[MD] Chaoplexity

[Case]

I like the ideas here but really, really hate the term. 
Please tell me you made it up and it is not really being used out there. I
am also not convinced that these ideas are not resulting in significant
advances here and there. Fractal compression is used in computer graphics as
well as modeling in animation. I think these ideas have also found use in
analysis of stocks, weather and other chaotic systems. They have also given
new understandings to old ideas like the shape of normal distributions and
how various factors can influence the future of those distributions.

Case

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of William Robinson
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 5:37 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Chaoplexity

To: Everyone

Robert Laughlin, Stanford physicist, who wrote *A Different Universe insists
that scientists can discover profound new laws by investigating complex,
emergent phenomena, which cannot be understood in terms of their individual
components.*
Physicist and software mogul Stephen Wolfram advances a similar argument
from a more technological angle. He asserts that computer models called
cellular automata represent the key to understanding all of nature's
complexities, from quarks to economies. Wolfram found a wide audience for
these ideas with his 1,200 page self-published opus *A New Kind of Science*.
He asserts that his book can been seen as "initiating a paradigm shift of
historic importance in science, with new implications emerging at an
increasing rate every year."

  Actually, Wolfram and Laughlin are recycling ideas propounded in the 1980s
and 1990s in the field of chasos and complexity, which I regard as a single
field--call it chaoplexity. Chaoplexologists harp on the fact that simple
rules, when followed by a computer, can generate extremely complicated
patterns, which appear to vary randomly as a function of time or scale. In
the same way, they argue, simple rules must underlie many apparently noisy,
complicated aspects of nature.

 So far, chaoplexologists have failed to find any profound new scientific
laws, Horgan recently asked Philip Anderson, a veteran of this field, to
list major new developments:

 In response he cited work on self-organized criticality, a mathematical
model that dates back almost two decades and that has proved to have limited
applications. One reason for chaoplexity's lack of progress may be the
notorious butterfly effect, the notion that tiny changes in initial
conditions can eventually yield huge consequences in a chaotic system; the
classic example is that the beating of a butterfly's wings could eventually
trigger the formation of a tornado. The butterfly effect limits both
prediction and retro-diction, and hence explanation, because specific events
cannot be ascribed to specific causes with complete certainty. The long
chain of cause and effect (evidentiary factual data) cannot be pulled
together to establish a probablistic outcome.

The words above quoted, recycled from the October issue of Discover
magazine, page 60 by John Horgon with only minor editorial changes.
Do these words help further the arguments on this thread?
Robbie

[Ham]
> The antithesis of physical reality is no reality
> -- nothingness -- which is what pure awareness is
> without its object.


PS. Steven Hawking in his *A Brief History of Time asks*: Why is there
something rather than nothing?  More specifically, what triggered the Big
Bang, and why did the universe take this particular form, which seems to
allowed our existence.




On 12/8/06, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Hi SA --
>
>
> > "...such a notion makes the creation of
> > subjective consciousness totally dependent on an
> > objective reality."  I'm particularly looking at this
> > statement, which further on in this post didn't really
> > jump out at me, until I read this as follows:
> >
> >      [Ham]
> > The antithesis of physical reality is no reality
> > -- nothingness -- which is what pure awareness is
> > without its object.
> >
> > So, why Ham, are you denying what you wrote in
> > the statement above, when you say this here.  What is
> > reality?  Are you saying reality is nothingness and
> > 'physical reality', which I quote the latter ...you deny
> > "...subjective consciousness totally DEPENDENT upon
> > objective reality."  but then you state nothingness is
> > awareness, which you need awareness in your thesis.
> >
> > please clarify.
>
> To answer your first question, objective reality -- that is, the
> appearance
> of things occurring in time and space -- is an illusionary construct of
> the
> intellect on sensing the Value of Essence.  The "subjectivity" of
> consciousness (commonly called "self-awareness) is what would
> theoretically
> remain if the objects disappeared.  Empirically it is a "negate" -- a
> non-entity -- i.e., nothingness.  Epistemologically, however, it is the
> proprietary sense of value.
>
> I did not say that reality is nothingness.  I said existential
> (experiential) reality is a dichotomy consisting of (subjective) awareness
> and (objective) otherness.  They are co-dependent contingencies in that
> one
> cannot exist without the other.  Awareness seeks the value of otherness
> which becomes its "content" and is intellectualized as "being".  But the
> reality of experience is a relational illusion.  The true reality is the
> absolute Source of this dichotomy.
>
> To create the dichotomy, Essence negates, or denies, Nothingness.  This
> separates self-awareness from Essence and creates the appearance of
> otherness as the desired object of awareness.  But in becoming aware, we
> acquire the value of Essence and intellectualize the object.  Hence, the
> ultimate relation is the perceived value of relational being to Absolute
> Essence.
>
> Now go back and enjoy the snow fallin' and the birds eatin'.
>
> Happy Holidays,
> Ham
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/