently from the other the equilibrium temperatures should be the same.

Now CFBs emit more of the their input energy as light which since the containers are transparent (presumably to the same light that's emitted, visible, UV, infrared) it will escape more easily. Incandescents generate a lot of heat for the same energy input which may not escape as easily as the light energy. It will depend on the thermal conductivity of the container's materials etc. If the CFB were 100% efficient all it's energy will leave immediately in a container that is 100 % transparent to its 'light' and show no temperature increase. If the incandescent's heat is transmitted as infrared energy at 100% efficiency along with any light then its temperature will show no increase either.  So the answer may have more to do with the properties of the containers than the properties of the lights. Practically, I'd expect A to warm up more than B because B's light energy will escape more easily with materials we are familiar with.

If both containers are opaque to all light (UV, visible and IR) and have the same thermal conductivity properties we are back to the first paragraph.

2c

Robert C

 

On 2/14/17 8:01 AM, Gary Schiltz wrote:

Since there are some non-naïve, i.e. professional physicists, as well as just gererally smart people in FRIAM, I pose the following fun question. Given: two transparent, sealed containers filled with air - one contains an incandescent light bulb A that consumes 100 watts of energy; the other container contains a fluorescent light bulb B that also *consumes* 100 watts of energy. Since B is of a more efficient design, it will produce more light than A. Assuming the same color temperature light is produced by A and B, and ignoring any feedback effects of rising temperatures inside the respective containers, will the temperatures inside the containers reach the same temperature? Naïve physicist G (me) thinks that since more light is escaping from the container containing B, that its temperature will rise less. G also thinks that if the containers are opaque, that the temperatures will rise by the same amount. But G is besieged with doubts. Please help G.

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

-- 

Cirrillian 

Web Design & Development

Santa Fe, NM

http://cirrillian.com

<a href="tel:(281)%20989-6272" target="_blank">281-989-6272 (cell)

Member Design Corps of Santa Fe

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "glen ☣" <[hidden email]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 11:10:41 -0800
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why depth/thickness matters
On 02/14/2017 09:51 AM, Eric Charles wrote:
> Thanks for the reorientation! If you want to discuss complexity, I think an interesting question regarding perception-action systems is how much of the complexity has to be inside the organism, and how much of it can be encapsulated in the larger organism-environment system. The more the complexit is spread across the system, the more the organism can get by with much less "mental" complexity that it might originally seem. That tension is at the heart of Gibson vs. traditional theories, though, of course, Gibson described the tension in different terms.

Yes, and that's exactly what the Hoffman article is about, too, with their exploration of simpler or more complex environments.  Your criticism of their (rather common) concept that seeing more takes more energy also exists in the "fly ball" and locomotive examples.  And the well-kept or poorly-kept radio metaphor simply raises the spectre of "adaptation" and the target of selection pressures.

In other words, the boundary between the organism, the environment, and the organizational relationship between them is nowhere near as crisp as we assume.  It's that assumption that is the target of Hoffman's (anti-realism) project.

And that brings me back to my original point about loopiness.  We not only have the problem of distributing the logic beetween organism and environment.  We also have the problem of how to grade/categorize the spectrum _between_ the two.  E.g. to what extent is, say, a pair of eyeglasses a part of the organism?  E.g. to what extent is the eye's cornea part of the environment?

Computations over the organism strike me as one layer.  Computations over an objectively extant landscape are another layer, perhaps of similar complexity than those over the organism.  Computations over both are another layer.  Computations over a collection of organisms, with a purely co-constructed "environment", is another.  Computations over all 4 (each organism, extant environment, organism-extant-env couplings, multiple organisms in extant environment) is yet another layer.  Loops within loops.

> However, that doesn't necessarily speak to our ability to jettison "representation" and replace it with dynamic-systems accounts more generally.
> [...]
> So, to recap: The questions for the list are 1) Where will we look for the complexity in question? In the organism, in the environment, or in the system that includes both? 2) Once we have a decent account of that complexity, is anything added by inserting representation-talk in the middle of it?

It's not clear to me why you focused on a juxtaposition of representation vs. dynamical systems.  It sounds a lot like Marcus' argument in the loopiness thread.  You seem to be arguing that we can "flatten" the system to a dynamical systems account, with some exogenous accuracy and precision or error.  (By "exogenous", I mean typical sources like however we measure it or purely mechanical noise caused by a kind of "simple" uncertainty ... things like how well a nut fits a bolt, etc.)

By arguing that some types of loops within loops are only amenable to lossy compression, I'm asserting that _some_ of the loss is due to non-isomorphic mappings across boundaries.  The interfaces between actors are somehow smaller than what's on either side of the interfaces.  (Hence my comments about the holographic principle.)  In that sense, the question isn't merely about _where_ the complexity is (organism, environment, both), but also to what extent that complexity would be invariant if it were a) moved or b) modeled by something on the other side of a (smaller, lossy) interface.

This raises questions like: to what extent do organisms model their environment or vice versa?  Or to what extent are co-constructed scientific theories validated?  How to falsify them?  Etc.

--
☣ glen




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Barry MacKichan <[hidden email]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 15:08:15 -0700
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Naïve physics question
An old North Carolina farmer (later confirmed by an advanced amateur astronomer) to put two incandescent bulbs in series. The halving of the voltage lowers the temp of the bulbs significantly, and at the lower voltage, the bulbs last essentially forever. I have no idea what happens if you do the same with CF bulbs.

--Barry


On 15 Feb 2017, at 9:18, Gary Schiltz wrote:

Re: conservation, I was partly asking the question from a different perspective: at times, I need to heat small spaces (like under cabinets) in order to keep them dry. Incandescent bulbs are nearly impossible to get here, plus they get really hot right at the bulb, thus presenting more of a fire hazard. So, as long as I keep the cabinets closed, the CF bulbs should work because the interior surfaces should absorb the light energy and be converted to heat.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Vladimyr Burachynsky <[hidden email]>
To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 16:51:39 -0600
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why depth/thickness matters
I am an iconoclast as a consequence of trying to use statistical modelling during earlier stages of my life. zThese statistical models were generally very poor when applied to field work in animal distributions until someone accepted that truth and started admitting "clumpiness in distributions".

Then after a time in engineering studying simulations of material behaviour and failure I realized that the models we were using were based on unreal assumptions again.

In FEM studies we used convenient algorithms to model stress distribution across discreet very small elements based on older concepts and only approximated reality
to various levels. These approximations were often mistakenly assumed to constitute a "reality" by novices. In part because no engineer was prepared for Quantum Mechanics. They still used Hooke's laws where ever possible.

Representation is simply a tool to facilitate exploration of Dynamical systems. Representation should always be prepared to adapt when needed. Like sharpening a steel blade every so often.
The iconoclast in me loves sharp tools and every Monday morning I instructed my team to clear their benches and methodically sharpen tools.
Just because you sharpened a tool on Monday don't expect it to be sharp on Thursday unless it was idle.
Eventually all knives wear down and need to be replaced. Representation is only an ideal target used only as long as it is functional.
I do not dispute the value of good representational models but accept that they may not always be appropriate.

I look to biology and its solutions as having a temporal legacy far back in time but even evolution fails occasionally. Death seems the reward for guessing wrong.

Biology does seem to be a cheapskate recycling shitty solutions very often and does not seem to care about occasional extinctions.

As long as the advocates of representational models acknowledge their place in the real world we can tolerate each other.
vib

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen ?
Sent: February-15-17 1:11 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Why depth/thickness matters

On 02/14/2017 09:51 AM, Eric Charles wrote:
> Thanks for the reorientation! If you want to discuss complexity, I think an interesting question regarding perception-action systems is how much of the complexity has to be inside the organism, and how much of it can be encapsulated in the larger organism-environment system. The more the complexit is spread across the system, the more the organism can get by with much less "mental" complexity that it might originally seem. That tension is at the heart of Gibson vs. traditional theories, though, of course, Gibson described the tension in different terms.

Yes, and that's exactly what the Hoffman article is about, too, with their exploration of simpler or more complex environments.  Your criticism of their (rather common) concept that seeing more takes more energy also exists in the "fly ball" and locomotive examples.  And the well-kept or poorly-kept radio metaphor simply raises the spectre of "adaptation" and the target of selection pressures.

In other words, the boundary between the organism, the environment, and the organizational relationship between them is nowhere near as crisp as we assume.  It's that assumption that is the target of Hoffman's (anti-realism) project.

And that brings me back to my original point about loopiness.  We not only have the problem of distributing the logic beetween organism and environment.  We also have the problem of how to grade/categorize the spectrum _between_ the two.  E.g. to what extent is, say, a pair of eyeglasses a part of the organism?  E.g. to what extent is the eye's cornea part of the environment?

Computations over the organism strike me as one layer.  Computations over an objectively extant landscape are another layer, perhaps of similar complexity than those over the organism.  Computations over both are another layer.  Computations over a collection of organisms, with a purely co-constructed "environment", is another.  Computations over all 4 (each organism, extant environment, organism-extant-env couplings, multiple organisms in extant environment) is yet another layer.  Loops within loops.

> However, that doesn't necessarily speak to our ability to jettison "representation" and replace it with dynamic-systems accounts more generally.
> [...]
> So, to recap: The questions for the list are 1) Where will we look for the complexity in question? In the organism, in the environment, or in the system that includes both? 2) Once we have a decent account of that complexity, is anything added by inserting representation-talk in the middle of it?

It's not clear to me why you focused on a juxtaposition of representation vs. dynamical systems.  It sounds a lot like Marcus' argument in the loopiness thread.  You seem to be arguing that we can "flatten" the system to a dynamical systems account, with some exogenous accuracy and precision or error.  (By "exogenous", I mean typical sources like however we measure it or purely mechanical noise caused by a kind of "simple" uncertainty ... things like how well a nut fits a bolt, etc.)

By arguing that some types of loops within loops are only amenable to lossy compression, I'm asserting that _some_ of the loss is due to non-isomorphic mappings across boundaries.  The interfaces between actors are somehow smaller than what's on either side of the interfaces.  (Hence my comments about the holographic principle.)  In that sense, the question isn't merely about _where_ the complexity is (organism, environment, both), but also to what extent that complexity would be invariant if it were a) moved or b) modeled by something on the other side of a (smaller, lossy) interface.

This raises questions like: to what extent do organisms model their environment or vice versa?  Or to what extent are co-constructed scientific theories validated?  How to falsify them?  Etc.

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove





---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nick Thompson <[hidden email]>
To: Friam <[hidden email]>, "'Kim Sorvig'" <[hidden email]>
Cc: <[hidden email]>, <[hidden email]>, "'Jenny Quillien'" <[hidden email]>, David West <[hidden email]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 15:57:36 -0700
Subject: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

Helloooo, List,

 

I would like to introduce to you Alberto Alaniz (who describes himself in the communication below).  I “met” him on Research Gate when he downloaded a paper of mine on the structural organization of bird song.  I noticed that he was writing from a Landscape Department, and I thought, “A landscape person who is interested in birdsong! He must be interested in fractals!”  And I was right.  So please welcome him.  Steve please note?

 

The idea of his that I particularly want to hear you discuss is his notion that fractality (is that a word?) in one domain can effect, affect, impose? fractality in another.  So is there a relationship between the fractality which my research revealed in the organization of bird song and the fractality of the landscapes on which bird behavior is deployed. 

 

I particularly wonder what Kim  Sorvig and Jenny Quillen and ProfDave think about this, but also wonder if others on the list could put an oar in.

 

Thanks,

 

Nick

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Alberto Jose Alaniz [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:21 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

 

Dear Nick

 

I apreciate so much your invitation, so i really intrested in participate of your discussion group. I am a young researcher finishing my MS, and this types of oportunities look very good for my, specially if i can interact with other scientics. About your question, of course you can share my oppinion, now if you want i can writte a compleate opinion in extenso, and i will send to you tomorrow in the afternon.

 

My field of study is the ecologial modelling and the conservation biology, the last year i published my firsts papers in Biological conservation and International Journal of Epidemiology, the first one about ecosystem conservation and the secondth is a global model of exposure risk to Zika virus. Currently im working in ecosystems and in assessment of habitat loss in forest specialist species (with Kathryn Sieving from University of Florida).

 

Alberto  Alaniz Baeza

Lic. en Geografía, Geógrafo & Magíster (c) Áreas Silvestres y Conservación

Becario, Laboratorio de Ecología de Ambientes Fragmentados

Departamento de Ciencias Biológicas Animales, U. de Chile

Investigador, Laboratorio de Ecología de Ecosistemas

Departamento de Recursos Naturales Renovables, U. de Chile

Académico, Centro de Formación Técnica del Medio Ambiente IDMA

[phone]

https://albertoalaniz.wordpress.com/

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steven A Smith <[hidden email]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:54:53 -0700
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Naïve physics question

Nick -

The thing that might not be obvious is that Frank's *electric* bill went down.  If he were heating *with* electricity, the difference might not be as significant...  I suspect his (gas?) heating bill is a similar number of BTUs down,  they are just cheaper BTUs than ones coming out of electric resistive elements (including incandescent bulbs).  

Also, ceiling fixture lighting tends to heat the *ceiling* which only helps much with the overall heating of the space if you have a 2 story house and you are talking about the ground floor lights.  Unless you use *heat lamps* with good reflectors directing the IR into the room (not dissipating it in the fixture).

I actually buy 125W infrared bulbs to go into certain fixtures in my house for the very reason you describe earlier... one of these as a reading light over my shoulder (or hanging from my first floor ceiling) not only adds BTUs to my house in general but increases the comfort in the chair I am sitting in, allowing me to be comfortable even if the space is lower than usual.   My solar system works pretty well throughout all the months except Dec/Jan and a little Nov/Feb, so during those months I crank a lot of firewood through my woodstoves and put in my IR bulbs in a few choice locations.  I used to use an electric mattress pad as well...   The net cost of these was pretty small compared to using electric space heating...

The rules of conservation of energy (physics not sociopolitical) are pretty simple, but the detailed implications of *comfort* and *economics* are a bit more subtle.

- Steve

On 2/15/17 10:20 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Frank, ‘n all.

 

It looks like I am… not to put too fine a point on it… WRONG about this.  I hate when that happens.  It seems WILDLY counter intuitive to me, but so, I should admit, does most of physics. 

 

You are all going to have to explain it to me VERY patiently, perhaps over coffee, perhaps on Friday.

 

Nick

 

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 1:54 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Naïve physics question

 

Nick,

 

Over the last 2 or 3 years I have replaced most of our incandescent light bulbs with equivalent (light output) LED bulbs.  Our electric bill has gone down about 20% summer and winter.

 

When I worked in the Robotics Institute I was leader of a project to put sensors all over a fluorescent lamp factory to increase yield.  That is, to reduce the number of defective bulbs (out of millions).  The Westinghouse engineers told us that certain large office buildings were optimized for minimum energy use for lighting and heat in a method that involved keeping the lights on all night.  This, however, caused a public relations problem in that people who saw them lit up complained about their wasting energy.

 

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone [phone]

 

On Feb 15, 2017 1:37 AM, "Nick Thompson" <[hidden email]> wrote:

All—

 

Can I piggy back on to Gary’s question with one of my own.  Much more naïve.  Even tho I am an ardent conservationist, I believe that claims for energy saving from light bulbs that don’t spill heat only approach truth in the warmest parts of our country.  Where yearly annual temperature average is less than human comfort, the cost from heat loss from incandescent bulbs is compensated by a diminishment in the cost of heating by other means.  This works particularly well with a reading lamp, which is warming you while it lights you.  Now in summer, the loss of heat from bulbs is actually a very bad thing because it has to be compensated for with airconditioning.  But summers in most of the country are way shorter than winters. 

 

I am sure I am going to get some sort of a lecture on the second law, here.  Spilled heat from inefficiently deployed light sources is STILL more expensive than heat directly extracted from gas or oil.  Not sure how to think about that.

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert J. Cordingley
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2017 11:11 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Naïve physics question

 

Seems like from a thermodynamics question you can first think of having two identical systems with identical energy inputs. Unless one of the systems is capable of storing energy in some form differently from the other the equilibrium temperatures should be the same.

Now CFBs emit more of the their input energy as light which since the containers are transparent (presumably to the same light that's emitted, visible, UV, infrared) it will escape more easily. Incandescents generate a lot of heat for the same energy input which may not escape as easily as the light energy. It will depend on the thermal conductivity of the container's materials etc. If the CFB were 100% efficient all it's energy will leave immediately in a container that is 100 % transparent to its 'light' and show no temperature increase. If the incandescent's heat is transmitted as infrared energy at 100% efficiency along with any light then its temperature will show no increase either.  So the answer may have more to do with the properties of the containers than the properties of the lights. Practically, I'd expect A to warm up more than B because B's light energy will escape more easily with materials we are familiar with.

If both containers are opaque to all light (UV, visible and IR) and have the same thermal conductivity properties we are back to the first paragraph.

2c

Robert C

 

On 2/14/17 8:01 AM, Gary Schiltz wrote:

Since there are some non-naïve, i.e. professional physicists, as well as just gererally smart people in FRIAM, I pose the following fun question. Given: two transparent, sealed containers filled with air - one contains an incandescent light bulb A that consumes 100 watts of energy; the other container contains a fluorescent light bulb B that also *consumes* 100 watts of energy. Since B is of a more efficient design, it will produce more light than A. Assuming the same color temperature light is produced by A and B, and ignoring any feedback effects of rising temperatures inside the respective containers, will the temperatures inside the containers reach the same temperature? Naïve physicist G (me) thinks that since more light is escaping from the container containing B, that its temperature will rise less. G also thinks that if the containers are opaque, that the temperatures will rise by the same amount. But G is besieged with doubts. Please help G.

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

 

-- 

Cirrillian 

Web Design & Development

Santa Fe, NM

http://cirrillian.com

<a href="tel:%28281%29%20989-6272" target="_blank">281-989-6272 (cell)

Member Design Corps of Santa Fe

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Steven A Smith <[hidden email]>
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:05:56 -0700
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

Nick -

This is one of your (wonderfully, and I mean that seriously) naive questions, and the naive answer is yes, they are surely coupled.   I'm very interested in "soundscapes"  so am often very aware of both the complex passive structure of most soundscapes (especially landscape vs urbanscape) and the active (birdsongs, garbage trucks, wind in the willows, sirens, ice-floes, domestic disturbances) elements.

You are likely to have a better idea than I do about whether bird's songs are likely to be *formulated* in a more or less complex manner when in a complex "landscape".   I would guess yes to this.    I would guess that the three most relevant scales are roughly the scale of the bird's body, it's food-source, and it's natural predators.   How well can it hide, how well can it's food hide, and how well does it's predator hide.   I"m sure this is an overly simplified model.

I think rather than fractal (literally), the more relevant concept is "with structure at many scales".  

IN any case, welcome to Alberto!  My own daughter happens to be a researcher in Flaviviruses, traditionally West Nile and Dingue, but now is drawn into the Zika thing...   I look forward to hearing more from you Alberto!

 - Steve

On 2/15/17 3:57 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:

Helloooo, List,

 

I would like to introduce to you Alberto Alaniz (who describes himself in the communication below).  I “met” him on Research Gate when he downloaded a paper of mine on the structural organization of bird song.  I noticed that he was writing from a Landscape Department, and I thought, “A landscape person who is interested in birdsong! He must be interested in fractals!”  And I was right.  So please welcome him.  Steve please note?

 

The idea of his that I particularly want to hear you discuss is his notion that fractality (is that a word?) in one domain can effect, affect, impose? fractality in another.  So is there a relationship between the fractality which my research revealed in the organization of bird song and the fractality of the landscapes on which bird behavior is deployed. 

 

I particularly wonder what Kim  Sorvig and Jenny Quillen and ProfDave think about this, but also wonder if others on the list could put an oar in.

 

Thanks,

 

Nick

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Alberto Jose Alaniz [[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:21 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

 

Dear Nick

 

I apreciate so much your invitation, so i really intrested in participate of your discussion group. I am a young researcher finishing my MS, and this types of oportunities look very good for my, specially if i can interact with other scientics. About your question, of course you can share my oppinion, now if you want i can writte a compleate opinion in extenso, and i will send to you tomorrow in the afternon.

 

My field of study is the ecologial modelling and the conservation biology, the last year i published my firsts papers in Biological conservation and International Journal of Epidemiology, the first one about ecosystem conservation and the secondth is a global model of exposure risk to Zika virus. Currently im working in ecosystems and in assessment of habitat loss in forest specialist species (with Kathryn Sieving from University of Florida).

 

Alberto  Alaniz Baeza

Lic. en Geografía, Geógrafo & Magíster (c) Áreas Silvestres y Conservación

Becario, Laboratorio de Ecología de Ambientes Fragmentados

Departamento de Ciencias Biológicas Animales, U. de Chile

Investigador, Laboratorio de Ecología de Ecosistemas

Departamento de Recursos Naturales Renovables, U. de Chile

Académico, Centro de Formación Técnica del Medio Ambiente IDMA

[phone]

https://albertoalaniz.wordpress.com/

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Vladimyr Burachynsky <[hidden email]>
To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'" <[hidden email]>
Cc: 
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 20:20:29 -0600
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

Nick or Glen,

 

I have been mulling over the thread about Representation versus Dynamicism  for a bit and the differences

that language imposes whenever cross-disciplines attempt to converse. Today I was struggling with some code

to create Voronoi Meshes nested within each other based on nested spheres. All look well enough until I introduced a

primitive solid, a Cube and tried to make everything spin in space.

 

I needed to decide which entity or sets were coupled to which… So thinking of FEM procedures I decided to make

the Voronoi Sets occupy the Global Coordinate Position and attach the Cube as a Local Coordinate   System. This is

rather arbitrary and can go either way. The problem appears somewhat akin to our thread, but I am aware that these distinctions

are contained within the same Simulation and neither reflects a reality except by coincidence. To cope with multiple coordinate systems one requires

a pertinent transformation matrix but if one is reckless the results are meaningless. The appearance of coupled systems may be illusionary and mistaken

as causative.

 

I thought today there was also a mention in Science Daily of fractals in Rorsach tests the more fractals, the more imaginative the observer’s answer.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/02/170214162838.htm

 

It will take a few days but will try and make a video out of the apparent incongruity of these objects. The Cube is lacking any distinctive edge embellishments and

troubles the mind as unreal somehow.

Language always hampers exchange of ideas.

vib

 

 

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Nick Thompson
Sent: February-15-17 4:58 PM
To: Friam; 'Kim Sorvig'
Cc: [hidden email]; [hidden email]; David West
Subject: [FRIAM] FW: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

 

Helloooo, List,

 

I would like to introduce to you Alberto Alaniz (who describes himself in the communication below).  I “met” him on Research Gate when he downloaded a paper of mine on the structural organization of bird song.  I noticed that he was writing from a Landscape Department, and I thought, “A landscape person who is interested in birdsong! He must be interested in fractals!”  And I was right.  So please welcome him.  Steve please note?

 

The idea of his that I particularly want to hear you discuss is his notion that fractality (is that a word?) in one domain can effect, affect, impose? fractality in another.  So is there a relationship between the fractality which my research revealed in the organization of bird song and the fractality of the landscapes on which bird behavior is deployed. 

 

I particularly wonder what Kim  Sorvig and Jenny Quillen and ProfDave think about this, but also wonder if others on the list could put an oar in.

 

Thanks,

 

Nick

 

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Alberto Jose Alaniz [[hidden email]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:21 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Fractal discussion Landscape-bird songs

 

Dear Nick

 

I apreciate so much your invitation, so i really intrested in participate of your discussion group. I am a young researcher finishing my MS, and this types of oportunities look very good for my, specially if i can interact with other scientics. About your question, of course you can share my oppinion, now if you want i can writte a compleate opinion in extenso, and i will send to you tomorrow in the afternon.

 

My field of study is the ecologial modelling and the conservation biology, the last year i published my firsts papers in Biological conservation and International Journal of Epidemiology, the first one about ecosystem conservation and the secondth is a global model of exposure risk to Zika virus. Currently im working in ecosystems and in assessment of habitat loss in forest specialist species (with Kathryn Sieving from University of Florida).

 

Alberto  Alaniz Baeza

Lic. en Geografía, Geógrafo & Magíster (c) Áreas Silvestres y Conservación

Becario, Laboratorio de Ecología de Ambientes Fragmentados

Departamento de Ciencias Biológicas Animales, U. de Chile

Investigador, Laboratorio de Ecología de Ecosistemas

Departamento de Recursos Naturales Renovables, U. de Chile

Académico, Centro de Formación Técnica del Medio Ambiente IDMA

[phone]

https://albertoalaniz.wordpress.com/

_______________________________________________
Friam mailing list
[hidden email]
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove