07-01-30: Case: Yo' Mark! In your metaphor the cycle wheel is a Newtonian system. The wheel can spin backward and forward in time without consequence. Newtonian time is reversible. That's what makes it a "classical theory."
Thermodynamics was the first non-classical theory because in it, time is not reversible. In it, everything in the universe moves from a state of order to a state of disorder. All energy/matter dissolves into heat someday. First stated in the 1850s, this depressing bit of news predates Relativity and Quantum mechanics. It predates even Darwin and still it stands. Mark 31-01-07: Mr. Case, This is getting me brain all over heated, and i acknowledge i had a hand in kicking it off. I wish i hadn't done this, because scientific theory is now upper most when my interest is in the moq. The ZMM metaphor is a Sun and planet metaphor (like a cycle wheel) but differs in the important respect that, central to the Sun metaphor is the metaphor of generation: The Sun illuminates and gives life. Ironically, this is a thermodynamic metaphor so i was right anyway. ;-P --------------------------------------- 07-01-30: Case: The Thermodynamic metaphor is utterly precise. As a statement of math and physics the metaphor of Thermodynamics is so exact as to be called a set of laws. The Metaphysics of Quality shares the terms and concepts used to describe these laws. But you think this is inappropriate metaphor? You think Newton is more apt? Mark 31-01-07: No. I didn't convey the main aspect of the Sun metaphor, which is generation. Now, i stretched it beyond its initial ZMM use by introducing three types of orbit (sq-sq relationships): Static, coherent and chaotic, and you indicate these (orbits) may be classical theory in science. So, now we're all concerned about scientific theory rather than metaphysics. Something has gone astray you obfuscating swine you. --------------------------------------- 07-01-30: Case: As a measure of stability coherence incorporates the ratio of static to dynamic. It is a statement about both. Its asymmetry comes from the dissipation of the dynamic. Mark 31-01-07: I'm lost. I have a strong feeling we may be talking past each other because when i use terms like coherence and chaos i am NOT using them in the same sense as chaos theory, non-linear fluid dynamics, dissipative systems, etc. At rock bottom, all of the above, as valid scientific theories, are intellectual patterns of value. As such, they are open to metaphorical use rather like terms such as gravity and energy may have metaphorical force: "He doesn't understand the gravity the situation, and by God he'll soon feel the full force of the law!' In other words, i am not literally talking about chaos theory when i use terms like coherence. --------------------------------------- Mark 30-01-07: You see, the important features of coherence are ordered relationships involving unity. This flies in the face of entropy as may be seen in biological systems. 07-01-30: Case: In what sense do biological systems fly in the face of entropy? Mark 31-01-07: If entropy is a measurement of disorder, then life is flying in the face of disorder in that it is increasing in order and complexity. This is an argument in Lila. Inorganic entropy may win out in the end, because Inorganic entropy is being utilised to increase biological order and complexity, but some philosophers have speculated how this unfortunate, 'heat death' of the cosmos could be survivable. For Pete's sake let's not get into that? --------------------------------------- 07-01-30: Case: Perhaps you are right; I need some help. Here comes some from Andrew Sneddon's thesis posted on Ant's site: "The world is made up of systems which are in contact with their environments. These systems exchange energy with the environment. A stable system--one that is not suffering dramatic change- - is said to be at equilibrium. Once upon a time, it was thought that equilibrium was the rule and disorder the exception. Prigogine thinks the reverse is true, and shows how change actually produces order." Later he adds: "Prigogine, however, sounds like Pirsig in his discussion of the movement from order to disorder. Pirsig divides Quality into Dynamic and static quality--static quality is Dynamic Quality frozen, seized upon and used - - as a platform for further development. In other words, Pirsig's primary division into the world is into a process that produces order from an undifferentiated state." - Andrew Sneddon, 1995 - _http://www.robertpirsig.org/SneddonThesis.htm_ (http://www.robertpirsig.org/SneddonThesis.htm) Mark 31-01-07: I do not argue it may be useful to suggest order may be produced from an undifferentiated state. However, in Sneddon's view, which is essentially a comparison of chaos theory with the moq ("Prigogine sounds like Pirsig when..."), the order being manifest is static, and he does not acknowledge DQ to be the teleological goal of evolution, although he regards it to be the undifferentiated. As far as i understand it, chaos theory lacks an evolutionary aspect which gives the edge to the moq. The closest chaos theory has got to an evolutionary goal is to suggest that coherence is that which is increasing (thanks to Horse for pointing me in that direction). While i agree with this, i subordinate coherence to DQ, and i do not equate coherence to equilibrium. Chaos theory does not include DQ. So, if your position is that of Sneddon's, i have to disagree with the pair of yooz. --------------------------------------- 07-01-30: Case: Quality can not be defined. That is not to say that it can not be described. It can: metaphorically. We can say all sorts of things about what it is like. The terms we use determine the quality of the metaphor. It would seem that the terms "static" and "dynamic" prove central in some of the best. ---------------------------------- 07-01-30: Case: So Pirsig says that the MoQ subsumes SOM. It subsumes Logical Positivism. Here it could subsume Thermodynamics but you think it lacks sufficient metaphorical resonance? Mark 31-01-07: If Thermodynamics can be applied to all levels then we're in business. But how may it be said biological systems behave according to TDs when they are violating entropy? I understand that biological systems operate at a fine edge or sweet spot which allows them to turn the tables on entropy while entropy itself merrily goes on about it's merry way, and yet biological systems use this to increase complexity and order. And this is before we get to social patterns. No. It's not going to wash. TDs is a great intellectual description of Inorganic patterns but it can't deal with biological patterns in anything other than a reductionist sense. Chaos theory fairs much better, and Sneddon was quick to get onto this... ---------------------------------- Mark 30-01-07: An engine performing at maximal efficiency may be coherent. I suggested you may be conflating (actually i said, 'confusing' which was a mistake, sorry mate) DQ with coherence incorrectly because you did not seem to be recognising the value status of coherence. DQ cannot be valued for the sake of it because then there would be no corresponding structural sq latching support - like Hippies. 07-01-30: Case: Notice that when an engine is operating at maximum efficiency it requires less energy to do its work. Less of its energy dissipates as waste heat. It get more miles per gallon. When a tennis ball is hit by the sweet spot of a tennis racquet it requires less muscular effort to propel the ball. It requires fewer heart beats to generate the effort needed to ace a serve. It is "no sweat" because there is less need to dissipate body heat. Static latching occurs when complex system reaches a state of equilibrium. The system is static by virtue of the fact that it dissipates energy at the same rate that it takes it in. If it receives less than it needs it slows down, more and it speeds up. To little or too much and the latching fails and a new state is achieved at a higher or lower level of energy exchange. Mark 31-01-07: Right. Now grasp this as a metaphor rather than a literal reading and use it in a new context: sq-sq relationships. sq-sq relationships cannot exist without DQ, and this is THE crucial difference. Again from Sneddon: "A system that is disrupted from its history of order--due, perhaps, to some change in the environment--moves from equilibrium to a state 'far from equilibrium. Equilibrium functions as an attractor state, meaning systems move from one state of equilibrium to another--systems far from equilibrium are caught up in the process of the change. At a far from equilibrium position, a system is at a 'bifurcation' point--its future cannot be predicted from what is known about its history. It can jump to a new, higher (because more complex, and requiring more energy) state of equilibrium, or it can drop to a condition of less order, and hence less complex. In other words, the choice for the system is one between order and chaos." Mark 31-01-07: Where is DQ in this description? There can't be DQ because we are reading a description of chaos theory and not the moq. Case: Notice that more energy tends to mean more complexity. The more dynamic a system becomes the more ways energy can be transformed before it dissipates as heat. In a plant sunlight is converted to sugar, stored as chemical energy and released into other chemical transformations. It gets converted to electrical energy and back into chemical energy and on and on through the life cycle of the plant. Animals require the intake of more energy than plants but can engage in more complex and dynamic relationships. But somehow I suspect this all revolves around this idea of dynamic evolution heading toward "betterness." Letting entropy in the door rather takes some of the Zing out of that doesn't it? What a bummer man! First there was math and now heat death. Who put Murphy in charge? I think I forgot my mantra again, dude. This is turning into a Bad Trip. Just keep in mind: In the MoQ "Bad" is also a noun. Mark 31-01-07: You're a stimulating and adventurous thinker in your own right and sometimes it hurts like hell on a jet-skie. I admire that. OK, back to this coherence thing: What we seem to have is an ontological level of sq patterns which is applicable at all of the four evolutionary related levels. Thermodynamics can't do this, and chaos theory, although closer, can't do it either. (This may be wrong, i shall keep an open mind.) However, by abstracting some concepts and applying them to experience something MAY emerge as useful: 3 flavours of sq-sq relationships of Universal application - static, coherent and chaotic. Chaotic in the GOF sense of 'no order', yet not DQ. Thanks Case, Love, Mark moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
