About 2 months ago I wrote about oscillatory reactions that are so weird that the original research paper was rejected for decades because it was in a collision with the Second Law of TD (it wasn't...).

There will be some math, but I'll try to make it interesting and philosophical.

I will call @abigail-dantes to tell me if there is something similar known in psychology.

You are probably wondering what software will be used.

Well, it's *Paper&Pencil 3.7*. It's a freeware...

Let's start with the simple equation that describes the formation of the product (P) from the starting substance (A) via intermediary product (X) and describe the evolution of *x* in time.

It's becoming interesting because the following equations could be simplified.

Now we have only 2 parameters: κ which is constant and boring and λ that depends on the concentrations of the initial substance A and the product P. **It evolves in time** in some cases.

If the system is opened, and the concentrations of A and P are constant - *x* will be related to λ in a linear way. That's the ideal life. You decide how much you want to invest (money, time, struggle), you decide the outcome (wealth, health, happiness, love...). And you can predict your current state of mind,

In the real world, in a closed system, it will be linear for some values, excluding the extremes. Still - nothing special.

But for some values, there will be the "S" curve.

And this is the moment when the philosophical questions appear.

First, you need to invest your time and willingness (A) in some process of learning, so you can have a successful career (P). You go to college (λ1), you graduate (λ2) and you start working. Now you want some change, but you can't simply jump from one point to another. Or maybe there is a new balance between your willingness to change something and the outcome you achieved.

Now you are turning back (the upper line) via the pathway defined by the products you made (P) and the amount of your will (A). Then you start learning again. Not from scratch, but from the λ1 point (sharp fall). And it will be bad until you reach λ2 when you will jump again.

You can have a very different outcome of your current state (X) for the same λ.

It's strange. And it also means one more thing. Even with the same personality, the same devotion, the same everything, the outcome (your current state) will be different because you passed the checkpoint.

It looks similar to the relationships. You are investing your time, emotions, efforts and *Boom!* you are in love.

Now you are riding on the upper line, you are still kind, you are still trying to do the best and your current state of happiness is higher (you have sex with your partner, you have a stable companion) but instead of rising to the goal (lower line), you are falling down. You are standing from a better position (higher value of *x*) but you are doomed!

The only way to stay on the upper line is to be "right" from λ2. And sometimes you are not controlling all the parameters. Yes, you are doomed - **but that's not bad**. It's the law of math.

And the best thing is... There are many more parameters in complex systems. Not only λ. If you neglect them, you will be in that λ loop forever.

## Conclusion:

If you want to shoot yourself because the "life is not fair" and you are putting way too much effort and the results are constantly going down - just break the loop and start all over again.

You can't fix everything in order to remain happy (current state of *x*).

And go away from that attractor, that infinite loop, so you could explore different dimensions and get the unimaginably high values of *x*.

Get out from your comfort zone, bad marriage and that job you hate.

Yes, it's scary, the inevitable fall will hurt but keep in mind there is *dt* in the equation. And the *t* (time) you have is not infinitive.

mathowl64 · 3년 전Real-life is not deterministic :P

If you want to simplify this even further, you can just use time-one maps then you don't have to resort to the use of ODEs.

effofex62 · 3년 전Ah, but it

isstochastic. There's no gaurantee that I'll make it to 100 by eating my veggies, but it's reasonable to assume it's a better strategy than eating wings and bourbon every day (more's the pity).@alexs13230

Made me laugh.

alexs132071 · 3년 전but it is stochastic

I know, I know, but it feels so good to think that you can control all the parameters or at least turn some of them to negligible noise

effofex62 · 3년 전I've had multiple conversations about this with various people over many years. Specifically, it's why I think

The Simsis a such a popular video game - to the point where people are spending time making their characters study to pass a test instead of actually studying for real tests. No guarantee of an A in the real world, but you know you'll be top of your class if you spend X mins reading in the game._{Sent with Fast-Reply}alexs132071 · 3년 전And it's probably one of the reasons why the best students are not the best entrepreneurs. Good students know how to learn from the books they have, but they never get training in innovation, marketing, psychology, "street-smartness"...

It's also a problem that during the entire education, many people never learn about fuzzy logic, about non-linear processes, about particle swarm, Monte Carlo, Neural Networks... And those concepts are important at philosophical level.

You can find a solution, for some problems (not for all the problems), if you apply many iterations. Working hard is not always the solution.

You can fit anything if you apply the equation with 5 or 10 parameters.

Something can be 83% correct.

You can't predict the weather (or your future) for a long time span - because you can't solve such equation.

You are not allowed to extrapolate!

And so on, and so on... Math is The Queen

effofex62 · 3년 전Moreover, in engineering at least, one indicator is whether they can interpret the math or not. Equally valid answers could be 'because the denomiator gets larger, so it must get smaller' and 'there is increased turbulence, so mixing is more efficient', but one answer certainly shows a better grasp of the concept.

_{Sent with Fast-Reply}alexs132071 · 3년 전Nice story + some math + blond girl = nice way to spend 15 min :)

mathowl64 · 3년 전yeah a bad model can still be pretty :D

alexs132071 · 3년 전She is a good model. That's the weighting parameter fo the mathematical model

mathowl64 · 3년 전alexander.alexis63 · 3년 전This is as strange a biochemistry post as I've ever read. It's almost as if it's a metaphor for something :D

alexs132071 · 3년 전I was in some strange mood, and it culminated in my decision to hit the road and start looking for a position in Serbia.

steemitboard66 · 3년 전Congratulations @alexs1320! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

Award for the number of comments received

_{Click on the badge to view your Board of Honor.}_{If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP}To support your work, I also upvoted your post!

Do not miss the last post from @steemitboard!Participate in the SteemitBoard World Cup Contest!Collect World Cup badges and win free SBD

Support the Gold Sponsors of the contest: @good-karma and @lukestokes

utopian-io71 · 3년 전## Hi @alexs1320!

Your post was upvoted by utopian.io in cooperation with steemstem - supporting knowledge, innovation and technological advancement on the Steem Blockchain.

## Contribute to Open Source with utopian.io

Learn how to contribute on our website and join the new open source economy.

Want to chat? Join the Utopian Community on Discord https://discord.gg/h52nFrV