[MD] Chaoplexity

[William Robinson]

Sorry case lefted the term out of the October Discover magazine. A part of a
much larger article, but the Title of the Article escapes me now.  But the
author is Hogon begins about page 57. This entire article may interest you.

Robbie


On 12/9/06, Case <Case at ispots.com> wrote:
>
> 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/
>
> 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/
>