[MD] Crystallising Chaos.

[David M]

Hi Case

Everything about this set of interactions can be precisely specified
mathematically. As Laplace dreamed, if we knew the starting position of
every particle, we could predict the instantaneous shape of the pond's
surface at any given moment.

DM: Of course, the genuine uncertainty interpretation of quantum theory
rejects this, and, for me, would make consciousness/experience/agency
unnecessary yet here we are experiencing and having to reduce all
the things I could sdkjagfkdsj write to dsznfh some order sjdbfvam.

Oar oul da tins Ah cud ryt ta sum urda.

DM

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Case" <Case at iSpots.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Crystallising Chaos.


> Sorry I have been a bit preoccupied the last couple of days and unable to
> get back to you. You clarified a number of things in our last exchange. We
> seem to agree at least on the use of some terms so I think this time I 
> will
> give you some idea of how I see those terms.
>
> Random thoughts on Chaos:
>
> You and Pirsig seem to be mostly talking about Good Old Fashioned Chaos
> (GOFC). It is not a bad place to start after all the Chinese, Greeks,
> Hebrews, Mayans and just about every other ancient cosmology start there.
>
> "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was
> without form and void."
>
> Or something like that.
>
> In some ways this seems similar to Platt's ideal of freedom. It is 
> existence
> without constraint. Or perhaps it is more like the mystical notion of
> nonexistence without boundaries or attachment or any kind. I like to think
> of it as a field of possibility or as Douglas Adams would have it an
> improbability field. There can not, of course, exist a totally 
> unconditioned
> field of unstructure, as you would have it, because as soon any state of
> coherence whatsoever is achieved, pure randomness, absolute freedom
> dissolves. At the moment that any static state coalesces, a relationship 
> is
> formed. A division occurs between the unstructured and the structured;
> between form and formlessness. The static state puts a constraint on the
> freedom that surrounds it. In effect a degree of freedom is lost. Also 
> note
> that while it can be argued that this is insensible without an observer, 
> in
> principle neither an observer nor a causal agency, in the traditional 
> sense,
> are required.
>
> G. Spencer Brown takes this way over my head in his "Laws of Form". Where
> Euclid began with, "A point is that which hath no extent" Brown begins 
> with,
> "Draw a distinction." In Euclid, relationship does not begin until there 
> are
> two points. With Brown relationship comes first.
>
> But let me take something of a metaphysical leap into a more concrete
> analogy. I am borrowing this from something I ran into recently; I can
> supply a reference if you are interested. Take a pool of water. All of the
> water molecules in it are equal and uniformly distributed. The only
> constraint on any particular molecule is the molecules around it. The
> surface of the pool is uniform. No point on it is different or can be
> distinguished from any other point. If you throw a pebble into the pond, 
> the
> point where the pebble enters the pond becomes distinct from all the other
> points. Concentric ripples expand from that central point and all of the
> other points on the surface are brought into a relationship to that point.
> If you throw in more pebbles more ripples form and relationships emerge
> among the ripples. Crests and troughs interact. Where two crests meet they
> get higher. Where two troughs met the surface dips lower. Where crest 
> meets
> trough, they cancel each other out. Note that in the pool these
> relationships exist in three dimensions but are most clearly seen at the
> surface.
>
> The point is that complexity not only emerges but grows exponentially from
> very, very simple sets of relationships.
>
> But just to make SA happy lets say we are sitting watching of the surface 
> of
> Walden Pond on a still day and the surface is perfectly flat. I hear the 
> cry
> of an osprey in the distance and grasshoppers are mating on your shoe. A
> rain drop falls and set of concentric ripples starts to spread across the
> surface of the pond. Then another rain drop falls and then another. If it 
> is
> a gentle rain, patterns of ripples will begin to emerge on the surface. If
> they are widely disbursed regular states and coherent patterns of
> relationships may be seen, as bulls eyes of water meet and connect and
> interact with each other. From the various patterns emerging in the 
> falling
> rain, we see the ideas of harmony and resonance taking shape by virtue of
> the interactions of the ripples. Static patterns of crests, troughs, 
> hills,
> valleys and plains will dance across that surface.
>
> Everything about this set of interactions can be precisely specified
> mathematically. As Laplace dreamed, if we knew the starting position of
> every particle, we could predict the instantaneous shape of the pond's
> surface at any given moment.
>
> As the rain falls faster the osprey flies home to its nest, the 
> grasshoppers
> hop away satisfied and the surface of the pond become increasing difficult
> to calculate. Harmonies are broken. Chaos ensues. The degree of chaos
> changes with the amount of energy or disturbance introduced by the rain
> drops. It is possible that at various levels of rain fall higher level
> patterns emerge and waves begin to lap the shore. The osprey goes fishing
> and grasshoppers start surfing on oak leaves.
>
> But let's back up a second. To have the surface of Walden Pond just
> described, you must have a quantity of water to make up the pond, the 
> earth
> for it to rest in, the air above it for the rain clouds to form in and two
> dudes wishing they could be as lucky as grasshoppers lounging on the 
> shore.
> Each of these elements and any you care to add introduce new relationships
> and increasing levels of complexity into the scene. As Pirsig told his
> writing students start with the first brick at the top of the building and
> start writing. Pretty soon you can't stop.
>
> But I think I should.
>
> To summarize:
>
> While GOFC may exist, any set of relationships that occur in it, limit its
> freedom. It becomes less dynamic spontaneously and acausally. Or at least
> cause and effect emerge as forms of relationship.
>
> Once you get a set of relatively static relationships going, even a 
> chaotic
> system begins to behave deterministically if not predictably. Harmony,
> resonance, "equal to" "greater than", "less than", "and", "or", "nor" are
> all examples of types of static relationship.
>
> I have purposely avoided MoQ terminology for the most part but it is my
> belief that the value of the MoQ is in providing a metaphysical basis for
> understanding the coherence of static relationships and how they interact
> dynamically. But this requires a bit of tweaking in accepted definitions 
> of
> Pirsig's terms.
>
> Ok I stretched and over stepped a bit with the summary but... Oh well.
>
> Case
>
> p.s. So Mark what kind of guitar to you play? I have a '72 custom shop
> Telecaster with dual humbuckers and a Strat neck.
>
> 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/
>