#1
|
|||
|
|||
...WHAT IF ?
Just for the sake of argument, accept the following statement as scientific fact. All visible order in the universe, physical or otherwise, are merely less complex versions of a biological system. Chew on that for a minute, what if it's true? This realization will change everything. That's the gist of the rather new field of Complexity Science I hobby in. When looking at the list of institutions below, it should be noted how this math applies to all kinds of entirely different fields. From nuclear bombs to the arts. That's what's so exciting about this new field. It's universal. LSE http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/complexity/research.html Univ of Mich http://www.cscs.umich.edu/ Univ of Illinois http://www.ccsr.uiuc.edu/ Indiani State http://cnets.indiana.edu/ Arizona State http://csdc.asu.edu/ Sante Fe http://www.santafe.edu/ The Use of Complexity Science "In 2002, the U. S. Department of Education asked the Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy to look at how complexity science is being used -throughout the federal government, in private foundations, universities, and in independent education and research centers-" http://www.hcs.ucla.edu/DoEreport.pdf Research Findings A. United States Congress 13 1. Congressional Research Service 13 2. House Science Committee 13 B. Executive Office of the President 13 1. Office of Science and Technology Policy 13 RAND/Science and Technology Policy Institute 14 C. Executive Departments 15 1. Department of Agriculture 15 USDA Forest Service 15 Agricultural Research Service 16 2. Department of Commerce 16 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 16 National Institute of Standards and Technology 17 3. Department of Defense 18 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 19 National Defense University 20 4. Department of Education 21 5. Department of Energy 21 Office of Science 21 National Laboratories 23 Argonne National Laboratory 23 Los Alamos National Laboratory 25 Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory 26 Sandia National Laboratories 27 2 National Nuclear Security Administration 29 6. Department of Health and Human Services 30 7. Department of Homeland Security 31 8. Department of Housing and Urban Development 31 9. Department of the Interior 32 US Geological Survey 32 10. Department of Justice 32 Federal Bureau of Investigation 32 11. Department of Labor 33 12. Department of State 34 Foreign Service Institute 34 English Teaching Forum 34 13. Department of Transportation 35 Planning in Air Traffic Control 35 Application of Agent Technology to Traffic Simulation 35 14. Department of the Treasury 35 15. Department of Veterans Affairs 36 D. Independent Agencies and Government Corporations 36 1. Central Intelligence Agency 36 Global Futures Partnership 36 2. Federal Reserve System 36 3. National Science Foundation 38 4. Smithsonian Institution 38 Resident Associates Program 38 E. University-affiliated Research Centers 39 1. Boston University 39 2. Brandeis University 40 3. California Institute of Technology 40 4. Duke University 41 5. Florida Atlantic University 41 6. George Mason University 41 The Krasnow Institute for Advanced Studies 41 Center for Social Complexity 42 7. Northeastern University 42 8. Notre Dame 43 9. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 43 10. UCLA 44 11. University of Illinois 44 12. University of Michigan 45 13. University of Texas 45 14. University of Wisconsin-Madison 46 3 F. Independent Education and Research Centers 46 1. Brookings Institution 46 2. CNA Corporation 46 3. Chaordic Commons 47 4. Institute for Coherence and Emergence 48 5. New England Complex Systems Institute 4 8 6. Plexus Institute 48 7. RAND Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer Range Global Policy and the Future Human Condition 49 8. Santa Fe Institute 49 9. Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy 50 10. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars 50 G. Private Foundations 51 1. John E. Fetzer Institute 51 2. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation 52 3. W.K. Kellogg Foundation 53 4. James S. McDonnell Foundation 54 5. David and Lucille Packard Foundation 55 6. Pew Charitable Trusts 55 H. Museums and Art Galleries 56 1. The Exploratorium 56 2. The Fine Arts Program of the Federal Reserve Board 56 3. Center for Art and Visual Culture University of Maryland Baltimore County 57 I. Specific Complexity and Education-related Projects 58 1. American Educational Research Association 58 2. Center for Connected Learning & Computer-based Modeling 58 3. New England Complex Systems Institute 59 J. References Cited 60 K. Selected References 61 L. Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
...WHAT IF ?
Jonathan wrote:
Just for the sake of argument, accept the following statement as scientific fact. All visible order in the universe, physical or otherwise, are merely less complex versions of a biological system. Chew on that for a minute, what if it's true? This realization will change everything. That's the gist of the rather new field of Complexity Science I hobby in. I think you have the cart before the horse. Complexity theory stands by itself, biological systems follow that pattern in order to self-organize and evolve. However, one problem for you, our universe seems hell bent on destructure. A truly 'complex' system might prefer stasis or at least a more favorable system to evolve within. Your only hope is that the complex system achieves enough sophistication to be able to, at some point, opt-out of this universe for a more favorable one. As an aside; I don't mean to complain (well maybe I do), but this thread really and truly belongs in one of the sci.math... groups (note follow-ups). I don't mean to be a snob, but this topic probably doesn't incite the imagination of the readership here as much as you would hope. I think you'd get a more sophisticated and rewarding discussion going on this in one of the math groups. Perhaps even the moderated sci.math.research... Just my two cents... Dave |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
...WHAT IF ?
On Jun 16, 9:32*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
Just for the sake of argument, accept the following statement as scientific fact. All visible order in the universe, physical or otherwise, are merely less complex versions of a biological system. Chew on that for a minute, what if it's true? This realization will change everything. That's the gist of the rather new field of Complexity Science I hobby in. When looking at the list of institutions below, it should be noted how this math applies to all kinds of entirely different fields. From nuclear bombs to the arts. That's what's so exciting about this new field. It's universal. LSEhttp://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/complexity/research.html Univ of Michhttp://www.cscs.umich.edu/ Univ of Illinoishttp://www.ccsr.uiuc.edu/ Indiani Statehttp://cnets.indiana.edu/ Arizona Statehttp://csdc.asu.edu/ Sante Fehttp://www.santafe.edu/ The Use of Complexity Science "In 2002, the U. S. Department of Education asked the Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy to look at how complexity science is being used -throughout the federal government, in private foundations, universities, and in independent education and research centers-"http://www.hcs.ucla.edu/DoEreport.pdf Research Findings A. United States Congress 13 1. Congressional Research Service 13 2. House Science Committee 13 B. Executive Office of the President 13 1. Office of Science and Technology Policy 13 RAND/Science and Technology Policy Institute 14 C. Executive Departments 15 1. Department of Agriculture 15 USDA Forest Service 15 Agricultural Research Service 16 2. Department of Commerce 16 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 16 National Institute of Standards and Technology 17 3. Department of Defense 18 Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 19 National Defense University 20 4. Department of Education 21 5. Department of Energy 21 Office of Science 21 National Laboratories 23 Argonne National Laboratory 23 Los Alamos National Laboratory 25 Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory 26 Sandia National Laboratories 27 2 National Nuclear Security Administration 29 6. Department of Health and Human Services 30 7. Department of Homeland Security 31 8. Department of Housing and Urban Development 31 9. Department of the Interior 32 US Geological Survey 32 10. Department of Justice 32 Federal Bureau of Investigation 32 11. Department of Labor 33 12. Department of State 34 Foreign Service Institute 34 English Teaching Forum 34 13. Department of Transportation 35 Planning in Air Traffic Control 35 Application of Agent Technology to Traffic Simulation 35 14. Department of the Treasury 35 15. Department of Veterans Affairs 36 D. Independent Agencies and Government Corporations 36 1. Central Intelligence Agency 36 Global Futures Partnership 36 2. Federal Reserve System 36 3. National Science Foundation 38 4. Smithsonian Institution 38 Resident Associates Program 38 E. University-affiliated Research Centers 39 1. Boston University 39 2. Brandeis University 40 3. California Institute of Technology 40 4. Duke University 41 5. Florida Atlantic University 41 6. George Mason University 41 The Krasnow Institute for Advanced Studies 41 Center for Social Complexity 42 7. Northeastern University 42 8. Notre Dame 43 9. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute 43 10. UCLA 44 11. University of Illinois 44 12. University of Michigan 45 13. University of Texas 45 14. University of Wisconsin-Madison 46 3 F. Independent Education and Research Centers 46 1. Brookings Institution 46 2. CNA Corporation 46 3. Chaordic Commons 47 4. Institute for Coherence and Emergence 48 5. New England Complex Systems Institute 4 8 6. Plexus Institute 48 7. RAND Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer Range Global Policy and the Future Human Condition 49 8. Santa Fe Institute 49 9. Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy 50 10. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars 50 G. Private Foundations 51 1. John E. Fetzer Institute 51 2. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation 52 3. W.K. Kellogg Foundation 53 4. James S. McDonnell Foundation 54 5. David and Lucille Packard Foundation 55 6. Pew Charitable Trusts 55 H. Museums and Art Galleries 56 1. The Exploratorium 56 2. The Fine Arts Program of the Federal Reserve Board 56 3. Center for Art and Visual Culture University of Maryland Baltimore County 57 I. Specific Complexity and Education-related Projects 58 1. American Educational Research Association 58 2. Center for Connected Learning & Computer-based Modeling 58 3. New England Complex Systems Institute 59 J. References Cited 60 K. Selected References 61 L. Washington Center for Complexity and Public Policy Big stars don't seem to last very long, and our 3rd or 4th generation star of considerable metallicity is no exception because, its kinda too big and massive for its own good. A smaller main sequence star of perhaps .5 Ms(1e30 kg) or perhaps Red dwarfs seem nearly ideal for hosting Goldilocks approved planets, with brown dwarfs almost as good if the evolved or directed panspermia of whatever nearby moons offering intelligent life develops a favorably good sensitivity to IR. Starting from scratch, what would be the ideal star and planet solar system? http://www.wanttoknow.info/ http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet” |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
...WHAT IF ?
"Brad Guth" wrote in message ... Big stars don't seem to last very long, and our 3rd or 4th generation star of considerable metallicity is no exception because, its kinda too big and massive for its own good. A smaller main sequence star of perhaps .5 Ms(1e30 kg) or perhaps Red dwarfs seem nearly ideal for hosting Goldilocks approved planets, with brown dwarfs almost as good if the evolved or directed panspermia of whatever nearby moons offering intelligent life develops a favorably good sensitivity to IR." Starting from scratch, what would be the ideal star and planet solar system?" From a Complexity Science perspective, the answer is derived from living systems. Which would be that the ideal system structure is found when the forces for order and disorder are in an unstable equilibrium with each other. In the case of Darwin this would be the balance between genetics and mutation. static dynamic chaotic genetics selection mutation So, this provides a template for all visible order in the universe from the simplest physical systems, to the platonic. So for a star, the ideal solution should be found when it's primary driving forces for order and disorder (solid vs gas) have found this internal, unstable equilibrium. So I googled and this article from the ESA probe on star formation concludes....(they shouldn't have wasted they money) g. "Planck highlights the complexity of star formation" 26 April 2010 "The images both show three physical processes taking place in the dust and gas of the interstellar medium. Planck can show us each process separately." "At the lowest frequencies, Planck maps emission caused by high-speed electrons interacting with the Galaxy's magnetic fields." "At intermediate wavelengths of a few millimetres, the emission is from gas heated by newly formed hot stars." "At still higher frequencies, Planck maps the meagre heat given out by extremely cold dust. This can reveal the coldest cores in the clouds, which are approaching the final stages of collapse, before they are reborn as fully-fledged stars. The stars then disperse the surrounding clouds." "The delicate balance between cloud collapse and dispersion regulates the number of stars that the Galaxy makes." http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM0FVF098G_index_0.html Complexity science provides a template of the correct solution for any real world discipline/problem that exists. IMHO. I think that's a big deal and I'll never tire of saying so. Jonathan http://www.wanttoknow.info/ http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / "Guth Usenet" |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
...WHAT IF ?
"Brad Guth" wrote in message ... Big stars don't seem to last very long, and our 3rd or 4th generation star of considerable metallicity is no exception because, its kinda too big and massive for its own good. A smaller main sequence star of perhaps .5 Ms(1e30 kg) or perhaps Red dwarfs seem nearly ideal for hosting Goldilocks approved planets, with brown dwarfs almost as good if the evolved or directed panspermia of whatever nearby moons offering intelligent life develops a favorably good sensitivity to IR." Starting from scratch, what would be the ideal star and planet solar system?" From a Complexity Science perspective, the answer is derived from living systems. Which would be that the ideal system structure is found when the forces for order and disorder are in an unstable equilibrium with each other. In the case of Darwin this would be the balance between genetics and mutation. static dynamic chaotic genetics selection mutation So, this provides a template for all visible order in the universe from the simplest physical systems, to the platonic. So for a star, the ideal solution should be found when it's primary driving forces for order and disorder (solid vs gas) have found this internal, unstable equilibrium. So I googled and this article from the ESA probe on star formation concludes....(they shouldn't have wasted they money) g. "Planck highlights the complexity of star formation" 26 April 2010 "The images both show three physical processes taking place in the dust and gas of the interstellar medium. Planck can show us each process separately." "At the lowest frequencies, Planck maps emission caused by high-speed electrons interacting with the Galaxy's magnetic fields." "At intermediate wavelengths of a few millimetres, the emission is from gas heated by newly formed hot stars." "At still higher frequencies, Planck maps the meagre heat given out by extremely cold dust. This can reveal the coldest cores in the clouds, which are approaching the final stages of collapse, before they are reborn as fully-fledged stars. The stars then disperse the surrounding clouds." "The delicate balance between cloud collapse and dispersion regulates the number of stars that the Galaxy makes." http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM0FVF098G_index_0.html Complexity science provides a template of the correct solution for any real world discipline/problem that exists. IMHO. I think that's a big deal and I'll never tire of saying so. Jonathan http://www.wanttoknow.info/ http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / "Guth Usenet" |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
...WHAT IF ?
"Brad Guth" wrote in message ... Big stars don't seem to last very long, and our 3rd or 4th generation star of considerable metallicity is no exception because, its kinda too big and massive for its own good. A smaller main sequence star of perhaps .5 Ms(1e30 kg) or perhaps Red dwarfs seem nearly ideal for hosting Goldilocks approved planets, with brown dwarfs almost as good if the evolved or directed panspermia of whatever nearby moons offering intelligent life develops a favorably good sensitivity to IR." Starting from scratch, what would be the ideal star and planet solar system?" From a Complexity Science perspective, the answer is derived from living systems. Which would be that the ideal system structure is found when the forces for order and disorder are in an unstable equilibrium with each other. In the case of Darwin this would be the balance between genetics and mutation. static dynamic chaotic genetics selection mutation So, this provides a template for all visible order in the universe from the simplest physical systems, to the platonic. So for a star, the ideal solution should be found when it's primary driving forces for order and disorder (solid vs gas) have found this internal, unstable equilibrium. So I googled and this article from the ESA probe on star formation concludes....(they shouldn't have wasted they money) g. "Planck highlights the complexity of star formation" 26 April 2010 "The images both show three physical processes taking place in the dust and gas of the interstellar medium. Planck can show us each process separately." "At the lowest frequencies, Planck maps emission caused by high-speed electrons interacting with the Galaxy's magnetic fields." "At intermediate wavelengths of a few millimetres, the emission is from gas heated by newly formed hot stars." "At still higher frequencies, Planck maps the meagre heat given out by extremely cold dust. This can reveal the coldest cores in the clouds, which are approaching the final stages of collapse, before they are reborn as fully-fledged stars. The stars then disperse the surrounding clouds." "The delicate balance between cloud collapse and dispersion regulates the number of stars that the Galaxy makes." http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM0FVF098G_index_0.html Complexity science provides a template of the correct solution for any real world discipline/problem that exists. IMHO. I think that's a big deal and I'll never tire of saying so. Jonathan http://www.wanttoknow.info/ http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / "Guth Usenet" |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
...WHAT IF ?
"David Spain" wrote in message ... Jonathan wrote: Just for the sake of argument, accept the following statement as scientific fact. All visible order in the universe, physical or otherwise, are merely less complex versions of a biological system. Chew on that for a minute, what if it's true? This realization will change everything. That's the gist of the rather new field of Complexity Science I hobby in. I think you have the cart before the horse. Complexity theory stands by itself, biological systems follow that pattern in order to self-organize and evolve. Quantifying Complexity Theory "Complexity Theory states that critically interacting components self-organize to form potentially evolving structures exhibiting a hierarchy of emergent system properties." http://www.calresco.org/lucas/quantify.htm There's nothing in that definition that limits this math to physical, biological or platonic realms. Those "critically interacting components" could be particles, biological systems or ideas. Complexity Science defines the exact opposite of standing on it's own. It underlies every real world discipline. The point is that the patterns of evolution (criticality leading to emergence) can only be fully seen and understood from the ...emergent side of the relationship with components. From the most complex available. And the various levels of complexity spanning the physical and living realms are as follows.... Static Complexity (Type 1) "The simplest form of complexity, and that generally studied both by mathematicians and scientists, is that related to fixed systems Here we make the assumption that the structure we are interested in does not change with time, so that we can approach analysis of the system analogously to a photograph." Dynamic Complexity (Type 2) "Adding the fourth dimension, that of time, both improves and worsens the situation. On the positive side, we can perhaps recognise function in temporal patterns more easily than in spatial ones (e.g. seasons, heartbeat)," Evolving Complexity (Type 3) "Going beyond repetitive thinking takes us to a class of phenomena usually described as organic. The best known examples of this relate to the neo-Darwinian theory of Natural Selection, where systems evolve through time into different systems (e.g. an aquatic form becomes land dwelling). This open ended form of change proves to be far more extensive than previously thought, and the same concept of non-cyclic change can be applied to immune systems, learning, art and galaxies, as well as to species.." Self-Organizing Complexity (Type 4) "Our final form of complex system is that believed to comprise the most interesting type and the one most relevant to complexity theory. Here we combine the internal constraints of closed systems (like machines) with the creative evolution of open systems (like people). In this viewpoint we regard a system as co-evolving with its environment, so much so that classifications of the system alone, out of context, are no longer regarded as adequate for a valid description. We must describe the system functions in terms of how they relate to the wider outside world" To paraphrase, "combine the behavior of machines and people". This means essentially combining the objective and subjective realms of our reality. Only from this perspective can a ...full description and understanding be found. Reducing to Level One does just the opposite. 98.6% of the planet still believes reducing to Level One is the way. We live in the midst of the Dark Ages of science. Even though the new way is out there for some ten years now. However, one problem for you, our universe seems hell bent on destructure. The Second Law certainly is a relentless force for taking systems apart, creating more and more variables and randomness However, the ideal initial condition for self-organization is described by random boolean networks. Which is essentially a completely random system with zero-order. For example, a totally random interstellar cloud of gas and dust, being randomly disturbed by some supernova, and spontaneously, solar systems and star formation emerges. So you see, there is a elegant relationship between the Second Law and what some call the Fourth Law of self-organization. One feeds the other in a cyclic process. And as with any iteration, it doesn't really matter where it began, but where it's going. You have to predict the real world like you would say a spinning top. Which is why attractor theory is so central to grasping reality and nature. A truly 'complex' system might prefer stasis or at least a more favorable system to evolve within. A truly complex system is a completely random or chaotic system. A system with zero-order. So, any...random interaction...of such a complex system MUST create a non-zero level of order. There is no such thing as negative order in nature. And zero-order only lasts until the next even happens. Spontaneous cyclic order is the preferred, or most likely, outcome. Just as stars and planets are the preferred future within a gravitational system. Gravity and biological systems /both/ follow inverse-square law behavior. Your only hope is that the complex system achieves enough sophistication to be able to, at some point, opt-out of this universe for a more favorable one. Since self organization follows a power law (or inverse-square) law behavior. Analogous to an earthquake. This opting out or one-off events happen in the same way. Emergence is the rare 'big-one' from a history of countless minor changes. But in nature emergence is as likely has having two waves constructively interfering with each other. The non-linear or exaggerated one-off events are random and unpredictable. Yet they are absolutely inevitable given only enough time and complexity. And fluids define the highest level of physical complexity. As an aside; I don't mean to complain (well maybe I do), but this thread really and truly belongs in one of the sci.math... groups (note follow-ups). I don't mean to be a snob, but this topic probably doesn't incite the imagination of the readership here as much as you would hope. I think you'd get a more sophisticated and rewarding discussion going on this in one of the math groups. Perhaps even the moderated sci.math.research... People that are immersed in the details of reductionist math can no more accept these ideas than an atheist accept Christ. They just don't do 'subjective'. Period! It's not science they all say. And the vast majority still sees the world from the Level One of complexity. In keeping with the math, nature likes to fill the most unoccupied or damaged niche~ biological systems follow that pattern in order to self-organize and evolve. Just my two cents... Dave |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
...WHAT IF ?
"Brad Guth" wrote in message ... Big stars don't seem to last very long, and our 3rd or 4th generation star of considerable metallicity is no exception because, its kinda too big and massive for its own good. A smaller main sequence star of perhaps .5 Ms(1e30 kg) or perhaps Red dwarfs seem nearly ideal for hosting Goldilocks approved planets, with brown dwarfs almost as good if the evolved or directed panspermia of whatever nearby moons offering intelligent life develops a favorably good sensitivity to IR." Starting from scratch, what would be the ideal star and planet solar system?" From a Complexity Science perspective, the answer is derived from living systems. Which would be that the ideal system structure is found when the forces for order and disorder are in an unstable equilibrium with each other. In the case of Darwin this would be the balance between genetics and mutation. static dynamic chaotic genetics selection mutation So, this provides a template for all visible order in the universe from the simplest physical systems, to the platonic. So for a star, the ideal solution should be found when it's primary driving forces for order and disorder (solid vs gas) have found this internal, unstable equilibrium. So I googled and this article from the ESA probe on star formation concludes....(they shouldn't have wasted they money) g. "Planck highlights the complexity of star formation" 26 April 2010 "The images both show three physical processes taking place in the dust and gas of the interstellar medium. Planck can show us each process separately." "At the lowest frequencies, Planck maps emission caused by high-speed electrons interacting with the Galaxy's magnetic fields." "At intermediate wavelengths of a few millimetres, the emission is from gas heated by newly formed hot stars." "At still higher frequencies, Planck maps the meagre heat given out by extremely cold dust. This can reveal the coldest cores in the clouds, which are approaching the final stages of collapse, before they are reborn as fully-fledged stars. The stars then disperse the surrounding clouds." "The delicate balance between cloud collapse and dispersion regulates the number of stars that the Galaxy makes." http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEM0FVF098G_index_0.html Complexity science provides a template of the correct solution for any real world discipline/problem that exists. IMHO. I think that's a big deal and I'll never tire of saying so. Jonathan http://www.wanttoknow.info/ http://translate.google.com/# Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / "Guth Usenet" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|