Theory of Control - (2)

This is a continuation of the attempt to summarize my Convoluted Theory of Control (CTOC) for general reading. For context and further "data tunneling"... Read these posts first if you haven't already... Depression, Depression - (2), Theory of Control - (1), and, In Nomine Patri.

This chapter has come out well, and is rather bloated with content for those who can find it. But it still doesn't finish the theory presentation. I have a feeling this is going to take about 4 - 5 posts. Ah well...


The Determinism Theorists

The primary deterministic argument can be postulated thus:

"Given the complete set of initial conditions for a system, and the complete set of rules that govern the system and its environment, any past or future state of the system can be predicted, and given the ability to affect parameters "just right", controlled."

Most of the natural world operates on the basis of "instinct". Eating, sleeping, hunting, procreation, parenting, at least among the "lower" animals is done mostly "instinctively". Which means they are operating based on the conditions/ rules set way back at the origin of your species - or the universe. They do xyz because it is their nature to do xyz. Determinists see this as some sort of proof for biological/ psychological determinism.

Freud for instance, based his psychology on the subconscious as the driving force for everything. Marx, and to a greater degree, Lenin, based his theory of the rise of the proletariat on an analysis of history which told him that revolution would be "inevitable". Desmond Morris preaches biological determinism by saying that we behave the way we do because our species has been programmed to do so over centuries, millennia of evolution. What the determinists are missing here is the Chaos Factor we discussed earlier.

Even in the natural world, which the determinists guard zealously as their territory, willed control is a prerequisite for the survival of organisms. You have to control your environment to survive, you have to exert yourself and display control over, say, the tribe for rising in the social hierarchy, or over another being in order to mate. You have to reduce the uncertainty that you face everyday - the probability that you will die - through your actions.

Determinism fails to be a solid theory because of Chaos. (Much to the chagrin of poor Isaac Newton, I am sure...) If you set a system in motion, it may tend to go one way because of either an existing event history, or because the rules of the game - the inherent laws and characteristics of the universe allow for some events to be more probable than others - but it need not necessarily progress predictably. This is a fundamental assertion - we're not saying "It wont behave itself because we dont fully understand it to predict it well". We're saying it won't behave itself. Period.

Take for instance, the universe a minute or so after the hypothetical "big bang". You have nearly infinite matter headed outward, so many gravitational forces at play, so much heat. Regular mathematics or statistics will tell you that net net, forces will cancel each other out and you will end up with a uniformally distributed, uniformally dense, uniformally hot universe. But alas, the very existence of the galaxy we inhabit and the surrounding emptiness refutes this simplistic view.

Or take evolution - can anyone seriously believe that human beings were "destined" to evolve on the Earth? Hell, no! Evolution works (in our case) through chaotic permutations and combinations of DNA - billions of molecules flitting about. It could've gone any which way.

Take economics. Can you accurately predict the value/ price of something as mundane as baby nappies in 2009? You could try, and you'd probably come up with a reasonably accurate estimate. But you can't be 100% sure...

You cannot accurately predict the behaviour of any sufficiently complex, unisolated system. Not because it is complex, or unisolated, or because of the Hiesenberg Uncertainty principle. But because its behaviour isn't fully rational, but chaotic.

What does this do to our theory of control - well, if you cant predict a system's behaviour, can you take the "right" control actions to predetermine its future state? Of course not, you say?

And that's where the theory of control gets convoluted - You can, but never completely. Because you see, the universe doesn't - can't - run on Chaos alone. Chaos is the truth - but not the complete truth. It cannot exist without the mother of Determinism - Causality.

The Contradiction Paradigm

The universe displays a predilection for contradictions - for dualities of extremes - for opposites, contrasts. Balance in all things seems to be the way of things. Opposing forces interplay to produce a riot of shades of light and dark, matter and space, life and death, free will and powerlessness... Chaos and Causality.

This is a very important clause in my once agnostic philosophy. You cannot speak in terms of absolutes - you cannot for instance say "There is a God". You have to say "There is a God. There isn't a God". That's not the same as saying "There might be a God". That is saying "There is a God who isn't." and "There isn't a God who is".

Sound like a play on words for deliberate confusion?

I don't blame ya... when I say it like that, it does. But here's the trouble... it isn't. I truly believe in this method. It transcends the limitations of language in some way perhaps that only the thinker will discern. And that personal meaning I cannot share with you of course... and yet I must (another contradiction).

The universe is a Gordian knot tied using threads of opposites. If everything is chaotic, there is no fathomable reason why things should have ended up only the way they are... things could've been different... but they aren't.

Perhaps things are the way they are because this is the only way they can be based on their initial conditions/ event history... but they are also the way they are because chaos drove them to be that way. (For those keen to datamine a bit - we are bordering on "anthropic principle" territory here - look up the strong and weak anthropic principles on Google).

You see, my method these days involves looking at both glaring opposites at once. Accepting both as non contradictory. By contemplating both at the same time, you discern the subtle truth that lies somewhere in between...

(to be continued)