What is Emergence?

[dleviwing]

Check it out.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3410/03.html

[mkirkpatrick]

Thanks Dave,a most interesting link,have watched some of the video,will see more later,
we have all emerged,and converged into conscious awareness of being.



regards michael.

[analog]

Hello Dave,

How about a chat on emergence? I’m not talking about a philosophical debate about what consciousness may or may not be. I’m talking about the mechanism within our individual frameworks that allow for the formation of the physical biological bodies of life; the function and the form.

Many theorist get so caught up on focusing on their microcosmic mechanisms (atomic structures), they often neglect the need for the mechanism which builds the obviously needed varying medium densities surrounding the massive bodies/objects such as the galaxies, stars and planets. It is this increased medium density which allows for percieved "energy, gravity, action at a distance" and the next stage of form to develop and propagate. Each massive body provides the environment for the next stage of formation to exist. I like to think of the entire universal framework as an emergent system, whereby the formation of the largest (galaxy) creates the varying medium density surrounding it, from which the next larger formation (stars) emerges within the supplied medium. This continues to create not just more dense formations at the center of the medium, but also the required increasing medium density for the next stage of formation to develop within. In my opinion, without a proper mechanism to describe how this takes place, a framework is destined to failure, because it will never be able to account for the chronology of manifestation. Just as fish wouldn’t be fish without the medium of the ocean to swim in; so to do all more massive bodies require their own relatively dense medium of the fundamentals to exist within, and to emerge from. There is an essential chronological sequence in which our universe was formed, and I feel that the mechanism for life is also explained within this sequence.

This is what I like about our individual frameworks. They don’t just build objects which can theoretically manifest anywhere. They address the medium density needed to manifest the next stage of objects. The fundamentally small comes together to form the largest first; which creates the proper medium density to form the next largest formation; which sets the stage for the next, etc, etc. It is at the stage of our planet that this would seem to reverse, whereby it, and our bodies, seemingly begin to develop in the opposite direction, as is seen by an encapsulating formation of a denser solid to start containing the less dense mediums within it. Generally, the less dense medium contains the denser solid, but the planets would appear to begin the first stages whereby this is reverted to a denser solid vessel (a planet) to start containing the less dense mediums (natural gas, oil, etc.); by which we too eventually appear, through the process of evolution, as our bodies contain the less dense mediums of blood, water, air, etc. We have now taken the emergence of evolution and related it to the more understandable cosmic emergence of our universe.

This is all related to my explanation of relative time, whereby the velocity of the more massive formation moving through the less dense medium determines it’s dimensions, thus emerges relative mechanical time.

Relative time/motion comes into play as these fundamentals build more massive objects, whereby the object moves with a fraction of the absolute velocity available to it. The fundamental constituents are at absolute velocity, with random direction, within their own space, as they create frequency, but the massive object they form is moving linearly in one direction at a fraction of the available absolute velocity. The increasing ratio of linear forward velocity of the massive object to the absolute velocity of the fundamentals that form it causes for the retraction of the size of the object, due to decreasing the frequency of random directional motion. This gives rise to the relativity of mechanical time. As the acceleration of a massive object nears the speed of light, it is actually causing the fundamentals that form it to move more linearly as a whole, whereby the frequency at which they are traveling at other random directions is reduced, and the whole massive formation reaches closer to the available absolute velocity. Light speed is reached when fundamental particle frequency becomes zero (thus one degree of freedom) and all the fundamentals are continuously moving in the same linear direction, but there's more to the acceleration of a massive object, which I won't bore you with.

I realize the importance of motion and its obvious absolute state within our universe, and in doing so I realize that there is an underlying fundamental entity which is just as important; that entity is direction. The dynamics of one massive object moving another, then becomes one massive object transferring the directional linear motions of the fundamentals that form it onto the object which it is moving. The prime mover within our increasingly equalizing universe isn’t the absolute motions of the fundamentals; it’s the transference of direction which brings order to this chaos, as random motions become organized linear motions, which forms more massive formations, which can be further directionally imposed upon to accelerate through the medium which they would often otherwise find relative rest within. Direction within our individual frameworks of absolute motion is the entropy of classical thermodynamics. I assume the direction of your framework comes from the initial collision, as all transferences of direction, from that point on, are in accordance with bringing the fundamental aether back to its original state of uniform linear motion (one degree of freedom).

My search for direction within my framework is what prompts me to explore this emergence topic. Are we a part of transferring this cosmic direction, whereby we become the carrier particles to help this planet where it’s headed? How much impact are we having on our whole universal system, not just our planet? Could we be the apex formation where a steady state type framework is allowed to eternally cycle? Do the fundamentals come together through random motions individually inward towards the center of galaxies; thus they gather within that medium as massive formations whereby, as a collective unit, they can slowly propagate back outward, through the incoming medium of the less dense, in the stages of stars and planets; allowing for cycles rather than an eventual static equilibrium; life being the formation which aids the massive formations (planets) in redispersing its fundamental constituents back without, as we remove the needed internal substances from their trapped position within the center, which allows for the apparent progression of decay of a planet? Is this why the planets appear to be progressively decaying as they reside further from the sun?

Perhaps when we stop trying to make the sun go around the earth; thus forcing existence to orbit around life; we will open our eyes to the realization that we are merely an equal part of the mechanism, which allows for everything (not just us) to be, and our task here isn’t functionless; we must actually do and be doing our job.

If we are ever to explain the emergence of life within a universe, we must first acknowledge the universal framework which defines its function; the mechanism for the arrangement of its form should then be obvious.

What's your take?



regards,

Tim


P.S. Merry birthday, Dave. I hope your ever increasing age doesn’t hinder your desperately needed ability to keep us all in-line here, whereby not letting this entire forum slip further into the realm of abstract obscurity.

[dleviwing]

Hi Tim;
I agree that emergence is what we need to discuss and join with the GUT to forum a TOE; I must admit that emergence is a field of science that I am as ignorant as the next though. I do however, have fundamental rules that I use to evaluate such ideas and you seem to be using those same rules.

Though most refer to the stuff between the atoms and molecules as energy or just empty space, I view it as a type of plasma of fundamental substance; a plasma that has not acquired the type of motions to form domains of subatomic particle structures. I actually view emergence as what results from divergence of the fundamental substance as its vibrations interacts with molecular structures. Eventually we may find a set of primary frequency harmonics that result in the formation of life itself from inert molecules.

[analog]

Hey Dave,

You may view yourself as "ignorant" in the traditional scientific field of emergence, but you are far from "ignorant" within your own framework, and that's where the traditional scientific field of emergence possibly hasn't yet looked; but you can.

I remember reading an old quote once, I think by Franklin or Edison, which said something to the effect of: “The key to success is realizing that we can’t make opportunities happen; all we can do is ready ourselves by gaining knowledge; that we may recognize them when we see them; whereby we're then able to take advantage of them.” That isn’t exactly word for word, but you get the point.

This represents how I view discovering the mechanism for emergent life. Once the correct framework is acknowledged; thus we have readied ourselves; perhaps the mechanism for life will then become apparent. Have we acknowledged that framework, which incorporates emergent life as a fundamental? I don’t know, but I do know that it wouldn’t hurt us to look within the frameworks we do acknowledge.

It would seem that we’ve approached our models as a bottom-up design; building from the fundamentals. Now that we've acknowledged the fundamentals, for some reason, I feel the need to use a top-down design approach. I’m more tempted to start with a block diagram; which describes the cycle and defines the function; and work my way down to a schematic and layout diagram; which will describe the actual mechanism that allows for the form.

If we agree that life has a function in all of this, then it must assist in giving direction to the directionally challenged ever moving universe. Somewhere between the time of the initial impact that set your fundamental substance in chaotic random motion, and the time it fully regains its total uniform motion; hides the mechanism of life. Somewhere within that cycle is our needed presence; but where?

For some reason, I prefer a cycling framework. I guess it makes more sense to me. I’m currently entertaining the thought that life is an apex formation which represents the turning point of a cycling universal framework; the point where the universal motions of the fundamentals that form galaxies, and solar systems, are prevented from becoming static or one directional (inward). I’m trying to build a cycling framework within my mind; which perhaps doesn’t need an initial collision; one that allows the fundamentals to propagate back outward; perhaps as stars and planets. It seems interesting to think that perhaps the mechanism for such a framework would require a seemingly unpredictable entity (us) with its own ability to give/distribute direction to the massive formations of the fundamentals, possibly without even knowing/acknowledging it. Then all of the social sciences become a study of not how complex our lives were, but how blind we were to what we were fundamentally doing to assist in the direction of our universal system.

For some reason, I picture the motions of the fundamentals (as seen within a galaxy) like an hourglass joined end to end (eternal), as they funnel down (due to the increasing medium density) from the broadened galaxies and down into the compact massive formations of stars (the throat) and then redistribute back without by way of planets perhaps. Perhaps, the inward motions of fundamental matter, which forms galaxies are accomplished as individuals (more random), and the fundamentals must further their increasing uniform motions (collectively) as stars and planets (thus their massive size); whereby to propagate back outwards against the galactic inward flow of the less dense medium of the fudamentals.

While the rest of our universe instantaneously reacts to the direction imposed upon it, as seen by all of the cause and effect of the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets; living beings somehow store this potential for giving direction and apply it seemingly at random, as if out of phase (kinda like a capacitor).

Sorry if I’m not making sense, I’m just speaking from a conceptual block diagram.

[SB_UK]

GB'S thread on 'something from nothing' feeds nicely into this thread on emergence -

- the commonality -
the mechanism for the whole being greater than the sum of the parts.

What do I mean ?
1 + 1 = 4
if the act of 'emergent' addition (of duals) necessitates ^2 on top
(in forming duality).



More here:
[posts #29 and #31]

[SB_UK]

Though most refer to the stuff between the atoms and molecules as energy or just empty space, I view it as a type of plasma of fundamental substance;

the stuff between the atoms and molecules
==
energy (or just empty space)
==
plasma of fundamental substance
==
standing wave matrix outside of our frame of reference
(from the post above and two referenced within)