Periodicity is a Human Construct

Submitted by PriceRip on Sat, 07/16/2016 - 12:13pm

Periodicity is not a property of nature in anyway, shape, or form.
Stated another way:
Any process that appears to be periodic is only approximately periodic.

The perception that periodicity is a property of natural processes is reinforced by its presentation in most science textbooks in the earlier levels of our educational system. This is sad, in that, most take this notion as a truism and never examine it further much to their detriment. In fact it could be thought of as a corollary to, "the unexamined life is not worth living" comment by Socrates.
We are "wired" to perceive periodicities this is analogous to the visual phenomenon of Pareidolia. An interesting question is, "How did we develop such a strong tendency toward this type of thinking strategy?"

Tags:

Reality Pareidolia

Vote

Comments

Submitted by ghotiphaze on Sat, 07/16/2016 - 12:28pm

Maybe because

so much of nature is built on fractals and other iterated function? Just guessing here.

—

There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.

Submitted by PriceRip on Sat, 07/16/2016 - 12:54pm

Actually

We impose an artificial construct upon our observations. We know that the rotation of the Earth does not produce a periodic repetition of noons even as we construct clocks to construct our schedules to suggest that is a reality. The Earth's year varies but by such a small amount that we don't usually care.
The examples are limitless, and we as an educated society don't care to think about such things.

so much of nature is built on fractals and other iterated function? Just guessing here.

Sorry, fractals and other iterated functions are just human constructs.

Submitted by stevej on Sat, 07/16/2016 - 12:30pm

I am probably missing the point here

but here goes:
Day, year = not a human construct
second, minute, hour, week, month = human construct
Decade, century, millenia = hybrid

—

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” -Voltaire

Submitted by PriceRip on Sat, 07/16/2016 - 12:38pm

They are not periodic

A day, year, etcetera are not periodic as conceived by us.

Submitted by ghotiphaze on Sat, 07/16/2016 - 1:34pm

Frequency of wavelenghth

is invariable within a pure material and reference frame.

—

There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.

Submitted by PriceRip on Sat, 07/16/2016 - 3:33pm

Now pure?

Under the best of circumstances, from an experimental point of view, periodicity in a pure material is a good approximation for several thousand atoms. Much beyond that and "defects" spoil the modeling.
Even free space suffers distortions due to mass concentrations.
My original observation is trivial in that the real world does not conform to our mathematical models. Said another way: All our models are approximations, but our students far too often do not fully appreciate implication of same. As a result I know far too many with STEM degrees that actually think their discipline is somehow more pure, or correct, or correct, or something than say philosophy, history, or some other non-stem discipline.

Submitted by ghotiphaze on Sat, 07/16/2016 - 4:06pm

Sounds like you're saying

periodicity is pure though our manufacturing and measuring suck.
If the suck hypothesis is true, then neither periodicity or non-periodicity can be proven.

—

There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.

Submitted by PriceRip on Sat, 07/16/2016 - 4:42pm

Almost True

I think my words are not saying what I think they are saying.
We construct models that make sense to us. But what makes sense to us is a result of our conditioning and the mental equipment we have that is the result of our evolutionary past. The notion of periodicity is a human (read classically) defined concept. It is a mathematical fiction that works good enough so we keep using it even though we always, in every real case, allow for the approximation that it is.
It's like the fiction that the gravitational force is a 1/r² force. We know that that is not true in detail, but it is close enough for most situations.
Most importantly, this discussion, for my part, is not about "our manufacturing and measuring suck" or anything remotely connected with experimentalism or whatever. While many think science is about practical "what can I do and/or build" utilitarianism grounded in experiment, it is really about how do we understand reality.
It is important to understand that our mental constructs may interfere with our understanding of reality if we do not grok the limitations imposed by our biological history. And, while we us experiments as arbitrators of "what is" we must develop an understanding the supersedes the results we can produce in the laboratory.
If we are unable to do this in the "hard sciences" how can we ever expect to have a conversation in an issue oriented environment such as that at c99%?

Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Sat, 07/16/2016 - 5:41pm

Poincare agrees:

To conclude: We have not a direct intuition of simultaneity, nor of the equality of two durations. If we think we have this intuition, this is an illusion. We replace it by the aid of certain rules which we apply almost always without taking count of them.

But what is the nature of these rules? No general rule, no rigorous rule; a multitude of little rules applicable to each particular case.

These rules are not imposed upon us and we might amuse ourselves in inventing others; but they could not be cast aside without greatly complicating the enunciation of the laws of physics, mechanics and astronomy.

We therefore choose these rules, not because they are true, but because they are the most convenient, and we may recapitulate them as follows: "The simultaneity of two events, or the order of their succession, the equality of two durations, are to be so defined that the enunciation of the natural laws may be as simple as possible. In other words, all these rules, all these definitions are only the fruit of an unconscious opportunism."

—

The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?

Submitted by PriceRip on Sat, 07/16/2016 - 5:59pm

Ah! Poincare

and my favorite, heavily paraphrased of course : A collection of facts do not a science make.