If an Impact Destroyed Earth, would 'God' Care?

On Mar 7, 12:02*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
"tension_on_the_wire" wrote in message

...
On Mar 4, 7:40 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:

To the very core, it's randomness that is the source of all Creation.

After all, a totally disordered or random system has as it's future
only one possible direction, towards more order. As is shown in the
study of random boolean networks.
I'm afraid your basic premise is incorrect. *The system to which you
are assigning a random state is one made of atoms.

From a reductionist frame of reference that would be correct, all of what
you say is correct. But as I said at the start, I was talking about a system
perspective. Where order and disorder are defined relative the....output
of the system, it's global behavior. Not from the part or component
properties. So from a system perspective order and chaos, or simple
vs complex has an entirely different meaning.

You're still using a linear perspective where order vs complexity
is measured, say, on a sliding scale from zero to infinity
A non-linear frame would call complex the place where simple
and chaotic behavior transitions from one to the other. Such
as the very narrow temp range where water is transitioning
to vapor. That is the highest level of complexity, at that transition
point. Either opposite possibility, water /or/ vapor, is considered
simple by comparison to the behavior /at/ the point the system
changes state. *This is because at the transition point the behavior
is a combination of the two states of matter, requiring both
fields of science at once to describe the whole. Once on either
side of the transition, only one field is needed so to speak.
So simplicity is found in either the static or chaotic realms, and
complexity is found when the system is equally dominated
by both types of behavior....at...the transition point from
simple to chaotic.

It's at this very narrow transition point where spontaneous order emerges..
Requiring a system pushed far from equilibrium, just far enough to persistently
reside near this delicate phase transition. And pushed usually by random
interactions from outside systems. This narrow transition point is commonly
called the Edge of Chaos.

Perturbation and Transients - The Edge of Chaoshttp://www.calresco.org/perturb.htm
Attractors everywhere - Order from Chaoshttp://www.calresco.org/attract.htm

linear frame of reference (part perspective)

order(simple) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *chaotic(complex)

* * * * * 0 ---------------- * * ------------ Infinity

in a non-linear frame of reference (system perspective) becomes

* * * * * * 0---------- * * * * infinity * * * * * * * ------- * 0
* * * * * *simple------ * * * *complex * * * * * *---------simple
* * * * * *static ------- * * * *dynamic * * * * * *--------chaotic
* * * * * *solid ------- * * * * liquid * * * * * * * *--------- gas
* * * classical motion * *thermodynamics * * *quantum motion

So in this view the highest level of complexity is at the point where the
system is a combination of both behaviors or states. And also at it's
lowest ability to quantify. At the edge. where both classical and quantum
like behaviors are entangled.

*When it comes to
order and chaos, atoms tend to follow the laws of thermodynamics, not
the behavior of random boolean networks.

Well, again you're right, but boolean networks describe the behavior of
the ...output... of complex adaptive systems, of which thermodynamics
is but the simplest example.

"A Boolean network has 2N possible states. Sooner or later it will reach
a previously visited state, and thus, since the dynamics are deterministic, fall
into an attractor."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_network

An attractor, meaning cyclic behavior, spontaneously emerges.
Cyclic behavior is a greater level of order than totally random.

*And the laws of
thermodynamics are pretty clear about the fact that order begets chaos
in closed systems, and it is irrelevant whether you are examining very
small molecular systems or those of great big astronomical bodies.
The concept of absolute zero, in heat measurement, describes exactly
what happens in a closed system which is allowed to run down to total
chaos and zero order. *Those systems do not reassemble themselves
spontaneously into ordered systems.

But your closed system with zero order is my static attractor.
Which could be described like spinning a ball inside a bowl.
Sooner or later it comes to rest at the bottom, this is also
called subcritical behavior. As opposed to supercritical behavior
like a gas dissipating. Or as in gravity vs cosmic expansion.

Show me at least one example
where this is not the case and I'll be happy to retract.

How many examples do you want?
When a static system finds itself in an unstable equilibrium (complex)
relationship with its chaotic attractor. Then often a third type
of behavior spontaneously emerges, called dynamic.

As in... * * solid * * * * * * * * * * * *liquid * * * * * * * * gas
* * * * * * * * static * * * * * * * * * *dynamic * * * * * * * chaotic
* * * * * * *particle motion * * thermodynamics * * quantum motion
* * * * * * * *rule of law * * * * * *democracy * * * * *freedom
* * * * * * * * *genetics * * * * * * natural selection * * *mutation
* * * * * * * *knowledge * * * * * * genius * * * * * * * * imagination
* * * * * * * * producer * * * * * * * market * * * * * * * consumer
* * * * * * * * *science * * * * * * * * *art * * * * * * * * * *
religion
* * * * * * * * *matter * * * * * * * * * *light * * * * * * * * *energy

* * * * * * pre-invasion Iraq * * democratic Iraq * * *post-invasion Iraq

When a system is dominated by /either/ the static or chaotic attractor, it's
behavior is short lived and tragic. But, as boolean networks show, and as
any good intuition knows, these opposites tend to attract each other
..they cross paths.. sooner or later. Then life has it's chance.
The middle or complex dynamic realms are all emergent. They
are all spontaneous creations of the combination of static and
chaotic system behavior. *Or edge states.

You see, a non linear frame of reference provides the essential ability
to describe.....every discipline...within a single mathematics.

Even the disciplines or art and religion are now under the gun of modern
mathematics. Once you learn the universal frame of reference of
complexity science.

And you know what, suddenly the commonalties among all the
countless disciplines become easy to see. There is a simplicity
to our reality that can't be seen from a reductionist or from the
input side of reality. You have to inverse the initial frame
of our scientific method, and /start with the output/ of the whole.


I've read your last two posts carefully, and you are making some
useful if obvious observations. However, would it not also follow by
your reasoning that the most fertile ground for further progress lies
at the interface between the reductionist and holistic paradigms,
rather than in one or the other?

Just trying to follow your teachings.....:-)

-tg





For instance, the behavior or output of life tends to follow power law
relationships, which in essence is really just another inverse-square law..
It's not a coincidence that fitness peak look a lot like gravity wells.

Life is no more a fluke than a black hole.

Dynamics of Complex Systems
Full online texthttp://necsi.org/publications/dcs/

--tension

wrote in message
...
On Mar 7, 12:02 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
"tension_on_the_wire" wrote in message

...
On Mar 4, 7:40 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:

I've read your last two posts carefully, and you are making some
useful if obvious observations.


It's hard to tell who's reading, sometimes I get rather repetitive.
And sorry in advance for going on too long below~
I just love ranting about this stuff.


However, would it not also follow by
your reasoning that the most fertile ground for further progress lies
at the interface between the reductionist and holistic paradigms,
rather than in one or the other?


Exactly! Neither frame of reference should be used in isolation.
But it's more a matter of which one do we start with? Normally
we begin by detailing the components first, in order to understand
a system later. In a complexity approach that would be reversed.

Let the system output tell us what the components are doing.

And here's why an objective approach, or reducing to parts first
is so futile in understanding the real world or the more complicated.

In a highly evolved complex adaptive system, such as life, the
components of that system display fractal behavior. The
connectivity between the components become fractional
and impossible to quantify due to the high level of connections.
The components 'tremble' in the jargon. Or behave as a wave, not a particle.
While the whole displays predictable and stable behavior.
It self tunes and creates 'as if by invisible hands'.

Only be treating a part in isolation can it be detailed, even then
it becomes futile of course from the uncertainty principle.
In short, the less a component is connected to the whole, the
more it can be detailed for ...objective...repeatable methods.

Objective methods then will only work in with static /or/ chaotic
behavior. /Either/ classical or quantum like motion can be
detailed objectively. Life/intelligence exists in the complex, as far
from either of those opposite extremes as possible. And the
butterfly effect means that we can't possibly hope to
extrapolate from the part to the whole.

So only subjective methods could hope to make progress with
questions of the more complicated, or questions of 'meaning'.

For the simple, little changing and uninteresting aspects of the universe
we should /start/ with objective methods. For the complicated, for life
and intelligence we should start with a systems approach first.

Then let our problem solving method alternate between the two
as we shift scales from components to the whole. Keeping the
method of understanding with one foot in each camp as you
suggest.

But here's the rub, where most jump off. Starting with systems first
means shifting to a subjective approach. Since all things are
connected, defining system boundaries becomes subjective
and arbitrary. So the observer is always ....included... in the
observations as a result of making this decision. Two different
observers could define a rock as either a component to a larger
system, or as a system in itself. Which is the case must be defined
for subjective observations to work.

But most won't sit still long enough to learn how subjective methods
can be 'science'. And it can be for the simple reason that anything
is defined in terms of itself, not other things. Definitions are made
relative to the level of complexity displayed, which is why I
went to the trouble to sketch the new frame out. By beginning
in the complex realm, such as the delicate temperature range where
water is just turning to vapor, even the slightest change in conditions
can cause a ....dramatic....change in the system. A slight change
away from complex means the whole undergoes a
/complete change in state./

/Any two observers/ can easily see this dramatic change and agree the
system is now dominated by either the static or chaotic attractors.

This allows /subjective/ methods to be entirely valid, accurate and repeatable.
Because our frame is designed around far from equilibrium, at the complex.

Because the initial frame of reference has been inversed, everything else
that follows must also reflect this change.
For instance. Instead of being given some problem to solve, "find the
best answer?". We have in our hands the abstract template of a
complex adaptive system. And we assume that this ....natural....system
already defines the best possible solution to any given problem.
As such an evolving system is one which spontaneously adapts, evolves
and self organizes. And is responsible for all we are and see.

By starting with a holistic approach, we have....THE RIGHT ANSWER
in advance....in abstract...to any given problem before we even begin.
We use that template and compare it to the actual for the purposes of
diagnosing what to do next, how to build or return some process to a
high level of complexity or...ability to self organize.

I've only done this exercise once in a serious way. Translate the abstract
in a real world goal (not problem solving, again the inverse of classical).

The goal was to create the ideal stock trading system using these concepts.

The 'correct answer' these concepts give in advance is easy and the
same for any other real world goal.

The best stock trading system should be found in the complex realm.

It should be in a trading system where neither static or chaotic types
of analysis dominate, but both at once. At the 'edge'.

Like I said, the initial frame change carries throughout, so we start with the
......general...in order to define the specific. Against all classical instincts.

The edge is found when some near equilibrium system has been disturbed
and pushed to the brink of it's own 'change in state'. Such as boiling or
going bankrupt. The ideal would be to find a system pushed just to it's
breaking
point, but not quite. Then we would know what to expect by our knowledge
of the general behavior of edge systems. We search for stock market for
a stock following this universal edge behavior.

TOWARD THE 'EDGE METHODOLOGY' FOR COMPLEX SYSTEMS SIMULATION
http://www.calresco.org/milov/ymtemcss.htm
Pertubations and transients
http://www.calresco.org/perturb.htm

So we define current stock trading systems into either static or chaotic types.
Static is like Newtonian motion, simple and accurate rules, short time frames.
Chaotic realm is like quantum motion, statistical methods for large numbers and
long time frames. Or, day traders reflect static methods, making long-term
predictions is the chaotic realm. So, the ideal system, as you said so
well at the top, should be both and neither.

The complex realm for time frames (system boundary or pattern/transient length)
should be between the day traders and longs. It should be more than
minutes and hours (day traders) but less than months and years (longs)
So the ideal pattern or transient length should be days and weeks.
In practice this means the ideal pattern should exist from roughly
a week to a month....ten days.

The other variables to define the complex realm for would be of course.

Price (initial and final)
volume ( initial and final)
Rate of change of price
Rate of change of volume.

They should all be midway between the opposites in possibility (complex)
as observed in the system in question....the practical not abstract limits.
A template or chart can be drawn when all primary system variables
are in the complex realm. This gives what should be the ideal chart
in terms of predictability, return and efficiency.

For instance, the complex realm for stock price should be defined
as always, midway between static and chaotic behavior. The
penny stocks are one extreme (chaotic) the blue-chips the
opposite extreme. By observing stock behavior, this places
a complex stock price above $2 and below say $10 which typically
defines a stable company.

And so on and so on. Obviously, these are all highly subjective
quantification's.
YET....in the end they all constrain each other and produce a highly specific
chart. Subjective methods, from a holistic frame, can be as accurate
and consistent as needed.

In the end, it draws a chart that shows a stock behavior driven by
.....complexity....uncertainty. Or a stock behavior driven by trader
psychology, not stock specifics.

Such 'uncertainty' driven or complex stocks all behave pretty much the same way.
A very recognizable pattern. Which makes them easy to predict
and profitable too, as the complex realm defines the most volatile
spot of all. Just as with water about to boil, or a cloud.The complex realm
is where volatility and predictability combine to simultaneous maximums.

The Holy Grail imho.

And since a complex stock behavior is driven by fear, not by internal company
specifics, it's a very efficient trading system, the less you know about the
internal
details the better, as in a complex system the components 'tremble' and can't
be used for prediction anyway, so why bother. The entire stock market just
experienced this effect, as complexity resides in the one place precision cannot
be found. This translates to a maximum level of uncertainty, and a classic
panic sell. Once a panic has happened, there's usually a very predictable
bounce coming.

Ten percent a week is pretty easy after some practice.




Just trying to follow your teachings.....:-)

-tg








For instance, the behavior or output of life tends to follow power law
relationships, which in essence is really just another inverse-square law.
It's not a coincidence that fitness peak look a lot like gravity wells.

Life is no more a fluke than a black hole.

Dynamics of Complex Systems
Full online texthttp://necsi.org/publications/dcs/

--tension

"Immortalist" wrote in message
...
On Mar 4, 7:40 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
"Apparently with no surprise
To any happy flower,
The frost beheads it at its play
In accidental power.

The blond assassin passes on,
The sun proceeds unmoved
To measure off another day
For an approving God."

Nope!

Not at all, I believe if there is a god, 'He' would approve.


By claiming that this god would approve you go further than your
argument allows with the given information. Just saying "if there is a
god" does not imply that it would either approve or not. If you are
implying the Judeo-Christian god you should say so, but with the
information you give we wouldn't know if it was Hindu or Chinese gods.
If you think to imply the Judeo-Christian god as the default unspoken
one, then your position is overly Eurocentric.

.......................



I guess what I really meant was, would the destruction of earth have
effects beyond the local, and would the effects be negative or positive?

On Mar 4, 7:40*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
* "Apparently with no surprise
* * To any happy flower,
* * The frost beheads it at its play
* * In accidental power.

* * *The blond assassin passes on,
* * *The sun proceeds unmoved
* * * To measure off another day
* * * For an approving God."

Nope!

Not at all, I believe if there is a god, 'He' would approve.

As the primary driving force for the evolution of all things is change.
The basic element of life and the universe is found in ...far...from
equilibrium systems, not near equilibrium. *Events...random events
are required to fuel the dynamics needed to initiate self organizing
or evolving systems which define our material and living reality.

To the very core, it's randomness that is the source of all Creation.

After all, a totally disordered or random system has as it's future
only one possible direction, towards more order. As is shown in the
study of random boolean networks. Any random disturbance ...in a totally
disordered system...can only create more order than what existed before.
Cyclic order emerges spontaneously from complete disorder. So you see
chaos, as an initial condition and constant companion, is required to give
the universe a non-random future, an ....evolving future.

Where life is possible.

The notion of chaos or randomness should not be seen as an
obstacle to life and evolution, but as the ultimate impetus of
evolution or 'Creation'.

Pity, no tragically, our so-called modern sciences have been designed
around finding detailed certainty needed to make precise predictions.
When the simple truth of our universe is that the source of all existence
resides at the exact opposite of that, where certainty and predictability
are at minimum....randomness, chaos or complexity.

The bulk of our modern science is as backwards, as dark-age, as is
scientifically possible. Things like these super colliders, which seek
to take reducing to parts, or precision, to their limit, will serve as the
ultimate example of the complete backwardness of scientific thought today..

Incredible monuments to our ignorance of Nature and it's simplicity.

The 'answers' are found in clouds of uncertainty, not particles of precision.
Where one can't tell if it behaves as a wave or a particle, where neither
classical or quantum methods can fully describe the whole.
But only both at the same time.
As in a cloud, light or an emotion.

The ultimate 'equation' for reality is found in the one and only place
where no equation is possible.

That has to be the ultimate initial assumption of science.

Where science, religion and art are all one-in-the-same.
Without a single scientific language that can deal with all three
with equal consistency, we'll never crawl out of the cave.
Any one of them alone is fundamentally incomplete.

Dynamics of Complex Systems
Full online texthttp://necsi.org/publications/dcs/

* * * "Perception of an
* * * Object costs
* * * Precise the Object's loss.
* * * Perception in itself a gain
* * * Replying to its price;
* * * The Object Absolute is nought,
* * * Perception sets it fair,
* * * And then upbraids a Perfectness
* * * That situates so far."

Thanks for reading

Jonathan

Poems by E Dickinson

*s

Our cave crawling expertise may once again become our only salvation.

Any god worth half their salt would only have to laugh that the mess
we've made of Eden.

The primary flatulence of Earth is that of our hydrogen and helium,
and if we keep wasting it is why humanity will have failed the most
basic test of time (aka survival).

Since you and most others don't know what a magnetosphere is, there's
no point in telling you that it has been failing us by -.05%/year, and
that the consequences are not insignificant.

Too bad Earth doesn't have a robust atmosphere and the geothermally
active surface that Venus does. Too bad we're not smart enough to go
to the planet Venus, much less to our physically dark Selene/moon.
We're so pathetic that we can't even manage to accomplish the Selene
L1 as a robotic platform of science, astronomy and SETI/OSETI
capability. Are we dumb, or what?

~ BG

On Mar 10, 6:22*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
"Immortalist" wrote in message

...
On Mar 4, 7:40 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:

"Apparently with no surprise
To any happy flower,
The frost beheads it at its play
In accidental power.

The blond assassin passes on,
The sun proceeds unmoved
To measure off another day
For an approving God."

Nope!

Not at all, I believe if there is a god, 'He' would approve.

By claiming that this god would approve you go further than your
argument allows with the given information. Just saying "if there is a
god" does not imply that it would either approve or not. If you are
implying the Judeo-Christian god you should say so, but with the
information you give we wouldn't know if it was Hindu or Chinese gods.
If you think to imply the Judeo-Christian god as the default unspoken
one, then your position is overly Eurocentric.

......................

I guess what I really meant was, would the destruction of earth have
effects beyond the local, and would the effects be negative or positive?

Once the purely destructive species of humanity is removed from Earth,
all things important to the local environment will recover and survive
far better than with our help. Earth could once again become safely
visited by ETs.

It would be nice to find a new Eden with all but humans, similar to
the way Earth was as of prior to the last ice age this planet now w/
moon is ever going to see.

~ BG

wrote in message
...

Problem there my friend, there was never any Ice Ages

This from the imbecile who claims :

31 Jan 06 (Turd Speak):
Indeed, the Land Of *******s was born from the sea
only 11 700 years ago ?... a mere few days after the
Moon struck the Earth just a bit East of it,

On Mar 4, 8:40 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:

Nope!

Not at all, I believe if there is a god, 'He' would approve.

If there is a god, He would be the cause of it.

Why would "God" care? On the conventional view, he'd have known that
it would happen at the very beginning of his existence and would
likewise be its author.

It would be all part of some inscrutable plan beyond the wisdom of
humans to comprehend. Acts of "God" are like that.

Fran

On Mar 16, 1:12*am, wrote:
HONOUR TO OUR LOVING CELTIC GOD !

LET IT BE !.

As long as you don't surrender again Frenchman!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts#Origins

On Mar 16, 5:04*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
wrote:
LET'S PRAY NOW !
( 17 th Century Holy Scottish Druid of Inverness 's prayer *)

Me, I think I'll just drink some Guinness and **** on a tree, like a
Orangeman's dog would.
Shar, and if I won't. ;-)

Pat Flannery

It's good for the tree except for all the salts in the urine.