Re: Order from chaos - according to New Mexicans for Science and Reason

But I think this is preciesly the point. The illustration shows that a
pattern (an ordered outcome) may be pre-defined, built into the starting
conditions, even though the process for expressing the pattern embodies
randomness. In the illustration, there is not complete freedom, e.g.,
one must select not just any point, but one specifically referenced to
one of the vertices each time. However, I do not think that degrades the
illustration of a progressive evolution with underlying intent and design.

We certainly live in a universe full of constraints. The fundamental
ones may not be many in number, but their effect is pretty spectacular.
Is it completely unthinkable that what we experience in our universe is
the unfolding expression of an extremely clever set of starting
conditions, accompanied by certain constraints like gravity, and the
relationships between electricity and magnetism, etc., and perhaps a few
other constraints (rules, laws, etc.) that we might not be aware of?

In a practical sense, the Sierpinski formulation offers a simple way of
explaining the concept of order from a minimum set of pre-existing
rules, but it still requires careful explanation to turn it into an
understandable explanation for a lay audience. A next mathematical step
is perhaps the Julia set, but that can be harder to explain, though the
pictures are eyecatching and complex. From either of these, it is a
long jump to the genesis and development of a human being, another
elegant illustration, though the cellular starting point is already
pretty complex. However for plausibility argument, it works reasonably
well. Cell-to-baby development with a great deal of randomness in its
detailed path of progress. Yet, despite the built-in elements of
randomness, the general developmental course is for the most part
predetermined, implicit in broad terms in the internal roadmap held by
that initial fertilized cell. Greater order from lesser order, a
troublesome example, I think, for those who have certain issues with
the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

JimA

Iain Strachan wrote:

>[snip]
>
>The next point is that the pattern is pre-defined at the start without
>the aid of randomness. We know that if a point is on the Gasket, then
>the next one will be also _whatever_ the choice of next vertex. The
>random selection is only needed to get a good coverage of the space so
>we can see the full pattern. Non-random ordering will not show all
>the pattern. For example if you restict the choice to only two
>vertices, the pattern collapses to a straight line.
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Mon Feb 28 20:04:22 2005