Aiki and the Law of Thermodynamics

Mary Malmros wrote: Maybe one day we can have a thread that doesn't go toxic PDQ. But that is not this day, nor any day soon, I'm thinking. More and more and more discouraged about this forum,

Don't get caught in the strength of his grip, its but one point in space let him have it, you can ignore and move around it because the rest of space yours to do with as you wish. If we are talking analogies that is

Tony Mills wrote: Don't get caught in the strength of his grip, its but one point in space let him have it, you can ignore and move around it because the rest of space yours to do with as you wish. If we are talking analogies that is

i think we move into the quantum side of the fence here where two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time and be observable by a mime.

Phi Truong wrote: i think we move into the quantum side of the fence here where two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time and be observable by a mime.

Surely this is an Aikido metaphor, you can and are encouraged to occupy the others space. See how we can take the energy of an attack and use it to produce a positive outcomes.

PS. I think mimes would make great Aikido-ka, the ability to observe movements and copy them is useful, but I can see how they would get annoying on the mat: "how am I supposed to attack him, he seems to be stuck inside some sort of invisible box?"

Tony Mills wrote: Surely this is an Aikido metaphor, you can and are encouraged to occupy the others space. See how we can take the energy of an attack and use it to produce a positive outcomes. PS. I think mimes would make great Aikido-ka, the ability to observe movements and copy them is useful, but I can see how they would get annoying on the mat: "how am I supposed to attack him, he seems to be stuck inside some sort of invisible box?"

And you wouldn't know if he was dead or not until you opened the box

Keith Larman wrote: Ignore list... You often can't see what you don't already know. Sometimes you need to see it over and over again until it "pops" in to view. Then you're ready to see the next thing. Funny how that works...

An apologia for science. Science and the scientific process is just a tool, Sometimes its used well, sometimes not so much. Like any tool it has limitations and a good tradesman has a bunch of tools, he right one for the right time. Its not the case in point for your experience (and i can just imagine several scenarios of some collegues doing similar goofy stuff in translating their science to something else) but i'm sure metallurgy has a lot to offer swordsmithing (is that the right word), but some times to get there ya gotta make a d*ck of yourself in the process of building up that knowledge from first principles.

For my own part physics etc.. has been a cool window for me to peer through and look at aiki (and its been helpful to me and others), but it's not for everyone as you have to get past the language or the discipline long enough to wield it creatively. Probably (heck certainly) its not a better tool than tradition, lineage, this or that root art etc... but there it is in my tool box, along with those other things i collect as i get to every damn aiki hardware store i can.

best,
dan

No need for an apologia, I was raised in a very "scientific" family. Dad was literally a rocket scientist and I spent years growing up in Madagascar because dad was working at a NASA tracking station outside Tananarive (Antananarivo now I suppose). I think a scientific approach to what's going on in Aikido would be a god-send for many discussions.

However, we'd first need to agree as to what it is. There's an old quote that I wish I could find again that said essentially that every study is biased by the questions we decide to ask. And therein lies the rub for me on many of these questions. First off we don't agree as a community as to exactly what it is we're doing. Is it the totally non-confrontational, relaxed, uber-blending/timing stuff that some excel at. Is it the more robust and acrobatic (no negative intended on my part here) stuff like you see from guys like Tissier. Is the the internal stuff many are now looking at that appears to involve vastly more complex phenomena than would be easily accounted for by just looking at localized muscle and bone structure (consider some stuff going on in functional fitness, yoga, and even high level runners where they're starting to realize that a slight rotation in the hand and wrist can somehow impact the speed of a runner -- why?). And on and on. The problem science faces with this domain, I think, is defining the domain itself before the study even begins. Then deciding what to look at. And do we have good models in the first place? It reminds me greatly of nutrition science. We are greatly limited in our thinking by what we think we know. We start off years ago knowing cholesterol seemed to be a marker for certain health problems. So we advice cutting cholesterol in the diet. Then we find there are different types of cholesterol, hdl and ldl, and one is "good" while the other "bad". Suggestions change a bit. Then they find VLDL, Triglycerides, intermediate density, chylomicrons ... Then we find that maybe it's not the cholesterol per se, but maybe saturated fat. Fat is cut in the diet. Then we find that carbohydrates seem to cause LDL rises and HDL lowering. Then it's transfats in the diet that replaced the bad for you butter (which itself seems to have some interesting compounds that may actually be good for lipid levels). Anyway, the point of this is that the understanding of "what's going on" changes constantly because our vocabulary is limited to what we know. So it goes back to something I've said before -- we need a better vocabulary to talk about some of this stuff. And we need to get more refined and rigorous about what's going on in the body. And then we can start to possibly get a better scientific understanding of what's actually going on. And hopefully get people more on the same page.

At one point in my life I was told the right way to eat was as little fat as possible. Fat, after all, had 9 calories per gram vs. 4 for carbs. So fill up on pasta, breads, etc. Eat some fruit and veggies. And watch out for cheese, milk, eggs and meats. It all made sense *given* what we knew, *given* the models we adapted. And we are the fattest generation ever.

Aikido needs some robust models. And some robust vocabulary. Then, maybe, the scientists have something to work with that will actually give useful results.

Keith Great Post +1 and more.

Keith Larman wrote: However, we'd first need to agree as to what it is. There's an old quote that I wish I could find again that said essentially that every study is biased by the questions we decide to ask. And therein lies the rub for me on many of these questions. Aikido needs some robust models. And some robust vocabulary. Then, maybe, the scientists have something to work with that will actually give useful results.

I think this is really an interesting point, science is guided by asking questions, whereas the eastern method is founded on just copy what sensei does. In this mix of cultures, asking questions isn't the right thing often.... and its a foreign concept traditionally.

My own personal journey of asking questions, and proffering explanations brought some public castigation....the world is probably a different place now though thankfully - though not without personalities.

The robust models and vocabulary I think are a real challenge, even on aikiweb we all speak a slightly different language, and many are quite educated in aikido. Bringing in additional scientific language and method can just bring in a barrier for many as there is a lot of training there that needs to have place, and why study science for 10 yrs when its time away from practicing martial arts right? As an aside I have been working my way through "Aikido Aikibojitsu and the Structure of Natural Law" its heavy on using scientific language, but i found, as a scientist, it was quite hard to read (I'm planning to write a review to explain more fully my views on what is a book with many pearls in it).

People seem to have a fairly negative view of science as a conspiracy/ mad scientist, its not surprising when this is what you see in most movies, also many have had a bad experience with it in school (mostly because school teachers just teach it as something you have to teach ...rather than really diggin it!). Then too are the progress science has made, with each generation learning more than the previous such as your nutrition example.

One of my favourite quotes is something Yoshigasaki Sensei said 'only when your concept of aikido improves will your aikido improve', there are plenty of concepts in aikido, be they analogy or something like KI, many have a root in science/mechanical models and i think there are a few more too at the micro and macro level. Waza/kata is another mode. All models if improperly used, are never learn't / discarded or internalised are limiting i guess

Anyways i start to rant

dan

Asking questions isn't always helpful, particularly if your background is so limited that you won't understand the answer. In that case, it can be a real waste of time unless you, the person asking, are willing to hear the answer "This is a highly simplified answer, to understand the detailed answer you'd have to do a lot more study." If a person with no background in physics asks a question about quantum fields, what do you tell them, and what sort of answer should they be satisfied with?

Mary Malmros wrote: Asking questions isn't always helpful, particularly if your background is so limited that you won't understand the answer. In that case, it can be a real waste of time unless you, the person asking, are willing to hear the answer "This is a highly simplified answer, to understand the detailed answer you'd have to do a lot more study." If a person with no background in physics asks a question about quantum fields, what do you tell them, and what sort of answer should they be satisfied with?

Plenty of books out there that successfully explain quantum fields to people with no real physics backgrounds in understandable terms...

Best.

Chris

asking questions is a good thing if you're sincere. I'm no scientist but try to improve my understanding of science to help me grow as a person. I do the same thing as a martial artist of AJJ and I do the same thing about religion and philosophy as well. There is a link between Aikido and physics as there is also a link between Aikido and mathematics (geometry). That does not mean you have to take a reductionist approach to Aikido but an understanding of the mechanics of the art can lead to greater appreciation and insight.

Christopher Li wrote: Plenty of books out there that successfully explain quantum fields to people with no real physics backgrounds in understandable terms... Best. Chris

Yeah, but they won't be using Feynman diagrams anytime soon. Takes more than getting the gist of something to be able to make practical use of it. Not that Feynman diagrams will help anyones aikido ...

Robert M Watson Jr wrote: Yeah, but they won't be using Feynman diagrams anytime soon. Takes more than getting the gist of something to be able to make practical use of it. Not that Feynman diagrams will help anyones aikido ...

Sure, but the basic concepts can and should be explainable.

I really don't hold much with the "It's just too hard for you to understand just shut up and trust me" school of thought.

Best,

Chris

Robert M Watson Jr wrote: Yeah, but they won't be using Feynman diagrams anytime soon. Takes more than getting the gist of something to be able to make practical use of it. Not that Feynman diagrams will help anyones aikido ...

Interesting comment, Rob - when I was studying this stuff was around the same time when I was first trying to teach aikido, and I was convinced that Feynman Diagrams somehow had a lot to do with aikido, and I often referred to them in class (I was also quite heavily into "the Tao of Physics" and the "Dancing Masters of Wu Li" at the time). The poor bemused students must have thought I was more than a little odd. These days I realise that back then I had only a slight understanding of either QED or aikido...

All the same, I have noticed over quite a few years that most of the members of the university dojo are either scientists or engineers. I have never worked out whether this was aikido itself or just my own slanted view of it.

Alex

Ewen Ebsworth wrote: asking questions is a good thing if you're sincere. I'm no scientist but try to improve my understanding of science to help me grow as a person. I do the same thing as a martial artist of AJJ and I do the same thing about religion and philosophy as well. There is a link between Aikido and physics as there is also a link between Aikido and mathematics (geometry). That does not mean you have to take a reductionist approach to Aikido but an understanding of the mechanics of the art can lead to greater appreciation and insight.

Now geometry has a LOT to do with aikido...

Alex

Christopher Li wrote: Sure, but the basic concepts can and should be explainable. I really don't hold much with the "It's just too hard for you to understand just shut up and trust me" school of thought. Best, Chris

I never said nor implied such. A topical read of a deep subject is not worth more than a slight diversion. Expecting more is delusional.

"Energy is quantized" is hardly a synopsis of quantum mechanics. Right up there with "everything is relative" really has nothing to do with relativity.

I'm more of a "Don't believe me, figure it out on your own" kind of school of thought. Besdies, most items of interest are best found out through self discovery.

Robert M Watson Jr wrote: I never said nor implied such. A topical read of a deep subject is not worth more than a slight diversion. Expecting more is delusional. "Energy is quantized" is hardly a synopsis of quantum mechanics. Right up there with "everything is relative" really has nothing to do with relativity. I'm more of a "Don't believe me, figure it out on your own" kind of school of thought. Besdies, most items of interest are best found out through self discovery.

Actually, I was replying to:

Asking questions isn't always helpful, particularly if your background is so limited that you won't understand the answer. In that case, it can be a real waste of time unless you, the person asking, are willing to hear the answer "This is a highly simplified answer, to understand the detailed answer you'd have to do a lot more study." If a person with no background in physics asks a question about quantum fields, what do you tell them, and what sort of answer should they be satisfied with?

Best,

Chris

Christopher Li wrote: successfully explain quantum fields

On another reading I got quite a chuckle here. I know quite a few quantum theorists that would debate that such a thing is even possible - they certainly squabble amongst themselves about this exact point to no end. Some of the founding greats almost came to fisticuffs over this very point.

Christopher Li wrote: Actually, I was replying to: Best, Chris

Oh, yeah, that's lame. Bet they pay dues on time tho ...

Robert M Watson Jr wrote: I "Energy is quantized" is hardly a synopsis of quantum mechanics. Right up there with "everything is relative" really has nothing to do with relativity. .

nope. you got that one wrong. it's "everyone is a relative" and it very much related to relativity theory, as in, the speed of your money disappear into black hole relates to whether you lend them out to your relatives or not.

Phi Truong wrote: "everyone is a relative"

Maybe for you but there is no blood of the mighty khan swimming in my veins. Better if some of my relatives stay under the rocks the frequent.

Entropy and the internet are made for each other.