As space expands outwards since the big bang, it expands inwards too?

Relevant posts

- Fractal dimensions harbour parallel worlds?
- Observer to Planck length distance, fractal? Why we perceive continuity, out of the energy packets (quanta), the physical world is made out of?

I read in Answers.com, 'cosmic background radiation' entry

"This big bang was not an explosion of matter into empty space but an explosion of space itself."

Space was not there, and space was created? The notions of microscopic and macroscopic were irrelevant at that time?

Space flat? No depth?

As space exploded, it expanded both ways? Deeper in to the microscopic, creating the quantum world and further out in the macroscopic world, creating the universe?

Mirror images? And as such, the quantum world expands deeper and deeper in as the universe expands further and further away?

With the speed of light? Which might have implications on the electron to nucleus distance?

The microcosm expanding? But this runs counter to common held notions of the microscopic world. Countless pockets of microcosms, apparent. Fractal? Fractal origins for every atom in our bodies, in the world at large?

Energy dissipated down fractal paths, as space expanded deeper and deeper in, forces eventually being constrained in fractal corridors, effectively separated into the kinds that exist now?

Observer to Planck length distance, fractal? Why we perceive continuity, out of the energy packets (quanta), the physical world is made out of?

Space an emergent product?


Italicized journey of thoughts, emanated by naive observations badly, anything but eloquently, expressed but nevertheless building towards new perspectives in my mind, as I gradually assimilate, (my very own meaning construction process), informed, worked-out assumptions presented by experts in the field

Heck! I forgot about that. The four blinking lights in two rows and two columns, (a matrix(?)), a rectangle near square, surrounding a two-digit number display(?). Alternate blinking of the lights per row. The two lights lying on a row were lit at the same time. One time interval, 1 time-step, then off. In the next time-step, the lights in the other row were lit, then off. Alternate lighting up per row continuously. The lights, as looked from afar gave the impression of a light running up and down. The perception of a single(!)... (the whole(?)) light jumping up and down incessantly. The lights, as being looked at, from near, did not give the impression of a running light, instead each single light in the row was constantly switched on and off. The illusion or perception of a running light, a shining beam going up and down, only given by the lights looked at from afar, but not when looked at from near. Distance of the lights from the observer being crucial? For the illusion of a running light(!) to be perceived by the observer.

Light, transmitted as waves. In both cases by different sources, but the distance from the observer would make a difference in its perception. What it is perceived. In my mind, this is how waves are perceived in our minds, and by that reality. Distance being crucial in the way waves are perceived. It is connected with perceived coherence and our ability to distinguish between simultaneously emitted waves. It is what I dealt with, as well, after I read this article about the human resolving time.

Anyhow, it evades me at the moment, but the thought that occurred to me, is connected with the microscopic world, the world of quanta.

Oumf, space being an emergent phenomenon? There is no actually space, we do not really probe space, as it is not there? It emerges as a result of the processes involved. That even flat, let's call it space, is sufficient to describe it as. The branes, to use a word from string theory, a flat surface that contains or includes, all our universe. The onion with its laid-out skins of fractal universes?

And to go back to the idea of distance being crucial to how we perceive incoming waves. Waves from atomic and sub-atomic particles, quanta for that matter, as they are perceived by virtue of the energy, they emit; in waves, each by itself a unique, single source, but what we experience, by virtue of a function(?) that combines all these waves to the reality perceived? As it emerges as reality?

And where the waves come from? They come from a distance quite afar and that's why we perceive them as running or interacting with one another.

A distance that increases as we go deeper and deeper into the microscopic world? which even creates the impression of interaction?

Interference of the waves, which we mistake as motion?

Distance, as it is experienced in the classical world and distance, by which, out of the quanta, the packets emitted, we perceive the world as is?

(in a manner analogous to combined?)

That all reality can be explained by looking at it from that angle, distance; distance from the observer, the human individual. To begin with there is the quanta, packets of energy, waves. As the waves are dispatched in packets, effectively blink, incessantly, and the observer which senses these processes from a distance; far far away; namely the distance to the microscales, to Planck length itself. A distance so remote and yet so close? The observer surmises continuity out of the stream of packets, and by that reality?

How can that happen?

Distance should not be conceived as a straight line? Instead it should be conceived as the line weaving a fractal? Unfolding in near infinite trajectories, laid out in layers upon layers, closely knit, infinitesimally thin onion-like skins, barely touching each other unraveling into infinite fractal or fractional dimensions? Infinities reminiscent of the infinities that lies between two integer numbers?

Distance, what measures the length of space between objects, looses its meaning? Distance, as we experience it in the macroscopic world, and the distance to the microscales, both work in the same way? Provide continuity for our minds to perceive? A fundamental process of our minds with distance, and therefore length, space, being the products? Emergent products?

For any effect, the world we live in, the reality for us, might unravel in infinite fractal dimensions inside thin sheets, as thick as A4 paper.

Quantum computers, the panacea of computing. What about chaotic computers?

Threads triggers

- The 25 Questions about Physics for the Next 25-30 Years
- The parallels of quantum phenomena and consciousness?
- Fractal Neurodynamics and Chaos: Resolving the Mind-Brain Paradox Through Novel Biophysics
- Currently phenomenally out-worldly notions

I read in The 25 Questions about Physics for the Next 25-30 Years

"15 - The understanding of complexity in computing:

Is there something beyond the artifacts of approximations ...

16 - The construction of a quantum computer:

One with 10,000 qbits would be useful; Can we construct such a real QC .."

Quantum computer? Is there not one already? Looking for a quantum computer, but what about a chaotic computer? Chaotic computer? What? Playing with words? What kind of computer would that be? A computer that his architecture is built upon the tenets of chaos? If the word tenets, as regards to chaos make any sense. What are these tenets? Attributes or properties attached to the concept of chaos. That, what the word chaos, would bring forth in an individual's mind. What kind of thoughts would be triggered upon hearing the word chaos. It certainly is, the influence of the minute, the infinitesimal quantity upon the state presented or emerging. State presented or emerging being the output and the minute or infinitesimal, the input. And what chaos dictates about the potential influence of the minute and infinitesimal upon the emergent state, the output? It is down to the sensitive dependence on the initial conditions.

Initial conditions algorithmically determined, chipped, part of the computer hardware, upon which the selection would be based, which among the minutiae of states, would be the input which will compute the output, the emergent state.

Fractal computer architecture based on registers where values representing input states, are tested against the initial conditions algorithms, the more the fractal branches, the more of the minutiae input states can be tested. Or even, by breaking up the initial conditions algorithms into smaller ones, super/sub hierarchical levels, based on a kind of AND, OR, XOR or other gate configuration available, would increase ... the 'fractality'?

Increase in complexity? Fractal branches in several levels, all being placed in such a way that the lowest registers, fed with the input values, are directly linked to the highest level registers, carrying the values which will compute for the output states? And ensure an exponential or other increase of the population of minutiae that are tested against the initial conditions algorithms?

Initial conditions based on the problem, in seek of a solution? Reverse engineering of the chaotic processes involved? What about the other tenets of chaotically developed systems. Attractors and Lyapunov exponents, diverging and converging trajectories. Can they be incorporated in the fractal architecture, be part of the initial conditions algorithms, tweak the sensitivity sought for, in the initial conditions?

In my mind, all these thoughts follow up the blueprint of the brain, in ways that have been dealt with, in Genesis of Eden paper on Fractal Neurodynamics and Chaos: Resolving the Mind-Brain Paradox Through Novel Biophysics

"The four levels of instability link in stages, making it possible for the fractal aspect of chaotic dynamics at the global, cellular, synaptic and molecular levels to combine to provide a fractal model in which global and quantum instabilities are linked by mutual interactions of scale. Global instabilities in brain dynamics may be dynamically-linked to fluctuation of a critical neuron."

The critical neuron, representing the neuron that sensitively responds to given initial conditions, fractally connected, affects the global state of the brain, the output which determines what is perceived or conceived.

In the same post, it is mentioned

"21 - Could a computer become a creative physicist:

When will this happen; How will we train them;"

A chaotic computer built out of the blueprint of the brain, might?

Currently phenomenally out-worldly notions

The content of this post The 25 Questions about Physics for the Next 25-30 Years
by Prof. David Gross (recorded by Infanta), intrigued me. Novel thoughts expressed which feel juicy, tasty morsels to whet my appetite. They were taken from another website and attributed to Prof. David Gross, who as I read was awarded a Nobel prize

The references on

"How did the Universe begin; How far back can we probe; Can String theory determine the initial conditions;"

initial conditions; which in my mind; the first thought it came up with, was chaos. The initial conditions, as a direct reference to chaos; chaos spawned the universe.

And in the same paragraph

"... Is time itself an emergent concept ..."

what an interesting approach. It opens up a whole new field of questions demanding an answer, looked upon from at totally new perspective, with hardly being able to comprehend, I do not have the faintest idea, where it could lead to.

Going further

"How does DM interact with ordinary baryonic matter; Is it wimpy; Can we detect it in the laboratory; How is it distributed in the Universe; What does this tell us about structure formation ..."

... about structure formation; being connected with dark matter? Implying that dark matter, is all around us. Undetected, as it is wimpy or possibly, it is us. We do not have the sensory equipment necessary, and even beyond, all the additional machines we use to extend our probing of nature, our attachments crutches, fail us. The waves, by which propagate, do not produce coherent structures, neither to us nor to the machines we use, to detect them?

The list goes on ...

"Economically viable", a phrase which should be eradicated from the minds of the people.

Threads that led to these thoughts

- Windfall Earnings for Minimal Services: As gov’t bleeds OFWs dry
- The Big Insurance Scam
- Amassing wealth. A crime against humanity.

"Economically viable", a phrase which should be eradicated from the minds of the people, along with whatever it symbolizes, whatever notions, ideas, practices or even concepts is associated with. It opens up wider routes to think about, what the role of states and governments is. Gives a wider perspective what the states and governments supposed to do.

It is directly connected with the most revered tenets of chaos embodied in the phrase 'butterfly's wing flap', the tiny change that should be effected in societies, at the level of the single individual, which will radically re-structure the societal complexities current, and adjust the social fibre to only amenable to states, emergent for that matter, where the human individual is at its core.

Its goal to proliferate human values, values for which any association with monetisation, any attempt to be looked at with economic criteria would be regarded, as is, an insult in the minds of the people and therefore scornfully rejected.

There is no need to appeal to the good will of any individual regardless its position or its clout, planetarch, read currently Barack Obama, presidents, prime ministers, ministers, governments and state officials as the authorities structures already in place, fought hard and gained by the struggle of innumerable individuals, our forefathers in countless generations before us, taken and not given, will assure that any change, minuscule by the matters of societies scales, in the minds of people, is sufficient to effect the re-structuring, societies should undergo.

I am not the same person I was a moment ago. Why?

... follow up a trajectory ... rigidly adhered ... rigidly structured consciousness ... concept deepens ... properties previously ignored, gain focus ... rise in a prominent position ... new stimuli are allowed in ... a different view is seen ... a different kind of consciousness ... paradigm shift ... new dimensions are revealed ... my previous self seems alien to my current self ... I do not recognize 'me' in the past ...

Bootlegging, a term for delving into the chaotic world of creativity and innovation.

My search on leads on bootstrapping led to the term of bootlegging. Interesting connotations out of the the Wikipedia entry on bootlegging that gives another aspect of the word chaotic, one that does not agree with the commonly held notion of mayhem and destruction

"The main reason for the occurrence of bootlegging is the lack of ‘free space’ for creativity. In particular rigid planning ignores the nature of experimental trial and error research. Bootlegging, as a kind of self-regulating element, bridges the mechanistic world of organisation (hierarchy, project proposals, MBO, decisions can only be made after some initial findings) with the chaotic world of creativity and innovation. The theory of path dependency explains why bootleg innovations are (most often) in line with the strategic objectives of the firm: corporate competencies define the search paths for its future. In this respect are the learning processes, beside the tangible output of bootlegging beneficial for the firm."

So, bootlegging refer to as the way out of the conundrum of the lack of 'free space' for creativity? That was brought about by the rigid planning this form of human activity favours? No wonder. Being scared to loose whatever is thought as being accomplished, among them the cushy jobs, the office in the corner (why did I think of that?).

Is that so, or is it borne out of the competitiveness in that sector which instead of promoting, it stifles innovation? That everything they do is geared towards making up a penny, the economically viable prerogative. Services, products and lives of individuals take up a second place, lost in the chase for the monies as they are strained through a monetising sieve that if it does not restrict, it barely lets them through.

Constantly loosing touch of what is of value for human individuals, as gradually reach or reached the point that services and products become irrelevant, as it can be anything, even human excrement as long as it yields profits.

What difference does it make whether bootleg innovations are 'in line with the strategic objectives of the firm'? They would never be. The corporate world's only objective, strategic or not, is to make lots and lots of money. What kind of 'free space' for creativity can be accommodated there? Creativity extremely warped and distorted. It can hardly be recognised as such.

It is clearly a practice that they are ashamed of, as they called it bootlegging, a word borrowed from a distasteful past. Their origins.

The whole societal construct held by fragile, precarious threads that a snap is imminent, and will lead the construct to collapse?

A thought in need of pondering. It follows up what I read years ago, which in my mind is connected with the word, bootstrapped. Though that word came up in my mind with a meaning different for what the author in that paper used it for.

The bootstrapped mentioned by this author, was used to explain reality as a construction being created out of nothing, and sustained in existence, by being bootstrapped to its origins by future events. I do not know whether actually I give a full or even a partial account of what the author implied, mostly haphazard recollections in an attempt to re-create the image portrayed by the author's words.

I feel very little sense coming out from this recollection. However

But why did I? In my mind, assumed it to be, a way to explain the current state of societies in the world?

As if, the principles monetising societies are sustained by, are instantiated by the acts of individuals, who simultaneously resent what is supported.

Monetising societies as being the whole, the emergent product out of a series of unwilling, half-hearted, resented acts of the units-agents, the individuals amidst them?

Their thoughts, their minds, their feelings, every inch in them, being against, what by their acts effectively sustain? What they can be without?

They have to give support what they want to destroy, what they despise?

The whole structure is suspended by unwilling acts of individuals, a volatile construct held in place by so fragile, precarious threads which at any moment might snap? And the whole construct will descent into oblivion?

Consciousness surpass infinities, to grasp emergence instantiating imagination?

Threads that laid the path

- The uses of infinity: a philosopher looks at emergent phenomena in physics
- Thoughts about the origins of imagination?
- Chapter 2 The foundations of science are shaking

An extract from 'The uses of infinity: a philosopher looks at emergent phenomena in physics'

"`Emergence', and its contrary reduction, are buzz-words in both physics and philosophy. Both physicists and philosophers disagree about the extent to which we can understand large-scale or complex phenomena in terms of their microscopic parts. Examples include both everyday phenomena like the freezing and boiling of liquids, and fancy ideas like fractals. In this talk, Jeremy Butterfield will pour some oil on these troubled waters. First, he will adopt the philosopher's usual tactic of distinguishing different senses of the contentious terms. Then he will use examples such as freezing and fractals to describe how we understand emergent phenomena by appealing to various kinds of infinity."

what I find interesting, is the appeal to 'various kinds of infinity' for understanding emergent phenomena. The connection with scale is intriguing, coming out from the mention of 'understand large-scale or complex phenomena in terms of their microscopic parts'. Infinities inherent in each scale level, which in sensical(?) terms, points toward infinities of parts that make up the emergent entities, in each successive level.

The infinity, let's say for the sake of following up the thought, of strings which give rise to the quantum particle entities, the somewhat next level up in the scale. Infinities of microscopic parts chunked-up in bundles, easier to handle and the same goes for entities, in each level of emergence organisation, what is referred to as the various kinds of infinities.

It brought into mind thoughts that occurred to me some time ago and recorded them in 'Thoughts about the origins of imagination?' post

"Shrinking to the quantum level, expanding to cosmos, slowing down to Planck time speeding up to eons, journeying back and forth to the beginning and the end of time? The foundations of imagination? Are there no bounds?"

infinities traversed effortlessly? What our mind, our consciousness can handle? Revealed to us, by way of the faculty of imagination? Traces of omnipotence?

Human experience. What if, our human resolving time was on a par with the resolving time of a fast electronic device?

Threads that led to these thoughts

- Coherence
- Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics

A fundamental attribute of the human cognitive apparatus? One that determines the kind of experience amassed? It guides experience? Human resolving time T is responsible for the instantiation of experience? Experience is what is, because of our resolving time

"Suppose that the waves are detected by an apparatus with resolving time T, that is, T is the shortest interval between two events for which the events do not seem to be simultaneous."

Our cognitive apparatus, with our senses, with its own resolving time T, the time length, the time interval between two events that is needed in order to make out each, as been distinct from the other. Definiteness, at stake? During which, we will be able to resolve the events as being separate. To discern the information that each event carries. The separateness of the events, as distinct entities. The information discerned is used to build experience. It determines its depth and breadth and its accuracy. Wholesome experience?

Phase?

Experience, as such described , it defines observation. It provides the foundation of our subjectiveness.

In the Answers.com entry of coherence it mentions that

"For the human eye and ear, T is about 0.1 s, while a fast electronic device might have a T of 10 billionths of a sec (10^-10 s). If the relative phase δ(t), given by Eq. (3), does not, on the average, change noticeably during T, then the waves are coherent."

Human resolving time T should bear a significance on the way we see the world. How would a fast electronic device with a T of 10 billionths of a sec (10^-10) would see the world? What would the world look to us, if we had an equivalent resolving time T as that of a fast electronic device?

Highly coherent to a fast electronic device? But incoherent to the human ear? Coherent waves in phases that represent states? Superposition of states? The observer?

In 'Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics'

"In fact, scientists most righly claim that the purpose of science is to describe human experience, not to describe “what really is”; and as long as we only want to describe human experience, that is, as long as we are content with being able to predict what will be observed in all possible circumstances (. . . ) we need not postulate the existence—in some absolute sense—of unobserved (i.e., not yet observed) objects lying at definite places in ordinary 3-dimensional space."

If science can only describe human experience, then what would science be, if instead of our familiar human resolving time T, our cognitive apparatus had the resolving time of a fast electronic device? Would our fast electronic device equipped human resolving time, have revealed and made part of our experience, any currently unobserved objects?

Building up a list of 'quantum chaos' links.

Connections to these thoughts

- Abstractions and their significance.
- Quantum Chaos, Martin Gutzwiller, Scientific American, January 1992


A case brought forward about quantum chaos

"At about the time of Poincare's seminal work on classical chaos, Max Planck started another revolution, which would lead to the modern theory of quantum mechanics. The simple systems that Newton had studied were investigated again, but this time on the atomic scale. The quantum analogue of the humble pendulum is the laser; the flying cannonballs of the atomic world consist of beams of protons or electrons, and the rotating wheel is the spinning electron (the basis of magnetic tapes). Even the solar system itself is mirrored in each of the atoms found in the periodic table of the elements. Perhaps the single most outstanding feature of the quantum world is its smooth and wavelike nature. This feature leads to the question of how chaos makes itself felt when moving from the classical world to the quantum world. How can the extremely irregular character of classical chaos be reconciled with the smooth and wavelike nature of phenomena on the atomic scale? Does chaos exist in the quantum world'? Preliminary work seems to show that it does. Chaos is found in the distribution of energy levels of certain atomic systems; it even appears to sneak into the wave patterns associated with those levels. Chaos is also found when electrons scatter from small molecules. I must emphasize, however, that the term 'quantum chaos' serves more to describe a conundrum than to define a well-posed problem. "

No solid base? Quantum chaos not been irrevocably confirmed or in a milder version surely footed? The term only used to describe a conundrum faced up with, a curiosity but not the processes, quantum processes, themselves?

"Considering the following interpretation of the bigger picture may be helpful in coming to grips with quantum chaos. All our theoretical discussions of mechanics can be somewhat artificially divided into three compartments [see illustration] although nature recognizes none of these divisions. Elementary classical mechanics falls in the first compartment. This box contains all the nice, clean systems exhibiting simple and regular behavior, and so I shall call it R, for regular.
Also contained in R is an elaborate mathematical tool called perturbation theory which is used to calculate the effects of small interactions and extraneous disturbances, such as the influence of the sun on the moon's motion around the earth. With the help of perturbation theory, a large part of physics is understood nowadays as making relatively mild modifications of regular systems. Reality though, is much more complicated; chaotic systems lie outside the range of perturbation theory and they constitute the second compartment. Since the first detailed analyses of the systems of the second compartment were done by Poincare, I shall name this box P in his honor. It is stuffed with the chaotic dynamic systems that are the bread and butter of science. Among these systems are all the fundamental problems of mechanics, starting with three, rather than only two bodies interacting with one another, such as the earth, moon and sun, or the three atoms in the water molecule, or the three quarks in the proton. Quantum mechanics, as it has been practiced for about 90 years, belongs in the third compartment, called Q."

Mechanics, stretching that notion wider, to include anything that is described by, and, as systems such as social, mental, psychological and therefore social, mental, psychological mechanics? Attempting such an act based broadly on chaos self-similarity principle, and even further, by its virtue to go ahead and look at social, mental, psychological mechanics in novel ways?

And what about that elaborate mathematical tool called perturbation theory, which is used to calculate the effects of small interactions and extraneous disturbances to regular systems? Could it be of any use in social, mental, psychological systems? Or should we take stalk of what Henri Poincare surmised, as it is mentioned in the same website.

"So thereafter, the great French mathematician-astronomer-physicist Henri Poincare surmised that the moon's motion is only mild case of a congenital disease affecting nearly everything. In the long run Poincare realized, most dynamic systems show no discernible regularity or repetitive pattern. The behavior of even a simple system can depend so sensitively on its initial conditions that the final outcome is uncertain."

That there is, no discernible regularity or repetitive pattern, in most dynamic systems. That the behaviour of even a simple system can depend so sensitively on its initial conditions, that the final outcome is uncertain. Even a simple system? What is simple, but a construct, our minds devise, by removing all information contained in a system, or object, apart from what our minds deem as necessary? And being doing it, on and on, in individual or collective level alike? An act of abstraction that help us gain knowledge?

The necessary information, within the range defined by the maximum of our cognitive apparatus potential and the minimum needed for the overall information to make sense. What our minds can handle, but in reality systems possess a lot more information than we actually see (likened to a tip of the iceberg?), observe, and by virtue of that, no system is as simple as it looks, and therefore, it can not be predicted, as Henri Poincare surmised.

Is that a blessing or a curse? It is certainly a blessing.

So perturbation theory, dealing with the minute differences, in initial conditions. A precursor of that feature of chaos? I remember reading about mathematical calculations of hard problems, riddled with infinities, which perturbation theory have been removing. Does these menacing infinities have anything to do with the dynamics of chaotic states? In a way, describing the pull or push to the path of an unfolding trajectory? That is pulled towards infinity?

And what could we make out of the statement

"With the help of perturbation theory, a large part of physics is understood nowadays as making relatively mild modifications of regular systems."

or even

"The main connection between R and P is the Kolmogorov-Arnold-Moser (KAM) theorem. The KAM theorem provides a powerful tool for calculating how much of the structure of a regular system survives when a small perturbation is introduced, and the theorem can thus identify perturbations that cause a regular system to undergo chaotic behaviour."

How much can a system take? When a small perturbation is introduced? A small change of rule, or norm or a habit? Referring to the quality of the perturbation. Its overall effect in a regular system or just a system. Taken in to account that from all the perturbations possible, it is bound to be, that only a few would actually have a profound effect on the structure of a regular system, the state of a system, the stable state attractor. Most of the perturbations would have a negligent effect.

Why did I think about conservative values? The attractors, which we will not want to change? Content with the status-quo? We do not want changes.

The minds we make overall stupid despite being generated by an underlying remarkable ability to draw inferences?

Threads which spontaneously associated and brought out these thoughts

- FROM SIMPLE ASSOCIATIONS TO SYSTEMATIC REASONING: A Connectionist representation of rules, variables, and dynamic bindings using temporal synchrony
- Abstract
- Neural processes beat rational thinking.
- Consciousness a byproduct of brain functions? Or even so a waste product?
- Hints for imperfect minds?
- Tractable and intractable computations human individuals are faced with.
- Unconscious knows better ... Indulge yourself.
- Neurons have built-in solving power, churning out solutions fast. Better keep consciousness away.
- Chaos in my mind. Channels tapped
- The brain, as a quantum computer?
- Human individual, a quantum mechanical entity?
- Would the mind know but would not tell?
- Is thinking an automatic process?
- Unconscious knows better ... Indulge yourself.
- You are stupid, he is stupid, she is stupid, they are stupid ... I am stupid ... We are all stupid!!!
- The human mind is an invaluable asset to be wasted by the monetising societies


What is that? There is a wealth of knowledge out there and bit by bit is dug out. At least from my personal perspective as pioneering individuals did and do the digging in the first place.

The title 'From simple associations to systematic reasoning: A connectionist encoding of rules, variables, and dynamic bindings using temporal synchrony' impressed me, though having only the abstract limits my exposure. Hoomf, I spoke to soon, I got the pdf.


The authors Lokendra Shastri and Venkat Ajjanagadde, published this paper in 1993, in the 'Behavioral & Brain Sciences' journal, Volume 16 Issue (03). Their objective coming out in the following extract from the abstract. of the paper,

"We show how a connectionist network can encode millions of facts and rules involving n-ary predicates and variables, and perform a class of inferences in a few hundred msec."

Their 'connectionist network' handles millions of data, data that, as I could gather, are not simple ones or twos but a lot more complex, facts and rules. Without the need to refer to the n-ary predicates and variables, in order to grasp the complexity of the data and the enormity of the task, and despite all that, it performs inferences in a few hundredths of a msec.

Their network is outstanding just for its own sake, but the main reason, I focus on that, is because their 'connectionist network', is put forth, in order to simulate or emulate, (whatever), our brain. The human mind. Everyone's mind.

As they admit

"Human agents draw a variety of inferences effortlessly, spontaneously, and with remarkable efficiency -"

effortless, spontaneous, efficient hallmarks and

" — as though these inferences are a reflex response of their cognitive apparatus."

Reflex responses? No need to consciously think, to produce these inferences, without being accompanied by a feeling of ownership, that we are the owners of these responses. Which thereafter, puts into perspective the function of our consciousness, its role being to assure us that a tree is a tree and not something else. Only a pat in the shoulder.

Whereas the hard task of dealing with the harshness of life, the intractable computations we face in our daily lives, is left upon an underlying level of consciousness, be called unconscious or subconscious, or any other term someone feels comfortable with, as either of them have bundles of meanings with tarnished or distracting connotations. The main feature is that underlies our familiar, cherished consciousness, which certainly we are not aware of, when at work, or we were taught, indoctrinated, or learned not to be aware of, to ignore it. Myself, I let it do the work for me.

"Furthermore, these inferences are drawn with reference to a large body of background knowledge. This remarkable human ability seems paradoxical given the results about the complexity of reasoning reported by researchers in artificial intelligence."

A remarkable human ability but despite that, it seems paradoxical? Unreal?
The reason they are dumbfounded is because, as they state

"How can a system of simple and slow neuron-like elements represent a large body of systematic knowledge and perform a range of inferences with such speed?"

In other words, how can a system, (read: human individual), can be stupid and at the same time brilliant.

The mass media of (very soon) yesteryear fighting back tooth and nail to keep their spoils

Irritated me, offended my sensibilities, I felt anger when I read the article Thinking is so over, in Times Online, attributed to 'net entrepreneur' Andrew Keen. When I started to write a comment I came up against a barrier, a count of words, unable to fully express myself. Demeaning readers contributions from the start, indicative of how much they value their readership opinions.

Even that little space would not have been there, if it was for them, alas, now, they can not ignore it, as the norms put forth by blogs demand it. Blogs that not only invite but rely upon their readers contribution. And thanks to the blogging medium, the forums where individuals can express their views without the need to comply to worthless rules. The omniscient mass media is in peril.

The views expressed by Andrew Keen, a blatant attempt to discredit and eventually kill what threatens and undermines their position. Trying hard to nurture and spread a trend, a 'bad-hair-day' sort of fad, against blogging. They must be cornered, loosing a long established grip, in human affairs, as how can otherwise explain their vehement attack. Playing their trump cards, offending individuals. Assaulting with a two-pronged attack, first branding blogs as monkey's business and trying to sway the public away from blogs. Pour scorn and ridicule for the already established scene and hoping to discourage any one else from following that path.

Ignoring that it is the system, that breeds monkeys, as they want monkeys, since only monkeys can digest, the monkey food they serve. A system, that they themselves are a big part of. If individuals behave like monkeys, it is because they are victims of a system with a horde of socially prescribed norms, of what is trendy or not, that the mass media faithfully implement. Stuffing into the people's minds that what is the goal in the individual in life, is to be in the spotlight, to rub shoulders with or become a celebrity, to be seen on TV or news tabloids, or the 20-second fame, or make money or be recognised in the streets.

All these things, that not only, do not contribute, but rob the individual, erode its potential. Behave like monkeys if they persist working along these guidelines the system prescribes, awaiting for recognition from the likes of the author and journalist.

Instead of concentrating and develop what is meaningful for them. Individuals that have aspirations ideas, that guide them in their pursuits, provide the framework, streamline their efforts towards succeeding in their goals. Put their viewpoint as a guide, not anybody's else, no matter how expert they profess to be. It is not left to pure chance.

Your quote states

"if you provide an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters one of them will eventually come up with a masterpiece."

playing dice, bets, that everything in life is down to pure chance, ignoring the powerful influence of chaos, that everything that exists in nature, in our minds, in our societies are down to the initial conditions, and these initial conditions carefully picked and chosen, sway away chance elements, greatly diminishes pure chance. It is not just monkeys and typewriters, but meanings that develop in individuals, left free to choose for the themselves, shape their initial conditions and by the sensitive dependence upon these initial conditions, that chaos prescribes, create new meanings, make life meaningful to them.

These initial conditions, which you try so blatantly to manipulate but you will fail, if judging by the fervour in your attack you have already failed.

"net entrepreneur Andrew Keen"

One and foremost, for what your kind of experts say, are hard to swallow since always, in the back of my mind I know that whatever is said, has no value as their opinions are biased, as they are out there to make a buck, and whatever they say or do, it depends on how much monies they will make out of it, and don't give a dime for the individual. Out there protecting the spoils of their employers.

I want you the journalist and the fellow that expressed these views, to be ashamed, to have second thoughts ever use and revere in the sound of these words.

I had enough of best minds. Why should you think of a dictatorship at all, be that fools or yours. And all you woes about

"killing our culture, assaulting our economy and destroying time-honoured codes of conduct."

Individuals do not need that kind of culture, there is nothing there worth preserving, and don't get me going on the time-honoured codes of conduct. Codes that include and guided your current outburst, codes that make you feel it is right to offend, mine and others, sensibilities. Do you think it is appropriate to honour your codes of conduct? I think not.

We had enough of entrepreneurs.

I will be damned, if I swallow the meaning of any expert without first crunch it through my brain, scrutinize it to the hilt, before I bring it forth and use it. Making it mine, my meaning, not anybody else, not even the expert as such.

Thinking is over? You are so right, since certainly your way of thinking is over, whereas the thinking that serves the individual, by the individual and for the individual is strong and it will continue unabated.

And as for the mass media accept the rules the blogs have brought forth and comply with them, instead of being a reactionary force be a contributory power, in the thinking rush that has overtaken our societies.

There is more in life than making money.

The mass media of (very soon) yesteryear fighting back tooth and nail to keep their spoils.

Chaos in quantum systems, could provide new solutions to problems, not yet known?

The threads responsible for these thoughts
Quantum Chaos Unveiled?,
Chaos in my mind. Channels tapped
Raw ideas, grab them as they come
Moving the consciousness subject too far ...
Quantum tunneling? Access is denied.

I stopped there. I found something profound mentioned. Brian Saam, physicist from Utah University explores the relationship between chaos theory and modern quantum physics and states:

"When you look at all the technology governed by quantum physics, it's not unreasonable to assume that if one can apply chaos theory in a meaningful way to quantum systems, that will provide new insights, new technology, new solutions to problems not yet known."

What to say? That I agree with this approach? Certainly I do? So what? Yes, it is something that was always in my mind and as yet I have not found anything relevant to corroborate towards it. Does that make any sense? Probably not. Maybe not, not even to my myself. So why do I go on writing about it? Is it not, what I always do? Nagging my brain for a lead to the next thread to follow? A thread which eventually will or could lead me to meaning? Meaning for my own sake to say the least?

One thing for sure. Chaos is going to give an answer to a lot of problems or questions, and not only in quantum mechanics but in almost (why almost?) all matters, that fall under the umbrella which we call knowledge.

Quantum tunneling? Access is denied.

The link I followed, brought me into the article 'Chaos-assisted tunneling in microlasers with partially chaotic resonators', by Podolskiy, V.A. and Narimanov, E.E.. Chaos involvement implied?

"Summary: We demonstrate that in lasers with non-integrable resonators, chaos-assisted tunneling leads to dramatic changes in the emission spectrum, removing the near-degeneracy of symmetry-related doublets and changing the lifetimes of high-Q modes by several orders of magnitude. Our theory is in quantitative agreement with numerical simulations."

Chaos-assisted tunneling? Quantum tunneling? Quantum events? In the quantum realm, a process which implicates chaos? It would be interesting to know the viewpoints of the authors, but unfortunately access is denied. A monetary induced prohibition. Payment is required.

Amassing wealth. A crime against humanity.

Western societies have accumulated wealth, which could cover the needs of their citizens and not only. It could cover the needs of the citizens the world over.

But instead what do they do? Squeeze individuals in an incessant struggle to work all their lives away to sustain themselves and when they manage this they push them further to work even more, to possess things that they do not need, that they would never use. On top of this, they make everything possible, that whatever is left of their mental capacity, is drained down, in a useless endeavour for the most trivial details ever imagined.

An endeavour that suits the current established order of the few individuals that benefit heavily from such an arrangement and whereas they have everything anybody could ever imagine, they push themselves to have even more and as there are no more things to be had, they accumulate the medium for having the things they desire, in the first place.

Millionaires, billionaires and may be multimillionaires is not enough and who knows may be in their minds the idea of trillionaires or quadrillionaires is brewing up. They accumulate money, and they get more and more and since the drive never looses momentum, they try to make even more. They speculate, they perpetuate a false state of growth, in states economies. They are allowed to amass so much money that even states fall prey into their clutches. Idolized and revered incessantly by the media which they possess and control. Even by the media that are supposedly in the service of the public.

Instead of being despised for the sinister role they play, they are made role models for everyone to aspire to, a useless dream of becoming a millionaire as if the possession of things, will make anyone better than anyone else.

Amassing wealth should be taken as a crime against humanity and the biggest perps, who ever these might be, cases for the Hague tribunal to be tried and punished severely.

Understanding observation and why Schrödinger's cat is dead?

Understanding observation. What is there that really matters when we consider the impact observation has in quantum phenomena and not only? Interactions. I read in 'What is reality' website, in 'Quantum decoherence' chapter

"What happens in the real world is that a particle is not perfectly isolated: a particle inevitably interacts with the environment. These interactions have the effect of the particle "being observed" by the environment"

... particles, quantum entities, in isolation? And while, or more likely, if in isolation, exist in a superposition of states? However, isolation is a situation hard to come by. Particles everywhere, interactions ensue. Interactions which have the effect of particles 'being observed'. Observation being one way to trigger interactions. And as in the example cited

"when you take the temperature of an object using a thermometer, you have to remove a very small sample of heat from the object."

even by seeing an object we take in, no matter how imperceptible, an amount of the electromagnetic energy inherent in an object, carried by the photons that hit our retina. And, as it is further mentioned

"The measuring device has altered the object-"

The measuring device, our retina, alters the object? The observing human individual, the measuring device, measurement a form of interaction, interactions ongoing since the birth of the universe or even earlier, eliminating any anthropic principle notions? The universe does not need us?

And even though in the macroscopic world that amount, amounts to nothing, it is not the case for the microscopic, the quantum world. Each photon that enters our retina hits first the object. Trillions or zillions of particles in the object are hit. Zillions of electrons in the outer orbits of the object's surface atoms excited by the incoming photons, jumped to higher orbits. Their superposition of states decoheres. Zillions of decohered electrons combine into the object? The object altered, collectively? Collective decoherence?

But the object was already decohered, being a part of a massively populated, by objects, environment. Where interactions are constant. And have being going on for eons. So the world is there. A mass of objects, (decohered? Yes.) of every size possible, living or non-living where observation does little, in its day-to-day rigmarole. It is already decohered, it does not alter further.

Where observation plays a role is where state superposition still exists, in remote and safe isolation, as it is in the deep recesses of atoms, where Planck scales considered, quantum entities are thousands of miles away from other particles or where it is artificially induced, in physics lab as it is mentioned

"... recent experiments have managed to delay decoherence by decoupling quantum particles from their environment."

where decoupling quantum particles from their environment effectively isolates them. But not in a hermetically sealed box, where the poor Schrödinger's cat is dead, long before any benevolent soul opens the hatch. The interactions already established, the decohered poison kills the cat instantly and observation or not, amounts to nothing.

Unraveling thoughts on decoherence.

The ideas brought forth in this website got me going and I felt, I let my own thoughts unravel, unrestricted.

I read in the text, under the title 'How the environment eliminates interference effects',

"In the page on The Quantum Casino we have seen that when a measurement of an observable is performed, the quantum state appears to "jump" to a particular eigenstate (with the observable taking the associated eigenvalue). This apparent jumping puzzled physicists for many years because it was not understood how and why the usually linear time-evolution of the Schrödinger equation should suddenly decide to make a sudden jump."

A measurement of an observable been performed? Eigenstates and eigenvalues, as referring to states being part of a superposition? Simultaneously, with regard to the element of time, existing states? Superposed states? Or, would it make any difference if these superposed states are thought with regard to the element of space? States that occupy, in a sense overlapping, the same space? So, their simultaneous existence in the superposition can be attributed to the element of time? Existing or co-existing in the same space but at different times? Or, that thought can be turned around and assume the superposed states as existing at the same time but differ in the space that each superposed state occupies? A sort of time-like space and space-like time? Connected with the many worlds and many histories quantum interpretations? Quantum entities simultaneously existing in all worlds possible and at all times possible and by the measurement of an observable one of the superposed states decoheres? A particular eigenstate with its associated eigenvalue instantiates into a world state? unravelling

But what about the Schrödinger equation? Is that so significant? Bringing forth the thought that entered my mind often enough, that maths is a tool to stretch the human mind imagination. To break through a deadlock. And once this is done, to stay aside and let the imagination create. It is not the Schrödinger equation that decides to make a sudden jump. Its job is to set the stage for further thoughts to unravel. Trying to explain how the tool works would not provide new insights, new ways to conceive a phenomenon, new concepts. You can not explain a phenomenon with a tool. This over-reliance in maths and equations and rigorous solutions bears unyielding fruits. Moreover, as it is contained in the phrase 'the usually linear time-evolution', usually and not at all cases point towards the end of its usefulness in unraveling further the phenomenon.

Mutually exclusive!!!!

Threads that sparked these thoughts

- Using emergence to elucidate emergence. Thoughts emerging or thoughts about emergence.
- What powers the rise of emergent properties?


Incompatible tendencies, that each in itself exerts its influence on an object, a common object, to opposite directions, unreconciled? Yet, despite their incompatibility, they are reconciled (they are forced to?) and their net effect on the object combined. Potential for emergence and emergent states chaotically derived. A dynamic structure, a precarious one, is established. The combined state, fragile as is, possess properties that neither of the pre-existing states has, a direct consequence of the incompatibility intrinsic within. However, the newly emergent state is as stable as the conditions in the surrounding environment permit and it will remain as such as long as these conditions are at force.

If for any reason these conditions cease to be, then the antagonistic alliance ceases too, bringing about the collapse ... Collapse? Is there anything here apart from a tentative connection, an outcome out of the different meanings implied by the use of the word collapse? The word collapse connected with the wavefunction collapse of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics? Whereas in that particular case I refer to the collapse of the precarious combination of incompatible, mutually exclusive states? The collapse of the emergent state? Leave for later.

The incompatibility angle is evident in fundamental issues in nature. What comes out of Jonathan CW Edwards mention of

"Moreover, in an ontological analysis the wave and position must play quite different roles, an issue beyond the scope of this paper."

In an ontological approach, the wave and position, the quite different roles they play, point towards wave and position being incompatible, mutually exclusive providing the grounds for an understanding of the uncertainty principle?

What the uncertainty principle is all about? As it is mentioned in Wikipedia

"... the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that locating a particle in a small region of space makes the momentum of the particle uncertain; and conversely, that measuring the momentum of a particle precisely makes the position uncertain."

Momentum and position incompatible? The dynamic combination of these two mutually exclusive quantities create a force field, and the focus, their combined actions instantiate, constantly shifting? Lying on chaotically developing trajectories? Eludes detection, measurement? Therefore the ensuing uncertainty?

and

"In quantum mechanics, the particle is described by a wave. The position is where the wave is concentrated and the momentum, a measure of the velocity, is the wavelength. Neither the position nor the velocity is precisely defined; the position is uncertain to the degree that the wave is spread out, and the momentum is uncertain to the degree that the wavelength is ill-defined."

A dynamically developing relationship which makes it impossible to precisely define position and momentum, even more it makes it a useless pursuit. The dynamic relationship renders it useless, more precisely a redundant concept, baggage carried by the collective human thought from a society dominated by the classical physics tenets, and as it entered the quantum era should be discarded.

Incompatibility is implied and in this extract by Natika Newton about the concept of person, in the Emergence of consciousness book. As I read in page 54,

"Note that the emergent experiential concept of a person as having both objective and subjective aspects is not itself objectively unifiable: objective and subjective (outer and inner) perspectives on the same entity are mutually exclusive, at least within our common perceptual framework. Nevertheless, we do experience 'personhood' in a unified way, at least when we do not try to analyse the experience."

The objective and subjective facets, the incompatible states interwoven chaotically and the conditions stipulation, under which such a combination instantiates 'personhood', inherent in the common conceptual framework? The conceptual framework responsible for the rise of our identity? The concepts we amass through our lives constantly influence our 'personhood'? Acquiring new concepts, discarding fallacious concepts, delving deeper into each and every concept in the 'common conceptual framework', directly affects the image we hold for ourselves?

Neural processes beat rational thinking.

".. we couldn’t afford to have a debate."

"We didn’t have time to establish a hierarchy with a leader. So we pretty much had to “yes, and…” everything that people threw out. We had to drop our individual egos and allow the group intelligence to emerge. Within a few short minutes, we had a basic structure down. We had an opening scene. And we had a protagonist. Minutes later we were already rehearsing. When our time was up, somehow — miraculously — we were good to go."

What does this bring into my mind? Unconscious, I would call thinking but it sounds more like a misnomer than a proper word to describe what I have in mind, but nevertheless just leave it as such. It is mostly to do with what we choose to do when a situation demands our action. What path to follow? What branch in a given bifurcation to take. I maintained that the best way to go about is to leave rationality aside. Abandon thoughts of conscious planning, step by step reasoning and give our conscious or subconscious full reign.

What it struck me most in this innovative activity described in stevepavlina.com in his report of the raw spirit festival, that the same holds not only for single individuals but even for groups of individuals. By referring to time limits imposed by the demands of the activity engaged, not having enough time to debate on what is to be done, to develop a structure in the group, the hallmarks of rational planning or conscious thinking but instead to rely upon .... Upon what? The raw power of neural processes ever ready to furnish up solutions to problems? Dealing out a plethora of versions of solutions to choose from, where any involvement of conscious thinking or rational planning will stall for ever?

What is mentioned as taking place when consciousness is under way by Natika Newton in Anthony Freeman's 'The Emergence of Consciousness' book, in the 'Emergence and the Uniqueness of Consciousness' chapter page 54;

"The newly conscious state, in turn, allows the organism more degrees of freedom to select future actions, since its own responses can now be represented as explicit goals subject to rational planning, rather than remaining behind-the-scene-approach/avoidance motivators."

that an individual's responses to demands its self is placed upon, it should not be left or it is better not to be subjected to rational thinking but the behind-the-scene-approach/avoidance motivators?

The raw power of neural processes hinted in Gordon Globus article of 'Quantum Consciousness is Cybernetic';

"The Umezawa/Yasue (U/Y) approach, in which consciousness offers superposed possibilities to the match with sensory input, is based in the first physical principles of quantum field theory."

The superposed possibilities, the versions of solutions for the problems we face, in a superposition of states, quantum superposition, simultaneity at large and instantaneous solutions to problems, that no rational thinking could ever match, comparing abacus calculations with the latest number-crunching IBM or other machine?

Consciousness a byproduct of brain functions? Or even so a waste product?

I read in Jonathan CW Edwards, 'Is Consciousness Only a Property of Individual Cells?' paper

"However, as Seager (1995) has pointed out, a brain has many different functions at different structural levels and it is not clear why one or other should be endowed with consciousness."

What it struck me here, is the phrase 'endowed with consciousness'. Brain functions endowed with consciousness and brain functions that don't? Referring to consciousness as an attribute or property that a function, a brain function at least, could have or not? Is it not consciousness a function in itself? What is a function? A dynamically evolved association between objects or states. Or as it is described here

"The mathematical concept of a function expresses dependence between two quantities, one of which is given (the independent variable, argument of the function, or its "input") and the other produced (the dependent variable, value of the function, or "output"). A function associates a single output to each input element drawn from a fixed set, such as the real numbers."

Its mathematical definition, the groundwork of function, a dependence relationship between what it is 'input' with and what represents the result, its output. A function, brain function again, that while it is underway, it produces, beyond its expected output, (since it is endowed with consciousness, a sort of privilege) consciousness as well. It is not the brain function's primary goal, what spawn it or responsible for, in the first place but nevertheless, consciousness comes out too. So what is consciousness then? A byproduct of some brain functions? Or even, as in several cases, a waste product?

Is it not consciousness, a function in itself then? With its own input, as well as output, in a dependence relationship between some objects or quantities involved? This line of thought approaches some other thoughts I expressed before, consciousness looked, as even as, an extra baggage carried along, piggy-backed by more crucial brain functions that goes along, as far as I can tell, with epiphenomenalism, mere mention sufficing, focusing on the substance of the problem and not the procedure.

May this be how consciousness arises but the crucial issue is, its usage. How do we use that gift given to us.

Economics, the people and the planet.

This is an extract from nef (new economics foundation) in a Google search for monetisation that struck me curious, to say the least,

"nef is an independent 'think and do' tank. We believe in economics as if people and the planet mattered."

Economics, as if people and the planet mattered? As if? As if, as, who cares? Is that a problem with the language? Language structure, infrastructure as such, that is incapable to express, accurately or not, the thoughts of people? 'If' it matters. Do the people and the planet matter? It is not clear.

Is it an intrinsic weakness in the economics terminology body that makes it impossible to consider the needs of individuals and the planet or for the discipline of economics, as such, people and the planet do not matter? Do not matter at all? Or, the sensitivities of the nef inventors, for whatever reason, did not allow them to spell it out clearly that their think tank is about economics that people and the planet matter, for the people and the planet and not if the people and the planet matter.

Learning and exploring consciousness raises consciousness to new levels

In a version of the paper 'Is consciousness only a property of individual cells?', published in the April/May issue of the Journal of Consciousness Studies, by Jonathan CW Edwards, I read about his thesis on the 'bound conscious experience is a property of an individual cell, not a group of cells' that

"It probably does not alter the way we should expect to experience the world, but may help to explain the ways we seem to differ from digital computers and some of the paradoxes seen in mental illness."

I disagree. Studies of such nature and the new ideas brought forth, do affect the way we experience the world as it does alter the perspective from which we derive the experience. It shifts our focus to elements so far overlooked, it alters our very own subjectivity. Things are not the same, experience differs as it takes into account what has not being accounted before.

And these new perspectives are all the more important as we live in societies that constantly warp and distort individuals' consciousness, sway the focus of our attention to mundane shallow superficial furtive trivial pursuits away form a true calling, leading lives empty of content, driving people into comfort zones, draining them of everything that is of value, tumbling into, as called, midlife crisis, retire feeling used as they have been rendered empty vessels, empty of what it makes them feel whole. That they worth more than they got bargained for.

And as Jonathan CW Edwards, an individual of his caliber and stature resorts into ungrounded assumptions and a scientific journal accepts the paper for publication without a rigorous scrutiny, shows one thing. What the field requires is as many wild ideas as can be possible, a multiplicity in perspective, a matter that is not only amenable to learned, by the rule, approaches, as it is hinted in the exposition of David J. Chalmers, 'Thoughts on emergence' paper

"Emergence as "inexplicable" and "magical". This would cover high-level properties of a system that are simply not deducible from its low-level properties, no matter how sophisticated the deduction. This view leads easily into mysticism, and there is not the slightest evidence for it (except, perhaps, in the difficult case of consciousness, but let's leave that aside for now)."

Consciousness, a special case of emergence where the notions of "inexplicable" and "magical", are constant and inseparable companions, if mysticism is what it takes to elucidate consciousness then by all means, it should be employed, though one thing should be clear. Mysticism without reverence, no cults or sacred rituals, in total and free approach, exploring every angle, no stone unturned. No dogmas and prescriptions.

Past, present and future concurring? Nonlinear time?

Mind-boggling ideas. Nonlinear time? Playing havoc with your mind. The musings I found in Chris Opperman's CD Baby website were far far interesting. That beats any bed time conversation by far

"Non-linear time is the theory that states that time doesn't REALLY occur in a linear fashion, but instead is more of a constant. However, we as human beings can only perceive time in chronological order. Some scientists theorize that the reality of time is that the past, present, and future have already occurred," said Linda."

I just liked this initial fervour and before I check this out further I want to put it into my mind and see what will bring out. Some scientists theorize that the reality of time is that past, ..... What reality is that? What realm past, present and future events are, or more precisely took place? And are taking place? Unfold? Since they are events they involve objects, objects that take up space. Time needs space. Space and time go together. Incompatibles? Anyway, leave that.

If the passage of time, the arrow of time can be imagined as vertical, now we have to think that the arrow of time is horizontal, extends horizontally? Bubbles? Bubbles of space? Time creates space and space creates time? The expansion of the universe looked at as the composite effect of time and space? Chaotic composition(?), spawning emergence as a result of time and space being incompatible (again), and by being incompatible means that they are not loosing their identity or integrity at any time but they continue to interact and by this continual interaction bring about the creation of ..., the world, universe, reality, the physical realm itself.

Time will create space? Create space where there is no space? A bubble of space? But space on its own accord can create time. Freshly-made space creates time? A bubble of time? Bubbles within bubbles? Co-existing? Concurring? Events within a bubble unfold in a linear fashion? Corresponded time and space, in each bubble a whole universe, and all the bubbles a multiverse? Space-driven universe and time-driven universe?

Past, present and future happening at the same time? Concurrently unfolding? How can this justify the nonlinear time notion? As a whole, as a multiverse time progresses as spikes, fragments of arrows? Broken into pieces? Constant? As regards, if looked as an aggregate quantity? Of the multiverse? That it could not surpass a defined pre-determined value? Which means that the values in each component universe fluctuate? Universes that exist in the future compensate against universes that exist in the past? Bringing up a multiverse overall aggregate value for time that remains constant? Be that zero? The present?

Or is it not time that is constant, but instead an aggregate value for time and space. Spacetime? A critical value(?), which if it is exceeded the bubble bursts?
The universe bursts? A way to eliminate universes that do not abide with the rule(?)? The rule being that overall, for the multiverse, time or spacetime is constant? To bring along the idea of the parallel universes in countless millions? Each time a decision is made and the world bifurcates? Chaotic bifurcations?

And to bring forth the anthropic principle and account for premonition as Linda mentions

"Well, that would explain why some people experience psychic phenomena or have premonitions, wouldn't it?" continued Linda. "The only way that someone could see into the future would be if the future has already happened."

any human individual or other living thing that acts as an observer or an agent, instantiates(?) a universe, becomes its centre, its very own parallel world, co-existing parallel worlds, mixtures of worlds as we come across each other? Or, our world and all others as objects within it. Explaining ego? How would that account for premonition? May be not. But premonition could only be imagined if we were somehow responsible for the splitting into parallel worlds. Which, by virtue of the decisions we make, we are. Decisions that have to do with

"It's your own life you make, based on your choices and the risks you take."

and

"Our future will always be based on our choices and the risks we take, since we can only perceive the future on a linear basis anyhow."

the choices and risks we take, and the critical value, coming out of time or spacetime being constant determines whether newly formed bubble, cum universe, cum parallel world would burst or not? Premonition being built out of our feel for time and space intrinsic in our consciousness by being the agents responsible for its creation?

What powers the rise of emergent properties?

I read in page 53, 'The emergence of consciousness' book, by Anthony Freeman

" ... as a result of the potential activation of two incompatible states, a mechanism produces in the subject an experience associated with a state that is qualitatively distinct and unpredictable from what would be produced by either of the incompatible parts."

Incompatible states? States as defined by their own specific conditions. Under the influence of variables defining, determining their status. Variables that their values fluctuate along their unique ranges. Values acquired as they are driven by forces. Incompatible states, a result of forces that contravene one another. Do not cancel one another, instead are pulling or pushing, attract or repel to that or the other configuration or arrangement of the incumbent state. Chaotic attractors?

Could this be a clue of what is responsible for emergent properties to come into existence? A quality that marks all cases of emergence, a universal property? Following up the thought about emergence being universal, ubiquitous and the incompatibility case a common attribute that applies for all cases emergence arises.

Anthony Freeman continues in the same page,

"The above examples share this feature: two states (logical constructions or biological processes) that are in important ways incompatible are maintained in juxtaposition. If they occurred only serially, the emergent solution would be unnecessary. We can alternate between the perceptions of two incompatible perspectives, as in the Necker cube. The emergent property requires forced simultaneous processing of two incompatible states or representations, long enough for the organism to register the incompatibility and attempt to resolve it; the emergent property is the result."

and giving an example

"Depth perception is an obvious one. Binocular vision presents two visual fields, isomorphic but slightly displaced. The result is not a blur or a confusing double image, but visual depth. It is not deducible from binocular processing alone that visual depth would occur; we can imagine instead the experience of Necker cube-like aspect shifts."

Is this how emergent properties come into existence? Incompatibility generates emergence? Is that element of incompatibility significant? Forces? How new properties emerge? Opposing forces? That none of them releases its hold? Stubborn? Dynamical?

The continual interplay of opposing or incompatible forces, which by exerting their influence instantiate, bring into existence the emergent property or properties? But when any of the incompatible forces ceases to be, for reasons of its own, the emergent property ceases to be as well.

Consciousness as an emergent phenomenon, ceases to be, as being dynamical, at any time any of the incompatible forces responsible for its rise, is no more. All of the properties that constitute consciousness, constantly relying on the existence of the opposing incompatible forces that are responsible for their rise in the first place.

Using emergence to elucidate emergence. Thoughts emerging or thoughts about emergence.

The page is 221, the chapter is titled 'Closing', the book is 'emergence', John H. Holland.

Despite having that book for a year and more, I can not recall visiting that page before, since as usual my mind gets stuck amidst its paragraphs, hooks, each sentence a potential hook that drags along via imperceptible tags thoughts and ideas, already stored in my brain.

Talking about mathematics and mathematicians, abound by rigor, as what is needed to organise a purposeful assault in elucidating emergence, and as it is mentioned

"This recapitulation extracts its points from the context that supplies much of their. Meaning is less dependent on contextual remarks when there is an overarching theory, but our exploration has not yet progressed that far."

to generalize from the contextual points and provide the laws that are applicable in each and every case that emergence appears.

Each paragraph, the whole page, the whole book as such, is rigor itself. A prime example of rigor giving the concept of mathematics another dimension. Unseen laws, no different in substance from the axioms and theorems of a mathematical body of knowledge, used to construct meaningful approaches towards understanding emergence.

Which signifies the importance in providing clear-cut definitions for a firm or a firmer grasp of reality. Precision engineered, skillfully forged surgical tools for lucid concepts so other individuals usefully to employ and enhance their understanding of emergence, individually and collectively.

As John H. Holland admits

"... but I'd have to employ a more intricate formal apparatus to express them."

He, himself skillfully applying rigor in his approach, makes certain that the message he wants to pass on is clear and unambiguous.

I am not rigorous myself, I do not have that quality, my mind flies from nest to nest and in its way it gathers up bits and pieces here and there, leaving or letting or allowing emergence itself to do its bit. What I mean is, to assemble all these thoughts into my mind into a coherent structure, to associate all these disparate notions into something meaningful.

In my lack of rigor, I see emergence as being universal in its application, ubiquitous, everywhere, in every realm imagined. A trait passed on by its parent, chaos itself, chaos that spawn emergence.

In page 231 John H. Holland hints

"It is possible, at this point, to discern some of the obstacles between our present position and a better understanding of emergence, and I will describe them here. There is one larger issue, however, that I will avoid. It may be that the parts of the universe that we can understand in a scientific sense-the parts of the universe that we describe via laws (axioms, equations)-constitute a small fragment of the whole."

and

"If that is so, then there may aspects of emergence we cannot understand scientifically."

The question arises. If we can not understand them scientifically what other way is left? Can we understand a phenomenon in any other way but by science?

Without going into the many interpretations such a line of thought might lead to, as it is not necessary to fathom in and get lost in procedure and miss the goal, what it comes out of that, what is needed is, multiplicity of perspective.

Multiplicity of perspective amply provided by the multitude of individuals around us, each one a unit, and I emphasize that. One of the units that inhabit this earth, with its own unique hallmark as any unit possess. Providing a unique perspective, its very own angle of observation of the states the world presents itself to each and every one of us.

Armed with the tools that John H. Holland and all other individuals rigorously involved in this search produce, then each and every individual to offer its unique perspective in attacking the issue and enhancing our understanding for something that affects all aspects of our lives.

Enriching its armory of concepts and ideas, the tools to employ to enhance its understanding of the going-ons in the world.

Abolish money.

Threads connected with the thoughts expressed here
- Multinational corporations in 5th gear towards the 'global village'?
- Services. Building up monetisation-free zones?

The world evolves without you. My idea about abolishing money has already being raised and its seeds, the chaotic seeds, already planted. There are already ground-breaking individuals who elevated their thoughts from mere noise in the midst of their minds to firm fledglings, potential cornerstones for the exploration of how, why, when societies should get rid of money.

"The individuals' motivation to evolve and make use of their skills will not be anymore earmarked by a pride factor that is proclaiming its success basically in having been able to raise the envy of neighbours, friends and relatives, but solely by finding a deeper sense of satisfaction in being socially contributive to linking personal self-realization with the common well-being of all individuals & human communities."

The page I opened, in John H. Holland's book, 'Emergence', suited my current frame of mind. Without attempting to elaborate on this thought, I will quote the passage for future reference.

In page 190, I read

"If we turn reductionism on its head, we add levels to a basic description. More carefully, we add new laws that satisfy the constraints imposed by laws already in place. Moreover, these new laws apply to complex phenomena that are consequences of the original laws; they are at a new level."

Aspiring ideas for societies based upon the premise of no-money, treading the path of emergence, are expected to be built along the lines mentioned above.

The basic premise of rendering goods and services without the exchange of money, becoming the ingredient in establishing the original law, upon which new laws that satisfy the constraints imposed by the original law expect to give rise to complex phenomena as consequences of the original law, at a new level. Being followed by similar processes establishes further succesive levels and eventually will lead to the emergence of societies free of money.

Resolve...?

Individuals argue their cases with resolve. Being resolute in their stance, fervently defending their case; their thoughts, ideas, attitudes in life. This contains fragments of survival of their identity or integrity, in the arena where all human activities are deployed. Not quite what I had in mind. I am rushing myself. Eager to put down my thoughts, but the initial spark got lost again.

What was I thinking about when this idea of resolve came to me? It was the conclusion or assertion of imperfect minds, along with the myriad of states laid out in front of us, waiting to be chosen. For the human individual to choose.

I have to put tags in my thoughts. Tags to be used, as much like internet links, to identify as well as act as handles, to grip and drag along the thoughts connected, buried deep in my brain circuitry. Tags which do not necessarily need to be synopses, summaries of the thoughts associated with; but rather like gestalt images, only parts of the overall images, 'visible' pattern fragments steadfastly attached to the rest of the pattern that lays hidden, but can easily surface when necessity demands.

The gestalt idea being relevant to internet tags, and brain tags.

Thoughts about thoughts?

Thoughts about thoughts ...

The initial fervour subsided. I got distracted. The thought which was unraveling in my mind got lost. Lost touch. I have to direct my ... What? The words that come into my mind are executive, central executive, the edge of my awareness, my consciousness, my attention. As we can only direct our attention to a single thing at a time, one groove of sorts, a single pathway in the neural networks of our brains, a path that traverses many other thoughts laying lingering, juicy tags along the path pulling you away from your main task, the unraveling of the initial thought. Distracting you, leading you astray.

Thinking and thoughts is more than a furtive agitation of neural cells in the brain. They are the cornerstone of human existence and by them we make sense, and not only, of the world we live in. By them we solve problems we encounter in life, lay out strategies that govern our behaviour, constantly adjusting our ways of life, if we let them, in any scale imaginable no matter how small or large, in tune with the constantly changing conditions in our surroundings. Make change possible within ourselves, in our communities, in the world at large.

Our thoughts and thinking processes tools are words, which altogether make up the languages we use. Languages are neither spruced up ornaments, museum exhibits or art objects the instruments of elitist individuals ever ready to correct and assert their alleged superiority, lost in detail, slave to trivial procedure empty of meaning nor the oral performance, verbal diarrhea, of cunning lawyers, advertisers, public relationists, politicians and the like, all the time busy to twist things around mollycoddling the will of people, mere instruments for deceit.

Language is made out of words forged in each individual's mind to form a rich bed of firm concepts upon which the individual develops his/her thoughts.

Metaphor, innovation, creation a direct derivation from chaotic systems self-similarity attribute?

John H. Holland in his book 'Emergence' in chapter 11, page 202-218, points out the significance of metaphor in the advancement of human thought by innovation and creation.

In his elaborate development of the subject the availed transfer of attributes from a source to a target object or system and the ensuing associations brought forth, augments perception and enriches experience, in the individual and collective levels.

Metaphor, an implement used by the mind. Directly derived by the intrinsic property of self-similarity in chaotic systems? Nature all-embracing chaotic systems in either objects or systems, established or developing attractors exhibiting self-similarity, which the human mind attuned by it, itself the product of chaos, another attractor, recognises and makes use of its insipid action and by it innovates, creates and advances knowledge?

Life? Is that a glimpse of what we experience as life?

I read in John H. Holland's "Emergence" book, page 140

"First of all, the glider is not a fixed set of particles bound together and moving on a trajectory through the space."

in describing Conway's simple cellular automaton, the glider being a simple, mobile, self-perpetuating pattern, contained in the automaton exhibiting emergence. But

"Rather, particles are continually being created and deleted to produce the glider."

A thought, driven by the self-similarity property inherent in chaotic systems, urged me to apply the behavioural pattern of a glider to much wider systems. All living systems, be that plants animals human individuals included; all being structures made up of elementary particles constantly recycled. Self-perpetuating patterns contained within nature itself, continually being created and deleted. Birth and demise. Life-cycles? Characteristic of all living systems.

But within each species life cycle, the individual of a species acts and behaves as a fixed set of particles bound together and moving on a trajectory through space. All that despite being constantly recycled in underlying processes that are largely unaware by the individual.

Is that what we experience as life? Our experiences built by our existence as a fixed set of particles bound together? Our movement, in trajectories governed by the laws of nature or physics, through space? Confined space, by the very laws that define our trajectories? Literally, a cage?

How do we go beyond the confined space prescribed by the laws of physics? How do we exceed the limitations imposed upon us? What does that mean in the experiences we accumulate through life?

Form

Is the concept of form responsible for all the knowledge accumulated so far? Would it be possible to create knowledge without the form? Is there any knowledge that exists beyond the form? What is form? What kind of form are you contemplating there? The form that establishes methods of proceeding, the procedures according to rules, the prescribed way to deal with the phenomena, the standard or expectation based on past experience, manner or style of performing or accomplishing according to recognised standards of technique, conduct regulated by extraneous controls as of custom or etiquette, manner or conduct as tested by a prescribed or accepted standard.

Why did I start that line of thought? I was thinking about whether there is anything left from the living experience of an individual that extends beyond and after its physical presence has expired. Something that emerges along with the coming of another individual's physical presence. How does this connect with form? Though the form thing has not been elaborated fully, or to an appreciable extent.

Another trigger was the idea of broadcasting an individual's contents of consciousness. What would that entail and what would or could actually be transmitted as well as what could another individual receive, administered as some thought experiments.

May be it started by reading that essay about existentialism or even the recent post about redundant concepts. If I question knowledge gained by prescribed methods, language, formal systems then what other kind of knowledge is there? Almost everything there is to know, it has been achieved by prescribed methods, logic, maths, science. Is there any other knowledge? Innate knowledge? If it wasn't for our conscious mind, we would not have the knowledge as well as the products of that knowledge that has made living more secure and filled with opportunity.

Still, it feels that this knowledge is not ours to have, we were not meant to have it. It exists beyond and out of our self. As if it is there by accident. Probably we would not need it at all. It survive us and it survives by us. A one-to-one interdependent relationship. If it wasn't for knowledge we would revert to a primitive stage, and if it wasn't for us knowledge would have meant nothing. A legacy of the human kind.

The body of knowledge represent the transcended entities, it is this transcendent realm by the definitions provided for ideas, that is the real pattern of which existing things are imperfect representations. To accept that there is another realm form where ideas transcend is prerequisite and implies the existence of paradise and of utopias a precursor of Judeo-christian doctrines.