Towards a new metaphysics of complex processes

Cover Page

Uploaded June 19, 2011

Towards a New

Metaphysics of

Complex Process

Author: Jeffrey G. Long ([email protected])

Date: January 29, 1994

Forum: Talk presented at the Second Interdisciplinary Conference on Evolutionary Systems, sponsored by the Washington Evolutionary Systems Society.

Contents

: Proposal

Pages 2‐19: Slides intermixed with text for presentation

License

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial

3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by‐nc/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative

Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA.

of 19

Submitted for the Second WESS Interdisciplinary Conference on Evolutionary Systems

Towards a New Metaphysics of Complex Process

Jeffrey G. Long 133‐1/2 11th Street, Washington, DC 20003

(202) 547‐0268; [email protected] The study of notational tools (e.g.alphabets, math, music) does not merely shed light on the technical features of the notations we use. As a critical interface between humans and the cosmos, it also sheds light on the nature of both human perception and the cosmos. The power of notation is that it does not merely help us to categorize or clarify our pre‐existing experience; instead, it gives us tools to look at the cosmos in completely new ways. A person who is illiterate in a notation does not know how to use that notation, and therefore does not detect information in (i.e. look at) the environment the way that literate persons do. As we invent successful new features of the cosmos such as number and time, and reify them in our notations, we may be said to be coming to a better understanding of the cosmos. Therefore, the existence and power of the new entities advocated by Ultra‐Structure (described below) forces me to re‐evaluate my view of the cosmos. Ultra‐Structure offers a new way to look at complex processes, and requires only one fundamentally new type of entity called a ruleform. But it links this new conceptual entity in with a number of conventional constructs, such as particulars, rules, and universals. It groups these into a 4‐level view of reality, consisting of a surface structure of actual structures and behaviors; a middle structure of operating rules that generate that surface structure; a deep structure of ruleforms that constrain those rules; and a substructure of universals from which ruleforms are constructed. It postulates animation procedures to continuously inspect and execute the operating rules. Ultra‐Structure asserts that the phenomena we perceive are merely the evanescent consequences of rule‐animation. This is a different metaphysical perspective than the object‐oriented, process‐oriented, or relationship‐oriented worldviews advocated by Newton, Whitehead and Prigogine respectively. It asserts that rules are the fundamental entities that must be studied, and looks at the cosmos as a complex operating rule engine. Thus science creates a first level of abstraction when it postulates rules to describe phenomena: the phenomena are considered primary, and the rules secondary. It divides phenomena into objects, relationships among objects (structures), and processes (behavior). It utilizes tools that can represent one of these categories, but often at the expense of others. And ultimately, scientists must still manage and make sense of tens of thousands of rules that describe each system. The benefits it achieves by rule‐making are largely negated by the number of rules it ends up with; by the simplifications required by its tools for describing rules; and by the difficulty of managing changes in rules over time. To help address these problems, Ultra‐Structure proposes a second level of abstraction, a new science that takes rules as its objects of study and formulates hypothetical forms to constrain their structure. This pushes back the search for an unchanging reality behind phenomena, acknowledging the complex and changing character of rules and therefore seeking a deeper foundation in ruleforms. But the basic assertion that rules are more fundamental than objects, relationships, or processes has a number of metaphysical implications.

of 19

Towards a New Metaphysics of Complex Processes

A Preliminary Proposal

Jeffrey G. Long

voice: (202) 547‐0268 e‐mail: [email protected]

letter: 133‐1/2 11th Street, S.E., Washington, DC 20003

Presented at the Second WESS Interdisciplinary Conference

on Evolutionary Systems January 29, 1994

Second WESS Conference [01/29/94]


Page 3 of 19

Cover Page I appreciate this chance to share some ideas with you. The philosopher Alfred North Whitehead says that "The study of philosophy is a voyage towards the larger generalities." This talk will certainly fit, then, within the domain of philosophy! My work on notation stems from a basic view I developed a long time ago, that complexity is in the eye of the beholder; this led me to the study of what I call the "management of perception": a topic I call "intellinomics". Such a study involves both the nature of the observer, and the nature of the observed. My work in this area has led me to believe that there are many ways that we manage or mismanage our perceptions of reality. One of the most powerful of these ways is the notations we use. In this talk I want to explore with you some PRELIMINARY views I've developed about the nature of being or existence, based on my studies of notation. I hope to present some thoughts about 2 basic metaphysical problems that have arisen from my work in notation, and how these might be addressed by the use of what seems to me (as a person merely self‐educated) is a new metaphysical model. I have not been content with the accounting I have seen thus far of the nature of notation per se in various philosophies and cosmologies:

most ignore it completely

some ignore it deliberately, believing that, as unactualized entities, abstractions need not be accounted for explicitly as real "things"

some treat them as entities that are automatically and intrinsically brought by the human mind to all observations that it makes ‐‐ a built‐in perceptual toolset

some treat notations and all abstract entities as pure fictions that have no ontological standing

some treat them as "modes" of existence in the physical and/or mental realms

some treat them as "essences" or logical possibilities that may or may not be actualized, either in modes (which are not abstract in the sense that numbers are) or in reality. I believe that notation is very DIFFERENT than language, not only in its ability to express concepts that are INEFFABLE in common language, but also in its fundamental ONTOLOGICAL status. This is work‐in‐progress, not final conclusions. I still have a long way to go. If you'd like to talk more, please contact me as shown on the slide. Also I have some business cards up here if anyone is interested.



Page 4 of 19

Experience

Quantity

Form

Geometry

Speech

alphabet

Music,

Value

money

time

Relation

Cartography,Charts

ArithmeticLogic

numbers

points, planes

notes, rests

classes

Accounting

Calendars Writing

space

Quality

Operations

Choreography

Change



Page 5 of 19

Notations reify ontological inventions...

Slide 1: Doctrine of Ontological Invention I believe that we can understand the TRUE nature of notation by looking at how various notations have been created. 1. We start with the messy thing in the center, our EXPERIENCE of the world. 2. We ABSTRACT from that experience certain features; thus:

we abstract VALUE and reify it with the concept of MONEY, plus certain grammatical rules of use, and call that ACCOUNTING

we abstract SOUNDS from our speech and reify them with the concept of a set of LETTERS called the ALPHABET, plus certain grammatical rules of use, and call that WRITING

we abstract QUALITIES and reify them with the concept of CLASSES, plus rules of inference or moving between classes, and call that LOGIC Thus revolutionary new notations are based on revolutionary new ABSTRACTIONS. This is the structure of notational revolutions, which I have called the Doctrine of Ontological Invention.



Page 6 of 19

numbers

space

money

time



Page 7 of 19

Problem 1: But are these inventions or discoveries?

Slide 2: Problem 1 But in thinking about this, when I try to determine whether it is an INVENTION or a DISCOVERY, I keep coming to the conclusion that these are actually DISCOVERIES. I say this because inventions or CREATIONS always carry a significant imprint or signature of their CREATOR, while DISCOVERIES seem to me to have a more creator‐independent flavor. Further, I can easily imagine that on other worlds, numbers, time, space, and money as we know them have probably been invented, too. Obviously they would use different SYMBOLS than we do, but that is the LEAST important feature of a notation. Thus they are not INVENTIONS, but DISCOVERIES. And if they are not purely fictions of mind than they must have some objective ontological status in the cosmos that allows them to be discovered. In other words, rather than existing solely in MINDS, which I think emerge from BRAINS, notations exist INDEPENDENTLY.



Page 8 of 19

Processes

Energy

& RelationsMatter

Minds

Complex systems emerge from energy...



Page 9 of 19

Slide 3: Complex Systems & Energy A second line of my thinking has been about how to represent complex systems better. In trying to understand complex systems such as organizations, games, and the law, and eventually physics and biology, I've come to believe that the myriad ENTITIES that we see, and the complex relations that exist between these entities, come about as an accidental and incidental consequence of the execution of PROCESSES. These processes affect all matter, but they also do things that do not affect matter. The material things we see in a system, therefore, are but a small part of what is really going on. All matter and its relationships is created by processes (some of which haven't happened since the Big Bang), but not all processes affect matter and its relationships. Behind these processes is ENERGY. Energy permits and defines the existence of processes; in physics it is the potential to do work. All processes are empowered by energy, but not all energy defines processes. The processes we see in a system, therefore, are but a small part of what is really going on.



Page 10 of 19

= Rules (20,000)

= Ruleforms (20)

Surface Structure

Middle Structure

Deep Structure

Animation Procedures

Substructure = Universals (200)

= Particulars (20,000,000)

= Notations (100)Ultrastructure

(content of)

(content of)

(made up of)

Manifest behavior& structure

Records

Tables

Attributes

Character set

(generate)



Page 11 of 19

Problem 2: Are rules, ruleforms, universals, and notations "real"?

Slide 4: Problem 2 I've chosen to represent these concepts with the structure shown here. In this model, processes, matter, relationships, and mind are all called "surface structure". This model asserts that surface structure is ephemeral, that it is very complex and ever‐changing. Everything that can be seen about a system is its SURFACE STRUCTURE, comprised of a very large number of PARTICULARS. The rest of this model deals with the question, What generates surface structure? Behind this complex and ever‐changing surface structure is a MIDDLE STRUCTURE, composed of a much smaller number of RULES. This is where science gets its power of description, by the use of rules. But what are rules? Can they be analyzed into lower‐level components, just as we "analyzed" mind, matter, relationships, and processes into energy? The answer seems to be YES. Rules can be grouped into classes, based largely but not completely on their form; these so‐called RULEFORMS are unchanging, even though the rules that make up their content may change within the limits prescribed by the ruleform. In studying hundreds of rules for any system, I've discovered that the rules can be categorized into 10‐30 RULEFORMS. These ruleforms are a new abstraction that I propose, for they permit us to study rules scientifically just as we now study the behavior and structure of natural systems scientifically. Continuing our analysis, RULEFORMS themselves are made up of a SUB‐STRUCTURE comprised of an infinite number of UNIVERSALS. Now, these are not the same as universals in Plato's sense, such as "redness". They are not attributes shared in by all PARTICULARS, but are attributes shared in by all RULES. Examples are the universals of Entity ID, Location ID, Relationship ID, etc. But what is the content of univerals? Notations! Our ability to describe and understand complex behavior increases as we discover more notations. The notation is the limitation on society's ability to understand the world. This is the finest structure that we have to rules; I've called it the ultrastructure (like in cell biology). The computer is simply a new N‐dimensional medium, like paper but better, and normally these models are "inscribed" upon a computer. When doing this, notations are implemented as character sets; universals are implemented as attributes or fields; ruleforms are implemented as relational tables; rules are implemented as relations or data within those tables; and particulars are the behavior of the model. The model is animated by a very small amount of software that constitutes the ANIMATION PROCEDURES. But what is the ontological status of these things? The SUBSTANTIALIST perspective focuses primarily on ENTITIES, and predicates certain attributes or properties of these entities which exist independent of any observer. The subject‐predicate form of assertion is a consequence of this view, as is the domination of nouns over verbs in many languages, and



Page 12 of 19

the over‐use of the verb "to be". The Newtonian version of the worldview asserts that nature is nothing but inert mass and motion, and that each atom retains its identity through all changes and interactions. The PROCESS‐ORIENTED perspective focuses on the continuous BECOMING and perishing of ACTUAL ENTITIES, and describes them as concrescences of potentials. Actual entities are active and "prehend" each other; their development in concrescences is due to their "character". Eternal objects such as classes are different than actual entities. All permanence is thus illusory; there is no being, only becoming. The RELATIONAL perspective asserts that the observer plays a critical role in perception, and it therefore places more emphasis on the relations between entities than on the entities themselves.

But none of these seems to me to be able to address the kind of problem I mentioned earlier: Where do RULES fit in? Where do NOTATIONS fit into these ontologies?



Page 13 of 19

Rules Energy

Notation

Universals Particulars

Noumena Phenomena

Language

Langue Parole

Competence Performance

Software Hardware

Logos Dialectic

Concretion Actual Entities



Page 14 of 19

Rules & energy are independent substances …

Slide 5: Rules & Energy To explicitly incorporate these bizarre kinds of entities, and to account for their seeming impact on things, I propose a dualist theory of the nature of existence. Unlike Descartes dualism, separating mind and body, this model distinguishes RULES and ENERGY. We can imagine a universe of energy without law; such a universe could exist solely in the maximum probable state of total uniformity ‐‐ a universe without matter and only one form of energy. We can just as well imagine a universe of rules without energy; such a universe could exist as a potential universe, with nothing to make it manifest. Together, we can imagine a universe where rules increase or decrease the organization of things, acting locally to create situations of low probability but in general, over the longer term, tending towards creating situations of higher probability. This is, of course, a tautology; things that are higher probability are only that way because the rules dictate that that is so. On the right‐hand side we have everything that we can physically sense. In Plato's terms these are PARTICULARS; in Kantian terminology, PHENOMENA; in Sausurrian terminology PAROLE; in Chomskyan terminology PERFORMANCE. In computer terms, this is the HARDWARE of the world; in Hegelian terms, the DIALECTIC; and in Whitehead's terms, ACTUAL ENTITIES. This side represents all BEHAVIOR, including VERBAL BEHAVIOR; I think of all this as fundamentally the domain of LANGUAGE in a broad sense of that word. Thus there is:

the language of the planets as they circle the sun

the language of war as armies collide

the language of life as new generations come and go

the language of nucleosynthesis as new elements are made in stars. On the left‐hand side we have all the things that we like to think EXIST in SOME sense, but are not really operationally definable. In Plato's terms these are UNIVERSALS; in Kantian terminology, NOUMENA (not in his sense of things‐in‐themselves, but rather as the things that can only be perceived by the mnd); in Sausurrian terminology LANGUE; in Chomskyan terminology COMPETENCE. In computer terminology this might be called the SOFTWARE of the cosmos; in Democritus' terminology, LOGOS; and in Whitehead's terminology, CONCRETION (in the sense of being the creative drive that makes the cosmos run). This side represents all ABSTRACTION, whether human or otherwise; remember, other species on other worlds are postulated to have discovered similar things. I think of all this as fundamentally the domain of NOTATION. This is where:

time exists



Page 15 of 19

space exists

value exists

numbers exist. These entities, acting in their roles as the content of universals, collectively form RULES, which describe and govern energy in all its forms. In this worldview, things happen as they do because the rules exist as they do. That is the source of CAUSALITY. Causality is not a property of matter, and exists whether the matter knows the rules or not. It is imposed from completely outside the domain of matter or energy. In this model, the execution of rules takes its toll in energy: there is an Animation Procedure Tax, collected in energy, that ensures that any time a rule is executed there will be the same or less USEFUL energy left to do work. This tax may be viewed as the cause of entropy, ultimately providing a one‐way street of possibilities but, in the shorter term, allowing both increased and decreased organization to occur.



Page 16 of 19

Rules Energy

abstract speech

abstract change

gravitational

kinetic

thermal

elastic

electrical

chemical

radiant

nuclear

mass

Modes of Modes of

abstract quantity

abstract relation

abstract qualities

abstract form

abstract value

abstract stroke

abstract operations

And have very different modes of existence...



Page 17 of 19

Slide 6: Modes of Existence These two basic substances ‐‐ rules and energy ‐‐ take many forms. The rules, of course, exist whether we acknowledge them or not; as do the constructs behind the rules (their notations). All we can do is try to discover them. Likewise, the energy can take many forms, most basically in terms of existing either as matter or as some other form of energy, as shown. Discoveries in either domain may be approached scientifically, even to the point where the applicability of experiment to abstractions may be considered. In this sense, what distinguishes us from other creatures that we know of is our ability to somehow apprehend the existence of these entities.



Page 18 of 19

greater organization greater uniformity

less probable more probable

Structure Process

implemented by modes

of rules

implemented by modes

of energy

Together they form a structuralist view of complex processes.



Page 19 of 19

Slide 7: Conclusions In conclusion, we look at process in order to discern underlying structure. This is the structuralist program, and hopefully the concepts in Ultra‐Structure will help to advance that program.

Questions?

Towards a new metaphysics of complex processes

Technology

Transcript of Towards a new metaphysics of complex processes