When Worlds Collide

"george" wrote in message
news:W1xrd.701208$8_6.529964@attbi_s04...
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-wet113004.php

Two hundred and fifty million years ago, ninety percent of marine species
disappeared and life on land suffered greatly during the world's largest mass
extinction.


This kind of research demonstrates the true ignorance
of the human race and objective science in general.


Scene.....

Someone is slowly pouring sand onto a sand pile, eventually
the sand becomes too steep and an avalanche occurs.


Questions.

1) Does anyone really care ...exactly... which grain of sand was
responsible for the avalanche?

2) Or should we try to figure out how to predict the avalanche
so we can get the flippin 'ell out of the way or prevent them?


This 'science' paper posted by George cares about question one, which
event...precisely... is responsible for some extinction event.
Which is a question only the galactically stupid would care to answer.
Or children playing in a sandbox. Which fits you? Without knowing
the following concepts, none of you can claim to have even a /beginning/
understanding of nature or reality.


Behold the secret of life, the universe and everything


"I have watched the long gestation of Investigations with some
apprehension but more anticipation. Its reach is gigantic, from the most
primitive origins of life to the macroeconomics of innovation. What
comes up in its grasp is original and stimulating. This is a must read
for anyone interested in the outer edges of understanding of the world
around us."--Philip Anderson, Nobel Laureate, Princeton University"




The Fourth Law of Thermodynamics


"Tentative beginning image: Adaptive Agents in ecosystems and econosystems
must create coevolutionarily constructable systems. To do so, such agents
tune internal redundancy and couplings with one another to achieve this.
In doing so, such systems may, as if by an invisible hand, generically tune
to a self organized critical state."




INVESTIGATIONS
THE NATURE OF AUTONOMOUS AGENTS
AND THE WORLDS THEY MUTUALLY CREATE
STUART A. KAUFFMAN
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/ka...Lecture-1.html
http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/ka...tigations.html

SCOPE OF LECTURES: Search for a possible "fourth law"
of Thermodynamics for Non-Equilibrium Systems.

Aim of Lecture 1: Coevolutionarily constructable communities
of adaptive entities tune the structure and couplings of their
"fitness landscapes" to a self-organized critical state.


(selected excerpts)


1.6) INTERLUDE 2: SELF ORGANIZED CRITICALITY.


Bak, Teng, and Wiesenfeld proposed a general model of self organized
critical systems. The canonical example is a table onto which sand is continuously
and slowly poured. As the sand piles up to its rest angle, sand slides, or
avalanches, begin to occur. As sand is added at a steady rate, one considers
the size distribution of the avalanches. Many small avalanches and few large
avalanches occur. If one plots the logarithm of the number of avalanches at
each size on the ordinate and the logarithm of the size of the avalanche on
the abscissa one obtains a straight line sloping down to the right. Thus, the
size distribution is a power-law, frequency as a function of size of avalanche.


Bak and coworkers argue that many phenomena are self-organized critical.
Power-law distributions arise at phase transitions, but typically require tuning
of parameters to achieve the phase transition. Here, no external tuning of
parameters is required. The system self organizes to a critical, poised, state.


Bak and coworkers assemble evidence that earthquakes, forest fire models, the
game of life, and other systems exhibit self-organized critical behavior.



1.7) SECOND CLUE ABOUT HOW ORGANISMS CONTROL THE
STRUCTURE OF THEIR SEARCH SPACES:


COEVOLUTION: ORDER, CHAOS, AND COEVOLUTION TO
THE EDGE OF CHAOS.


i. Coevolution. The frog and the fly. Adaptive moves by the frog - sticky tongue
- alter the fitness of the fly and DEFORM its landscape. Fly should develop
slippery feet, sticky-stuff desolver, ...


As frog population climbs towards the peaks of the frog landscape, the fly
landscape deforms, and vice versa. Coupled deforming landscapes.


Unlike a fixed fitness landscape with a potential function - fitness, hence
with local peaks as point attractors, coevolutionary systems are general
dynamical systems. Such systems may have point attractors - an
Ordered Regime, or a Chaotic Regime.


ii. The two major regimes:


a. Evolutionary stable strategies - the ordered regime. Here, coevolving
partners climb to local peaks that are MUTUALLY CONSISTENT.
Each species, "player" is better off not moving as long as other "players"
do not move. Analog of Nash Equilibrium in game theory, here with
constraint on search distance from current position. ESS, Evolutionary
Stable Strategies, adds condition of non-invadability by other variants.


b. The Red Queen - the chaotic regime.


Here, each coevolving partner chases peaks that move away from it faster
than it can climb, each clambering forever uphill on deforming landscapes.
The total system of species - "players" - flows through large regions of
space of possibilities.


iii. NKCS Model of Coevolving Species.


a. Each species "lives" on an NK landscape, and is assumed to be isogenic
- hence occupies a single point on the landscape.


b. NK landscapes of each species is coupled to that of S other species.
For each coupled pair, say frog and fly, each of the N sites in the frog is
affected by K sites within the frog, and by "C" sites within the fly.
Reciprocally, each site in the fly is affected by K sites within the fly
and C sites within the frog. The effects are modeled by expanding the
random fitness function of each site in the frog to look not only at the
alleles of its K internal sites but the corresponding alleles of the C sites
of the fly (and vice versa). Random fitness values between 0.0 and
1.0 are added to these new combinations. Thus, when the fly, moves
on its landscape by changing the allele at one site, that change affects
the fitness contributions of C sites in the frog. Adaptive moves by flies
deform the landscape of the frog population, and vice versa.


c. The ordered regime: When K is large relative to the product C x S,
a model ecosystem of S species reaches a "Nash Equilibrium" where
each species attains a local peak and is better off not moving to any
1-mutant variant as long as the others do not move. This is the
analogue of an ESS.


d. The chaotic regime: When K is small relative to the product of
C x S, all species continue to be able to find fitter 1-mutant variants.
The total system flows through the product space of the NK
"genotypes" over very long times.


e. The Coevolutionary Edge of Chaos. When the parameters of the
NKCS model are tuned, for example, N, C, and S are held constant,
and K is varied from 0 to N - 1, the coevolutionary system is initially
in the ORDERED REGIME then switches to the CHAOTIC REGIME
at a critical value of K, Kcrit.


Thus, the coevolutionary system passes a PHASE TRANSITION
BETWEEN ORDER AND CHAOS - the EDGE OF CHAOS.


1) Evidence for the edge of chaos: Time for model ecosystem to
"freeze" onto Nash equilibrium very very long (unobservable) for
K Kcrit. Time to freeze is short for K Kcrit. System is freezing
slowly over observed time scale at Kcrit. (Note relevance of time
scale of observation here.)


f. The Highest Mean Fitness is Found at the Edge of Chaos!


1) As K increases from 0 to N - 1, fitness increases then decreases.
Maximum occurs just when system begins to freeze slowly over
observed time scale.


iv. Coevolution to the Edge of Chaos: Evidence of a Self-Organized
Critical State as Attractor.


a. Model the evolution of coevolution by generalizing NKCS model
to allow species to alter ruggedness of their own landscape by increasing
or decreasing K, and to invade one another's "niches."


b. At each moment, for each species, one of four things may happen: 1.
Species remains unchanged in genotype. 2. Species makes an adaptive
move to a fitter 1-mutant variant. 3. Species increases or decreases K
of all N genes by 1. 4. Another species, godzilla, sends a copy, godzilla
prime, to try to invade species niche by playing with species S neighbors.


c. At each moment, "fittest thing" happens. Thus, species may remain
unchanged, move ON its landscape, Change Ruggedness of landscape.
Or, if godzilla prime plays better with S neighbors, the "home" species
is declared extinct, and godzilla prime is instantiated as a new species
in that niche.


Note that invasion by species allows those with good landscape ruggedness,
K, to reproduce - godzilla has a daughter species, godzilla prime.
So landscape ruggedness can itself evolve via replicators.
Thus, landscape ruggedness can evolve without "group
selection" and hence


AS IF BY AN INVISIBLE HAND!


Note too that species number is held fixed. Each extinction event is
matched by a corresponding speciation event.


d. Expectation of AVALANCHES OF EXTINCTION EVENTS.
When godzilla prime invades a niche, its own fitness in the new niche
is likely to be low. In addition, the S partners of the now extinct species
were "used to" playing with it, not with godzilla prime. They are likely
to be less fit than before when playing with godzilla prime. Thus, godzilla
prime and its S partners are likely to be less fit, so more likely to be
INVADABLE by other species. Hence we expect avalanches of
extinction events propagating from godzilla prime.


e. Results show:


1) That K does evolve to an INTERMEDIATE VALUE, OR RUGGEDNESS
then fluctuate in a narrow band. Thus landscape smoothness is itself evolvable,
as if by an invisible hand.


2) That mean fitness increases, (and may be maximized).


3) That the probability of extinction DECREASES, (and may be minimized).


4) Many small and fewer large AVALANCHES of extinction events
propagate through the system.


5) The extinction avalanches show a power-law distribution.
Frequency of avalanches at a given size (number of species that
went extinct in avalanche) decreases as a power of the size
of the extinction "event."



1.8) CONCLUSIONS:


This is the first model hinting that a coevolutionary system, in which selection
acts only at the level of the INDIVIDUAL, hence, as if by an invisible hand,
can tune landscape smoothness to an intermediate value. Organisms can
therefore plausibly tune the statistical structure of their search spaces!


This is the first hint that such a system may achieve an analogue of a
"self organized critical state."


This is therefore, a first hint that such a self organized critical state may
be a GENERAL attractor for complex adaptive systems able to tune
the structure and couplings among their landscapes..

This tentative attractor will emerge as part of the candidate "law"
for thermodynamically open, self-constructing, coevolutionarily
assemblable systems.





Jonathan

s

"jonathan" wrote in message ...
"george" wrote in message
news:W1xrd.701208$8_6.529964@attbi_s04...
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-wet113004.php

Two hundred and fifty million years ago, ninety percent of marine species
disappeared and life on land suffered greatly during the world's largest mass
extinction.


This kind of research demonstrates the true ignorance
of the human race and objective science in general.


Hang on Jonathon, don't you know 'George' is becoming a closet
catastrophist, and is now taking to surreptitious advertisement of his
conversion? Before long he'll be rabid and need calming. You watch.
He's seen the mounting web-entries on Earth expansion. He knows now
in ways he didn't before, that watching his fingernails grow is not
really the key to understanding the workings of the world about him.
He knows his self-organisation is critical and is trying to do
something about it. It's really quite commendable. He'll get there,
with help, ...and the litter he's lugging is bound to follow.

It's Aidan you want to talk to about sand... He gets paid for it.

"don findlay" wrote in message
om...
"jonathan" wrote in message ...
"george" wrote in message
news:W1xrd.701208$8_6.529964@attbi_s04...
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-wet113004.php

Two hundred and fifty million years ago, ninety percent of marine species
disappeared and life on land suffered greatly during the world's largest mass
extinction.


This kind of research demonstrates the true ignorance
of the human race and objective science in general.


Hang on Jonathon, don't you know 'George' is becoming a closet
catastrophist, and is now taking to surreptitious advertisement of his
conversion?


Catastrophes are inevitable, they behave like an earthquake.
With the rare large ones, followed by many small ones.
Like a sand pile that's become too steep. Or a
hurricane, a riot, evolution or great discoveries. Creation
occurs with a few very large steps and countless
little ones.


Before long he'll be rabid and need calming. You watch.
He's seen the mounting web-entries on Earth expansion. He knows now
in ways he didn't before, that watching his fingernails grow is not
really the key to understanding the workings of the world about him.
He knows his self-organization is critical and is trying to do
something about it. It's really quite commendable. He'll get there,
with help, ...and the litter he's lugging is bound to follow.

It's Aidan you want to talk to about sand... He gets paid for it.



I have nothing against that kind of research George was
posting, I find history interesting also. I just see that
as an exercise in futility. You have to visualize an organized
system like that narrow point where water is just turning
into steam, and back again. So that it's not really
either. The /components/ of a self-organized ecosystem
would behave in the same way, chaotically.
Simplicity and predictability are only found
in the system as a whole.

So reducing to components to figure 'things' out
produces a contradiction. An attempt at precisely
determining the chaotic. In the end one is doomed
to conclude everything is ultimately 'uncertain'.
The uncertainty principle is the result of observing
through reductionism, not a property of nature.

It's the same thing with the duality of light.
A natural system is an unstable equilibrium
between static and chaotic forms. So when
breaking into components/measuring it become
one or the other. In the case of light either a
particle or wave. When in motion it's both
and neither, like the nearly steaming pot.
Like a cloud.

It's bad enough to try to unravel an existing
system that's at hand, to travel far back in
time, or deep into the sky, compounds this
by leaps and bounds. Inherently chaotic means
inherently error filled. To extrapolate that any
distance at all is futile.

So why do we keep trying?


s

"jonathan" wrote in message ...
"don findlay" wrote in message
om...
"jonathan" wrote in message ...
"george" wrote in message
news:W1xrd.701208$8_6.529964@attbi_s04...
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-wet113004.php

Two hundred and fifty million years ago, ninety percent of marine species
disappeared and life on land suffered greatly during the world's largest mass
extinction.


This kind of research demonstrates the true ignorance
of the human race and objective science in general.


Hang on Jonathon, don't you know 'George' is becoming a closet
catastrophist, and is now taking to surreptitious advertisement of his
conversion?


Catastrophes are inevitable, they behave like an earthquake.
With the rare large ones, followed by many small ones.
Like a sand pile that's become too steep. Or a
hurricane, a riot, evolution or great discoveries. Creation
occurs with a few very large steps and countless
little ones.


Before long he'll be rabid and need calming. You watch.
He's seen the mounting web-entries on Earth expansion. He knows now
in ways he didn't before, that watching his fingernails grow is not
really the key to understanding the workings of the world about him.
He knows his self-organization is critical and is trying to do
something about it. It's really quite commendable. He'll get there,
with help, ...and the litter he's lugging is bound to follow.

It's Aidan you want to talk to about sand... He gets paid for it.



I have nothing against that kind of research George was
posting, I find history interesting also. I just see that
as an exercise in futility.

Well somebody's got to do it. Might as well be 'George'. Though
you'd think with flat Earth and Geocentricism he might be a bit more
circumspect with his 'plate' tectonics. He's leaving out the third
dimension all over again. What a guy, eh?


You have to visualize an organized
system like that narrow point where water is just turning
into steam, and back again. So that it's not really
either. The /components/ of a self-organized ecosystem
would behave in the same way, chaotically.
Simplicity and predictability are only found
in the system as a whole.

So reducing to components to figure 'things' out
produces a contradiction. An attempt at precisely
determining the chaotic. In the end one is doomed
to conclude everything is ultimately 'uncertain'.
The uncertainty principle is the result of observing
through reductionism, not a property of nature.

It's the same thing with the duality of light.
A natural system is an unstable equilibrium
between static and chaotic forms. So when
breaking into components/measuring it become
one or the other. In the case of light either a
particle or wave. When in motion it's both
and neither, like the nearly steaming pot.
Like a cloud.

You mean it is only valid/ only exists when in motion? certainly
adding in the motion makes things take on a completely different
significance.


It's bad enough to try to unravel an existing
system that's at hand, to travel far back in
time, or deep into the sky, compounds this
by leaps and bounds. Inherently chaotic means
inherently error filled. To extrapolate that any
distance at all is futile.

So why do we keep trying?


Well, error is the way we learn, ..error begets change, including that
for the 'better'. Why do we do it? Dunno. Pushing the boundaries
of cosmic mystery or something. Insecurity. Knowing our mortality.
The need to understand in ways that integrate and validate our
experience. An unfortunate consequence of intelligence - the ability
to recognise analogies and put them to use ('useful analogies').
'Unfortunate' because it's bred of dissatisfaction. Maybe it's the
lot of humanity to be grumpy and insecure.. Maybe we weren't meant
to be happy. Why we keep wanting to 'improve' things. Maybe that's
why 'to be happy' is such a sought after goal - and so elusive. I
mean look at George, lugging his popes around. What is there in that
to cheer a bloke up, ...I ask you?

That was a heavy question.





s

"don findlay" wrote in message
om...
"jonathan" wrote in message ...

You have to visualize an organized
system like that narrow point where water is just turning
into steam, and back again. So that it's not really
either. The /components/ of a self-organized ecosystem
would behave in the same way, chaotically.
Simplicity and predictability are only found
in the system as a whole.

So reducing to components to figure 'things' out
produces a contradiction. An attempt at precisely
determining the chaotic. In the end one is doomed
to conclude everything is ultimately 'uncertain'.
The uncertainty principle is the result of observing
through reductionism, not a property of nature.

It's the same thing with the duality of light.
A natural system is an unstable equilibrium
between static and chaotic forms. So when
breaking into components/measuring it become
one or the other. In the case of light either a
particle or wave. When in motion it's both
and neither, like the nearly steaming pot.
Like a cloud.

You mean it is only valid/ only exists when in motion? certainly
adding in the motion makes things take on a completely different
significance.


What I mean is that the most important properties
are displayed only when a system is intact. The
self-tuning ability, and many other emergent system
properties, disappear the instant the system is broken
down to parts. Reductionism and determinism destroy
the primary guiding/organizing forces, it destroys what
is most important in understanding ...why.. things work.
The universal creative force can only be seen in the
whole, not in the parts.

And it's in the emergent properties where the solutions
are to what is wrong with something, and how to
fix it, the solutions to reality and how to change it
for the better.






It's bad enough to try to unravel an existing
system that's at hand, to travel far back in
time, or deep into the sky, compounds this
by leaps and bounds. Inherently chaotic means
inherently error filled. To extrapolate that any
distance at all is futile.

So why do we keep trying?


Well, error is the way we learn, ..error begets change, including that
for the 'better'.


I meant error-filled in that the past does not map
proportionally into the future, that cause doesn't
predict effect at the component level as math
and physics seem so desperate to do.



Why do we do it? Dunno. Pushing the boundaries
of cosmic mystery or something. Insecurity.


Yep, the world is so complex and dynamic, it's comforting
to find simplicity and predictability.


Knowing our mortality.
The need to understand in ways that integrate and validate our
experience. An unfortunate consequence of intelligence - the ability
to recognize analogies and put them to use ('useful analogies').
'Unfortunate' because it's bred of dissatisfaction. Maybe it's the
lot of humanity to be grumpy and insecure.. Maybe we weren't meant
to be happy.


I think happiness can be expressed mathematically.

Happiness is a search algorithm. The variables are
search space and the tools used in searching.
Both the possibility space and tools are immense.

We're all searching for something, so we can
either wander aimlessly about hoping to stumble
into it, or decide in advance and plot a direct path.
In the first choice the direction and tools are unclear
so the search engine is likely to stay put, or just
move back and forth......Unhappy.

The second choice...a lofty goal.. narrows the search space
and tools dramatically. And provides an unending
sequence of adventures, and the need for new
skills, for each sub-goal along the way.

Determinism vs Holism.

Happiness is directly related to the frame of reference
initially chosen for our search. Looking at details first
leads to a disconnect between our nature...searchers
and the results...stuck in neutral.

Looking at the goal first restores the symmetry between
man and nature. So I set a very lofty goal for myself
as the concepts indicate the loftier the goal the more
likely is happiness and success for at least some of
the sub-goals.

I decided my goal was to return the world to Nature.
So that humanity could fulfill it's destiny to swim in beauty
sooner rather than later. I want that reality, I believe
it's possible, as reality is what we make it. We change
reality all the time, so why not make it into a dream.




Why we keep wanting to 'improve' things. Maybe that's
why 'to be happy' is such a sought after goal - and so elusive.


Let me lay out my plan g I intend to see this through
to success.

What does it mean to 'return the world to nature'?
Complexity science is clear on this, nature is a
complex adaptive system, so is democracy.
So a world of free democracies is then the goal.

What is the path to a world of free democracies?
Well, that is easy to see, China is ONE FOURTH
of the world. So changing that one brittle system
can pretty much wrap that goal up in bows.

What is the path to democracy in China?
Rigid systems breed stress as the people are
adaptive while the system is not. They drift apart
over time. Complexity science is all about far
from equilibrium/stressed systems. Creation or
self organization occurs when a system is under
it's maximum stress. Under those conditions a system
is highly sensitive to disturbances. A small disturbance
can cascade throughout the system ala Janet and Justin
at the Super Bowl, a textbook example.

One need only find a critical point, a point where the entire
system is focused at once, within a highly stressed
or censored system. A breast at the Super Bowl.

Or a falun gong protest at the Beijing Olympics in 08.
China fears nothing more than the falun gong movement.
China fears nothing more than rain on their
great parade.

The cliche 'self-fulfilling prophesy' occurs best when
a system is at such a critical point.

So how does one go about creating a credible conspiracy?
Having many people share the same goal, for that
will lead them down the same paths using the same
tools.

So how does one create similar goals in other people?
By convincing them that holism...setting goals...emergent
properties...are the path to happiness.

The circle is complete, which means the goal is
achievable.

A common and effective understanding of reality is
needed, which is lacking in classical methods. Since
classical searches are so wide open and confused
there is little consensus on goals.

It doesn't have to be that way

So how do I convince people complexity science
provides that consensus and common goal?

My first attempt was to build some tangible system
of my own based on these concepts. And test them
out in the real world to see for myself, and then
to demonstrate to others. So I built a very testable
system, a stock trading strategy based on
complexity science. It works great! I'll post the
system here when the time is right. Success there
will mean more money...which means more time
and resources to build my little conspiracy.

As a teaser, look up the ten day chart of ticker
'bits'. Came up on my screener lunch time Tuesday
and what a party it's been this week. I find a couple
of these a month now.

My second attempt is to try to figure out the mystery
of Meridiani. Before long I'll know if that was a
success also, I'm very bullish right now g

I haven't a clue what the next step is, but I'm
confident it'll present itself when the time is right.

I've become a devout optimist since the concepts
I constantly rant about sank in. Anyone would
as they give massive reasons to be so.



mean look at George, lugging his popes around. What is there in that
to cheer a bloke up, ...I ask you?

That was a heavy question.


It is the age-old question. How can one be reborn?
How can one gain a new outlook on life, and a
new cause for being.



"THE Bone that has no marrow;
What ultimate for that?
It is not fit for table,
For beggar, or for cat.

A bone has obligations,
A being has the same;
A marrowless assembly
Is culpabler than shame.

But how shall finished creatures
A function fresh obtain?-
Old Nicodemus' phantom
Confronting us again "



By E Dickinson


s











s

"jonathan" wrote in message ...
"don findlay" wrote in message
om...
"jonathan" wrote in message ...

You have to visualize an organized
system like that narrow point where water is just turning
into steam, and back again. So that it's not really
either. The /components/ of a self-organized ecosystem
would behave in the same way, chaotically.
Simplicity and predictability are only found
in the system as a whole.

So reducing to components to figure 'things' out
produces a contradiction. An attempt at precisely
determining the chaotic. In the end one is doomed
to conclude everything is ultimately 'uncertain'.
The uncertainty principle is the result of observing
through reductionism, not a property of nature.

It's the same thing with the duality of light.
A natural system is an unstable equilibrium
between static and chaotic forms. So when
breaking into components/measuring it become
one or the other. In the case of light either a
particle or wave. When in motion it's both
and neither, like the nearly steaming pot.
Like a cloud.

You mean it is only valid/ only exists when in motion? certainly
adding in the motion makes things take on a completely different
significance.


What I mean is that the most important properties
are displayed only when a system is intact. The
self-tuning ability, and many other emergent system
properties, disappear the instant the system is broken
down to parts. Reductionism and determinism destroy
the primary guiding/organizing forces, it destroys what
is most important in understanding ...why.. things work.
The universal creative force can only be seen in the
whole, not in the parts.

500%. Crazy, isn't it, ...makes you wonder what this reductionist
"real science" and the consensus that goes with it, is all about.


And it's in the emergent properties where the solutions
are to what is wrong with something, and how to
fix it, the solutions to reality and how to change it
for the better.






It's bad enough to try to unravel an existing
system that's at hand, to travel far back in
time, or deep into the sky, compounds this
by leaps and bounds. Inherently chaotic means
inherently error filled. To extrapolate that any
distance at all is futile.

So why do we keep trying?


Well, error is the way we learn, ..error begets change, including that
for the 'better'.


I meant error-filled in that the past does not map
proportionally into the future, that cause doesn't
predict effect at the component level as math
and physics seem so desperate to do.

And so they do... I would put it in the sense that they're always
only partly right, because they're working with fewer parameters than
the whole they will always only be in a 'flat' world, when three
dimensions are needed. Always not quite the full bottle, but
'wet-of-leg' enough, so to speak..


Why do we do it? Dunno. Pushing the boundaries
of cosmic mystery or something. Insecurity.


Yep, the world is so complex and dynamic, it's comforting
to find simplicity and predictability.

Ah yes, but I have a feeling your sense of simplicity comes from
seeing the whole and the way it works, not the simplicity of
anatomical breakdown of the parts, that jigsaw players like. (Been to
the doctors recently?) (now there's an experience in wholism)


Knowing our mortality.
The need to understand in ways that integrate and validate our
experience. An unfortunate consequence of intelligence - the ability
to recognize analogies and put them to use ('useful analogies').
'Unfortunate' because it's bred of dissatisfaction. Maybe it's the
lot of humanity to be grumpy and insecure.. Maybe we weren't meant
to be happy.


I think happiness can be expressed mathematically.

Happiness is a search algorithm. The variables are
search space and the tools used in searching.
Both the possibility space and tools are immense.

We're all searching for something, so we can
either wander aimlessly about hoping to stumble
into it, or decide in advance and plot a direct path.
In the first choice the direction and tools are unclear
so the search engine is likely to stay put, or just
move back and forth......Unhappy.

That is if you don't find it. Let's tease this one out. "How do you
know what your looking at, if you don't know what you're looking for"
And yet, sometimes you do find it, just by kicking along the avenue
("feeling groovy"), not looking for anything. Like falling in love - a
pretty good antidote for unhappiness. Right, you could say you are
looking - unconsciously, and that's probably right. ( The search
algorithm, ... possibility space...), but it is not conscious-
directed.




The second choice...a lofty goal.. narrows the search space
and tools dramatically. And provides an unending
sequence of adventures, and the need for new
skills, for each sub-goal along the way.


This one is conscious- directed, and so you really are interfering in
the algorithm. The first is better, just to 'let it happen'
(whatever). Meddling screws things up. You're forever backing and
filling, making corrections to stay on course. 'Successful' people
have a problem with happiness, always something missing, because
they're not letting their search algorithm work do its job right.


Determinism vs Holism.

Happiness is directly related to the frame of reference
initially chosen for our search. Looking at details first
leads to a disconnect between our nature...searchers
and the results...stuck in neutral.

Looking at the goal first restores the symmetry between
man and nature.

Yes sure. (Backchaining; .) The problem though surely is knowing
what the whole is.. having all the pieces of the jigsaw, and the
scales right.


So I set a very lofty goal for myself
as the concepts indicate the loftier the goal the more
likely is happiness and success for at least some of
the sub-goals.

Woaaargh, ... Direction and achievement leading to happiness? Do
you reckon? Maybe. Short-lived though. Take an Olympian working
and striving to that end - and winning. Five minutes of pleasure and
reward. Or maybe ten, until the idea occurs to him/ her -"So, ..what
for an encore? Same again, doing what work? But nexst time With the
risk of failure?" Doesn't sound like happiness to me (that sort of
achievement).



I decided my goal was to return the world to Nature.
So that humanity could fulfill it's destiny to swim in beauty
sooner rather than later. I want that reality, I believe
it's possible, as reality is what we make it. We change
reality all the time, so why not make it into a dream.

Umnm, ... Reality is not something much given to us to perceive. We
can make our own 'reality', sure, and it is probably enough, ... but
whatever else it is, it isn't real. The dictionary definition removes
it entirely from perception. Nothing wrong with trying to improve
things, sure, and change the 'reality', but we are probably not aware
of the consequences of our action. Bush was trying to 'improve'
things in the Middle East (presumably), but an awful lot of people are
now dead over it, and more will be. Whose/ which/ what reality
improved?


Why we keep wanting to 'improve' things. Maybe that's
why 'to be happy' is such a sought after goal - and so elusive.


Let me lay out my plan g I intend to see this through
to success.

What does it mean to 'return the world to nature'?
Complexity science is clear on this, nature is a
complex adaptive system, so is democracy.
So a world of free democracies is then the goal.

Don't you mean an anarchic one free of democracy? What does
democracy do when the popular vote of the people is to abandon it -
like what happened in (?)Algeria not long back? - I mean when it knows
(democracy knows) it is the system that works best? What does it do
with dumb people? Impose itself on them for their own good?


What is the path to a world of free democracies?
Well, that is easy to see, China is ONE FOURTH
of the world. So changing that one brittle system
can pretty much wrap that goal up in bows.

Top down, eh? Well ok, but isn't that what they're doing there
already? Just 'differently'


What is the path to democracy in China?
Rigid systems breed stress as the people are
adaptive while the system is not. They drift apart
over time. Complexity science is all about far
from equilibrium/stressed systems. Creation or
self organization occurs when a system is under
it's maximum stress. Under those conditions a system
is highly sensitive to disturbances. A small disturbance
can cascade throughout the system ala Janet and Justin
at the Super Bowl, a textbook example.

Not familiar with this one, but it terrifies me when a goal is scored
(football). That little bit of leather. Between two bits of wood.
All those people. All that noise... All that adrenalin/ emotion.
Talk about nuts! Some of them even get a kick of pressing a killfile
button. (whatever that is)


One need only find a critical point, a point where the entire
system is focused at once, within a highly stressed
or censored system. A breast at the Super Bowl.

(Breast? Were they streakers or what? The nipple that sank a
thousand ships?)


Or a falun gong protest at the Beijing Olympics in 08.
China fears nothing more than the falun gong movement.
China fears nothing more than rain on their
great parade.

Falun gong - an interesting one right enough. People, considering
their lot, thinking about it reflectively, contemplatively. Gorr,
...people actually thinking... Tell you what Jon., we could do with a
bit of the falun whatsit on this newsgroup.


The cliche 'self-fulfilling prophesy' occurs best when
a system is at such a critical point.

So how does one go about creating a credible conspiracy?
Having many people share the same goal, for that
will lead them down the same paths using the same
tools.

Conspiracy? Why don't you just call it a plan? Bring it out in the
open. You're allowed to. democracy's good like that. Isn't it? ??


So how does one create similar goals in other people?
By convincing them that holism...setting goals...emergent
properties...are the path to happiness.

OooOOhh. Happiness is 'feeling at one' with 'things', ..Yes, I
believe you can 'fake it till you make it', with care not to overdo
it (falun g.), but I don't know if that gains on a personal level from
the "football stadium" effect. It has to last. Community spirit?
Maybe...


The circle is complete, which means the goal is
achievable.

A common and effective understanding of reality is
needed, which is lacking in classical methods. Since
classical searches are so wide open and confused
there is little consensus on goals.

(Reality and what reality is - probable outcomes from existing
situations) (?) But we get these think tanks and studies thinking
and studying all the time, and somehow the world remains as it is
despite all sorts of interference.... To me it should have gone down
the gurgler long ago. Look at 'Geology' here and the sorts of
parameters that are discussed, .. It's a pure fiction, around which
people sort of 'peoplise'. The peoplising is the 'reality'. Some
elsewhere might have 'goals' for the geology, but it changes nothing
re. peoplising. They just peoplise around a different 'reality'. And
overtly perceive it as an impingement. China is the same as here.
There's a group trying to keep a grip on reality but people are people
just the same. And so are the grippers. (I guess what I mean is that
reality is not much what people care about, but their own perception
of it.) Thank god for the reality of the 'GRIP' and the way it is
written into the constitution. B&W WRITTEN. not just understood


It doesn't have to be that way

So how do I convince people complexity science
provides that consensus and common goal?

....so (following from the above) common goals are a contradiction in
terms. Look what happened in Poland after Lech dropped out of the
picture, and everybody so focussed around him too, .. Top-down
doesn't work for self-organising systems, ... so I guess you mean as
a 'bottom-up operative'.


My first attempt was to build some tangible system
of my own based on these concepts. And test them
out in the real world to see for myself, and then
to demonstrate to others. So I built a very testable
system, a stock trading strategy based on
complexity science. It works great! I'll post the
system here when the time is right. Success there
will mean more money...which means more time
and resources to build my little conspiracy.

Good on you. I hope you do good things with the money, ... (but when
you do , just email me some, ... I'm not very good at complexity..).


As a teaser, look up the ten day chart of ticker
'bits'. Came up on my screener lunch time Tuesday
and what a party it's been this week. I find a couple
of these a month now.

My second attempt is to try to figure out the mystery
of Meridiani. Before long I'll know if that was a
success also, I'm very bullish right now g

I can't say I have *no interest in Mars, but 'undirected' information
is a bit like **** off the fan. Like you, I want to know more about
the bigger picture before getting involved in the smaller.



I haven't a clue what the next step is, but I'm
confident it'll present itself when the time is right.

I've become a devout optimist since the concepts
I constantly rant about sank in. Anyone would
as they give massive reasons to be so.

Good on you. Keep it up. Spread it around. It's one thing to know
something. It's quite another to do something useful with it.


mean look at George, lugging his popes around. What is there in that
to cheer a bloke up, ...I ask you?

That was a heavy question.


It is the age-old question. How can one be reborn?
How can one gain a new outlook on life, and a
new cause for being.

Fall in love. Unconscious self-reorganisation, from the bottom up.
Others-directed.



"THE Bone that has no marrow;
What ultimate for that?
It is not fit for table,
For beggar, or for cat.

A bone has obligations,
A being has the same;
A marrowless assembly
Is culpabler than shame.

But how shall finished creatures
A function fresh obtain?-
Old Nicodemus' phantom
Confronting us again "



By E Dickinson


Yes, ..I like your dead girlfried too, though doesn't sound like she
was a load of laughs at the breakfast table, but that's ok if she does
the washing up, ... and socks and things.. OooOh, look at that,
'Shame'. Long time since I saw that word in print, or heard it
uttered, ..these days when everybody gotta be 'in yo face'. An'
gitt'nit.