Third Millennium Thought

Category: Uncategorized

Reality in Three Paradigms

To reply with an email, use:


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 philosophy? 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?”

Paradigm: 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, separate 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. Then we will consider the validity of determinism as as exclusive causality.

The Second Paradigm Defined: Determinism and Emergence/Self-Organization

I define the second paradigm as including both 1. the causality of deterministic phenomena and 2. another type of causality: emergence/self-organized phenomena – both 1. and 2. These two causalities  work together for a combined resultant. This is the proven, valid view based on logic, science and mathematics. There is clear, mathematical, physical, and inductive evidence that there is an expanded view – based on mixed causality.

The lack of clarity on this distinction is a major gap in education.

The Third Paradigm:

I also address a third paradigm. The failure of the first two in terms 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 is just one example of the foundational axiom of all science and logic “You can not get something from nothing”.  Another form in plainer language is: “everything has a cause”. If these axioms are not true than all logic and analysis of causality falls apart. Yet, this sets up a frame for a third type of causality. What is in that frame?

The First Paradigm:

Strict Determinism as the only science and causality?

Strict, hard 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 atom, 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 extent that an outcome were 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. Any human decision making, and free will are false illusions.  The most important values: love, family, hope religion, ideology, are illusions or even false. It fundamentally effects 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 forces us to the logical, but nihilistic conclusion – what does anything matter? This is 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 actually just self serving, dismissing objections with “What difference does it make?”

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

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) and formulas that always work precisely with proper input and within certain limits. These sciences 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 Accumulated Distance objects in gravity falls per unit time.  D=1/2 G x T squared.

Here are the characteristics of deterministic phenomena discovered and supported by deductive logic:

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.

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. 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 its mathematical validity from U Tube videos. Consider the complete limitations. Would this not apply when any three molecules, for example, interacted? With this conclusion, can anyone come up with an example in any local area where this mix would not apply. This concurs with my thoughts that determinism and emergence/self-organization may always work together. This is why I will not separate them in my second paradigm.

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 supported 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, shared 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. The new mathematics of emergence is also used. 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 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.

An acceptable level of ratification seems to depend on an aggregate of scientific observation and concurrence. 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.

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. It is also true that deterministic processes can not be directly contradicted. That would be magic, not science of any sort.

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 greatest 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, from errors in measurements, for example, outputs can grow exponentially apart with time, so the system soon becomes effectively unpredictable, or chaotic.” This can not be deterministic.

I always anticipated that exclusive determinism could not explain all  causative reality. Even in 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 sideway forces are random-like in every direction. A wave structure on the order of 10 to the 30th appears. Where did it come from? How was that outcome determined? When I saw and  grabbed the book Chaos (1987 by James Glieck, I was primed for a revelation. This limitation of strict, deterministic causality gives us an image of a picture and the limitation sets 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. (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 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 living. 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. Chemist run into this all the time. In biology plant an acorn and see an oak tree – different.

I am going to use Chat GPT 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.

My follow-up Chat-GPT question:

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.

Conclusion: First we should all note this conclusion that is both revolutionary and valid. The La Place conjecture: that the causality of determinism is exclusive therefore,  we live in a fixed, clockwork universe – this  is proven invalidYet, it is still being discussed seriously to this day? 

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 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 can not be emergent. A Universe emergent …??? wait -from what resources, processes or supported by what logic? Any precursor is just an additional something we forgot to add to our definition of the universe. So put  it in. Now, our first use of the word Universe was wrong. Put it back in and we are back to square one.

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 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. 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 tickso 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 thena 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 as a logical proof!

And what about: No time? 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 (velocity – displacement per unit time) needs time.

Potential Energy P.E.=m×g×h          See g is acceleration and needs 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 religion.

I will not sum up this presentation. It would bring out an unseemly sarcasm and I strictly avoid that.

What is the epistemology of the first two paradigms tell us about the third?

The study of the types of approaches to verify truth is called epistemology. What would be the epistemology as an approach to 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?

Lets take a journey by looking at the first two paradigms for any help they give us in knowing about the third paradigm.

First we address the first paradigm. We have to change it to simply determinism because we now we know that math and science have shown exclusive determinism to be invalid. What properties could contribute to the biggest question? It does have a very hard core relationship to the axiom: you can’t get energy/matter from nothing. 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. The intricacies of determinism are sublime and over time seem to lead to repeating cycles of amazement and surprise beyond what could be expected – only to be amazed again in the next cycle of discovery. It seems to demand a consideration of design and intent but that direct causality is not accessible here.

There is a low-low level limit and breakdown to exclusive determinism in that it can never even support an exact, closed algorithm for three bodies interacting let alone quintillions and more molecules moved or changing state in the daily life of every living thing – or a leaf floating to the ground.

The second paradigm hints at creation, transcendence and the dualist distinction between matter and mind/consciousness. 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, is never emergence from nothing.  It must have the input of resources and processes. To address the third paradigm, remember the creation of the universe is prior to the existence of these resources in this universe.

The second paradigm adds emergence/self organization to determinism. We get all the material world and its structures: galaxies, stars, planets, continents, all of nature. These forms would not have appeared if we did not add emergence to determinism. 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. The dictionary refers to ascendance as growing power and dominance over prior competitors. I do not have another word so my use in addition is a sense, a vision of expanding structures, then the additional powers of living things – a wholly new platform, complex animals with sentience, social relationships, learning etc. The highest level of ascendance by the ruler of complexity, human cultures and processes and the appearance of dualism and transcendental concepts that are operative in reality.

Am I being human centric at this point? Of course I am because here 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. The output of these platforms unfold higher levels of processes that  generate new processes and platforms and go from the physical to consciousness.

Chaos is the open 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. 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 mathamatical measures to monitor the progress toward randomness. Then, we hit the immovable paradox that randomness does not have the reductionism that any formula does. It bucks and rebels and mathematicians see a pattern of what they call “universality”. 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.

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.

Beginnings of life were supported my 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. So emergent, generative operators become a new system of accelerated invention that improves itself! So life isa fundamental change as a basis for 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 is in the appearance of humankind. Who or What else can address these questions?

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 conceive of transcendent properties that do not materially exist and are not independently emergent but produce functionality. This is a generative property.  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 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 or a Choice?

I feel like 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 base? There is only raw material in the structures of suns, galaxies and planets.

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, 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 comes 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 we have no deductive proof we do have a vision of a creator matching these elements, especially the transcendent values.  Looking down at a material universe alone is no comparison. At this conclusion we see that our highest level of ascendance is least starting point for the creator.

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:


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, because at the end, it was repetitive with extraneous text.


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.

There have been attempts to find approximate solutions, such as the development of perturbation methods and numerical simulations ….

End of ChatGPT.


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. 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:





Why We Dream

To reply with an email, use:

The evolution of man’s dreaming reaches way back into the evolutionary mammalian past. Researchers accept evidence that dogs have dreams. Any explanation of the evolutionary, initial ratification and benefit must have, at base, a simple justification. So why did this remarkable facility evolve? Let us imagine how it helped the earliest humans.

Disclaimer – When I first formulated this theory, I fell into the self-centered trap of “if this theory is true then other conjectures must be false”. On reflection, I realized this is a completely, arbitrary A OR B trap/falacy as opposed to A AND B. I think my theory is very basic in terms of early development and evolutionary ratification of survival benefit. It can even be applied to other mammals like dogs. When I later thought about other dream effects/motifs like broad, non-specific  anxiety, I have to admit it does not directly fit my model presented below of specific danger-avoidance and attraction to better opportunity. I should know enough to understand that the Evolutionary System ratifies on the basis of the sum total of all outcomes that are supportive.

Dreams and nightmares as a necessary repetition mechanism to establish deep association for avoidance of danger.

This is my explanation of the initial, basic, and continuing, mechanism. I see an explanation that is the explanation for the evolutionary ratification . I think the easiest explanation can be seen in a scenario:

.A carefree juvenile is being warned to stay away from the high grass but like any youngster the communication may be clear but the urgency is not there. It does not compete with his short attention span, and immersion in play. The focus of juveniles at play is very narrow. Initially, he does not even see the proximity of the high grass.

He hears a muffled grunt. He smells a meaty smell. He looks up and sees high grass very close. His parents have been acting concerned and motioning and verbalizing the young ones to stay closer. He notices the adults stiffen and sniff the air. Strange, escalating verbalizations come from them and he can see the whites of their eyes. They begin to look like children that he has seen when frightened.  Normally his group does not go near high grass. He wonders what all this means. He does not have an immediate, automatic reaction so he is frozen in place.

Suddenly everyone is screaming wildly. He has never seen every adult in the extreme of complete panic – this is terrifying.  A monstrous animal leaps from the tall grass and seizes another child of the group who screams piteously. – Blood and panic. His mother runs to him and grabs him, almost dislocating his shoulder as she yanks him and runs away. He is frozen and traumatized.

Rhetorical question: Will this juvenile dream about this that night and on subsequent nights? Of course – he will have many, many nightmares. These nightmares are very common in young people. They are also almost inevitable after episodes of extreme stress at any age.  Will not all these associations be cooked in at a low level in his consciousness?

Why constant dreams/nightmares? Memory, learning and deep association can only be effected by direct and intense repetition. The research I see now, is emphatic on the role of repetition. This mechanism is necessary down to the biological/chemical processes at the synaptic level. The most effective system of association and priorities is dependent on repetition. It has been explained to me that it is like a system of game trails where the most trod path is dominant and there are many lesser branches. The alternative would be real-world, sporadic repetition of near-death experiences until the person is dead or more alert. This is not the best survival path. How do we get the repetition? Dreaming.

By the repetition in dreams, all these important associations and reactions are intensified. The next time he is carefree (maybe never to the same degree as before) and absorbed in the immediate, but smells that meaty smell, or sees the adults get still, or sees that look, or he hears those peculiar noises from them, or gets too close to the high grass, or hears that grunt, or adult alarm cries- will not his attention be automatically riveted and Adrenalin flow . This is a fight or flight reaction?  Won’t he start running towards the adults and safety? Is this not a survival trait? The trigger that acts past the state of immediate absorption is a monitor – the hidden observer. This would be the main ratification and driver of the unique dream state that is, otherwise, a drain on energy resources. I think it is the main reason for dreaming to evolve going way back to other mammals that dream. This does not exclude other theories. 

Most times the conscious mind (left-dominant) must be rooted in the expected and absorbed in the immediate, whether it is food gathering or play. The hidden observer can compare with past associations and trigger a mental tap on the shoulder.

Dreaming sets up the associations after the remains of the day are relived and re-hashed. Things that the left brain in the Usual State of Consciousness is willing to forget or deny are associated and relived with new intensity and re-tuned with the glandular responses. The chemical process of deepening synaptic paths continues. An ordinary memory string can be triggered by a connection starting point like a picture, a poem or a song. The above memory links are more like alarm triggers. 

We could consider Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome as a more extreme and sometimes excessive effect of this mechanism. I think many therapist know that these patterns evolved to deal with short term, immediate threats and that reactionary patterns resulting from juvenile input are dysfunctional in later life.  I think that hypnotist therapist are using part of the dream mechanism to reverse these effects and I think they know or sense this. 

The Hidden Observer

The question of the Hilgard’s Hidden Observer in relation to my dream theory has been raised by an expert hypnotherapist. My reference in this write-up, logically, seems to be the same mechanism in a different setting. I have not read much about his theory but one point is that  it basically says that the hypnotic subject, in trance, is not completely dominated and unware past suggested bounds even when commanded to sleep or to not remember. There are experimental results that say there is a hidden observer function operative in the subject that monitors, records and sometimes intercedes in some parts of there reaction or overrides. 

I will relate Hilgard’s Hidden Observer  to the dream mechanism: The operation of a hidden observer was to complete the dream induced trigger in the usual state of consciousness. This is more basic and prior to the hidden observer appearing in hypnotic trance. The economy of evolution and brain functions in human are allowed to consume a large portion of our energy budget. Evolution would not allow such a basic function to develop and improve at this cost for no reason or in preparation for hypnotic sessions late in our high culture evolution. Without this we could just rest at night. To say nothing of the astounding and sophisticated reversal – the awake reality that continuously perceives – – compared to  dreaming  – internal perception becomes reality to the dream observer. This has always astounded me and always will. I am a conceptual person.

It occurs to me that, in addition to setting up this monitor/alarm function, – it is also known that we need brain activity at night to support long term memory. This latter would be the precursor to dreams in evolution and continued.

.This made me think at a deeper level about this function/ability. Chronologically as a total system:

First we have daily experience and this function would have to monitor and retain (input) extracted content related to danger (negative)  or opportunity (food, sex) – with its own priority .

Second comes the Dream Director in sleep/dreaming that will impose needed evaluation of importance, driving repetition to deepen association. Our dreams, even hated nightmares, will associate environmental clues to danger night after night. repetition is physiologically necessary to deepen association and fast access. This is a high cost in the economy of energy use. There are many other negatives/costs.

Third – In the future – near or far – we can be absorbed, as described above, in food gathering, socialization or play. This is not a good state to monitor and be aware of clues to danger(major) or missed opportunity (minor). 

Fourth the facility of this hidden observer in the future will monitor past our absorption and give us “a tap on the shoulder” to get ready for fight or flight when the associated trigger perception is detected, consciously or subliminal . This is the part that relates to Hilgard’s Hidden Observer.

There is no reason to exclude this facility in the hypnotic trance state.     

I have received all of these pieces from others in articles. I just put them together in a good guess. I fail to see the harm and thank you for your indulgence.

To reply with an email, use: