Friam

Work! Fer Gawd and Newton's sake!

Classic

List

Threaded

5 messages Options

plissaman

Work! Fer Gawd and Newton's sake!

Come on, Peoples! Work is DEFINED in Newtonian mechanics as being done "when a force moves its point of application". Thass all - and plenty enuff! So you lift a box up to a shelf - you doing work, as defined by Isaac, the Laborers Union and most Plain Folks. You put a whiskey jigger on a pool table - it and the table move, a very leetle bit, and work be done by gravity.

Railroad lines represent useful constraints to freight cars. Thanks to them the car becomes an "object that moves in predestinate grooves"! The car is subject to acceleration due to all forces acting on it, but the rails try to keep it from cross track motion. They does their best - to the extent that they are capable.

You may generalize the technical terms "force", "work" and "constraint" as far as you like. After all, they had meaning in language long before they were "defined" by Newton and La Grange for specific mechanical concepts. St. Paul (2 nd Corinthians III, 14) said: "The love of Christ constraineth us". I dunno what he meant, but the nice thing about the Bible is that you can choose for yourself what it means!

It seems helpful to note that the tracks constrain the response of the cars to applied forces (more or less!). It's useful and human to employ the word in a more general sense, and it probably means roughly the same thing to most people. And if not, who cares? "What's in a name?" as someone said!
Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures

Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for.

1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505,USA
tel:(505)983-7728

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Work! Fer Gawd and Newton's sake!

In the true spirit of FRIAM, I propose that we generalize what we mean by "generalize".

And then we could perhaps steer the discussion in the direction of how to produce a "generalizable" ABM.

Said ABM could be made aware of it's computing host, therefore further generalizing its computation capability, accordingly. (Depending on what was meant by "computation", of course).

Just a thought.

--Doug

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:23 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Come on, Peoples! Work is DEFINED in Newtonian mechanics as being done "when a force moves its point of application". Thass all - and plenty enuff! So you lift a box up to a shelf - you doing work, as defined by Isaac, the Laborers Union and most Plain Folks. You put a whiskey jigger on a pool table - it and the table move, a very leetle bit, and work be done by gravity.

Railroad lines represent useful constraints to freight cars. Thanks to them the car becomes an "object that moves in predestinate grooves"! The car is subject to acceleration due to all forces acting on it, but the rails try to keep it from cross track motion. They does their best - to the extent that they are capable.

You may generalize the technical terms "force", "work" and "constraint" as far as you like. After all, they had meaning in language long before they were "defined" by Newton and La Grange for specific mechanical concepts. St. Paul (2 nd Corinthians III, 14) said: "The love of Christ constraineth us". I dunno what he meant, but the nice thing about the Bible is that you can choose for yourself what it means!

It seems helpful to note that the tracks constrain the response of the cars to applied forces (more or less!). It's useful and human to employ the word in a more general sense, and it probably means roughly the same thing to most people. And if not, who cares? "What's in a name?" as someone said!
Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures

Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for.

1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505,USA
tel:(505)983-7728

lrudolph

Re: Work! Fer Gawd and Newton's sake!

I heard thee speak me a speech once, but it was never acted,
or if it was, not above once; for the play, I remember, pleas'd not
the million, 'twas caviare to the general.

> In general, I agree.
>
> -R
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:34 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
> > In the true spirit of FRIAM, I propose that we generalize what we mean by
> > "generalize".
> >
> > And then we could perhaps steer the discussion in the direction of how to
> > produce a "generalizable" ABM.
> >
> > Said ABM could be made aware of it's computing host, therefore further
> > generalizing its computation capability, accordingly. (Depending on what
> > was meant by "computation", of course).
> >
> > Just a thought.
> >
> > --Doug
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:23 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> Come on, Peoples! Work is DEFINED in Newtonian mechanics as being done
> >> "when a force moves its point of application". Thass all - and plenty
> >> enuff! So you lift a box up to a shelf - you doing work, as defined by
> >> Isaac, the Laborers Union and most Plain Folks. You put a whiskey jigger on
> >> a pool table - it and the table move, a very leetle bit, and work be done by
> >> gravity.
> >>
> >> Railroad lines represent useful constraints to freight cars. Thanks to
> >> them the car becomes an "object that moves in predestinate grooves"! The
> >> car is subject to acceleration due to all forces acting on it, but the rails
> >> try to keep it from cross track motion. They does their best - to the
> >> extent that they are capable.
> >>
> >> You may generalize the technical terms "force", "work" and "constraint" as
> >> far as you like. After all, they had meaning in language long before they
> >> were "defined" by Newton and La Grange for specific mechanical concepts.
> >> St. Paul (2 nd Corinthians III, 14) said: "The love of Christ constraineth
> >> us". I dunno what he meant, but the nice thing about the Bible is that you
> >> can choose for yourself what it means!
> >>
> >> It seems helpful to note that the tracks constrain the response of the
> >> cars to applied forces (more or less!). It's useful and human to employ the
> >> word in a more general sense, and it probably means roughly the same thing
> >> to most people. And if not, who cares? "What's in a name?" as someone said!
> >> Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures
> >>
> >> Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for.
> >>
> >> 1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505,USA
> >> tel:(505)983-7728
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
>

Eric Charles

Re: Work! Fer Gawd and Newton's sake!

In reply to this post by plissaman

Agreed! Work, constraint, cause, etc. were all words long before Newton (if we are willing to translate them, many centuries before). Newton gave them very technical meanings in his system, but the technical meanings were "just" a matter of making more strict the common meanings.

We could, if we wanted to, try to find psychological analogs closest to Newton's meanings, or we could try use the looser (but related) common meanings. In either case, the short answer to Vladimyr's question is that people using these terms to talk about psychological systems want them to mean the same things they mean when talking about physical systems. So, some want them want the words to be very technical terms, others want them to carry the connotation of general usage. It should be obvious to anyone using the terms that any such usage is highly metaphorical; should be, but for some reason it is not.

Beyond that, as Nick pointed out, they weren't my words of choice. Personally, I think psychology would be a lot better off if we minimized such talk as much as possible. Claims like "beliefs constrain intentions" seem strange and potentially vacuous to me. Even if it is not totally vacuous, the amount of intellectual work we would have to do to unpack the claim makes me think it is not worth it, and I would suspect that there was probably a much more straightforward and empirically tractable claim that the claimant could make instead (maybe something like; "Past experience determines a large proportion of the variance in future actions," or "verbal behavior is a somewhat reliable predictor of the way future actions will be directed").

I am reminded of the long arguments psychologists have over whether some third factor is a "moderator" or a "mediator" of a known effect. Surely this is a useful distinction, but probably not one worth the amount of time and effort put into it. Further, the problem could probably be solved completely by dedicating a full sentence to the role of the third factor, rather than trying to come to consensus on magical one-word specialized terms.

Eric

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 02:23 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

Come on, Peoples! Work is DEFINED in Newtonian mechanics as being done "when a force moves its point of application". Thass all - and plenty enuff! So you lift a box up to a shelf - you doing work, as defined by Isaac, the Laborers Union and most Plain Folks. You put a whiskey jigger on a pool table - it and the table move, a very leetle bit, and work be done by gravity.

Railroad lines represent useful constraints to freight cars. Thanks to them the car becomes an "object that moves in predestinate grooves"! The car is subject to acceleration due to all forces acting on it, but the rails try to keep it from cross track motion. They does their best - to the extent that they are capable.

You may generalize the technical terms "force", "work" and "constraint" as far as you like. After all, they had meaning in language long before they were "defined" by Newton and La Grange for specific mechanical concepts. St. Paul (2 nd Corinthians III, 14) said: "The love of Christ constraineth us". I dunno what he meant, but the nice thing about the Bible is that you can choose for yourself what it means!

It seems helpful to note that the tracks constrain the response of the cars to applied forces (more or less!). It's useful and human to employ the word in a more general sense, and it probably means roughly the same thing to most people. And if not, who cares? "What's in a name?" as someone said!
Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures

Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for.

1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505,USA
tel:(505)983-7728
============================================================
FRIAM Applied
Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's
College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

Sarbajit Roy (testing)

Re: Work! Fer Gawd and Newton's sake!

In reply to this post by plissaman

"Railroad lines represent useful constraints to freight cars"

A clear application of the 3rd law depending on the frame of reference of the "static" rail system. So would the "frame" itself constitute a constraint ?

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 11:53 PM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

Come on, Peoples! Work is DEFINED in Newtonian mechanics as being done "when a force moves its point of application". Thass all - and plenty enuff! So you lift a box up to a shelf - you doing work, as defined by Isaac, the Laborers Union and most Plain Folks. You put a whiskey jigger on a pool table - it and the table move, a very leetle bit, and work be done by gravity.

Railroad lines represent useful constraints to freight cars. Thanks to them the car becomes an "object that moves in predestinate grooves"! The car is subject to acceleration due to all forces acting on it, but the rails try to keep it from cross track motion. They does their best - to the extent that they are capable.

You may generalize the technical terms "force", "work" and "constraint" as far as you like. After all, they had meaning in language long before they were "defined" by Newton and La Grange for specific mechanical concepts. St. Paul (2 nd Corinthians III, 14) said: "The love of Christ constraineth us". I dunno what he meant, but the nice thing about the Bible is that you can choose for yourself what it means!

It seems helpful to note that the tracks constrain the response of the cars to applied forces (more or less!). It's useful and human to employ the word in a more general sense, and it probably means roughly the same thing to most people. And if not, who cares? "What's in a name?" as someone said!
Peter Lissaman, Da Vinci Ventures

Expertise is not knowing everything, but knowing what to look for.

1454 Miracerros Loop South, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505,USA
tel:(505)983-7728

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org