Implications of an iterative function universe

“God does not play dice with the universe”

Albert Einstein

There’s something intuitive about fractals and the iterative function systems that produce them. When you hear profound utterings, the kind that cut through swathes of chatter and feel like distilled truth, aspects of iterative function systems appear to provide great analogies.

To explore this further we need to get a feel for how the iterative function systems work. So let’s take Barnsley’s Fern as the primary example.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnsley_fern

The link on Wikipedia provides perfect background for this. What we see is a matrices based function iterated using parameters that vary based on the value generated by a random number generator.

So we have random input, a rule set, application of a function based on the rules and repetition.

Let’s address the first aspect, random input. It was Einstein who said he believed that God does not play dice in reference to natural laws. This was attached to his feeling that there was something perhaps unnatural in the way quantum mechanics is expressed in terms of probability. The scientist, particularly the theorist begins to lose a grip in some sense on a predictable and finitely testable universe with the very proposition. Two alternative viewpoints on reality with no apparent bridge.

Often categorised on the basis of scale, I would here propose that we should instead categorise these theories based on their effectiveness in delivering an effective reality in differing environments of the completeness of informational descriptions of systems.

The emergent properties of the fractal as formed through iterative function systems provides the bridge we need to understand the interaction between the quantum and relativity based descriptions of the world we experience. I believe it can be shown that the relativity we experience is a function of rules that have emerged as well described ferns or fronds and the quantum mechanical mechanism describes the processes by which these fronds/ferns transition from a few dots to a bigger new world of sorts in the recognisable image.

In many ways, particularly from an efficiency perspective, the energy expended in describing a universe at every scale is optimised by such a methodology.

There are interesting connotations for this reality. Nothing is ever entirely complete and in some sense nothing was ever completely nothing.

We can also go completely anti-Einstein and look at financial markets. Do equations describe every last aspect of these dynamic systems? Well ask Guy R. Fleury and he posits:

“When you use equations to describe what you see, it becomes very restrictive. Not because you cannot put equations on the table, but because you use an equal sign which makes it quite a categorical and unequivocal statement.”

Guy R. Fleury

A succinct and interesting take on an emergent phenomena. I would concur with the proposition that equations may tend to approximate rather than outrightly define relationships at any level. Yet the simplicity with which they do can be overwhelmingly beautiful and convince the user of an explicitness that can be elusive under the finest of scrutiny.

In many ways the fractal produced by iterative function runs in the other direction. A level of fuzziness is built into the system that is never 100% balanced and changes perennially. But with time the fuzziness is reduced the form comes into focus and an illusion of constancy pervades. And so a level of fuzziness or variability in processes is almost a proof of its existence and persistence. Indeed numeracy is just a human based code developed to assist in understanding the world around us.

There were numbers but no fractals in mathematics when Wallace D. Wattles proffered that:

“There is a thinking stuff from which all things are made, and which, in its original state, permeates, penetrates, and fills the interspaces of the universe.”

“All is right with the world. It is perfect and advancing to completion”

Wallace D. Wattles

If he tread the world in this age I imagine Wattles would have some time for a theory of the fractal emergent universe. Give it some rules and room to grow and away it goes.

This takes us to the next aspect, the rules. Here lies the great question. Were there an initial set of rules set upon the universe as per the Barnsley Fern or were they too emergent. My contention is that as gravity is an emergent function in the universe so too are the rules of quantum mechanics and so too are the rules of numeracy that help us express them.

We arrive back at the consideration of sameness and difference and the contention that the fractal is the only format that delivers these two critical components of a reality on all scales. The functions of similarity difference and an ongoing process to deliver an ever more complete picture of the universe are described effectively in an iterative function based fractal universe.

I imagine that models can be defined that play out the emergence principles to this end. The trouble is that they can be expected to take the properties of this emergent universe because they will play out in it. And so we come to a road block of sorts. We can’t get out to observe. But then in “real” terms would that be of any valuable benefit.

So we find ourselves in a universe where conditions take fractal form and have emerged through the assessment and cross reference of other fractal forms and are in constant dynamism in search for a more perfect description of the universe.

Lots of information is generated and stored in this process. In some manner this would explain the expansion of the universe. Information takes up lots of space. From an energetic perspective and from a computing perspective it makes sense to keep associated data close by. You see this with your pc. Keeping data on the same drive allows for faster more efficient processing. I would argue that this may be the basis for what we know and see as gravity. An efficiency driver for information processing for the most interactive elements (fractal forms, e.g. bodies) as they derive emergent fractal forms (motion) in any particular format. Consider the large scale structure and movement of superclusters. Very fractal like.

http://www.cpt.univ-mrs.fr/~cosmo/CosFlo16/index.php?page=scope

We see it on the large scale and we see it on the small scale. But what about that mid level where you and I go about our daily chores. Where is the impact there. Follow @frondity for more on this and much else.