To reply with an email, use: firstname.lastname@example.org
Do you want to know if all the reality of our universe, our existence, is causatively bound by the strict, exclusive determinism of natural laws – exclusively? If strict determinism is the final causality and the future is determined to every finest detail, then probability, any human decision making, and free will are false illusions. Every thing of unique importance to us as humans – love, family, hope religion, belief is false. Strict determinism has been and is – a position of many top people in pure science, philosophy of science, and related fields.
Strict, hard determinism has been posed as the only paradigm. However – scientific findings have proven the limits of strict, exclusive determinism. They have also proven that additional, separate causality rooted in emergence and self organization is real. In this case, the good news is that a Second Paradigm that also includes emergence and self organization is the only valid, logical and scientific view. We now have a science-based view that is more comprehensive and it explains the world we know. Strict Determinism has been successfully challenged as exclusive by experiments with supporting mathematical predictive models and mathematical mechanisms. This is an evaluation of three different ways of looking at these ultimate questions – three paradigms.
First the Deductive Logic of Determinism has to be defined as separate from the logic of Emergence that is dependent on Inductive Logic.
Deductive Logic vs Inductive Logic
Deductive Logic supports the causality of strict, exclusive determinism. The deterministic, pure science knowledge of causality depends and is advanced by deductive logic.
By contrast, the causality resulting from emergent agency is supported and advanced by inductive logic. We need to understand the difference between these logical approaches.
Here is where we are going with emergent Causality. The Strict Determinist never made any inroads into the studies based on emergent causality -Psychology, Consciousness, Biology, Sociology, Ethics etc. What are the standardized elements? Where are the formulas?
1. Deductive reasoning, also called deductive logic – Science based on formulas and deductive logic (Physics, Astronomy, Electronics, etc) these have strictly defined and measurable parameters (mass, time, velocity) and formulas that always work precisely with proper input. they are supported by valid, deductive logic.
Deductive logic, is the process of reasoning from one or more general statements regarding what is known to reach a logically certain or sound conclusion. Here is an example. The Distance objects in earth gravity fall per unit time. eg: D=1/2 G x T squared
Follow this example to see how we use measured observation and Deduction to understand a law of motion formula that determines how far objects will fall in a given time.
In our mind experiment: Build a 300 ft tower that has a 256ft vacuum chamber where we can observe the distance various objects fall per unit of time. We will observe that their weight or density does not matter.
In the 1st second it will accelerate from a velocity of 0 to 32 ft per second. All acceleration will be observed to increase by 32 (G) the gravitational constant. All objects will fall a distance (D) of16 ft. The 1 second 16ft displacement is clearly the average from 0 to 32 ft/sec. (1/2 G). The quickest path to insight is to follow the accumulation of these 16 ft increments in the accumulating Distance.
From 1 to 2 seconds it will accelerate another 32 ft/sec from 32 to 64 for an avg of 48 ft/sec causing it to fall an additional D of 48 ft – (3 –16’s) for a total (including the first second’s 16 ft) for a 2 second total of 4 – 16’s
From 2 to 3 secs additional 32ft/sec from 64 to 96/ft/sec avg 80 ft/sec and 80ft Distance. 5 -16’s plus previous 4 -16s Total D is now 9 -16s.
From 3 to 4 secs additional 32ft/sec from 96 to 128/ft/sec avg 112 ft/sec and 112ft Distance. 7 -16′s plus previous 9 -16’s Total D is now 16 -16s. = 256 ft total in 4 seconds.
So to track distance against seconds we see 1sec = 1– 16ft increment, 2sec = 4 -16’s. 3 sec=9 – 16’s, 4 sec =16 – 16’s. We see that these 16’s (1/2 G) increase by the square of the time.
We DEDUCE that total D=1/2 G x T Squared. (Also – the object’s weight is not a factor in a vacuum. if it is not in the same order of magnitude of the earth’s mass. That is covered by another law of motion formula that includes the 2 masses so G becomes a variable.
D, G, and T are completely defined. This result of the formula s always true. If there was an instance within the defined constraints then we would question not only that instance but any this instance of the law of gravity. Deductive Logic demands all or nothing. For instance, if we see a balloon go up then we have to include the Archimedes formula for flotation and subtract that force. This formula is saved when when include this condition (the force of flotation) and apply both formulas. These formulas can be paired for resultant outcome when there are no other interfering factors.
Its mathematical formulas are understood in terms of deductive logic. It is precise. The terms are completely defined.
This is the strength and the limitation of causality as exactly defined and understood. The analysis of this example has been done much better on the Internet but this is my understanding and it has a vicarious feel to me. it clearly matches the unique characteristics described above. There is no reason to confuse it with inductive logic.
2. Inductive Reasoning or Inductive Logic – Inductive Logic advances sciences seeking knowledge by applying analysis starting with observation. It may be triggered by a guess or a hunch but it starts with “what do I see”. By using inductive logic these sciences help us understand the principles of causality behind emergent phenomena. Here – we use statistics, measurement, correlation and analysis, and where possible, the same tools as pure science. This is most obvious in the behavioral and life sciences: Psychology, Biology, Sociology, Ethics etc.). The difference is there are no exactly defined variables and no formulas. This is noted and valid as a criticism of evolution by Dr. David Berlinsky on U-Tube. Evolution is supported by inductive reasoning. It is not supported by the Deductive proofs provided by strict definition of measurables and formulas. Yes – there was never any hard deterministic case for the existence of life in all its details.
Inductive reasoning, also called induction or bottom-up logic, constructs or evaluates general propositions that are derived from specific examples. In the end it establishes truth the same as deductive reasoning. The certitude and concurrence are often not as obvious but when it is right, the truth is that the causality is from emergence and complexity and not from sole determinism – without directly contradicting deterministic effects.
Historical precursor steps in the development of the theory of Evolution – all based on the study of emergent phenomena.
- The first Geologists see gradual changes such as sediment layers. The realized they are a record over time.
- Matching known layers and other materials to discovered layers eg charcoal builds a consensus of shared dating.
- They now observe drastic upheavals over eons that raised mountains including sediment that is now 90 degrees turned and deeply buried. Continents shifted over hundreds of millions of years.
- All signs of life are limited to later layers!
- The earth is ancient. Fossils are time and species categorized, Comparative anatomy must conclude giant sloths in some old strata must have existed millions of years ago and are now extinct. Previously it was thought that the spectrum of species was fixed.
- Taxonomy charts merge views of extinct and present species.
- Darwin sees current evidence of gradual changes. He uses inductive reasoning to posit his theory linking past kot present.
- This is all based on the scientific studies of what is emergent. There are no deduced formulas and no standard measurements.
- Genetics is an example of the closest we come to exact measurements of relatedness – genetic distance – because the evolutionary process/system developed a system of codes – RNA, DNA through emergence and this allowed such discrete measurements.
Here is a spectacular example: We observe life – all its levels of organization, complexity, expanding functions and new areas of dominance. Life also progresses in the logical and mental sphere: culture, invention, conquest of environments, consciousness, beliefs, philosophy, science. None – of this is gets final concurrence from the deterministic formulas, details, exact measurements. Those are the necessary, limiting tools of deductive reasoning – pure science validating by deductive logic. None! Hard limits! The advance of evolution does not have causality that is proven by deterministic causality directly and in detail.
Arguments in inductive reasoning are either strong or weak. Weak arguments are always uncogent. Strong arguments are cogent only if the premises they are based upon are true. An example of inductive logic: In Cultural Anthropology we can analyze the factors and results of an achievement society vs a ascription society. Using this insight – example – Modern Capitalism vs Medieval Birthright – we can predict a set of characteristics that transcend many societies across geography and time. This does not come out of deductive logic and is only generally true or valid. We can enhance insight and progress to further advances by using statistics – in an approximate way. Notice there is no exactly defined units and no universally applicable formulas. These conclusions can often be off or simply wrong.
The need of science to move past the limits of deductive logic and recognize the science of emergent phenomena.
The science supported by inductive logic, by definition and method is not validated by deductive logic. At the highest level of logic and the broad standards of science, truth must be addressed in all its forms. It is flatly unscientific to ignore observed reality because of the limits of the deductive approach. Can science ignore emergence and emergent processes and platforms because of the limits of deductive logic? There is a seemingly unlimited amount of processes that are seen and addressed by inductive logic. Is it scientific to ignore the known basis and mathematics of emergence and, instead, pretend that pure, deductive, deterministic science is making steady progress in the vast emergence arena? It is not and That is not science, it is ideology and more religious-like than science. The advance of evolution is not exclusively supported by any laws of physics – because it is Emergent.
My use of “paradigm” in the philosophical, logical, and scientific sense is its use at the highest level of abstraction.
The First Paradigm is Determinism
Determinism: Scientist observe, then postulate formulas for natural states and processes like force of gravitational attractions of two bodies:
eg: F = g[ m1m2] / r2. This is one of Kepler’s laws of motion.
The terms are defined, F = Force, m1, m2 = 2 masses, r = distance -.
It reduces (reductionism) a huge number of trials and future parameters to strict prediction and a mathematical algorithm or formula with consistent concurrence. It, then, is considered a law of motion. It conforms with the rules of Deductive Reasoning (see below) or deductive logic. It is valid and is always true as defined. In fact, to be deductively valid it must be always true. The nature of these laws is more than reductionism. Their resultant effects can be combined and applied to new processes, combinations and ranges as in the case of landing men on the moon.
Strict Determinism or Total Determinism: From Wikipedia: In the history of science, Laplace’s demon was the first published articulation of scientific strict determinism – as exclusive – by Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1814. According to strict determinism, if someone – a super intelligence – in his example: “La Place’s demon” captures all information – knows the precise location and momentum of every atom, energy state, or sub-particle in the universe, and their past and future values for any given time are entrapped – ie rigidly, exactly predictable. Laplace and others were absorbing and extrapolating this universal principle from a large wave of advances in Classical Mechanics in the 17th and 18th century – that could, for instance, predict the future movements of all the heavenly bodies indefinitely into the future – limited only by the knowledge and accuracy of the starting state – of all parameters. The expansion of proven scientific laws just kept coming most notably by Kepler’s laws planetary motion and Newton’s Laws of Motion . By the extrapolation of present and expected future discovery of all pure science states and processes, the future of everything can be calculated from the laws like classical mechanics. Strict determinism assumes that there is no other causality.
The theoretical result of strict determinism is a complete, unitary view of a universe that is a machine (“clockwork universe”)that progresses from an early state to one outcome down to the smallest particles and energy for all future time . The outcome cannot be altered. In this view all reality viewed across all time – first to last moment – is one timeline with no branches – it is like one motion picture and there was never any chance of any outcome or any variation in-between. This universe does not allow choice, real chance or any other agency such as free will or independent causality. Free will, chance, probability are all an illusion caused by our lack of knowledge.
I ways anticipated that this way of restricted thinking could not explain all causative reality.
The Second Paradigm is Determinism – co-existent with – emergence and self organization
The second paradigm is a universe with the reality of causality of the first paradigm: determinism and also- additional causality that is not deterministic. Examples are many and exhibit their own causality over a huge spectrum that was never addressed by determinism because there was never deductive logic (see below) that explained their causative mechanisms: water going down a drain from a basin, weather with certain conditions approaching chaos, life, consciousness – determinism is initially indifferent and then there is the emergence of self organization. We typically experience this on a much larger scale. eg: a whirlpool in a sink or a hurricane) the entire taxonomy of life.
I will shorten – “emergent self organization from chaos” – to simply – “emergence” for brevity. In this paradigm emergence does not contradict determinism (that would be magic). It is additional causality. The second Paradigm is a combination of the First Paradigm and Emergence. Focus on the fact that these forms of additional causality are just additional causality. Determinism and emergence are both independent and entwined. They do not operate like a two-state light switch that switches to one state and then the other. Even in dominantly deterministic processes there can be a resultant mix of two or more deterministic causal factors with a resultant outcome.
Complexity Theory: the theory that processes having a large number of seemingly independent agents can spontaneously order themselves into a coherent system or structure or even entirely new platforms. (see Platforms below). The starting deterministic causality may be on the molecular level and the emergence of a structure may be on an immense level – 100’s of miles. A dripping faucet may drip deterministically in an exact period. Driven by a higher input a random, unpredictable output may emerge. Some forms of emergence are always present like the thermodynamic structures in weather patterns. Some are like a one in a octillion long shot when some mix of organic proteins evolved both gradually – over billions of years and this was punctuated by sudden, quantum jumps into a fully coded replication process – RNA DNA, multi-cellular.
Examples of structures: whirligig, tornado, hurricane, ocean wave system, DNA, life, consciousness.
The mixing of many causative factors with a resultant outcome applies to factors that are strictly deterministic with factors that are emergent because of emergence – complexity. The more we find out about emergence, the more we discover that the two (determinism and emergence -operating at the same time is more common. (Maybe always).
Consider determinism and emergence where emergent complexity has the additional causality of emergent, self organized, output or process that are separate but do not in any way contradict determinism.
Where do we see emergence that is not deterministic by using deductive logic processes or standards.
When I was taking Physics 101, I remember learning about Laplace’s conjecture and I thought about wind over water causing waves. The deterministic thermodynamic laws governing water are at the lowest molecular level. Because they are, initially driven in all directions, approaching randomness. The surface has a directional energy input but this would only directly support flattening. This is not a workable plan for the distribution of energy at some higher level of energy input.
The equilibrium state, if enough external energy is applied (wind), the result, is not a flattened sameness but may be, for example, be a 50ft height wave pattern. This may repeat for 100’s of miles. Where did the larger pattern come from? I know at the thermodynamic level there is a chance variance but it does not explain what emerges. First there is no relationship that can relate a molecule by molecule study to the structure we see. Any deterministic thermodynamic analysis at this smallest level can only be addressed by probability. Wait – probability then this is not deterministic. Also there is no immediate or scientific causality for a 50ft. amplitude and a 200 ft. period and a three hundred mile reach. Determinism is an input and a boundary but does not explain (causatively) the emergent structure. The different scales are in the order of magnitude of 10 to the 30th. The dispersion of energy imbalance is effected with greater efficiency than if the approach toward randomness had persisted.
Many years later when I heard about Complexity Theory and self-ordering systems in the books Chaos and later, Complexity, I had recognition, but no surprise. You see – anyone who wants to analyze deep and follow their own questions may get some insight. In Chaos we see a mathematical model that support chaos as the door to self-ordering systems. Validated papers such as Period Three Implies Chaos; Tien-Yien Li; James A. Yorke
The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 82, No. 10. (Dec., 1975), pp. 985-992. This establishes a mathematical proof that certain processes can output results that vary unpredictably into infinity. There is also the mathematical discovery of fractals with infinite perimeter that demonstrate that a phase diagram (x and y coordinates that show basic properties such as angle and velocity) can show chaos that can not be deterministic. These mathematical patterns are structural to physical reality. Mathematical algorithms like helixes are used as emergent solutions.
This is a difficult subject to explain so I will refer to my own doubts and readings in places like the book Chaos or the internet presentation Chaos: The Science of the Butterfly Effect
by Derek Muller This is a good source to explain the topic.
One of the breakthroughs seems to be that Lorenz discovered how to calculate a phase space simulation that was totally sensitive to input parameters for prediction of weather. the sensitivity to initial conditions is a recurring theme in Chaos Theory. Once again we are talking about sensitive dependence on initial conditions. The discovery of sensitive conditions may have been exhibited by the artifact of limits in the length of input number strings but the essence is that this chaos has the opposite behavior of formulas that are deterministic.
The case against deterministic exclusivity gets stronger in the now obvious cases of chaos/emergence effects. Now there is a new meaning of the butterfly effect. Lorenz’s 3 dimension example of phase space has two attractors resembling the 2 wings of a butterfly and it has a general pattern, of course but; at the detail level it is inexplicable – and not predictable. Even on the larger scale it is unpredictable why the progression is in one wing or the other at a point in time as it wanders back and forth. Most tellingly, At 6:40 Derek Muller says “In truth, our system will never revisit the same exact state again.”
At this point you have no chance of deterministic, deductively logical or valid predictability.
The case for exclusive determinism gets worse.
Around 7:30 Derek Muller says, although it wanders in arbitrary, dramatically different path for two trials now matter how far you go out – the path would be the same if you 1. had the number in infinite exactness (impossible) and 2 put in the exact same starting conditions. There is a paradox that disputes this because the lines, in reality, are a continuum and no real-life duplication can keyboard in the needed input as the exact length demands a number of digits that goes to infinity and can have no limit. Later he concedes this. The exactness required goes to infinity and therefore exceeds all the information in the universe. This contradicts information theory – reversibility. It does not seem to be even technically deterministic in the real (limited) world.
The case for exclusive determinism is faulted at its foundations – Kepler’s laws of planetary motions.
At 9:09 in the video Derek reveals that even the motions of our planets are essentially chaotic in the long run. After 10’s of millions of years they are on new paths that are not predictable. Remember this was the basis and considered the best case for strict determinism to be all encompassing.
There is another initial and surprising limit in that most students are led to believe that Kepler’s Laws of Planetary Motion and Newton’s Laws of Motion explain the paths of all astronomic bodies with deterministic exactness. This was the solid? cornerstone of La Place’s conjecture. When is there a limit? The shocking answer is when there are THREE bodies. There is a mathematic proof of why this is so. Look it up. One=ok, two=still good. Three – works for a while then complexity enters. The Three Body Problem. There are engineered work-arounds that are very accurate within reasonably bounds. This is common in thermodynamics. The need for such back-engineered approximations is a signature of a process that emerged out of chaos.
When we see a limiting boundary to the extent of what can be explained by strict determinism, we can then metaphorically imagine an empty “frame” and this starts us to realize there must be a Second Paradigm. Then we learn about emergence and self organization mixed with determinism in positive terms. Beyond the negative case is the spectacular array and spectrum of emergent phenomena at every scale. All the structures at the astronomic level, weather, RNA, DNA ( a code set!), first cells, multi-cell simple organisms, plants, animals, memory, association, decision, culture, religion, philosophy, political systems.
Timeline of the evolutionary history of life
The fact that the First and/or Second Paradigms can not explain why anything exists sets up another “frame”.
The Third Paradigm
The universe is everything. It includes all of space, and all the matter and energy that space contains. It even includes time itself
The inability of either the first or second paradigm to explain the biggest question – why does anything – the Universe – exist – sets the “frame” for the Third Paradigm.
The attempt to explain why anything exists is a complete failure.
The first paradigm enlightens us by deductive logic to understand deterministic reality and causality.
The second paradigm enlightens us by adding inductive logic to understand the reality of emergence and self-organization as causality.
What is the one very big thing that neither of these can even begin to explain?
Oh- the Universe. Its existence, Its causality.
There is nothing in the second paradigm that can help because it is not emergent. A Universe emergent from what resources, process or supported by what logic. Any precursor is just an addition to give us the view of the total state of the Universe. Here, our first use of the word Universe was wrong.
I watched a segment of the TV Curiosity series that offered to show how they can explain the existence of the universe without a prior cause – without God. Of course, they did not mention the Law of Conservation of Energy or The First Law of Thermodynamics. They did recruit a moderator with peak credibility: Morgan Freeman who has often played God and is a nice man. I am not being sarcastic (for once); he probably is.
At the risk of being perceived as not open minded, I immediately braced for SHAZAM ! I started my timer. Alright – I was a know-it-all and mentally tapped my mental foot. This magic word does not answer to any analysis or any type of logic or causality. It is how Captain Marvel exploded into his superhero form. A cheap form of Superman’s high gravity evolution story. Just say the word – SHAZAM -. That’s it.
Also, at the set up, as I have seen in similar attempts before, they quickly liquidated the inconvenient existence of time. This is an attempt to foil the obvious, (unavoidable?) question: “what came before?” They flat-out stated that in this original state – there was no time! How sublime – no minimal tick – so no change – no next moment –so no trigger for next moment – Frozen – alright it is a strain for me to conceive but I will go with it. This elimination foils any inquisitive mind to wonder the obvious, annoying repeating question – “what came before?” So there was only a condition of no time. Got it – no tick – no change – don’t you understand – it’s frozen. Stop asking!: “and before that?…”.
Oh no they can’t say what I think is coming. Yep – – – “AND THEN” and then? did you just say “and then” = SHAZAM! “and then” means in the next or later moment in time. You insisted there is no time in your frozen state, not mine. That is what you specified to avoid any “before” questions . Did you think we forgot? Is this “and then” a teeny tiny tick of no consequence. Well, actually your final claim, if true, would be the biggest tick ever. It is cheaper than SHAZAM and that was ridiculous.
They even have another word that can excuse anything – “singularity” as if the use of a word, in itself, is logic. This eliminates all previous science and causality. Well – not to me. A word like this is just a transparent diversion. “How did the vase get broken Brian?”, “only you were here” – precocious four year old : “It was a singularity” checkmate – there is no more reason to consider – no agency – no causality. No validity. Is this cheaper than SHAZAM? It does not matter.
An inconceivable amount of condensed energy in the timeless state waiting to release our Universe of energy:
Kinetic Energy K.E.=1/2×m×v2 – v See v needs time.
Potential Energy P.E.=m×g×h See g is acceleration and needs time.
No time = no energy.
It occurs to me that all this is quite unworthy of scientists. It almost seems like they started with a conclusion and worked (desperately?) backwards. I feel I am challenging someone’s religion.
I will not sum up this presentation. It would bring out an unseemly sarcasm and I strictly avoid that.
Progress in Understanding the Causality of Emergent Processes.
The mechanisms developed by emergence have a higher level of design: Once a planform emerges – there is often another, new range, processes and menu of causality available. Life has its own laws. Look at what new sets of processes became available after life emerged on earth: RNA, DNA ( a code set!), first cells, multi-cell simple organisms, plants, animals, memory, association, decision, culture, religion, philosophy, political systems. Each of these is a construct with new causality. Often they are step-like and each step increases possibilities of new functions. The elements affecting causality do not have distinct definition or measurable units – mass, displacement, velocity – vs – good, bad, gods message, innate rights, the “right” philosophy or rules. We can use measurables by making them up and hoping for a good correlation. The exact, predictive outcomes can not be explained by the principles of deductive logic. A system of deductive logic for future prediction can not be verified.
Consider, more closely, what it means to say life is a platform that has it own rules – “Life has its own laws. Look at what new sets of processes became available after life emerged on earth: RNA, DNA ( a code set!)” – Our DNA has a code set of four proteins that do not correspond to the resultant output proteins and other chemicals structures and process control – some of which are expressed in puberty and beyond 12 yrs later. They are a coded formula and have many processes controllers. As a programmer I see how profound and intelligence-like this is. As a systems analyst, I know a system when I see it. I now see evolution as a system. I know, it uses randomness, but so does a casino and yet there is a system ” the house always wins.” Randomness is exploited within bounds. Recent experiments show a gene pool of organisms keeps continuously improving adaptation and optimization to exploit its environment and it is not an asymptote that somewhat levels but keeps improving. – A system. The intrinsic properties of this system is at a way higher level of abstraction then it’s component deterministic causality. Sometimes the changes are marginal. Other times they are revolutionary. A primitive algae oxygenated the entire earth. Life conquered multi-cell complexity, and developed nerve control and eventually consciousness by deterministic limits.
Given the natures of determinism and emergence there is no chance to deny the existence of free will. PS. we use it every day.
Memory to Consciousness
Since the basis of emergence is a negative, determinism has no solution to go forward – chaos is a negative to determinism – chaos is an opportunity for emergence. Determinism, while not contradicted, does not continue with a deductively logical foundation for emergence. In order to progress as scientifically as possible you typically have to start in the middle. Inductive logic starts with observation – simply of what we see. Then you use inductive logic applying all the scientific and mathematical tools you can, to describe source causality and resultant causality. As an example: As a physics student, when I was immersed in determinism, I thought that no one would ever be able to scientifically define consciousness nor its causative source. I was both right – you can not use deterministic logic – and wrong – use deductive logic and start in the middle.
- Start with the fact that the first life forms do exist. – Emergence.
- Primitive life forms, in order to increase in capability needed to store information – memory.
- Memory enables association.
- Association links past input, to outcome.
- A mechanism to change DNA in the direction of better outcome even if it is as crude as discovery by constant changes. This tendency is a fact that is now being studied and measured.
- Association is needed for survival: to avoid or approach.
- Reaction behavior is changed
- Success of new reaction patterns reinforces.
- For any animal some level of association needs to understand a mental construct such as the physical ability, behavior and, later the personality of a predator.
- For social animals. there is a need for a level of association to develop a complex mental construct of each of our social group’s individual peers.
- The construct of each peer needs our internal model of their uniqueness, generally, or how they react in any situation in order to progress in our relationship or optimize their pecking order or to interact safely or maximize access to food, sex etc.
- We need to maximize our relationship to them, – to manage how they see us – manipulate?
- At a higher level of using a construct such as the recognition of a unique personality – in our planning, we can include an internal model of ourselves. We see the uniqueness and pattern of ourselves – a self aware and self referential level of consciousness.
Once we had the precursor of the ability to recognize the mind model of our primary relationship we can manage our image and planning by having a construct of ourselves. At this point we can examine our consciousness. Consciousness includes the central command of all the brain’s resources both automatic but, uniquely directed – problem solving and at the highest level – improving image and self improvement.
I am going to post this now because I just keep delaying while I work on it.
I will continue edits and add conclusions below.
Further Insights and Conclusions – I will add to this ongoing
This is an example of the visible failure of a simple (non-complex) deterministic solution and an emergent solution in the direction of minimizing energy loss in achieving a new equilibrium.
Emergence also consist of the appearance of Structures that are not relatable to the molecule by molecule deterministic forces
- Mathematics as a “permission” for a physical process to happen as a mechanism of strict, exclusive determinism – eg: The laws of motion. The math and the simple, direct determinism are functionable. Always exact, always dependable. eg: planning a lander on Mars.
- Mathematics as a limit and a barrier to a physical process to take place as a strict, exclusive, simple deterministic causality. The Mathematics that show limits to simple determinism eg: Three body system. Systems with feedback.
- Physical system with a large number of agents as a mathematical – Analog and AI-like – computer for a solution to emerge that is not deterministic. A structure may emerge – eg: waves, Gulf Stream, tornado, El Nino.
- A platform – life
- A platform – with the addition of an evolutionary System . The progression has been both gradual with many small, marginal improvements punctuated by major jumps separated by millions of years. It has a new expansive set of rules/causality.
- Startling improvements emerge – DNA code stores information, provides variance, sets up future, developmental store and processes – in the manor of a enhanced mathematical computer with a code scheme. It is a system for continuous improvement, exploitation of further ecological niches. At this point evolution is a system and later, at a higher level of abstraction, it has a DNA based function system where the evolutionary system is improving.
To reply with an email, use: email@example.com