mapping social dynamics

26 09 2011

OK, when I wrote XQ Conditional, I made some faultering steps on mathematising consciousness. Very, very basic steps. Nowhere near an equation in sight. For some reason, as I approach the end of my fling with a Facebook community, The Next Edge, thoughts have occured regarding social dynamics. Perhaps spurred by this two hour video on Artificial General Intelligence, which to me holds some rather scary potential. Our system understanding of social emergence is pants in comparison.

Remember, this is after Wisdom, where the psycho-social concept actually revealed itself to be two different systems: the system going on in our heads, and the system going on out there. The out-there bit is predicated on our action, and consists of social objects. The in-here bit is predicated on our thought, beliefs, and so on. What we have in-here partially determines what happen out-there, but it doesn’t really matter what we think is going on.

Here’s a couple of thoughts regarding rates of change.

We are all on a continuum of how much change we think is possible. The more we are engaged with the current system, the more fixed we are about what can and can not happen. The top dog is essentially fixed in position, responsible to maintain it. The further out we are, the more flexibility in our thinking, the more we can see the bigger picture perhaps, unbounded by any specific institutional directive. There is a relativity of sorts going on here, socially constructed.

Things get ugly when two people from different systems engage, each embedded in their own. This is just about understandable for two companies competing in the same sector or domain, what about different companies from different silos? What about job system versus a governmental system versus the natural world system? Embedded systems. Messy.

Can’t be bothered writing this in html… gotta wait until I am off the ipad…. jeeez, the hassles…

let’s talk about time, baby :) pt1 :s

21 09 2010

Just watched Caroll’s video on his arrow of time. A lot of thoughts popped up, and plenty of them are rather… abrasive. Sorry. Put it down to polemics and my defensive condition as I recuperate here in Madeira.

Before launching into them, one self-observation. Talking about time is like just about anyone talking about education — and boy, did I get miffed listening to every man and his dog expound their theories about education without checking out valuing my experience. after all, going into school as an adult is different. Anyway, I am sure caroll’ gets all manner of kooks coming up theories, and he’d be right in saying we are mostly crackpots… the one thing he has that we don’t is the hard reality of the equations. Because he has made a job of it, his interpretations are based on them. We don’t have to worry about correspondence with the math. The interesting balance point, of course, just like in education, is that the institution isn’t working as well as it should. that is, the equations only work so far… Hence, Caroll is guessing… and only once some one of these physics egg-heads guesses right, or some computer ai chap more likely IMHO, and gets a remarkable, undeniable result, that the world will change. It’s not going to come out of a blog, neither in the writing or reading, however excited we monkeys get with our objects of thought. Given this apology, this monkey can’t help but chase the rabbit a bit.

He contends that physical reality has boundary, eg table – not table. This is actually a boundary we impose with mind. There is continuity from table to air, you know, how atoms substitute into embedded molecules at the boundary of their materials…? In exchange, the idea of boundaries in time… perhaps more like limits, maybe like the outer boundary bubble distending in so ace of our first radio signals on this planet… I think they are somewhere past the solar system, but who knows how far… the next solar system? Anyhow, boundaries in time… interesting kernel of thought to be explored sometime.

Clock, the bit in a cycle which is marked, eg the “klok” sound when a bell is struck.

“Biorhythms are not very good clocks.” What a clueless comment, as if an objective timer is the way to measure time! A human scaled timer at that! We are inside the biological clock — this will influence the perception of it, clearly. Parallel this to Einstein talking about being in a rocket and his relativity theories. We must start with the obvious, that we are in a clock as we are inside our bodies. After all, we are in actuality, rather than this rather absurd academic position of being “objective”.

“Time has a direction.” After poo-pooing biology, he then sets up past and future (delightfully omitting present), which clearly involves us, as the cutting point in time.

His arrows point in a rather strange way. He presents young Elvis on the left, an arrow pointing to the right, and an old Elvis. So, Elvis was moving left to right, as he got older? When, intuitively for us westerners, we tend to think of old people as being from the past, somehow. Hmmm… something interesting going on here in terms of diagrammatic representation… and you would have thought this would be covered in the talk — I know Brian would be interested in this (as a passing comment, no doubt). It’s to do with whether we think we are moving or time is passing us; definitely something about relativity again.

Here’s the big one: entropy. I have several problems with this concept. First, an insight: life appears to go in the opposite direction if entropy… is that wrong thinking on my part? It complexities, it traps energy into forms, the whole planet is creating molecules and structures and altering matter due to the off-shed heat from the sun. Perhaps it doesn’t go opposite, it just reduces the rate of entropy… is that more correct? You see, I don’t like the concept.

He applies it to life and death! And memory! And cause and effect — this one I will grant him, but only for simple billiard ball like situations. Hasn’t chaos theory penetrated physics yet?

(How does entropy as second law of thermodynamics compare to laws of subjective reality, like the dreaded law of attraction? I equated attraction to gravity initially, but it may be better opposed to entropy since gravity is also dissipative. I know that involves a few twists, but I can’t be bothered entangling myself in the pop-culture…)

Wrt the planet, we absorb one photon and emit 20, which means there is a dissipative effect. (This makes no sense to me as I review my notes.) We are far from equilibrium. That’s what a boundary sets up, a differential. He states that equilibrium means no change. Browniam motion? He is not talking about zero Kelvin, so, given a stable energy mix, there’s no… movement?

My main problem is that entropy sounds a bit too much like flogiston. I know that entropy is better embedded in maths and concepts, but… I remain skeptical, and here’s why. Maybe it is just a word thing. A glass of mixed coffee and milk is high entropy, whereas the separated materials glass is low entropy… which seems to go against something in my head about high boundary, or potential for change, like electricity. Ie, far from equilibrium indicates a high value. Whereas, entropy seems to be describing a state as it approaches zero.

But finally, an explanation. Blotzmann’s definition, about the potential for translation/transivity/movement at a lower level of scale. Scale?! (I think we are getting our first glimmer of emergent levels here…) It is also dependent on a zero-sum game: in a closed system, like a glass, the milk and coffee will mix. (Hmmm… to complicate things, isn’t a cell an attempt to create a kind of closed system? And of course, it is not.)

So, Carrol posits that entropy was lower yesterday, and so on. (Reads so strangely for me: low entropy, when it means it was more bounded/separated/had more potential.) He goes all the way to the big bang. (Typical linear thinking again. Finite and closed system.)

But this bit is good: time’s arrow is the aftermath of an influential event. That is almost clear! It was when I heard it first, but when I write about it now, I can’t think but it is another typically western revamping of old ideas, to justify a book sale, to justify a life in academia. I mean, they have to come up with something to justify their jobs… (Cynical I know, but always in the back of my head is that remark that medieval academics used to argue about how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. I think we are living during such times, and especially in the field of physics with its ancient and venerated history.)

Here’s my most interesting interpretation of his material which still holds for his statement, the aftermath of an event. He is talking about birth. And not just in the life-time blood and pain sense, but in the Buddhist sense of origination-dissolution occurring presently. Forget about all these words here, they are more for me to make notes, to externalise and in so doing I remember — check out his explanation and try mapping it to your understanding of consciousness. It does seem to hold some water, and this isn’t even a third of the way through — it gets better!

10^-8 ergs per cubic cm. 73% of the universe. In “empty space”. (Sooooo linear… and I don’t mean in terms of maths, I mean in terms of thinking. I am always skeptical of such claims about the universe. Science always consists of people being certain, only to find they were wrong, or at least completely inaccurate. Happens big time in physics with newton-Einstein, and innumerable times in biology, eg evolution. Surely we should be sophisticated enough to stop making ludicrous claims about the universe when we can’t even determine scientifically that we are pissing our own backyard and f**king the environment?)

He also mentions that black holes evaporate. Yup.

Notice his pointing out where we are in terms of big bang to dissipated high entropy end of universe model. Looks rather like the Mind-drop solution, with the higher and lower boundaries of ego. I thought this was funny. What do others make of this, if they are trying to map their understanding of consciousness to this talk? 41-43 mins happens to be a fine explanation of consciousness emerging and disappearing (my notes are vague: does this refer to present conditioning consciousness or the bubbling of adult self-reflection through adolescence?).

Man… this goes on… I will deal with the rest in a second part if I can be bothered. I am not sure how useful this post is. It has some pointers, but is mostly a commentary on a lecture, and I don’t go into enough detail to explain. As I mentioned before, it is more for me. Apologies to readers.

can it be simpler?

23 11 2009

I watched a TED video. The chap looked a bit geeky, and didn’t seem too accustomed to people listening to him. Krank-like, I guess. However, his name is David Deutsch and he’s highly respected in the multi-universe physics world. Anyway, he offered a solution to why science has worked since the 16th century (namely because there is low variation), and this definitely rings true. (In my language: not surprising, really, since science is rooted in objective reality, independent of our minds, so there is less variation in terms of interpretation as we hone in on a explanation that matches actuality.) Of course, his concern is with the multiple interpretations of quantuum physics within science itself, as well as the plethora of new-age assigned interpretations…

So, what about XQ and the subjective side of maths? Reasonable amount of intuitive guessing going on here: notions of negative and the mind’s filitering, or addition and category systems. These are speculative. Clearly.

My only answer to this, as I think about it now, is that the amount of variation increases the more complex the maths we deal with. It is like smoke from a stick of incense. Especially when we consider iterative equations, or Riemann Spheres. Seems to me, then, that the simplest thing is where we might meet with more subjective alignment. That is, as close the burning ember as possible. And in maths, that’s counting, isn’t it?

When we count, what exactly are we counting? It looks like we are counting things, however, if the things are fabrications of our mind, how we cloth actuality, then is this a self-referential exercise? We are counting things that are fabrications of our mind, and if mind is process, then at some level we are counting processes, we are counting in time. The real abstraction, our side of maths, is that we are counting in time, and not any thing out there. This is demonstrated in the way we learn our multiplication tables, through repetition of counting steps. (Extract from One Two Many, from the XQ booklets.)

So, is this something which strikes you as true? Or, are there other interpretations, apart from the obvious that we are counting things. And this is the root to our understanding why music holds its endless fascination for us…

Somehow the mind compiles a soundscape of the environment in terms of events. Subjectively speaking, we are particularly attuned to patterns of sound in time, from simple rhythms and melodies in music to the near chaotic jumble of words. Music elicits movement from our bodies, from the tapping of feet, the nodding of head, or the gyration of our hips. Certain melodies grab our passions, others lift us to sublime heights. It is as if we are the instrument, we resonate to the frequencies. We can also invest music with our memories, with rich associations, with specific events. We may link the music to the performance, the violent extraction of sound from the instrument or its gentle teasing, or it may be completely divorced from production. Our primary attention can be led to follow a particular continuity of sound, focussing on the melody for example, enabling us to predict what it to happen. Complex interactions within the soundscape can be simultaneously appreciated, thus deriving our deep affinity to music. (Extract from Haphazard Sensory Observations, from XQ Conditional).

%d bloggers like this: