Re: World Systems, the Eonic Effect, and "Attractors"

In a message dated 10/17/2002 9:57:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, larondin@yahoo.com writes:

> Where stands WST and the Eonic Effect in respect to such ideas about “point”, “limit-cycle”, and “chaotic” attractors?  And,can these help us better understand how macro-social and historic phenomena operate in human experience over time? (For instance on the world-systems end of things, can they shed better light on Core/Periphery &Hegemony/Rivalry relationships? Can they shed better light on how trade/ communications networks function in a world systemic framework? )(Or, in regard to the Eonic Effect, can an understanding of attractors help us to better fathom such concepts as “fast action periods”, “fields of diffusion”, etc.?  Can they help us to more fully understand why certain places and certain times are hot spots/hot points in world history and, therefore, centers around which the rest of human events seems to revolve?) … 


If you look at the cover of World History and the Eonic Effect, you will see a nice fractal (look at the Amazon blowup), it's the Mandelbrot in Sea Horse Valley.

The question of complex systems was intensively studied prior to constructing the eonic model (ca. 1995), without any hard conclusions one way or the other. 
The eonic model uses a conceptual map approach to describe 'what a system does'. And what it does certainly impinges on issues of complex systems, but not anything we have yet heard of. 
The reason is that complex systems are all extensions, at best, of simple dynamics of point particles or masses. 
What the eonic model shows is the relationship of open ended free activity to its own large scale patterning, which is paradoxical. 
What is it that we are describing? We see a distribution, for example, of creative individuals appearing in clusters and these clusters, most amazingly, show structure over many millennia. Anyone who can model that deserves five Nobel prizes. 
The core issue then is the transformation of 'creativity' in individuals over a long range of historical evolution. 
Current dynamics and evolutionary theory isn't even in the right ball park. 
Nonetheless the whole thing has a 'causal formalism' that puts it in the family of dynamics. We can stylize that dynamics from its resemblance to a computer algorithm, by isolating some of its elements:
1. the computer clock and its cycles
2. the relation of the system and individual, as in a computer program and the user with input
The problem is that such systems are not self-contained. They are not fixed at their boundary conditions. Their net information content at the end of each cycle has increased, where did that come from? 

The question of attractors is very 'attractive', pun.  I have often thought, but never made specific due to its lack of rigor, that the only thing that can explain so many different individuals operating in concert though separated was some unknown higher generalization of an 'attractor'. How to proceed with that is not clear. 

In general, the basic idea of an algorithm, i.e. a series of cycles in each part of the system's manifestation is one starting point. 
Those who promote genetic algorithms often seem unaware of the way they contradict ordinary dynamics. But the eonic effect (and this is not an explanation) technically mimics that kind of programmatic structure. 

John Landon
Website on the eonic effect
http://eonix.8m.com
nemonemini@eonix.8m.com