Re: Natural Law and Dynamical Hierarchies

[James N Rose <***>]

Judith Rosen wrote:
> 
> Hi Jamie,
> 
> Thanks! (I always feel like one of JS Bach's kids when
> someone gives me praise in this particular area... 

well deserved ... don't think otherwise
 
> I have an idea for perhaps the second "order" of entailment
> in the universe. I don't know if it's really second or if
> it's tied for first with context-dependence. It's a distinct
> concept, although related to the one already described. It's
> also what my father referred to as one of the fundamental 
> aspects of "Natural Law": the fact that entailment, while it
> is entirely dependent on contextual matters, is also exportable.

 [nice word, nice application .. "exportable" ; different
   mechanisms, repeatable patterns none the less] 

> If the contextual relations are transferred to a model with 
> enough accuracy, the model will predict accurate causal outcomes.
> (As always, the devil is in the details... Here, it's the value
> of the word "enough" that can be the source of so much trouble,
> though!) Putting it another way: Any model whose inferential 
> entailment relations accurately mirrors the causal entailment 
> relations of the system being modeled will then accurately 
> recreate the same exact same entailment pattern of the original system.

aye, there's the rub. The thing is, though, that this trans-tier
repetitive exportation of a templated standard performance-group
is a very powerful phenomenon.  Exposing it as the key dynamic
of all activities in the universe seem to be the coming quantum
jump in human comprehension.  It ought to make all previous
concepts pale in comparison.     ;-)

 
> This is a rather startling truth, it seems to me. We tend to 
> take it as "a given" that we can do this, but has anyone ever
> studied Why? This basic reality of how the universe works is
> a clue into the nature of entailment itself, ..

   bingo!  contrary to Godel-thought .. the universe must
be embeddedly hyper-consistent and coherent --AND-- self
explanatory.

> .. and therefore the nature of causality.

   (yes)

> If Robert Rosen was correct in his description of the nature
> of Anticipatory Systems, then the fact that all living systems
> incorporate this very capability (the portability of entailment
> patterns) into their own organization gives us further glimpses
> into how the universe works, how entailment works, and by 
> extrapolation, how causality works. That's where I'd be putting
> my research time, if I were to embark on a PhD right now.

The difficulty is the relation between 'causality' and 'indeterminancy'
(aka: 'free will').  It's already the concept-crux of the QM v Relativity
split .. but in the context of the concepts / relations / dynamics
we are scoping out to embrace .. reconciling required absoluteness
with required indeterminancy .. this is a much vaster, inclusive,
and far reaching paradigm about the nature of being.   More than
the stories and myths, more than the imagined and the comfortable.

The future of sentience rests in whether humans can grasp these
notions and clear the barriers and rise beyond them to truly and 
deeply morph ourselves into the advancing species we have the
capacity to (entailedly  :-) ) become.
 
> Judith

Jamie
2005/10/19