07-10-31: New Case:
I attempted to address your misconceptions about entropy in a new thread.
This misconceptions was laid to rest long ago and is now only in vogue with
creationists on the Christian right.
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.
07-01-31: New Case:
We have been here before, I believe. All I am suggesting is that your
metaphor would make more sense if you made better use of the words you have
chosen to describe it. The terms static, dynamic, coherence and chaos all
have firmly establish meanings that work well when used correctly.
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..."),
07-01-31: New Case;
You know Prigogine really does sounds like Pirsig when you say it fast
enough.
Mark 31-01-07:
...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.
07-01-31: New Case:
Sneddon's thesis has very little to do with chaos theory. Rather he compares
Pirsig to Whitehead and claims that in many respects Pirsig is a process
philosopher. I think he was far too kind with respect to teleology.
Mark: 31-01-07:
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.
07-01-31: New Case:
I have no idea what Sneddon's position is. But I definitely disagree with
you on this point. Chaos theory does show how higher levels of order can
occur and evolve.
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?
07-01-31: New Case:
Of course thermodynamics applies at all levels. Regardless of what levels
you chose to talk about where the Law of Nature apply. Biological systems
are working little entropy machines.
07-01-30: Case:
...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.
07-01-31: New Case:
Why would I grab for a metaphor when a literal reading is so much more
meaningful?
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.
07-01-31: New Case:
Your pretty stimulating yourself and it is always an adventure talking with
ya. Kinda like skipping through a minefield.
It is like we almost agree but refuse. In your Universal application
coherent is still a statement about the relative degree of order. If you
went with thermodynamics you could use cold, warm and hot. At least then you
would be warmer...
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/
