Monday, 11 October 2010

Social scientists perception of chaos. To serve their own means. Still a way to go.

Social scientists perception of chaos. To serve their own means. Still a way to go.

New ideas brought forth, as I was reading R.D. Smith's 'Social Structures and Chaos Theory', article in Sociological Research Online. In paragraph 3.10, it is mentioned

"In order to have a formal notion of structure which is consistent with the chaos theory paradigm we now need to return to a requirement so far unelaborated."

Formal notion of structure. Formalism, its journey from the means to becoming an end. It is not the formal notion of structure that is required but instead of, of formalism. What formalism is needed for, formalism as the tool to drive the human mind into learning of what nature employs in instantiating reality. Nature is already using chaos to organise itself. What is required by individuals is to unravel nature's workings in order to learn how that work is done. The individual would not tell nature how to do things, the individual would study nature, to learn how nature does things and to acquire a notion of structure as it has been put down by nature, to assist cognition. Human cognition has to devise formal notions, so the human mind will be able to comprehend how nature works. The forms are the props human mind requires in order to fathom into how nature works. Chaos is already there, whether the human mind wants it or not. It is up to the mind to understand how chaos works and not the other way around.

The requirements mentioned, it is not up to chaos to fulfill. Chaos does its job without any need for requirements, the requirements put forth are only a construct the human mind needs in order to comprehend the workings of chaos. Requirements as such it is what the mind requires to understand, to fully comprehend chaos. To elaborate the knowledge the human mind possess in order to fit with what actually happens. The tendency to see chaos as a predicting and controlling tool rather than a fundamental notion, it is what is underlying in that exposure, obstructing a clear view of what chaos is, the progress in the minds of people from chaos theory to chaos.

"In its most precise rendering chaos can only arise when the possibility of any given state repeating itself is potentially zero."

From an observer status to a controller status, what else could it come out from that statement, declaring what chaos requires in order to arise, seen as a requirement only from the perspective of the individual who has in mind that he has the upper hand in this process, seeking not its explanation for his mind to comprehend but its subjugation to its will, and as a result ignores what is already evident in a chaotic process. The possibility of any given state repeating itself, far removed by the very existence of bifurcations in the menagerie of tools in chaos, how chaos increases complexity within any given system, how does it open up new as yet uncharted phase space, phase equivalent to state, augments creates further space for new potential states to emerge.

Along with the notion of fractional space, fractal space from the macroscales to the microscales, states referred to by the nodes apparent at a certain stage in its development. All nodes present at a certain stage, the totality of all possible combinations, the totality of states possible being the phase space.

Impossible what lies outside the existing node-defined phase space, plausible-possible what still lies within the already existing phase space which is instantiated by bifurcating at any of the nodes already existing but not of any nodes outside phase space, as there are not such nodes existing.

There follows a bold assumption made, which I would require some enormous amount of reasoning to comprehend what was in the mind of the originator.

"To take the illustration of a strange attractor such as the Lorenz attractor what is needed is a situation in which the orbital pathway of a flow or flux can continue for an indefinitely long period of time (for eternity) without ever passing through the same point twice. If this condition is not met the orbit is not in fact chaotic but periodic even though highly convoluted. What this in turn means is that the phase-space in which the flux is propagated should be continuous and not quantised. A quantised space, however large, is effectively finite thus cannot provide for truly chaotic behaviour."

Eternity is not big enough in the mind of the author, the mind can include eternity within its bounds. Large, the symbol used to depict such a conceptualisation, it is within the grasp of his mind, a mere leap of imagination and the conceptualisation is achieved, it is fathomed, it is controlled, becomes finite, trivialises chaotic behaviour its essence cheapened unworthy of consideration by social scientists.

From such humble beginnings, social scientists marred with complexes of grandeur, epistemology devised to dictate individuals to the what's and why's they do what they do, their social groupings their personalities by the know-alls.

Just by chance they stumbled upon chaos and they want to bring down to their level, down to the bare necessities, what their mind can comprehend, a caricature to serve their needs to retain their position at the pedestal, instead of rising themselves up to the occasion, lowering levelling chaos down.

However it is a beginning but they have a lot of way to go but certainly not with these attitudes.

Still what it puzzles me, is the proposition of the phase-space that, it should be continuous and not quantised. What does it mean? What is the distinction between, continuous and quantised? What kind of phase-space do they have in mind?

Quantised it is the underlying all-inclusive all-pervading state existing where all phase-space resides, the ultimate ground universe-, reality-wide. Continuous from the sense of, bursts of quanta to an uninterrupted stream of energy? It is proven by quantum physics that is not an an uninterrupted stream of energy, a well-established fact.

Then what? Continuous, as the only option left, is attributed to phase-space? What would this actually mean? A continuous phase space? Phase-space primarily thought of, as all the potential states available in a system. States, as defined by the author too, as all the combinations of nodes existing, which, going along with quantised principles, are snapshots of even infinitesimal duration, collating snapshots to reveal reality. The very concept of continuity only applicable for human perception-wide world, our immediate world called classical world from the viewpoint of quantum physics.

The use of continuous for phase-space is meaningless. The assumption bold worthy of social scientists.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.