Thesis – Actions as Agents: An argument for characterizing complex systems as an organization of actions rather than of agents. [ref. to verbs in math]

Hologram freezes motion.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

LITERATURE e.g., emergentist’s "interactions" cf Tucson 4

METHODOLOGY

RESULTS

DISCUSSION

CONCLUSIONS

Thesis – Verbs change thought; passive verbs obscure it.

Thesis – Verbs as replacement for ‘Equality’ in Mathematics; replace Identity function with ‘Movement moves.’ (Ref. to ArthurYoung [process theory / inventor helicopter])

Particularity vs. Activity – The presumption of particleness implicitly denies activeness, suggests inanimacy that denies or at best separates animacy from matter. As all science rests on this assumption, without questioning the assumption, let use instead presume animacy as the fundamental notion underlying all that is. Mathematics itself rests entirely on this unproven and unstated sense that All-That-Is reduces inevitably to one or more inanimate units, real or abstract. The Identity Fcn (A=A) presumes particularity before it makes its statement that a thing is itself; yet no corresponding fundamental notion accompanies the nebulous verb ‘equals,’ and no active verb (nor any other verb) serves mathematics at all. (Eigenfunctions might approach being a verb.) This fundamental presumption of particularity in and of itself can account for the rampant reductionism attributed to today’s Western science. […] Yet I’m unwilling to dismiss the whole of mathematics despite a fundamental flaw because it has proven itself useful. Rather I suggest doubling its value by creating an entire mathematic out of precise active verbs that presume fundamental animacy, movement, and ‘movingness,’ rather than inanimacy. Unfortunately three terms of calculus leave me unequipped to perform the task. But I can intuitively reach some limited results and assert them for the purposes of this diatribe. [ha, ha] (cf Monroe, there is only motion & rest)

Unity of the All-One of which we each are units – e.g. Sagan, Abo’s, Gnostics, Sufi’s, ZPF

Consciousness emerges as a CAS of actions which fundamentally derive from other actions; agents merely mark the time-space point, are placeholders. (Are agents the physical result of ZPF’s ‘response’ to will, e.g., agents are an effect like a ripple results from a pebble falling into a pool?)

5/17/2000 [1:49am of 5/18]:

Mathematics rests, more accurately, not on a flaw; that would intuitively lead to a math that fails. But math works just fine, in fact it works spectacularly well. So rather than a flaw, let me suggest it rests on an insufficient foundation. "Particularity" plays a role, and math today handles that well. But the absence of action leads to math’s and therefore empirical science’s inadequate understanding of the universe.

Take quantum mechanics’ indeterminacy. To the best of my understanding, the math breaks down at that level. The whole of "thingness" disappears in an infinite sea of statistical probabilities and possibilities. Its only solution or salvation depends upon an ill-defined "observer" that, by observing, inadvertently [?] chooses a thing to perceive.

But if we presume that activity, action, "movement moving" precedes "A=A", then a collection of actions can become a thing. Simply consider the appearance of a standing wave in a moving river: all the independent individual actions of the molecules combine to form the nearly changeless wave. Yes, of course the water occupies the space in a transitory way. But the combination of actions more so than the presence of molecules form the standing wave.

I would/do argue, then, that while math adequately handles particularized thought, its dismissal of active verbs cripples its effectiveness. As a result of presuming thingness, "all that is" requires reduction to one or more things. However, by adding, or recognizing, an equally fundamental notion that actions occur, and that action itself can be reduced to a kind of pure activeness, we can derive all "things" by implementing the principles of contemporary complexity studies.

Most importantly, though, we must reduce action to its essence. This intuitively (as opposed to strict academic proof) reveals the notion of will or willfulness. Intuitively we know, as the early Christian Gnostics "knew," that action occurring presumes a will to act. At the pre or sub quantum level, our grand sense of consciousness with its logic and emotions and motivations/rationales has no room to exist. There is only will or intent, or intentionality. At this level intent lacks or eludes control. It must also lack purpose. If it had purpose then the evolution of consciousness from fundamental Will would fail logically; it begs the question. So, intentionality, Will with a capital "W," exists in and of itself. But "it" is not an "it" at all, but an action, nor even an action, but activeness acting. Pure movement moving, perhaps resting [this resting I will take up again later.]

Now implement the principles of complexity studies, and take a collection of actions. They would, perhaps, generate a thing like a standing wave. Under certain circumstances the thing that emerged from the collection of actions would itself take action. Repeat this and eventually the actions of the things can become yet another thing, ad infinitum. Yet the largest, macroscopic thing acting on its own impulse, derives entirely from nothingness suffused with Will.

That, to me, brings the Hebrew word "davar" to mind. It means, varying with the context, will, word, or way. It also corresponds to the ancient Greek Pallas Athena which translates to "white will." In a much broader sense it corresponds to the Buddha’s famous saying that "It’s all flames [light.]" It matches the medieval Emerald Tablet’s reference to Hermes Trismegistmus, or Word of triple meaning. And "davar" represents /serves as the missing link between contemporary empirical science and mainstream religion because it gives math a hook upon which to hang, i.e., that Will acts [thereby generating things, etc.] which act which collect into a pool of actions…. But it only provides that connection if math takes it upon itself to generate a whole new method of "mathematizing," of making precise the essence & laws & consequences of actions rather than of things [real and abstract.] Study of the Navajo language [a non-nominal language] would probably lend itself well to such a purpose.

Elsewhere I’ve referred to Fred Alan Wolf’s work and his current view of a fundamental "vibration" underlying the universe. I believe that the notion of activeness and Will as the essence of action IS that vibration. Like breathing, Will acts then rests, then wills again.

07/06/2000 12:40 AM

Willfulness, then, in my view, plays a role equivalent to, or corresponding to that of particularity as a fundamental mathematical notion preceding all that follows and appears to exist in this universe. The things and objects with which math concerns itself emerge [cf. complexity studies] from action’s underlying intentionality expressed. Once extant, the object [whether a planet or a quark] is easily understood via standard mathematics because Will has coalesced into an object.

I consider standard math as it has developed to its present state a spectacular achievement (and most of it exceeds my skills.) But for a complete understanding of the universe it is insufficient: it offers only one of two pillars of knowledge. To use a common phrase from math itself, contemporary mathematics is necessary but not sufficient. The equally necessary pillar of math that corresponds to the math of objects is the math of will / willfulness / intent from which action springs.

If we believe Waldrop’s excellent summary of the origins of complexity studies as a field, then we accept that it sprang largely from a desire to overcome if not reverse the dominance of reductionism in scientific work. The field as it is today [July 2000], however, depends upon its own reductive reasoning in that it seeks to reduce complex systems to classical particles generically called "agents" that each obey standardized rules of behavior. While this has clearly been shown to have value and offers enormous potential, it nonetheless varies or replicates rather than replaces standard scientific reductionism.

The variation on a theme that sets the field apart from all that precedes it very simply depends upon a presumption: "agents" act. Complexity scholars attribute activeness to agents. Although not completely versed in all the literature, it seems to me that it is a presumption, and that the presumption derives from ordinary observation, and that examination of activeness itself has fallen to the wayside despite the critically fundamental role it plays.

It reminds me of a question I always harbored but shuffled aside about behaviorist psychology: where does "behavior" itself originate? Who cares about the rules and control of behavior without an understanding of the origin of behavior being manipulated? They, like complexitists, [?] begin by assuming random actions are performed which can then be manipulated to controlled actions. They cavalierly dismiss much action without examination by attributing it to "saturation" and the "novelty effect." I can forgive them as they truly have no interest in quantum level studies. But the question lingers, and applies broadly to the whole field of complexity studies. If agents obey rules of action, why has no one examined action itself?

It is my intuitively derived opinion that so-called scientific thinking corresponds to mathematical thinking. I feel no urgent need to document and prove it as it is so widely accepted that math is even considered the language of science itself. So I will address complexity’s inadequacy by presenting a challenge to mathematics.

07/30/2000 3:41 AM --

Abstr – system of actions

Intro – lotsa stuff out there [e.g.’s] lead into … ____

Stmt of Problem – {C} generally recognized as an active object. It’s a "processy" kinda thing, like an organism, but also apparently not much of a "thing" that we can study objectively. Hence the subjective / objective quandary we face. But is it an object at all? It appears to lack substance yet it has effects. Is that possible? Clearly it is, because most our individual {C}’s actively choose to chase cuties at some time in our lives, and cause our bodies to move in their direction; clearly an objectively observable effect of something we can’t even decide is an object, a process, or even existent/extant at all.

Method – For my work I chose to follow, broadly speaking, the same path that contemporary science has taken. That is to say, start with the obvious and investigate it. However, the critical difference in my method depends upon a distinction between action and thing. In particular, I look at the actions at the gross, obviously observable level and attempt to reduce action to its component actions – much like resolving vectors – in a drive to identify the essential action, metaphorically the "atoms of action."

This requires the reader to make a fundamental change in perspective. While it is commonly accepted, and frequently unchallenged in research, that the world consists of that which is animate and that which is inanimate. I suggest that this common belief may suffice for practical matters but that it has the effect of misleading scholars. {C}, like the stock market, is called a thing but it is not inanimate matter. Nor is it inanimate matter in action. Rather it is the complex of actions that, in toto, have effects as if it were a material object. If you doubt it, look at the physical effect on the nation of Thailand when the actions of a handful of currency traders crushed their currency, the Thai Bhat. Thus the animate / inanimate distinction while useful is inadequate more than it is wrong.

To replace that popular notion with a more useful distinction I propose simply to distinguish between that which is active with that which is resting. Many reasons prompt my choice, but I will reserve discussion till later. For now simply let me say it is not original, nor recent. But is has origins both in modern scientific and in ancient writings. But let me explain how I intend to use those terms, & allude to some of the consequences of my choice.

Action and active I use in the generally accepted senses of the words. Movement, energy release, and change characterize that which is active. More subtly, and critically important to me, by active I mean that which moves relatively independently of its environs and changes itself or consists largely of internally changing events. By contrast, what I call "resting" may in fact be in motion, like a meteor hurtling through space, but within itself it has stabilized and within itself only changes when acted upon. This may raise challenges about volition, but I’ll get to those later.

For now, suffice it to say that the very highly "active" thing we call a thermonuclear furnace of a star would fall into the "resting" class simply because it has stabilized. Similarly the relatively inactive, nearly inert body of a viral protein would fall into the class of actions as it takes actions which in turn – perhaps after a long period of waiting for results like transmission to a host -- allow it to take other actions. In other words, its actions affect the outcome of the actions it takes, while the stable, "resting in motion," meteor’s actions have no further consequence. Generally the popularly "animate" world falls into the active / acting group while the so called "inanimate" world includes primarily inactive, or resting stability, passive although often teeming with energy.

Lest I forget … Brian Weiss reports that regression subjects report from "beyond life" and indicate that {C} takes with it obviously none of it’s physical, material existence but do take a complete, and often excruciatingly complete, record of the actions the subject took. Similarly OBE researcher Robert Monroe wrote that he guides told him that "wall we know is that there is only motion and rest, nothing more." [Ultimate Journey.] More anciently apocryphal Christian texts [see Complete Jesus] quote the teacher as saying there is only movement and repose. Similarly, and more anciently, the Hindu Bhagavad Gita says "Demonic men cannot comprehend / activity & rest" [16.7], and also [8.3] that "infinite spirit[‘s] … creative force [is] known as action…the source of creatures’ existence."

Back to biz: the perspective the scholar must take, then effectively ignores things, whether material, phenomenal or abstract, and instead refocuses on the very same data as a complex of actions acting or occurring interspersed with periods of rest and stability. The object taking an action, e.g., an animal eating, has passed from stability and rest to action. The animal, in fact can even be conceived of as merely a marker or placeholder for the collection of actions. To borrow a well turned phrase from an email from the independent physicist J. Sarfatti, consider a "physical but non-material" and objectively observable phenomena. The stock market is such an entity, even tho it’s traders, its cash, its buildings, are both physical and material; the NASDAQ is a system of actions. Similarly {C}.

With that long prefatory definition and distinction done, return now to the method of studying {C}. In the steps of science, we begin with the gross, observable, generally accepted notion that such a thing as {C} either exists, or effectively exists. Can we agree on that much? Or must we consider the guys in Missouri who claim it only appears to exist, and is really an illusion? Or must we agree with Crick’s Astonishing Hypothesis, which I personally consider an astonishing mistake because it depends wholly and only on the assumptions implicit in the inadequacies of the animate / inanimate pairing? No, I assume {C} exists and choose to examine it in finer and finer detail. However, I do not expect to find a neural net in which it resides, not one that generates it, nor do I expect to join the physicists who devote their entire lives to "inanimate matter" looking for the God particle. Beginning with only motion and rest and the gross level, any sensible person must dismiss particles – regardless their arrangement – as a completely useless method, a distorted lens, and most probably a faulty premise.

[insert "Action as Agent" …?]

8/1/2000 – 2:11p

Math and Agents as systems of rest. Elsewhere I have presumed & argued that all-that-is reduces to nothing more than action or rest [absence of action? Or presence of Presence?]. Taking that at face value, then, I apply the notions of complexity studies to those two rudiments of existence and all that is extant. That is, actions accumulate and combine as the complexitists describe, but when they "gel" they form a grander action rather than a grander object. Rest, however remains a singularity because absence of action is what it is, whenever, wherever it is. But action and rest interact, just as the complexitists say agents interact with each other and with the environment. Wildly speculating, I’d guess that an atomic particle represents something like a pool of action formed in and by an utterly empty void in the cosmic fabric. Imagine a pothole in a road, then picture action flowing water after the rain; the water collects and stops in the emptiness and rests. All particles in the universe can then be considering pockets in which action has collected. E=mc² quantizes the relationship.

Math, by focusing on particularity and by insisting that only particularity characterizes the universe, misses the opportunity to build a universe of dynamism that any infant can detect [object vs. space, as compared to action vs. rest]. Lest I forget, "rest" may suggest inaction. But that inaction implicitly presumes an object withholding action. For my purposes it is more precise to describe "rest" as absence of action. [Note: there is a third factor in all this, and that is the place within which action & absence of action interact.]

08/08/2000 3:01 PM

Math's error is simply that it fails to specify its presumption of particularity, and its corollary presumption that such particularity takes precedence over action & activeness as the fundamental notion upon which to base an understanding of the universe. This is not a fatal error, but it cripples math by only providing a single leg on which to stand.