Well, my theory of self-organization would be a long post, and is kind of "backwards"... My theory is that complex systems are physical things that are observable and explorable, but not definable. I use math as a diagnostic tool to help me ask better questions about physical systems as if they were "models of themselves", rather than to represent systems with my own constructs.

The way they work as a whole as if they have ESP is by having E.S.P (Equal Stress Principle) in having loops of relationships that share their strains and surplusses. It's something like collective insurance policies and makes the self-forgiving. That said, that is something one can only observe, and can't makes a machine to duplicate because natural systems rely on the cooperation of uncontrolled parts, not controlled parts. So... you can see it gets you exploring a lot of new territory to go into it.

My theory is a learning process, not a way to construct models. I use models for raising questions, not defining answers. The first farily compelling question for anything one observes growing is what is the network of relationships that is doing it, and second, how will it alter the conditions of its own environment to bring itself to an end. Generally, that happens one of two ways, distinguishing between self-maintaining and self-destabalizing sytems. They either switch from growth by beginning their maturation or their decline. fyi Try finding things of interest on one of my web sites www.synapse9.com or www.synapse9.com/blog or www.Connection.metdot.net

Well, here it goes 710 (or OIL) and pfhenshaw... Nate probably thinks I'm a little nuts, but empirical evidence can bear this out. Furthermore, I am pursuing this as a collective effort according to one of the central tenets of the theory.

It starts like this, Einstein theorized energy and mass are transformable and arrived at E=mc^2. Or, he started in some relevant direction and ended with this rather simple and economical formula. The concept and ramifications have been monumental in their impacts, needless to say.

Similarly, I arrived at the theory that energy and consciousness are transformable. I haven't come close to any formula, but I have come up with a few governing principles:

- complexity of the system is necessary for higher levels of energy to consciousness transformation and modulation. As an example, a nebula cloud of primordial matter incorporates massive amounts more mass than either a human being or the earth, but is not that wholly complex and contains very low consciousness density; whereas, the human body and brain system is one of the most complex systems we know of and has the ability to modulate consciousness. Furthermore, the human body's ability to modulate consciousness is not just within the cranial cavity, but throughout the entire organic system. Consciousness density is governed by complexity.

- we partake in the energy/consciousness transform nearly continuously, but because it is all encompassing in our biological existence we are not aware. I came up with "Does a fish know of water?" only to find out its been used before. But, did gravity exist prior to Newton quantifying and describing its behavior? Of course it did. We are involved in the E/C transform by the very act of this message. Just add up the physical systems, (me and you included), involved in this interchange of ideas and their energy usage to start to put together a simple model of E/C physical definitions.

- emotions are a high level E/C modulation mechanism, as is music.

- fully understanding the mathematical and physical characteristics as manifested in equations is beyond our capability at this time. We can get a good start, but I believe the communicable descriptions will progress as all technology has, it will evolve with knowledge.

- systems of like consciousness tend to self organize into more complex systems. This speaks to 710's query on emergent self-organization. This may provide the starting point for better quantifying the theory.

- having a higher ability to modulate the E/C transform will significantly alter our understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. As I like to say, the cup can be unbroken. There will still be adherence to the 1st Law since conservation still applies in the universe, but there will be the appearance of Entropy reversal employing E/C modulation. The Zeroth Law still definitely applies!

- got thinking on this, probably contemplating Hawkin's "Arrow of Time" from A Brief History. This is a humdinger, but I'll put it out there. The perceived direction of time could be dependent on the direction of the E/C transform. Our predominant current perceived direction is caused by mostly energy > consciousness. A reversed direction (premonition) could be the result of consciousness > energy (think of a film playing backwards as in the point about the cup becoming upbroken). This could provide a sound foundation for understanding premonition and otherwise physic phenomena.

That's it for now. But here are a few more points; we will not be able to engage in any appreciable space travel until we understand this principle of the universe. The Internet has evolved as a tool for a higher level of self organization for our species. How far it will take us is yet to be determined. If this seems all so simple and obvious, maybe that's because it is supposed to appear that way. C'mon, how tough is F=ma now that we have been told?

The really way out there final point to make is I've had some validation of the correct direction of this theory.

Hello Cherenkov,

As usual, I enjoy your postings. I hope you are making progress on that book you are writing based upon my postings [Recall your comment in my blog]. I fully hope you understand Asimov and 'Dune', plus the postPeak implications for Optimal Overshoot Decline. I will be glad to do a 'Nectar of the Gods' Yeasty Peakoil Shoutout upon its publication. Please don't forget Harry Chapin's "Remember when the Music.." and "Wildfire Reloaded" on Youtube. It will be outside-the-box thinking for the downslope ahead, and I think you and most TODers are brighter than Me. Thx[S]

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?