Randomness is necessary to fill the gaps inbetween order. Talking to the free will swarm: "This is a balloon. You can do whatever you want inside of it, dance naked with a watermelon for all I care. The catch is that you cannot see the boundaries." Talking to determinism "Be as you are and encapsulate the force entirely. If it escapes, you will deflate and die."What does the randomness of prime numbers imply about the randomness of, well, just about everything?
Discordians, take your bows.
Multiply the infinite (y axis) by the transfinite (x axis (and z)):I don't know if I understand infinity or not. I'd like to think I do.
So randomness is everything that isn't already under some sort of classification (be it subjective or objective [if objective classification exists]).Randomness is necessary to fill the gaps in between order.
An infinite amount of possibilities exist even within finite boundaries....
So randomness is everything that isn't already under some sort of classification (be it subjective or objective [if objective classification exists]).
An infinite amount of possibilities exist even within finite boundaries.
What if 0 exists as the isomorphic sum of positive and negative?Really, all numbers are simply a representation of one number. That number is 1. The complete absence of numbers? 0. Is 0 possible? Is the complete absence of everything a possibility? There either is, or there is less (like temperature). Although theoretically possible, Absolute 0 isn't attainable. Is it saying the same thing?
Apply synchronicity. Though there are infinite possibilities, many of those possibilities share common traits (i.e. result in the same behavior or pattern. Say.... grouping/flocking in birds, fish, locusts). These species/populations have about as much in common as prime numbers... the fact that they're prime and little more. Go back to the .gif. What if each number were a different species, possibly with a completely different lineage, but all species of a given color behaved the same? The majority of these "tangential rules" remain undiscovered/undocumented in ecology/biology. I stumbled upon centrifugal organization a while back (last summer) and built upon it to the point where I can now call it fractal organization and say that, for example... Well fuck, I don't have my notes in front of me.Ok, this is all great and I love thinking about it. But I want to be able to use it for something. It has to be applicable to something, right? There's both a spiritual and scientific use for everything; I understand the spiritual implications, but I want to explore the scientific ones.
I don't understand these termsApply synchronicity. Though there are infinite possibilities, many of those possibilities share common traits (i.e. result in the same behavior or pattern. Say.... grouping/flocking in birds, fish, locusts). These species/populations have about as much in common as prime numbers... the fact that they're prime and little more. Go back to the .gif. What if each number were a different species, possibly with a completely different lineage, but all species of a given color behaved the same? The majority of these "tangential rules" remain undiscovered/undocumented in ecology/biology. I stumbled upon centrifugal organization a while back (last summer) and built upon it to the point where I can now call it fractal organization and say that, for example... Well fuck, I don't have my notes in front of me.
I'm in a visual thinking mood, so beware... All that I see may not make it onto paper.I don't understand these terms
Still I don't understand what centrifugal organization is (in the .pdf would it be the competition? Is it simply taking one arbitrarily important species [or whatever level of organization you want] and organizing the then qualified important interactions around it?), but:I'm in a visual thinking mood, so beware... All that I see may not make it onto paper.
Higher trophic levels (at the population level of organization) are structured in the same pattern, so it's really more like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal
So both centrifugal and fractal?In a population context looking down on the plant community, things might appear to be flat and centrifugal, but you're actually looking down on a pyramid.
Cool beansthe higher the trophic level, the fewer the individuals in a given population; and the further from the center, the smaller the population. (So in the center are large populations that function as keystone species). In terms of energy flow, it's not a pyramid, but relatively solid and stable all the way through the trophic structure because energy isn't contained only within living individuals and leaves through thermoregulation, bodily excretion, etc.
Reciprocal determinism could very easily cause a feedback loop. To be honest it shouldn't be too hard to create a script that models that (simplistically).Each population is an agent-based collective that interacts with the local environment as well as surrounding populations, through reciprocal causality.
Which could ultimately be key in deciding the best species, right? Without other interactions, species A could be better than B, but with common interactions present, the results could be muddier.When synchronicity is applied in terms of exotic invasions, niches become interchangeable between two species attempting to occupy the same; i.e. both phragmites and native broadleaf cattail can fill a round hole, and both compete directly for that hole. In direct competition, one on one, it's easy to predict (the best species wins and it's over). Any resistance to invasion is actually a systemic mechanism via reciprocal determinism from the surrounding populations and environment.
Is that what I just said or no?It's entirely indirect, and can be overcome by invaders regardless of the outcome of direct competition, because the facilitation of other species counteracts the native reciprocal determinism. Other non-native species (aphids, beetles, birds, etc) are able to do this successfully because their intrinsic, evolutionarily/genetically determined adaptive traits are positioned in such a way that they don't align with the shape and volume of the native systemic structure. This trophic misalignment is corrected through entropy (physics!) until a new equilibrium is reached; a stable trophic structure, or alternate stable state.
I tried really hard, I think I got most of it (hopefully)I think ^this came out in far too many syllables, so a conceptual example:
IE a feedback loop. KA-CHING!In Ohio trophic niches are squares and far across the globe in Pennsylvania they are hexagons. Each species is a uniquely shaped blob, and all individuals of a given species share the same shape. In this case Ohio species X is shaped like an X and Pennsylvania species U is shaped like a U.
Because niches are always occupied, though not always very strongly, reciprocal causality is constantly in effect. The environment and populations that collectively form the boundaries of the squares in Ohio are collectively predisposed to form an X into a square. When a U appears, the same processes are at work trying to shape the U into a square, but:
-some are ineffective
-some are inefficient
-some do the same
-some are more efficient
-some are super-effective
This produces a different shape (which is locally stable), which in turn alters the boundaries surrounding it and through reciprocal causality, creates its own niche as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
So, ultimately, the stability of a system is dependent on how snugly the fractal pieces fit, so to speak. If the interconnectivity (not a word) between species is very intricate (multiple levels of organization dependent on one another) then the system is what? More or less stable? I could see an argument from either side:The key is identifying the qualities that determine the shape of a given species. If they can be identified, then they can be quantified and thus used as a predictive index.
^This is what explains the lags between initial colonization and epidemic invasion, which occur across a WIDE variety of timescales and are otherwise essentially unpredictable.
(And of course another caveat is a group of different species that add up to form a square of the same dimensions, which brings up the transfinite yet again, as well as the gool ol'd quantum box: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_in_a_box)