[MD] Chaos and Goldilocks

[David M]

Hi Case

A question, a photin is release from a source.
After time T it may be anywhere in the universe
it could have reached it time T at the speed of
light.

Is this chaos?

I'd suggest that it is also potential
and that this potential is present in all
systems unless they were purely
mechanicalor pure SQ, and this
is never fully the case, and sometimes
even the snooker ball (to use a favorite
Newtonian metaphor) kicks in a way that
is unexpected.

The whole point of controlled experiments
in science is to reduce the DQ, the chaos,
the potential to see what the SQ looks like
under controlled and unnatural circumstances,
and these go wrong most of the time.

As John Du Pre says:

we live in a world of general disorder
with some order.

David M


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Case" <Case at iSpots.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 6:17 PM
Subject: [MD] Chaos and Goldilocks


> 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.
>
>
> 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/
>