[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