Hi Roger,Hi All
Just a few ;-) more comments on your article and the connection to my
'intervaluation'( or better intervaluing - see my first reply on this).
Attention: This is a long one, probably to be postponed for times of lower
MD/MF-activity or times of great boredom
Roger had written:
> RISKY ROG TO JOVO (AND EVERYONE INTERESTED) ON INTERVALUEING SYSTEMS
>
> Hi JoVo!
>
> The reason I am so intrigued by your essay is that I have been exploring
> similar ideas and have come to similar conclusions. My working term for the
> concept has been "Positive Sum Quality." It uses concepts from physics
> (self amplifying feedback) and game theory (win/win interactions) to better
> explain where pattern and order come from within each level, and how each
> level evolves to the next. Basically, I have found that the win/win
> interactions of game theory (as originated by Von Neuman) and the physics
> concept of a feedback loop are really two ways of stating the same idea.
>
> And that idea, which again I am calling POSITIVE SUM QUALITY, overlaps
> greatly with what you have been writing on elvaleaches, systems and positive
> value equations. Of course it also overlaps completely with the MOQ.
JoVo answers:
After doing some thinking about your draft I'd prefer also win-win-interaction
instead of my proposed concept 'cooperation'. Win-win-interaction is expressing
a wider range of description of which is cooperation a sub-division only, useful
but more restricting for what we have in mind. The 'POSITIVE SUM QUALITY'
concept is maybe an even more encompassing expression than win-win but I guess
it implies the underlying assumption that there is always comimg something
positive - from an anthropomorphic point of view - out of such a 'deal'. And
also is win-win much more a handy concept, people understand immediately, IMO,
but this may be neglectable perhaps. I guess I will apply your concepts both to
find out which one is 1) nearer to what we have in mind and 2)encompasses a
wider range of possibilities concerning consideration and description.
Is it right to consider 'POSITIVE SUM QUALITY' as a perspective that states that
whatever relationship is considered, always something positive, something at
least more than 'zero-sum' comes out of it?
The longer I think about it the more I like 'POSITIVE SUM QUALITY' but I will
read through the archives anyway especially you articles while staying away from
active participation and also will try do understand you model. In that sense
all you considerations from now on as well as a sequel on this article are
welcomed, if sending this to me personally is not too incommoding for you.
I see the connection between 'POSITIVE SUM QUALITY' and 'intervaluing' as
'POSITIVE SUM QUALITY' being the result of the 'intervaluing' of two or more
'elements'.
[...]
> QUESTION 1) INORGANIC: WHY IS THE UNIVERSE ORDERED RATHER THAN DISORDERED?
>
> BROAD ANSWER --Quality/value
>
> SPECIFIC ANSWER -- There are four "forces" and myriads of "particles" within
> quantum theory; however, quantum reality -- like the MOQ -- is ultimately
> constructed of verbs and values rather than nouns or things. Reality is
> dynamic interaction, and the amazing breakthrough of modern physics is that
> it is not things that interact as much as it is interactions which define
> things. In the words of Werner Heisenberg, one of the founders of the theory,
> "The world thus appears as a complicated tissue of events in which
> connections of different kinds alternate or combine and thereby determine the
> texture of the whole." This is reminiscent of Pirsig's quote: by "A thing
> that has no value does not exist. The thing has not created the value. The
> value has created the thing."
Yeah! I like your reference from quantum mechanics to MoQ very much because it
indicates the validity from Pirsigs consideration concerning the meaning of
'value'. It focuses on the fact that it is misleading to look for things that
are forced to do something by means of some 'external law' and by this represent
a higher meaningful compound, but much more that the value of some THING arises
from a 'cooperation' of at least two valuing elements with each other - not
necessarily that mysterious 'substance' of which we still don't know what it
really is - whilst themselves are nothing really determinable when trying to
find those elements. In quantum mechanics, it looks very much like this until
now, this intervalueing relationship comes to it's extreme and strongly
recommends itself to be a better interpretation of sciences observations in
general.
[...]
> This establishes a positive, self amplifying feedback
> loop, or in your words, an intervalueing system. Gravity is the poster child
> for what I call a Positive Sum Quality process. Although infinitessimally
> small compared to the most powerful force of nature, electromagnetism,
> gravity is able to allow pattern and structure to overcome the entropy
> inherent in the larger force.
Not exactly. Gravity arises out of agglomerated particles which themselves are
agglomarations of smaller 'parts' sourced by a much stronger force called
'electromagnetic forces'; this also can be seen as a special preference for each
other (maybe) to be found again in themselves (the parts). The fact that
electromagnetic forces are a multiple of the gravitational forces of high degree
explains the stability of particles compared to 'matter' (a value compound of
particles, in a Pirsigian sense). I thought about - while considering how those
forces are connected to each other ('dimension' - see also reply to Magnus) -
gravity as maybe dependant on electro magnetic forces as describable in the
following (proposal):
Electromagnetic forces, arising out of subatomic parts' preference to each
other, lead to the forming of elements (atoms) but after finding together in
such a compound, in a way a balanced state of attraction, so the largest amount
of 'energy' (or whatever it comes out to be at last) is absorbed in this
compound, a small surplus of energy is still 'left'. Such a surplus of energy
could arise in my opinion out of infinitesimal small irregularities - in a way
dynamic quality on this very basic level - concerning the electromagnetic
forces/binding forces in an atom; it can be also seen as 'scattering energy'.
This surplus of energy now, is available for other 'purposes', firstly such as
molecular compounds but furthermore also the forming of a higher dimension of
intervaluation what is known as 'substance' in nowadays physics.
But the above indicates even more the rightness of yours and mine assumptions as
well as Pirsigs. The forming of larger compounds out of smaller ones,
agglomerations out of intervalueing relationships resulting in 'POSITIVE SUM
QUALITY'!
[...]
> The universe, though overwhelmingly entropic, is ordered and structured
> and complex via the positive sum intervaluation of weak little gravity.
>
> Gravitational "intervaluation" SYSTEMS include stars, planets, solar systems,
> black holes, galaxies, galactic clusters, and even the entire universe.
> Would you agree, JoVo?
[...]
JoVo answers:
Quite right! See above also. What I got to see also, lately - an offspring out
of my exchange with Kenneth,Danila and Chris - is 'distinctness' as being a
basical characteristic of evolution right from the start. It is unlikely to
assume an absolutly homogenous scattering of any kind of valueing compound (eg
what is 'matter' in classical sciences) concerning my model and presumably yours
as well, so that a given amount of particles can be found in a
100-percent-homogenous scattering all over a given space. There will be always
some that are nearer to one another(small irregularties) and as a result have a
momentarily stronger preference to each other too. In this very moment they
inhere more VALUE and as a result attract other particle-'loners'. Those may
then take the chance to join these two, because these two have more value than
the other loners. They tend to be distinct from one another in a way; to be a
loner just like all the other lone wandering particles is definitly an
unfavorable state besides it is not very likley either.
Drawing a line to physics one could say that an entropy of 1 (so absolutely 1!)
is not only a systems state not being very probable but furthermore it is a
state of non-stability. A systems state will be - due to those named small
irregularties - always be only roughly in a state of maximum disorder; there
will be always small 'areas' of a higher value compared to adjacent 'areas'.
The pair of concepts of 'order' and 'disorder' has gone through a remarkable
change of meaning, personally speaking, since the formulation of the alternative
systems concept(see 'pile of thoughts'), almost have changed each others meaning
paradoxically.
When I look at, for example, a completely(?) closed (thermodynamic) systems
tending to an entropy = 1 you can expect if you wait for a long enough time a
specific distribution of particles belonging to certain energy-classes (appr.
the Gauss-function) which is thought to be more or less continous over time (the
distribution) but you can NOT expect a 'one-class' distribution, not at all. Now
I say that this distribution shows, in case you would be able to observe it with
sufficient exactness, a certain activity, a flickering, so to say a widening of
the functions base and again a narrowing - a continous change, increase and
decrease of the 'number' of energy classes - as also the number of particles
belonging to those classes ranging in number (the Ordinate). This systems
behaviour could be described as a regular change of irregularties and these
irregularities holding a sort of freedom of/for the involved particles is the
base for dynamic quality to get in action.(I have spend weeks on the THD-exams
preparation, so bear on me for this but that was what came to my mind first :-)
)
Note that the above relates very well with the concept of 'deterministic chaos'
(see my first answer on this). Deterministic chaos expresses the observation (of
astronomers) that in our universe there are areas of an increase of mass in
quite specific patterns (eg spiral arms for example or spheroid forms) without
any reason. Pirsig roughly on 'platypi' (I take the freedom to apply it): "What
an enigma?; How could that be?" ;-).
The answer is quite simple though. Particles(/'substance') never share the same
space and the same state of energy and so on..., but they also don't want to be
'alone', they don't LIKE to have the SAME INTERVALUATION to every particle of
their kind either; that is not normal! This is the very kind of 'ordered
disorder' they really can't stand at all (again, besides it's not likeley
either). And as said above when there are TWO, a third joining is more likely
then, and the more there is the more probable is further growth, while this last
one seems to apply much more on the macroscopic considerations but not very much
on closed thermodynamical systems of admittedly technical perspective for
reasons that I do not see by the moment.
But to transform this thought to economy (know this from my father :-) ): "The
devil shits on the biggest pile". Where there is something it is probable that
it's growth will be faster than at other 'places'.
Roger had written:
> Q2) BIOLOGICAL: WHY DOES LIFE EVOLVE FROM NON-LIFE?
>
> BROAD ANSWER -- Quality/value
>
> SPECIFIC ANSWER -- A living system is formed out of advanced chemical
> feedback loops, where the elements make each other (simple chemical feedback
> loops are actually fairly commonplace). The function of each component of a
> living system such as a cell is to participate in the production or
> transformation of other components in the network. In this way the entire
> network makes itself. It is therefore a win/win, Positive Sum relationship
> for the chemicals involved and for the larger pattern. The system is self
> creating and self maintaining.
It is indeed an agglomeration of different dimensions to make together some
THING of higher quality, to form a higher value than the sum of the single parts
could do. In a special sense it is indeed a win/win-relationship: the cells are
serving a higher purpose (eg formimg a mammal), they just do their 'work' (on
job: "Oh, shut up, no more questions now, just do your work ;-) ). Of course
those cells would die if all of them would not doing their work but it is just
like democracy in a big society: The One is dependant on the Many but the Many
is not dependant on the One. In the words of my model this is a
'high-grade'-intervaluation between a cell and the human being or also between a
human individual and a (big) society however win/win also.
>
> In your words, JoVo, would such living systems be "intervalueing?" Seems
> like it to me.
>
> In the words of Chilean neuroscientist/biologist/cyberneticist Humberto
> Maturana " Living systems...[are] organized in a closed causal circular
> process that allows for evolutionary change in the way circularity is
> maintained, but not in the loss of the circularity itself."
>
> In a predominantly entropic world, living systems are preserved and evolve in
> complexity and Dynamic versatility as the world around them decays into the
> minimal organization provided by local gravity. Of course, living systems
> must continually extract order from their surroundings by allowing energy and
> material to pass through their system. One of the best sources for order is
> ....SURPRISE!!!! other living systems. As such, some living systems
> dynamically evolved the ability to consume others, and others developed the
> ability to defend against being consumed. An anti-entropic arms race ensued,
> where living systems dynamically gained versatile new forms of consumption
> and defense...cellular walls, propulsion, cellular wall penetration
> mechanisms.......you get the point.
>
> One particularly successful strategy for a living cell was to combine forces
> with other cells into an "intervalueing" relationship. A multi-cellular life
> system continues the intervalueing process up to the next level. Cells
> combine together and cooperate into another win/win situation. Additional
> complexity, division of
> resources and specialization can all come out of this relationship. In
> addition, one hi-Quality strategy to defend against these cooperative
> coalitions of cells is to also form a competing coalition of cells
> (obviously, evolutionary strategies are statistical in nature, not
> conscious). Another evolutionary arms race of complexity occurs, this time
> toward higher Quality forms of cooperation and versatility. DQ in action
> again! This time leading to skin, organs, legs, wings, eyes, brains, etc,
> etc.
>
> JoVo, is this another example that meets your intervalueing system
> requirements?
Very much indeed! As said in one of my former articles already, my
considerations apply significantly better to everthing beyond the inorganic
level.
Finally coming through to my last (not really!) issue on my countdown list, the
'harmonic spectrum of intervaluations' and I hope you recognize at least a faint
resemblance to your 'POSITIVE SUM QUALITY'. (When you see my weird expressions
and thoughts such as this you may agree that it's time for me to go :-)) )
Now this is born out of a superposition of your and my thoughts.
I've been talking about intervaluation relationships between value-beings of
different dimension and also different levels in former posts. I called those
intervaluations between value-beings of a higher level(or dimension) and one of
a lower level, high-grade intervaluation. A relationship between two
value-beings of almost the same dimension and level a low-grade intervaluation
(such as the battle between Bush and Gore, or IAW the battle between the
Consevatives and the Democrats).
And when I start to consider also other levels relationships and the dimensions
in between there, a special characteristic becomes visible.
A spectrum is a mathematical description of how many distinguishable/different
(artificially build) classes of a variable there can be found in a system, a
technical appliance, any kind of statistics and especially the consideration of
waves of any kind. In case there is no need to define classes, eg. countable
subjects and the subject is dealing upon phenomenons of nature (population) you
receive very often the 'Gauss-distribution'. Especially for the consideration
and analysis of waves - you dissect them - you firstly define frequency-classes.
So between 10hz and 20Hz is one class, from 20Hz to 30Hz is the next and so on
(normally logarithmic but that's secondary). The forming of those classes is
important when you deal upon unsure/unknown variables (or unknown starting
points); many statistical-mathematical tasks are using it.
(It looked clear to me but putting this in words is rather tricky; may be not
the only one here)
When you describe now every kind of intervaluation in forms of value-beings -
down from an electron up to a human being - concerning their related level
(and/or dimension) with the help of defined classes, you will get such a
spectrum as described above. You will find the most stable situation concerning
a chosen value-being when it's (dimensional) environment shows a harmonic
spectrum of intervaluations. At least I consider soft (swinging ;-) )
function-curves - those who form the boundary(?)-curve of such a spectrum - as
enabling stableness for a value-being (system; or still good old 'value pattern'
is applicable for this of course!). Harmonic wave profile seems to be the ideal
form of that curve since it represents continuous regular circle-movement, to be
found everywhere (idealized), but this was an aesthetic impulse I've been
following here.
For example the analysis of a human being (without technical help) at the south
pole, in the sahara or also on the moon not at all shows a harmonious spectrum
of intervaluation and human beings can only do so by strong help of technical
appliances besides this is their enormous advantage compared to other species,
to create things that had been in his/hers mind only before, gained through the
learning and copying from nature and what makes at last the intellectual level
itself (not glorifying technology here but thats were it had started long ago,
understanding and copying nature).
What is not integrated and therefore is the above uncomplete, are for example
planets where there is not very much as far as I can see, or not at all, a
harmonic spectrum of intervaluation to be found.
Whereas I'm not quite sure if we should look for such a spectrum everywhere. At
least it applies on zones of multiple intervaluations, where there is a rich
diversity of value-beings....(I have to stop here, reconsider some of it and
will be back perhaps some day)
Can you see some 'POSITIVE SUM QUALITY' in this? :-)
[...]
> Q3) SOCIAL: WHY DOES SOCIAL COOPERATION, ORDER AND COMPLEXITY EVOLVE FROM
> SELFISH INDIVIDUAL BIOLOGICAL QUALITY?
This one is still open, if you have something ready, Roger, it'll be welcomed!
Thank you for patience in case not having cared about my warnings,
just wanted to smooth it a bit before leaving.
I wish you all well,
Kind Regards,
tired JoVo
coutdown:2
"No, really! And it has started smoking again, there is blue smoke all over our
roof... I hope we get to Engineer-town at all"
"It was you to start experiments with this thing... madman! Yeahh and
smoke...What's its brand then? Lucky Strike perhaps....HAA? May be it wishes one
of your beer cans as well...would help you to sober up at least."
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:54 BST