Re: Is Evolution "Quantum Chaotic" or is Quantum Chaos "Evolutionary?"

We may indeed be ‘in another universe of mathematics with evolution’; still if we use our mathematics more as model of expression and to illustrate patternization in nature and less as a tool for making precise calculations regarding distinct empirical amounts of this material or that material, we may be able to get at a rudimentary outline of evolutionary mathematics.  This wouldn’t be anything “fancy” but just an attempt to see if the patterns in Eonics might show a basic parallelism with other models in “Big History” as well as those of Relativity & Quantum theory (using my own idea of a “mathematics of pure relationality” both as a means of comparison w/ the other maps I’m talking about and a way of alternatively expressing the basic concepts of those other maps).  (At the very least, it’s just tinkering to see what fits); yet oftentimes that’s all we can do in our researches.  Anything more only comes with time, new discovery, and the empirical methods we [or others] employ to get data.

******

John Landon wrote:  (my response follows)

<I think we are in another universe of mathematics with evolution.  Nothing fancy is going to work with an evolutionary model.  Mathematics doesn't fit the subject yet. The question is, how does evolution happen, as an empirical subject. Once we know, the math will follow, maybe.  It's like Faraday. He made mock up models, fields. Then the math came, Maxwell. We don't have the data yet.>

In follow-up to my last posting, I would certainly agree (with Landon’s point) that the mathematics of [“eonic”] evolution and the empirical evidence to demonstrate it isn’t apparent to us yet.  But I do think by keeping in mind the ideas of David Christian’s “Big History” and my own notion of a “mathematics of pure relationality” (playing off a “maps inside of maps” principle) we can begin to piece together an outline of an overall model to such a mathematics of evolutionary expression.

I noticed some of my posting didn’t transfer correctly to the List.  Here’s the essence of what I was getting at

(1)     Substitutions and Interchangeability are “infinitely” possible but we should use them only insofar as they reveal patterns to us in their derived expansions.

(2)     Substitutions and Interchangeability are even possible with regard to “operations” and “numbers” (thereby paralleling the real world where structures and processes are interchangeable).  This substitutability is even possible for distinct “numbers” and more complex formulas.  In my model, Y does in fact truly “equal MX + B.”  It isn’t just a convenient way of expressing an algebraic relationship or bringing an equivalency between two distinct quantities.  It is ultimately “equivocal” and to a point “univocal” in the ontological sense.

(3)     A ‘mathematics of pure relationality’ is built upon the notion that mathematical expression is ultimately not so much about deriving quantitative results through calculations as it is about using mathematical terms to express complex matter-force-energy relationships in the real world.  At the level of math calculations , a “mathematics of pure relationality” makes no sense.  But as soon as we move to the next conceptual level of (X/0) where (1/1) = (X/0) such that 1=0 and 2=1, we move into an arena where there’s a basis to my ideas and a MPR makes sense.  We thus move to the realm of “math as” true “language” because it’s a science of pure relationships and patternizations.

Taking this back to the point of my last posting; by virtue of a mathematics of pure relationships we can see how the universe’s “natural state” is one that’s based in singularities of different varieties and “The Singularity” of the cosmos itself ‘before’ or really ‘at the point of’ the Big Bang.  (It’s really useless to talk about what happened “before” the Big Bang since Time and Space were born with the Big Bang)  Still because of the Singularity and singularities afterwards, the cosmos is replete with the impression of their effects.  The universe still ‘feels’ as it were the reverberations of the original Singularity (via its basic dynamic laws) and the laws of subsequent singularities.

What’s essential to this Mathematics of Pure Relationality and a cosmos that works by it? à The possibility and state of Simultaneity.  Only by a frame of reference where we can get from Point A to Point B in “no time” at all would we be able to have the dynamics I spelled out above and in my last post.  Only in a D/T scenario where a variable Distance X is traversed in 0 Time would a relational mathematics, as I’ve described it, be possible.  Without this, there is no MPR.

But with this MPR, what we’re given is a universe where the laws of singularities and the Singularity work their way to us.  But they must pass through the “interference” as it were of what the universe has become (in post-Singularity Astrophysical terms) and the particular way that physical systems in our section of the cosmos operate (the way we see them as operating and therefore universalize them to be the “laws of nature”)(Anyone want to venture a guess as to why “things work differently around here?”…)  Thus, we have this discrepancy between what we understand to be the laws of the cosmos (brought to us via the Physical Sciences) and what we see happening in terms of Relativity, the Quantum model, and Evolution (human societal and biological).  But what if the “real way the cosmos works” is along the lines of these latter three phenomena?  What if the former kinds of phenomena are really “interference” and a brand of “white noise” (fuzz) to the real laws of the universe as they emerge/dynamically and chaotically expand from their points of origin within singularities?  What if what we’re experiencing as the dim outlined patterns of Eonic evolution , world history, and world systematization are in fact the reverberations of a Mathematics of Pure Relationality in the cosmos arising out of the physical principles (laws) of singularities and the original cosmic Singularity?  What if this is what constitutes the connection between the Eonic Effect and Quantum Chaos?

Perhaps this theory of mine is nothing more than Science Fiction; however even as such it serves an academic purpose.  By considering the matter in terms of even small amounts of empirical evidence available to us (scant as it may be) and other theoretical models which are out there in the field, this ‘map’ (and it is just an intellectual map) helps us to compare sources of evidence, fundamental ideas in our theories, and the dynamic frameworks by which we postulate that our ideas work by way of those systems we choose to study.  Yet such “maps” are nothing more than (“useful”) maps and templates by which we consider the kinds of evidence available to us.

My own interest with such a notion is only to see whether it helps to make better sense of some of these larger dynamics implicit in “Big History” and “Eonic” evolution and whether, (when a number of different knowledge maps are brought to bear on the “longer view” of a worldwide World System), they help to better understand the human condition and how that condition is framed both in the process-oriented sense of a temporal context and the structural systematic orientation of a more cosmic context.  Relativity, Quantum, Eonic Evolution, and Big History are all elements to this bigger picture, but ultimately they are still only elements.  It is only by considering them all the in the context of each other and each other’s maps that a better understanding emerges to all of them and to human events in greater frameworks of time and space.

A “maps inside of maps” principle together with my own notion of a “mathematics of pure relationality” may help in understanding some of the more complicated mysteries involved in evolutionary process and the Eonic Effect.  In my own model, the mathematics is inherent in the pattern; the pattern is inherent in the mathematics.  That’s its asset.

More to come …

Luke R.

---

Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs