Quantum and chaos.

Quantum and chaos brought together with one another? In what way? I read in John Gribbin's 'Q is for Quantum, Particle Physics from A to Z', page 391, for 'quantum leap'.

"quantum leap
The important feature of a quantum leap is that it is discontinuous transition between quantum states. For example, an electron 'in' one energy level in an atom jumps instantly into another energy level, emitting or absorbing energy as it does so. There is no in-between state, and it does not take any time at all for the leap to occur."

It does not take any time at all, absence of time. Time refuted at a deep fundamental level. Its existence as relative to the frame it is referred to, the simplest states in nature, materialising by the jump of an electron from energy level to energy level.

Jerky moves smoothed out. As the level the observer looks at, at ever decreasing scales as its field of view is continuously zoomed out, to include less and less information, spiky edges in a rough terrain gradually vanish. The details disappear. Zooming in and out, smoothing roughing fields of study, a perspective employed to explain all phenomena undergoing.

Zooming in, rough terrains appear. The information that brings forth allows to distinguish between a process and the outcomes of processes, the solid objects that appear in front of us, regardless size, shape, form dimensions as such, from a chair to earth, to sun stars and galaxies. By zooming in, the observer discriminates the process from its outcome, revealed within the time-frame it takes place, practically its history. Any object reveals itself in chunks of time discontinuously. Chunks of time including within the objects materialised. Atoms at the microscales the processes out of the nuclei-orbiting electrons interacting with nuclei-bound protons and neutrons, themselves out of processes at a deeper level, process histories as such , and by annealing their histories, they take up space (create space?). In a grander scale massive objects but nevertheless, processes themselves, out of combined chunks of time of all constituent comprising entities, the constituent histories and all the space they take up. The world of objects, a puzzle of immense proportions of discontinuous chunks of time. Time scattered, time-chunks, pieces here and there that appear uniform, smooth, continuous by virtue of residing within one of the time-chunks. Their boundaries limiting scope and perspective.

Universe, world, nature, whatever it is called, all that is, virtually discontinuous processes, continuity amenable to the eye of a beholder thanks to the limits imposed by insurmountable boundaries, what the senses have been engineered to, a cage that only imagination can escape.

Imagination and world-the-outcome of processes, at the same footing, quantum and chaos hand-in-hand.

Processes undergoing by what other than chaos, at every level imaginable. The same principle applies for all processes, despite their scale, nature-made and man-made. The discontinuity introduced by virtue of quantum mechanics, completes the picture and along with chaos provides a tool to explain all phenomena. To my mind that could be used to question the outcomes brought forth by Darwinism, the smooth or not so smooth transition of species and the survival of the fittest to discontinuous transition in speciation what goes along with the notion of habitat-bound replacement than survival of the strongest. Discontinuity that does not require class struggles. A virtual leave and let live scenario.

Meaning, what New Scientist magazine offers and is about ..

Meaning, what New Scientist magazine offers and is about


meaning not out of sake of the ignorant masses but for the sake of the individual, the all-surpassing unit that populates earth

(a snippet found in .. out of a burst of chaos in my mind .. a year ago .. unfinished .. but I do not have in front of me what triggered it .. and I do not know how to finish it now .. and I fear I might loose its essence .. my conscious mind interfering .. what I have right now in my mind .. what stopped me in my tracks .. is the connection of meaning .. with nature .. meaning brings us close to nature .. one with nature )

and that meaning the individual achieves goes hand-in-hand with nature. The way nature has developed or develops or will develop, or even ignoring this distinction of time, and just state the way nature develops, in a way that (is reminiscent of) affirms the tenets of Occam's razor.

science popularisers, they are not .. (servants .. servile to a cause .. science to be used and abused .. to serve vile needs .. under the grasp of the lowest instincts .. human individuals possess ..)

(ignorant masses! .. ignorance spread in societies .. perpetrated by the top echelons .. their construction based upon .. the yield of power .. )

but move the individual

not a thankless .. but a fundamental task

in the out of the fields of ignorance into ...

to become closer to nature, to be one with nature

and not for the sake

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.

Continuous attractors and memory retrieval?

This extract intrigued me. It is from the abstract of the paper titled as 'Context-dependent retrieval of information by neural-network dynamics with continuous attractors', published in the journal, Neural Networks, Volume 20, Issue 6, August 2007, Pages 705-713, cited in the ScienceDirect website

"Our results suggest that keyword extraction by the neural-network dynamics with continuous attractors might symbolically represent context-dependent retrieval of short-term memory from long-term memory in the brain."

I want to toy with these ideas as they drew my attention, the former act itself, in my mind relevant to what they mentioned in their findings. Short-term memory retrieves context-dependent information from long-term memory. As I read through the paragraph, the spontaneous and instantaneous formation of short-memory, quickly linked with relevant information, the context-dependent factor, in long-term memory. Is retrieval a correct term? As, in my mind, what it actually took and takes place.

The world is finite. The chaotic process that spawned the universe has an end.

R.D. Smith's assertion

"A quantised space, however large, is effectively finite thus cannot provide for truly chaotic behaviour."

in 'Social Structures and Chaos Theory', article in Sociological Research Online, paragraph 3.10, stands.

What refers to continuous,

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

drawn out of the necessity of '.. any given state repeating itself is potentially zero' and ..

".. 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."

.. despite the flow been allowed to 'run for an eternity'. It should 'never pass through the same point twice'. Continuity, put down as a prerequisite for the flow to be chaotic, a flow that requires to have no end, and such an end is met at the boundaries of the very universe itself. Phase space meets its limits at the realm of quanta. That puts another twist to the saga of chaos.

The continuity of the chaotic process it is not possible, the space within which it flows is finite even though its boundaries are as enormous as the universe itself is. It is not that this enormous space is quantised which as such it makes the duration of the flow even more immensely enormous, so if it takes an eternity, by being quantised it takes double or many times that eternity but still it is finite as the boundaries of the universe are finite.

And to speak of it, the boundaries of the universe are continuously expanding that augments the space available but still it is finite even if, for a given time, but for any given time, no matter how this interval of time can be comprehended, it is still finite. To what this conclusion points to, is that for a chaotic process, or the chaotic process of the universe is not continuous. There is an end to the chaos that created this very universe. At some point there will be no more space to explore, or even a situation where the chaotic process is catching up with the expansion of the universe itself.

And to add to that, is the current phase space, which according to the account of ever diminishing phase space, as the phase space opens up, explored via the chaos-induced bifurcations, out of the pre-existing phase space, within the space that the creation of attractors has already drawn, their ultimate space available what lies deeper down to the microscales, the world of quanta, excluding from what lies out of the attractors already created, the worlds, the universe that could have been, if at a certain bifurcation in its past a different choice has been made, as by, a different cosmological constant had been chosen.

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.

Fundamental or emergent?

The only fundamental entity in the universe is energy. And not in the form that is around us now, but the form it existed before the big bang.

I do not think we are able to even grasp what energy is. The reason being that we are dealing with the emergent entities, that is all that physics is about. The carrier particles that transfer energy from place to place are emergent entities and they did not exist 'back then'. Are the energy and carrier particles conceptualisations tightly woven to one another and can not have energy without the carriers?

But physics can not penetrate deeper and offer viable solutions of what energy is.
Descriptions, of immense energy amounts before the big bang, unimaginably hot or super-dense, carry no meaning.

We can not transfer the meanings hot and dense, that have been developed by studying the emergent phenomena to that fundamental context where neither space nor time existed. Hot explained out of the necessity to describe this energy form out of human standards, is not enough to describe the state of energy and energy itself, where there were no standard to measure against. There were no living beings around. Likewise for dense when there were no particles to create the density conditions we now know.

The very meaning of energy we hold now is not applicable. A meaning that is woven around the manifestation of emergent processes while to grasp the full meaning of what energy is should be done without the use of what has emerged out of the big bang. And the only thing that can be said for sure, that carries meaning is that energy is carried or transferred or distributed via the forces of nature. The forces of nature themselves, being an emergent phenomenon itself spawned out of a primeval super-force.

which do not give

The universe .. just another of the systems that exist within it. Fundamental forces .. fictitious as all other forces in their frames of reference

"What happens when the brakes are applied? Let us look first from the frame of reference of the outside world."

I do not know why .. but I feel there is a connection there .. the .. reference of the outside world .. earth moving .. an accelerated frame of reference .. the bus itself .. by looking at it .. from outside .. having the outside as reference .. think what will happen ..when earth decelerates

though that is not the intriguing point .. as much as .. think this whole subject of inertial .. fictitious forces .. from the perspective of processes .. systems instantiating by the ..action? ..of processes .. inertial forces .. in that framework

forces .. that develop in systems .. what makes entities in systems .. to advance forth .. to move from state to state .. the forces that develop within the system .. which makes them .. unique? .. for that system alone .. fictitious forces

fictitious forces .. whose their existence .. is bounded within the system .. they were born in .. they are real .. for its occupants .. but .. un-real for .. outside the system

where are you getting it .. that even the forces .. that are at large .. in the universe .. the ones called fundamental .. they are no different .. than the fictitious forces .. the universe .. a system .. as the many systems within .. and what governs all systems .. rules universe too .. the universe .. the reference frame .. and outside the universe .. the reference of the outside world .. all the forces .. within the universe .. fundamental to us .. but still fictitious .. from the frame of reference of the outside world

forces .. apparent .. created .. within the system universe .. and their existence .. makes the universe possible .. powers up .. drives through .. all the processes .. that form galaxies .. stars .. worlds .. despite their mega-scale .. nevertheless ... fictitious .. the mega-scale .. and their growth .. explained as the growth of the objects within .. demand .. greater and greater forces .. sustained .. suspended .. by the very presence .. their existence creates

from the other point .. as they are self-creating .. they do not require .. any reservoir from which they draw .. their power .. they are supplied with ..

.. gives reason .. to the universe born out of nothing ..

Nothing .. the origin of everything. Thoughts

nothing .. the origin of everything .. any line of processes .. emanate from nothing .. and that is where .. the line of processes .. instantiate .. materialise .. when there is .. a standstill? .. when the line of processes .. has lost its momentum? .. it is not powered up? .. it is not driven up .. forward?

the idea .. that came to me .. after I watched .. this advert .. of orange mobile .. nothing .. the user have nothing to say .. to the world .. sort to speak .. to announce to the world .. what is thinking .. at a particular instance .. in the social network .. is part of .. which taking this modern activity aside .. is a state that the mind enters .. when everything in one's life .. appears empty .. a void pressing deep in one's existence .. where one can not see .. anything at all .. when what really happens .. is .. reverting? .. to its origin .. to nothing

nothing being .. the origin of the very universe .. of universes .. the quantum fluctuation .. powered by the uncertainty principle .. the seed .. the quantum seed .. that gave birth to the universe .. the big bang .. that created order .. out of nothing

bootstrapped? .. suspended ..

universe spread .. making it possible .. for countless processes .. to spring up .. themselves following the same blueprint .. originating from nothing .. the human individual .. representing such a line of processes .. which in the same way .. like its largest counterpart .. started from nothing .. itself suspended .. bootstrapped .. by the very own processes .. that gave birth to it .. suspending it .. to its origin to nothing ..

thinking .. what powers .. the bootstrapped .. suspended processes ..

or .. probably .. or potentially .. we are in that state .. the state of nothing .. and we are kept .. suspended? .. via the processes .. which we are into .. letting go of the processes .. we are left .. in the void .. at the ..mercy .. of our origin .. nothing

processes .. branching out .. from a central .. trunk .. bifurcating .. to an array .. of other processes .. each dealing with .. to a different aspect .. aspects .. dimensions .. opening up .. new areas .. for activity to emerge ..

engaging in .. the processes .. engagement failing .. or not materialising .. leaves us .. at the midsts .. of the void .. that our existence sprang out of .. and as this attribute .. is universal .. applies to all processes .. instantiating in the universe

surrounded by the void .. the .. nothing .. an idea .. that's brought forth .. in that kid's film .. where the fantasyland .. was destroyed .. by the void ..as people stopped believing in fairy tales .. the processes that gave birth .. created fantasia .. were not engaged in .. and as a result .. fantasia was .. receding into oblivion ..

disengage .. from the processes.. and you are lost .. you are left with nothing ..


god .. the solace .. a refuge .. running to it, to shelter in .. the angst .. felt ..

Quantum entanglement computations from the perspective of variable connection points

Chaos, emergence, complexity concepts risen and spread in the minds of people inextricably intertwined, each one built out of the ideas that build the other, notions coming out from the, still fresh in my mind, thoughts expressed by John Holland, in his book 'emergence, from chaos to order', what is mentioned in Chapter 9 titled Variation, page 167,

"With these provisions a mechanism is described by a string over the alphabet {1,0,#}."

an alphabet referring to the elements that comprise an entity and determines its state, a universal alphabet, so simple in its inception, (1) if it exists, (0) if it does not exist and hash (#) if it "doesn't care"

By taking the current stage of the concepts developed for each of these entities, as being their current states, and as for every and any state possible, what it depends upon, therefore owes its existence, being a necessary condition for the state's own existence, and by giving rise to the state's existence, its own existence instantiated, effected therefore verified and proven. Its value (1) for existing.

For what the afore-said state does not depend upon, it doesn't exist. Its presence is not required or even its absence is a must, vital for the state's existence. Other states might require its existence, therefore though its existence is not instantiated in that case and can not be verified or proven, it can be verified and proven by other existent states. Its value (0) for non-existing.

And the "doesn't care" element of the alphabet for all other elements that can be taken as the scenery, since their being there is irrelevant to the state's existence only filling up space in the state's background. Its value (#) for "doesn't care".
And all in the context of the hierarchical structure of nature, being built by levels upon levels of entities all the states that makes such super-structure to exist.


Quantum entanglement, a special case of connections, connections in the sense .. John Holland puts it in Chapter 9, Variation. What is mentioned in the article “Sudden Death” Threatens Quantum Computing, ..

".. physicists need only figure out how rapidly sudden death can occur, then design systems that finish quantum calculations within that window."

a window .. a time-step

Entanglement, underlying nature, one of the mechanisms in its deep deep recesses. Fundamental mechanisms, its ultimate expression, a mechanism or mechanisms ruled by the very same cgp's and especially the penultimate case of cgp's, the cgp-v's .. the variable constrained generating procedures.

Constraints that generate procedures, procedures acting upon variable connection points, an ever changing landscape step-by-step, but for each time-step they are as good as acting on fixed connection points presented as a discreet time-step and in that time-step, the window referred to above, to perform the quantum calculations.

As for storing any outputs, for further use, for posterity, the notation derived and presented by John Holland in Chapter 9 Variation could provide a leeway in accomplishing the entire computation.

Treat the whole entanglement phenomenon as an emergent phenomenon, and use the angles opening up by such an approach to derive the quantum calculations, performed in a series of time-steps as the emergent phenomenon evolves.

Entanglement at the threshold of time, a time that lingers between the conundrum of existence, entanglement as such, its weird properties, a result of how we experience distance.

Distance which becomes a concept on the back of time, and that is the (horse)-back equivalent, as the distance connected it is only comprehended as a derivative of time. The time and by the time it takes, namely the speed, for a message to be transmitted. For the connection to be effected. A connection which, for all concerns it appears as violating physics, a physics developed from our only standpoint, what we have, what is allowed for us, and we can not do anything, but use it and interpret the world through it, though it looks as if it is not the only one that nature has.

What if time is not fundamental, but derived and what appears weird, run against our common sense, our physics, it is not weird at all, but a commonality that we are unable to fathom, as yet.

Emergence, consciousness .. and physical substrates.

How can these, seemingly different notions, can be reconciled? What notions? For once is what Steven Johnson refers to in his O'Reilly network interview, on the subject of emergence..

"Emergence is what happens when the whole is smarter than the sum of its parts. It's what happens when you have a system of relatively simple-minded component parts -- often there are thousands or millions of them -- and they interact in relatively simple ways. And yet somehow out of all this interaction some higher level structure or intelligence appears, usually without any master planner calling the shots. These kinds of systems tend to evolve from the ground up."

Emergence appearing(?)out of systems of simple component parts which they interact in relatively simple ways. This interaction brings about a new structure, (or may be not a new structure, but the old structure revamped), that as a whole, possess qualities not exhibited by any of its component parts.

And the other notion?

Each neuron cell represents a state amidst a multitude of superposed states, the whole brain in a superposition status? The brain in quantum superposition?

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

" .... consciousness is a basic correlate of function, but a function that only certain fundamental physical substrates can subserve. To know the true function is to know the substrate."

A fundamental physical substrate that serves as the ground that consciousness arises from? What substrate this might be?

Seeking out the depths of reality, its utter complexity within the grasp of the human brain

John H. Holland .. 'emergence from chaos to order', Chapter 5, 'Neural Nets', page 81-114, while reading through insights instantiate, glimpses flicker, pointing towards answers for questions in fundamental processes of the workings of the human brain.

in p. 86

"To construct a useful model of the CNS using this information, we begin with the idea that the activity of the CNS is described by which neurons are firing during a given time-step. Because of the uniformity of the pulses emitted, we can simply say that each neuron is either "on" (emitting a pulse) or "off" (quiescent) during a time-step."

.. the uniformity of the pulses emitted .. the basis upon which the brain works .. all the cognitive tasks undertaken .. the mind that comes out of .. the ideas, thoughts, knowledge .. all start as pulses .. uniform pulses .. indistinguishable from one another .. whose only effect is to turn a neuron 'on' or 'off'

in p. 90

"Because of its distributed nature and the simplicity of its elements, a neural net is a satisfactory vehicle for studying emergence: sophisticated behaviors emerge from the aggregation of simple actions."

simple actions, being .. the uniform pulses emitted .. and they give rise to sophisticated behaviors .. emergence

in p. 86

"We can further simplify the model by assuming that all pulses arriving within a time-step have equal effect in determining whether or not the neuron fires (in technical jargon, we ignore the phase of the pulses)."

simplifying matters for the sake of making more usable the model employed .. uniformity of pulses .. is what is only necessary .. ignoring all other aspects of the pulses-waves as amplitude, wavelength, frequency, .. phase .. coherent or incoherent .. is that allowable? .. it makes no difference .. the characteristics of one pulse from another .. for the emerging outcome? .. for the thoughts, the ideas, the mind instantiating? ..

.. or the unique features of each pulse do matter .. but at a deeper level. Each pulse, no matter the unique features it carries, is capable of eliciting .. the responses that emerge into sophisticated behaviors .. making up minds ..

.. and the unique features carried are significant at another, deeper level .. a level analogous, to what crossed my mind .. while I was contemplating .. on human resolving time compared with the resolving time of a fast electronic device.

The point - entering my mind right now - is, that the features of waves, which according to the model John H. Holland uses, namely the phase of the pulses-waves as irrelevant for the behaviors they instantiate, are what is appropriate with the reality the human brain is able to extract, engineered into the specific mechanics of the human brain, and not, for that matter, of a fast electronic device.

Equipped with the resolving time of a fast a electronic device the mind, is expected, to be different. Another reality or another aspect of reality, appearing before the eyes of the human individual. Whether, it would end up being another totally different reality or another aspect of reality, it remains to be seen.

What someone can surmise, is that the pulses-waves will be processed in the same way, posited by John H. Holland's model, namely pulses-waves being uniform, represented as simple actions which out of their aggregation, the sophisticated behaviors emerge, something that increases the complexity of reality alongside the apparent capability - or potential - of the human brain, to fathom into this deeper reality in its full extent.

Information, state of motion, frame of reference. Concepts, applied, context. The stuff of nature.

'Special Relativity' by A.P. French, Chapter 3 'Einstein and the Lorenz-Einstein transformations', p. 63.

" .. -that nature would apparently yield up no information about our state of motion with respect to a supposed fundamental frame of reference."

.. in that sentence connected, information, state of motion, frame of reference.

Information, the stuff that concepts are build out with, concepts in-turn materialise, instantiate reality, responsible for the state of motion, how nature unfolds within the bounds of frames of reference. A sentence that ties up, in a specific, dare say unique way, these three entities: information, state of motion, frame of reference.

Specific, unique way, out of the myriad (ignorance exacerbates imagination) ways available for information to be tied up, only a few combinations are allowed, survive to become the stuff for concepts, concepts that define reality, depict the way nature materialises. Information a fundamental entity that each minute detail of its existence, of its state of motion in all frames of reference brings forth. Information as conveyed in all manners of media, for all possible states, but what matters more, for information to assume its fundamental status, is to become the stuff to build the concepts that reality adheres to, is woven out of.

A notion that comes out from the processes involved in generating concepts by conversations,as it is mentioned in SCHOOLS AND EDUCATION :: LEARNING AND TEACHING, VII Conference of Foundation 2020, Thursday, 15 March 2007, Hotel Regent Esplanade, Zagreb, Education in Mind – Mind in Education: An Invitation to A Conversation. Graham Barnes, Chapter 'Education: A Story', p.16

"We constitute our concept of education (or any other concept)
(1) through conversations,
(2) in which concepts or procedures are shared,
(3) through sharing these concepts we apply them.
(4) our application of a concept creates a context, and applying a concept as a procedure produces a product. The context or product is relevant to the concept for the participant(s) who find meaning in the context.
(5) conversations are between participants but the participants are not necessarily, and are certainly not limited to, individual persons as the participants are also concepts. The participants in the conversation as concepts are also constituted by the conversation."

Concepts, as they are applied create a context, the frame of reference, produce a product. The context or product being relevant to the concept by virtue of the meaning it confers, when applied. And what comes out of, when participants in conversations are thinking about concepts, is that concepts are participants also. Concepts are thinking too, what ties human consciousness with nature. The meaning sought out by individuals when thinking the concepts inextricably tied up with the way nature is.

Concepts, in all their manifestations, propositions, theories, axioms, laws, in all the various ways they are used for, to indicate or prove or lead to, employed in thinking, the process that emulates nature's workings, guides our consciousness. It achieves its full potential when individuals make use of chaotic processes entrenched deep into our brains. Where nothing is overlooked, no bit of information possessed or coming across, is irrelevant or insignificant, and coupled with its exponential non-linear mode of being applied, lead to radical overhauls in conceptualising effortlessly.

Able to guide the mind to the right information amidst the penumbrae, seemingly disorganised bits of information, chaos apparent, and out of the penumbrae into brand new insights.

Crisis induced sudden death of chaotic attractors ... Contemplating.

I read the abstract of the paper "Multiple attractors and crisis route to chaos in a model food-chain" by Ranjit Kumar Upadhyay, of the Department of Applied Mathematics, Indian School of Mines ,Dhanbad 826 004, Jharkhand, India published in the journal Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, intrigued my senses, contemplated upon its contents, and the thoughts sparked in my mind, I laid them down as they occurred, as I read through the abstract, line-by-line.

"An attempt has been made to identify the mechanism, which is responsible for the existence of chaos in narrow parameter range ..

narrow parameter range .. the existence of chaos in narrow parameter range .. narrow signifying the small change necessary for chaos to exist .. existence of chaos.

The notion of existence of chaos, is new to me. Is it a way to describe chaos, occurring? It seems as it is extending the properties of chaos, or may be it is better to refer to as extending the concept of chaos.

Whatever, in that particular mention, significant is the reference to a mechanism. The mechanism that is responsible for bringing into existence after, well narrowly manipulating a given connected or attached parameter range. Or, maybe just, parameter. The existence of chaos, a result of manipulating or adjusting the parameter within a narrow range. Values given of the parameter fall into a narrow stretch of the parameter's total possible range of values.

in a realistic ecological model food-chain. Analytical and numerical studies of a three species food-chain model similar to a situation likely to be seen in terrestrial ecosystems has been carried out.

ecological model food-chain .. a situation likely to be seen in terrestrial ecosystems


The study of the model food chain suggests that the existence of chaos in narrow parameter ranges is caused by the crisis-induced sudden death of chaotic attractors.

'chaos existence caused' .. 'by crisis-induced sudden death of chaotic attractors' .. profound notion. First, is the statement, the best way I can put it, sudden death of chaotic attractors. Which, come to think of it, it accurately puts in the right perspective. Attractors, which, weight added, they are chaotic, their origin is chaos too, suddenly die. Suddenly die. Cease to exist. For chaos being dynamic, it postulates, if that term is correct, the necessity of what brought them into existence, in the first place. For the attractors to die, meaning, they lack of what they were fed with, what sustained them. What was necessary for their existence. Once, the condition that was keeping them alive, cease to be, they ceased to be, too.

That what was brought, was induced by a crisis. And their sudden death caused chaos. The existence of chaos, in narrow parameter range. Minute changes in the parameters involved brought chaos into existence. One would assume that this fresh bout of chaos would lead to new chaotic attractors. Chaos, let's say, methodology.

Varying one of the critical parameters in its range while keeping all the others constant, one can monitor the changes in the dynamical behaviour of the system, thereby fixing the regimes in which the system exhibits chaotic dynamics.

'critical parameters' .. implying sensitive dependence situations. In order to identify the result, each of the crucial parameters have, in the overall state of the system, the referred to, as dynamical behaviour, you vary one at a time. Monitoring the changes, varying one of the critical parameters, brings forth. 'Fixing the regimes', what combinations of critical parameters, combined values within their ranges, that exhibit chaotic dynamics, in the sense that certain regimes are more chaotic than others. As, they would be regimes, where the system exhibits no, behaviour at all, by taking behaviour to mean, the tendency for changes, among the members of a population. If, there are no changes, there is no behaviour to speak of, and with the sudden death of the already existing chaotic attractors, there is nothing to keep the system alive. Extinction follows.

Which points towards the realisation that its submersion into chaos, is vital, in order to keep the system alive, to avoid extinction.

The computed bifurcation diagrams and basin boundary calculations indicate that crisis is the underlying factor which generates chaotic dynamics in this model food-chain.

'computed bifurcation diagrams' .. 'basin boundary calculations' .. bifurcations induced by crisis, test the boundaries of the attracting basins. Basins, within which, the chaotic attractors reside, and once these boundaries are surpassed, chaotic attractors can sustain themselves no-more. Their purpose ends, the system requires to spring up, rejuvenate itself, if not, the members of the population, in crisis, will perish along with the death of their attractors that was keeping them alive. Chaos is necessary for their survival.


We investigate sudden qualitative changes in chaotic dynamical behaviour, which occur at a parameter value a1=1.7804 at which the chaotic attractor destroyed by boundary crisis with an unstable periodic orbit created by the saddle-node bifurcation.

'saddle-node bifurcation', 'created an unstable periodic orbit' .. unstable, there is no consistency, its trajectory changes between runs, cause a crisis manifesting at the boundaries, the chaotic attractors disintegrates. It is destroyed. As it occurs when a parameter acquires a specific value. An instability embedded in the system as the parameter fluctuates beyond its allowed range. The range that was necessary to keep the system stable, by keeping the periodic orbits stable.

Multiple attractors with riddled basins and fractal boundaries are also observed.

riddled basins, no clear-cut basins with fractal boundaries, many attractors, chaotic states, unstable


If ecological systems of interacting species do indeed exhibit multiple attractors etc., the long term dynamics of such systems may undergo vast qualitative changes following epidemics or environmental catastrophes due to the system being pushed into the basin of a new attractor by the perturbation.


Perturbations push the systems into the basin of a new attractor. Perturbations brought forth by epidemics or environmental catastrophes.


Coupled with stochasticity, such complex behaviours may render such systems practically unpredictable."

Understanding what mass is, in view of expanding space.

Weird notions come into my mind and I like to ponder on them and see to where they take me.

Universe expanding with the speed of light, as is mentioned here too, space expanding.

Outer space? The space between galaxies and stars or all space? Even to the space we occupy ourselves. Blowing up, expanding like balloons in all three dimensions.

It is space itself that expands, is found in NASA's Imagine the universe website,

".. but actually it is space itself that is expanding faster than the speed of light, driving objects further apart at an increasing rate."

The example of raisins in a cake as it is baked and raised up, the raisins on the surface grow distant from one another, but the raisins themselves are built on space, the concept of space is not limited only to the space observed by an individual, but includes as well the space the individual itself occupies, the raisins themselves occupy, even the space their atoms occupy.

The atom built by protons and neutrons enclosed in the nucleus and far far away, in relative terms, the electrons orbiting, an enormous amount of space included and include the point-like entities of electrons, protons and neutrons, attributed with mass equals energy, that space that lies within objects expands too, and expands with the speed of light, or, as it is claimed faster than the speed of light, in order to compensate for the ultimate speed, the speed of light, the limit all objects in the universe can be accelerated to.

We ourselves, as objects of this universe expand in space, or the space that our atoms occupy expand with or faster than the speed of light.

And all done equally, we are none the wiser. The only thing that changes is the distribution of energy in space. Which in a sense is diluted. How this notion would accommodate all what we think about what mass is? Inertial mass, rest mass of a body for zero speed; at any other speed the inertial mass is greater.

According to the equations of special relativity the mass of a body increases as it is gaining speed, it is about three times as much of the inertial mass for speeds at 0.95 of the speed of light and the graphs point to infinite mass as it gets nearer and nearer to the speed of light, asymptotic curve that never touches the y axis as the speed increases to ridiculous decimal increments to the speed of light.

What if space, all around the universe environs expands at the same time? Would an infinite mass postulate still hold? Would the beginnings of the universe from a singularity, an infinitesimal point of infinite energy be more plausible? Energy and space fundamental entities that combining the two together to produce mass? Mass an emergent entity, an entity that becomes apparent only if it is looked at from above a threshold, a macro-threshold, our familiar macro-world loosing completely that attribute when it is looked at from a point below that threshold. Mass concept becomes meaningless from the standpoint of the micro-world, the quantum realm, being only extremely concentrated foci of enormous amounts of energy kept apart by even greater distances of empty space?

What difference would that make if we take the point that this space expands at the speed of light in the same way that the universe itself expands at the speed of light.