[MD] Chaos and Goldilocks

[David M]

Hi Case

See the disorder... I meant photon not photin, of course....

but I am sure someone must be trying to detect photins somewhere!

David M


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David M" <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Chaos and Goldilocks


> 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/
>>
>
>
> 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/
>