[Paleopsych] Re: Big bang in mm sizes

HowlBloom at aol.com HowlBloom at aol.com
Sat Jun 11 03:23:05 UTC 2005


 
 
Joel--
 
Your CA approach, based on the building of barriers, distinctions,  
boundaries,membranes, and other separators is extremely helpful.   The CA approach in 
general has been a useful tool for understanding  self-organization of 
extraordinary complexity based on very, very simple  rules. 
 
But I have a question.  The whorls Basse talks about in his  mini-big-bangs 
are apparently similar to the irregular whorls that Smoot claims  rumpled the 
first burst of time/space in the big bang.  Those creases and  rumples led to 
the irregular distribution of galaxies, galaxies spread in  irregular 
bubble-like interlaces.  How do CA models and math generate these  irregularities?
 
Or, to put this in Bloomian terms, what, aside from your CA separators, are  
the diversity generators that make things ragged?  Is there a rule  underlying 
what would seem at first glance to be messy, mussed, and  irregular?
 
Wolfram's CA systems can generate what looks like chaos from simple  rules.  
Meaning that simple CA-style rules may underlie even the seemingly  random.  
But does your CA system do this, too?  And does the math of  Basse do it?
 
One last question.  CA systems are the gift of a technological  tool--the 
computer.  What new metaphoric systems, what new forms of  understanding, may 
emerge from  technologies that do not yet exist?   Howard
 
In a message dated 6/10/2005 9:50:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
isaacsonj at hotmail.com writes:

Yes,  Howard, we are talking about same/similar stuff.   I was surprised  to 
see Nils Basse's
suggestion of mini-big-bangs...  especially  since I have been talking about 
that possibility
for some time  now...  albeit from a different perspective.

My perspective is  tied to CA-like processes that are anchored in perception. 
The self-similarity
at all scales of those Ur-Patterns is a reflection of  the self-similarity of 
the underlying processes,
effected  recursively.   Those underlying processes are CA-like and their  
basic rule is
local distinction-making.

The scheme is not quite  mathematical in the ordinary sense, although it is  
processually
well-defined and readily representable by ordinary  computational processes.  
Many of the usual CA rules have some  mathematical flavor.  However, here 
we have the rule of  distinction-making that is a natural process common in 
the biology of  perception -- not necessarily thru formal mathematical means.

I do  agree that mathematics serves via metaphors vis-a-vis natural processes 
 
described by same,
and that all we could expect is finding/adopting the  best mathematical 
metaphor that
may fit a particular natural  phenomenon.   My CA-like processes, while not 
strictly  mathematical,
serve the same purpose;  i.e., are metaphors aimed at a  sweeping capture of 
natural
phenomena, from visual perception (and  perception in general) to processes 
generating
elementary particles,  and big bang-like scenarios, and many things in 
between...

Btw, I  corresponded with Noam Chomsky in 1972 about those CA...  but it has  
been
obviously premature...  he has been very polite but professed  to not 
"understand
the import" of these things.     Nevertheless, I did adopt his notions of 
surface
and deep structures  and incorporated those into the patent application in 
1975.

--  Joel



>From: HowlBloom at aol.com
>To:  isaacsonj at hotmail.com
>CC: paleopsych at paleopsych.org
>Subject: Re:  Big bang in mm sizes
>Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 01:03:14  EDT
>
>
>
>As always, we are on the same wavelength,  Joel.  This article has Ur
>Patterns written all over it--patterns  that show up on multiple level of  
>emergence,
>patterns  that metaphors can capture.
>
>Why are these patterns so easily  graspable by metaphor?  Because  metaphor 
>is
>one  concrete example of an Ur Pattern that repeats itself on   multiple
>levels.  Meaning that metaphor is not just a literary  trick.   It is a way 
>of
>capturing something deep and  repetitive in this cosmos--a deep  structure 
>if you
>prefer  to use Noam Chomsky's vocabulary.
>
>Not all metaphors are  valid.  But when you find the right one for the
>phenomenon you're  watching, you've hit gold.
>
>And never forget, math is metaphor  in disguise.  Onward--Howard
>
>In a message dated 6/9/2005  2:23:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>isaacsonj at hotmail.com  writes:
>
>
>
>Plasma in reactors echoes distribution  of galaxies
>11 June  2005
>NewScientist.com news  service
>Mark Anderson
>
>NUCLEAR fusion  reactors  could be used to study what the universe was like
>just after the   big bang. So claims a physicist who noticed that the plasma
>created  inside  these reactors is distributed in a strikingly similar way  
>to
>galaxies in  today's universe.
>
>Nils  Basse of the Massachusetts Institute of  Technology does not  normally
>concern himself with events in the early  universe.  Instead, he studies
>turbulence in the plasma created in fusion   reactors. But when he chanced
>upon the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS)  -  which is mapping a quarter of 
>the
>sky in detail - he  noticed something  uncanny. The mathematical equation
>governing  the distribution of voids and  galaxies looks remarkably like  the
>one describing the millimetre-sized  knots and clots of plasma  in the
>Wendelstein 7-AS "stellarator" fusion  reactor in Garching,  Germany 
>(Physics
>Letters A, vol 340, p   456).
>
>Basse argues that the distribution of galaxies today  could be the  result 
>of
>variations in the density of  plasma after the big bang. "I think  it all
>comes from turbulence  in the very early universe," he says. "[The  galaxy
>distribution  today] is just a blow-up of what was going on at that   point."
>This suggests that stellarator reactors could serve as models  of  the early
>universe.
>
>
>But cosmologist  Daniel Eisenstein of the  University of Arizona in Tucson,
>who  works on the SDSS project, disagrees.  He points out that the kind  of
>plasma that Basse describes existed only  for the first  millisecond after 
>the
>big bang, and that epoch ended too   soon to influence the large scale
>structure of today's universe.   Eisenstein calculates that the largest
>structure that could have  arisen  because of any such primordial density
>variations would  only stretch a few  light years across today.
>
>“The plasma  created inside fusion reactors is  distributed in a  
>strikingly
>similar way to galaxies in today's   universe”Eisenstein also says that
>Basse's claim is difficult to  reconcile  with the results of the Wilkinson
>Microwave Anisotropy  Probe (WMAP), which  has mapped the distribution of  
>the
>oldest light in the universe dating  back to some  380,000 years after the 
>big
>bang. This "baby picture" of  the  cosmos yields markedly different density
>fluctuations to the  SDSS map. "I  don't see any way to get turbulence into
>this mix  without throwing out all  the [WMAP] data," Eisenstein says.  "And
>that's very powerful  data."
>
>From issue 2503  of New Scientist magazine, 11 June 2005, page   8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>----------
>Howard  Bloom
>Author of The Lucifer Principle: A  Scientific Expedition  Into the Forces 
>of
>History and Global Brain: The  Evolution  of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to 
>the
>21st  Century
>Recent Visiting  Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department,  New York 
>University;
>Core Faculty  Member, The  Graduate   Institute
>www.howardbloom.net
>www.bigbangtango.net
>Founder:   International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member:  
>Epic
>of Evolution  Society; founding board member, The  Darwin Project; founder: 
>The
>Big Bang Tango  Media Lab;  member: New York Academy of Sciences, American
>Association for  the  Advancement of Science, American Psychological  
>Society,
>Academy of Political  Science, Human Behavior and  Evolution Society, 
>International
>Society for Human   Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org;
>executive editor --  New  Paradigm book series.
>For information on The International  Paleopsychology  Project, see:
>www.paleopsych.org
>for two  chapters from
>The Lucifer  Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into  the Forces of History,
>see  www.howardbloom.net/lucifer
>For  information on Global Brain: The Evolution of  Mass Mind from the  Big
>Bang to the 21st Century, see   www.howardbloom.net
>


_______________________________________________
paleopsych  mailing  list
paleopsych at paleopsych.org
http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych





----------
Howard Bloom
Author of The Lucifer Principle: A  Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of 
History and Global Brain: The Evolution  of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 
21st Century
Recent Visiting  Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University; 
Core Faculty  Member, The Graduate  Institute
www.howardbloom.net
www.bigbangtango.net
Founder:  International Paleopsychology Project; founding board member: Epic 
of Evolution  Society; founding board member, The Darwin Project; founder: The 
Big Bang Tango  Media Lab; member: New York Academy of Sciences, American 
Association for the  Advancement of Science, American Psychological Society, 
Academy of Political  Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, International 
Society for Human  Ethology; advisory board member: Youthactivism.org; 
executive editor -- New  Paradigm book series.
For information on The International Paleopsychology  Project, see: 
www.paleopsych.org
for two chapters from 
The Lucifer  Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of History, 
see  www.howardbloom.net/lucifer
For information on Global Brain: The Evolution of  Mass Mind from the Big 
Bang to the 21st Century, see  www.howardbloom.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/paleopsych/attachments/20050610/c4888cf8/attachment.html>


More information about the paleopsych mailing list