Tom’s Facebook post on Unity

Tom’s facebook post on Unity

Kinda, almost Tom.
We seem to be many levels of pattern – about 20 of them.
We seem to be based in matter, in the patterns of matter and energy within us, as well as the interactions with matter and energy outside of us. And matter flows through us, to sustain the general form of the many levels of patterns and structures that make us each what we are.

And yes – we have many levels of connectedness possible, and as the number of levels instantiated grows, the number of instances drops (both within individuals and populations).

And at many of those levels we are a very close approximation to pure information, instantiated within the information processing systems that are our physicality and our culture and our relationships with others.

And all systems require boundaries to maintain their form.

So it is a very complex set of complex systems we find ourselves in.

[followed by]

Hi Tom,

My “problem” is the nature of the properties available in any level of “system”. It seems clear from experiments at the level of Quantum Mechanics that at base this system we find ourselves in is a mix of the lawful and the random. QM seems to describe a system based in probabilities, where all possibilities allowed have an influence on the outcome, and as such the “outcomes” may only be “deterministic” in terms of probabilities (as the square of some vector in some “space” of dimensions).

As new levels of boundaries are instantiated, those boundaries allow for new levels of properties to emerge, which can be a recursive process. In us as human beings that process seems to have recursed about 20 times (varies somewhat between individuals). Some of those levels are more “material” than information, some more “informational” than material (and as with QM, I don’t see any hard boundary between such things, but they are useful heuristics to allow us to simplify something to the point it may be discussed with some sort of clarity).

So it is yes in a sense, in the sense that there is a degree of connectedness across all things, but that level of connectedness seems to be fairly well down the hierarchy of complexity.

When thinking about the complexity of emergent levels of systems, the interesting properties seem to relate to the nature of the boundaries present, how flexible they are in various dimensions (ideas like permeability and transmissibility, as well as ideas like deformation and resilience and absorption – across the spectra of matter and energy and information forms present).

Thus it is important to understand the sorts of minimum boundary requirements for the existence of certain classes of pattern, and that imposes certain limits on the notion of “unity”. In respect of any given class of pattern, one cannot push it past the minimum boundary set required to “contain” or “instantiate” that pattern.

I hope that makes my “Kinda” above a bit more clear – though it may not.

[followed by]

Hi Tom,

I think we be very much on the same page.

I see every distinction as a “trap” in a sense, as it tends to attract things which are similar, and classify them as same, to some degree.

In the sense of polarity being the bothness of the necessary complimentarity of the differentiation of anything, then yes – that sense must be present, and it need not be a single dimensional “thing”, it can become highly dimensional.

[followed by]

The reality for human beings is that we cannot deal with infinities, so we have to chunk them down to something useful.

For many – that means a binary in many cases – and there is a certain utility in that, in terms of the requirement of reality for us to make complex decisions in short times.

So for me, I accept a certain sense of my profound ignorance, a certain sense in which reality is unknowable, at the same time as I use the heuristics that I do to survive on a day to day basis.

About Ted Howard NZ

Seems like I might be a cancer survivor. Thinking about the systemic incentives within the world we find ourselves in, and how we might adjust them to provide an environment that supports everyone (no exceptions) - see
This entry was posted in Philosophy, Politics and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comment and critique welcome

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s