Re: The Big Bang is not the Beginning of TIme......The latest non-linear cosmology.

From: Jonathan (jon_at_home.com)
Date: 10/16/04 

Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 05:12:23 -0400

"glbrad01" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:qJubd.180611$wV.19316@attbi_s54...

> I think we've taken this about as far as we can. But, if you want to reply
> to what I wrote in the last post, post that reply here with a reference back
> to the other.

I never tire of this stuff!

Trying to characterize nature shows an important difference between
classical and the newer self-organizing view. I insist that the
system comes first, the parts later. The classical view implies
a linear progression, but nature operates in iterative loops.

Causation exists in both directions, effects feed back into
cause. But which direction in causation, up or down, provides
the primary driving forces for creation? Answering this helps
to point towards the information that is truly important
and predictive.

I see nature this way. Evolution/nature/creation is driven when
the static and chaotic extremes in behavior critically interact, and
form a dynamic or fluid attractor. The complexity and randomness
that flows from the second law produces a mathematical limit
with resides at this self-maintained phase transition between
future behavior that is both static or chaotic...subcritical or
supracritical, at the same time. So that one can't tell
which-is-which.

The final probable state is to self-tune to this state of
self-organized criticality since random interactions
produces hill-climbing in possibility space.

A simple example. In our world system, first comes the static
attractor called earth, and the chaotic attractor called air.
The most probable state is for the two to converge on
a self-maintained phase transition between the two.
A dynamic attractor called water.

That is our system within which /we/ later formed, first
the whole then the parts. Once the dynamic attractor
or fluid state has formed, then and only then, fractal
self-similarity, or niche-filling takes place, expanding
into the adjacent possible across scale. Once this
expansion has finally reached outward to the largest
and ...smallest..scales the system has achieved
self-organized criticality. And new emergent
properties then spontaneously appear....the next large
evolutionary step occurs following a power-law
pattern of events.

But creation only occurs after the system has self-tuned.
The system comes first, the part later. From the whole
to the parts...the large to the small. So downward
causation provides the primary driving force for
all we see and are.

Science must began it's journey from a holistic view
and then later to a part view...as this is what nature
does. Classical methods do the opposite, and this
fundamental frame of reference mistake is the
obstacle to a full understanding of the complete
simplicity of the universe. The incorrect or backwards
frame of reductionism leads to the opposite conclusion,
that the universe is infinitely complex and random.

The correct frame proves the process of creation is
exceptionally simple, and that life, intelligence even
God are

           absolute mathematical certainties.

A holistic or self-organizing frame of reference allows science
and religion to converge into one view that is consistent
with both. Testable and supremely comforting.

Complexity science is the first, and only, mathematics that
provides essentially a 'religious' experience. In that one
suddenly realizes we've been taught wrong all this time.

Dear Emily could 'see' this simplicity, and the Great Mistake
of science, and turned her back on the 'uncertainty' principles
the wrong frame invariably creates. She had understood
and dismissed the uncertainty principle before it
even existed. As she could see that our instinctive personal
uncertainty is the source of our scientific myopia.

'THEIR height in heaven comforts not,
Their glory nought to me;
'T was best imperfect, as it was;
I'm finite, I can't see.

The house of supposition,
The glimmering frontier
That skirts the acres of perhaps,
To me shows insecure.

The wealth I had contented me;
If 't was a meaner size,
Then I had counted it until
It pleased my narrow eyes

Better than larger values,
However true their show;
This timid life of evidence
Keeps pleading, "I don't know."

By E Dickinson

s

> Otherwise it's been a good discussion but didn't change either
> of our minds, or any other minds, about anything.
>
> Brad
>
>

Quantcast