The nonlinear future
Popularity Report
![]() |
|||
![]() |
|||
![]() |
|||
![]() |
|||
![]() |
|||
![]() |
URL Tag Cloud
Bookmark History
Saved by 1 people (0 private), first by anonymouse user on 2008-10-04
- Transtracker on 2008-10-04 - Tags ncw , nonlinear_science
Public Sticky notes
Highlighted by TransTracker
on 2008-10-04 by TransTracker
I've read more of this kind of stuff that I can even mention. But this is one of the more incoherent pieces I've seen, substituting buzzwords and catch phrases for real thought more often than most other, similar pieces. The "environment" will become "increasingly biological over time"? What does that even mean? The "environment" is not "biological" now? And biological systems are more prone to nonlinearity than nonbiological ones, huh? But doesn't that undercut the dominant argument that nonlinearity is a universal phenonmemon? Or, is there circular reasoning at work here? If it's biological, then it will have nonlinearity; and, it's biological because it has nonlinearity?
Highlighted by TransTracker
on 2008-10-04 by TransTracker
Certainly, these are important phenomena with profound impacts. But exponential growth is not an example of mathematical nonlinearity. Just because the plot on a graph is a curve and not a straight line, that doesn't make it a nonlinear equation.
Highlighted by TransTracker
on 2008-10-04 by TransTracker
Again, very important phenomena, but not nonlinearity. And yet again, "biological transformation" is not explained.


Public Comment