What is the newest installment of 'Random Thoughts' on Physics Forums?

[BillTre]

But how is that ruling it out as an emergent phenomena?

 

[fresh_42]

But how is that ruling it out as an emergent phenomena?

I understand emergence as a true extension to a system, which doesn't evolve by unknown facts rather by something really new: The sum is more than the sum of its parts and not We don't know all parts.

 

[WWGD]

Most countries seem to go by a 5-2 system: 5 days of work, two of rest ( with variations within the population, but mostly this 5-2 split.) . Only exception I know is Israel, which uses a 6-1 system -- Only Saturday is a rest day, every other day is a work day. Would be nice to see what happens if someone tried a 4-3 system.

 

[fresh_42]

Google and Amazon are already offering their employees the four-day work week. Also in Germany there are more and more companies, which extend the weekend.

(for the record, cause wrong language: http://www.zeit.de/karriere/beruf/2016-09/vier-tage-woche-test-unternehmen-bericht-flexibilitaet)

 

[BillTre]

Humm, I would consider

The sum is more than the sum of its parts

a bit differently.
First I would use something like result here rather than the first use of sum if you are going to use sum again later in the sentence.
Also, I would not include the arrangements and interactions of of parts to be not included in the sum or the parts, just as:
1+2+3 (a sum of a bunch of parts) is equal (numerically) to 3+2+1,
however the arrangement or order is not the same and not predictable simple from a list of all the parts, thus (to me) is not included in the sum of the parts.

Still not clear on what is the definition of emergent phenomena you are using. Clearly you are excluding some of what I would include.
What does:

a true extension to a system

mean?

 

[WWGD]

(for the record, cause wrong language: http://www.zeit.de/karriere/beruf/2016-09/vier-tage-woche-test-unternehmen-bericht-flexibilitaet)

But that depends on just _how_ those days are used ;).

 

[Posy McPostface]

I understand emergence as a true extension to a system, which doesn't evolve by unknown facts rather by something really new: The sum is more than the sum of its parts and not We don't know all parts.

What if thinking back to Godelian terms, you have emergent phenomena happening due to entailment of a smaller system or "state space" by a larger one? What boggles my mind is whether the "set of axioms" or "laws of nature" have to be consistent with the smaller system by the larger one, or if they interact.

I'm probably spouting nonsense.

Thanks!

 

[WWGD]

What if thinking back to Godelian terms, you have emergent phenomena happening due to entailment of a smaller system or "state space" by a larger one? What boggles my mind is whether the "set of axioms" or "laws of nature" have to be consistent with the smaller system by the larger one, or if they interact.

I'm probably spouting nonsense.

Thanks!

Is this some sort of (possibly-inverted) Compactness theorem in Logic: If there is a model of finite cardinality then you can find one of infinite cardinality? Or induction : thruth of finite cases creates emergent result for infinite sets? Also probably nonsense.

 

[Posy McPostface]

Is this some sort of (possibly-inverted) Compactness theorem in Logic: If there is a model of finite cardinality then you can find one of infinite cardinality? Or induction : thruth of finite cases creates emergent result for infinite sets? Also probably nonsense.

I doubt it's nonsense from you; but, fascinating stuff either way. Hope someone else more versed than myself can clarify whatever I'm toying with here.

 

[WWGD]

I doubt it's nonsense from you; but, fascinating stuff either way. Hope someone else more versed than myself can clarify whatever I'm toying with here.

I mean, the truth of the proposition for infinite sets ( for all Naturals) sort of emerges from both the properties of the Naturals as well as the method of induction. The truth may not hold in sets with different "organization" , e.g., without Well-ordering.

 

[Posy McPostface]

The truth may not hold in sets with different "organization" , e.g., without Well-ordering.

This is of great interest to me. It's my impression that every higher ordinal set has to be consistent with every lower one (Compactness theorem as you stated) for at the very least soft-determinism to be true. Otherwise, the landscape of mathematical logic seems awfully strange?

 

[WWGD]

This is of great interest to me. It's my impression that every higher ordinal set has to be consistent with every lower one (Compactness theorem as you stated) for at the very least soft-determinism to be true. Otherwise, the landscape of mathematical logic seems awfully strange?

Although you may also argue that beyond a certain (cardinality) threshold (together with properties of sets) some new properties emerge: like having equinumerous proper subsets, or losing decidability from sentence logic to FOL: Or maybe we can somehow go ( using some sort of categorical inverse- or otherwise limit) from 2-valued logic in Sentence Logic to 3-valued ,...and arrive at (emerge) infinite-valued logic (Probability theory)?
Hey, these new ideas do not usually arrive ready-made, one has to spout some nonsense and see if something sticks.

 

[Posy McPostface]

Although you may also argue that beyond a certain (cardinality) threshold (together with properties of sets) some new properties emerge: like having equinumerous proper subsets, or losing decidability from sentence logic to FOL: Or maybe we can somehow go ( using some sort of categorical inverse- or otherwise limit) from 2-valued logic in Sentence Logic to 3-valued ,...and arrive at (emerge) infinite-valued logic (Probability theory)?
Hey, these new ideas do not usually arrive ready-made, one has to spout some nonsense and see if something sticks.

Well, the compression theorem for computational complexity theory states:

The theorem states that there exists no largest complexity class, with computable boundary, which contains all computable functions.

So, no go?

 

[WWGD]

Well, the compression theorem for computational complexity theory states:

The theorem states that there exists no largest complexity class, with computable boundary, which contains all computable functions.

So, no go?

Well, no, I see it differently. Something may or may not emerge depending on the way things are organized/the intrinsic properties. In some cases parts will fizzle.

 

[Posy McPostface]

Well, no, I see it differently. Something may or may not emerge depending on the way things are organized/the intrinsic properties. In some cases parts will fizzle.

I don't know. It makes the fact of emergent properties noncomputable to some degree, thus mysticism?

 

[Posy McPostface]

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/944329692898664448

Hilarious and awesome.

 

[fresh_42]

I don't know. It makes the fact of emergent properties noncomputable to some degree, thus mysticism?

Even a brief look on only Wikipedia offered a huge variety and complexity within philosophy (the scientific version, not grandma's) and even almost all other natural sciences and mathematics. A label such as mysticism or any other is doomed to ignore this complexity. I very much doubt that we can even scratch the surface here.

For a detailed discussion at least a separate thread would be needed. However, this is against our rules, as we neither have the background nor the tolerance for the endlessness which comes along with such debates. The persistency here tends to evolve into a workaround of these rules. So I appeal to readers to drop this topic. Random thoughts mean varying topics and some kind of randomness. It does not mean to support pseudo-scientific discussions to avoid the rules in technical forums.

 

[Ibix]

From Random Walks In Science:

Oh, Langley invented the bolometer.
It's really a kind of thermometer.
It can measure the heat
From a polar bear's feet
At a distance of half a kilometre.

Random enough?

 

[Posy McPostface]

A label such as mysticism or any other is doomed to ignore this complexity.

I was just interested in the implications of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, which are hard to find outside of academia. For example, some physicists believe that reality is computable, eg. the Church–Turing–Deutsch principle. Would the above discussion about the compression theorem and Godel be an explanation that that would be impossible?

 

[fresh_42]

From Random Walks In Science:

Oh, Langley invented the bolometer.
It's really a kind of thermometer.
It can measure the heat
From a polar bear's feet
At a distance of half a kilometre.

Random enough?

I thought of something like this:

"Oh freddled gruntbuggly,
Thy micturations are to me
As plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee.
Groop, I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes,
And hooptiously drangle me with crinkly bindlewurdles,
Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts
With my blurglecruncheon, see if I don't!" (Jeltz)​

 

[fresh_42]

I was just interested in the implications of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, which are hard to find outside of academia. For example, some physicists believe that reality is computable, eg. the Church–Turing–Deutsch principle. Would the above discussion about the compression theorem and Godel be an explanation that that would be impossible?

Personally, I would be very interested in such topics, but fact is, it is philosophy and discussions in the past revealed, that they are endless, mostly incompetent and if they were about physics at a comparable level, we would immediately close them as substandard. I also think that they were better placed in a technical forum, based on some real peer-reviewed publications which can be read by us, and eventually closer to mathematics (or physics) as the term "emergent phenomena" alone is far too unspecific. I do respect philosophy, so whatever can usually be read here is not.

 

[Posy McPostface]

Personally, I would be very interested in such topics, but fact is, it is philosophy and discussions in the past revealed, that they are endless, mostly incompetent and if they were about physics at a comparable level, we would immediately close them as substandard. I also think that they were better placed in a technical forum, based on some real peer-reviewed publications which can be read by us, and eventually closer to mathematics (or physics) as the term "emergent phenomena" alone is far too unspecific. I do respect philosophy, so whatever can usually be read here is not.

Understood. Won't pursue the matter further. Thanks.

 

[Ibix]

I thought of something like this:

"Oh freddled gruntbuggly,
Thy micturations are to me
As plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee.
Groop, I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes,
And hooptiously drangle me with crinkly bindlewurdles,
Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts
With my blurglecruncheon, see if I don't!" (Jeltz)​

There was a young lady called Bright,
Who traveled far faster than light.
She went out one day,
In a relative way,
And came back the previous night.

 

[Orodruin]

There was a young lady called Bright,
Who traveled far faster than light.
She went out one day,
In a relative way,
And came back the previous night.

https://www.physics.harvard.edu/academics/undergrad/limericks

 

[WWGD]

I tried to convince this acquaintance that going to talk unanounced with the HR people in a company he applied to which did not hire him to ask what they saw wrong in him may not be a good idea. They may suspect he is upset over his rejection and may call security or even police. Bad idea, I say. I tried.

 

[fresh_42]

I tried to convince this acquaintance that going to talk unanounced with the HR people in a company he applied to which did not hire him to ask what they saw wrong in him may not be a good idea. They may suspect he is upset over his rejection and may call security or even police. Bad idea, I say. I tried.

Furthermore, it is senseless. They most likely won't tell the true reasons, and any answer he gets is unlikely to be applicable to further interviews, because of the particularity of the situation. He basically expects a personality study about his person. Good chances he could achieve better results by asking a friend.

 

[Tom.G]

1. He didn't get the job.
2. It bugs him.
3. He is trying for a post mortem.
4. He probably won't get a realistic answer.
5. He certainly won't if he doesn't ASK.
6. Downside, nothing. (He has already been turned down.)
   
7. Upside, maybe he will learn something useful, even if the lesson is 'no response'.

And the harm is where?

 

[WWGD]

And the harm is where?

They may think he is disgruntled and ready to take it out on those who refused to hire him and will call security or the cops on him. It is not a bad idea, but , unfortunately, in today's PC world where everyone has become so delicate, companies, HR will refuse to give you an answer because they worry you will sue. No doubt some things needed to be changed but it seems we have over-corrected towards PC. EDIT: Besides, the time and energy spent going there-- good luck with HR/Hiring Manager dropping everything they're doing to talk with you -- could be spent applying for a new job or polishing skills or learning new ones.

 

[OmCheeto]

• He didn't get the job.
• It bugs him.
• He is trying for a post mortem.
• He probably won't get a realistic answer.

In my experience, he won't even get an answer from HR. HR just does the paperwork. Unless he was applying for a job in HR itself, only the department he was applying for would know the answer.

• He certainly won't if he doesn't ASK.
• Downside, nothing. (He has already been turned down.)

Upside, maybe he will learn something useful, even if the lesson is 'no response'.

And the harm is where?

In my 10 years in management, I was only responsible for hiring 3 people. The department I was in charge of was kind of a "circus", so one hiree's single quality that stood out was: "Worked in a circus". Turned out to be the most outstanding employee, ever.

 

[jim hardy]

They most likely won't tell the true reasons, and any answer he gets is unlikely to be applicable to further interviews, because of the particularity of the situation. He basically expects a personality study about his person. Good chances he could achieve better results by asking a friend.

WWGD hasn't said whether his friend even got past the HR interview, or what kind of job he was applying for.
Chances are he'd do better to call whoever interviewed him last and ask how he could improve his resume to make it more attractive .

I always asked applicants, who by the time they got to me had already survived the HR screening, "Do you change your own oil and sparkplugs?"
Maintenance and Marketing managers are not looking for the same personality traits.
He needs to go to the source to get a meaningful answer.

old jim

 

[WWGD]

WWGD hasn't said whether his friend even got past the HR interview, or what kind of job he was applying for.
Chances are he'd do better to call whoever interviewed him last and ask how he could improve his resume to make it more attractive .

I always asked applicants, who by the time they got to me had already survived the HR screening, "Do you change your own oil and sparkplugs?"
Maintenance and Marketing managers are not looking for the same personality traits.
He needs to go to the source to get a meaningful answer.

old jim

But there is also the obvious issue I told this guy about:
0) He could be using his time in many other ways. He may have to wait to see someone. How long will he be willing to wait for?
1) Will acquaintance know who it was (may be more than one person) who made the decision.
2) If he finds out who it was who made the decision, he/they may not be around and/or available that day. o
3) If they are available (free time to meet him): Will he/they be willing to tell him why ? If so, will they be able to give him "actionable " advice?Many don't give advice because of fear of either reprisals or
lawsuits.
4) Like Fresh_Meister said: Will the advice they gave him apply to other companies/job searches?
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Not the greatest idea IMO.

 

[StoneTemplePython]

3) If they are available (free time to meet him): Will he/they be willing to tell him why ? If so, will they be able to give him "actionable " advice?Many don't give advice because of fear of either reprisals or lawsuits.

Yes. Even five to ten years ago there were significant concerns about being sued. In many cases, it's all downside for people at the company to give this feedback, unfortunately.

4) Like Fresh_Meister said: Will the advice they gave him apply to other companies/job searches?

and of course over-fitting concerns. There isn't an analytical bound on this, I'm afraid.

- - - -
Rapid (semi) objective feedback is needed, but probably better found from mock interviews with professional acquaintances, alumni network helpers, etc.

 

[jim hardy]

But there is also the obvious issue I told this guy about:
0) He could be using his time in many other ways. He may have to wait to see someone. How long will he be willing to wait for?
1) Will acquaintance know who it was (may be more than one person) who made the decision.
2) If he finds out who it was who made the decision, he/they may not be around and/or available that day. o
3) If they are available (free time to meet him): Will he/they be willing to tell him why ? If so, will they be able to give him "actionable " advice?Many don't give advice because of fear of either reprisals or
lawsuits.
4) Like Fresh_Meister said: Will the advice they gave him apply to other companies/job searches?

Well, it's defeatism to think up reasons for not investing a phone call.
Most folks will respond to a sincere request for help.

The barriers we put up out of ' fear of rejection' are our own worst enemy.

old jim

 

[WWGD]

Well, it's defeatism to think up reasons for not investing a phone call.
Most folks will respond to a sincere request for help.

The barriers we put up out of ' fear of rejection' are our own worst enemy.

old jim

Well, no, a phone call seems reasonable, I agree, but a personal visit does not, for the reasons above. You need to figure out who made the decision, make sure they are available to speak in person, that they are willing to say something on the record ( difficult for most to be critical of others they don't know personally) without fearing reprisals or hostility.

 

[Ibix]

I'd try by email, to be honest, unless he's got a direct number for one of the people who interviewed him. I certainly wouldn't show up at the door, largely because it can be read as confrontational (or potentially confrontational), and I don't think it increases his chances of getting an honest answer.