@joXn Since the way this works is difficult to understand, it’s unfortunately a wonderful all-purpose justification for woo
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
@joXn now that I think about it, I wonder why it didn’t completely replace quantum woo… maybe not different enough at the lay level2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness@joXn The minimal insights (eg sensitive dependence on initial conditions, attractors) aren't quite as accessible/distortable.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@Meaningness In re Bey, the specific “swirl of smoke in air” example is poorly chosen, which made me suspect him of woo.@St_Rev1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @joXn1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
-
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness@St_Rev “Why doesn’t a swirl of smoke dissipate like a mathematical gas?” …>2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @joXn
@joXn@Meaningness Yeah, that's clearly wrong. Planetary orbits aren't strange attractors either. Lizard tails...well, it was plausible.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@joXn@Meaningness However, the next bit: "Attractors animate "random" matter...[but] the attractor only "exists" IN the material process"..1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@joXn@Meaningness ...is a critical and essentially Daoist insight.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @St_Rev
@St_Rev@Meaningness That insight isn’t illustrated by the smoke, though, in a naive reading. The air swirls too, even with no smoke trail.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.