To reply with an email, use: James.Sullivan@thethirdmillennium.com
Overview:
We know that pure science or deterministic science is typified by formulas such as the laws of motion. It is based on a certain type of causality. What about behavioral science, biology and the humanities? Are they science? Do they have a different type of causation? How does it affect our religion, philosophy and ideology? Every time I see an online discussion of “if determinism is strict and exclusive” then “do we have any free will?. The following discussion leads to nothing but confusion. There is no excuse for this and a lot of harm. The distinctions may be the most important issue in terms of a humanistic philosophy and the ultimate existential questions such as “Do we have free will?” and “Why do we exist and how can anything exist?” and “Where did everything come form?”
Paradigm: dictionary.com: a framework containing the basic assumptions, ways of thinking, and methodology that are commonly accepted by members of a scientific community.
Here, I want to discuss three paradigms that are based on three, distinctly different types of causality. This should be of interest to anyone in math, science , philosophy or anyone interested in the existential questions about reality. I am not being overly ambitious in addressing this question. There are some clear answers based on science, mathematics and logic.
The First Paradigm defined: Exclusive Determinism
I am defining the First Paradigm as Exclusive Determinism. Determinism – exclusive or not exclusive can best be explained in this forum as a concept based on deductive logic and the pure science proof by mathematical formulas. I will explain why exclusive determinism is not valid by logic, math or science.
The Second Paradigm Defined: Determinism and Emergence/Self-Organization
I put exclusive determinism in the First Paradigm because this conjecture was later presented as scientific that this was supported by many scientist in the past and persits to this day. I am defining and addressing the Second Paradigm as including both 1. the causality of deterministic phenomena (non-exclusive) and 2. a distinctly different type of causality: emergence/self-organized phenomena – Here I discuss both 1. and 2 combined because, in physical reality, they are seem to be inseparable. There is clear, mathematical, physical, and inductive evidence that there is an expanded view – based on mixed causality. These two causalities work together for a combined resultant. This is the proven, valid view based on logic, science and mathematics.
The lack of clarity on this distinction is a major gap in education and this is one of the purposes of this discussion.
The Third Paradigm:
I also address a third paradigm. The failure of the first two in terms of explaining causality of our complete reality sets up another frame. To many people this paradigm is the most important. The Third Paradigm points to the biggest question. How can anything exist? The problem is that the First Law of Thermodynamics (you can not add or destroy energy or matter) is just one example of the foundational axiom of all science and logic “everything in existence has a cause”. Another form in plainer language is: “You can not get something from nothing”. If these axioms are not true than all logic, science and analysis of causality falls apart. Yet, this sets up a frame for a third type of causality. What is the picture in that frame?
The First Paradigm:
Strict, Exclusive Determinism as the only science and causality?
Strict, hard, exclusive determinism has been posed as the only paradigm. From Wikipedia: In the history of science, Laplace’s conjecture was the first published articulation of exclusive, strict determinism – by Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1814. According to strict determinism, if someone – a super intelligence – in his example: some entity, later coined as “La Place’s demon” captures all information – knows the precise location and momentum of every particle, energy state, or sub-particle in the universe, and their past values, then the future is trapped, causatively bounded – ie. – rigidly, exactly predictable to the smallest change and movement. To the extent that all outcomes are caused by deterministic causality -alone, this would be correct. 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 of Planetary Motion Newton’s Laws of Motion, and electrical formulas.
If strict determinism is the final causality, and the future is determined to every finest detail, then the universe and all components including us are a frozen, clockwork machine. Many scientist who are brilliant in their field believed this, and many still do to this day.
Any human decision making, and free will are false illusions. You would be pushed to conclude that most important values: love, family, hope religion, ideology, are illusions or even false. It can fundamentally effect the foundation of other belief systems – especially religion, the dignity of man, morality, culture, ideology and our political systems. In this view, it is a final, un-editable movie reel. It philosophically pushes us towards the logical, but nihilistic conclusion – what does anything matter? This can be a poison that kills the human spirit and mocks all morality, and self sacrifice to ideals bigger than ourselves. It is the perfect ideology to seize on transhumanism or any ideology that is socio-pathic – or settle on actually just self serving, dismissing objections with “What difference does it make?”. To be fair, I must add that many persons who support similar views are decent and ethical.
In order to establish the existence of the first 2 causalities we have to review their essentials and differences:
First the the logic of Determinism that is dependent on Deductive Logic has to be defined as separate from:
———– the logic of Emergence that is dependent on Inductive Logic.
Deductive Logic vs Inductive Logic
1 Deductive Logic
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, energy) and formulas that are deduced and always work precisely with proper input and within certain limits. These sciences are supported by valid, deductive logic.
Here are the characteristics of deterministic phenomena discovered and supported by deductive logic. This is algorithm to compute the total distance an object falls over time. It illustrates the characteristics of deductive logic: D=1/2 G x T squared.
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 Accumulated Distance objects in gravity falls per unit time.
D, G, and T are completely defined. This result of the formula is always true and exact. If there was an instance within the defined constraints were it was not true, then we would question not only that instance but any this instance of the law of gravity. Deductive Logic demands all or nothing. This is strict determinism.
- Strictly defined and shared elements – time, mass, distance, energy etc.
- After initial observation formulas are deduced and tested by rigorous standards.
- There is concurrence experienced by anyone who test under the stated conditions.
- Anyone can use these formulas for other values of G and T and in combinations of G forces such as in a moon shot calculation.
- If you quantify the parameters of two or more deterministic algorithms, they work together with the exact, predicted resultant such a the dynamics of a pendulum.
I dragged you through a simple example of a deterministic law to show how drastically different this causality is from the causality of the outcome of emergence, self-organization. Determinism is entirely different in its epistemology of deriving an exact, closed-form mathematical algorithm from deductive logic.
The Second Paradigm is Determinism – and – Emergence/Self Organization – BOTH
Scientific findings have proven the limits of strict, exclusive determinism. Exclusive determinism, by itself,can not address all reality. It is essentially a separate type of cause with limitations. At this point, the broad, scientifically established consensus acknowledges that strict determinism alone is insufficient to describe the causality of all known phenomena. This realization has led to the recognition and acceptance that combines determinism with the concept of emergence and self-organization. I define this expanded view as the Second Paradigm. To see the extent and immediacy of these limitations see: The Three Body Problem and the Limits of Determinism at the end. I knew of this limitation and confirmed its mathematical validity from U Tube videos. This sounds technical, so consider the larger fact that, using exclusive determinism, no life would exist. We would not exist and be conscious.
The good news is that a Second Paradigm that also includes both determinism and emergence/self- organization – is ratified as the scientific, valid view. This is a science-based view that is more comprehensive and it explains the world we know.
2. Inductive Logic –
By contrast, the causality resulting from emergent and self-organization agency is analyzed by inductive logic. We need to understand the difference between these logical disciplines.
Inductive Logic advances sciences seeking knowledge by applying analysis starting with observation. (So is deterministic phenomenon but, the difference is that deterministic phenomena like any study, may start with observation but is expanded upon and validated by deductive logic using common, defined measurables.)
Inductive reasoning constructs or evaluates general propositions that are derived from specific examples.
The term observation does not do justice to what has been learned by – observation – in behavioral and similar scientific studies. We all start with observation and correlation to create hypothesis but, without agreed upon rigorous standards, without those standards; it can prove that drinking milk causes cancer. Here – we use statistics, measurement, correlation, curve-fit and but most importantly standards of Randomized Controlled Trials. This is most obvious in the behavioral and life sciences: Psychology, Biology, Sociology, Ethics etc.). The huge difference is that, at the start, there are no exactly defined variables and no exact formulas derived from deductive logic. In order to use quantitative analysis, measurables are proposed, evaluated and validated later.
These differences are noted and valid as a criticism of evolution as a proven theory by Dr. David Berlinsky and his collogues on U-Tube and his many books and articles. Evolution is supported by inductive reasoning. It is not supported by the deductive proofs provided by determinism. Evolution will never be proven by the standards of deductive logic because it is not the product of determinism alone. Life is a large-scale proof of the limits of deterministic causality. The spectacular correlate is that self-organization is another, distinct causality.
An acceptable level of ratification seems to depend on an aggregate of scientific observation and concurrence. Judgement has to be tempered by context. If evolution was not true, why do embryos travel its path? Why are there remnants of structures with no current use. Why is Australia stuck with the inferior marsupial model? This has to be balanced with challenges such as the mathematical problems in protein folding and many other baffling complexities. At this time, there may not be acceptable proof to many people. I believe in evolution because of the preponderance of concurring evidence and the lack of no better explanation. Remember this epistemological assessment when the third paradigm is discussed.
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 exclusive determinism. It is also true that deterministic processes can not be directly contradicted. That would be magic, not science of any sort. It also true that wherever self-organization is operative or dominant there is also deterministic effects and the total outcome is resultant.
The revolution of the mathematic validity of emergent causality and self-organization came about with the increase in computing power. For brevity, I will just use the term “emergence”.
There is a notable exception in the 1800’s by one of the most prolific mathematician ever. Poincare was the first to understand the possibility of completely irregular, or “chaotic,” behavior of solutions of nonlinear differential equations that are characterized by an extreme sensitivity to initial conditions: Given slightly different initial conditions, outputs can grow exponentially apart with time, so the system soon becomes effectively unpredictable, or chaotic.” These cases can not be deterministic.
I always anticipated that exclusive determinism could not explain all causative reality. Even in Manhattan College, Physics 101, 1960, I wondered how a reach of wind over the ocean for 100 miles could cause the emergence of a wave system with 3 measures of periodicity: Height = 30 ft, time – every 30 sec, distance 200 ft apart. But, all the deterministic factors are on the molecular level. Each molecule is an independent agent pushed downward by gravity but, at depth, sideway forces are random-like in every direction. A wave structure on the order of 10 to the 30th appears. Where did the larger pattern come from? How was that outcome determined? When I saw and grabbed the book Chaos (1987 by James Glieck), I was primed and deeply impressed by this revelation. This limitation of strict, deterministic causality gives us an image of a picture and these limitations set up a frame for another picture.
The Second Paradigm is both #1 – Determinism it is co-existent with – #2 – emergence and self organization
Emergence, Self-Organization
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. The starting, deterministic causality may be on the molecular level and the emergence of a structure may be on an immense level 30 ft waves. A dripping faucet may drip deterministically in an exact period. Driven by a higher input there emerges a periodic fluctuation in timing and, at a higher boundary, a random pattern. Some forms of emergence are always present like the thermodynamic structures in weather patterns. Some are a one in a octillion long shot when some mix of organic proteins evolved as life. Improvements in functionality emerged both gradually – over 100 of millions of years. Later this was punctuated by sudden, quantum jumps into a fully coded replication process – RNA DNA, multi-cellular. Life is a new platform with a whole set of new rules and additional, changing, expanding functionality.
Examples of structures: whirligig, tornado, hurricane, ocean wave system, DNA, life, consciousness.
Another characteristic is that emergent/self ordering phenomena give results that are starkly different from any their components. Exact knowledge of lowest level parameters does not predict outcome on a larger scale.
I am going to use Chat GPT as confirmation in a way that uses it strongest suit. It gathers immense amounts of data and reflects a consensus of opinion in a technical areas among other things. I am trying to explain the relationship of Emergence and Self-Organization to the surprising – without exaggeration -astounding – discoveries of the mathematical foundations of the mechanism of emergence – the logistics map, the Mandelbrot set. Observations in physical systems followed. I want to establish that this is not a narrow or controversial opinion. Its basis is a broad consensus of latest research. This is strict, validated science.
The bolded portions for emphasis was made by me.
My Chat GPT entry:
I am writing a Blog that, I think, presents the broad, scientifically established opinion on the essential difference in causality between exclusive, strict determinism and the causality of emergence – self organization. I highlight the differences as 2 paradigms – The First Paradigm is exclusive, strict determinism and I say it is not valid when presented as exclusive because strict determinism is not sufficient to describe the causality of all known phenomena. I am positing that the First Paradigm – strict determinism is not valid as exclusive. I am positing a Second Paradigm is determinism, but; the Second Paradigm also includes emergence, self-organization – both – this is the valid view. I do not separate them because, in the real world, both work together for a resultant outcome. Determinism is based on deduction that yields formulas that have well known parameters as opposed to emergence. Emergence, self-organization is based on initial observations, we then use scientific methods and mathematical analysis and these yield results that are better than any known alternative. In large areas such as evolution and human behavioral studies, emergence is the only way to proceed because they are based on emergent phenomena. Please clarify, correct if necessary, and expand in the voice of the current, broad consensus on this discussion. Explain how the theory of emergence is mathematically based after computer advances allowed exploration of the logistics map and the Mandelbrot set. Explain how scientist also supported this by scientific concurrence in experimental and observational studies. Emergence was a shocking and totally unexpected outcome and the mathematics and science support observation of many real-life examples of emergence leading from weather up to life and consciousness. Make any ratification/agreement or correction you see fit.
End of first question
Chat GPT Answer: 05/31/2023 (my bold)
In the realm of causality and the understanding of complex phenomena, there has been an ongoing debate between two paradigms: strict determinism and emergence/self-organization. The broad, scientifically established consensus acknowledges that strict determinism alone is insufficient to describe the causality of all known phenomena. This realization has led to the recognition and acceptance of a Second Paradigm that combines determinism with the concept of emergence and self-organization.
The First Paradigm, exclusive strict determinism, asserts that every event in the universe is determined by preceding causes, following a linear chain of cause and effect. However, it has become evident that this view is limited in its ability to explain various complex systems and phenomena. The Second Paradigm encompasses both determinism and emergence/self-organization, recognizing that these concepts work together to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the world.
Determinism, within the Second Paradigm, is based on deduction and seeks to establish causal relationships using well-defined parameters and formulas. It relies on the idea that given the initial conditions and the laws governing a system, the future behavior can be predicted with certainty. Deterministic models have been successful in explaining a wide range of phenomena, particularly in the physical sciences.
On the other hand, emergence and self-organization are based on the observation of complex systems and their behaviors. They take into account the idea that certain properties or patterns can arise spontaneously from the interactions of simpler components, leading to emergent phenomena that cannot be solely deduced from the properties of individual components. The study of emergence has gained significant momentum after advances in computer technology allowed for the exploration of complex mathematical systems like the logistics map and the Mandelbrot set. These mathematical models showcased the unexpected and fascinating behavior that emerges from relatively simple rules, providing a strong foundation for the concept of emergence.
Moreover, the scientific community has supported the theory of emergence through experimental and observational studies across various fields. One notable example is the study of evolution, where emergent phenomena, such as the emergence of new species and the diversification of life forms, cannot be explained solely through determinism. Similarly, in human behavioral studies, emergent properties like collective behavior, cultural dynamics, and consciousness cannot be understood by reducing them to deterministic principles.
The recognition of emergence as a valid perspective is not just based on theoretical considerations; it is backed by empirical evidence and real-life examples. The behavior of weather systems, for instance, exhibits emergent patterns that arise from the interactions of atmospheric elements. Emergence has also been observed in biological systems, where complex behaviors and functionalities emerge from the interactions of simpler organisms or cells.
In summary, the current, broad consensus within the scientific community acknowledges that the exclusive, strict determinism of the First Paradigm is insufficient to explain the causality of all known phenomena. The Second Paradigm, which combines determinism with emergence and self-organization, offers a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of complex systems. This perspective recognizes that both deterministic principles and emergent phenomena work together to shape the world we observe. The mathematical foundations of emergence, supported by advancements in computer science, coupled with empirical evidence from various scientific disciplines, provide a solid basis for embracing emergence as a vital aspect of causality in the natural world.
End of Chat-GPT answer.
The Mandelbrot set is claimed to be deterministic because a computer-generated set with specific parameters, if repeated, will generate the exact same output. It is said that this shows it is both emergent and deterministic. Comment on the limitation of a computer simulation vs real life. There almost always many artifacts in real life that will variegate output such as thermal factors and other background artifacts. In real life, with complex parameters, under these circumstances repeated submissions are not deterministic. These artifacts are not marginal in a system where starting factors, though infinitesimal, will amplify variance in output. In fact, some systems of emergence such as evolution thrive on computational causality with a little artifact effects mixed in.
Chat GPT answer 5-31-2023
You make a valid point regarding the limitations of computer simulations compared to real-life phenomena. While computer simulations, such as generating the Mandelbrot set, can be considered deterministic in the sense that given the same starting parameters, they will produce the same output, they do not fully capture the complexities and variability present in real-life systems.
In real-life scenarios, there are numerous factors that can introduce variability or artifacts, leading to deviations from deterministic outcomes. These factors can include environmental influences, stochastic processes, random fluctuations, and the presence of background artifacts like thermal factors you mentioned. These variations can have a significant impact on the behavior and outcomes of complex systems.
In the case of emergence, where interactions among components give rise to novel properties and behaviors, the presence of these artifacts becomes even more pronounced. Complex systems often have multiple interacting parameters, and even small variations in these parameters or the presence of external artifacts can lead to divergent outcomes. This sensitivity to initial conditions, commonly referred to as the butterfly effect, implies that even infinitesimal changes can propagate and amplify over time, resulting in significant differences in the system’s behavior.
While deterministic principles still play a role in understanding emergent phenomena, the inherent variability and non-linearity present in real-life systems necessitate a broader perspective. It is precisely the interplay between deterministic principles and the effects of artifacts or variability that allows for the emergence of novel properties and behaviors. Evolution, as you mentioned, is a prime example of a system where computational causality (deterministic principles) interacts with the influence of external factors or artifacts (variability) to drive the emergence of diverse life forms.
End of Chat GPT answer
Conclusion: We now know:
- The conjecture or any conclusion that – the causality of determinism is exclusive and therefore, we live in a fixed, clockwork universe is proven invalid. Yet, it is still being discussed seriously to this day?
- It has been proven empirically, logically and mathematically that there is another causality – emergence and self-organization – and these two causalities work together to explain all physical, material phenomena.
I have not referred to Quantum Mechanics because I do not have a background in it sufficient to cite it. At a high level, I have to say that anything I have seen on this subject as far as my understanding goes, is supportive of non-determinism. I never saw any support in this arena for exclusive, strict determinism.
The Third Paradigm
The fact that the First and/or Second Paradigms can not explain why anything exists sets up another “frame”.
The universe is proposed/defined as everything. It includes all of space, and all the matter and energy that space contains. It even includes time itself.
If we consider the first paradigm as a picture, the inability of the first paradigm to explain all causality creates an empty frame.
The addition of the causality of emergence and self organization fills out the picture of the second paradigm.
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. What do we put in this picture?
The attempt to explain why anything exists is a complete failure.
What is the one very big thing that neither the causality of the second paradigm can even begin to explain?
Oh- the Universe. Its existence, Its causality.
There is nothing in the second paradigm that can help because it can not be emergent. A Universe emergent …??? wait -from what resources, processes or supported by what logic?
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 God, (unfashionable) the Law of Conservation of Energy or The First Law of Thermodynamics. Are these minor things?
At the risk of being perceived as not open minded, I immediately braced for SHAZAM ! I waited for it.. This type of magic 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. He just says 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! no minimal tick – so no change – no next moment –so no trigger for next moment – alright it is a strain for me to conceive but I will go with their insistence. This elimination foils any inquisitive mind to wonder the obvious, annoying repeating question – “what came before?”
Oh no they can’t say what I think is coming. Yep they said it – – – “AND THEN” and then? = SHAZAM!. “And then” means in the next or later moment in time. You insisted there is no time in your frozen state. That is what you specified to avoid any “before” questions . Is this “and then” a minimal 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- shabby.
They even have another word that can short circuit logic – “singularity” as if the use of a word, in itself, is logic. This eliminates all previous science, logic or causality. You cannot and should not deny this paradox and the biggest exception of all. You can not answer the question – “Why this singular exception” by calling it a “singularity” and trying to pass off the use of a word “singularity” as a logical proof!
And what about: No time? How can you have any Kinetic energy with out time?
Something seems to be missing.
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. The irony is that many of them think they are too intelligent to consider having a religion. I have always considered that if anyone’s position on religion is atheism then that is their religion. I accept it as an attitude that defines their religious principle since they have no proof .
I will not sum up this presentation. It would bring out an unseemly sarcasm and I strictly avoid that.
What does the epistemology of the first two paradigms tell us about the third paradigm?
How can we progress toward an understanding of the likely properties of the third paradigm? Fundamentally – what could create, and be the cause of, our universe?
What does determinism infer about the third paradigm
First lets look at what we can learn from determinism, the first paradigm. What properties could contribute to the biggest question? It does have deductible, irrefutable support to the axiom: you can’t get energy/matter from nothing. So it directly refutes any chance that determinism can create a universe. As noted, I see the product of determinism as building a stage for the next two paradigms. I like the metaphor of a theater because the “stage” is the material base for the play. Admittedly, the intricacies of determinism are sublime. This infers a consideration of design and intent but it does not prove anything about the causative reality of the existence of the universe. At this level, it is an incredibly deep paradox.
What does self-organization and emergence tell us about the third paradigm
We cannot use the emergence of the second paradigm as an explanation of the creation of our universe in the third paradigm. Emergence, in the second paradigm or any form, is never emergence from nothing. It must have the input of prior resources and processes. Emergence requires an already existing universe. The second paradigm hints at creation, transcendence and the dualist distinction between matter and mind/consciousness and the question of the existence of God.
The second paradigm adds emergence/self organization. We extend basic material and energy to all the material world and its forms, structures: galaxies, stars, planets, continents, all of nature. At the higher end of the spectrum and platforms is the biggest and surprising reveal when we concentrate on life and humanity. If we do not take it for granted, it is an-awe inspiring vision of an ascendance.
Ascendance:
Ascendence points to Causality beyond the first two paradigms.
My insight and recognition of ascendance is related to my concept of the importance of the accelerating increase over time of new structures, platforms with multiple levels of generative processes and effects.
Structures – physical results of emergence that have organized form. eg: all of the helical heat distribution flows from dust devil to hurricane, worldwide ocean currents, astronomical objects, the entire DNA gene pool of all living things or any one living thing.
Platforms – the appearance of living things created a complex generator of new processes, and generative inventions. In particular life has its own rules and processes Stars and all the resulting processes and forms on various scales – Galaxy, Nebula planetary systems. New levels of platforms – primitive culture of humans and high culture of organized societies created new platforms – formal education, religions, empires and countries, ideology and movements.
Generative processes. The organization and concentration of new elements enabling new chemistry and forms. The DNA system that is a system that is self-replicating computer-like, multi-faceted with no comparison to the rest of the material world. Life has created platforms on several levels of increasing complexity – viruses, single cell, multicell with specialized organs, memory, association, consciousness,
They form platforms with new sets of rules and these increase to higher level platforms that now have further expanding capabilities. There is another acceleration because they innately have an inventive aspect and are generative.
The concept of “emergence” is starkly weak as compared to self organization starting with life. The latter may be as simple as water organizing efficiently into a whirlpool to go down a drain.
What are the compounding levels of organization, platforms, an inventive system. This is an acceleration of new platforms and a generative environment that makes recursive improvements in the very tools and processes of invention. Examples: – DNA?. Human drives and activities that are transcendent. What is the new level of consciousness, conceptualization, and a systematic, deliberate culture of new causality working in the sphere of information, ideas, ideology, transcendent values and religion.
To understand this overview, I must be specific.
New levels of platforms. If we did not have cellular life as a precursor platform, for instance, we would not have multi-celled, then complex social behavior as a higher level precursor, and then consciousness which is a precursor platform to formal education, philosophy, religion and many other higher level human activities. Each of platform has its own rules and causes an explosion of new processes and possibilities and builds the next platform level. The highest level of ascendance by the ruler of complexity is a new type of animal, human cultures, religion, formal education, research, philosophy, nations, and the appearance of dualism and transcendental concepts that are operative in reality.
Am I being human centric at this point? If you recognize ascendance then you are forced to focus on human activity and capability. We have to consider that only here is the upward path of higher functions leading to living, conscious people asking where we came from. Is a conscious person as an assembly of atoms basically the same as a crystal in a meteor? The prior billions of years were a generative setup to this unique level. At this point we have to consider a viewpoint namely: the question of dualism – possibility that we have a universe of matter and a universe of ideas, insight, growing knowledge, and existential questioning. The human spirit also has the transcendental ability to create the realities that are not anchored in material causality – love, hope, sacrifice for others, a commitment to the religious life, belief in a pure form of justice, philosophy and religion . The prior levels do not cause or create these faculties. This is not just a modern story.
Wikipedia under “History of Religion” – “The earliest archeological evidence suggests the emergence of religious ideas dates back several hundred thousand years, to the Middle and Lower Paleolithic periods: some archaeologists conclude that the apparently intentional burial of early Homo sapiens and Neanderthals and even Homo Naledi as early as 300,000 years ago is proof that religious ideas already existed, but such a connection is entirely conjectural.” The philosophic questions resonant with religion are as innate to homo sapiens as his self-aware consciousness.
What are the indications that the creator of the universe must be conscious and work with an intent and a plan?
The categories of four areas of inference in the third paradigm that occur to me are information, a generative property, intent and ascendance. I did not want to use the term pregnant so I used a thesaurus and found “generative“. Sounds right. My use of generative in not just a one-time output at one level, but includes an innate escalation from base to higher and higher levels of new platforms, new realities. The output of these platforms unfold higher levels of processes that generate new processes and platforms and go from the physical to consciousness.
Determinism has a hard limit to other causality and chaos opens the door that is the limit of determinism. When does it start. Mathematics is not a cause in creating any elements of reality but it is a permission-slip – it can describe hard boundaries. Where does the breakdown start? Contrary to what many pure science people may imply, it starts at the presence of three bodies with gravitational linkage. It would seem any three molecules interacting would generate the same output altered beyond deterministic boundary. All you need is a type of feedback that undermines linearity. If you are good at math or ask an educated mathematician to define a formula for randomness, they can seem to make a lot of progress, There are mathematical measures to monitor the progress toward randomness. Then, we hit the immovable paradox that the pursuit or closure of randomness does not and can not have the reductionism that any formula does. It bucks and rebels and mathematicians see a pattern of what they call “universality”. Emergent processes that they confidently expected to increase in randomness show non-random clustering across many studies. Emergence, self-organization and ascendence are among the still astounding results of this reality. A door is opened and as they say “When the cat is away, the mice play”.
I see the all the history of the universe set up an inventor’s workbench that gives us structures – a stage – (galaxies, planets) and platforms (life, consciousness) that increase functionality and has further possibilities. The property that this is an arena of precursors, resources and increasing functionality gives me my appreciation of the concept of a generative environment – like Edison’s laboratory. Edison’s laboratory is not just an accident of chaotic enthusiasm, a extremely lucky guess. that this assemblance of a lead inventor, like assistants, equipment etc might might lead to something. It was planned with a vision and a plan as a system to generate invention all the way. I am a Systems Analyst and I know a directed system when I see it. This Universe has all these precursor properties with an astounding result. How can this happen without a directive intelligence at a higher level?
Beginnings of life were supported by chance, for example, some form RNA is thought to emerge after 100’s of millions of years of trials, and early DNA took 100’s of millions more years, I call this the lottery effect. After these precursors emerged, they became the inventive generators of accelerated improvements and chance always continued but, became less important. Starting at the time of DNA emergence, this and other generative operators become a new system of accelerated invention that improves itself! So life is a fundamental change as a basis for ascendance. Consciousness is another level generator for another layer of ascendance.
Philosophy transcendental values and Religion have to be considered as the top of the ascendance in the hierarchy of consciousness. The only place this occurs after billions of years is in the appearance of humankind. Who or What else can address the ultimate questions which probe the third paradigm?
What can we conceive beyond the first two paradigms? We must proceed by comparison and extropulation using our experience within our Universe and our knowledge of human intelligence and human conceptualization. Only humans have the unique power to naturally participate in using transcendent properties that do not materially exist and are not independently emergent but produce functionality. This is a higher level generative property. On the more basic side – they work – Hope, faith, trust, love. They elevate to new platforms. They elevate us individually. These things have no source of existence in deduction, or emergence in the material sense. My meaning of transcendence ( Noun – existence or experience beyond the normal or physical level) in these examples is that they exist and produce profound results.
Ascendance and an improvements from a Generative environment.
I see a higher level of ascendance in the history of man in the universe. I do have faith in man’s vision of a shared, common sense of justice and good, especially when it is based on natural law and this sense is made even more insightful by a progression of movements such as later religions in various forms, the renaissance, humanism. I see an elevated ethical structure rising past early empires that believed the strong should exploit the weak and their gods expected this of warrior cultures. I see a clear progression when I think of “All men are created equal and they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.” This level is recognizable to all people as a shared sense of good and justice but is both progressed and degraded throughout our history.
At its best, this view placed individuals with all different beliefs in a social contract to put individual rights over government and to limit government. Universal, unalienable set the stage and a legal system to work with differences. Can anyone say that this progression has not emerged from a religious view across mankind as created? I feel that to progress I have to dig deeper to come to grip with God’s plan for us, individually and as a people.
Conclusion, Faith or Best Choice?
I have a deep sense that I am standing on a staircase of ascendence that was created by an a generative process that was innate in its deterministic causality as a base. It was also innate in what we now know as emergence and self-organization as a different causality. The sense of hierarchy is highest when considering man , his consciousness and our use of transcendence that seems to go beyond any physical limit or causality. Now do we find an answer for creation looking down and see something at the deterministic, material base? There is only raw material in the structures of suns, galaxies and planets. I feel like I am trying to interview a rock.
Then we consider creation.There was an ascendance toward a planet that can support life but the full generative property and the prospect of intent is not clear yet. With the further ascension of life and humanity and intelligence and consciousness, how can we ignore the sign of a prior intelligence, a shared sense of good and justice, the question of a higher intent, and the property of an inventive and generative machinery. How can we not see higher levels over time. Finally must we consider and look up to a sentient being with a plan and the knowledge of how to set, design and create a universe with all the unfolding to a stage with all the actors and stories to unfold. The earthly actors know that nobody at their level is responsible. They also know that anything must come from something.
What is left leaves us looking at the higher end of ascendance from a human point of view by analogy or resonance. Is this why religious tradition often says humanity is made in the image of God. If so, this would be the lens of insight into the nature of God. Also add, of course, Intelligence, a plan for a generative stage– something woven into the lowest and highest levels of complexity. I do not like the offering of faith alone. It sounds, to me, like you are pressured to say you believe something you do not assent to in your innermost feelings. I can, after reviewing the possibilities, see the highest and most likely logical alternative and make my the best and most logical choice. We do see a higher intelligence and a plan and an innate generative universe, with a clear pattern of ascendance. While a deductive proof is not possible, we do have a vision of a creator matching these elements, especially the transcendent values. Since it is a not determinism causality, as we already covered, there can be no deterministic proof. Looking down at a material universe alone is no comparison.
Back in Manhattan College Physics 101 again – I did a thought experiment that said “What universe would satisfy, without any contradiction, all the science and logic that we know?” I was forced to logically fill in the picture with – “The Null Universe”. It, of course, consist of nothing. This is, at face, sarcastic but given the postulate: true to logic. The Universe of our science and logic – the second paradigm – can not logically cause itself.
There is no positive proof for the existence of God, but we can not explain the existence of the Universe without him. As Stephen Meyer said “You can’t absolutely prove the existence of God, but the consequences of denying the existence of God, as a theoretical postulate at least, is a system of physics which ends up eating its own; which ends up destroying, for epistemological reasons, our ability to rely on our own reasoning capabilities about the world around us. So at the end, the choice is between God and science, or no God and no science.“.
Additional Topics:
The Three Body Problem and the Limits of Determinism
Where do the limits of exclusive determinism start. Lets consider the three body problem.
I submitted this to ChatGPT:
Question:
When three astronomical bodies a have gravitational attraction that is operating simultaneously. This is called the three body problem. There can be back-engineered formulas or techniques for getting close solutions. For a completely deterministic solution is there a mathematical reason that we can not get the exact solution?
Answer: This is an extract. I truncated the end, because it was repetitive with extraneous text.
ChatGPT:
Yes, the “three-body problem” in the context of celestial mechanics refers to the challenge of predicting the motions of three celestial bodies under the influence of their mutual gravitational attraction. This problem is notoriously difficult to solve exactly due to its inherent complexity, and it’s a classic example of a chaotic system in physics.
The primary reason for the difficulty in finding an exact, closed-form solution to the three-body problem lies in its mathematical nature. When you have three or more interacting bodies, the equations that describe their motion become highly nonlinear and interdependent. These equations cannot be solved using simple algebraic or analytical methods, as they do not have straightforward closed-form solutions like many simpler problems in physics.
Additionally, the three-body problem exhibits chaotic behavior. In chaos theory, small changes in initial conditions can lead to drastically different outcomes over time. This sensitivity to initial conditions makes long-term predictions for complex systems like the three-body problem extremely challenging, if not impossible, to make with high precision.
End of ChatGPT.
Conclusion:
So even Kepler’s laws of motion are undone by three or more planets that are gravitationally interconnected. The overall implications are that when three molecules interact this nullifies exclusive determinism.
Try to think of an example where you do not have three bodies. Try to name a real-life phenomena where you do not have some emergence. Try to think of a place where you do not have some deterministic causality. While deterministic causality is also almost everywhere, we now know that determinism alone is very rare. We live in a deterministica and complex universe.
To reply with an email, use: James.Sullivan@thethirdmillennium.com
Recent Comments