[MD] Crystallising Chaos.

[Case]

Mark: Hello Case.
Yes, But i avoided cosmology by suggesting this was cosmogony.
I've already committed myself to the view that the Cosmos is value.

[Case]
In many respects I think Pirsig did a disservice by using the term Value.
The term is ambiguous at best. The emphasis gets places on the "qualitative"
aspects of the term. If you read Pirsig and force yourself to think about
the term in its "quantitative" sense you will see new meanings emerge.
Mathematicians also see a world of values. I thought Pirsig was trying to
reconcile the world views of the moralist and the mathematician; not justify
the former.

Mark: In the Metaphysics of Quality there's the morality called the "laws of

nature," by which inorganic patterns triumph over chaos...' (Lila. ch.  13)
This made me think about the nature of GOFC.
I thought that recent physics had developed the notion that there are  
something like 32 fields which existed before the Big bang, and by smashing

particles together today physicists, 'excite' these fields and deduce their

properties and relationships?
It's the fields they are interested in, not the particles - the particles  
are a by product.
I don't know where that leaves GOFC?
Maybe we are going to be told the fields are eternal?

[Case]
I have heard about infinite universes and multiverse but nothing about 32
fields... Got some references for that?

[Case]
I snipped the formulas because I really don't know what they mean any more.
Are we using symbols like > to mean points toward or greater than. Does /
mean alternative formulation like he/she or divided by?

Over all though when you say: 

"The only way i could think of getting away with this was to describe chaos
as an unstructured relationship between sq simples."

You are basically destroying GOFC because as soon as you have objects or any
sort of relationship structured or otherwise degrees of freedom, pure
randomness is lost. Why would you elected to a use GOFC when it can be shown
not to exist and when nonlinear dynamics works so much better?

Mark: I can only appeal to evolution Case.
The MoQ is all about value evolution. The earliest values are tiny little
dharmas of moral order which have evolved into huge dharmas of higher moral

codes.
In other words, we have replaced Substance with moral order.
There appears to be an arrow of moral evolution.

[Case]
I problem I see with this is your metaphor of an arrow of moral evolution.
It is pointed at something and aimed toward it. I don't think evolution, of
any kind, acts like that. Evolution to me implies a path, winding and
twisting, branching, end ending. In short it takes the path of least
resistance. It is that lightening bolt, river systems, tree form I described
earlier. I would call this the edge of chaos or The Way.