Chaos theory trashes the notions of equilibrium.

In 'Human Brain and Psyche as Complex Systems' by Gerald Schueler in page 2, under the title 'Chaos Theory', mentions..

"1. Equilibrium. One of the findings of chaos theory is that complex systems that seem to be in equilibrium are not really in equilibrium. Systems damped by friction, and driven by some kind of energy input, while appearing to be at an equilibrium state, are not really at equilibrium at all. Tiny variations are present which can send the system into chaos at any time. Complex systems, require far-from-equilibrium conditions in order to maintain self-organization or growth (Cohen & Stewart, 1994; Gleick, 1987; Kellert, 1993; Prigogine & Stengers, 1984)."

Equilibrium. May be its usefulness is past and gone. Dwindling into oblivion? A concept whose properties do not, and are not supported by the currently held knowledge. Superseded and turned obsolete by other concepts risen, and its continued use only deters a deeper exploration in the phenomena. A conceptual baggage in need of being rid off. Imperative the need to be replaced by concepts that they are more in tune and in the gist of the phenomena to be explained. In its ashes the concept of 'dynamic' emerges.

Thoughts straight out of the inability of the concept to attain a clear definition. Complex systems seem or appear to be in equilibrium but they are not. The apparent nature of equilibrium relying upon what is seen and not what lies underneath, expressed by a variable external to a system under study, one that an external observer finds appropriate and defines, befitted to the lack of means during the time of its original usage was ever thought. As the deeper probing into the underlying nature of systems, any system, has been gradually enabled, reveals its inadequacies. Redundant, likewise, nonsensical the far-from-equilibrium reference as a requirement for complex systems. The dynamic nature of complex systems under the continuous subjection to incompatible forces, a constant source of tiny variations ever ready to kickstart a bout of chaos, to test all possible outcomes to its evolution to the next state of existence.

Nevertheless, incisive the attribution to chaos of self-organization and growth, systems driven to perfection, to wholeness complete, overriding the necessity of any equilibrium.

Throwing overboard relentlessly whatever is remotely connected with what is not agreed now.

Single individuals, as well as all the structures built and maintained by individuals, have a tendency, for various reasons, to hold on to old practices and ignore the new. Such a tendency, to whatever degree is adhered to, suppresses progress and hinders natural development based on notions that what have worked well in the past, it works in the present and it will work in the future. Its influence becomes overriding and suppresses new ideas.

Usually development reaches a plateau, as the premises for their rise in the first place, presented as the initial conditions, confine and determine the extent to which they can develop or even the kinds of development possible. These initial conditions which can be taken as the foundations of the system(s) built, do not offer any room for further development. Any further development is impossible. Further development is only possible by acting on the very foundations that the system(s) are built. Shaking at the very foundations of the built system(s).

An example of such process is provided by the rise in France of the Bourbaki movement in the 1930s among young mathematicians, presented in this article from PlanetMath website.

The system comprising the state of mathematics in France at that period pushed young mathematicians toward a complete overhaul on the way mathematics were taught as they felt that older mathematicians were holding on to old practices and ignoring the new.

As it is stated:

"Bourbaki felt that the old mathematical divisions were no longer valid comparing them to ancient zoological divisions. The ancient zoologist would classify animals based on some basic superficial similarities such as “all these animals live in the ocean”. Eventually they realized that more complexity was required to classify these animals. Past mathematicians had apparently made similar mistakes : “the order in which we (Bourbaki) arranged our subjects was decided according to a logical and rational scheme. If that does not agree with what was done previously, well, it means that what was done previously has to be thrown overboard.”"

The notion, of throwing overboard what was done previously, if that does not agree with what is agreed in the present, no matter how widespread and deep-rooted it might appear to be. That goes along at every scale, even at the level of a single individual in its efforts to acquire meaning accomplished by the eclectic use of language and the subsequent application of that meaning to deal with everyday life phenomena.

"Someone should stick to language, as far as the words, the symbols used, serve their purpose, in achieving meaning, and then words should be discarded, thrown away."

Amending old and tried practices, ideas that held true in the past, instead of tampering with the initial conditions, the foundations, it will only alter superficially a given system, as the limits have already been reached. As what is required is to advance to the next stage, a higher state in the system's development where new, innovative ideas will find room to flourish and proliferate.

The prerogative of acting on the initial conditions is professed by the chaotic systems development. The sensitive dependence on a system's initial conditions, where tiny perturbations have drastic effects in the final outcome of a state. A force that is unstoppable and able to carry forward whatever changes have touched and are about the initial conditions of any given system.

Any attempts to stifle such drive, goes against the premises of natural development, futile attempts of a system in its dying throes to perpetuate its existence, destined to fail as it stands against a much larger force.

Redundant concepts? What for?

I read in a website:

"First, I will give some putative examples of A-consciousness without P-consciousness. If there could be a full-fledged phenomenal zombie, say a robot computationally identical to a person, but whose silicon brain did not support P-consciousness, that would do the trick. I think such cases conceptually possible, but this is very controversial. (See Shoemaker, 1975, 1981)"

A case that is conceptually possible. It gives a clue about the act of arguing a case. To describe nature you employ concepts. You built a structure, a conceptual structure used to explain the phenomenon. The concepts used should bear a direct relationship with what is observed in the phenomenon. If you use more concepts than are necessary, you built a cumbersome conceptual structure which exceeds the conceptual capacity of the phenomenon itself. Redundant concepts? What is their use? The thought caries on, I would say gets carried away. A construct. I would say an artificial construct. As if language has assumed a life of its own. It can go on and on.

What was that I came across just earlier on, in another website?

"Most successful explanations explain complicated phenomena in terms of simpler ones."


It is like maths. The mathematical language which it can go on and on, as it should satisfy hundreds of clauses and conditions, which are deemed necessary. With ifs, as ifs, and ifs and ifs and iffs ....., it can continue on and on to infinity. It has to be rigorous. I wonder. What for?

The same goes on in other disciplines too. New concepts are invented daily. Such disdain for simple, robust concepts. To add on to already existing concepts, by enriching their content. Depth and not girth. In a quest to conceptualize more and more obscure ideas, which instead of clarifying a field it makes it muddier than ever. End up communicating to each other in ever smaller circles.