The Emergent System - The key to reality's most vexing mysteries

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   
I'd like to see you explain turbulence.




posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
I think that the mob example is better than the traffic example. The aggregate psychological influences of a mob produce "mob mentality". Which is unique. Perhaps even to every single individual's psychology within the mob itself. Therefore, you cannot look at the whole and reduce and deduct an understanding of its parts. They must be studied separately.


I like the mob example better too, but the traffic example is just as valid. More complex, maybe, but just as valid.


ETA: I cannot agree however, that this idea can bridge the divide of Newtonian and Quantum physics, though. In the examples above of emergent systems, there must be common ground in order for the systems to emerge in the first place. Quite literally ground. In traffic it is the road. Mob? Crowded movie theater. Even if you cannot reduce physical laws enough to accurately explain quantum mechanics, there must be a link between the two. Otherwise they would simply be incompatible and "physics" just wouldn't work. There would be no system to study.
edit on 16-2-2013 by JayinAR because: (no reason given)


There are many levels of emergence in that divide between the worlds ruled by quantum physics and Newtonian physics, and you might not be taking into consideration all contributing agents or even systems that emerge and then contribute to the emergence of other systems between the two extremes of material manifestation. The link exists, but "linkage" implies direct causal ramification, which isn't an aspect of emergence. The link is information and contextual precedence, and the common existential requirements provide the impetus that forces the information/precedence contribution - at all levels of confluence - to transform each progressive development emergence in whatever manner is going to serve that suite of existential requirements. Quantifying the entire development chain might someday be possible, but don't expect it to happen anytime soon. Even so, you don't need the entire development chain to understand the nature of progressive development and how the entire suite of fundamentals can be affected if many levels of emergence are involved.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tuttle
I'd like to see you explain turbulence.


Weather systems are emergent and fleeting. They're a two-fer.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster


A cell of a human body isn't conscious. So, what's the use in presenting it as an example of anything? The human mind is an emergent system, and it isn't composed of cells or atoms or material substance at all. And yet, it does exist, and it knows about the town that the human body lives in. It knows what it knows about the planet too. This is the thing about an emergent system. It doesn't resemble the contributive systems that brought it into physical existence. It's not reducible at all, without ceasing to be what it is.


I personally dont know if a cell in a human body is conscious or not... but it is a relevant example, at least I think ( which, at least I think is important, because you think its not, and I think it is... so thats that really). Where do you think the human mind is emergent from? Do you not think it is directly caused to exist by the some of its parts (the brain and the universe)? Hm ok, I can see what you mean it doesnt resemble the systems that brought it into existence (even though in a way it is directly related). I agree the mind can do and think anything, because it has the ability of creating new information, even if it can only use the information previously available, and the physical restrictions of its computation, processing, memory storage, and imagination. Ok its not reducible at all without ceasing to be what it is. And this is your big point, that reducing water to H20. 2 hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom dont resemble water? So do you think the human mind ( we should really define this; consciousness, awareness, personality, creativity, imagination, the totality of all cognitive and unconscious mind capability?), hm I guess I should just ask, what do you think is so special about the human mind? I know it is special, I can see the things it is able to do compared to a rock, a ant, a dog, a monkey. But we also must admit there is similar hardware, brain, parts within these animals that have brains, and we cant measure there mode of experiencing reality so we cant really say if they have minds, but it would be silly to deny that animals arent driven by a conscious observer, with memories, emotions, desires etc. I would say the main difference between humans, what set the ability of the brain apart, was the harnessing and directing the ability to process the information, the memories, the details, to store them, and sort them, to internally pic them a apart, to see the causal relationships internally, to copy them, to be observant, to seek improvement, to be curious. etc. lots of things.






If something is smart and sophisticated, then the assumption would be that it is already conscious. Like I said, you aren't seeing what an emergent system is here. This line of debate isn't serving the examination. It's just creating a potential distraction.



hm, well im sorry, I am just questioning your statements. What line of inquiry shall I proceed with to avoid distraction and further the proper path of examination?



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Sorry my point was, turbulence is considered one of the only truly chaotic forces observed in nature. If your theory explains some of the chaos and internal structures behind it, well sir you will find yourself to be one of the most celebrated minds in the history of science, and more than likely a millionaire. Good luck being published.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
I dont think im missing the point as much as you think i am... or I dont think there is as much of a point as you think you are. what do you think is so mysterious or un-understandable about traffic? What dont I understand about the phenomenon of traffic? It doesnt matter if I cant predict every nuance, there is so much information involved with this event, and I am not a capable enough computer. but the event it self is a computation of the exact information involved to create that event, so the event doesnt defy logic, or sense, or law. Its exactly what it is, exactly why it is, exactly when it is, exactly how it is, exactly where it is.


Everything that exists has a primary identifying characteristic, and the primary identifying characteristic of the emergent system that is traffic is the specific and hyper-dynamic nature of the relationship between all the contributive aspects, agents and systems involved as a holistic entity during the finite duration of that traffic's physical existence. It is "what it is", as you pointed out, but that's the point. And emergent systems don't defy logic, or sense or law. They just aren't reducible. They are what they are.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by ImaFungi
I dont think im missing the point as much as you think i am... or I dont think there is as much of a point as you think you are. what do you think is so mysterious or un-understandable about traffic? What dont I understand about the phenomenon of traffic? It doesnt matter if I cant predict every nuance, there is so much information involved with this event, and I am not a capable enough computer. but the event it self is a computation of the exact information involved to create that event, so the event doesnt defy logic, or sense, or law. Its exactly what it is, exactly why it is, exactly when it is, exactly how it is, exactly where it is.


Everything that exists has a primary identifying characteristic, and the primary identifying characteristic of the emergent system that is traffic is the specific and hyper-dynamic nature of the relationship between all the contributive aspects, agents and systems involved as a holistic entity during the finite duration of that traffic's physical existence. It is "what it is", as you pointed out, but that's the point. And emergent systems don't defy logic, or sense or law. They just aren't reducible. They are what they are.


but they wouldnt be known or understood without knowing the parts that make them up... and also they wouldnt exist without the parts that make them up... you can separate them... but you also must keep in mind that in reality, the event is not separate from its parts. everything is reducible.. because everything that exist has a cause, has parts.. The biggest search in science has been able to find the end to the emergent phenomenon, to reach the fundamental 'parts', but even those are caused.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by NorEaster


A cell of a human body isn't conscious. So, what's the use in presenting it as an example of anything? The human mind is an emergent system, and it isn't composed of cells or atoms or material substance at all. And yet, it does exist, and it knows about the town that the human body lives in. It knows what it knows about the planet too. This is the thing about an emergent system. It doesn't resemble the contributive systems that brought it into physical existence. It's not reducible at all, without ceasing to be what it is.


I personally dont know if a cell in a human body is conscious or not...


It's not. Not a all. It gets its entire structure and operating processes from DNA. That's been pretty well established.


Where do you think the human mind is emergent from?


The confluence of the human brain, the human experience of material existence, and the entire environment (material, information and circumstance) that contains the human being from moment to moment until that human material experience is completed.


Ok its not reducible at all without ceasing to be what it is. And this is your big point, that reducing water to H20. 2 hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom dont resemble water?


Water's "wet" is a pretty interesting example of an emergent property. Hard to say though. I'd have to do some research to see if water is an emergent system. I don't really know.


So do you think the human mind ( we should really define this; consciousness, awareness, personality, creativity, imagination, the totality of all cognitive and unconscious mind capability?), hm I guess I should just ask, what do you think is so special about the human mind? I know it is special, I can see the things it is able to do compared to a rock, a ant, a dog, a monkey. But we also must admit there is similar hardware, brain, parts within these animals that have brains, and we cant measure there mode of experiencing reality so we cant really say if they have minds, but it would be silly to deny that animals arent driven by a conscious observer, with memories, emotions, desires etc. I would say the main difference between humans, what set the ability of the brain apart, was the harnessing and directing the ability to process the information, the memories, the details, to store them, and sort them, to internally pic them a apart, to see the causal relationships internally, to copy them, to be observant, to seek improvement, to be curious. etc. lots of things.


The human mind is unique in that it contributes to its own emergence (see biofeedbackas a really utilitarian application of this fact of how the human mind works). It literally "reaches back" into its own production process and manages its own emergence as an ongoing process. Well, to the degree that it can, of course. Tibetan monks are much better at it than bartenders, but that's beside the point. It is still the unique capacity of the human mind that separates it from the emergent systems of other brains.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Couldnt it be said that reality as a whole, ( the one we know at least;the universe) and every part that makes the universe the universe,....lol, basically what im trying to say is, isnt the universe itself an emergent system? the totality, and every group of its parts, what the parts can do here, and there, and now and then, and how the smaller (reduced) parts fit and work together to make bigger parts, which then emergently can do other things.

So the problem from our point of view is not having a clue as to what the universe is, we dont have enough information to discern what it is... when in some more ultimate scope of eternal time this universe was created, and where in some ultimate scope of space this universe was created... You could take the stance that this universe is all that exists and all that has ever existed. That would be a warm and fuzzy truth, because it would take us closer to the source, it would give us a more primal and in control and worry free template on which to exist and view ourselves.. Some how I think there is a large possibility that is not the case. But I think about this quite a bit. What do you think?



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



I just thought I'd share this small item with the class, and turn you loose to see just what you can discover for yourself now that I've calibrated your compasses to true north.

Cool stuff there professor bad news jester dude, sure why not I will play as I got a minute and am bored. But ah this thread is not getting much traffic, srry in the scope of things its just not emerging. Now here's a thread about an emergent system based and out of an old system. Ah but the real question is which if anything is emerging? Or are they both falling? Or is it a whole new system that is emerging? Collectivism no doubt! but which way does it tug? In either cases, its getting more traffic then this thread, its written in the stars.
link



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



I'd probably lump any brain-equipped biological system as being emergent. There is no "linkage" between them and the types of biological systems that work solely on DNA information directives.


Hmm. Any examples of any biological systems that work solely on DNA information directives?

fyi - I'd say epigenetics at least partially describes an emergent system (evolution) - and as far as I can tell, the brainless organisms/systems are more obviously and speedily adaptive. ...What I haven't found is a paper clearly characterizing epigenetics (or evolution) as an emergent system - and there should be something on it.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by NorEaster
 



I'd probably lump any brain-equipped biological system as being emergent. There is no "linkage" between them and the types of biological systems that work solely on DNA information directives.


Hmm. Any examples of any biological systems that work solely on DNA information directives?


Bacteria is a good example. Cells are a good example. Plant systems are a good example.


fyi - I'd say epigenetics at least partially describes an emergent system (evolution) - and as far as I can tell, the brainless organisms/systems are more obviously and speedily adaptive. ...What I haven't found is a paper clearly characterizing epigenetics (or evolution) as an emergent system - and there should be something on it.



I'm in the middle of gathering an applicable bibliography, and it's surprising that there is such a dearth of published work concerning the subject of emergent systems, but I'm beginning to see that most research is extremely siloed as a result of the specialization that dominates professional pursuits in our culture. Emergence bridges areas of specialization (generally) and the research studies often begin with the assumption of established systems and proceed to examine the properties of those systems. Also, much of professional research that is peer reviewed - and therefore publishable - is based on traditional theoretical fundamentals that have been developed in relative isolation; again the product of specialization and siloed focus. Reaching over the established fences to challenge the shape and integrity of traditional perimeters is no way to build a successful career in science.

Science - as is the case in all structured academic disciplines - will always be resistant to wholesale upheaval. Believe me, this very cautious peek into the nature and plausible impact of emergent systems has the potential of creating sizable waves within the world of theoretical physics, and the kind of waves that can't be easily dismissed by traditionalists in the same way that they dismiss the obviously adventurous notions of superposition,mulitverses, and inverse causation.

Emergent systems exist, and are readily apparent, even at our own epitome level of physical development and expression. The plausible impact of much more primitive emergent systems on the establishment of natural laws, at much more primitive levels of physical development, is a field of inquiry that is literally wide open at this point. We know the basics of natural law at our own empirical level and at the quantum level, but there are many levels of system emergence between the two, and any combination of direct and indirect influences - from any of these intermediate systems and their own unique properties - could explain why quantum mechanics and Newtonian physics are so incompatible in so many ways. After all, look at the potential for changes in what "makes sense" relative to the mechanics of natural law. That potential is significant, even if someone's paper dismisses that potential out-of-hand and achieves peer approval by other similar minded pros. Peer review or not, that potential exists, and that's all I'm suggesting here.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
reply to post by NorEaster
 



I just thought I'd share this small item with the class, and turn you loose to see just what you can discover for yourself now that I've calibrated your compasses to true north.

Cool stuff there professor bad news jester dude, sure why not I will play as I got a minute and am bored. But ah this thread is not getting much traffic, srry in the scope of things its just not emerging. Now here's a thread about an emergent system based and out of an old system. Ah but the real question is which if anything is emerging? Or are they both falling? Or is it a whole new system that is emerging? Collectivism no doubt! but which way does it tug? In either cases, its getting more traffic then this thread, its written in the stars.
link


I saw a thread about goats that yell like humans, and that one was kicking total ass. There was a G-spot locator device thread too (I can't remember exactly where than one was) and it was totally ruling the traffic counts on the site where it sat. I'm pretty hip to who the popular kids are wherever I am at the moment, and I'm pretty much okay with my relative slot in whatever hierarchy I'm engaging. I don't often let that affect my own interests.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   
In my opinion emergent systems [of evolution] are part of a collaboration towards unity.

Look at this (Heliosphere):
en.wikipedia.org...

how a star (dumbest ever entity of the cosmos) produces litterally a shield to prevent
frequent changes in DNA to enable stability to form higher sentient beings with evolution?

Its like the cosmos know things in advance.... IMHO intelligent design.

my 2 cents

edit on 17-2-2013 by RobertPaulsim because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Couldnt it be said that reality as a whole, ( the one we know at least;the universe) and every part that makes the universe the universe,....lol, basically what im trying to say is, isnt the universe itself an emergent system? the totality, and every group of its parts, what the parts can do here, and there, and now and then, and how the smaller (reduced) parts fit and work together to make bigger parts, which then emergently can do other things.


Reality, as a whole, is an emergent system. The universe? I don't know, and don't really see an opportunity to speculate on it. Keep in mind that "the universe" is a translation of human observation, and we really are assuming a lot about it from very small bits of empirical evidence. Reality itself is tightly restricted by elementary logical restraints, and is actually much easier to quantify than the arbitrary expanse that we've labeled "the universe". I have read the papers that lay out the shape, size, texture and precise properties of this universe, and I've read the papers that refute the validity of those papers, and the books that debunk both and the other books that make the case against those books. I've seen the documentaries that show a physicist explaining that you can send a particle to one edge of the universe and then one to the other end of the universe, and then draw a line between them to....and then I stop and think "No, I can't send a particle to each end of the universe, and neither can this guy."...and the point of his presentation collapses under the absurdity of his analogy. The truth is that anything that anyone tosses out there about the universe - be it the estimated number of galaxies or (worse yet) the estimated "bits" of physical information that "must" exist within the confines of the universe 10 to the 122 power (with no more than 400 entangled particles, I should note) - has to be seen as theoretical, and not even Relativity-level theoretical. Just "demons living in the volcano mountain" level theoretical at this point, and no more than that. So, I'll leave the universe alone. It's probably a lot more and less than we could ever imagine it to be. That said, it's no more than a subset within a larger whole, even if it is a result of emergence.


So the problem from our point of view is not having a clue as to what the universe is, we dont have enough information to discern what it is... when in some more ultimate scope of eternal time this universe was created, and where in some ultimate scope of space this universe was created... You could take the stance that this universe is all that exists and all that has ever existed. That would be a warm and fuzzy truth, because it would take us closer to the source, it would give us a more primal and in control and worry free template on which to exist and view ourselves.. Some how I think there is a large possibility that is not the case. But I think about this quite a bit. What do you think?


The "template" is much larger and much more primitive in nature than whatever it is that this universe is as a whole. The template itself possesses its own properties, and sets the table for the suite of additional properties that define each system that exists within the physical/contextual confines that establish "it" as the foundation that it is. I call that "template" Foundational Reality, but that's just my own term for it. Its properties are extremely simple, and there's plenty of open space for each "reality confine" to establish and develop its own properties subset without violating the basics of the foundation and its own properties template. Our universe would be only one small territory of circumstance that is ongoing within one of the many subset "reality confines" that exist within the whole of Foundational Reality, so it's not as if this universe is any version of all that exists or has ever existed.

That said, it's all (for the most part) rinse-repeat, from reality confine to reality confine, with the foundation's own properties suite making it clear that there is such a thing as impossible, and that stuff that simply doesn't make efficient or successful sense isn't promoted or encouraged. Default natural selection at all levels. And everything based on emergence from simple to more complex. The truth is threaded within all levels of existential expression, and all you have to do is look at it with clear eyes.
edit on 2/17/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)
edit on 2/17/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 



Traffic is a physically existing something, and while you can refuse to accept its existence as something that's more than an illusion, try being unaffected by it as the real and impenetrable obstacle that it is.

Not everyone is affected by traffic. It's relative. One who is in traffic and accepts it as part of the whole, is not necessarily "affected" by it. Is one affected by "traffic" if one is not in it?



In this sense, traffic is immune to reductionism.

But then you go on to reductionism when you start reducing the sum to it's parts:


If you look at traffic, you see a number of lesser systems in confluence; cars, people (drivers, pedestrians, street crews, policemen, etc), asphalt surface or lack of pavement perhaps, number and condition of roadway lanes, time of day, day of the year, culture, degree of technological sophistication of the society involved, weather, local traffic regulations, and probably plenty more contributing systems depending on the specific emergence being examined.

Reductionism is the "lesser systems in confluence".

The closest at this point that anyone is getting to a Theory of Everything is Ken Wilber. He takes Emergent systems and expands on it further than anyone I've come across, by including Everything including Being, Consciousness, Mystical States, Hierarchy, etc

Holons->Quadrants->All Quadrants All Levels->Lines, streams, or intelligences->Levels or stages->states->Truth->Mysticism/Science.

Emergent Systems is just a tiny piece, or maybe everything is emergent systems.

Either way, what does this change? What's the significance? Does it solve any of the world's suffering, wars, disease, hatred, rapes, pillage, etc.

Unless we are solving problems, its all mental masterbation.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by RobertPaulsim
In my opinion emergent systems [of evolution] are part of a collaboration towards unity.

Look at this (Heliosphere):
en.wikipedia.org...

how a star (dumbest ever entity of the cosmos) produces litterally a shield to prevent
frequent changes in DNA to enable stability to form higher sentient beings with evolution?

Its like the cosmos know things in advance.... IMHO intelligent design.

my 2 cents

edit on 17-2-2013 by RobertPaulsim because: (no reason given)


Do you have a link to the reference that suggests that this heliosphere isolates the entire region around the star to the extent of shielding potential DNA contamination? I'd be interested in reading that, as some of my work involves the establishment of examples (at many levels) of default Masculine and Feminine survival imperative expressions, and this seems like a classic Masculine survival imperative expression (Isolation). You'd be amazed at how redundant all of this stuff actually is, and at all levels. Not much of anything is truly original, but that's why it all works as well as it does. Only when you start getting into emergent sapience do you start seeing true originality and actual expressions of chaos. Beneath that - even in the most relatively original emergences - the basics are rigidly maintained and aggressively promoted. I'd be really curious concerning this heliosphere and what it blocks out, as well as what it restricts from freely escaping. Every holon has its "membrane", and I should think that a solar system would be no different.

Thanks for the heads up.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
I won't mention again your whole youtube beat/rap proving 100% that there is no Infinity sham, which brings to question everything else you post. However Emergent systems does seem to be legit at certain angles of abstract thought.

How do the below links affect your philosophies/theories?

Link:
Thus far, Science shows Infinity Exists

Link:
Science may prove reality/Universe to be a simulation



Claude Shannon's "Reality" code found in Superstring Equations.



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by NorEaster
 



Traffic is a physically existing something, and while you can refuse to accept its existence as something that's more than an illusion, try being unaffected by it as the real and impenetrable obstacle that it is.

Not everyone is affected by traffic. It's relative. One who is in traffic and accepts it as part of the whole, is not necessarily "affected" by it. Is one affected by "traffic" if one is not in it?


And this is the difference between physics and philosophy.
No answer will be sufficient since we are having two unrelated conversations here.




In this sense, traffic is immune to reductionism.

But then you go on to reductionism when you start reducing the sum to it's parts:


That's not what reductionism means. And I was listing the contributing systems, not reducing traffic to a sum of contributing parts.




If you look at traffic, you see a number of lesser systems in confluence; cars, people (drivers, pedestrians, street crews, policemen, etc), asphalt surface or lack of pavement perhaps, number and condition of roadway lanes, time of day, day of the year, culture, degree of technological sophistication of the society involved, weather, local traffic regulations, and probably plenty more contributing systems depending on the specific emergence being examined.

Reductionism is the "lesser systems in confluence".


Reductionism is the inability to escape the grasp of the examination of the "lesser systems in confluence" in your effort to accurately perceive the true primary identifying characteristic of an emergent system. The term exists, and has been defined.

Reductionism can mean either (a) an approach to understanding the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things or (b) a philosophical position that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents. This can be said of objects, phenomena, explanation, theories, and meanings.
Reductionism strongly reflects a certain perspective on causality. In a reductionist framework, phenomena that can be explained completely in terms of relations between other more fundamental phenomena, are called epiphenomena. Often there is an implication that the epiphenomenon exerts no causal agency on the fundamental phenomena that explain it.
Reductionism does not preclude the existence of what might be called emergent phenomena, but it does imply the ability to understand those phenomena completely in terms of the processes from which they are composed. This reductionist understanding is very different from that usually implied by the term 'emergence', which typically intends that what emerges is more than the sum of the processes from which it emerges.



The closest at this point that anyone is getting to a Theory of Everything is Ken Wilber. He takes Emergent systems and expands on it further than anyone I've come across, by including Everything including Being, Consciousness, Mystical States, Hierarchy, etc

Holons->Quadrants->All Quadrants All Levels->Lines, streams, or intelligences->Levels or stages->states->Truth->Mysticism/Science.

Emergent Systems is just a tiny piece, or maybe everything is emergent systems.


Ken Wilber is the one who introduced me to holon theory, and he's pretty good. That said, there's still one major hurdle that he's never cleared, and that is the initial emergence that launched literally everything that physically exists. He's also got a blind spot when it comes to information and the role it plays in reality. Still, he's a brilliant thinker. I have great respect for him and is work.


Either way, what does this change? What's the significance? Does it solve any of the world's suffering, wars, disease, hatred, rapes, pillage, etc.

Unless we are solving problems, its all mental masturbation.


This line of inquiry could easily result in free energy, drug free elimination of all disease, machine-free product manufacturing, farming that would not require land or even earth, faster than light travel, complete and unfettered freedom from fear and oppression, and probably some breakthroughs that at this moment are "unknown unknowns". Of course, emergence is just a tiny sliver of the line of inquiry itself, but it's the one sliver that I'm establishing at this particular moment. Its place within the whole is very significant, though. Then again, every contributing aspect within this line of inquiry is significant, and the emergence itself can't happen without any one of them included as part of this specific confluence.

edit on 2/17/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by dominicus
I won't mention again your whole youtube beat/rap proving 100% that there is no Infinity sham, which brings to question everything else you post. However Emergent systems does seem to be legit at certain angles of abstract thought.

How do the below links affect your philosophies/theories?

Link:
Thus far, Science shows Infinity Exists


Infinity is a singularity. Any singularity cannot share existence with any other singularity (so forget multiple infinities) since the existence of (at least) two "singularities" produces a duality of singularities. Bang - that notion is dead on arrival. The mainstream media is just plain stupid, and the tech press is no better than any of the rest of it.



Link:
Science may prove reality/Universe to be a simulation


Claude Shannon's "Reality" code found in Superstring Equations.



Again, you need to do some reading of serious physicists and not cartoon physicists. String theory is about 6 months away from being tossed aside by serious research. Multiverse theory isn't taken seriously at all, and after a couple years on this board, I was really surprised to discover that the real research activity out there isn't impressed with the talk of superposition, multiverses, 10+ dimensional theories, and the rest of that mystery load that dominates Youtube and the Discovery Channel.

There's not even enough science connected to that stuff to make any discussion of it any more responsible than debating the truth of one cult's description of Satan versus another cult's description of same. It's just bar talk for people who don't care about sports, cars, women, or politics. I don't have the time or interest in that tired voodoo metaphysics sh*t.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join