|
Author
|
Topic: Response to Christopher Beling
|
christopher humphrey
Member
Member # 1377
|
posted 15. May 2006 13:44
posted by Christopher Beling
quote:
The thread by Christopher Humphreys on the Vesica Attractor falls into this category. I would like to make some comment to Christopher but presently don't know how. It is my belief though - and I would like to show this mathematically - that physical principals cannot generate the quantity of specified information we see in biotic systems.
What about Quantum physical principals ?
quote:
The visible world is the invisible organization of energy.
- Physicist Heinz Pagels
[ 15. May 2006, 14:08: Message edited by: christopher humphrey ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 15. May 2006 20:40
Christopher, Hi from the other Christopher! I hope others here may be encouraged to read your earlier post here. I still wish that I had read sufficiently to make comment on this interesting concept of yours. It certainly would be very helpful if you could give a reference to a book or article on quantum mechanics that would explain the " the invisible organization of energy " and presumably a possible origin of CSI? I can conceive that CSI could well be present in the realm of hidden variables ala David Bohm - i.e that the CSI responsible for the fabric of our universe may have been present at the cosmological Big Bang and just then just expressing itself overtime (although I only talk here about the physical cosmos not life). But I gauged from your paper The Second Ring of Life that the Vesica attractor was more a self organising concept for producing CSI?
[ 15. May 2006, 20:54: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
christopher humphrey
Member
Member # 1377
|
posted 17. May 2006 00:39
Thanks for the encouragement and questions Christopher. My main contention is that complex system arise from a succession of attractors that spontaneously emerge from the interaction between the flow of quantum energy and particles. These energies coming in pulses or cycles whether they be a light wave of the sub-atomic micro-universe or the cycle of day and night of the macro-universe.
The information for complexity manifest as a the physical components arrange themselves according to these mathematical patterns underlying this flow of energy.
Attractors emerge when information(in the form of an agglomeration of partial relationships that spontaneously bind around inherent mathematical principles ) collapses to a point, these points then absorb quantum information from its parent matrix thus stabilizing both attractor and field.
These new points then emit a new complex quanta pulse preparing the environment for the next stage of attractors and complexity.
In this view the pulses and cycles of the underlying quantum universe then must be the DNA for all the order around us, certainly this is not a revolutionary view unless it can be applied to the evolutionary stages of life, not just in theoretical models but actual fossil evidence that these attractors can form physically.
This is what I believe I’ve discovered.
The vesica attractor appears to emerges after the evolutionary line of simpler precursor attractors. The (point attractor/oolitic mineral spheres) (cycle attractor/photosynthetic cells) (torus attractor/Eukaryote cells)
The vesica attractor recapitulates, encapsulates all these founding attractors though its own developmental stages emerging as a nonlinear assemblage point of quantum information in the form of a biologic system. The higher taxon of the Cambrian explosion.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries,
is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!')
but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
----------------
The way this model came about was by deciphering the information contained within a fossil artifact, then placing it within the context of the fossil record. I had no prior intention of proving or disproving anything. It just occurred as a natural confluence of elements that ties together information that then produces new information.
In hindsight the best way I’ve found to test a new model is the "bootstrap approach".
If your newly discovered model begins to provide solutions to problems not yet solved by present models its probably a good model.
When these solutions provide information that you never expected or could not have predicted its probably going in the right direction.
If this new information can then shed light on problems you formerly never knew existed, and further still those solutions show practical applications to help our species survive in changing times you are no longer objectively observing the evolutionary process you are now participating in the evolutionary process.
Evolution and the study of evolution can never be solely objective activities.
Both are the acquisition and utilization of information from the world around us, whether it is a plant cell utilizing light waves via the photosynthetic process or a scientist receiving information on skin cancer cells via fiber optics.
-----------------------------------
Quote:
We gain our ends only with the laws of nature; we control her only by understanding her laws.
Jacob Bronowski
[ 29. May 2006, 19:58: Message edited by: christopher humphrey ]
IP: Logged
|
|
christopher humphrey
Member
Member # 1377
|
posted 29. May 2006 19:28
Science is not the enemy of humanity but one of the deepest expressions of the human desire to realize that vision of infinite knowledge. Science shows us that the visible world is neither matter nor spirit; the visible world is the invisible organization of energy. I do not know what the future sentences of the cosmic code will be. But it seems certain that the recent human contact with the invisible world of quanta and the vastness of the cosmos will shape the destiny of our species or whatever we may become.- Physicist Heinz Pagels
This is a quote from Catastrophe Theory,
Quote:
Semantic Models
In section 13.8 of Structural Stability and Morphogenesis, René Thom proposes the following definitions and their implications.
Every object, or physical form, can be represented as an attractor of a dynamical system on a space of internal variables.
Such an object is stable, and so can be recognized, only when the corresponding attractor is structurally stable.
All creation or destruction of forms, or morphogenesis, can be described by the disappearance of the attractors representing the initial forms, and their replacement (by capture) by the attractors representing the final forms. This process, called catastrophe, can be described on a space of external variables.
Every structurally stable morphological process is described by a structurally stable catastrophe, or a system of structurally stable catastrophes, on the space of external variables.
Every natural process decomposes into structurally stable islands, the chreods. The set of chreods and the multidimensional syntax controlling their positions constitute the semantic model.
When the chreod is considered as a word of this multidimensional language, the meaning (signification) of this word is precisely that of the global topology of the associated attractor (or attractors) and of the catastrophes that it (or they) undergo. In particular, the signification of a given attractor is defined by the geometry of its domain of existence on the space of external variables and the topology of the regulation catastrophes bounding that domain.
One result of this is that the signification of a form (chreod) manifests itself only by the catastrophes that create or destroy it. This gives the axiom dear to the formal linguists: that the meaning of a word is nothing more than the use of the word; this is also the axiom of the "bootstrap" physicists, according to whom a particle is completely defined by the set of interactions in which it participates.”
[ 29. May 2006, 19:43: Message edited by: christopher humphrey ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic