Emergence - Complexity from Simplicity, Order from Chaos (1 of 2)

[Syarali00]

Very good and easy to understand, thank you for posting!

[alexasmithy]

great video thanks

[khijasmith]

love the video really good

[simysimss]

i enjoyed this vid

[Ondelendo]

I Love The Video It Can Increase My Knowledge Emergent complexity can arise from simple interactions between agents following rules

[anakmudajaman]

Steady I Really Like This Video The complexity that arises is suprising and challenges our assumptions about whether order comes from the top or the bottom

[bebeheuy]

Good, I like that you share this video, I wish success always Emergent complexity can arise from simple interactions between agents following rules

[imegatrone]

Nice Video That You Share , So Very Nice Thanks You Emergent complexity can arise from simple interactions between agents following rules

[willamricard]

I Really Like The Video From Your Emergent complexity can arise from simple interactions between agents following rules

[bundawartini]

Your Video Is Very Useful Sharing Emergent complexity can arise from simple interactions between agents following rules. The complexity that arises is suprising and challenges our assumptions about

[jessyjessy4]

some sweet info here

[Hwillijonl]

Perhaps we could see an emergence of complexity, an organization forming from the bottom up in the phenomenon of Occupy Wall Street. It is a complexity which now has come into being in a spontaneous fashion where the behavior of the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. A formation of a new orderliness of interaction among individuals.

[honki3MAN]

Retarded fish-frog had butsex with a monkey...evolution?

[slamblambacid]

Emegence. That's the word that Jacque Fresco uses when he talks about the state that society would reach if we can evolution from a scarcity to an abundance state of mind. But we only can reach that with a new and more healthy socio-economic system. Cosmos coming out of Chaos, I think that's the deepest order of the universe.

[10100003]

lol the presenter used to be a Bible salesman

[MikeRoePhonicsMusic]

I wonder if this part of why so many people believe in a cross monkey.

[theinquisitor]

@MikeRoePhonicsMusic you mean like a monkey who is angry?

[WhiskeyJim59]

Notice a fundamental precept of emergence is the absence of hierarchy, but then John Holland uses hierarchical concepts(bottom-up) to describe the term. LOL.

Then he describes why a computer is dumb because it is not as inter-connected as a brain. Huh? Inter-connectedness is an important component of complexity. It does not equal intelligence. And he may be confusing software and hardware.

Part II of the video is worse. Victims of their own politics.

[JETZcorp]

I have to give a speech on this for speech class in 12 hours. My problem isn't that I don't have enough information; I have too much. I have to narrow all this stuff down to six minutes, and then find some contrived-ass way to cite a peer-reviewed article somewhere. Beautiful.

[derman077]

They lost me when they put little arrows and got arrogant. I believe in this but am turned off by poking fun at people with different beliefs.

[Juefawn]

Science should really put into supply and damned and how it relates to human needs. Please search venus project if you are not aware of the foundation.

[deskset24]

What about the emergence of YouTube comments? The wave and flow and flux of negative and positive YouTube comments?

[seigneurvoland666]

@deskset24 awesome connection br0 . We, the living, just as cells

[vanderbilt887]

I think it's safe to say emergence is the central paradigm of today, much more so than entropy, which is "tres passé". This applies not only to life, the universe as we know it today might be (and probably is) just one such instance of emergence.

[Rockstafeller]

Yeah, I've been reading about emergence for a while, and can someone explain to me why we don't hear about it everywhere???? Explaining world in emergence terms is a huge thing, its almost a complete paradigm shift

[natmanprime]

@Rockstafeller because it leads to anarchy

YOU have to spread the word

because you can't rely on the top of the pyramid to undermine itself

: )

[LastDaysPictures]

Give glory to Jehovah God! He has created heavens and earth!

"For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the worlds creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable"

Romans 1:20

[theinquisitor]

@LastDaysPictures, no bible quotes please. Give a verse reference if you wish, but pasting the verses themselves is bad form. You had something to say in the other clip so I'll give you some credit. You don't need to repeat the words of others. Make your point in your own words.

[LastDaysPictures]

@theinquisitor Please no Evolution Lie quotes, because it is absolutely unscientific!

[theinquisitor]

@LastDaysPictures, yeah the central unifying theory of biology is unscientific. Also, the world is 6000 years old and therefore physics and astronomy are wrong too.

[LastDaysPictures]

@theinquisitor Right, the "world" is 6000 years old. But the universe is much older! There is a difference between world, earth and universe. The world is a system, not the universe or the earth.

[theinquisitor]

@LastDaysPictures, do you not realise how much of science has to be wrong for the world to be 6000 years old? Not to mention history. You place the creation of the Earth in the middle of the agricultural revolution. This is a level of ignorance that can only be willful. You have to deliberately avoid or ignore any arguments against your position to hold this view. This is not just about evolution, you have to reject the very methodology of science itself to consistently hold this view.

[LastDaysPictures]

@theinquisitor Wow, again you hit the point. Yes, most of science is wrong. Take for example the Pangaea theory. It is wrong, because the earth grows like the sun do. The Expanding Earth theory proofs even that dinosaurs could not exist if they lived in a world with so high gravity like today. Their inner organs would squish under the high gravity. Search for Neal Adams videos in Youtube.

[theinquisitor]

@LastDaysPictures, haha Neal Adams! Oh wow. I heard him interviewed on the skeptic's guide to the universe. I've never heard anyone so willfully ignorant and that is really saying something. It was literally painful to listen to. It's not like he learned scientific ideas, understood them and then rejected them in favour of other ideas. He is utterly ignorant of science. He has no idea what he is rejecting, and I suspect, neither do you. Can you even explain the basics of physics that you deny?

[LastDaysPictures]

@theinquisitor Neal Adams is a genius, humbly and open minded. He explains everything very simple, with pure logic and his arguments are very convincing.

Can you please specify in detail in which aspect of Neal Adams explanations you don't agree?

[theinquisitor]

@LastDaysPictures, humble? Are you serious? He's the most arrogant person I've ever heard. He thinks he knows better than the thousands of scientists who have devoted their lives to studying the world without even having lifted a finger to do any real research or experiments. I disagree with him because his ideas contradict the very basics of physics and the conservation of energy and he doesn't have the intellectual honesty to even try to understand what he's dismissing out of hand.

[LastDaysPictures]

@theinquisitor Neal Adams was able to expose a scientific taboo, a dogmatic teaching, so simple and easy. The Truth is simple. We don't need billions and decades of study in order to find out how the universe is made. Take for example Robert Lanza and his theory proposed called "Biocentrism". He found out that life creates the universe and not the other way around, without expensive experiments.

[theinquisitor]

@LastDaysPictures, how can he possibly "expose a scientific taboo" when he doesn't even know what high school students know about the science? Before you can say the scientists are wrong, you have to know what the scientists are actually saying. He doesn't. Do you really think it's legitimate to criticise something without even knowing what you're criticising?

[LastDaysPictures]

@theinquisitor Can you please specify your doubts and give me insight into your reason to criticize Neal Adams work? I am sure you has your scientific based reasons, but you has still not mentioned any of them. So I cannot agree to your critics.

[theinquisitor]

@LastDaysPictures, my objections are broadly twofold. For one thing, almost everything he suggests requires breaking the very well established laws of physics such as the laws of thermodynamics. But science can change even it's most basic principles if sufficient evidence is brought forth, and that brings me to my second objection. Adams provides no evidence, and doesn't even pretend to. He just literally makes this shit up. He doesn't understand or care about the evidence against his position.

[LastDaysPictures]

@theinquisitor Well, perhaps you should know one thing about me: I make part of a family that is used to breaks well established things, traditions, believes and world views. We are ready to sacrifice every personal worldview in order to understand the Truth. Therefore we are not afraid to learn new things and throw the dogmatic teachings of the mainstream aside.

Whatever, thanks for your personal message. I will take now a look on the interview with Neal Adams.

[LastDaysPictures]

@theinquisitor Hi it's me again ;) Now I finished to listen to the Podcast, the Interview with Neal Adams.Very interesting. Thanks again. Now, the only point the skeptics object is that Neal Adams questions the "well established fundament of mainstream science". OK, but I do also, like my family and most of my friends do also. Regarding the law of thermodynamics, the whole universe does not follow the law of thermodynamics, because of the evident big amount of order since the "big bang".

[theinquisitor]

@LastDaysPictures, the big bang theory doesn't violate thermodynamics. Find me one cosmologist (not a comic book writer) who will claim that it does. It's fine to question the status quo. I applaud that. But you first have to learn what the current mainstream view actually is before you can make serious challenges to it. You and Adams aren't doing that. You're dismissing it without even understanding it, so why do you expect any learned people to take you seriously?

[LastDaysPictures]

@theinquisitor Order cannot emerge from nothing. This is a fact. How can a big bang put order into a universe? How can a big bang occur if there was nothing? The Big Bang is a religion, not a science. I question it, because their supporter cannot give me a satisfying explanation. I question it, because they behave like the false religions that says to me their dogmas are untouchable and I should stop to ask question. For me they are both the same.

[theinquisitor]

@LastDaysPictures, case in point LDP, you are under a misapprehension of what the big bang theory states. It doesn't make any claims about the universe coming from nothing. In fact it doesn't explain things before a certain point of energy density, which is why there is still science to do. It's also not untouchable. All scientific theories are designed specifically to be potentially falsifiable. I'm sorry but frankly you need to educate yourself because you don't know what you're talking about.

[LastDaysPictures]

@theinquisitor The Big Bang theory does explain nothing, this is the problem, because it is not even a theory. Every theory can provide some evidence, like the theory of the Expanding Earth, where you can clearly see in the videos of Neal Adams that the earth grows. But nowhere in nature you will ever see order emerging out of nothing! You will nowhere see that something pops into existence with a bang.

[natmanprime]

@LastDaysPictures light emerges from darkness, not nothing. Light AND darkness are abstractions of an infinite absolute, which you can call nothing OR everything.

[LastDaysPictures]

@natmanprime Nope! Darkness is the absence of light. Go back to school and learn!

[natmanprime]

@LastDaysPictures You're upset, I understand. It's all right. There are things called probability waves, that are smaller than atoms. Light is an abstraction, the dynamic between hydrogen atoms, so anything that is smaller than atoms cannot be seen, only deduced. So, these waves are dark. Space is said to be made of some sub atomic stuff.

when probability waves interact with each other they imply an atom into existence. Atoms react by nuclear fission when packed together,-->light.

[theinquisitor]

@natmanprime, I think you mean fusion. That's the source of sunlight anyway. By the way, LastDaysPictures is someone who thinks that a comic book writer who just makes stuff up is a good authority on science. Namely Neal Adams, the guy who thinks that an expanding Earth is a better explanation for the shape of the continents than plate tectonics, despite it violating nearly all of physics. Just bear that level of scientific ignorance in mind when trying to explain anything to him.

[natmanprime]

@theinquisitor The inquisitor! Long time no hear buddy...

thanks for opening up the file on this guy...

I suppose you're living up to your name...

"JUSTIFY YOURSELF" lol

and I have been found wanting. 'Nuclear fusion' is indeed what I should have said

: P

[murderd2death]

chaos rules, praise eris

[axe863]

Complexity: Its an emerging science ;)

[naturalpreservation]

It's worth noting that sometimes simplicity can come from greater complexity, although not often. Artificial Intelligence is both weak and strong but complex.

It is a human construction and yet at one point it was starting out/simplicity. The intelligent designer of AI was complex.

So for those like Dawkins who argue that complexity can only come from simplicity, here we have an example of simplicity coming from complexity.

Emergence is not all black and white.

[theinquisitor]

@naturalpreservation, the statement that that complexity can only come from simplicity does not require that simplicity cannot come from complexity. It's not a one way street.

Something complex can emerge from something simple, and then through another process become simple again. Like a snowflake crystallising from water and then melting back to water again.

I don't think Dawkins would disagree with anything you've said. I'm unclear on what your point is.

[naturalpreservation]

inq - Dawkins has several shaky pillars of argument for the no-existence of God and this line of complexity comes from simplicity is a narrow view that Dawkins advances which he feels has a seductive value way beyond the actual point.

He is trying to argue that an intelligence that produces the Universe runs counter to his 'slow gradual degrees' understanding of the evolutionary process. In Dawkins world view simplicity to complexity is fine but not the other way around.

[naturalpreservation]

inq - Dawkins doesn't believe in God, I get that but if he thinks that he can argue God away by saying that the kind of inflating, evolving, expressive intelligence we can see through our Universe cannot be the result of something more intelligent, he's on to a loser there.

Humans as intelligent designers are a lasting example of how a different dimension of intelligence (AI) can be created as simple and then emerge over time to more sophistication and complexity

I agree that it can be two way

[theinquisitor]

(1/2)

As I understand it, that argument is intended only as a refutation of one particular theistic argument, namely Paley's watchmaker argument.

One of the premises of that argument is that a complex thing, like a watch, requires an explanation in the form of an even more complex thing to create it, like a watchmaker. So the complexity of the universe is supposedly explained by an even more complex intelligent designer.

[theinquisitor]

(2/2)

But this is a violation of the original premise of the argument. If complexity is what you are trying to explain, introducing more complexity is the exact opposite of an explanation.

It's not that the universe couldn't be a product of intelligence, but that cannot serve as an ultimate explanation. Explaining the existence of the universe with a god only leaves you with something more difficult to explain, the god itself. Without explaining that, it's not really an explanation.

[naturalpreservation]

inq - I'm not in the business of explaining anything pre-big bang be that in the field of theoretical physics or in/through religion.

Dawkins has several arguments that he rests his anit-theism on, one is a poor grasp of culture's relativity saying that many Gods undermines the idea of God. This is a poor reading of cultural history. Across time and place how could different cultures express God in the same way. With a little objective thought having many expressed Gods is a cultural given.

[naturalpreservation]

inq - Which brings me to another shaky pillar. Dawkins picks up on the idea of complex things coming from a simplicity and in his narrow neo-Darwinian view of the world in most cases complexity does unfold from simplicity and/or more simple states

However, this has to be revisited with the emergence of behaviourally modern homo sapiens sapiens. The idea of genius is a challenge to gradual complexity, indeed a lot of science can be sequential with the 'boost' from people like Feynman for example

[naturalpreservation]

inq - Paley's argument is one pre-Darwin and we now know that natural selection is one among several mechanisms that can account for change through the evolutionary process although the ebb and flow of change (as you'd expect over such a long time) can be gradual, stasis, punctuated equilibrium and sudden.

I think humans as an intelligent designer creating artificial intelligence is a working real-life example of how one kind of intelligence can create another dimension of intelligence.

[naturalpreservation]

inq - I'm quite keen to stress that I'm not in the belief of God school that answers "God did it" to everything. I'm kind of with Newton on this and that the Universe is 'God's Sensorium', God seeds the Universe, by and large it feeds itself and in part humans 'read' the Universe.

That is perfectly compatible with a material understanding of the observable universe in as far as science can generate those laws. Complexity making different kinds of complexity doesn't seem to happen often though.

[theinquisitor]

(1/4)

I think part of the problem is the ambiguity of the word god. Sometimes it seems that there are as many concepts of god as there are believers. These concepts vary to such a degree that it seems bizarre to give them all a single identifier.

As I understand it, Dawkins criticisms are not directed at the sophisticated concept of the god that you describe. Rather, he is mostly opposed to the more simplistic concept of a personal god that is encountered so much more frequently.

[theinquisitor]

(2/4)

So if you find that Dawkins criticisms are not relevant to your concept of a god, then that's probably because your concept is not the intended target of criticism.

I suspect that if everyone shared your more sophisticated concept of god rather than the highly anthropomorphic fundamentalist variety, Dawkins wouldn't have bothered to write the god delusion in the first place. I believe he made this distinction in his book, but I haven't read it for a while.

[theinquisitor]

(3/4)

The position of atheists like Dawkins and myself is not that we can show that gods don't exist. We merely find arguments for the existence of gods to be lacking.

Rational skepticism compels us to make our acceptance of claims proportional to the evidence for the claim, whether it's about gods or UFOs or "alternative" medicine.

If I'm understanding your position correctly, I find your concept of god much more plausible than the kind of personal god of the creationists and literalists

[theinquisitor]

(4/4)

I'm still suspicious of it though, because it still strikes me as anthropomorphic. Our self-centeredness makes us biased towards seeing aspects of ourselves in things around us, such as seeing the universe as an aspect of a mind like ours, only larger.

This response is getting long so I'll leave it there for now, but I do relish the opportunity to engage with someone with something more to say about the argument than bible quotes and threats of infinite torture.

[naturalpreservation]

inq - (2) I think a big point is Richard's career has been dominated by the idea of replicator, and culture is a profoundly relative process. The information in the gene he says in the 30th Anniversary of The Selfish Gene is 'immortal information'. This stands in sharp contrast to the communicative medium, you, me and all humans engage in: that of meaning.

It is relative, dynamic and at the technical levels a weak, pervasive form of communication, prone to miscommunication even.

[naturalpreservation]

inq - (3) So when we find that different cultures over time and place:

a. all expressed faith, Darwin callled it a Universal, and

b. they expressed God through their customs, language and culture

the idea of being in 2010 and looking back in the record of 100s of Gods, that is us observing a cultural given.

We are the only species from 100s of millions where evolution breaks down in explanatory capacity because it has real and lasting difficulties with culture as a material phenomenon.

[naturalpreservation]

inq - (4) So while there is no art in the nature setting of 'The Blind Watchmaker' humans (a single species) have created and designed trillions and trillions of artifacts which networked together are the primary source of our experience, and that applies to most humans, especially in the urban setting.

There is something quite unique about being a human being, the only species who talks to itself and (as Dawkins has written) has "the gift of internalising the very cosmos."

[naturalpreservation]

inq - (5) Last one, promise. Genomics is on the threshold of creating artificial life, we're trying to recreate the conditions just after the big bang, we've sent humans to the moon and many more examples of something very, very special about being a human being.

Chimps, our closest 'cousin' have been pretty much the same over the last 6 millions years. String theory postulates another 7 dimensions, so there's still a lot to know.

Agnosticism, yes. Atheism even, I get. But anti-theism? I don't

[naturalpreservation]

inq - (6) Sorry, couldn't resist another. I think we're finding a good tone, but on the creationist and literalist point. I think we still pray to the same God but if you've been in and around University life for say 20 years you've indulged in a way that others, often hard-working people can't.

They are not in the back of beyond, they are in the heart of beyond and if we are trying to understand (as I always am) then they can only access what they can.

I'm no literalist but I still believe.

[naturalpreservation]

inq - (1) I think God as an idea can be both simple and exquisite, and if you give the God idea a chance, it has to be. Children have to understand it and the idea of God has to stretch the very cleverest of minds.

I don't think God has a beard and stuff, I think God is deeply embedded in/through the Universe in a way we could try and imagine but would probably fall short. Still, that would be our understanding and would guide us within a range as to what God could be.

[theinquisitor]

(1/5)

I would tend to agree that humans have some unique characteristics, although I'd be wary of allowing that to blind us to how much we still bear the stamp of our lowly origin. I'm sorry to say that I find it difficult to pin down what you're driving at with this point.

I don't think evolutionary ideas are some kind of universal explanation. There's nothing Darwinian about how stars and galaxies form for instance, but anything where there are replicators, it can apply.

[theinquisitor]

(2/5)

Regarding belief in gods as a universal among cultures, this is interesting, but isn't this an argument from popularity? It doesn't follow that it must be true because it is universally believed. Isn't belief in magic and witchcraft of some kind also a human universal?

It seems to boil down to our tendency to see patterns and intentions in everything. It was very likely an adaptive ability, and would favour false positives over false negatives.

[theinquisitor]

(3/5)

If you're in a forest and hear what might be an animal intent on eating you, it's better to assume that it is than not. This tendency to see patterns and intentions bounces around our self-reflective brain and make us see intentions in everything and even the universe as a whole.

Our brain uses shortcuts and rules of thumb to make the world comprehensible, and it inevitably makes mistakes. Magicians and con artists can only prosper because our perceptions are prone to being fooled.

[theinquisitor]

(4/5)

So the fact belief in gods, spirits, or other invisible agents is a human universal says more about us than it does about the universe. It's for reasons like this that I am suspicious of any claim that relies on these flawed intuitions.

These intuitions led us to believe that invisible agents were responsible for everything, the motions of the celestial bodies, earthquakes, disease, the weather.

[theinquisitor]

(5/5)

The gods reside only in the darkness of our ignorance, and now they have retreated all the way back to the origin of the universe to which we are still blind.

Is it reasonable to say that while all the other invisible gods that made the rain and the trees were never really there, the one that sits in the remaining unilluminated space really is there, hiding in the dark?

Sorry if I didn't address all your points, but this conversation is getting quite broad as it is.

[naturalpreservation]

inq - (reply to 5) But I still see God as deeply personal and see/feel God through my Christian culture and background. It's important to note that I've been an atheist almost all of my life, but certainly since early 2007 I'm a deep believer now.

We're not of the gene, culture in relative concert with mind are more causative on our thoughts and behaviours than genetic/biological considerations. Human super-learning means that to be a human being is to be a 'human believing'.

[naturalpreservation]

inq - (last 5, definitely) So when you speak of referring to God as a sign of ignorance, I see it as a profound statement of insight and knowing. I'm against intelligent design for the same reasons as Professor Kenneth R. Miller, an expert on debunking ID, gave expert testimony on the evolutionary process at Kitzmiller and is a practising Catholic. We don't see ignorance in God, we something far more positive.

String theory posits 7 more dimensions. I think we've got a lot more to learn inq.

[naturalpreservation]

inq - (responding to 4) Science is in the business (in large part) with the business of invisible agents, or rather 'non-corporeal' agents. You can't see gravity, space-time, natural selection except through it's effects. Weiner (cybernetics) stated that information was a third state next to energy and matter and we can't 'see' information but we can sense it.

The idea that 'invisible agents' are in somehow the opposite of science is one that doesn't bear out.

[naturalpreservation]

inq - (more on 4) I don't see God as some supernatural puppeteer that is in somehow 'different' from nature. We can refer to God as 'super-science' in that God is beyond science (and yet for people of faith science discovers layers of God's Universe as creation).

Like I said I see God in a similar way to Newton, that the Universe is 'God's Sensorium', indeed for a while Newton thought God was gravity.

[naturalpreservation]

inq - (definitely the last point on 4, going into 5)

Physics is trying to pull together its Grand Unified Theory, journalistically called 'the theory of everything' with gravity, electromagnetism, weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force.

In the Bible it says God is light and God is love, try and imagine a fusion here between all knowing and all creativity. Impressive idea.

Now imagine the kind of emergence that could come from a ToE. In between both of these is (if pushed) how I see God.

[naturalpreservation]

inq - (responding to 3) Science is not story telling, it is the search (at the technical levels especially) to seek provisional truths about the material world. People knew about nature before Darwin but a mechanism takes the description of a phenomena into the realms of 'definition'.

You can construct a story, so can I but I'm searching for the underlying mechanisms of culture that MUST exist beyond some diluted form of evolutionary theory and pretty spurious narrative stuff.

[naturalpreservation]

inq - (responding to 2) This is where it can get tricky, and narrative, which is what Gould referred to as 'just so stories' from evolutionary psychology.

No life species have faith, 100s of millions of them. One species does, behaviourally modern homo sapiens sapiens and over time and place (Darwin called it a Universal) they exhibited faith their their culture and custom, quite unconnected from the nearest tribe and/or culture.

There is an emergence from evolution that has to be accounted.

[naturalpreservation]

inq - (responding to 1) Darwin said we had "God-like intellect" and as you said the stamp of our lowly origin. If we can agree on that then we're in accord to a degree.

I don't think the evolutionary process (our lowly origins) can account for culture, mind of the cosmos but Dawkins, Dennett and Co do. They adhere to 'Universal Darwinism', with 'memetics' the process of Darwinisin culture. They do adhere to that point and this is to stretch evolutionary theory too far.

[theinquisitor]

(1/4)

I grant that the explanation for belief in god that I offered is indeed a "just so story". But my intent wasn't to prove that this is the origin of such belief, merely to point out that there are many possible explanations for the universality of belief in gods.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're suggesting that such universal belief suggest that the beliefs are true, but how is that any less of a "just so story"? Isn't it just a bogus argument from popularity?

[theinquisitor]

(2/4)

Regarding the invisible agents, gravity, space-time and information don't apply in the sense that I intended. By agents, I mean something that has a consciousness and intention.

Science has never explained anything by appealing to conscious invisible agents. Gravity is explicable precisely because it does not have whims or desires and behaves predictably like clockwork. Unlike consciousness which so far eludes explanation or even definition by science.

[theinquisitor]

(3/4)

You begin to lose me after talking about the universe as God's sensorium. Are you saying that the universe is analogous to the brain, and God is the mind that emerges from the functioning of that brain? Like the way human consciousness may be an emergent property of the human brain. Or have I completely misunderstood?

Then you say "God is light and God is love" and I really don't follow. Frankly it sounds glib and meaningless. Can you give a more explicit description of what God is?

[theinquisitor]

(4/4)

Sometimes you sound like a deist, and then you refer to Christianity and a personal God.

I agree that we have a lot more to learn. That's precisely why I can't understand why you look back to a book written at a time when we didn't even know what little we do now.

You seem to have a genuine respect for science and yet you also speak of faith as a virtue. I don't want to just dismiss it, but the more you explain, the less I understand. I find Ken Miller equally baffling.

[theinquisitor]

P.S. the comment system here sucks, but if you reply to me with the first comment, and then reply to your comment with the second, and so on in sequence, it comes out in the proper order.

[naturalpreservation]

inq - (1) At the beginning and the end of the day I can only express what God means to me and that means understanding God through a faith, and that God can be expressed through other faiths. That is a cultural given, people over time and place can't escape language, custom and culture. So it may sound like deism when I talk about God and cultural relativity but in terms of praying and going to church it's pretty regular Christian church going.

[naturalpreservation]

inq - (2) If we take science for example with a limited metaphorical value. No-one 'does' science at a technical level. You can't see science but it's real. Science has to be done through a medium, physics, chemistry, biology, etc. Even for a historian of science history would be the method.

So it's difficult to imagine someone 'doing' God beyond a medium of faith: organised religion. Cultural relativty lends towards multiple expressions of God, and there are multiple expressions of science.

[naturalpreservation]

inq - (3) If someone believes in the Bible as a source of wisdom then if that wisdom embodies some kind of timeless guidance then there is no 'looking back'. By being timeless, it's equally looking forward. That is not to say I always find it easy reading, I don't, but from my own personal experience God is very real to me and I'm lucky to feel the way I do. I understand you don't get that, it's nothing either of us should apologise for but it really helps my science and critical thought.

[naturalpreservation]

inq - (4) My career is in science and critical thinking, so I've had a respect for science longer than I have had my faith in God. I don't see any conflict (and I know that's not the case for others, this is big stuff) between belief in God and the search, even a career in trying to discover additional layers about the material nature of the Universe.

I don't see any conflict there at all, and neither would Kenneth Miller. Our very ability to do science is testimony to something quite special.

[naturalpreservation]

inq - (5) So you and I could work side by side in and around University life working on the same areas for decades all trying to uncover the secrets of the Universe and sophisticating provisional truths. You might find some kind of purpose in that goal alone, but I would always see what I was doing as part of something bigger, more profound and I think that drives me more because I know there is so much more to know.

These are big areas we're dealing with and I do understand your bafflement.

[kaimialana]

God is Emergence.

[ppedalen]

Existence where always here. Straight vaccum is a impossibility...By chance yes, and by Order.

Order in the way off rules, defineable trough comprehension. And that is by no means chaotic.

Chaos ONLY pops up as a result off lag in understanding..Sorry folks!

[theinquisitor]

I think you're confusing chaos with randomness. Randomness wouldn't produce order, but chaos can.

There is a branch of mathematics called chaos theory. Chaos is actually a deterministic process, but just one that is complicated enough to make it very hard to predict and which is very sensitive to initial conditions. Arguing with maths is about as futile as it gets.

The formation of the solar system was very chaotic, but led to a few planets with extremely stable and orderly orbits.

[manchester26m]

@ppedalen If you cannot know the location of an electron with out interfering with it, then by definition, no process is completely predictable, and Complexity comes from minute unknowable factors which in the short term make no difference, but over time, these factors act like compound interest, piggybacking intimately upon predicted results.

[ppedalen]

There where never chaos, order can not come from chaos. Therefor the word chaos.

Iff order comes from chaos it is by defenition not chaotic. Logic for small chickens..But seems some humans are smaller.

[Kaandorpius]

4:34

path of the least resistance,.. same goes for a stream of water.

[GorterPoss]

So is this like the anti-chaos theory?

[chodaboy51500]

Nope. This is chaos theory. Read Chaos: a new science. It will change the way you view just about everything in life forever.

I started seeing the beauty in the ordinary things around me. Smoke, dripping faucet, traffic, ocean waves, etc...

[BigMTBrain]

"I think the flocking is reducible to individual behavior." (and other similar statements)

Either you've changed your position or you don't have a clear understanding of the concept of emergence (see Wikipedia). It is ALWAYS implied or explicit, when using the term, that the emergent structure CAUSALY feeds back to the individuals. Without the complex structure, no causality. No, science isn't supreme, but it helps us work with concepts and fundamental features of existence constructively.

[hadtohappen]

I do not believe in magic. 1+1=2 not three. If a behavior can not be reduced to its parts. Then the FORM must contribute a causal element its own. I know there are some that want to claim that the form is the product of random forces. The mathematical odds that random forces can increase ordered complexity are vanishingly small.

[BigMTBrain]

Well, it appears you're stuck with a reductionist point of view, and that fine, for you. NO ONE is claiming random forces. LOL! It's like the concept of mathematics (our interpretation) underlies reality. It's not tangible, but, clearly, the elements of the Universe abide by abide by rules emerging from other rules. I can't take creadit for this challenge, but reduce the states of liquid, solid, and gas to the actions of INDIVIDUAL atoms. You can't, but I dare you. Likewise, flocking behavior.

[BigMTBrain]

"Then the FORM must contribute a causal element of its own." Correct. You really should brush up on "emergence and complex systems". It is well established that a prominent feature of complex systems exhibiting so-called emergent behavior involve top-down feedback. The loop goes: Constituents interact, within the interaction is emergence, and this emergence feeds back to the constituents. You must avoid viewing this process as separate steps and/or elements. It's instantaneous.

[hadtohappen]

There is an ongoing philosophic debate about emergence. Apparently you are unaware of this.

[BigMTBrain]

There is an ongoing philosophic debate about non-emergence. Apparently you are unaware of this.

[BigMTBrain]

BTW, you never answered the challenge... reduce the states of liquid, solid, and gas in terms of the actions of individual atoms. Move an atom here or there, heat it up, cool it down, connect or disconnect it from its neighbor. Where, oh where, do these different states of matter come from? Nothing is added to the system, so something is "manifesting" from the system that cannot be explained by the actions of its individual parts... unless, of course, you have the key.

[hadtohappen]

Potential adding. Rule making. Supervening. Non-material causal force. That would be GOD.

[BigMTBrain]

:D Yeah, maybe. The standard model of physics, which accounts for the fundamental particles and their interactions via electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces, has been verified by untold high-energy physics experiements. Yet the standard model is not complete. We have gravity, dark matter, and dark energy to account for. The story is unfinished. Emergence MAY be fundamental. And how about entanglement... it is a real phenomenon, but a phenomenon without explanation or reduction.

[BigMTBrain]

On the "GOD" part, I don't know if you're serious or not, but let's imagine you're serious. If I were GOD, I would create an agent to act in my stead to control atoms, molecules and the results of their group interactions. Further, I would allow this group control mechanism to work on higher and higher levels too, turning molecules into states of matter, birds into flocks, and neurons into thought. Once engaged, my agent would be continuous and non-reducible as long as the group interacted.

[BigMTBrain]

But, lol, there's really no need to bring "GOD" into the picture. Easy enough just to say "fundamental feature".

[hadtohappen]

I THINK you have tacitly admitted to the necessity of a third causal force. If so, I have achieved more than I thought I would. I am willing to call it a truce at this point. I won't argue with you labeling it "fundamental feature". I don't think we have any basic disagreement about it. I think the tension is that you feel science is supreme. While I think the metaphyics is more important. A difference in interests perhaps.

[BigMTBrain]

Oops! Made a comment, but it doesn't appear as a response to your comment. Please check the video to see it.

Also, asking the question "where do the rules or the causal force come from" is no more profound than asking any question about nature. If it's fundamental then it's of the same profundity as gravity and all other forces. Where do they all come from? Well, take your pick of belief. Science knows it can't answer that. All that's known for sure is that the forces and we exist.

[BigMTBrain]

Better said as "That's not the purpose of science. The purpose of science is to make sense and constructive rules out of what it can.". So, no, the science perspective is not supreme, but the scientific method is a safe bet when you're ready to advance beyond speculation. Just as fulfilling, more so, I think. True, a matter of interests.

[quidproquo2004]

This is interesting. This subconscious behavior can be endangering in a place like a city. Many people behind me have almost been hit by a vehicle when I've used the crosswalk. It may have been a suitable time for me to cross, but not for the guy that was five steps behind me. I think it's important that ppl are aware of this emergent behavior because it will give them more power over their lives.

[hadtohappen]

Oh boy. Here we go again. These rule driven activites are NOT examples of COMPLEXITY. These are examples of order. But order can be complex or simple. These are examples of simple order. Simple order is homogenous. Complex order is heterogeneous. Another "Science" based on fuzzy, equivocating definitions. Just what we need.

[BigMTBrain]

@hadtohappen - I think their main point was regarding "emergence", whether simple rule-driven activities or complex ones. Still, the emergence of a perceived somthing or behavior that is different than that of any one of its constituents and greater than their sum.

[hadtohappen]

The statement that the behavior is not top down, is misleading. Whatever the "rule" being followed is the "top". The question being begged is, where do the rules come from? The idea that the rules are the product of the actors is peculiar, because a cause- effect chain can not be established. The flocking behavior of birds is somehow a latent property of quarks dispensed by the Big Bang? HAHAHA! No. I think actors arranged in a new form tap into new degrees of freedom. Not create them.

[BigMTBrain]

@hadtohappen - "These rule driven activites are NOT examples of COMPLEXITY. These are examples of order."

Collectively, the flocking behavior is more complex than that of any individual member given the function of their membership. The order wasn't there before the complex collective, nor was the group behavior. Therefore, it is emergent order and emergent behavior from complex interaction of many members. Where do the rules come from? Genes and evolution. An after affect of the Big Bang.

[hadtohappen]

No. I think the behavior of the individual birds is straight additive to the collective. Maybe the flock example is not a good one. I think the flocking is reducible to individual behavior.

Sorry, but there is no coding for flocking in genes. Try again.

[BigMTBrain]

"there is no coding for flocking in genes"

Precisely. There is coding for flying in the genes of the individual birds however. Thanks for proving the point that flocking is emergent behavior.

[hadtohappen]

Right. So the question remains were do the rules come from.

[BigMTBrain]

"I think the behavior..."

Think a little harder.... "I'm flying straight, but bird on my right turns right. Hmm, not my usual, INDIVIDUAL plan, but because he turned right, in this group situation, I suppose I oughtta turn right my own self."

[hadtohappen]

This will go no where. The individual plan might well be as simple as 1. Stay close to my fellow birds.

[BigMTBrain]

The INDIVIDUAL rule when flying amongst others MIGHT BE. a) if I am not the leader, follow the turn. b) if I become the leader, YIPPEE, I can choose a new direction.

Flocking behavior is not coded in the genes, but an individual's response to its own participation in a group is. It CAN'T be any other way, at least as far as animals of lesser intelligence that can only follow relatively simple rules.

[vkpillay]

Pleased to see there is a surge in interest in complexity science un uk after my contributions to multi-disciplinary aspects of engineering as well as quoted work on adoptive complex system originated by sante fe instiute more than a decade ago and been shaping the engineering education worldiwde since march 2000. I still have books on chaos,complexity and frontiers of complexity,self organizing criticality and non linear dynamics publised more than a decade ago.

[virtualsurrealism]

Jesus done did it. The bible preacher done tolt me so.

[vkpillay]

I came across about complxity and emergence more than a decade ago .read how nature works by per bak,1997 and frontiers of complexity by coveney and highfiled ,1995

[unmarshal]

Understanding emergence is the first step to understanding how society works, how economics works, etc. Capitalism is an emergent behavior when individual actors voluntarily exchange goods and services. Socialism and Communism assume there must be a leader. No socialist or communist understands emergent behavior.

[kritik6]

If you understood anything at all about socialism or communism, you'd understand that they're imagined as emergent social systems that come after capitalism.

[theinquisitor]

kritik, in what way is communism an emergent system? Isn't it a system that involves top-down control from a central authority? An anarcho-capitalist system is an example of an emergent system.

I'm not arguing for the moral or practical value of either system, merely the whether they are emergent in the sense described in this video. It doesn't just mean something that emerges. It has to be a system that arises from the bottom up, not the top down.

[thextopher]

Theoretical communism would occur from the bottom up. An Anarcho-communist system. The reason that really-existing communist regimes have failed is because they are organised from the top down. Our current capitalistic society has entered a period of economic downturn, arguably because it is organised in a top town fashion.

Antonio Negri's "Empire" describes this quite well?

[theinquisitor]

An anarcho-communist system seems to me to be inherently incompatible with human nature. It would have to arise from each individual's willingness to contribute as much as possible regardless of any reward. Like the way an ant colony works.

I agree with your comment about our capitalistic system being top-down. I tend to think that a bottom-up capitalistic system would be more realistic and beneficial, but I'm not sure.

The user ShaneDK has some interesting videos about free market economics.

[theinquisitor]

(continued)

I am not familiar with Antonio Negri's "Empire" so I can't comment on that. My knowledge of economics is limited, but I think I should learn more about it, especially in this period of economic strife.

[unmarshal]

how is socialism or communism an emergent system? It requires planners on the very top to plan every aspect and interaction between every agent in the system. Capitalism is a natural phenomenon created by every agent interacting with one another in voluntary exchange. Get it right buddy..

[ThisComesAround]

Dear unmarshal,

kritik6 got it right, theoretically according to Karl Marx.

[StevenErnest]

I like how with just the 26 letters of the English alphabet, we can have the complete works of Shakespeare, to tech manuals, and so on.

[Gitman]

horseshit.

[MaBu888]

's all gawd. LOL.

[MaBu888]

Why do they have this fake music in there. Yuck.

[bryanao]

Life is both a fantasticly bewildering thing that is complex and inevitable, following laws that we have yet to explain.

I don't understand why it has to be one or the other?

[KT45]

Thanks!!!

[theinquisitor]

Check description box for links to episodes on other science topics.

[nailo1]

yea i just got the first of the nova series that explians string gavity and a couple others are really nice