"Cary Kittrell" afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:gablva$5sj$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...

Right!

He's a founder of Boolean networks, perhaps the most basic foundation
for the field of artificial intelligence, chaos theory and self organization.
But he's a biologist first, and he's helped to create the entire notion
of the complex adaptive system. Which I believe to be essentially
an abstract mathematical model of an evolving system. He's
managed to put the Darwin we all know and love in completely
abstract terms. So it can be applied universally, which means
also to ....non-living....systems.

A universal model of evolution ...or creation. His mathematics, is
showing the universe has the /inherent/ tendency to self organize.

It's ability to create! Worshipping the processes of Nature as God!
Or more specifically the specific process of greatest importance.
Emergence!

Nature is certainty open to scientific examination, unlike scripture.
But emergence as God? What would that mean precisely?

Let's take the concept of human intelligence and take it out for
an 'emergent' ride. There are many ways to explain emergence.
I like this one. Once a living niche has become fully filled, nature
finds a way to spontaneously emerge into the adjacent possible.
But not always merely into a neighboring physical space, but often
into an entirely novel and unique new creation. A creation
so much higher than what came before, there can be
no existing language to describe it or ability to predict it.

Such as the huge emergent step from single cell life to metazoans, or
the emergence of intelligence from animals. Emergence is
responsible for those kinds of huge single steps. As opposed
to the relentless tiny steps we generally think of with
evolution. Sometimes they're huge, following a power law
distribution of events, countless minor changes with the
rare big one. Like an earthquake.

God would come at the ....END...of the evolutionary ladder
NOT the beginning. That is what is meant by worshipping
....emergence. This simple frame of reference change allows
the concept of God to become open to scientific debate.

So, for a planet chock full of intelligent humans, what would be
the next emergent step? It wouldn't be simply expanding
to allow even more people, finding a new physical niche to fill.
Or evolving a more intelligent human.

But once the niche is filled, suddenly fractal self similarity across
scales sets in, the myriad parts all jammed in a restricted
space suddenly become connected to each other.
Effecting and self tuning each other.

And an entirely new kind of intelligence, collective wisdom,
spontaneously and forcefully emerges. A huge new and
far more capable niche has formed, and without any
new physical space, but essentially a new dimension
within existing space.

The /collective wisdom/ of humanity, almost god-like in it's
purity, would be the object of worship in the specific.
But the responsible process....Emergence...in the general
I like the word Mother Nature better then God, but that
description doesn't even hint as to the underlying concept
that makes Nature worth worshipping. Mother Nature,
Emergence or simply Creation as God is fine with me.
At least now one can state with some rational certainty, just
what in the hell he means when he says God.

Such a simple and logical frame-of-reference change now
does something wonderful. If we were to define science
and religion in their most abstract terms, then resolve them.
It might go like this.

What if the basic frame of reference and tools of understanding
used for each camp.?

Religion
A holistic or systems perspective.
Using scripture and philosophy as tools of the trade.

Modern Science
A reductionist or part property based frame of reference.
Using all the tools and physics of the modern age.

So, in each camp, which makes sense, and which does not.

Tossing scripture is easy, nothing rational about it.
But tossing reductionism, that's hard to do these
days. But the chaos and complexity sciences
clearly are systems or holistic perspectives.
They are the paths to a deeper understanding
of the messy world of nature and intelligence.

Solving for the two camps yields a supra-science.
Or the logical combination of science and religion
into a single camp. A systems or living agent based
frame of reference, combined with all the tools of the
modern age, especially high speed simulations.

Use of Complexity Science

"Almost every federal department was found to have
some type of complexity-related research underway."
"From health care to city planning to economics and
international politics, the new science of complex systems
is moving us away from a linear, mechanistic view of the
world to one based on nonlinear dynamics, evolutionary
development and systems thinking. It is laying the
foundation for a fundamental shift in how we view
the world"
http://www.hcs.ucla.edu/DoEreport.pdf

But it's the emergent forces that guide the whole and cause
it to self tune. Such as those ethereal 'market forces' we all
know exist, yet cannot quite quantify. They provide the
...direction...of the whole towards more order over time.
Towards self organization and evolution.

It's the emergent properties that give the universe it's inherent
ability to create and direction towards more order or "God"
in the end.

As opposed to the reductionist views that seem to say we're
just a fluke, and there's no real meaning in one-off events.
Or anything for that matter. How sad a view. When the truth
is that Creation is the preferred path, the deck is stacked, the
universe is attracted to more order over time.

And why exactly is that? A skeptical mind might ask?

Gravity wells tend to clump together if given the chance.
And the deeper the well, the larger the basin of attraction.
Following of course inverse square relationships.

And what this means is that if one were to place a mass
at random anywhere in the universe , it'd be more likely
to find itself falling into a nearby gravity well
....than not.

Any random fluctuation will do

Well...guess what... fitness peaks also tend to clump together
on a fitness landscape. And the higher the fitness
the greater attraction they have. If placed....at random
in a fitness landscape, we would be more likely
to stumble into a realm of higher fitness
...than not.

Is this common behavior for the creation of the physical....and
...living worlds a mere coincidence? Is there some mathematics
that backs this up? Well, evolutionary change follows a power law
distribution of events, like an earthquake.

Power laws are also....inverse square...relationships

"Power-law relations characterize a staggering number
of naturally occurring phenomena, and this is one of the
principal reasons why they have attracted interest.
For instance, inverse-square laws, such as gravitation
and the Coulomb force, are power laws, as are many
common mathematical formulae"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_law

Complexity science has connected the physical and living
worlds into a single continuous process.

WE'RE NOT A FLUKE!

Life is everywhere, or will be. Not once in a blue-moon, but
every chance it gets.

Sure there is. A sound mathematical basis for Creation, consistent
with Darwin and religious philosophy. For emergence is the source
of (unpredictable) higher order. So the mystery remains.

God, in the specific, remains completely indefinable, and like
collective intelligence, occupies a space not open to the individual.

Yet the concept of God in general is scientifically defined.
Science and religion merged! Both camps need to adjust!

The timeless duality between science and religion has existed
for a reason, both sides are incomplete with each other.

Holism defined with modern tools.

Reductionism is the enemy of truth, and the primary
source of evil for this world. Because carefully observing a
and controlling the smallest components are what
....Dictators do best.

Managing societies requires the opposite frame of reference
and is what democracies, markets and
...Nature does best.

Even Dear Emily Dickinson knew the limitations of
reductionism, a century and a half ago. Her and
Kauffman would've gotten along famously.
I'm sure of it.

"Perception of an
Object costs
Precise the Object's loss.
Perception in itself a gain
Replying to its price;
The Object Absolute is nought,
Perception sets it fair,
And then upbraids a Perfectness
That situates so far"

And perhaps the most blistering attack on reductionism
I've ever seen. Notice how she destroys the uncertainty
principle ...a half a century before it's discovery.
Reducing only leads to uncertainty as a principle...she
disdainfully writes. Preventing one from 'seeing' the
infinite simplicity of the natural world.

"Their height in heaven comforts not,
Their glory nought to me;
'T was best imperfect, as it was;
I'm finite, I can't see.

The house of supposition,
The glimmering frontier
That skirts the acres of perhaps,
To me shows insecure.

The wealth I had contented me;
If 't was a meaner size,
Then I had counted it until
It pleased my narrow eyes

Better than larger values,
However true their show;
This timid life of evidence
Keeps pleading, "I don't know."

s