Tuesday, September 20, 2011

F.E.D. Dialectics and "Complexity Theory"


Dialogue on F.E.D. Dialectics & "Complexity Theory"


Dear Readers,


Below I have "genericized" a recent dialogue on
F.E.D. Dialectics and "Complexity Theory".

The interlocutor's theses are designated by D., and mine by M.D..



D.:  Here is a passage on Christopher Langton's "Theory of Everything." . . .

This passage [is] from Roger Lewin's book Complexity:

"The science of Complexity teaches us that the complexity we see in the world is the result of underlying simplicity," said Chris, "and this means two things".

"First, that you can view the simple systems that underlie it all as being creative. ...

And second, because simple systems generate complex patterns, we really do have a chance of understanding those patterns.

We have a chance of finding simple models that explain the creativity we see."

"You know, I can't see why [this] shouldn't include the entire spectrum, from embryological development, evolution, the dynamics of ecosystems, complex societies, right up to Gaia...."

"Are we looking at a Theory of Everything here?"

"I'm not sure you could say it's a theory of everything", he said warily.

"I think what we have is an insight into the underlying dynamics of everything.

There may be different classes of system within it all, what are called different universality classes."

"In other words, the overall dynamics of all the systems -- from cellular automata through to Gaia -- may be common in a general way, but there may be subgroups of systems, the universality classes, that also share detailed dynamics."

"So in principle you might have a general mathematical description for all complex adaptive systems, with more detailed descriptions for each universality class. ...

That's almost a theory of everything."



M.D.:  The passage you extracted in your comment, reproduced above, speaks of exactly what F.E.D. has actually accomplished, to my reading.

The sub-title of their new book -- "Meta-Genealogies of the Universe, and of Its Sub-Universes" -- to my reading, addresses Langton's "different universality classes" that "share detailed dynamics", in terms of different "sub-universes".

Their extant writings, and their planned
Encyclopedia Dialectica, present, or plan to present, not only their '''17-symbol Equational Meta-Model of the History of the Universe as a Whole"', but also "meta-models" for each "sub-universe" within that whole, where each such " sub-universe" represents a different, more-detailed "scale" of "meta-genealogy", and of "meta-evolution", contained within that totality.

Because of the synchronic and diachronic "meta-fractal" similarity of all of these scales, the Seldon Function form appears to provide the needed universal mathematical form for all of these "meta-models", at every such "meta-fractal scale", but with a different <<arche'>> ontological category as the "seed", or "kernel", of the Seldon Function for each such scale.



F.E.D. has a way of "locating" each ontological category-symbol, e.g., each <<arche'>> ontological category-symbol, as well as its "progeny" ontological category-symbols, in terms of their "venue" within these "[nested] Seldon Function(s)" [Multi-Sub-]Universe(s) "meta-model(s)":

They use "pre-subscripts" and "pre-superscripts" to locate ontological category symbols in terms of their "Universal Taxonomy".

They use ordinary subscripts, which they call "post-subscripts", or "right subscripts", for what I have notated here as "denominators", e.g., for
q/1, they write q with a 1 subscript right after it, below and to its right.

They use ordinary superscripts, which they call "post-superscripts", or "right superscripts", as powers or exponents.  E.g., what I write here as
[q/1]^2, they write as q-subscript-1 followed right after by a superscript 2, above the q-subscript-1, and to its right.


However, to "locate" an "interpreted" or "assigned" ontological category symbol in their Encyclopedia Dialectica "Universal Taxonomy", they use a "pre-subscript", or "left subscript", placed immediately to the left of, and below, the category symbol, to indicate the "[sub-]universe of discourse" in which the ontological category being symbolized inheres, and a "pre-superscript", or "left superscript", placed immediately to the left of, and above, the category symbol, to indicate the "meta-fractal scale", or "taxonomy level" of their "Universal Taxonomy", "at" which this ontological category resides, or resided [the latter in the case of now-"extinct" ontological categories].

The "highest", or most general / most inclusive, taxonomy level is assigned the "pre-superscript" value of
1.

Thus, the "categorograms" --


n for sub-nuclear "particles", assigned to generic ontological qualifier q/1;

s for sub-atomic "particles", assigned to generic ontological qualifier q/2;

a for atoms, assigned to generic ontological qualifier q/4;

m for molecules, assigned to generic ontological qualifier q/8;

p for prokaryotic living cells, assigned to generic ontological qualifier q/16;

e for eukaryotic living cells, assigned to generic ontological qualifier q/32;

b for multi-[eukaryotic-]cellular “meta-biota” -- “meta-zoa” and “meta-phyta” -- assigned to generic ontological qualifier q/64;

l for proto-language-based animal societies and plant communities, assigned to generic ontological qualifier q/128;

h for human[oid]s-led meta-societies, assigned to generic ontological qualifier q/256;

y for “meta-humanity”:  for “meta-human” “meta-meta-societies”, assigned to generic ontological qualifier q/512;

. . .

-- which I have listed, above, in the actual, diachronic, chronological, historical order of appearance [cf. Chardin] of the progression of <<arithmoi>>, symbolized above, in the universe, each bear a “left-superscript”, or “pre-superscript”, value 1, signifying level 1 in the Encyclopedia DialecticaUniversal Taxonomy, the most inclusive level, plus a “left-subscript”, or “pre-subscript” value, of an inverted, "capsized" capital letter "A", signifying the “every[thing]”, “All”, or “universal” domain of discourse.


Were we next, for example, to build a dialectical meta-model of the natural-historical “[self-]meta-evolutions, or self-revolutions, that have gone on inside the
a, or atoms, ontological category, e.g., the "evolution", starting with Hydrogen, or H, as <<arche’>>-atom / <<arche’>>atomic <<species>>”, and moving on to --


Hydrogen + Helium,

-- or --

H + He


-- thence to --


Hydrogen + Helium + Beryllium + Boron,

-- or --

H + He + Be + B


-- thence to --


Hydrogen + Helium + Beryllium + Boron + Carbon + Nitrogen + Oxygen + …,

-- or --

H + He + Be + B + C + N + O +


-- then each ontological-categorial term of the sequence of series above would bear a “pre-superscript” tag of
2, indicating that this meta-model addresses the 2nd level in the Universal Taxonomy, and a “pre-subscript” tag of a, indicating that the domain of discourse addressed by this meta-modelis that of the [taxonomy level 1] atoms, or a, ontological category.

And so on . . .





D., I sometimes think that I may be detecting an element of "vitalism", or of some other kind of radical dualism, in your writing, when it comes to the "life / non-life", or "living / non-living" distinction.


For example, in a recent comment, you wrote [emphasis added] --

D.:  "I believe the triangle shows the organization of the complex, dynamic systems you describe -- at least at the level of life.

Living systems are the subjects/objects of evolution.

Life is a bootstrap of self-organizing, dynamically interdependent systems."



M.D.:  First, let me say, I very much like your “Living systems are the subjects/objects of evolution.”


That “subject/object” insight -- especially the moment wherein it means “self-reflexive”, “subject-[verb-]object identical”, in the sentential sense:  that the system-as-object to itself as [also] subject, receives the action enacted by itself, the system-as-subject, and changes as a result of receiving that [self-]action, therefore self-changes”, in addition to being changed by the action of other, external subject[/object]s -- is of the very essence of dialectic.

One of the features that I most like about the
F.E.D. "Dialectical Theory of Everything" is the way in which it dialectically transcends any radical dualism of, e.g., "living matter" versus "non-living matter".

Their concept of "[self-]evolution" [and of "self-meta-evolution", or of "self-revolution"] is not restricted to "life", or to "genes-based" / "genomes-based" evolutions, but extends to the entire cosmos, from its start to ever onward.


The following meta-evolutions, or “ontological self-revolutions in and by nature, all descriptively contained in the
F.E.D. Dialectical Theory of Everything Equation, are all identical “in form”, although each is qualitatively different from all of the others in terms of its ontological content --


n x n   =   n + s


s x s   =   s + a


a x a   =   a + m


m x m   =   m + p


p x p   =   p + e


e x e   =   e + b


b x b   =   b + l


l x l   =   l + h


h x h   =   h + y

. . .


-- all assert, and exhibit, the same general <<aufheben>>, or dialectical, process of self-meta-<<monad>>-ization, though each successive “self-operator” above is richer for having <<aufheben>>-internalized all of its "self-hybrid" predecessors -- or for having been created by the self-internalization” of its immediate "self-hybrid" predecessor, which, in turn was created by the earlier-still self-internalization” of its own immediate "self-hybrid" predecessor, and so on -- and so represents a qualitatively different and richer, in detail, <<aufheben>> operation, than did its predecessors, and, so has an even richer still, still more complex <<aufheben>> result than they did.


But “life”, as conventionally defined, only begins with the self-operation / self-<<aufheben>> of
m, the “moleculesontological category / <<arithmos>>, yielding the “prokaryotic living cells”, or p, ontological category / <<arithmos>> as its qualitative increment of new, previously-unprecedented cosmological ontology.


Thus, in this meta-model, the irruption of “life” as conventionally defined does indeed represent an unprecedented ontological development in the cosmos, but so do all of the other self-revolutions reconstructed/predicted by this meta-model, both before and since that of --

. . . m   --->   m x m   =   m + p.


There is no radical break posited, in this meta-model, between “pre-life” nature, and nature post the self-advent of “life”, which occurs when a local
m <<arithmos>> expandedly self-reproduces, and "self-densifies" / physical-spatially "self-concentrates", to and beyond the critical-threshold point of irrupting p.


The same principle of the ontologically-progressing self-organization of the cosmos applies, both before and after the self-organization of “life”:  this principle’s instances just become qualitatively ever richer with each further instance of it.


This is the universal “bootstrap” process, depicted in the
9 formulas above.


What you say about -- only? -- "life", they say about the entire universe: about the entire span of so-far-reconstructed past-to-present history -- and about their predicted-future history -- of nature; about "natural history" as the totality.

Or, alternatively, they see the entire universe, from start to finish, as being alive – in the sense of <<auto-kinesis>> [cf. Plato], or “self-change” [cf. Marx, Theses on Feuerbach, Thesis
III., http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm ], i.e., in the sense of being self-moving, self-becoming, self-reflexively self-developing, auto-poiesic, in short, dialectical.



Thus,
F.E.D. would expand the scope of your formulations, quoted above, somewhat ['''] as follows --

'''. . . the organization of the complex, dynamic systems you describe -- at all epochs and levels of cosmological self-genesis / self-generation.

All natural systems are the subjects/objects of nature's [self-[meta-]]evolutions [/ [self-]revolutions].

Every epoch of nature's dialectic is a bootstrap of self-organizing, dynamically interdependent systems.'''



Can you embrace the above-stated extension / generalization of your stated principles of self-organization?

If not, why not?

If so, why so?




Regards,

Miguel






F.E.D. definitions of special terms used above --


<<arche'>>
http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/Arche/Arche.htm

<<arithmos>>
http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/Arithmos/Arithmos.htm

<<aufheben>>, self-<<aufheben>>
http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/Aufheben/Aufheben.htm

<<auto-kinesis>>
a definition for this term is not yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see --
http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Correspondence_files/Letter23-24JAN2010.pdf

auto-poiesic, autopoiesis
a definition for this term is not yet available in the Clarifications Archive

categorograms
a definition for this term is not yet available in the Clarifications Archive

diachronic
http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/Diachronic/Diachronic.htm

dialectic[-in-general]
http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/DialecticsInGeneral/DialecticsInGeneral.htm

domain of discourse, [sub-]universe of discourse
a definition for this term is not yet available in the Clarifications Archive

meta
-evolution; self-meta-evolution; self-revolution
a definition for this term is not yet available in the Clarifications Archive

meta
-fractal
a definition for this term is not yet available in the Clarifications Archive

meta
-genealogy
http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/MetaGenealogy/MetaGenealogy.htm

meta
-human; meta-humanity
a definition for this term is not yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see p. I-19, in --
http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Dialectic_Ideography.html
http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Dialectic_Ideography_files/DI_Prolegomena-Epitome-24OCT2009.pdf

meta
-model
a definition for this term is not yet available in the Clarifications Archive

meta
-<<monad>>-ization; self-meta-<<monad>>-ization
http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/Meta/Meta.htm
http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/MetaMonadization/MetaMonadization.htm

meta
-meta-society
a definition for this term is not yet available in the Clarifications Archive

meta-society
a definition for this term is not yet available in the Clarifications Archive

<<monad>>
http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/Monad/Monad.htm

ontological category
http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/Onto/Onto.htm

order of appearance
a definition for this term is not yet available in the Clarifications Archive

pre
-subscript, LHS subscript
a definition for this term is not yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see p. I-7 , in --
http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Dialectic_Ideography_files/DI_Prolegomena-Epitome-24OCT2009.pdf

pre
-superscript, LHS superscript
a definition for this term is not yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see p. I-7 , in --
http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Dialectic_Ideography_files/DI_Prolegomena-Epitome-24OCT2009.pdf

qualifier
, ontological
a definition for this term is not yet available in the Clarifications Archive

radical dualism
[vs. dialectic]
a definition for this term is not yet available in the Clarifications Archive

Seldon function
http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/SeldonFunctions/SeldonFunctions.htm

self-becoming
, non-teleological
a definition for this term is not yet available in the Clarifications Archive

self-change
a definition for this term is not yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see --
http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Correspondence_files/Letter23-24JAN2010.pdf
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm

self-developing
a definition for this term is not yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see --
http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Correspondence_files/Letter23-24JAN2010.pdf

self
-hybrid
a definition for this term is not yet available in the Clarifications Archive

self
-internalization
a definition for this term is not yet available in the Clarifications Archive

self
-moving
a definition for this term is not yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see --
http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Correspondence_files/Letter23-24JAN2010.pdf

self
-organizing system, self-dis/-re-organizing system, self-revolutionizing system
a definition for this term is not yet available in the Clarifications Archive

self
-reflexive
a definition for this term is not yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see --
http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Correspondence_files/F.E.D.,Letter%2005,Postludes%20Series,Postlude%20V,The%20Self-Reflexivity%20Paradigm%20of%20Dialectic,F.E.D.%20to%20Webmaster,www.dialectics.org,14JUN2011.pdf

synchronic
http://point-of-departure.org/Point-Of-Departure/ClarificationsArchive/Synchronic/Synchronic.htm

Universal Taxonomy
, Encyclopedia Dialectica
a definition for this term is not yet available in the Clarifications Archive, but see p. I-7 , in --
http://www.dialectics.org/dialectics/Dialectic_Ideography_files/DI_Prolegomena-Epitome-24OCT2009.pdf

vitalism
a definition for this term is not yet available in the Clarifications Archive

No comments:

Post a Comment