[MD] Chaos and Goldilocks

[Case]

Ham, SA, Marsha, Chin, Robbie,

I am not an expert in the subject by any means. In fact I came to the MD
group hoping to learn more. I read Gleick's book on Chaos when it first came
out in the late 80s. When Lila was published a few years later I thought
Pirsig had created a metaphysics that captured these new ideas and help
place them in the context of a larger world view. 

Mark Maxwell has also talked in these terms but never really made Chaos a
central part of the MoQ. At one point he spoke about a secondary ontology
and strenuously objected when I agreed with most of what he said except I
said it was the primary ontology.

As Robbie points out Chaos Theory and Complexity Theory are related. The
commonality that binds them together is that Order is a form of Chaos and
that very complicated behavior can emerge from very simple relationships.

But the truth is that this is really about one of those Gestalt shift. Once
you see it the entire structure of reality gets reconfigured all at once. It
is the Zen master smacking you with the back of his hand. It is one of
Kuhn's paradigm shifts.

The rest of this is a response to Ham's objections...

Case

[Ham]
I know you are fascinated with chaos theory, its fractal patterns and
unpredictable possibilities.  I also know you see chaos as a more "rational"
alternative to my nothingness theory.  However, the assertions you and Chin
have made about chaos contradict the universal meaning of this term.

[Case]
I can't speak for Chin but I have been talking about a series of advances in
mathematics and physics that began in the late 60's. It transcends
scientific fields. The first actual paper on the subject was by Lorenz on
the weather. It has been applied to nearly every discipline one can name.
There are many resource on this available on the net.  

[Ham]
Webster's New Collegiate defines "chaos" as: "a state of things in which
chance is supreme; esp. the confused, unorganized state of primoridal matter
before the creation of distinct forms."  Plug a numerical value into a
mathematical equation and it will affect the result to a degree determined
by the relation of this value to the functions of the equation.  (While this
may not be the point Chin was illustrating, a truly random system will not
relate to fixed values.)

[Case]
The problem is in specifying the number you plug into an equation. In a
purely mathematical sense you can state a number with precision. In reality
this is not possible. If I wish to measure the length of pencil the accuracy
of my measurement depends on the scale of my ruler. If I use finer and finer
gradients to achieve more and more precision I find that in fact my pencil
is infinitely long. This is similar to Zeno's paradox. The resolution is to
establish a limit. As a practical matter we round off the length to get an
acceptable number for our purposes. But in this rounding we sacrifice
precision.

[Ham]
Wikipedia says this about "randomness": "All events are a direct consequence
of another event or a set of events. Thus no event is truly random or
spontaneous, ie. it could be influenced by a multitude of other events or
maybe all other events in the universe but it didn't just happen without any
cause."

[Case]
In the real world there is no state of pure randomness. This is a
mathematical formalism. The archetype for the study of probability is the
flipping of a true coin. That is a coin where each side has an equal chance
of landing face up. In reality there is no such coin. Any difference in the
weighting of the head or tails side will influence which side is more likely
to land up. Any imperfections on the edges or in the roundness of the coin
can also have effects. Pure randomness is a useful idea not a pragmatic
fact.

[Ham]
I don't know what you mean by a Goldilocks Zone, but it sounds like a fairy
tale to me.  When you say that stable relationships emerge from "the
underlying chaos", you introduce order to what is initially chaos.  I see no
difference in the dynamics you describe from the cosmology of forms arising
from primordial chaos.  

[Case]
A Goldilocks Zone is one where things are not to hot and not too cold they
are just right. Life exists on this planet because the conditions are just
right. This is a fundamental feature of evolution that seems to be side
stepped often. Life is here and now because the conditions are right for it.


Order is a subset of Chaos. Put simply if the universe were totally chaotic,
there is some probability that orderly states will occur. A static orderly
state would be one that persists over time. As static states come into
relationship with each other new orders of relationship emerge. This is the
basic concept of the MoQ as I understand it.

[Ham]
Both theories are based on a supernatural (mystical?) injection of order by
some unexplained "accident" of nature. That's one reason why I reject such
theories.  

[Case]
This is not supernatural or mystical at all but it is metaphysical. It is
metaphysical in the sense that it is an idea the can be applied to almost
everything. Metaphysic for me is a search for ideas that transcend any
particular disciple. I regard evolution as a metaphysical idea in this sense
for example. Chaos theory to me is an extension of evolutionary theory or
maybe it is the other way around. It is not "accidental." Tt is
deterministic through and through. What make it appear to be "accident" is
the lack of precision mentioned above.

[Ham]
The main reason is that explaining reality as an objective system is a
meaningless exercise, since our knowledge of objects comes from experience
and our understanding of systems is an intellectual construct.  Experience
and intellection are both subjective and primary to the objects observed.

[Case]
Of course I see this differently. Our knowledge is wholly subjective. We are
in the position of having to infer things about TITs based on the equipment
our species has evolved. But our experience is OF something. We gauge the
accuracy for our subject approximations through the techniques of science
and reason. The result is hopefully a world view that is increasingly
accurate. As I have said many times I take this to be a matter of faith but
cling to it for pragmatic reasons.

[Ham]
If I felt that my being here was just a "cool thing" made possible by a
level of complexity, I would have to believe that my existence is an
accident of nature that serves no meaningful purpose.  That is pure
nihilism, and contrary to both Essentialism and the Metaphysics of Quality.

[Case]
I guess this a personal problem you will need to deal with. You seem to be
in the denial stage which may actually be healthy depending on how long it
lasts. Meaning is something that humans do. It is not a property of TITs.
Humans are very much concerned with it but we need to own it not try to
place it somewhere else. Your existence has whatever meaning you ascribe to
it. Your purpose is whatever purpose you adopt. If the world is subjectively
constructed, so is its meaning. This is not nihilism it is personal
responsibility.

[Ham]
Spoken like a true existentialist.

[Case]
Yeah, I did that just for you.


> [Case]
> Something has to be before we can ascribe qualities to it.

[Ham]
Absolutely.  There has to be a sense of Value -- man's relation to his
Creator.  

[Case]
How can a sense precede a sensor?

[Ham]
Your theory of order emerging from chaos makes a primary source
unnecessary...  

[Case]
Exactly!

[Ham]
...and dismisses its value to the individual.

[Case]
No, the individual is the locus of value, the perceiver of value.

[Ham]
This is Casian nihilism structured on existentialism and devoid of Quality,
Value or Purpose.  I would be very surprised if it won any converts here.

[Case]
I was initially surprised that the MoQ was not totally about this stuff. Now
I am becoming pleasantly surprised that people are getting it.