Bidyut Sarkar
Member
Member # 989
|
posted 27. January 2004 11:06
Comments on “Irreducible Complexity Revisited” – William A. Dembski
This is an attractive and provocative article; Dembski successfully introduced on Nature’s designing that has long been guided by Darwin and its followers. Behe’s concept of ‘Irreducible Complexity’ has shaken the foundation of Darwinism towards ‘Ontogeny of Designing’. “Numerous, successive, slight modifications”, the key principles used by Darwin, is not the most probable outcome but the least one. And this upset for the ‘evolutionary scientists’ will continue for indefinite period because exploring the intermediate structures in Nature, in view of complexity, is not that highly probable as fill-up the gaps in Mendeleeff’s Periodic Table.
But two contexts, here, inspire me to break the shackle of this stalemate condition (7 daunting probabilistic hurdles). Firstly macromolecular machines (bacterial flagellum) are subjected to Brownian motion (a random field reflecting its entropy) of media particles. This entropy (thermodynamical arrow) always continue exist even in more micro levels of quantum world: “Black holes ain’t so black” – Stephen W. Hawking. So, at the foot of Nature’s selection there is a purely random field. It is like Pandora’s box. Now if an organization can stay for some finite time in this harvesting field it will reduce this pure randomness to threaded sheets along this span. It will be a record of succeeding snaps of entropy in the media. But, here is no chance of introducing an alien, there. It should have the integrity to survive in this randomness. The thread is the most important stuff to complement exactly and can exist only iff it knows the trick to remain orthogonal (so undisturbed) to the direction of entropy. One can account this thread is the negentropy of the organization. But being a system the organization has its own entropy (not purely random as before but depends upon the distribution of other systems) designed by its own complexity that has the strength to integrate the entropy of itself and the surroundings in reference to a point in space-time where it exists in context of other existences. Pure randomness, conceptually, is something void (Null). Or, in other words, Complex organization designs its own cosmos (in context to other existences) continually by stimulating underlying Null exacting its own design in particular space-time. If terminologically entropy defines disorder of a system negentropy defines order of it. So the designed cosmos will be orderly self-similar. It will find everything surrounding is congenial for self to exist (except in cases of accidents). Dynamical system says that accidents are nothing but critical points where the period of ‘the system’ bifurcates. It is the result of stimulation beyond the threshold and here not only the sub-system is disturbed but the rest of the system also. So there be an attempt to settle in a new order with these bifurcated arms.
And secondly, other interesting theme is that there is the arena of space-time where these phenomena of selection eventuate. ‘This space-time is a topological entity’ was first visualized by Riemann (Riemann manifold space geometry), formulated by Poincaré and founded by Lorentz. Proper time of a particular event is universal. Or, proper times of all the events around an observer are invariant to all other observers, ever possible, irrespective of their coordinates. So, all individual existences, possible in cosmos, are always in an inseparable common soup. Proper time of a particular event is a blend of two items: space and time. First one is expressed in real numbers and second one in imaginary form. Thus these two items should complement each other additively, in absolute, because there fusion is an invariance (Euclidean existence).
But the split of this Euclidean existence is due to spinor that is p-adic in nature. Space reduces to infinite number of absolute indivisibles or reducibles (primes, selective reals) with infinite number of intervening absolute divisibles or irreducibles (antiprimes, imaginaries, those exactly counter-matches with primes). Primes and antiprimes, being the same number (infinite number), in completely complementary perspective, form an invariant grid in the background as foundation of design of structurisation.
In last few years I am working on ‘A Hypothetical Cognitive Model’ that is Möbius strip of ½ (two dimensionality model) and 3/2 (three dimensionality model) spins. “Intuitions need not lead us astray; they can also lead us aright”. And, to me, validity of such a hypotheses is intuitively right, particularly before a large mass, if it is founded on Number System that can accommodate every possible system.
Species is determined by very specific package of primes (with antiprimes) that is acquired by inheritance in supercoiled form as minimum. During fertilization to become zygote proper time define the system (‘c’ of Julia) by nucleating hierarchically all primes and antiprimes relevant! I owe to Jack Sarfatti’s relevant work in this arena. But this model supports extension of nucleation occurs in both ways of time on present moment. Those are for simplification may be termed cosmic (Wallace, A.R.), as they are not determined by parent genes. Primes & antiprimes denote classical entropy and quantum negentropy of a system. Or, simply, they define null dispositions within a system.
To appreciate topology of real and imaginary number systems one may consider 2D surface
on a sphere where at north pole is ‘infinity’ and at south pole ‘0’. Real number system and
imaginary number system are like two rings with open ends where the above two numbers
respectively are limits. And it is only possible to reach those differentially (making a
complete complimentary ring system) if they are orthogonal to each other. There may be infinite number of such sets inseparable from each other. Their tracks are, nevertheless, geodesics. In 2D topology of ½ spin Möbius strip, conventionally, real number system is along convexity (outer surface). So, imaginary number system is along concavity (inner surface). 2D model is an infinite soup of inseparable 1D existences where space-time cannot be separated, instead, as background of Prime-Antiprime grid. If one picks up one particular prime-antiprime set, wherever it may be in the strip, it drags all infinite sets along its self-similarity. In Argand diagram, in this context, Prime denotes space and Antiprime denotes soup of rest infinite spaces as time. At least human mind can separate space-time into space and time. It can recall the part either space in the form of specific sheet (visionary field) or time in the form of specific point on thread (feeling field). But, executing such phenomena, one to flux out of the strip and stimulate 2D-strip on the desire of the sub-system. On the other hand, intelligent design to evolve the initiation should start within the strip with finite flux constrained within a finite segment of the strip iff it appreciates the flux by staying on Null within the flux. It is now finite 2D strip (different from infinite one). One may construct this strip making paper ends pointed. These end points are nothing but with common beginning (Bigbang) and common end (Bigcrunch) of all 1D existences. And to support this dimensional evolution from 2D to 3D (trinary that handles two number systems plus Null as well) 2D strip rearranges itself by turning further by full turn be Möbius strip of 3/2 turn.
These finite models support one interesting phenomena, termed pi-chopping, by which real-imaginary number system transcends to rational (RNS) – irrational (INS) system that also complements absolutely along the strip; thus reduces to Null existence. But contrary to common impression the direction to which RNS ascends INS descends just as in case of real-imaginary system where real number series ascends towards ‘infinity’ and imaginary number system ascends toward ‘0’. But in 3D model there are two extra conflexors in the strip, two shoulders. Skiing from extremals irrationals and rationals escape as classical and quantum jumps. This tangential space out of the strip, a two dimensional entity, is the playground of our common consciousness where we share with others. This is an incomplete space in respect of longer background. Here, rational and irrational functions are not free but weighted. They always overlap that at least be Heisenberg’s uncertainty. Rationals can be put down (mixed scalar) but irrationals (mixed tensor) cannot be on paper. Rationals has always the tendency to reduce into matters as doughnuts (secondary prime or finite primes) and irrationals are the intervening space of Leibniz (secondary or finite antiprimes). But what the design of structurisation emerging must be referenced to background of Prime-Antiprime grid.
Here, one cannot defy the existence of a self-organization that can unify rational-irrational number system on the background of real-imaginary system when there will be no isolated act that will disturb the system’s path. So it is atleast intuitively possible where zigzag conformations (with more energy waist) in tangential spaces ultimatimely gets stretched be exactly canonical (superconscious state transcending incomplete space of consciousness). So they are now topologically same as geodesics on Möbius strip of 3/2 spin. In exclusive (Pauli) designing of nature the reach should be not only from within (subconsciousness, infinite 2D strip) but also from without (superconsciousness, 4D, going with the system without wasting energy). But approaching this state one has to be aware of the flux between RNS & INS; thus to remain at null for continually higher and higher time and ultimately BE. Dimensional evolution from 2D to 3D satisfies this as one out of the three conditions and this is Hamiltonian Principle. My conclusion, here, is that the direction of biological (advancing complex structurisation of macroscopic quantum system) evolution is towards the system where there will be no energy loss.
Reductionism is partially right. Their goal is towards visionaries. Visionary is weak. One can put it down to rationals. But feeling is strong. One cannot put it down because it is irrational. So irreductionism, guided by dynamical system, is also partially right and it is the stronger of the two. I have complete faith that dynamical system has the potential to be founded on A New Analogy that will guide us more close towards Nullification.
[ 28. February 2004, 14:51: Message edited by: Bidyut Sarkar ]
IP: Logged
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic