To reply with an email, use: james.sullivan@thethirdmillennium.com
Overview:
We know that pure science is defined by the fact that its causality is deterministic. its science is typified by deduced algorithms or formulas such as the laws of motion, chemistry or electronics. Its epistemology and definition are unique and clear, when we analyze it using its unique causality. What about the behavioral sciences, biology and the humanities? Are they science? Do they have a different type of causality? 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? Is everything we do part of a pre-determined script: aka – the clockwork universe? 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 “How did we come to exist as conscious beings with free will?” You can not understand this world unless you understand the limits of deterministic causality . In those cases you must default to analysis of emergence and and self-organization as a separate causality.
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 centering 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 that are widely accepted, based on science, mathematics and logic.
- The First Paradigm is the causality of Determinism. It is based on well- defined parameters. Formulas are deduced and verified as the mathematics map to the phenomena described. I will discuss the limits of when it cannot be exclusive and when there must be another causality.
- The Second Paradigm is a completely separate, as a causality. It is the causality of Emergence and/or Self-Organization. When conditions are not in determinism’s boundaries, it cannot be the exclusive causality. It is usually contributory. Instead, you have the causality of Emergence/Self-Organization. Other, surprising possibilities are explored and manifested.
- However, my analytic parsing can exaggerate exclusivity of either in their usual manifestation. In reality, the first and second paradigm, as actualized, usually manifest in a resultant combination. One or the other may be dominating but exclusivity would be rare.
- The Third Paradigm is necessary because of the failure of the first two to cover all causality and so, the question, “where did everything come from” remains. Logically, the failure of the first two causalities to explain where everything came from demands the existence of a third paradigm.
The First Paradigm – determinism – defined:
Determinism can best be explained as causality encountered in the pure sciences. It is typified by the laws of motion and many phenomena in areas such, electronics, energy and chemistry. it is a concept based on:
- deductive logic that leads to:
- logical proof and mathematical formulas, aka. algorithms, from observed phenomena that match to the deterministic precursors, and resultant values.
- The algorithms/formulas must be linear and they must have:
- well defined and shared, parameters.
- The results are an exact output to any degree of significant places applicable to all cases within known scope.
Here is an example of the characteristics of deterministic phenomena discovered and supported by deductive logic. This is an algorithm to compute the total distance an object falls over time: D=1/2 G x T squared.
D, G, and T are completely defined and known parameters. We could make a spreadsheet, second by second of accumulated distance fallen per unit time. The deduced formula becomes obvious, and so, an abstract algorithm is deduced that maps to the reality we analyzed. This result of the formula or algorithm is always true and exact to any last level of granularity that you are able to measure and compute. If there was an instance within the defined constraints where the formula was not true, then we would question not only that instance but any this instance of the law of gravity. Deductive Logic leading to deterministic causality demands all or nothing.
Strict, Exclusive Determinism as the only science and causality?
Strict, hard or exclusive determinism has been posed as the only causality. – From Wikipedia: In the history of science, Laplace’s conjecture in 1814 was the first published articulation of exclusive, strict determinism C. 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. Advances 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 (1609 – 1619) Newton’s Laws of Motion (1687), and electrical formulas, etc.
According to strict determinism, if someone i.e., a super intelligence, in his conjecture: some entity, later coined as “La Place’s demon” captures all information and 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 i.e. rigidly, exactly predictable to the smallest values of change and movement for all the time to come. If it were true that all outcomes to the finest degree of exactness are caused by deterministic causality alone, then that description would be correct.
If determinism was exclusive, any human decision making, and free will are false illusions. These distinctions are very important at the highest levels of philosophy, ethics and religion. You would be pushed to conclude that most important values: love, family, hope religion, ideology, are illusions. It can fundamentally affect the foundation of other belief systems – our political systems, the dignity of man, morality, culture, ideology and religions. All of these are based on free choices, not a relentless machine-like output. In that view, it is a final, un-editable movie reel. It is the basis of materialism. It philosophically pushes us towards the logical, but nihilistic conclusion: “what does anything matter?”. Richard Dawkins said ““The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” This can be a poison that kills the human spirit and mocks all morality, and self-sacrifice to ideals bigger than ourselves.
To be fair, I must add, that many persons who support similar views are decent and ethical in their daily life. Luckily, ideology is not deterministic.
Many PHD scientist who are brilliant in their field believed clockwork exclusive, determinism, and some, still do. It is a fact that they never had any penetration in the areas that we know are emergent and/or self-organized like life the humanities, behavior of lower lifeforms or human consciousness: none. Was there a treatise or book I missed? Where are all – or any – deduced algorithms?
Computers helped open up and explore the field of non-linear algorithms and chaos that map to causality that cannot be deterministic for all ranges of input. These discoveries are called “Chaos Theory”. Once you hit a range that is non-linear, you pass through chaos, like Alice in Wonderland’s looking glass, things get “curiouser and curiouser”. The tiniest increment in a driving parameter may bifurcate or jump to an unexpected output value. At a later point, further increases are functionally random. There can be no exclusive determinism in these circumstances. At present, the mainstream of scientist and mathematicians do not believe in the clockwork version. It is not supportable by current knowledge or concurrence. The limits of determinism have been established. They are substantial and numerous. On the other hand, near-magical possibilities are opened up as we shall see.
1 Deductive Logic and deduced algorithms are the epistemology of deterministic causality
I presented an example of a deterministic law of motion 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 with defined parameters using deductive logic. As a contrary example: the three-body problem does not have any linear solution. It is not difficult; it has been logically, mathematically proven to be impossible. Mathematically, the n-body problem is the same. Non-linearity and artifacts (thermal effects etc.) mixed in, are other limits. These latter are important because output results, after changing then tracking driving values, are very sensitive to starting conditions. This the most prevalent limit of a process being purely deterministic. Any “artifact” that is not deterministic also causes non-linearity and so diminishes deterministic dominance in a particular process or phenomena.
The limits of determinism:
The limits of determinism, which is a causality, must match closely with the characteristics used to define it. It must be a process or change that uses deduction to produce an algorithm that uses widely shared parameters. If for a given phenomena an explanation for change does not match the above, then it is not deterministic.
- If you measure, but do not use known parameters that can be tested as valid like Mass, Length, Temperature. (Love or disappointment are not standardized.)
- It cannot deduce an algorithm like – D = g/2 X t^2. If an algorithm comes from. (Working backwards from Curve-fit to assign a likely algorithm -this is not deduction.)
- The algorithm must have a closed form solution. Three Body or N-Body estimates do not converge on a closed form solution. Question – where do you not have 3 molecules or 3 agents affecting each other? This limit must be near universal even if to a very small degree.
- Artifacts – that are to be ignored?
- If they do not negate linearity, they can add to a set of deterministic algorithms that yield a deterministic resultant as in an earth to moon shot.
- If they do negate linearity than this instance is not deterministic. Examples: a magnet deflects a pendulum. Friction, Chaos.
The Second Paradigm – Emergence and/or Self-Organization – defined:
All of this sounds abstract, so consider the larger fact that, using exclusive determinism, no life would exist. We would not exist and be conscious. How do you define, and what, are the units of behavior or your consciousness? What are the units of hostility or hope? What algorithms bound their possibilities? I think that the scientists who used their scientific credentials and were experts at scientific method and verification, in their field, have to answer to the fact that they never made any – no – progress outside of pure science. They could not use the successful epistemology and verification that was successful and verifiable in their field.
- Inductive Logic–
By contrast, the causality resulting from emergent and self-organization causality is analyzed by inductive logic and abductive reasoning. We need to understand the difference between these logical disciplines.
Inductive Logic advances sciences seeking knowledge by applying analysis starting with observation.
Inductive reasoning constructs or evaluates general propositions that are derived from specific examples. It uses any tools of science and math that can be tested and are applicable. Like correlation or curve-fit. I call this latter type of activity “back engineering” and it can result in very usable or “good-enough” algorithms. These are not the same as deduced algorithms.
Abduction: Abductive reasoning is about forming a conclusion based on the best available explanation. It often involves guesswork and is used when there is incomplete information. In many cases it can be workably accurate.
Emergence and Self-Organization are very different from pure deterministic causality.
Definition and Characteristics of Emergence and Self-Organization from Grok AI.
- Emergence:
- Definition: Emergence refers to the process where complex systems or patterns arise from relatively simple interactions among individual components, resulting in properties or behaviors that are not present in the individual parts.
- Characteristics:
- Novelty: The emergent whole exhibits new properties or behaviors not seen in the individual components.
- Holism: The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, meaning the system’s behavior cannot be fully predicted or explained by analyzing individual elements alone.
- Unpredictability: Emergent properties are often difficult to predict from the rules governing individual components.
- Scale Dependence: Emergent phenomena typically manifest at a higher level of organization (e.g., a flock of birds’ coordinated movement vs. individual bird behavior).
- Examples: Consciousness from neural interactions, ant colony behavior from simple ant rules, or traffic patterns from individual driver decisions.
- Self-Organization:
- Definition: Self-organization is the spontaneous formation of ordered structures or patterns in a system through internal processes, without external control or direction.
- Characteristics:
- Spontaneity: Order arises naturally from the interactions of components without a central coordinator or external blueprint.
- Local Interactions: The system’s components follow simple, local rules, leading to global patterns (e.g., molecules aligning in a crystal).
- Adaptability: Self-organizing systems can adapt to changes in their environment, often showing resilience or flexibility.
- Decentralized Control: No single component dictates the system’s behavior; order emerges from distributed interactions.
- It can converge to a new “platform” that has new, unique rules such as life. Life has it own rules. There can be further self-organization to a higher level platform like complex behavior and then consciousness.
The term emergence does not do justice to what truth has been learned by – observation. Some causality of self-organization may be ordinary in our experience. For example, water forms a whirlpool going down a drain or weather patterns. Some effects of self-organized causality are astounding and could never be deduced or predicted by observing their many components such as life and the reproduction of life-forms driven by a computer-like DNA system. Life is a new platform with its own rules. It develops even higher-level platforms. Every living species is a unique chemical factory with increasing behavioral levels through evolutionary development/emergence. Exclusive determinism could never explain this. The sciences dependent on emergence and self-organization do not explain why things have to happen. These disciplines only allow us to study phenomena dependent on emergence and/or self-organization using the tools of science, logic and math. Their conclusions do advance truth but the verification of exact results is much more difficult and often dependent other on local circumstances.
In behavioral and similar scientific studies start with observation and correlation to create hypothesis but, without agreed upon rigorous standards, without those standards; correlation 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, usually, no exactly defined variables. There ae no exact formulas derived from deductive logic. In order to use quantitative analysis, measurables are proposed, evaluated, critiqued and validated later. Similar to determinism, you are dealing with a separate causality and pursuing and achieving truth.
It is true that deterministic processes cannot 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 the 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”.
Most times when an algorithm is discovered it is deterministic. There is a notable exception around 1890 by one of the most prolific mathematicians 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 cannot be deterministic. Unlike deterministic equations, you cannot compute an exact solution (also called a “closed from solution”). It is not complicated waiting to be solved by a better technique – because mathematics says there is no final set of algorithms that will predict a solution for all starting and incremental conditions. An increment in a parameter acting like it is linear may suddenly jump to a discontinuous value. This was an early discovery of the doorway to chaos, emergence and self-organization. When the overall mathematical description of a phase space is non-linear, this is a hard limit to determinism. This is why any three large astronomical bodies are not deterministic and the reason that non-linear property in any three molecules is also not exclusively deterministic. See my other blog entries “Conversations with… Chat GBT and Claude, Deep Seek and Grok as confirmation.
I always anticipated that exclusive determinism could not explain all causative reality. Even in 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, however; all the deterministic factors are on the molecular level. Each molecule is an independent agent pushed downward deterministically, by gravity. At depth the pressure gradient is dominantly deterministic but sideway forces are random-like. A wave pattern or structure on the scale of 10 to the 30th on a different order appears. Where did the larger pattern come from? How was that outcome determined? When I saw and grabbed the book Chaos (1987 by James Gleick), I never knew the mathematical basis but, It was a confirmation rather than a discovery. I was 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.
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, after some bifurcations, a random pattern emerges. 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. This DNA is a system of discovery, inventiveness and improvements that are no longer as highly dependent on randomness.
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.
Examples of structures that start with complexity: whirligig, tornado, hurricane, ocean wave system, DNA, life, consciousness.
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 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 conversations with Chat GPT – see: Confirming the nature of determinism as a cause vs Self-organization as a separate type of cause in Additional Topics below
I also posed the same series of questions to Claude AI, Deep Seek AI and Grok AI with similar results and with no corrections. See my other blog entries starting with Conversations.…
| 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. This is accepted at the highest levels of math, logic and science. Yet, why 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 – within the Universe. It is also proven that, of course, we have free will. We exercise it and feel it all our lives! |
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.
To be clear about the fact that they work together: it is also true that some phenomena are dominantly deterministic such as the laws of motion and some are dominantly emergent/self-organized such as the beginning of reproductive life or transcendental beliefs, like faith or hope, that are also causative.
In the opening of The Lord of the Rings, there is a line that says, “In those early days, there were laws of nature and magic.” By the causality of emergence/self-organized phenomena, this is where all the “magic” happens. You have passed through the looking glass (chaos).
Let me define magic. If I had two standard pool eight balls, one when released falls from your hand. The other eight ball stays floating in the air after saying the magic words. This does not exist, but if it did, that would be a definition and an instance of magic. Standing in the conceptual arena of determinism – looking out at what is caused by Emergence/Self-Organization which does not have deterministic causality – your assessment would be that you are seeing “magic”. Yes – beyond the world of determinism we live in a world that has vast area that are magic-like”. Accept and celebrate the “magic”. This is also truer and at a deeper level when we look at creation as a whole. When we look at all the wonder in the Universe it takes the sense of “magic” to another level.
The Third Paradigm
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. What is the picture that fills that 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 up another frame for the Third Paradigm. What picture do we put in this frame?
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.
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.“.
So far we see that there is another frame by the negatives from the first two paradigms. But the Third Paradigm must have positive aspects or the picture contains nothing. This would mean that the other 2 causalities have no place to act. This causality must be chronologically prior to the other two.
An attempt to explain why the universe does not need a cause. – under Additional Topics.
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?
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.
At this point I want to propose a view of levels of ascension in areas that are past the material and show properties increasing in complexity, information and other aspects of causality in several dimensions. Their epistemology is not supported by material, algorithms as in the causality of determinism. They do point to a causality based on information, unique processes and an explosion of design in living things, behavior and consciousness leading to other causalities in the area of transcendental causes that is not explained by emergence/self-organization. From this I see a vision of upward ascendance.
What are the compounding levels of organization, platforms, an inventive system. This is an acceleration of new platforms on higher levels 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 from new causality working in the sphere of information, ideas, ideology, transcendent values and religion. Why have homo sapiens exhibited, throughout their history, an inherent, increasing drive to address the ultimate questions of the third paradigm?
To understand this overview, I must be specific and conceptualize properties of increasing complexity by using certain terms. These terms, in this context, have a meaning unique to emergence and self-organization.
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. Life is a wholly new platform. 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. consciousness is a higher level new platform. Formal education, religions, empires and countries, ideology and movements are even higher platforms.
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. This is similar to the outcome to invention and organized scientific research.
Ascendance – Ascendence points to a pattern of many complex precursors converging on an outcome that is far from deductive or likely. and a causality beyond the first two paradigms. 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, ascending in potential and the new appearances set the stage for the next level. I compare this inventiveness and hint of non-accidental manifestation to 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 with a deeper understanding, at a higher level, than the underlying principles?
There are several dimensions of the total history of ascendence as it relates to humans.
There is an acceleration in the elements of our present universe and our experience in it, if you consider its totality, and if you concentrate on mans view/vision. Actually, we can’t help ourselves. The changes that are familiar to an astro-physicist took place over billions of years. The appearance of life in the last 100’s of millions of years. The appearance of homo sapiens, in the order of magnitude of 100,000 years, language and writing, the appearance of societies above the level of a troop of food gatherers, 30,000 or 12, 000 years. The industrial revolution the last 300 years.
Beginnings of life were likely 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.
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. A wildy shared sense of morality/justice and a sense of the sacred. 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.
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? The behavioral sciences have universally accepted Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs a basic structured view of our drives and needs: – Physiological, Safety, Belonging and Love, Esteem, Cognitive, Aesthetic, Self-actualization, and finally Transcendence .
The human spirit 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.
I have a visualization that seems to highlight a higher, or highest level within the human sphere of causality beyond the first two within our shared, experience. Hold up your hand with the thumb pointed down, the spread fingers pointing upward. The fingers represent how our current international power politics actually work. They represent facets of power: Military and Political Police – Money – Culture of Power – Terror/ Fear. This is like Real-Politic: “Real-Politik suggests a pragmatic, no-nonsense view and with little regard for ethical considerations.”, They are irresistible. This is how things actually work. When I try to be my most realistic, I concede to this view. The thumb pointed down refers to a pivot point. It seems unlikely, even impossible but certain counter- people and movements that were inspired by the sphere of the third paradigm, were a pivot point., They alone were the fixed point and all the above immovable drivers had to shift and rotate while they, at a pivot point, were immovable and persisted. Jesus Christ, Gandi, Martin Luther King. How could they start with no power, no force, no money and use their vision to start changes that would persist for generations to come and to this day. What is this causality?
There is, of course, ordinary people who do the same on a single person scale. For example: the people who took vows of poverty and devoted their entire lives to religous-inspred commitment to education. These are the people who educated me.
Ascendance:
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. Beyond the increasing speed of changes, over eons, there is a qualitative upward direction in capabilities and processes that point to dualism of matter, and mind that supports speculation about the necessity of a design by an intelligent being.
The complete ascendance described here is a convergence that could not happen unless it was subservient to an initial intent.
Causality – First, you have a vision of the whole design.- Second that you plan and then implement all steps needed to converge on the ultimate outcome. Stephen Meyer has bought this into focus in his books. How could all the complicated, unlikely precursors come together to produce the highest levels of human ascendance, consciousness, transcendence or the physical universe to support this without the intelligence and design to envision the final outcome. There is no intermediate support for they final outcome. It can be shown mathematically that changes to elements, at random, would undermine, outnumber massively, any progress.
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. This, at the top of ascendance would reflect on the mind of God as the third paradigm.
Even in a secular based system, 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,especially including common man/women who 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.
Back in 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, as my wont, 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.“.
To reply with an email, use: James.Sullivan@thethirdmillennium.com
Additional Topics:
These are an amplification on previous discussions.
The Three Body Problem and the Limits of Determinism
Where do the limits of exclusive determinism start. Contrary to the La Place’s conjecture, which was later expanded to a widely held materialistic philosophy, It turns out it is closer than anyone thinks, and probably everywhere. 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 science and mathematics, by three or more planets that are gravitationally interconnected. I see an overall conclusion 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 is mixed into the total causality and is also almost everywhere, we now know that determinism alone is very rare. We live in a deterministic and complex universe.
Confirming the nature of determinism as a cause vs Self-organization as a separate type of cause
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
ChatGPT 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, 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.
(By the way, as a check, I tried the same question in another AI: Claude and got essentially the same 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.
ChatGPT 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
An attempt to explain why the universe does not need a cause.
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 pure, cosmic 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?” In one attempt, 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 and logical 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 startup tick “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.
There is a meaning in cosmology of singularity to mean a unique condition and starting point. It has also been used to 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 that you do not have to consider cause!
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 that very intelligent people like them do not give any credence to 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 logical proof .
I will not sum up this presentation. It would bring out an unseemly sarcasm and I strictly avoid that.
To reply with an email, use: James.Sullivan@thethirdmillennium.com
Recent Comments