Cellular Automata

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
Yes, spreading the wealth, albeit far from evenly. I suspect the middle class American today enjoys a considerably higher quality of life than aristocrats and royalty did in previous centuries.
That's an extremely interesting question. I suppose it depends on how much subjective importance you attach to the non-stop availability of high-protein, high-calorie foods, central heating and air conditioning, and reliable, comfortable, automated transport; and, on the other hand, to having servants to do your every bidding and to kick because the Electress von Schnüffelburg has rejected your proposal of marriage and wouldn't even give you a cheeky handjob behind the curtains at the masked ball.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
I more mean the medicine and basic amenities that are more determinant of life quality, rather than luxuries like a slave-base to cut your toenails for you.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
Like I think most middle class people today (capable of reason) would sooner choose their current allotment in life than a royal allotment in a previous century that lacks the technology which is taken for granted today.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
That's an extremely interesting question. I suppose it depends on how much subjective importance you attach to the non-stop availability of high-protein, high-calorie foods, central heating and air conditioning, and reliable, comfortable, automated transport; and, on the other hand, to having servants to do your every bidding and to kick because the Electress von Schnüffelburg has rejected your proposal of marriage and wouldn't even give you a cheeky handjob behind the curtains at the masked ball.
But also, "robot" etymologically means slave, so in a way even the middle class today enjoys the benefits of a servant workforce, only its largely automated.
 

woops

is not like other people
but let me stress @Mr. Tea's point, do today's middle class get a cheeky handjob behind the curtains at the masked ball from the Electress von Schnüffelburg
 

Mr. Tea

Shub-Niggurath, Please
I more mean the medicine and basic amenities that are more determinant of life quality, rather than luxuries like a slave-base to cut your toenails for you.
Well without wishing to get political, I'm sure loads of Americans would love to have access to proper medicine.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
Yeah now the middle class subject just anonymously vents their frustration on random internet users.
 

toko

Well-known member
Heres a gif I was looking for a while ago, but forgot the name of the enzyme: ATP synthase.

MildImaginaryCougar-size_restricted.gif
I am quite bad at all things related to biology and chemistry but I find the symmetry in structure and pattern between higher and lower scales of reality to be fascinating and beautiful. To me, it points to a kind of shared/unified reality between all levels of existence.

In my eyes there are two possibilities that can explain such striking similarity of emergent behavior. One, that macro and micro-level structures mimic each other, in some "real" or "deep" way, i.e the things-in-themselves share emergent structural and behavioral similarities independent of our observation/concepts of them at all levels. (and thus math like complex dynamical systems so to speak reaches into the real structure of the world). Or two, such similarity in emergent behavior is just a result of some kind of transcendental condition of our experience--i.e the similarity is just what is necessary to experience and the world as we know it. Thus, shared emergent behavior described in the complex dynamic analysis is a kind of abstraction of the thing-in-itself. While it's true that experience is probably not structured so that we can see the world as it really is, (because the most adapted organism is not one that sees reality for what it is, but rather one that makes it better at passing its genes on,) I can't help but think such unity between different levels of existence cant be just the result of some form of neurological/conceptual abstraction.

The difference is not trivial - the first to me implies that some form of strong emergence is much more likely. In other words, the first position implies that downward causation from emergent structures does occur. This means that scientific explaination must/necessarily, posit higher-order emergent objects to which causation is attributed. The second seems to lend itself more to weak emergence or outright physicalist reductionism-emergent behavior can be reduced or explained in terms of lower-level phenomena so that the only necessary objects are the fundamental/smallest particles of the univesrse.

Sorry for the rant. its quite interesting stuff
 

toko

Well-known member
I might add, another implication of the first view is that there is something over and above the physical world. Thus metaphysical theories besides materialism would be more likely.
 

Clinamenic

θερμοδυναμικός καπιταλιστής
There do seem to be more or less definite patterns that our universe physically demonstrates - calling them laws I think may be epistemically misguided - but my questions are often geared toward how we are perceptually limited in our apprehension of these patterns, such as how the visible spectrum is but a small band on an exponentially larger spectrum.

Re: patterns, you can start to see this as you consider that molecules are seemingly predisposed to react to one another in certain ways, according to a variety of intrinsic factors, such as charge, and extrinsic factors, like proximity to a star.

And these predispositions seem to give rise to the emergent structures, structures that vary in terms of their thermodynamic stability, which can be understood as the structures ability to endure a dynamic environment without collapsing or deforming.

The structures that persist, such as the double helix comprised of certain nucleotides and not others, can perhaps be understood as being more thermodynamically stable than the other possible structures, not unlike how evolutionary "favor" or fitness takes the form of genetic persistence.

But what is it about the universe that enables such predisposition, and why these particular predispositions?

Because while I think our understanding is far from comprehensive, it would seem that a more comprehensive understanding of these predispositions would allow one to predict the teleology of a given molecular arrangement in a given environment.

Personally, I have a vague suspicion that, given sufficient technology, universes like ours can be simulated. Why? To learn. What is a petrie dish to us is a world for an amoeba.
 

toko

Well-known member
parallel play is the opposite of conversation. with all due respect to auts.
yes, but I personally enjoy the dynamic of not having to worry about making a post that's open enough to foster a "conversation." i don't know- sometimes I enjoy reading and posting each others half-jumbled thoughts
 
Top