Hi Jamie,
this is a very "rich" post. I'll need a few days at least to ruminate
on it and perhaps contact you privately before attempting to look smart
enough to reply. Meanwhile, if a simpler version of this occurs to you,
please try it (that's not a wise-crack, I really do want to work
through the logic of this in some detail, but can't at the moment).
I've also copied this to the *** list for relevant replies.
\
best,
John K.
James N Rose wrote:
Hi John K. [via ISSS-Issues & Complex-M]
I'm glad you point out that Robert Rosen didn't
deal with this in his extensive writings, even
though it is germaine if not seminal to the scope of
his work distinguishing modeled vs natural systems.
Free-will is both an abstraction and a constraint.
You don't have the 'free will' to suddenly be in
Bali. You don't have the 'free-will' to see
microwaves. What we imagine as some sort
of 'unconstrained choice space' is really one that
is -adequate so we don't feel the limitations-.
What we really have as free-will is a partial
capacity to break from past behaviors/choices,
but not the capacity to go beyond physical laws
or limitations. Where even such 'possible acts
or events' of stochastic behavior groups like QM
are defined/described by hard-specifiable
(ie deterministic) rules.
I accept the sensibility that there will be options
to opt for that went previously untried, but I can't
accede to the conclusion that if perfect chaos exists
then absolute free will exists.
Choices do disappear. That is one of the outcomes
of perfect entropy, perfect 'dis-order'. There is
no way to regain low entropy and performance potential,
ie, options.
Which is one reason why I am concerned with
exploring a relationship I've identified in
dimensional topology [related to complexity]
that entropy relations can generate negentropic
activity and order production in adjacent
tiers of organization (dimension space).
I identify gravitational accretion (a negentropic,
spatial localization of matter~energy) as resultant
from troepic gradients between dimension orthogonals
of pure toplogical timespace, which are resident there
antecedent to the presence of energy~matter.
In other words, troepic gradients precede the arising of
the fundamental forces and in fact are their generator.
The 'fundamental forces are tangible Emergents arising
from 'internal communication' as it were of spacetime
domains with themselves.
With this as a possible cosmology, then 'topological
entropy' (not thermodynamic) becomes the efficient-cause
of existence and negentropic order becomes an intrinsic
by-product of Existence. It is concurrent at all
stages of being.
So somewhere, sometime, somehow there is a continual
supply of option spaces being fed into the performance
possibles of 'things' in the universe - whether
primitive or inordinately complicated. :-)
Gives me a nice sense that 'eternity' really is
eternal and quite infinitely transfinite, actually.
All this being my version of what quantum theorists
accomplish using the quantum soup and ZPE (zero point
energy) ideas. And a bit more uncluttered than what
string theory does to accomplish 'existence'.
Jamie
John Kineman wrote:
Hi Jamie,
It seems to me that because choices never disappear from any proposed
structure of reality (the proof being that one can always choose to
believe in that structure or not), that we must embrace free-will at
least that far - the ability to choose, which is a form of abstraction.
The domain of abstraction is something not modeled even by Rosen, so do
we not have to accept it as a fundamental given?
For analogy, because we can't model the beginning of time, it is thus
accepted in physical models as a fundamental given, not thrown out of
the equation.
Then, accepting that, a non-repeating pattern would be indistinguishable
from free-will, which, by the above logic, we already accept exists.
James N Rose wrote:
Hi, John,
Yes, there is no avoiding exterioralization.
But there is 'communication de-synchronization'.
The most perfect 'random' generator starts
with a set or class in which -no- individual
symbol is repeated .. ever.
But we are in an existential frame which is
recursive and redundant in its most primitive
and primordial aspects.
So the best we can achieve will only and ever be
'satisfactory de-synchronization' of potential
patterns. To the best of our 'knowledge' about
what patterns are extant or resident within
existence. So I agree with you on that point.
If the de-synchrony is sufficient to allow
for 99.44% pureness (old soap commercial pun)
then the randomness is usable. If check-sum
approaches cross-reference the undercodes, then we
can get randomness of sufficiently high order
to satisfy manipulation-prevention goals.
The problem is one even Shannon/Weaver wrestled with:
even 'noise' contains information.
If the randomness outstrips the time-frame in
which the generated number must be or will be
used, then what difference does 'potential
exterior non-randomness' make? There would
be no way to distinguish whether the number
is exclusive to 'true' randomness or is a member
dual to that set plus a set in which the number
occurs as one of an extremely large pattern.
Which ties in with a question I've been asking this
week on some physics-conversation lists:
In the Many Worlds Interpretation [multiverse solution]
of QM, does the interpretation include not just
all possible 'different' universes built from alternative
constants and/or alternative branchings of initial
states .. does the interpretation (and the math, of course)
include 'perfect duplicates' of any of the individual
individu-verses? And if not, why aren't perfect
replicates included in the set of all-possibles? Are they
intuitively precluded? Is it a subtle bias toward
'perfect randomness' in the face of a universe which
is becoming disquietously more fixed and unavoidably
rule based and confining?
My personal insight educes that self-else [fixed vs options]
are a state of juxtapositions which inhabits even our
psyche and percepts. Identity and freedoms of action
are built into the primal architecture of existence, and
are displayed in our behaviors and thoughtways as well.
The behaviors of all systems for that matter.
The drive to find/prove 'perfect randonmess' is akin
to the human hunger to affirm/prove perfect 'free will'.
And they both have their pragmatic applications. :-)
Rules and recursion, are required. Degrees of freedom,
are required. :-)
You tip the balance by favoring synchrony here, or
de-synchrony there. There is no right-or-wrong.
They blend under venued conditions and in the light
of desires or goals.
Jamie
John M wrote:
Jamie, no matter by which "system" you want to
eliminate the 'system' for a "systemless 'random'
generation", you ARE within 'a' system. Bigger? so be
it.
If you pick by any haphazardous way, it is only your
ignorance not to know what gave the impulse for that
'impulsless' action. Random is IMO a model, identified
by "not pertaining to any KNOWN cause".
As such: it is limited, incomplete and reductionistic.
Have fun
John M
|