Intelligence - A Form of self-organization ?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Exebeche
 
Reply Mon 14 Sep, 2009 05:52 pm
@paulhanke,
jeeprs;89963 wrote:
It is...'a melody that sings itself'.

paulhanke;90068 wrote:
so it really seems to be the world "singing" itself that makes the world what it is Smile ...


Interestingly quantum physics reduce our reality to a string theory according to which anything is subject to a vibration.
Just like a vibrating guitar string creates a particular form creating a wave.
Just like music seems to have an underlying logic, creating harmony or disharmony, the whole universe seems to be in a process of vibration.
Whenever harmony appears, there is order.

Thank you Paul for the cell automata input. I have been watching it like a movie. Rarely have seen such an exciting movie.
I came to a conclusion:
The universe is probably the most fascinating celluar automaton we know. Reality is probably the most fascinating simulation we can think of. And it's probably one of the most frightning things to find yourself inside this simulation.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 12:05 am
@Exebeche,
There is a book called The Crisis in Physics by Lee Smolin which says that string theory is a mirage. However, this thread has touched upon some very fundamental ideas. it is an alternative to either intelligent design or to 'random mutations'. Everything is directed but the direction is not from outside. It is more like tropism - where a plant automatically turns towards the light. My belief is that consciousness automatically develops towards greater and greater awareness, so maybe it is awareness itself that is causing everything to grow - but 'awareness' is not in itself an object, thing or force. it could however be the culminating phase of self-organising systems, in that the requirements for greater awareness are what provides the organising principle....that quotation from plotinus certainly seems to suggest it. Maybe that brings back some form of vitalism and teleology, but I am trying to remember what was so bad about those ideas in the first place that they became heresy...
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 09:02 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;95375 wrote:
... and teleology, but I am trying to remember what was so bad about those ideas in the first place ...


... when it is of the "deus ex machina" kind - it's just poor storytelling Wink ... but when slight, random currents driven by the energy from the sun can loop around on themselves, building into a global oceanic belt that takes command of the weather and continuously fends off all disintegrating forces, don't we see the faint beginnings of a teleology that emerges from within? ...
 
Exebeche
 
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2009 03:00 pm
@paulhanke,
paulhanke;95462 wrote:
... when it is of the "deus ex machina" kind - it's just poor storytelling Wink ... but when slight, random currents driven by the energy from the sun can loop around on themselves, building into a global oceanic belt that takes command of the weather and continuously fends off all disintegrating forces, don't we see the faint beginnings of a teleology that emerges from within? ...

Let me make a comment about the term teleonomy .
That's pretty much the teleology without a deus ex machina.
We should be careful about these terms.
Asking why teleology has been banned from scientific discussions is a little bit like wondering what's wrong about solipsism.
Of course nobody will criticise you for being a solipsist. It's just that talking to a solipsist is completely obsolete and irrelevant, so nobody will do it.
So to explane the difference i see:
Teleology sees nature aiming towards a given goal. The result is seen as a purpose.
This concept clearly implies a will that stands behind nature as a creator, greetings from intelligent design.
Teleonomy as oppose to that also regards certain processes to be directed, however without any purpose.
Any increase of intelligence in the universe e.g. would be a collateral effect.

In many other philosophy forums (or discussions) you will have to deal with a kind of 'teleology inquisition'.
It's actually hard work to try and convience them that your point of view is not teleological but actually teleonomical.
Especially because hardly any teleology inquisitor is willing to even understand the concept of teleonomy.
 
toivowillmann
 
Reply Mon 16 Apr, 2012 06:18 am
Strings May Be 11-Bit Digital Data Registers

* According to M-/String-Theory, Strings are the smallest structures that exist, even smaller than electrons or quarks.
* The have 11 dimensions.
* 4 of them are true space dimensions, the others are “turned” around themselves and therefore seem to exist only at sub-atomic level. In mathematic speaking dimensions always are orthogonal. In a true Euclidian space this means that they are separated from each others by true right (90°) angles. In a curved/bent space this is different. Here orthogonal only means only that they are completely independent.
* Strings vibrate. There vibration patterns have therefore 11 independent components, according to the11 dimensions of a String.
* Their vibration spectra are continuous or are they discrete, like in Quantum Mechanics? Strings have their name, because they behave like any guitar string. Vibrations of a guitar string is a static wave with the and a frequency ۷ wave length λ. If we call string length x, then the to the lowest possible frequency ۷ (1) corresponds a longest possible wave length
λ(1) = 2* x or λ(1)/2 = x.
Other possible frequencies have to be products of the multiplication of ۷ (1) with an Entire Number (n = 1,2,3,4, etc. …).
So the concept of string implicates that their frequency spectra are all discrete, being
۷ (n) =۷ (1) * n
* How many frequencies there may exist? An infinite number?
Infinity of frequencies would mean that the highest one would be infinite, too. Therefore its wavelength would be infinitely small. It should make some sense to suppose that the dogma of Quantum Mechanics that nothing can be infinitely small is valid in M-/String Theory, too. So there cannot be an infinity of frequencies possible, but only a restricted number of them, due to a smallest possible wave length.
* Which would be the smallest wave length? As until today it was impossible to put Strings as target into a particle accelerator and to measure smallest possible lenght, smashing and fragmenting them, we have to create a supposition about it that makes sense.
I suppose the smallest length possible is that of String itself. Then the smallest wave length possible would be
x = λ(2) = λ(min.)
being ۷ (n) ≡1/ λ(n) and۷ (n) =۷ (1) * n therefore x = λ(1)/2 = 2*x/2
In each of 11 dimensions then there should be only possible 2 frequencies/ wave lengths: ۷ (1) with λ(1) = 2* x
and ۷ (2) with λ(2) = x
* If it were truth that Strings may only vibrate in 2 frequencies in each of its dimension, them we may substitute them by binary numbers: ۷ (1) = “0” and ۷ (2) = “1”
and Strings would become 11 bit digital data registers.
* Somebody may ask: “and what about frequency 0 = no vibration at all?” If a String would be able to rest completely in any of its dimensions, there should be possible a String that does not vibrate at all in every of its 11 dimensions. As vibration means energy and Strings are made of energy, such a string would not have energy at all and therefore be reduced to “nothing”.
There should not be possible a state of complete absence of vibration in any dimension.
* According to the ideas, demonstrated above, Strings, with their vibration pattern do not form a “cosmic symphony” but an intelligent structure like a computing program, capable to process information.
We all live within a virtual reality called ”Universe”.

I am a Ph.D. of Chemistry, not of Theoretical Physics. Therefore I beg your pardon, if anything in my text would not be so perfect and professional, you might expect. Nevertheless I think it’s all quite logical.

Yours truly:

Dr. Toivo Willmann

 
 

 
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/02/2014 at 03:14:59