Guest Melvin1 Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 There’s no point in stretching this chaos metaphor much further. I can envision chaos in my mind, and it is without question the most powerful complete theory of physical reality imaginable. But a true theory of everything, necessarily includes human consciousness and spirituality. Looking for consciousness in a chaotic oscillation, is of course a purely theoretical exercise. Luckily, chaos makes it very easy for us. There is just one candidate: the infinite singular chaotic oscillation itself. It makes a lot of sense. All individual or personal consciousness originates from the impersonal Brahman. And chaos theory indicates that it’s more than likely that a hierarchy of conscious persons and more supreme conscious persons exists, possibly with Krishna at the top. Thus, in a chaos theoretical perspective, Brahman must be the Absolute Origin of all consciousness, and Krishna must be its Supreme Personality. I guess it’s only a matter of taste and religious tradition which you would prefer to call God.. I have this penchant for rearranging words(sword).So, If the God of a Braham is Yaweh, then the God of a Brahman(Absolute Truth) must be Krsna. Similarly, if a picture speaks a thousand words then why can`t I paint Krsna? Because the word(Krsna) will never show? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 I have this penchant for rearranging words(sword).So, If the God of a Braham is Yaweh, then the God of a Brahman(Absolute Truth) must be Krsna. Similarly, if a picture speaks a thousand words then why can`t I paint Krsna? Because the word(Krsna) will never show? No. Abraham evidently was a man and Yaweh his god. Brahman is never a man. But Krishna was a man in His pastimes. And even Krishna must be 'ignorant' to some degree. After all, an individual person cannot be equated with the absolute whole of reality.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhaktajan Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 After all, an individual person cannot be equated with the absolute whole of reality.. ergo: There is no Personality called The One Godhead. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "Again, become primate." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 "There is no Personality called The One Godhead." No, only the Supreme Personality of Godhead.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhaktajan Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 Let me qualify: Only the Supreme Personality of Godhead is called The One Godhead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 "Only the Supreme Personality of Godhead is called The One Godhead." If The One Godhead is equated with the whole of reality, He must be (impersonal) Brahman. Otherwize He is The Supreme Personality of Godhead, or (personal) Krishna.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhaktajan Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 This is False: If The One Godhead is equated with the whole of reality, He must be (impersonal) Brahman. Otherwize He is The Supreme Personality of Godhead, or (personal) Krishna.. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I shall repeat: Brahman is the "Void". Evidently you are ascribing anthropmorphism to your understanding of "brahman". If the Vedas use the word "brahman" in describing the divine source (God-like-ism or whatever-ship-ness) --then, that's as good as it get for you and your tuxedo-wearing breathern. I shall repeat: Brahman is the "Void". This "Void" is inseperable and instincially part-and-parcel of the expansions of the cosmic elements. Can you handle the truth? If, yes, stand up and face the void! The "void" is owned "Lock, Stock & Barrel" by Godhead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 You say: Brahman is the "Void". What exactly do you mean? Void is emptiness or nothing, whereas I’m trying to convey the idea that Brahman is the ultimate conscious principle in reality.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhaktajan Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 You say: Brahman is the "Void". What exactly do you mean? Void is emptiness or nothing, whereas I’m trying to convey the idea that Brahman is the ultimate conscious principle in reality.. What you are conceiving is that, 'from formless void arises consciousness'. It is conscoiusness that exists above and beyond and upon the Void. The construct an ediface --so much pre-planning is involved to 'accommodate' so many functions & functionary(s) . . . then a Void is dug to make-way for the foundation. "Form follows function" --ergo, the Finished Design is an expression of the architect's intended ergonomics as required by the client and the client's guests amd future babes. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: If I am having a gynastic game over semantics --I apollogise. The concept of Who is God is specifically addressed by the Vedic Ancients and has recently as 20 years after WWII been revealed in the western world by A.C. Bhaktivedanta. This saved me my intended search through India for the mysteries of the Ancient World's mystic knowledge. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: How much Krishna-prashadam have you consumed? Too much or not enough yet? That may be the only element missing from a pilgrims' journey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 What is "formless void"? Void is just void. There cannot be formless void. Indeed, consciousness is all that exists. Mathematical chaos (Brahman..) is famous for its self-organizing quality or inherent order. Merging into Brahman may be like merging into a void, because Brahman without its dynamics is experienced as a static singularity, but it is not void. Nothing needs to be planned. Brahman automatically organizes itself. And everything that ever consciously exists, ultimately is Brahman.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Melvin1 Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 What is "formless void"? Void is just void. There cannot be formless void. Indeed, consciousness is all that exists. Mathematical chaos (Brahman..) is famous for its self-organizing quality or inherent order. Merging into Brahman may be like merging into a void, because Brahman without its dynamics is experienced as a static singularity, but it is not void. Nothing needs to be planned. Brahman automatically organizes itself. And everything that ever consciously exists, ultimately is Brahman.. How can mathematical chaos be Brahman just because it`s, " ..famous for its self organizing quailty or inherent order"? How can chaos possess a self-organizing quality or inherent order when it`s chaotic to begin with? Brahman isn`t an static singularity but a dynamic( Krsna said He`s Brahman) one. This mathematically chaotic theory description of Brahman is a Mr. Frankenstein concocted by Isaac Asimov, a famous russian science fiction writer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonic Yogi Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 This is False: If The One Godhead is equated with the whole of reality, He must be (impersonal) Brahman. Otherwize He is The Supreme Personality of Godhead, or (personal) Krishna.. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I shall repeat: Brahman is the "Void". Evidently you are ascribing anthropmorphism to your understanding of "brahman". If the Vedas use the word "brahman" in describing the divine source (God-like-ism or whatever-ship-ness) --then, that's as good as it get for you and your tuxedo-wearing breathern. I shall repeat: Brahman is the "Void". This "Void" is inseperable and instincially part-and-parcel of the expansions of the cosmic elements. Can you handle the truth? If, yes, stand up and face the void! The "void" is owned "Lock, Stock & Barrel" by Godhead. I hate to be a pest, but actually the Sunya or what is known as the Viraja river or causal ocean is actually the void or the vacuum that exists between the material energy and the Brahmajyoti. Brahman is actually Krishna. Brahman means "spiritual". Krishna is Brahman and Brahman is spiritual. Brahman is not void. Brahman is Krishna. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 How can mathematical chaos be Brahman just because it`s, " ..famous for its self organizing quailty or inherent order"? How can chaos possess a self-organizing quality or inherent order when it`s chaotic to begin with? Brahman isn`t an static singularity but a dynamic( Krsna said He`s Brahman) one. This mathematically chaotic theory description of Brahman is a Mr. Frankenstein concocted by Isaac Asimov, a famous russian science fiction writer. Perhaps you have a wrong concept of chaos. Chaos isn’t randomness. As I said before, "chaos is infinite order". Where do you think fractal structure comes from? Where do you think the Mandelbrot set comes from? It’s all inherently present within these simple (singular) systems. The dynamic expression of the infinite order within chaotic systems is called 'self-organization'. Why wouldn’t Brahman (Krishna) employ such an infinitely creative dynamic principle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Melvin1 Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 Perhaps you have a wrong concept of chaos. Chaos isn’t randomness. As I said before, "chaos is infinite order". Where do you think fractal structure comes from? Where do you think the Mandelbrot set comes from? It’s all inherently present within these simple (singular) systems. The dynamic expression of the infinite order within chaotic systems is called 'self-organization'. Why wouldn’t Brahman (Krishna) employ such an infinitely creative dynamic principle? That in chaos theory it`s impossible to predict the outcome of an action or event if the initial conditions leading to it can`t be certainly measured with infinite accuracy.That it is dynamically unstable ( don`t obey the rules of physics) and unpredictable as the weather itself. That a perfected system manifests chaos at a slightest mistake. In other words, Brahman(Krsna) can never be chaos because it is always infintely and precisely accurate and perfect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhaktajan Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 What is "formless void"? Void is just void. There cannot be formless void. Indeed, consciousness is all that exists. Mathematical chaos (Brahman..) is famous for its self-organizing quality or inherent order. Merging into Brahman may be like merging into a void, because Brahman without its dynamics is experienced as a static singularity, but it is not void. Nothing needs to be planned. Brahman automatically organizes itself. And everything that ever consciously exists, ultimately is Brahman.. Oy vey, Hey P, I KNOW THE STORY JACK! "static singularity" oh, that's rich! [get it coined on wikipedia! Before the Chinese steel it.] "Brahman automatically organizes itself" --WRONG! "CONSCIOUSNESS" automatically organizes itself. "Brahman may be like . . . " --ahhh that's is closer to the truth than your gymnastic hyperboly. "consciousness is all that exists" --A new Paradynm is born, "Happy Gilmore metaphysic of Happy-dom". For God's sake WHAT ABOUT AVIDYA[ignorance]? Conscious of ignorance?????????????????? The freakin world is REAL! It's Real folks! It's real, temporary & may be an eye-sore, just like those abandoned Factories in your home town, that have long been outsourced to undeveloped countries. Learn to bake a cake and thus see how the real world of science and physics "works". :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Dear SY, "the Sunya [i've never heard of this 'sunya' {zero, zet} used to describe the 'viraja' region] or what is known as the Viraja river or causal ocean [i've never heard of the 'causal ocean' confused with the 'viraja' region] is actually the void . . . . . . that exists between the material energy and the Brahmajyoti .......................................................................................... The Void is beyond your intellect's conception???????????????? And you are speaking on Vedanta????????????????????? OH COME ON MAN! Please! Waht about the differences between Paramatma? Bhagavan? --Brahman????? There is a difference between "Brahman" and the "Brahmajyoti"?????? Ans: NO! Why are you 'shooting off at the mouth' when you are capabale of doing proper research and "observe & reporting"? ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Brahman is not void?? You are afraid of the void! Hmmm . . . very interesting. I guess when it comes to teaching "Krishna-Consciousness" one must start yet again back at the traditional starting point. The Void that I speak of is as I state it: Without "qualities" ergo, formless. Brahman is unmanifest. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: There is pradhana [Perhaps you have a wrong concept of pradhana]: SB 3.26.10 The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: The unmanifested eternal combination of the three modes is the cause of the manifest state and is called pradhana. It is called prakriti when in the manifested stage of existence. PURPORT The Lord points out material nature in its subtle stage, which is called pradhana, and He analyzes this pradhana. The explanation of pradhana and prakriti is that pradhana is the subtle, undifferentiated sum total of all material elements. Although they are undifferentiated, one can understand that the total material elements are contained therein. When the total material elements are manifested by the interaction of the three modes of material nature, the manifestation is called prakriti. Impersonalists say that Brahman is without variegatedness and without differentiation. One may say that pradhana is the Brahman stage, but actually the Brahman stage is not pradhana. pradhana is distinct from Brahman because in Brahman there is no existence of the material modes of nature. One may argue that the mahat-tattva is also different from pradhana because in the mahat-tattva there are manifestations. The actual explanation of pradhana, however, is given here: when the cause and effect are not clearly manifested (avyakta), the reaction of the total elements does not take place, and that stage of material nature is called pradhana. Pradhana is not the time element because in the time element there are actions and reactions, creation and annihilation. Nor is it the jéva, or marginal potency of living entities, or designated, conditioned living entities, because the designations of the living entities are not eternal. One adjective used in this connection is nitya, which indicates eternality. Therefore the condition of material nature immediately previous to its manifestation is called pradhana. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: There is no chaos --just our limited perpective [limited senses & mind]. Brahman is not Krishna. Krishna emits Brahman like we sweat or breath or bark out orders or call our love ones. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: PS: I'm just the messenger. And remember, I'd set you up with a plate of maha-prashadam before you'd set me up with one-- so help me God! --or am I just proudly[and falsely] boasting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 ... The Void that I speak of is as I state it: Without "qualities" ergo, formless. Brahman is unmanifest. Then I think we have the same understanding of Brahman. You call it unmanifest and formless or void; I call it non-manifest singular consciousness. I don’t see any difference.. There is pradhana [Perhaps you have a wrong concept of pradhana] Pradhana is what I would call (conscious) chaos. SB 3.26.10 The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: The unmanifested eternal combination of the three modes is the cause of the manifest state and is called pradhana. It is called prakriti when in the manifested stage of existence. I would say: Eternal conscious chaos is the cause of the manifest state. And human consciousness is the subject of the manifest state. PURPORT The Lord points out material nature in its subtle stage, which is called pradhana, and He analyzes this pradhana. The explanation of pradhana and prakriti is that pradhana is the subtle, undifferentiated sum total of all material elements. Although they are undifferentiated, one can understand that the total material elements are contained therein. When the total material elements are manifested by the interaction of the three modes of material nature, the manifestation is called prakriti. I would say: Conscious chaos is the sum total of all material (human) consciousness, which is contained therein. When material consciousness is manifested [by the interaction of the three modes of material nature], the manifestation is called the material world. Impersonalists say that Brahman is without variegatedness and without differentiation. One may say that pradhana is the Brahman stage, but actually the Brahman stage is not pradhana. pradhana is distinct from Brahman because in Brahman there is no existence of the material modes of nature. One may argue that the mahat-tattva is also different from pradhana because in the mahat-tattva there are manifestations. I would say: Impersonalists say that non-manifest singular consciousness (Brahman) is without form or qualities. One might say that conscious chaos is the non-manifest singular consciousness, but actually this is not the case. Conscious chaos is distinct from non-manifest singular consciousness [because in non-manifest singular consciousness the material modes of nature do not exist]. The material world is also different from conscious chaos because in the material world there are manifestations. The actual explanation of pradhana, however, is given here: when the cause and effect are not clearly manifested (avyakta), the reaction of the total elements does not take place, and that stage of material nature is called pradhana. I would say: The stage of material nature in which the illusion of cause and effect is not consciously manifested is called (conscious) chaos. Pradhana is not the time element because in the time element there are actions and reactions, creation and annihilation. I would say: Conscious chaos is not time, because time is just a theoretical concept derived from actions and reactions in our illusory manifest material world. Nor is it the jéva, or marginal potency of living entities, or designated, conditioned living entities, because the designations of the living entities are not eternal. One adjective used in this connection is nitya, which indicates eternality. Therefore the condition of material nature immediately previous to its manifestation is called pradhana. I would say: Nor can conscious chaos be equated with conditioned human consciousness, because this material manifestation is not eternal. And I think it can be proven.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhaktajan Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 Thank you for taking the time to respond. In regards to that, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami has written thus: ... There are those who engage themselves in the studies of different Vedic literatures, specifically the Upanishads and Vedanta-sutras, or the Sankhya philosophy. All of these are called svadhyaya-yajna. or engagement in the sacrifice of studies. Also, remember where God says, "And I declare that he who studies this sacred conversation of ours worships Me by his intelligence." [Of course you are familar with that conversation.] :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::; For if one thoroughly studies the different descriptions of the opulences and expansions of Krishna’s energy, then one can understand without any doubt the position of Lord Sri Krishna and can fix his mind in the worship of Krishna without deviation. The Lord is all-pervading by the expansion of His partial representation, the Supersoul, who enters into everything that is. Pure devotees, therefore, concentrate their minds in Krishna consciousness in full devotional service --therefore they are always situated in the transcendental position. “The Absolute Truth is realized in three phases of understanding by the knower of the Absolute Truth, and all of them are identical. Such phases of the Absolute Truth are expressed as Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan.” These three divine aspects can be explained by the example of the sun, which also has three different aspects, namely the sunshine, the sun’s surface and the sun planet itself. One who studies the sunshine only is the preliminary student. One who understands the sun’s surface is further advanced. And one who can enter into the sun planet is the highest. Ordinary students who are satisfied by simply understanding the sunshine—its universal pervasiveness and the glaring effulgence of its impersonal nature—may be compared to those who can realize only the Brahman feature of the Absolute Truth. The student who has advanced still further can know the sun disc, which is compared to knowledge of the Paramatma feature of the Absolute Truth. And the student who can enter into the heart of the sun planet is compared to those who realize the personal features of the Supreme Absolute Truth. Therefore, the bhaktas, or the transcendentalists who have realized the Bhagavan feature of the Absolute Truth, are the topmost transcendentalists, although all students who are engaged in the study of the Absolute Truth are engaged in the same subject matter. The sunshine, the sun disc and the inner affairs of the sun planet cannot be separated from one another, and yet the students of the three different phases are not in the same category. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Melvin1 Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 Your conscious chaos, primate, can never be Brahman because it`s not transcendental. It can be conceived through computer simulations. It was Edward Lorenz a meteorologist who first discovered this oddity in physics. Bhaktajan, Brahman is Krsna not His sweat. Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu have explained Brahman to be the greatest, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, because He is the reservoir of all wealth, all fame, all strength, all beauty, all knowledge and all renunciation. When Krsna was present personally on earth, He exhibited these six opulences in full. No one was richer than Krsna, no one was more learned than Him, no one more beautiful, no one stronger, no one more famous and no one more renounced. The Supreme Personality of Krsna therefore is the Supreme Brahman. This is confirmed by Arjuna in Bhagavad-gita(Bg 10.12). Param brahma param dhama: " You are The Supreme Brahman, the ultimate, the supreme abode." Brahman, in other words, indicates the greatest, and the greatest is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna. He is the shelter of the Absolute Truth(para-tattva) because He is param brahma. There`s nothing material in His opulences and exhibitions of wealth, fame, strength beauty, knowledge and renunciation. Hence, wherever the word Brahman appears in any literature(Vedas) it should be understood that Krsna, the Supreme Personality is indicated. An intelligent person at once replaces the word Brahman with the name Krsna. Conscious chaos(Brahman), anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted April 18, 2009 Report Share Posted April 18, 2009 Your conscious chaos, primate, can never be Brahman because it`s not transcendental. It can be conceived through computer simulations. It was Edward Lorenz a meteorologist who first discovered this oddity in physics.... You should consider (mathematical) chaos only as a metaphor of reality. In Bhagavad-gita 9.4 Krsna states: "By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them." This is exactly what a chaos metaphor implies, although you may not see it, yet.. Prabhupada uses the sun (its rays, its disk, and its internal principle) as a metaphor. Does this mean he claims that reality = a sun? No. It’s just a concept or model or idea that he uses to aid our understanding of the fundamental relation between God and material reality. If Prabhupada would have been familiar with the theory of chaos, and would have really understood its implications, I’m quite sure he would have been compelled to use a chaos metaphor, which is ultimatey much simpler and much more powerful than a sun metaphor.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Melvin1 Posted April 18, 2009 Report Share Posted April 18, 2009 You should consider (mathematical) chaos only as a metaphor of reality. In Bhagavad-gita 9.4 Krsna states: "By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them." This is exactly what a chaos metaphor implies, although you may not see it, yet.. Prabhupada uses the sun (its rays, its disk, and its internal principle) as a metaphor. Does this mean he claims that reality = a sun? No. It’s just a concept or model or idea that he uses to aid our understanding of the fundamental relation between God and material reality. If Prabhupada would have been familiar with the theory of chaos, and would have really understood its implications, I’m quite sure he would have been compelled to use a chaos metaphor, which is ultimatey much simpler and much more powerful than a sun metaphor.. I`m sorry, primate. There are viewer`s who doesn`t see it that way if you use the chaos theory as a metaphor. They might see it as a hidden agenda or advocacy. I have no argument with the sun metaphor because it`s simpler not revolutionary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted April 18, 2009 Report Share Posted April 18, 2009 I`m sorry, primate. There are viewer`s who doesn`t see it that way if you use the chaos theory as a metaphor. They might see it as a hidden agenda or advocacy. I have no argument with the sun metaphor because it`s simpler not revolutionary. Well, my only agenda is to personally understand all of reality as it is. And I’m quite sure, reality and consciousness is not adequately or fully described by a 'sun metaphor'. Chaos, on the other hand, apparently provides a simple and complete theory of reality, which is compatible with the reality described in Vedic literature, including God/Krishna/Brahman. I should think this might also interest you and others. But my main motivation for posting these ideas here, is to have them debunked or verified by other members, for my own information. However, I first had to explain them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Melvin1 Posted April 18, 2009 Report Share Posted April 18, 2009 Well, my only agenda is to personally understand all of reality as it is. And I’m quite sure, reality and consciousness is not adequately or fully described by a 'sun metaphor'. Chaos, on the other hand, apparently provides a simple and complete theory of reality, which is compatible with the reality described in Vedic literature, including God/Krishna/Brahman. I should think this might also interest you and others. But my main motivation for posting these ideas here, is to have them debunked or verified by other members, for my own information. However, I first had to explain them. That`s as close as your conscious chaos can get. Man has yet to invent a machine that can predict say, when wlll hearts stop beating with infinite accuracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 That`s as close as your conscious chaos can get. Man has yet to invent a machine that can predict say, when wlll hearts stop beating with infinite accuracy. Correct! That will never happen. Chaos is often called 'deterministic chaos', which refers to the fact that although a chaotic system evolves completely deterministically according to some algorithm or physical principle, the future of the system cannot be known with certainty by any other means than running the system itself . And if all of reality is the product of a singular chaotic oscillation, a man made machine would have to be a part of the system and therefore it would be different from the system and therefore it can never predict the future of reality with infinite accuracy. Chaotic systems are characterized by a so called 'critical dependence on initial conditions', which means that even an infinitesimal difference in initial conditions would be amplified and result in a completely different evolution of the system. This is what makes chaos unpredictable. But chaos is not randomness. There is infinite order in chaos. A chaotic system resides in specific regions of its state-space more often than in other regions. In chaos theory this is known as the 'state-space attractor'. This attractor is an unchanging, fixed property of a chaotic system, which is manifest in the infinite fractal structure of a phase-projection of the system. Nevertheless, although some states are more probable than others, at any moment it is uncertain where the system will reside the next moment. This is like the fundamental uncertainty we see in quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanical systems evolve completely deterministically according to quantum wave functions. But when a measurement is made, the wave function collapses, and it is uncertain which of multiple probable quantum states will actualize in reality. In fact, I proposed that this quantum reality is nothing but a phase-projection of the universal singular chaotic oscillation. And, consequently, so is our entire material world.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Melvin1 Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 Even if the chaos phenomenon automatically organizes itself and is infinitely in order yet it`s dynamically unstable. It folows Murphy`s Law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 Even if the chaos phenomenon automatically organizes itself and is infinitely in order yet it`sdynamically unstable. It folows Murphy`s Law. No. Critical dependence on initial conditions is not the same as dynamic instability. A chaotic system cannot collapse or explode, for example. In terms of dynamics, chaos is a nonlinear - or complex equilibrium. Self organization is a function of the fixed state-space attractor of a chaotic system, or vice versa. Murphy’s law? You mean: Anything that can go wrong will go wrong? I don’t see the relevance for chaos. Again, (mathematical) chaos is completely deterministic.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.