Abstract - The diagnostic time-dependent behavior of the visible universe of which biological and cultural evolution are clearly a part is characterized by the progressive emergence of new irreducible space-time levels of dynamical behavior from successive symmetry-breaking events. Until this universal dynamical behavior is explicated by a theory of general evolution neither biological nor cultural evolution, both products and special cases of this universal behavior, can ever be understood. Working by induction from simple physical systems, the author in previously published work has demonstrated a set of first principles fromwhich this behavior can be deduced. In particular, it has been shown that the progressive attraction of matter away from equilibrium is governed by a law of maximum entropy production. Nonlinear relations between components puncture the space-time barriers to entropy production of the incoherent (linear) regime by extending the dissipative surfaces of the fields from which they emerge by orders of magnitude. Those attractors prevail that extend their dissipative surfaces at the fastest possible rate given the constraints. From the first prokaryotes on the Archean Earth to the increasingly accelerating cultural systems of today, evolution on planet Earth can be seen as an epistemic process by which the global system as a whole learns to degrade the cosmic gradient at the fastest possible rate given the constraints.
Has anybody any idea at all what this author is talking about ?
Ten points for those who are able to come up with the correct answer !
Originally posted by ivanhoeI think he's saying we're all going to die at some point.
Abstract - The diagnostic time-dependent behavior of the visible universe of which biological and cultural evolution are clearly a part is characterized by the progressive emergence of new irreducible space-time levels of dynamical behavior from successive symmetry-breaking events. Until this universal dynamical behavior is explicated by a theory of gener ...[text shortened]... ng about ?
Ten points for those who are able to come up with the correct answer !
Originally posted by ivanhoeEven if one understands the abstract, one will likely miss the point unless you provide the whole paper. Where did it come from and who wrote it?
Abstract - The diagnostic time-dependent behavior of the visible universe of which biological and cultural evolution are clearly a part is characterized by the progressive emergence of new irreducible space-time levels of dynamical behav ...[text shortened]... hose who are able to come up with the correct answer !
Or shall I Google for it?
EDIT
Swenson, R. (1989b). Emergent Evolution and the Global Attractor: The Evolutionary Epistemology of Entropy Production Maximization. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of The International Society for the Systems Sciences, P. Leddington (ed)., 33(3), 46-53.
http://www.entropylaw.com/global.html
Originally posted by ivanhoewell i haven't read it, but i saw the chance to get ten points.
Abstract -
Has anybody any idea at all what this author is talking about ?
Ten points for those who are able to come up with the correct answer !
this is why it is called an abstract - you know like the art. you don't really know what it is until someone tells you and after that it can be anything you want it to.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhat about:
Yes indeedee :
http://www.entropylaw.com/global.html
Do these people really talk like that ? It must be great fun visiting one of their congresses ..... 🙄
"We here describe certain explicit canonical resolutions for free
associative and free (graded) Lie algebras, in the category of
non-associative algebras. Both resolutions are based on the
combinatorics of suitable collections of leaf-labeled trees.
The Lie case was needed for the second author's description of higher
homotopy operations in rational homotopy theory: it turns out that in
order to describe all such higher operations, one must resolve the
rational differential graded Lie algebra L_* (representing the rational
homotopy type of a given space X) simplicially, by suitable free
(differential) graded Lie algebras. The higher homotopy operations
correspond to relations and syzygies for these free graded Lie algebras,
thought of as non-associative algebras. Since we must replace all the
Lie algebras by the corresponding free differential algebras in a
functorial manner (to preserve the simplicial structure of the original
resolution of L_* we need canonical resolutions of free Lie algebras in
the category of non-associative algebras, as described in this paper.
The construction is closely related to ``strongly homotopy Lie
algebras''
Our main interest is indeed in the Lie case. The associative case, which
is based on work of Stasheff, is included mainly as a preliminary
illustration of the ideas involved, and to fix notation."
he is talking of a religious-like overview of everything.
possibly a lot of acid has been used to get to this state of mind where everything is conveniently reduced to a theory on paper.
it happens regularly that people become obsessed by their own worlds and believe that they have a universal relevance. often they are based on good ideas. but their relevance is not as universal as the authors and their supporters believe. as you get out into the real world other factors come into play.
as Mr Rabbit says this abstract doesn't even start to tell us what this particulr theory is.
Originally posted by royalchickenMr. Rabbit i am disgusted. as a fellow mathematically twisted person i do not understand why you included english words, this will not impress anyone. i don't know why you even have normal letters. why not just go with greek letters - perhaps for something pathetically simple, that everyone knows, like what it means to be continuous.
What about:
"We here describe certain explicit canonical resolutions for free
associative and free (graded) Lie algebras, in the category of
non-associative algebras. Both resolutions are based on the
combinatorics of suitable collections of leaf-labeled trees.
The Lie case was needed for the second author's description of higher
homotopy op ...[text shortened]... included mainly as a preliminary
illustration of the ideas involved, and to fix notation."
Originally posted by pradtf
well i haven't read it, but i saw the chance to get ten points.
this is why it is called an abstract - you know like the art. you don't really know what it is until someone tells you and after that it can be anything you want it to.
in friendship,
prad
You know what is so convenient about Abstract Art ...... we all can discuss it and have an opinion about it and we're always right ..... super post-modern entertainment ..... indeed much better than going to the fair ...
Originally posted by flexmoreI was going to include some Russell and Whitehead but we can only post straight text here!
Mr. Rabbit i am disgusted. as a fellow mathematically twisted person i do not understand why you included english words, this will not impress anyone. i don't know why you even have normal letters. why not just go with greek letters - perhaps for something pathetically simple, that everyone knows, like what it means to be continuous.
Originally posted by ivanhoeVery old theory... "The one who can think the loudest, can cause reality"... or translated... "The power of positive thinking." Seeing the fools who rule the earth, it is enough to make me believe.😛
Abstract - The diagnostic time-dependent behavior of the visible universe of which biological and cultural evolution are clearly a part is characterized by the progressive emergence of new irreducible space-time levels of dynamical behav ...[text shortened]... hose who are able to come up with the correct answer !
Problem lies not in the concept of 'breaking the wave function' of reality... but of knowing the difference between cause and effect. Is reality "coming" at us? Or going "away" from us? Or Both? Or neither? Reality and time often get mistaken for being the same. They are not. Time is going away (in timespace) and reality is coming to us (in quantum spacetime). From undefinded to imaginary. But until you are able to feel and work it out for yourself, all the talking in the universe can't explain it. There is no "real" difference between past and future. Both employ deception upon the senses of poor living beings. We can "swear" that we know what happened yesterday... We mis-identify a segment of 'time' for a portion of our 'reality'. What really happened 'yesterday' was the apprehension of a quadrillion 'now' segments, but that "frame" was totally unknown and unnoticed by the universe that we claim to inhabit. As such they (now segments) can not be proven to exist 'then'.... Time has nothing to do with "that". Reality does have a say. What is that say? Dare anyone say? I doubt it. (pun intended)