Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Semantics, Etymology, Syntactics, Etc.

Hey! Random?
It's a bunny!



If you'd like to see my idea of the physics of reality, see: Energy, Mass & Fractals:
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=22153#Post22153

I'd like to see some of those seizure-inducing graphics of yours, modified to show evolving fractal shapes, within the seething and undulating areas.



Anyway, I've been trying to think of how to respond and stay on the topic.
While I think the AWT concept is great, looking for analogies in dense fluids, etc., I don't research physics enough to go any further with the details, I think.
I've always thought about the utility of the early aether ideas when I'd read about relativity, string, or brane ideas; the new ideas seemed to be just semantic routes around the term, "aether," but not really circumventing the nagging of some "medium."
I'd read the new ideas, but usually just translate them into my understanding of the "aether," that sort of intercalating network of fractals, i.e.:

...but enough about my off-topic musings:

I thought I understood the implication that the fluctuating nature of AWT allowed (predicted) for the quantum non-deterministic, nature of reality; but you said several things that made me wonder if we were talking about the same thing.
You mentioned:
...a few words I don't get, but I think I follow....

Regardless of where we come down on the spectrum between deterministic Newtonian reality, and non-deterministic, quantum reality; or at what level of reality we draw a line between the two, I'm wondering what you think about
this quote from my Kindle e-book [loc.3526-3534]
by

Stuart Kauffman, Reinventing the Sacred:

"We are beyond reductionism: life, agency, meaning, value, and even consciousness and morality almost certainly arose naturally, and the evolution of the biosphere, economy, and human culture are stunningly creative often in ways that cannot be foretold, indeed in ways that appear to be partially lawless. The latter challenge to current science is radical. It runs starkly counter to almost four hundred years of belief that natural laws will be sufficient to explain what is real anywhere in the universe, a view I have called the Galilean spell. The new view of emergence and ceaseless creativity partially beyond natural law is truly a new scientific worldview in which science itself has limits. And science itself has found those very limits. In this partial lawlessness is not an abyss, but unparalleled freedom, unparalleled creativity. We can only understand the biosphere, economic evolution, and culture retroactively, from a historical perspective. Yet we must live our lives forward, into that which is only partially knowable. Then since reason truly is an insufficient guide, we truly must reunite our humanity. And if so, we truly need to reinvent the sacred for ourselves to guide our lives, based on the ultimate values we come to choose. At least, we must be fully responsible for ourselves, our lives, our actions, our values, our civilization, the global civilization."

I suppose it might be more appropriate to copy this and respond over on the "Reinventing the Sacred" Topic, but maybe next time....
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=26073#Post26073

You mention "emergent... or process physics," and I wonder what you think of these (other than that they're, as you opined, "abstract"), in light of the above Kauffman quote.

For now I wonder, do you see everything as knowably reducible, able to be "simulated by molecular and atomar computers less or more," or do levels emerge that could never be predicted, even based on a deconstruction of the "emerged level?"

Thanks,
~