Re: [issues] Is reality complex? / Redux: Freel-will

["John Kineman" <***>]

Tim,

Recall our previous conversation about how the encoding and decoding
loops do not exist within the domain of entailings in either natural or
formal systems, but outside them (and hence we decided the word for them
was contingency). Since they are associated with Rosen's "act of
abstraction" I referred to this third domain as the domain of
abstraction - in other words the domain where the modeling relation
itself sits.

JJK

Tim Gwinn wrote:

> JohnK,
> Can you elaborate: what does "domain of abstraction" mean? I'm missing
> the picture here.
> Thanks,
> Tim
>
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of
>     John Kineman
>     Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 3:13 PM
>     To: ***
>     Subject: Re: [issues] Is reality complex? / Redux: Freel-will
>
>     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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>