[MD] Chaos

[ian glendinning]

Hi Ham, I'm fascinated by Chaos too :-)

You said to Case
"the assertions you and Chin have made about chaos contradict the
universal meaning of this term."

Contradict is not the right word.
The "universal" meaning you have in mind is largely a theoretical
concept - the idea of "total chaos" (defined by the Greeks ?)

The pragmatists amongst us have discovered that in reality mots stuff
that looks like chaos from a simple objective perspective, is
generally ordered on some level not obvious to the casual observer.

Ian

On 12/10/06, Ham Priday <hampday1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> Case --
>
> 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]:
> > Order is a form of Chaos. Order coalesces from
> > chaos as static relationships form. This are called attractors.
>
> [Chin]:
> > In mathematics, if you start with the number 5 at the
> > beginning of an extended equation, the end result
> > would be totally different if you used the number
> > 5.00001 at the beginning.
>
> [Ham]:
> > That is not an example of chaos.  When you select a
> > numerical value and apply it to an equation, no matter
> > how extended, you establish a relation -- the value
> > (5.00001) to the product or result of the equation.
> > Relationship is precisely what chaos lacks.
>
> > [Case]
> > Chin is correct. Any relationship of value specified in
> > the real world is subject to this rounding error. ...
> > In short chaos allows what level of predictability we
> > have in virtue of its lack of precision.
>
> 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.)
>
> 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."
>
> [Ham]:
> > Cosmologists have theorized that chaos was the state
> > of "primordial matter" before the creation of distinct forms.
>
>  [Case]:
> > Many religious cosmologies begin in this sort of primordial
> > chaos. But a more recent understanding of chaos renders
> > these ideas useless. A more current understanding would
> > hold that is stability of relationship emerge from particular
> > levels or the underlieing chaos these reduce the limits or
> > degrees of freedom available on the whole. This order
> > becomes more orderly and relationships among the stabile
> > forms create new kinds of relationships.  What makes this
> > particular space and time so fertile is the way that the various
> > cosmic forces are balanced. This is a Goldilocks Zone.
>
> 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.  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.  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]:
> > There are all sorts of conditions that might result in such zones.
> > We are very fortunate to be here now. Subjective conscious is
> > just one of the cool things made possible when a sufficient level
> > of complexity allows it to occur.
>
> 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.
>
> [Ham]:
> > If anything makes order out of chaos it is the human
> > intellect and its sense of Value.  Since order and relation
> > hold a much higher value for man than confusion and chaos,
> > man looks for relationships in every experience of the world
> > and comprehends his reality as a rational, orderly system.
>
> [Case]:
> > Human intellect, perception and subjectivity are almost
> > entirely focused on the contingencies of human survival
> > on Planet Earth. Our senses are tuned to it. Our thoughts
> > are structured around it. We are creatures who seek after
> > patterns that will give order predictability and stability to
> > the Chaos around us at all levels.
>
> [Ham]:
> > Although one can theorize that, in the absence of such a
> > rational construct, the universe is inherently chaotic,
> > I see no need for this alternative.
>
> [Case]:
> > In the absence of consciousness there would be no
> > awareness of a universe. But this is not sufficient grounds
> > for saying there would be nothing in the absence of
> > awareness.  Existence precedes essence.
>
> Spoken like a true existentialist.
>
> > Something has to be before we can ascribe qualities to it.
>
> Absolutely.  There has to be a sense of Value -- man's relation to his
> Creator.  Your theory of order emerging from chaos makes a primary source
> unnecessary and dismisses its value to the individual.  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.
>
> Essentially yours,
> 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/
>