Struan Hellier (struan@clara.net)
Thu, 26 Mar 1998 17:48:54 +0100
Thank you very much for this Ken, I need some considerable time to think
about it and will respond later when I have digested it properly and
formulated my response.
Struan
-----Original Message-----
From: clark <clarkÉnetsites.net>
To: Multiple recipients of <lilasqdÉmail.hkg.com>
Date: Thursday, March 26, 1998 02:55
Subject: LS The Lila Squad.
>Struan and LS,
> It seems to me that the first thing you and I have to do is come to some
>agreement on Quantum Theory and the Theory of Deterministic Disorder before
>we can progress any further.
> You say that Quantum Theory is a purely random system and that you see no
>reason that we cannot have a Deterministic (predictive) system sitting on
>top of a random system. I say that the atom, the molecular world, the
>universe, and life are composed of Quantum electrodynamic and Quantum
>Chromodynamic functions which are currently considered to be the basic
>physical actions. This means that Quantum theory did not just give the
>larger universe a start and then subside and go its own way. These Quantum
>functions are an intimate and basic part of every atom and molecule and
>element that makes up the totality of the universe. If there were not
>predictability in these functions then there is no way that the remainder
>of the universe could be predictable, since the universe appears the same
>to us and to astronomers night after night, year after year, and century
>after century then any change in function at the electrodynamic and
>chromodynamic levels must either be non-existent or very slow indeed.
>Obviously the same actions happen over and over in similar functions to
>produce predictable results. To reiterate, we cannot separate Quantum
>action from atomic and molecular action, therefore I conclude that the
>action at the Quantum level must be predictable even though we have no
>explanation for it at the moment.
> To my mind the universe was deterministic at the beginning because a
>coherent physical process can be built up from the end of the Planck time
>(I think about 10to the minus 43 seconds after the big bang) up to now.
>Even so, the number of physical processes in the universe that change
>linearly with time and are thus solvable with linear differential equations
>are a very, very small portion of the totality of physical processes in the
>universe. What was needed was an approach that would make possible the
>extraction of meaningful information from nonlinear processes and thus
>make possible a much deeper penetration of the dynamical systems of the
>universe.
> That approach was found in Chaos Theory or Deterministic Disorder. This
>theory allowed people to understand that many simple processes in nature
>could generate great complexity without randomness.
> (An extract from the book "Chaos" by James Gleick)
>
>"In non-linearity and feedback lay all of the tools for encoding and then
>unfolding structures as rich as the human brain. --- Chaos shows how a
>purposeless flow of energy can wash life and consciousness into the world.
>--- Creation takes place at the edges where growth occurs, and because the
>laws of growth are purely deterministic they maintain a near perfect
>symmetry. A snowflake is a record of the history of all of the changing
>weather conditions it has experienced.
> Evolution is Chaos with feedback. Dissipation is an agent of order. God
>does play dice with the universe, but they are loaded dice. "
>
> The point of the above is to bring into the discussion the fact that,
>from a purely deterministic beginning, there is a way to introduce
>non-linearity into the physical processes of the universe which will give
>us a way to escape pure determinism and restore effective free will. All of
>this without a complete departure from determinism.
> In my previous posting I made the remark that in my opinion the universe
>was a moral order which was not deterministic. By this I mean that the
>universe is not predictable in a practical sense because of the complexity
>involved.
> Again, in my view, evolution is a purely physical process which
>progresses because of the fact that for a given physical environment every
>possible combination of processes will occur given enough time. Those
>processes that latch will supply a platform for further advances in
>complexity. Given enough time those processes will supply a chain of
>possibilities that can produce the best (in Pirsig's terms, most moral)
>possible outcome. This is the deterministic process, as modified by
>deterministic disorder, that I maintain produced us and the current
>conditions. In Dynamic Quality and Pirsig's terms, this is a moral (in the
>physical sense) process. In my view this process is not pure conjecture
>because much of it can be verified experimentally and more can be made
>plausible theoretically. Keep in mind that the term Chaos is an unfortunate
>choice of terms that does not convey the true functioning of the process.
>Deterministic Disorder is a better choice of terms although still not quite
>satisfactory in my mind. I think that this picture is not the same and is
>much more plausible than your idea of determinism coming out of the purely
>indeterministic (according to you) Quantum process.
> It seems clear to me that the above process that I have laid out is
>supported by observation and empiricism and believable theory and is in no
>sense prodded by pure emotion.
> When we get to the sentient, human, level I think that we begin to
>encounter a few, but not insurmountable, problems between purely physical
>Dynamic Quality and Dynamic Quality from the human viewpoint. Ken Clark
>
>
>
>--
>post message - mailto:lilasqdÉhkg.com
>unsubscribe/queries - mailto:dianaÉasiantravel.com
>homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>
>
-- post message - mailto:lilasqdÉhkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:dianaÉasiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:57 CEST