Treating time as an everywhere local process is one of the clear\u00a0links between Mark van der Erve\u2019s \u201cphysics of auto-emergence\u201d and my \u201cphysics of happening\u201d<\/p>\n
On 8\/12 Steve replied: \u201cVery clear..among your best.\u201d regarding my reply to Nick:
\nFor related concepts see the notes for Aleks Jakulin\u2019s presentation on my work at the June 2011 Foo Camp \u201cSystem archetypes & anarchetypes<\/a>\u201c<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\u2014
\nNick, Ok, but by saying systems are a \u201cstanding wave\u201d is to say they\u2019re mechanically repetitive rather than recurrently creative.\u00a0\u00a0 The systems of direct concern to people are most often repetitively creative, not mechancal.\u00a0 They\u2019re not representable by equations at all, but are observably physical systems, locally evolving.<\/p>\nIf what you understood by the way I described \u201clocal exploratory development\u201d seems covered by \u201cdigital time\u201d and entropy, then I\u2019m explaining it badly.<\/p>\n
It applies more to the growth phase of what you’d call “a gradient tunneling” processes.\u00a0\u00a0<\/h3>\n
Before a spark discharge occurs an ionization cascade, that precedes the spark, somehow scavenges energy to build up from a non-process to initiate the development of a large scale energy transfer system.\u00a0\u00a0 Degrading the gradient happens *after* the process for doing that has developed.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s both what one observes, and an application of the continuity law(1) that beginning a process takes a process, a period of syntropy, preceding the decay of the gradient and the breakdown of the process and a net entropy.\u00a0 It\u2019s the buildup of the process that becomes the ionization wave that first energizes the spark. \u00a0The question is how would such a pre-emergent series of \u2018accidents\u2019 first start tunneling through the gradient wall.<\/p>\n
I think what you invariably see at every level are sequences that start as runaway developmental processes (\u00b8\u00b8\u00b8.\u00b7).\u00a0\u00a0 Gradients are never relieved without them taking place it seems.<\/p>\n
To me that\u2019s similar enough to how animals and people explore their own environments to find openings that lead to more openings to \u201cmisuse\u201d a perfectly good English word and attach some esoteric scientific meanings, and call that syntropy that precedes every growth process \u201cexploratory development\u201d.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0Exploratory development often seems to become \u2018systematized\u2019, like economic growth has, but then also always upsets itself by altering the environment in which it operates [and that its development explores]. pfh<\/p>\n
\u2014
\nNick\u2019s had commented on 8\/11:
\n\u201cI missed the \u201ctime is an everywhere local process\u201d aspect of his paper, and agree wholeheartedly with you and have believed that for years. I think time has to be viewed as ally having two meanings, one of wich is digital and the other real-valued.\u00a0 All physically confined systems are oscillatory, and one can count the oscillations digitally – anyone at any point in the universe can agree as to the digital count for a particular system.\u00a0 That is one measure of \u201ctime.\u201d\u00a0 The other is the continuous real-valued \u201ctime\u201d on which we can only agree at the limit of distances approaching zero.\u00a0 All physical clocks in fact hve two common elements – an oscillator and a ratchet.- which means they all are digital and all are subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics; given that, it is probablyh appropriate and necessary to set up the definition of the irst time to take those characteristics into account, leading to the conclusion that this \u201ctime\u201d and temperaure need to be mesured in the same way.\u00a0 Untrue of the real-valued time.\u201d na<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\u2014
\nAnd I replied on 8\/12:
\nThe reference seems implied by both his effort to explain snowflake formation as a local evolutionary process and 2nd pp on p10 \u201cthe uniqueness of the behavioral perspective is that it identifies emergence in the spacetime domain as a remnant of a process of natural selection in the behavioral domain\u201d.<\/p>\nI would add to the 1)\u2018digital\u2019 and 2)\u2018real-valued\u2019 meanings, the 3)\u2018developmental\u2019 meaning of time as the accumulation of conserved change whether by coincidence, local random evolutionary processes, or by the active exploratory development (self-animating) processes that are so evident in higher level learning systems.\u00a0For the latter two the progression of time is not about the working of any sort of deterministic clock, but about the local processes of change.<\/p>\n
I myself think that when you look at processes of conserved change you mostly find that time of type 3 is the actual dominant in determining the course of events, and types 1 & 2 amount to record keeping and explanatory principles needed for us to explain complex systems in a simplified way.<\/p>\n
For example, the \u201coscillator and a ratchet\u201d concept is very useful for distinguishing between type 1 and 2 \u00a0time , but when you force yourself to look at what is oscillating and what the catch is that allows the ratchet to inch forward, changing scales of observation to do it, I think you most often find complex developmental processes of one of the evolutionary types.\u00a0\u00a0 So, I\u2019m happy to use time as a principle for organizing my data, but not to explain away how conserved change occurs at scales of organization beyond my data. pfh<\/p>\n
\u2014
\nto which Nick replied on 8\/12:<\/p>\nWe are more or less tracking.\u00a0 I\u2019ve come to think that every system, from the elementary particle up through the ecosystem, is a space-curvature standing wave in 6-space, which because it is a standing wave, has a characteristic \u201ctime\u201d in which it repeats itself.\u00a0 By hypothesizing that the system has a constant time value, you discover that there is a necessarily-conserved varible, which is energy.\u00a0 In the more realistic model recognizing that nothing survives forever, heat eplaces energy as the fundamental object.\u00a0 And thestanding wave\u2019s fundamental time constant is the arithmetic inverse of its temperature.\u00a0 Visualized an object composed of curved lines and ask what happens if the objet is not all rotating at the same rate – the lines get tisted all out of shape – in tis cse that means inrease space curvature, theefore increased energy content.\u00a0 So thee is a force tending to make the whole system rotate at the sme rate, i.e. the whole system have the sme temperature – and so are unified relativity, quantum theory, themodynamics.<\/p>\n
Your third measue of ime is in my thinking an admixture of the \u201cdigital\u201d time and entropy.\u00a0 What\u2019s going on in all of tis is tha information isfundamental, energy is not, and that heat will ultimately be found to be a more universal concept than energy, because it elates directly to entropy and therefore directly to information.<\/p>\n
Are we tracking? na<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\u2014
\nIn response to my prior comment 8\/12:<\/p>\nNick, The reference seems implied by both his effort to explain snowflake formation as a local evolutionary process and 2nd pp on p10 \u201cthe uniqueness of the behavioral perspective is that it identifies emergence in the spacetime domain as a remnant of a process of natural selection in the behavioral domain\u201d.<\/p>\n
I would add to the 1)\u2018digital\u2019 and 2)\u2018real-valued\u2019 meanings, the 3)\u2018developmental\u2019 meaning of time as the accumulation of conserved change whether by coincidence, local random evolutionary processes, or by the active exploratory development (self-animating) processes that are so evident in higher level learning systems.\u00a0 For the latter two the progression of time is not about the working of any sort of deterministic clock, but about the local processes of change.<\/p>\n
I myself think that when you look at processes of conserved change you mostly find that time of type 3 is the actual dominant in determining the course of events, and types 1 & 2 amount to record keeping and explanatory principles needed for us to explain complex systems in a simplified way.<\/p>\n
For example, the \u201coscillator and a ratchet\u201d concept is very useful for distinguishing between type 1 and 2 \u00a0time , but when you force yourself to look at what is oscillating and what the catch is that allows the ratchet to inch forward, changing scales of observation to do it, I think you most often find complex developmental processes of one of the evolutionary types.\u00a0\u00a0 So, I\u2019m happy to use time as a principle for organizing my data, but not to explain away how conserved change occurs at scales of organization beyond my data. pfh<\/p>\n
\u2014
\nThe thread had come from Steve sending Marc\u2019s paper (2) around and my saying on 8\/11:
\nNick, Steve,
\nThanks for notes on Marc van der Erve\u2019s Physics of\u00a0 Auto-emergence (2).\u00a0 What attracts me is that he\u2019s the first person I\u2019ve seen who, like me, discards the \u201cclockwork\u201d idea of physics and treats time as an everywhere local process rather than a location in a formula.<\/p>\nI\u2019ve been beating my head against a wall looking for anyone else who realized the necessity of doing that to get physics and real phenomena to fit better.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0Still, I don\u2019t really get what he\u2019s talking about concerning astrophysics, and can see that he\u2019s frequently speaking of ideas beyond the physics principles he uses, with metaphors.<\/p>\n
What I found I needed to do years ago, to build a \u201cphysics of auto-emergence\u201d myself, was create an empirical learning process for auto-emergent phenomena.\u00a0\u00a0 There\u2019s no other possible way to represent them but by exploring the developmental processes by which they occur, as they are not required by the boundary conditions of deterministic physics, but independently arise within those bounds.<\/p>\n
If he\u2019s actually looking for what I developed as a method, or vis-\u00e0-vis, I expect he or I will find the connection between our theories sometime.\u00a0\u00a0 I only see that we both feel a need to depart from some of the same traditional assumptions of physics in about the same way to understand how things like unique snowflakes might be the rule rather than the exception. pfh<\/p>\n
1) pfh – 1993\u00a0Law of Continuity in Change <\/a>– unifying the conservation laws, to find the place of complex systems
\n2) mvde – 2008\u00a0Explaining Auto-Emergence in Physics and Society<\/a> –<\/p>\nPhil Henshaw\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00b8\u00b8\u00b8\u00b8.\u00b7\u00b4 \u00af `\u00b7.\u00b8\u00b8\u00b8\u00b8 NY NY\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 www.synapse9.com
\n& re: Mark van der Erve www.marcvandererve.org<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Treating time as an everywhere local process is one of the clear\u00a0links between Mark van der Erve\u2019s \u201cphysics of auto-emergence\u201d and my \u201cphysics of happening\u201d On 8\/12 Steve replied: \u201cVery clear..among your best.\u201d regarding my reply to Nick: For related concepts see the notes for Aleks Jakulin\u2019s presentation on my work at the June 2011 … Continue reading Treating time as an everywhere local process\u2026<\/span>