PDA

View Full Version : Chaos to Order - test statement.

Quantum Quack
12-26-10, 04:04 AM
"It only takes one absolute constant in an ocean of infinite variables for chaos to become order"

Care to discuss?

Stryder
12-27-10, 02:05 PM
I remember reading James Glieck's "Chaos" and this was one of this was obviously talked about alot through difference references. How chaos can have localised "order" exist within it.

The following are my interpretations based upon Top-Down and Bottom-Up Topologies of Order and Chaos:

Order within Chaos by Observation
To my knowledge though it's really about "referencing observation frames", after all as soon as you put a frame around something you've defined a form of order, since everything with the frame is finite an accountable. I realised that in the instance of Fractals (and possibly even the universe) these frames are recursive to an extent, where a finite subsection is ordered and chaos ensues outside of that frame, until the point (either technological or philosophical) that our understanding expands out and generates a newer greater frame of reference to study.

Chaos within order by Design
This is a method is using an example of a Simulating the Universe, we start with a defined parameter of the Computer networks used to generate the simulation which itself is ordered, the programming for the actual simulation then has to undergo design and following documented methods which are all ordered. The overall plan for the simulation though is to birth a universe from "Disorder", so the algorithm used attempts to use Randoms and Paradoxes to generate Chaos. (The algorithm would appear ordered to the designer, programmer and observer but to from the observation of the universe, the algorithm is unexpected chaos.)

Admittedly I think the universe to a certain extent is actually maintained by both topologies at the same time. (It's not either method, it's both) The reason for using both is due to affirming an outcome through "testing". An example to meaning is; if both equal the same outcome when tested then the obvious outcome is true, if both have different results, then neither is true. (A simple Logic Gate appraisal method.)

As another example lets take your Topic: "Chaos to Order - Test Statement", now apply that to test "Chaos to Order" you have to ascertain that it's possible to go from "Order to Chaos".

Quantum Quack
12-27-10, 03:50 PM
I remember reading James Glieck's "Chaos" and this was one of this was obviously talked about alot through difference references. How chaos can have localised "order" exist within it.

The following are my interpretations based upon Top-Down and Bottom-Up Topologies of Order and Chaos:

Order within Chaos by Observation
To my knowledge though it's really about "referencing observation frames", after all as soon as you put a frame around something you've defined a form of order, since everything with the frame is finite an accountable. I realised that in the instance of Fractals (and possibly even the universe) these frames are recursive to an extent, where a finite subsection is ordered and chaos ensues outside of that frame, until the point (either technological or philosophical) that our understanding expands out and generates a newer greater frame of reference to study.

Chaos within order by Design
This is a method is using an example of a Simulating the Universe, we start with a defined parameter of the Computer networks used to generate the simulation which itself is ordered, the programming for the actual simulation then has to undergo design and following documented methods which are all ordered. The overall plan for the simulation though is to birth a universe from "Disorder", so the algorithm used attempts to use Randoms and Paradoxes to generate Chaos. (The algorithm would appear ordered to the designer, programmer and observer but to from the observation of the universe, the algorithm is unexpected chaos.)

Admittedly I think the universe to a certain extent is actually maintained by both topologies at the same time. (It's not either method, it's both) The reason for using both is due to affirming an outcome through "testing". An example to meaning is; if both equal the same outcome when tested then the obvious outcome is true, if both have different results, then neither is true. (A simple Logic Gate appraisal method.)

As another example lets take your Topic: "Chaos to Order - Test Statement", now apply that to test "Chaos to Order" you have to ascertain that it's possible to go from "Order to Chaos".
Interesting...
yes of course accordingly, if the absolute constant became variable or relative chaos would be the outcome....
For example a computer relies, if I am not mistaken, on a very steady power supply so that the micro chip technology has a premise to work with. Destabilise the power supply and the computer will render chaotic results.
Not all that much different to the human mind. Destabilise it's premises [beliefs] and irrational [chaotic] results will follow until stability is reachieved with the advent of new beliefs [ premises]