New Page 1

<body id="MyBody" onload="MyBegin()"> <SCRIPT LANGUAGE="VBScript"> </SCRIPT> <script language="VBScript" src="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Scripts/mysounds.js">  </script> <script language="VBScript" src="http://www.lewismicropublishing.com/Scripts/mycolors.js">  </script> <font SIZE="6"> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Metasystems</p> </font><font SIZE="5"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">A Primer in Natural Systems Theory & Method</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> </font><font SIZE="4"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Hugh M. Lewis</p> </font> <p ALIGN="CENTER">November, 2001</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <b><font SIZE="5"> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Preface</p> </font></b> <p> </p> <p>I undertake this work as a result of a year of synthesis since completion last year of the previous book <u>Natural Systems</u> (2000). This work is a direct successor to the <u>Natural Systems</u> work, and seeks to extend the basic models in each of the main areas and to elaborate a wider basis for these models in terms of metasystems theory than covered previously. During this past year, these models have been extended in a number of directions. Because of the inherent complexity of comprehensive studies, there is always some danger of the work schisming off in any number of possible spin-offs or tangential subjects. Subsequent works developed immediately after the <u>Natural Systems</u> book demonstrated this tendency clearly to me, though the various excursions down different avenues of thought were in hindsight extremely productive. It is now necessary to tie these diverse tendrils back to the coherent and comprehensive unity that was originally intended for this kind of work in <u>Natural Systems</u>.</p> <p>This manuscript has been undertaken under trying conditions that debilitate against establishing a concentrative focus for the book. An arbitrary deadline was imposed for its rough draft which has meant that it will undergo sucessive editions before it achieves a level of maturity that the subject demands. The original draft of this work is intended to be as succinct as possible in a skeletal form, outlining the essential concepts and ideas involved in Metasystems science and natural systems theory at each of the main levels.</p> <p>I have chosen to adopt as much as possible a textbook style and point of view in the presentation of the subject matter of this text, hence the subtitle, <u>Primer in Natural Systems</u>. A textbook manner seemed appropriate to the nature of the subjects involved and in their mutual and common frame of organization. On the other hand, the work achieves a degree of comprehensivity, thematic unity and breadth of focus that I believe does justice to the broad and deep terrain it seeks to explore. It is not just a mile wide and an inch deep--it comprehends an entire ocean of unknown dimensions.</p> <p>The book was undertaken during a period of substantive and existential resonance between basic-level coursework that somewhat serendipidously represented the three basic levels of division that exist within natural systems theory. This has been helpful if somewhat frustrating, for learning the basic language styles, exemplars and, need I say, the scientific cultures and cognitive styles that prevail within each level. I have therefore deliberately sought to seize the advantage of the moment in order, making lemonade from lemons, to push this work through its birth throes.</p> <p>The outline consists of an elaboration of basic natural systems theory on the three primary levels on which such knowledge and patterning is stratified (ie. the physical, the biological and the anthropological) in three chapters covering each area respectively. In these chapters I aim at the construction of truly comprehensive theoretical viewpoints at each of the levels of the basic stratification of natural phenomena. The objective of comprehensivity has taken precedence clearly over the elucidation of detail or specializations of knowledge on specific topic areas.</p> <p>These central chapters are complemented by three other chapters--an introduction dealing with Metasystems science operationally and philosophically (metaphysical, ontological and metaphysical) and the two next to the last chapters that deal with the general question of alternative metasystems as these have been emergent in the world, and with the possibility of applied metasystems as these may be emergent in the future. The book concludes with some basic philosophical (epistemological and ethical) issues that the elaboration of metasystems and natural systems theory stirs up.</p> <p>This first edition of the book is intended to be as brief and succinct as possible in an outline form. The emphasis is upon concise explanation of the train of main points covered in each theory and system elaborated. The work is intended as a skeletal outline to be expanded and elaborated with greater detail in subsequent editions. At the same time, it was intended as an initial reconnaissance into as yet unknown scientific terrain.</p> <p>Like the previous book, this work is only the result of the last year of diverse efforts and thinking on a variety of interrelated topics. It could not have been written but on the back of the previous book, and the previous posturing in anthropology that I have undergone over the last two decades. Maturity in the perspective of the anthropology of knowledge allows us to take a step further away from the train of anthropological relativity that we are riding in. If we want to develop a genuine anthropology of science, and by extension, an authentic reflexive anthropology of anthropology, then such an approach as this is a necessary prerequisite. Only by such means can we step away from the paradigmatic boundaries and ideological conundrums that serve to define and in many ways frustrate the diverse fields of science that are defined more by their specializations and applied successes than by grand unifying theories and their comprehensivity of theoretical view.</p> <p>Once this sense of relative objectivity about our knowledge, all of our knowledge, is achieved, then it becomes possible, indeed necessary, that we adopt a wider point of view such as is encompassed by natural systems theory. Such theory forms a basis for the unification of all the sciences, and for a unified understanding of science in general--its functions, its purposes, and its patterns in the real world. It comes perhaps as a grand paradox that this objectivity only arrived by means of embracing in a basic sense the ultimate anthropological subjectiveness and relativity of our human understandings, even in our sciences, from which we can never hope to escape unless we eventually encounter some form of alien intelligence who can then inform us of our own anthropocentrisms of perspective. In a sense, science does this for us already, but it speaks to us only indirectly through the data and the patterned relationships that we do see in research.</p> <p>The purpose and value of this work is mainly heuristic--it is to offer a set of alternative points of view on basic issues in the main scientific areas. In this regard, no received theory in any field is so sacro-sanct that it cannot be questioned or alternatives not critically evaluated, and even accepted if they seem to fulfill the general requirements set down by the sciences. This work is a far cry from the paradigmatic jargon that fits into peer-review journals. For most it is "fringe" and will be treated initially as any marginal perspective would be. Science serves as an impartial witness in these proceedings--it will in time render its own judgments separately from the opinions and prejudices of those who control its praxis and its purse strings at any one time in our shared social history.</p> <p>A point is reached eventually in one's own intellectual development that somewhat arbitrary and conventionally defined boundaries between knowledge domains appear to dissolve in consideration of larger issues, especially complex real world problem sets that demand knowledge and expertise from a across a plethora of academic perspectives. At the same time such boundaries eventually also come to be frustrating and downright stultifying for the questioning imagination and the open exploratory mind if they are kept too strictly or followed too narrowly. Many a bright and brilliant light bulb peters out at the edge of its domain.</p> <p>I take this work to be a personal and professional testament to the power of independent thinking in the world, to see past illusion and delusion to the realities that lie beyond, whatever our material condition or our relative social status. It was accomplished in a context that basically discourages independent thought and that is designed to interfere with the cultivation of independent thinking at all but the most superficial levels. I have suffered and survived such authoritarian systems before, and the actors caught up in the articulation of its power are, on average, oblivious to its full moral implications. It is clearly the case that the basis for a free and open world rests in a free and independent mind, and the capacity to communicate clearly and in an unconstrained way one's ideas. It is daily demonstrated to me that all the money in the world cannot buy one's sense of freedom and independence in the world in a genuine way. Money is at best a poor substitute for independence. Of course, this lesson will be lost upon most people of the world today if they have any significant investment in the maintenance of a status quo that is heading the human race the way of the Dinosaur.</p> <p>The original and primary intention of this work is to awaken the reader and the reader's world to the possibilities of alternative realities. Without an awareness of such alternatives, we are limited in our choices and in the long run in our shared destiny upon earth. It is increasingly clear in so many ways, ways now no longer disputed by scientists, that we must seek out such alternatives or, failing, risk the end of the world as we know it. Beyond discovery of the wonder of the supremely sublime beauty of scientific understanding and pattern in nature, beyond the value of science to provide us with a sane and coherent view of reality, we must see increasingly that science shares a growing obligation to use its knowledge for the improvement of the world and for its, or our, perpetuation in the world. Our hard-won lessons of the 20<sup>th</sup> Century were that indeed knowledge creates responsibility, whether we wish it historically or not upon ourselves, and that once created, as with the atomic bomb, it cannot be simply recalled.</p> <font SIZE="5"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Foreword</p> </font> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>This work is about science, and is done in a scientific manner. Metasystems is about scientific worldview, and about the articulation of science in the world. It is about scientific knowledge and its organization, and about the natural systems that such knowledge represents and seeks to comprehend. It is also about the kinds of human engineered systems that are the result of scientific understanding and application to real problems.</p> <p>Science is about shared knowledge and collective understanding that holds us to a coherent, honest vision of reality as the ultimate touchstone for truth, independent of our own judgements and values. Thus, our measures and our conclusions are derived as independently as possible from the information we can distill from the patterning found in nature itself.</p> <p>Science is ultimately about asking questions of the unknown. Religious ideology does not question the unknown. It only tries to fill in the unknown with answers derived from the great depths of the human unconscious. Science begins with a question about something unknown, and though it may have no immediate answers, it seeks solutions to the problem posed by the unknown until it derives some kind of answer that makes sense. The problem is that science remains essentially a question asking endeavor, and not an answer giving activity. Hence, whatever answers are yielded from this exploration are at best partial and incomplete, bound to be requestioned once again.</p> <p>Questions without final answers are often difficult to ask and accept. Confrontation with the unknown involves a degree of inherent uncertainty that can translate into a tremendous amount of existential insecurity. It is especially problematic when science must proceed with the recognition that there are some kinds of questions that are ultimately unanswerable, hence unknowable in some absolute sense. Not every person is cut out to be a scientist, and science cannot provide all the answers that human beings need to make sense and cope with their world.</p> <p>But it is increasingly the case that the world cannot now proceed without the help of science. We owe to science an increasing debt of gratitude, whatever our religious or ideological points of view. We can choose to believe in creationism, but we must acknowledge the role that the theory of evolution plays in our everyday life in the production of new medical therapies for our diseases and illness.</p> <p>Science has marked its pathway of progress not with the prospects of what it might achieve, but with a clearer sense of where it has come from. Along the way has been an increasing number of little successes, such that no one now can honestly deny the value and important role that science has come to play in our world, whatever our worldview.</p> <p>Metasystems science proceeds paradoxically from the standpoint that scientific theory depends upon worldview in critical ways. There is a metalogical perspective that suggests that the answers we get depend critically on the kinds of questions we pose, and that there may be a method and a way of asking questions that helps to prestructure the kinds of answers we get, even in seemingly objective experiments in which results are yielded relatively independently of our observations or constructions. This is perhaps easier to understand if we realize that our questions are invariably prestructured by our own points of view, by our own knowledge systems and worldview. They thus have unconscious motivations, a sense of history, a foundation, whether we realize it or not. The problem and the challenge, anthropologically and scientifically, is that most of the time these foundations for our questions are invisible and transparent to us. They derive from the cultural depths of knowledge and values that we share in from birth to death, and cannot escape from even in madness or the oblivion of drugs.</p> <p>The point of departure for metasystems science therefore is to seek to make explicit what largely remains implicit in the background of our scientific question asking and answering. Success in such an endeavor leads to a greater degree of understanding and hence control over a set of variables in our scientific theory construction and testing processes that largely remain otherwise left to chance and blind serendipity. This has several outcomes in terms of comprehensivity, operational systematicity, and applied strategies and designs in the articulation of science to our world and worldview in a coordinated manner.</p> <p>This work proceeds from the perspective that scientific reality is objective and is a priori to our conception of it, and that this reality is innately unified as a single comprehensive system. On the other hand, we cannot directly know this reality except via our knowledge systems that are not a priori except in a strictly abstract sense. We are thus left on the horns of a fundamental existential and epistemological conundrum that it is the challenge of science to resolve.</p> <p>There are many implications and presumptions that arise from this initial leap of faith that are explored in the introduction. Reality at every level at which it is examined in the sciences is super complex and only partially understood. For all the progress that science has made in the last century, and in the last decades especially, there are as many more basic questions yet to be sufficiently addressed. This work here purports a kind of unity and comprehensive understanding of the sciences that should be accepted only with a strong cautionary proviso that the full story has not yet been rendered.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p>This brief work has been undertaken within an accelerated and abbreviated time frame. Its intention, as a first rough draft, is to highlight the main points of metasystems science and natural systems theory as these have developed so far. Most topics touched upon in this work remain relatively incomplete and underdeveloped. Though the text has been framed in the form of general statements, this has been done so as a matter of coherence, and not as a final indictment on the nature and structure of reality at any level. They are designed to ask questions by the presentation of alternative explanations. They are not about final statements and finished theories of science. They serve as points of departure for further exploration of a newly emerging frame of reference for understanding science and its role in the contemporary world, and for projecting its purpose in the future. This fulfills the second purpose of metasystems science and natural systems theory, that it is an exploration and a reconnaissance of unexplored and unknown domains of possible knowledge, rather than just another textbook rehash of conventional and conventionalized knowledge.</p> <p>It is clear that whatever the contradictions inherent to the conceptualization of scientific knowledge and to its everyday articulation in a wide variety of social and technological contexts, science remains foremost a shared field of activity. This aspect of sharing is important for understanding the culture of science, and its possible basis as a metaculture of shared belief and behavior that is good for all humankind. As a cultural reality, it has been a relatively recent phenomena in the history and archaeology of humankind--it has emerged more by default than by deliberate social planning. It frequently came about in spite of a great deal of social resistance and repressive influence. It emerged as a common reference point and alternative worldview, primarily because it works when it is true and realistic, and eventually disposes of itself ideologically when it proves incorrect and false.</p> <p>It has only been in the last century, and in the last few decades especially, that the role of science and its place in our lives have risen to a level of preeminent importance. It has done so by its steady history of achievement by which we define standards of progress.</p> <p>Social and ideological resistance remains in many quarters, and resurges frequently disguised in various forms of religious ideology or other structural-symbolic activity. It is perhaps a natural and expected response to change that happens so rapidly in the world that social and symbolic systems, normally conservative and tradition bound, cannot keep up or maintain a sense of comprehensive symbolic equilibrium so necessary to our normal reality testing of experience and sense of coherence in our everyday lives and our shared world.</p> <p>To adopt a fully scientific point of view often requires that we at least implicitly abandon, call into critical question, or give up contradictory symbolic ideas about how reality functions. For this reason alone, biology remains taught in many nations of the world without the benefit of its central articulating theory of evolution, because evolutionary theory conflicts with fundamental religious doctrine and mythologies about creation and the place of a deity in the grand scheme of things.</p> <p>It is also increasingly the case that science as a diverse organic community of scholars has developed a great deal of its own internal inertia and friction in its articulation. Lost is the vision of the inventor from a white rural background with the 3<sup>rd</sup> grade education: gained is a stereotype of a "polyethnic" scientist in a monkey suite in an unpublicized international board meeting in a plush room in a plusher building, deciding where to invest the next billion dollars of research money. Whether it is the commandering and corruption associated with grant funding and the monopolization of always scarce research resources, or whether it is the competitive exclusion of new ideas and innovative thinkers from the ranks of the tried and true academic alpha-authorities, the social articulation and praxis of science is fraught with its own sense of contradiction and ideological obfuscation that serves to blind it to its own cultural realities and cripple it in its purpose of achieving greater progress. There can even be made a clear case for the surreptitious importation or symbolic "smuggling" of religious ideologies and mythologies back into the worldview of science, particular at its furthest edges of observation and its boundaries of knowledge where only uncertainty and unknown prevails and few facts can be found. The desire to find ultimate beginnings and fundamental unities in our reality often prompts us to impose, even unconsciously, a religious symbology coaxed in scientific terms.</p> <p>Not to be accused of attempting to impose an irreligious scientific worldview, it is quite the opposite case. Science, whatever the area of specialization, cannot forever rest upon its laurels as disinterested inquiry in service of whatever agency has the means to employ a scientific technocracy. Scientific ethics not only transcends ideological realities, but can define for itself a workable normative and metaethical framework, including a deepseated respect for the eternal verities of the universe. The philosophical Einstein sought his whole lifetime for a deeper connection between science and religion, and refused to accept the notion that "God played dice with the Universe." Even though I accept the postulate that the Universe was probably, ultimately a relativistic dice game, this makes our appreciation and symbolic sense of unity and integration of reality no less religiously profound, existentially faithful or aesthetically sublime than if we believed in either a pantheon of animistic spirits or in a single omnipotent and omniscient creator.</p> <p>A key insight emerging from this work is that there is indeed a critical perspective and future role for science, not just in research and technological development, but in social planning and in defining key ethical, normative and moral issues relevant in an ultimate way to humankind's role and functioning on earth. It does not compromise sound scientific method to frame its objective procedures within a larger symbolic universe of purposive and symbolically unified knowledge. Scientific praxis and culture becomes so framed regardless of whether or not scientists themselves, as young bright eyed, idealistic college students, are taught to systemtically and surreptitiosly abnegate their own sense of responsibility to the ideological purposes to which science can be normally put.</p> <p>A basic issue in this regard is a critical epistemological stance that science is involved with objective description only, and cannot make untestable or unfalsifiable statements that are prescriptive or morally didactic about the world. Such a dichotomization of how scientific activity should be framed and learning proceed to application is I believe a naïve and somewhat spurious analysis of the complex realities actually involved in scientific culture and its articulation in terms of possible technological application and development. There is a sense that science can make rational strategic and moral judgments about social and biological issues that affect the historical development of humankind in critical ways, and these kinds of judgments do not necessarily fall outside the purview of normal scientific practice.</p> <p>While such an issue is less obvious in a chemistry lab or a nuclear particle accelerator, it clearly comes to the foreground in the practice of medical sciences, that have as their principle goal the alleviation of human suffering and the curing of disease. These issues are particularly evident and therefore most controversial in relation to the human social and psychological sciences, where what point of view we adopt, however implicitly, can tremendously affect our adoption of methods and conclusions derived.</p> <p>In this we must recognize the interrelation of several facets of all human knowledge, whether this is construed as scientific, ideological, religious or in some other form. All knowledge is symbolic. All knowledge exists within a social framework of normal articulation, and defines some form of cultural pattern about its function and effects. All knowledge is historically contextualized and bound, and anthropologically articulated, no matter how abstract or artificial, concrete and natural. All knowledge is on some level or another interconnected, even if such interconnections remain implicit and unelaborated. All knowledge must be "textualized" in some form of storage mechanism and available for broad-based and vertical dissemination--it must be communicable or else it represents a form of idiosyncratic subjectiveness that is barren and confined the dream realm of imaginative fantasy. All knowledge is therefore also organized in some explicit/implicit manner upon a shared noetic landscape. These constraints upon all human knowledge, and hence upon all scientific knowledge as a subrealm, result in basic patterns and contradictions in the articulation and practice of knowledge in many ways and upon many levels. There is not one discipline or sub-discipline of scientific expertise where these same basic sets of constraints do not hold and critically influence the outcomes of our learning and knoweldge acquisition and organization activities.</p> <p>The dragon of anthropological relativity of knowledge rears its head once again. All knowledge is relative to the human knower and the thing being known. As human beings we cannot step outside the realm and influence of our own knowledge systems to claim completely and absolute objectivity. Relativity is an inherent aspect of all knowledge of all forms and kinds. Ultimately, all forms of relativity are classifiable under a general framework of anthropological relativity, from that of the physical relativity of electrons and subatomic particles, to the cultural relativities of human belief and behavior, to the ideological and paradigmatic relativities of alternative symbologies and even scientific theories themselves.</p> <p>Anthropological relativity is the basis for all parallax and uncertainty inherent to our knowledge and information systems, because this knowledge is intrinsic to a universe that is fundamentally entropic and subjectively solipsistic in certain inherently ambiguous ways. We are the knowers, the doers, the shapers, of all our sciences and all our other ways of knowing reality. Though we cannot escape the antinomalities of anthropological relativity, we can learn to control it and account for it in ways that are objectively acceptable to the standards of science. The resurrection of the dragon of relativity does not spell the death of God, it only entails a reenvisioning of the role of the divine in a more realistic view of the world. In this we can find the solace of hope, purpose, reason and divine inspiration, just as we can look to the natural order and patterning of reality to find a sense of beauty, sublime meaning and moral value.</p> <p>Whatever or however class issues of global capitalism may translate into the structuring of grant and research opportunities, in terms of status mongering, opportunities for publishing or even open discussion, o academic discrimination and paradigmatic closure, science as a theoretical construct remains a part of the public domain, open to everyman, woman and chid, available to all people equally at least in theory. I dedicate this work to my mom, my wife and my daughter, who have been the only people of my life of any lasting and permanent value.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <b><font SIZE="5"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">An Introduction to Metasystems</p> </font></b><font SIZE="4"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">The limits of Science and Metaphysical possibilities.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> </font><u> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Metascience</u> is the philosophy of science framed metalogically from a scientific point of view, in terms that can be said to be denotatively scientific. Science as a human knowledge system has its own history and sense of development. <u>Metasystems science</u> is a formal and systematic approach to scientific knowledge systems of various kinds, achieved through independent verification and logical non-contradiction. It can be said in general that any ideological system, to achieve symbolic unity and closure in reality, will encompass and embody certain kinds of logical contradictions that are the result of certain kinds of pragmatic fallacies in the application of scientific knowledge. For a science to claim the metaphysical status of being truly non-ideological, it must pass certain tests of empirical or observational realism, communicative efficacy and logical non-contradiction. This is most often easier said than done, because symbolic ideological implications enter into even the basic terms and terminologies that we use to define a scientific worldview, at any level. This forms the ultimate limit to science, the limitation of the anthropological relativity of our scientific knowledge. This limit underlies other kinds of critical limitations in science, for instance certain physical relativities in the observation limits of our knowledge. Though we may not be able to ultimately transcend these kinds of basic constraints in scientific knowledge, we can develop devices or means for achieving indirect observational and ideological parallax for the objectification of these limits as such, and for ascertaining in some probabilistic manner the possible realities beyond.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p> </p> <p>This work <u>Metasystems</u> deals with a level of reality that involves interconnections between knowledge domains on one hand, and real or hypothetical connections between real systems on the other hand. It is evident that real systems are interconnected almost upon every level of their articulation, and that we only need to scratch the surface of any one particular system to find nested each within another and so forth ad infinitum. As a result metasystems science is an attempt to deal in a coherent and systematic manner with the inherent complexities of both real systems in natural contexts, as well as with our knowledge and understanding of these systems, and also, as a result, the systems that are created as a result of our knowledge and interaction. The central thrust of this work is to seek a common ground and operational approach to the study of any and every possible system, in order to comprehend that system in its larger metasystemic context, in terms that do justice and faithfully represent the real complexities involved in its description and understanding. Metasystems approaches and possibly answers the problem of very large and very complex systems, or supersystems, but it does not claim to be complete or sufficient to the challenge of such representation.</p> <p>There is a critical sense in the consideration of metasystems from a scientific and hypothetical perspective that variables and values occur as statistical results that do not in fact exist in any real form. The classic example is the family with 2.5 children. There is in fact no "average" anything, much less a family with two and a half children, but as a composite value, statistically defined to represent large classes or numbers of entities, or sets, such composite statistics may in fact be more accurate and more real than the physical entities they purport to describe. We do not throw away reliable statistical measures because they do not directly describe anything in reality. We consider them to be valid in a directly non-empirical manner, though they were ultimately derived, at least in principle, from empirical measures or parameters. As such statistical measures are part of a pure, abstract conceptual realm that, in the form of Plato and Aristotle, are no less real than the objects to which they get attached.</p> <p>This issue is dealt with in the first part of the work, but it is important to emphasize the role and place of mathematical and conceptual abstraction in the heuristics of scientific operations and methods. Science only as empirical description is vacuous of meaning and cannot elicit the general rule patterning that governs natural behavior of systems. Just because the rules cannot be directly observed, except only their effects, does not mean that we throw the rules or the rule book away in favor of direct experience only. This is what distinguishes a "system" and by inference, a "metasystem" from the random patterning and otherwise chaotic ordering of natural phenomena that are merely observed but not undersood.</p> <p>It is the central effort of metasystems theory to raise this process of scientific abstraction and conceptualization to a new level or order of complexity and reliability, in order that we may treat systems that may in any direct form seem unrelated. Thus, the notion of causality becomes equally complex as well, as we go beyond the search for mechanical causes for ultimate or original reasons for the patterning of systems. Metasystems is more than about mere statics or mechanics. It is about dynamics and concerns therefore centrally the problem of change and the challenges of understanding change in a coherent manner. Many questions therefore involve those of ultimate cause and origins, and final ends and consequences.</p> <p>The point of departure for metasystems theory is the observation that all systems in the universe, however remote or distant from one another, are interconnected at multiple levels with every other system, however indirect. As a result, all systems are hypothetically interrelated on an abstract, theoretical or "metasystemic" level. At the same time, all systems appear to be unique, underdetermined, complex and chaotic in their systemic patterning and epiphenomenal order.</p> <p>We cannot conceive of any real system that is perfectly isolated from the universe--if we could we would have a kind of perpetual motion machine that fundamentally violated the basic laws of thermodynamics. It would violate these basic laws because in its perfect isolation such laws would not apply. It is interesting that in this regard the closest we might come to such a system is the observation of superconductance at or near the value of absolute zero. We may in fact define near perfect perpetual motion machines commonly in the universe. The point is that whatever system we adopt or consider, we must understand that this system will be critically linked, <u>at multiple levels</u>, to other systems, supersystems and subsystems, and that in the grandest sense, everything scientific is literally connected with everything else, but always in a directly underdetermined and partial way. It is this sense of being underdetermined that allows for the dynamics and systematics of change to occur at all.</p> <p>Metasystems therefore takes the challenge of studying systems both as unique instances of larger classes or samples or populations of similar or different kinds of systems, and at the same time of understanding the interconnections between any particular system and the larger metasystemic framework that serves to define and regulate that system. Metasystems science is therefore as much about delimiting and defining systemic context as backgrounds to systems, as it is about understanding the internal functional structures of such any such system in an ideal sense of being a mechanical isolate. It follows that different classes and kinds of systems and subsystems will interrelate to other similar or different systems in certain ways, and these forms of interrelationships between systems will serve to define and further characterize systems at all levels.</p> <p>Metasystems offers a new level of scientific comprehension and comprehensivity with the promise of at least partially stepping beyond the paradigmatic boundaries of disciplinary institutions and of the anthropological relativities of our own knowledge. As such it offers a worldview,or view of the world, that is essentially coherent and intelligible from a scientific standpoint. Such a worldview is essentially mechanistic and dynamic at the same time. It is systematic, holistic and analytic. It offers us for once the possibility of entertaining a view of the world that is undichotomized by methodological priorities or by partial philosophical points of view or hidden ideological commitments regarding what we know or how we know it.</p> <p>From the standpoint of metasystems, alternative theories are seen as competing possible paradigms, and are regarded heuristically in terms of their implications and productivity on a theoretical and operational level for the respective fields that they encompass. They are also considered secondarily from the standpoint of alternative fields of inquiry, for cross-over and feedback that leads to greater productivity. This interdisciplinary function of metasystems science reflects both the comprehensivity and integrity of natural systems that are upon some partial level connected to every other system.</p> <p>In this regard, no theory is to be preferred over any other, except perhaps on grounds of internal coherence, external non-contradiction, and plausibility of hypothetical inference structures such theories generate. Productivity is also an important measure of success, and productivity is defined as proof in the final pudding. Another way of seeing this is to realize that from a hermeneutic and critical standpoint, no cosmological theory, however well conventionally received, is to be regarded as privileged or so sacrosanct that it cannot be brought into question or that alternative competing models cannot be heuristically considered and proposed instead. This constitutes the basis for the interdisciplinary nature of natural systems theory--knowledge does not exist in privileged domains, so much as it exists upon an evolving noetic landscape of competing ideas and relations.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <font SIZE="4"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> </font> <p>Natural systems theory deals with the sciences of naturally occurring phenomena that are complexly interconnected. It broaches several levels of the natural stratification of physical phenomena in different sets and subsets. The differentiation of these sets and their subsets is largely based upon the application of different generalizable rules of relation and operation that determine the state-path trajectories and functioning of these systems at their respective levels. Underlying these tacit rule systems are even more intricate mechanical interconnections or devices that also stratify upon different levels of natural integration.</p> <p>Rules that occur in natural systems are implicit to the a priori patterning and expectability or predictability of the patterning of natural systems in terms of their behavior and design. Such tacit rules of function and operation can be said to be equivalent to the informational value of these systems as they occur and change naturally. We observe such systems, either in natural or experimental conditions, and from our observations we determine the rules that apply to the observed system. This constitutes the basis for all science, as well as for our realistic understanding of the world, both in an everyday sense and in a more general or collective way. The rules we state explicitly govern the statics, mechanics and dynamics of all naturally occurring systems that we have studied. We test the rules in our trials and applications, and we redefine our rules to fit the new information we have learned about such systems.</p> <p>The systemic relations occurring between parts of systems are often similar regardless of the level or kind of system we are referring to. Natural systems of all kinds and at all levels share certain affinities of relation and interaction with one another. Of course, it is difficult to compare human systems with the behavior of subatomic systems in any but the most superficial manner. We find the relationship between such systems in understanding that there is a natural order in the stratification of nature. We can say that all human systems, by definition, are composed of atomic systems, but not all atomic systems are necessarily composed into human systems. Human systems therefore represent a very small sub-class of a much larger field of atomic systems, albeit a very special set of subsystems with very special derivative properties. It is easier to find behavioral relationships between baboon troops and wolf-packs, for instance, than it is to find similar kinds of analogies between ant colonies and birch forests. We can say that in a vast matrix of naturally occurring systems, systems that are more closely related to another in both history and in shared afinities, will have more in common than those systems that are more distantly or indirectly related. While this may be too obvious to warrant further consideration, it is important not to overlook the implications for understanding the structure of this kind of matrix of relationships that affects the life-cycles and outcomes and indeed the matrix itself.</p> <p>First, it appears that natural systems, even at very fundamental levels, are emergent systems and possess an inherent characteristic of self-integration, regeneration and synthetic manifestation. If we seek fundamental answers about the origins of the universe for instance, we must conclude that either the universe originally derived from something out of nothing, a process which, given our conventional understanding, would appear to defy basic principles of thermodynamics, or else, it came out of something else. And if we conclude that the second alternative is more acceptable to science, then we still need to explain the origin of that something else from which our universe sprang.</p> <p>All systems are therefore stratified within a larger metasystemic matrix. It is true that in nature, more composite and complex systems are composed of more basic but often no less complex sub-systems. The entire universe can be said to constitute a vast super system possibly characterized by infinite complexity. It comprises all components and subsystems of all levels, and encompasses the totality of nature.</p> <p>A theory of the systemic universe is in essence a theory of metasystems, or, in other words, of the scientific metasystem that orders all naturally occurring relationships.</p> <p>Another characteristic, or set of characteristics shared by all naturally occurring systems, is that they all involve some form of energy exchange process, almost always including some measure of heat exchange. Thus all systems are both dynamic and mechanical in the classic sense of these terms. There is no system that is of interest to scientific inquiry that does not involve in some form or other the exchange or transfer of energy.</p> <p>While most naturally occurring systems are thermodynamic in their energy processes, it is also true that there are classes of natural systems that appear to follow as well relatively non-thermodynamic pathways of energy exchange.</p> <p>This leads to an understanding of a second important characteristic of all systems. It can be put this way--to the extent that the energy exchange processes of a system serve to delimit and describe a system in terms of its statics and dynamics, the system can be said to contain information that is intrinsic to its patterning of behavior and organization of its relations. All naturally occurring systems can be said to be both energetic and informational in terms of their organization and behavior.</p> <p>It is the relationship between information and energy transfer in naturally occurring systems that is of greatest interest. A non-systems can be said to be totally chaotic and disorganized--it contains no meaningful order or pattern, hence no information, and its energy relations can be characterized as completely entropic. When a system decays or breaksdown at the end of its life cycle, it can be said to enter into such a relative state at which point it is no longer recognizable as an organized system.</p> <p>The relationship between energy exchange and information is so close that terms used to describe one kind of process are often used to describe the other process as well.</p> <p>All systems therefore exist in a background context that is definable by means of a relatively random and disorganized pattern, which can be referred to as chaos. This sense of background chaos can be said to comprise a universal energy sink or informational reservoir by contrast and relation to which we come to understand systems. We cannot fully think about systems in natural contexts, in terms of their life-cycles and their operational environment, without reference to this notion of background entropy. Background entropy at least indirectly relates all systems to one another, by means of providing a common ground or reference.</p> <p>Universal entropy or chaos is defined itself by one characteristic, and that is its state of non-isotropic zero-equilibrium. This equilibrium balances and defines the limits of all naturally occurring systems, and determines that all such systems must return eventually to a state of total chaos.</p> <p>Total chaos is related to a condition of a complete lack of information, or rather of absolute or essential meaninglessness. Another way of saying this is that stable and self-maintaining energy systems are informational because they are anti-entropic systems. They resist in some way the natural tendency towards dissolution to complete chaos of relation and entropic transfer of energy. To the extent that such systems are informational, they are meaningful and amenable to scientific inquiry.</p> <p>This universal chaos determines another important property of all naturally occurring systems that is related to the fact of their life-cycles. All natural systems are bound by parametric constraints ultimately determined by this background relationship--these constraints ultimately determine the state-path trajectory taken by any and every system.</p> <p>1. There can be no non-natural systems that are not constrained in some basic manner by the fundamental rules of universal entropy.</p> <p>2. Artificial systems are a derivative sub-class of natural systems, hence remain subject to the same basic rules of universal entropy.</p> <p>At the same time, all systems exist in some form of metarelation with other systems at multiple levels. These metarelations may be more or less organized into metasystemic patterns themselves, or they may resemble relatively chaotic or nonisotrophic patterns of occurrence.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>Nature is the primary object of concern for science, and scientific activity has its starting point and final objective in the excoriation and formal explanation of the natural laws underlying all naturally occurring phenomena at any level that may be discernable or at least inferrable. Thus the close and careful observation of physical phenomena at one level of integration of nature may lead to an intimate and profound understanding of similar or related kinds of phenomena at other levels.</p> <p>1. All natural systems have an inherent life-cycle and state-path trajectory-- particular systems rise and fall with the changing tides of time, and no system remains permenant for all time.</p> <p>2. All natural systems maintain a boundary relation between internalized states and the external environment.</p> <p>3. All natural systems are composed of subsystems, and are part of larger supersystems.</p> <p>4. Most natural systems exist in a paradigm of possible alternative systems or of alternative possible states.</p> <p>a. Usually, there is more than one set of cooccurring systems of the same kind or population. Systems are usually not unique except in their discrete and composite physical characteristics.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>The point of departure for natural systems theory and metasystems science is the observation, first made by Heraclitus, that all naturally occurring systems must change, and change is a continuous and intrinsic aspect of all such systems. The problem of change creates a dilemma in terms of theoretical description, and especially in terms of systems science, as in a conventional way systems are seen as being synchronous and structurally unchanging. Most of our terminology and vocabulary to describe systems carries with it the connotation of static and unchanging realities. When we seek the scientific essence of most systems, the immutable laws governing systems, we seek the eternal verities, the absolute noumenal truths that are held to be perfect and unchangeable. As far as we now, most, if not all naturally occurring systems that we deal with obey the basic laws of thermodynamics, and remain relatively imperfect processes that are forever modulating in some chaotic manner. We run into an even greater sense of dilemma when we come to the realization, for instance, that even our basic laws of science may be somehow changing in ways we scarcely understand.</p> <p>It seems a basic presupposition, that gains some support in physical systems theory, that all naturally occurring systems, upon all levels, are subject to continuous change at some rate. This casts a relativistic shadow of ultimate uncertainty over all our knowledge and science, but the classical quest for classical and immutable laws governing the order of natural relations does not seem to hold forever and for all things that science must consider. We end up instead of grand and comprehensive theories, with partial "covering law" models that hold exceptionlessly for a certain range or level of phenomena, but which must be replace on other levels by other theories or models.</p> <p>We are led in such a manner to ask some ultimate kinds of questions about physical reality--such as whether the universe is infinite or not, and whether there is some ultimate beginning or end to this reality, and how did it all come into being anyway. And we are faced only with the understanding that we will not be able to ultimately answer these kinds of questions, but also with the imperative that we must answer them to try to make sense of our world. And it follows therefore that the kinds of answers we provide to such fundamental questions, end up having tremendous implications in terms of our scientific worldview and our operational approaches in science, upon very basic levels.</p> <p>Metasystems science does not throw up its hands to concede that it cannot be bothered by such questions, as their answers creep into our formulations and view of the world however implicitly, however indirectly. We invariably end up trying to answer these kinds of questions in terms of our theoretical constructions whether we intend to or not. The point of departure for metasystems science is to make explicit what otherwise would remain implicit and surrepetitious in this regard--by explicitly evoking the terms of the basic arguments and dialectics, we gain control over the theory construction processes that we otherwise relinquish in the name of disinterested inquiry and neutral scientific method.</p> <p>Metasystems science proceeds from several interrelated presuppositions regarding the natural ontological status of knowledge in reality. In general, it can be said that the structure and pattern of our formal and functional scientific knowledge comes to reflect the patterning of the empirical phenomena it represents in certain critical ways. This is a first metalogical precept of metasystems theory.</p> <p>1. All natural systems are a priori to our understanding or knowledge of them, but such systems are only made known through our knowledge. Without our ability to observe and record and remember such event patterning in nature, we would have no coherent knowledge of them, and they would therefore exist in reality as implicit only to the phenomenal structures that underlie such understanding.</p> <p>2. Natural systems are in essence possible abstract and general structures that remain implicit to the informational patterning of natural phenomena at all levels--the role and goal of scientific theoretization is the excoriation and empirical substantiation of these underlying patterns of order in nature, at whatever level they are found to occur. Such systems are in essence knowledge structures that are a product of our own reasoning, experience and imagination--they are not the actual patterning in and of itself, though the illusion of symbolic reification may make them substitutable for such patterning. In general, such patterns are demonstrated through relational similarities and event anomalies that can be defined in terms of formal or heuristic rules and their exceptions.</p> <p>3. All natural systems are:</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p>interconnected upon multiple levels,</p> <p>complexly underdetermined</p> <p>non-isolatable</p> </blockquote> </blockquote> <p>Therefore, all naturally based knowledge systems are also:</p> <p>Interconnected upon multiple levels,</p> <p>Complexly underdetermined</p> <p>And non-isolatable.</p> <p>There is no empirical pattern in the universe that is completely isolatable from the natural context of its occurrence. Similarly, there is no possible theory about any such pattern that is also completely independent or isolatable from its primary source of reference, or from other forms of knowledge about other patterns that are interconnected.</p> <p>There occurs a single set of exceptions to the above stated generalization, and this reflects the status of a certain class of abstract knowledge that is logically coherent and which has no primary reference to naturally occurring systems. This class of knowledge primarily constitutes the language of science, mathematics, in its various forms. It is because mathematical knowledge in its logical coherence and abstraction stands completely apart from the things it is used to represent, that it can function effectively as an objective basis for the communication and articulation of scientific knowledge. Related to this kind of knowledge are forms of possible knowledge that relates to questions of the ultimate and the ideal. Because some kinds of logical relations are abstractly necessary and unavoidable, this same system sets up the paradox of being able to imagine other kinds of logically correct and ideal systems that are in a strict sense non-mathematical in form.This provides the motivational basis and inquisitive force to scientific research--because we can imagine ideal systems.</p> <p>Metasystems science allows us to step objectively outside of the normal dialectics of science, between holism and analytical reductionism, and to see in a metalogical way a system that is both superorganic and synergistic and also individualized, particularistic and unique in its instantaneous event structures. There is no sense of giving preference to one way of looking at a problem over the other, opposed viewpoint. Instead, it seeks a comprehension that allows such contraposed points of view to be reconciled and put together as facets of the same system. The possibility of metasystems is realized when we come to understand that such dichotomies reflect the limitations of our knowledge and not of the systems we seek to understand in nature--in other words there is no necessary basis for a false dialectic between contrapuntal perspectives if both perspectives are simultaneously true at the same time. Then it becomes important to reconcile these perspectives and to try to understand the system for what it is, beyond the limits of our knowledge.</p> <p>The point of departure for metasystems science is in the objectification of Goedel's Theorem, which states ultimately that there is no escape from the kind of paradox represented by such a statement "This is false." This kind of statement introduces us to the liar's dilemma, that the man from Crete said all Cretans are liars, and it points up a very basic and specific design feature inherent to human communication and language--that is the duality of patterning that results in the possibility for prevarication. When we consider that a conventional, or standard, Popperian view of science rests upon presuppositions of falsifiablity and falsification, we recognize the critical importance of Goedel's Theorem. We may never be able to absolutely prove the truth of any relation drawn empirically from observation, though any such statement can be easily disproven by the demonstration of exceptions. A science to be empirically based must be fundamentally inductive in the derivation of such generalizations as "All swans are white." The basis for all relativity, scientific and anthropological, is in the introduction of the exception and exceptability for any rule that we may formulate derived ultimately from external reference points in reality. Again, the only form of knowledge not subject to such prevarication is abstract logical knowledge that is internally referential--but that is the ultimate difference between artifical intelligence and natural intelligence as we know it. The former can only refer back to itself in a closed system, while the latter must always refer beyond itself to the larger field of relations from which it is derived.</p> <p>In a sense, scientific theory and truth only emerges as rules are gradually developed to which no counter exceptions have arisen--so far few such theories have proven to be completely or totally unexceptionable. There is in this sense an operative heuristic principle that the larger the subset successfully subsumed by the theory or generalization, the more mileage it gets, the "truer" and more valid it is. We have really no choice but to proceed in such a manner.</p> <p>The only other way out of such a conundrum of our knowledge is to see that any referential system that has as its locus a range of phenomenal patterning beyond itself is ultimately a language system that has certain inherent limits and features of its own design that constrain it in certain ways. Scientific relativity becomes as much a linguistic and anthropological constraint of our knowledge systems, or rather in our ability to know in any objective sense, as it is intrinsic to the physical phenomena itself. Objectivity is in this sense ultimately a question of communicability of knowledge as it is a question of the realistic representation of external pattern or the truthful abstraction of any sense of underlying order.</p> <p>When we recognize that Goedel's theorem is ultimately a language problem upon which any external or natural logical system is based, then we can see that only by strict external reference of such a system can we determine its truth or sense of non-contradiction. "This" as a simple subject-noun is of an indeterminate reference, and can refer to more than one thing--if we specify in more certain terms exactly what "this" refers to, especially as something that is available to independent observation, then we are in a better position to assess and resolve its sense of paradox.</p> <p>It remains the case that if our knowledge is forever imperfect to the task of understanding the underlying sense of order to the patterning of natural phenomena, then it is even more true that our language employed for the representation of such knowledge is even less adequate. It does not serve our purposes to so restrict our terminological framework to precise denotative terms that we can describe nothing that is real or complex--the strength of human language is its inherent weakness, and this is a part of its paradoxical relativity as well. The symbolic power of language to describe, imagine and intuitively fill in the gaps of understanding is as much a fundamental instrumentality of science as it is of worldview. The critical linguistic difference between science and worldview is, I believe, that in science language should at least in theory always have some empirical point of departure and return--a common reference framework that is rooted in basic ways to phenomenal experience. Ideological language ultimately must point only inwardly to its own sense of truth, and to its own intralinguistic reference points. Any external reference to such a closed system is ultimately secondary and peripheral to its main sense of legitimization or validation.</p> <p>Another way of looking at the metascientific solution to the problem posed by Goedel's theorem, is to understand that the primary reference of any such statement is and must always be some form of empirically or observationally verifiable experience--preferably that can be verified through some non-arbitrary system of standard measurement and reference. The alternative solution can only be ideological and hence non-scientific because unfalsifiable. In this latter case, primary reference extends to the internal logic of a system of rationalization used to justify a determination of the statement in the first place.</p> <p>The point of departure for metasystems science can be seen therefore to extend from a certain kind of methodological solution to the class of dilemma inherent to the linguistic and symbolic structure of knowledge, as is represented by the paradoxicality or antinomiality of a statement that can be inherent contradictory--that can be either or both true and false simultaneously. It is to be found that only by the superimposition of some arbitrary but standard system of conventional measurement, can we hope to overcome such a dilemma in a manner that is sufficient for a scientific worldview. Measurement theory remains largely neglected and taken for granted--but its influence in the procedures of scientific verification are as important for the social and psychological sciences as they are for the biological and physical sciences. It is beyond the purview of this outline to elaborate more fully a metascientific theory of measurement, except to note its central relevance to the operational definition of metasystems science.</p> <p>Measurement involves the superimposition of some arbitrary standard of reference that has certain characteristics:</p> <p>A zero reference point</p> <p>A standard or set scale of incremental measure</p> <p>Scalability</p> <p>A substitutability of scales or standards by conversion.</p> <p>Associated dimensionless or dimensional properties that exist independently of the exact measure or value of the scale.</p> <p>Predefined units of analysis readily exist in the physical sciences but are not very obvious in the social sciences. Atoms have fairly discrete properties that make them predefinable as units of analysis, as do molecules, cells and organisms. The closest proximations to units of analysis in social sciences are individuals in a gross sense, within a populational dynamic framework. Beyond this, we can designate various forms of social units, or alternatively, "cultures" as discrete historical entities that have some kind of relative or areal boundary separating them from other groupings at various levels. But beyond a superficial definitional sense, the agreement usually ends. In spite of a century of cultural anthropology, there remains as yet no pat or standard definition of its principle object of inquiry, culture. Self is also something that can be defined in a multi-faceted manner and for which there remains little if any agreement.</p> <p>This kind of measurement refers mostly to a parametric standard, and does not necessarily include a non-parametric standard, though it is possible to extend measurement theory and practice to non-parametric systems if certain kinds of assumptions are made and certain limits acknowledged. Non-parametric values have no precise or equal scale to determine the value of the thing being measured, but it implies that all things so measured are of an equal or more or less equivalent value, even though such value is not determinable in any precise way. Equivalence of scale remains implicit only in non-parametic measures, and there is no necessary zero-reference point by which to arrange such values relative to one another.</p> <p>There is another related set of dimensions important to measurement theory, and this involves the question of the human dimension of measurement, and the possibility especially for error of measurement and for inexact estimation. Sources of possibile error in any measurement system are multiple and overlapping, and this invites the dilemma of Zeno's arrow to the problem of measuring static what is in fact dynamic, and measuring as finite and discrete what is ultimately, or on some other level, infinite and indiscrete. This does not even broach issues of error in recording or translating such measurement, or theoretical issues of its interpretation and framing in a larger system of reference and knowledge. An arbitrary system of measurement is just that--it is arbitrary to an agreed point reference point or shared point of departure. Such a system is a true system only in as much as they are derivatives of mathematical systems in an abstract sense, and are constructions of such systems in an applied sense. Nevertheless, the statement can be made that all such scales or measurements are ultimately relative to the person doing the measurement and to the implicit social contract of agreement that makes a metric system legitimate, for instance, over a pound system, etc.</p> <p>Sources of error in measurement systems are perhaps more obvious in human sciences or observational biological systems when there exist few if any non-arbitrary points of departure for such systems, nor any standard means for ascertaining discrete values in complex behavioral patterns, etc. In general, nonparametric measures are more applicable and useful in the human sciences than they are in the physical sciences, when even what is being observed may be so complex that it is subject to multiple interpretations without any standard frames of reference.</p> <p>Measurement theory brings us directly to the issues in metasystems science of the paradigmatic complexity of sciences as these articulate as informational patterns upon different scales and levels of analysis. Progress in scientific theory depends upon the ability to create a common ground of uncontestable agreement in our knowledge structures based upon objective measurement. Scientists far removed in time and place can return with the same instruments and derive the same accuracy and reliability of measurement of a discrete event structure as their predecessors. Paradigmatic agreement may be easier to achieve or at least more obvious in the physical sciences, where entire paradigmatic systems emerge with a great deal of predictive efficacy, than in the social sciences where there can be said to be very little paradigmatic agreement, even upon a definitional scale.</p> <p>Measurement theory brings us to the question of statistics, number and set theory and the use of these in the description of complex natural based systems. It goes almost without saying that there are different kinds of statistics--statistics are really nothing more than a systematic means of description of relational patterns of complex phenomena, and depend upon fundamental units of analysis and appropriate measures for these units. Descriptive statistics is readily elaborated to predictive statistics and to even a form of prescriptive statistics that rests upon game theory and probability theory. Statistics also implies a complementary system of knowledge, what can be referred to as "dynamics" and it is at least implicit that most statistical description has as its goal generalization of dynamic patterns underlying statistically defined relationships. Dynamics involves change in stable systems; statistics involves the description of such systems as stable structures. We may also speculate on the role of synergistics of systems, which incorporates both an understanding of the organiismic patterns of structure represented by systems, and by the emergent patterns and properties of such systems that are a function of their operation and that are approached holistically as if the systems were themselves somehow discrete entities. In general, I would claim that these relationships involve one form or other of operational and general systematics, and the patterns of relationship that are predictive and that can be said to be mechanical. Mechanical systems can be said to be systems that exist naturally or artificially (human made) in reality, and that exhibit certain types of intrinsic/extrinsic properties--primarily of energy exchange and informational capacity. No organized system of energy exchange is without informational capacity, and no informational system that has external reference can not be about some form of energy exchange. Such energy exchanges, upon one level or another, are always reduceable to scalable measures. It is the case that there are informational systems that have no direct representation in terms of energetics, unless we consider the bioenergetics of the functioning of the human brain that produces such systems in the first place.</p> <p>The operational basis of metasystems science rests upon the operational elaboration of advanced set theory, or what I refer to as the description of set theory, via means of the articulation of alternative possibilistic statistics. A metaset can be said to be a simple collection of complex entities.</p> <p>All sets are subsets of some larger hypothetical set, and all sets are composed of some collection of subsets. It appears that in reality, there is no end to the infinite regress of sets. In general, the level of set that we work upon depends upon the units of analysis and frames of reference we impose upon our data. We may look at the same set of events, say a couple kissing.-a phsysicst might see a collection and demonstration of subatomic forces, a chemist the articulation of a bunch of molecules, a biologist.</p> <p>All sets have a complex multi-level identity--they are or can be complex representations of simple things composing it. All sets are simultaneously subsets of some larger metaset, paragimatically alternative sets of some class simultaneous sets, and a metaset of some system of composite subsets.</p> <p>From an operational point of view we must adopt a more restrictive definition of sets in general. We can say that they are a collection of "things" that share some sense of affinity, or what is known as "cardinality" making those things common members of a shared set. Sets are composite entities. The type of set can be designated by the nature of the cardinality principle or relations governing the shared identity of its constituents. A set may be a 'grouping' that is intrinsically organized in a more or less complex manner, or that are relatively independent of one another except in some indirect way. All sets have a certain size in the sense that they are bounded entities.</p> <p>In general, the cardinality of a set is defined by the determinants that characterize the members of a set--in this sense any set is a collection or sample of related objects or points that may be said to be relatively determined or undetermined. Most sets in nature can be said to be partially determined, and the determinants that define the cardinality of the set can be said to consist of implicit rules of ordering defining the identity of the members and the possible relations occurring between members.</p> <p>A metaset can be said to be a superset of one or more sets, either defined through time or across space or both, in which the cardinality defining the membership and relational order of the parts of the set is either variable or alternate. A metaset is inherently dynamic, changing in its order and composition, and this sene of dynamic change in the constitution and behavior of a set can be topographically mapped in hypervolumetric or complex multidimensional space.</p> <p>Sets can be combined and related to one another, and set theory largely involves the possible logical relations between sets and leads into other forms of mathematical theory. In a sense, statistical samples and derivative datapoints represent virtual sets that can be superimposed upon different forms of data, rendering this data in terms of sample points manipulable to various statistical techniques of description and analysis.</p> <p>A matrix can be said to be a special kind of metaset that is defined in a reiterative or recursive manner, and that has a fixed set of constraints defining the breadth and size of the set, and also the nature of the relations between the members of the set. In general, a matrix can be said to be a fully determined set of a special type, and I believe matrices are actually rare in nature with a few noteworthy exceptions, and are demonstrated more through the reiterative or cyclical articulation of natural systems over time than by distribution of systems in space. An exception to this might be said to be the reiterative structure of DNA in genetic encoding. Crystallytic structures of atoms and molecules are said to have matrix type structures, but these matrices constitute gross geomatric descriptions of the distribution of molecules within a lattice framework, rather than a fully determined matrix that functions as a system.</p> <p>It is beyond the scope of this introduction to elaborate in more detail the mathematical aspects and permutations of set theory as this may apply to metasystems analysis. It is important to state though that statistical systems consitute the principle means of expression of metasystems analysis in terms of set theory, and the main aspect of general statistical description and analysis are in terms of what can be called "possibilistic statistics." All statistics constitute a form of heuristic representation, analysis and modeling that describe what can best be described as hypothetical metasets that are purported representative of natural systems and that exhibit patterns that are relatively non-random in distribution or reiteration. We do not need to invoke more exotic forms of statistics, as for instance Einstein-Bose Statistics, to explain the possibilistic aspects of statistical analysis and description of metasets.</p> <p>It is true that statistical measures can generate profiles and descriptive variables of metasets that only indirectly represent reality, or that do have any direct representation in reality. Such systems are nontheless considered to be relatively valid within a certain range of statistical probability, and to the extent that they can be said to be valid, they exist as a metasystem independent of the actual sample points from which they were derived.</p> <p>Set theory is important to metasystems in that it provides an operational and methodological handle to the description of complex systems, and it provides a means for framing and analyzing possible relationships occurring at different levels of complex system. In general, it comes as a paradox that as long as systems can be accurately and reliably represented, the larger and more complex the system, the better and more realistic the possible representation that may be forthcoming for it.</p> <p>Another point of departure in the elaboration of metasystems analysis is in the definition and conception of what I refer to as alternative number theory as complex variables. A particular data point is a set may represent a particular range of values, or, even a number of different ranges of alternative values. The identity of any particular number within such a system is therefore inherently multidimensional and complex. Furthermore, any point may be a variable that is defined by both dimensional and dimensionless parameters, and may in fact constitute a subset of possible points, each of which in turn is represented by another complex alternative variable. Each alternative variable can therefore be said to be completely relative to the variables that in turn define it within a relational complex. Discrete values may be associated with such variables at different points and times.</p> <p>In general, a metasystem can be said to be an integral of a metaset that is articulated within a larger superset framework or context, and which determine or govern the relations occuring in the state-path behavior of a metaset. A metasystem is primarily concerned with the problem of integration of sets or metasets over time and space, in a manner that there arises emergent or synergistic properties of the system as a whole that cannot necessarily be predicted by the analysis of its parts or constitutent subsets. A metasystem comes to have a particular dynamic state-path behavior that usually fluctuates over time. A metasystem can be thought of to be composed therefore of one or more metasets in interrelation that are changing through time or across space in significant ways.</p> <p>Consideration of metasystems analysis invariable brings up the issue of contextual analysis of the superset or the framework for the articulation of the metaset. The question of context is largely a question of identifying the significant figure ground relations that serve to define the identity of a metaset in contrast to and identity with a shared background of other relations. In general, the question of appropriateness or relevance of contextual information is important to an understanding of a metaset in its natural context. In a world in which everything is at least indirectly connected to everything else, it is easy to see how too much of everything else can serve as so much noise in the understanding of background relations affecting the dynamics and behavior of a metasystem.</p> <p>There is also a critical sense that inherently underdetermined metasystems can form a complex set of alternative pathways, or alternative event spaces, in the unfolding of their possible state path behavior--these alternative pathways are nowhere ever fully predictable, though we can expect certain probabilistic pathways forthcoming from them. Such systems in their unfolding are said to be chaotic.</p> <p>The relationship of matrix theory to set theory comes when we understand that much of this apparent chaos in complex systems can be organized within a framework of possibilistic event spaces that may be defined statistically as a discrimination table through which all possible pathways of a state-path trajectory of a system may be defined and identified.</p> <p>It is possible to construct such matrix discrimination structures by means of intercorrelational analysis of sample sets in which at least some indirect relation can be hypothesized, even if no direct causal relation can be demonstrated. Intercorrelational analysis provides a means for mapping complex sets in multidimensional space, in a manner that the relationships become sample points in a relational structure. The sense of the reality of the original data point is lost completely in such representation, and only relational structures are represented in hypervolumetric space. Such intercorrelational analysis is based upon a principle of cardinal numbers as alternative data points, derivative as partial determinants of complex systems. Such a method allows us a means of comparing complex relational systems in a shared or common metaspace.</p> <p>From discrimination tables and intercorrelational representations and matrices of partially determined alternative variables, it is possible to apply a set of arbitrary decision rules, or what are more formally defined as heuristics for the selection of alternative pathways and for the determination of relational rules that can be said to be implicit to and underlie the complex organization of a system.</p> <p>From this, rule-based systems may be devised that provide a more formal description of the complex state-path behavior of metasystems, and from these systems we may test for the accuracy of simulated models to our observational measures of real systems.</p> <p>Governing these kinds of systems can be said to be a form of hypothesis generalization that isolates key operational rules or relationships that govern the articulation of a system and that regulate and partially determine its outcomes and dynamics. Paradigmatics can be said to be a form of dialectical counterpoint and argumentation of alternative competing rule sets or systems, often defined conceptually or symbolically by key operating metaphors, that govern metasystems in a general if not in a universal way. Paradigmatics lead to a competition of competing ideas and theories, and eventually to a sense of progressive understanding of the structural nature of systems in a parsimonious manner.</p> <p>Heuristics, in modeling, in learning and in exploration of alternative possibilities, can be said to play an important role in this process overall. Heuristics has rarely been formally defined--it consists of modeling and modeling theory, and the representation of real systems in abstract terms. It can involve game theory and simulation, as well as in scenario forecasting.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <font SIZE="4"> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> </font> <p>I have undertaken to write about natural systems within the framework of an emerging scientific perspective that is rooted to the advanced understanding of information systems, knowledge, and intelligence as this has rapidly developed with the information revolution. It is difficult, indeed ultimately impossible, to separate the human dimensions of knowledge and intelligence from the natural order and patterning discovered at all levels and in every area of natural phenomena.</p> <p>The challenge of metasystems theory in essence is the problem of overcoming human prejudice, especially that is implicit and tacit to the background of the world as humans have constructed it and to seek to understand and control it through their sciences. Behind the prejudice that tends to set restrictive paradigmatic boundaries around knowledge domains, are domains of knowledge that are as often as not implicitly arbitrary in determining what is essential and focal in importance, and what is beyond the normal boundaries of knowledge.</p> <p>It is found repeatedly that realistic understanding of natural problem sets at all levels tends in the larger frame of reference demanded by metasystems theory to cross-cut and intersect conventional knowledge domains. Thus metasystems theory is about the interdisciplinary integration and coordination of disciplines and knowledge across a broad field of application. It is furthermore a question of symbolic integration of this knowledge upon levels of comprehensivity that are unprecedented. This integration is symbolic in a fundamental sense of being representational of the physical or possible realities that stand behind it. It is symbolic too in the sense that all human understanding, no matter how analytical or seemingly rational, is ultimately symbolic in structure, and from an anthropological point of view, this symbolic structure of all information and knowledge of our world, what is referred to as anthropological relativity, constrains us in everything we do and in every possible way we may know.</p> <p>I have adopted a system's theoretic approach to the comprehension of all natural patterning because this approach is the most comprehensive possible and the best suited to the analysis and modeling of natural patterning of phenomena at all levels. It combines both an information theoretic and cybernetic approach with a mechanistic and ergonomic or energy exchange perspective. Aspects of information theory are parallel to theory of energy efficiency or thermodynamics.</p> <p>On the other side of the coin, I do not want to thereby discount the unique, the individual and the sublime aspects of the particular complexity of nature at all levels, especially of human nature and culture and of biological systems in general. Particularism of description and analysis complements at every level the generalism of labeling and synthesis of systems.</p> <p>In hindsight, having been primarily an anthropologist interested in human knowledge patterning, I've come to a belated understanding of the role of human prejudice and intelligence plays in the real world, and in the ways that it can constrain our actions, both individually and collectively. If we are to move ahead with our sciences in a significant manner, then we must have the courage and willingness to think in new directions, and to assume new frameworks of understanding that seemingly violate the unspoken sanctions of our received conventions and paradigms.</p> <p>The stratigraphy of knowledge and natural information is complex in an infinite sense. The layers are manifold and convolute at many different points and in many ways. The conventional academic solution to this problem is through bureaucratic-administrative organization of increasingly specialized sub-fields and problem sets. The price paid overall for this hyperspecialization and "hypercomparmentalization" of knowledge is that there is yielding of overall control or outcomes or sense of responsibility for knowledge either in general or in specific frameworks. There is a loss, in other words, of a coherent worldview that would give each of us, as citizens and members of humankind, a greater measure of control and influence over either our own relation to such knowledge or to the total framework of such knowledge.</p> <p>I find this particularly so in my own professional field of Anthropology, constrained and scientifically defunct as it has become by a blind and almost mindless political culture of correctness. The dilemma is that no matter what the social structures of professional reinforcement, opportunity and social legitimization, the mind remains essentially free and the field, from a purely theoretical point of view as a possible science at least, essentially neutral and uncontaminated by the boils that fester beneath the social skin. Great Academic names will rise and fall, come and go, with the ebb and flow of the social tides of power, funding and status, but the science of anthropology will remain in the end as a yet unanswered set of questions about human reality, however adorned.</p> <p>Thus metasystems science is largely about pulling back the veil of socially contrived illusion that interferes with a more objective and realistic view of the world. Science is no less prone to such illusion than religion, except that it is saved fundamentally by the implicit unanswered questions it asks of the unknown, and by a rigorous commitment to an objective empiricism that "seeing is believing." Thus, as social praxis, science can be no less ideological than religion or other forms of ideology promulgated in the name of truth, except for its fundamental attachments to an open and objective approach to comprehending reality.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>If I had to summarize a central point of departure for a book entitled "Metasystems Science," I would claim that all good science does not begin or end in a classroom. It begins with basic observation, experience, common sense, sound reason, a high regard for the natural patterning found in reality, and the ability to ask fundamental questions to which we know no clear answers.</p> <p>Metasystems science, put succinctly, is about model building and playing with different kinds of models that relate one way or another to different aspects of reality. The kinds of models built are primarily conceptual and hypothetical constructs, designed to investigate and explore a search-solution space for a wide range of problems. It has emerged that there are relatively systematic, or should I say it, metasystematic means for proceeding in such a process in the identification of the important from the trivial and the central from the peripheral. A great deal of model building must proceed and accompany any venture we make into scientific research and development--to fail to do so is to mistake the trivial for the significant and to charge down pathways that have no final destination though they may seem to be leading somewhere.</p> <p>Metasystems science is also, basically, about asking questions about what is unknown, and for having a fundamental curiosity for the profound questions that define the unknown in such a way that makes it available to our imagination and conjecture. Some will dismiss a metasystems approach as conjectural only and therefore not rigorous. I can only counter such a criticism that one's approach to and in metasystems science, and respect for it, is a relative function of one's attitude and worldview in general, of one's openness and ability to deal with uncertainties and the unknown in ways that seem to make some sense.</p> <p>Models of complex phenomena depend for their resolution on several types of procedures--the identification of key variables or focal questions; the partitioning and reintegration of the problem into natural subsets; the ability to ask and seek comprehensive frames of reference within which subsystems can be effectively integrated and explained as a course of logic. Some call this last procedure a hypothetico-deductive approach, and indeed conceptual model building is a heuristic procedure that is largely so. But I believe metasystems science is more than just hypothetical deductive theory building, which seems to be a fairly formal definition for a fairly informal kind of process in scientific theoretization. It involves the construction of alternative frames of reference in a heuristic manner. I would say that metasystems science involves the construction of alternative models, and a kind of noetic competition and equilibrium being established between these models. It is a clear case that concepts and conceptual models exist in a kind of dynamic landscape in which some succeed and others fail. A dialectic between alternative models can lead to a resolution and even more, an identification of the central issues involved in the dialectic. It is also the ability to step beyond the dialectic, while keeping one foot in the dance, so to speak, in order that an objective reference can be given to the entire frame of the dialectic--the dialectic is transcended, and this is an important function in considering any metasystem.</p> <p>Many of the key questions that are broached in metasystems theory concern the creation of hypothetical "metaspaces" for the alternative construction of theories that reflect the following:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">1. Natural origins of all systems, assuming natural systems had some kind of beginning that can be described and explained in terms available to scientific observation and experimentation.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">2. Natural dynamics of all systems, assuming that natural systems all have certain complex state-path trajectories that leads to continuous kinds of changes of such systems, that can be measured and to some extent expected or predicted by our scientific models.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">3. Natural mechanical structures of all systems, that explains the relational distribution and functioning of observable phenomena in terms of general-specific rules that are empirically and inductively consistent over very large, virtually infinite sets.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">4. Natural static descriptions of systems of all kinds, as complex sets and metasets constituted by inherently complex entities that are themselves variable and composite in constituency. Here self-consistency competes with constituency in description if not in full and complete explanation--any explanation must adopt analytically a constituent approach, any description must frame holistically a self-consistent view.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">5. Natural systems all are defined theoretically by generalizable rules that govern in a partial manner the pattern of such systems. Such determinants are partial always in natural systems because such systems are thermodynamic and therefore entropic. In other words, natural systems contain significant information about their underlying sense of order, and it is the objective of metasystems science and theory to elucidate and clarify this information--making explicit what is otherwise implicit to the patterning of nature.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">6. Natural stratification and contextual interrelation of all systems that occur in a common framework of physical reality--how do systems interrelate with other systems and how do systems become embedded within other systems in complex ways and yet with a measure of partial determination.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>We must live with a grand sense that all natural systems, at whatever level, are not fully determined systems. This means that we cannot always predict the outcomes of complex event structures based upon our models, and that our models, no matter how precisely designed and constructed, can never fully predict the patterning of natural epiphenomena except in some probabilistic framework of well defined expectancies. To put it more concisely and mathematically, all natural systems are inherently complex and chaotic, following pathways determined by non-linear control mechanisms.</p> <p>Related to this is the critique that such an approach tends not to be as systematic as, for instance, chemistry. But there is no field of scientific inquiry that does not falter at the edge of complexity and chaos, in the confrontation of unknown structures and unanswered questions that make our methods appear weak and inadequate. Systematicity in this regard is for those whose squamous worlds are well ordered places with minimal tolerance for error or disorder. To counter such a criticism, I would only say that in fact Metasystems science becomes quite complex and there is a fundamental systematicity of heuristic structure in metasystems science that applies to all levels and areas of application. This systematicity is defined explicity in a mathematical way, understanding that pure mathematics is a unique form of abstract knowledge with no necessary external evidentiary proof, and that applied mathematics must sacrifice this sense of eternal, a priori truth-value for goodness of fit and inductive mileage in real world systems.</p> <p>In this regard, the systematicity is expressed in several ways: in terms of the systematic conceptual approaches to abstract model building and testing, rooted in an anthropological theory of human knowledge; in terms of analytical techniques for understanding complex systems; and in terms of systematic approaches to integrated applications. It is difficult to describe in short-hand the operational rationale for these procedures--it is always the case that the proof is in the pudding, and the understanding how things work always follows knowing that they work.</p> <p>The systematicity, briefly described, appears to be the following kind of structure. Variables, as complex composite entities, are defined as parts of a general set or sets derivable from naturalistic observations. These variables can be considered to be members of a sample population or a kind of systematic grouping. Rules of relationship guide both the relations between members and sets, and the transitions that occur within each set at each point. These rules form matrix structures which are more constrained dimensionally and determined than the sets or samples they are built upon, and describe in a repetitive manner the functioning of the set as a metaset either through time or across space, or both. From this we can derive a set of nonlinear control functions that, given initial inputs into the metaset and matrix design, determine at least in a partial (probabilistic or stochastic) manner the outcomes given certain constraining factors. At another level, these functions are in turn controlled by multifactorial periodic harmonic oscillatory mechanisms that serve to maintain the stability of the metasystem as a whole. These oscillatory mechanisms may be built into the design of the system itself, occur as the product or part of sum key subsystem, or be found to exist externally from the system itself in an independent manner in the supersytemtic context in which such as system occurs. The description of the stability of the whole then becomes encapsulated into a set of output variables at another level, and feedback can lead to the intial input stage of the cycle to repeat, or the system can be stepped up to a higher level of integration that incorporates the lower level as a subsystem. This is a highly structured approach that has applicability to a very broad range of natural systems applications, in varying form, as well as to certain systems relating to alternative intelligence. The stages described in this complex metasystem serve as functions with determinants that define the character and behavior of the system as an entity that gains expression in some manner in the world.</p> <p>Advanced approaches to labeling and number theory, set theory, possibilistic statistics and mathematical matrix design are also a part of this research design.</p> <p>This brief outline requires greater elaboration that is beyond the immediate scope of this text, but it is important to suggest that this kind of patterning can be found to occur naturally in many complex systems in physics, biology and in the theoretical description of human systems. It arose originally in the anthropological sciences in the need to describe in an operationally sufficient manner the complexity of such systems. It arose in conjunction to certain artificial intelligence and multidimensional representation strategies applied to human systems, but it has found a wider basis for application at many different levels scientifically. It also describes a framework for a general model of abstract intelligence by which we can understand the application and design of alternative systems that are informationally complex and sophisticated in terms of their realworld application.</p> <p>To contrast an analytic or reductionistic approach versus a synthetic approach or holistic approach to natural systems theory is something of a false dichotomy. In our knowledge, we live with the paradox that the properties of all naturally occurring systems are simultaneously both the sum of their parts and emergent as more than the sum of their parts. Such dichotomies are more a residuum of the limits of our conceptual abilities or systems than they are intrinsic to the natural patterning itself. Systems as larger entities often describe state-path trajectories in nature that are fundamentally independent of the component parts that compose these systems. At the same time, if we seek to analyze and understand the internal relations and interactions of such systems at any given moment, or over a prolonged period of time, we are faced with the conundrum of dealing only with many individual elements that are often themselves analytically reducible to smaller and smaller components.</p> <p>The boundaries recognized in natural systems theory are thus directly not the boundaries of conventional knowledge domains---biology versus chemistry, psychology versus sociology, or physics versus philosophy. The boundaries that exist are those naturally occurring differences that stratify natural phenomena at different levels and areas of functioning and articulation, particularly in terms of relative and absolute size, complexity and duration. That they are reflected in the functional organization of our knowledge domains is after the fact of their natural stratification and before the possibility of their reintegration as metasystems.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>It is important to reiterate the important and unique role that mathematics plays in metasystems science. Mathematics is the language of science, and science cannot achieve the degree of objectivity or logical noncontradiction necessary except by means of the strict adherence to and application of rather formal mathematical rules and relations. Pure mathematics has no external reference beyond the rules of its own logical relations and identity. As a language it is a sign system that, unlike natural human language, permits no internal contradiction. It is beyond the purview to speculate about the a priori nature of abstract mathematical systems, except to remark that they exist as ideal possibilities that appear to be structurally immanent in all naturally occurring systems. Another way of saying this is that they are the consequence of the fact of the systematic ordering of nature in the first place--without such ordering science as we know it would not be possible. The first rule of a natural science is therefore to state that abstract order preexists in the natural patterning and chaos, before our observation or understanding of it. By virtue of our own intelligence and capacity for knowledge and understanding, we bring to reality the possibility of abstractly representing these ordered relationship underlying all classes of natural phenomena in a way that is mathematically correct and accurate--we bring with our models the possibility, indeed the realization, of alternative ideal systems, mathematically defined and represented, that have no clear manifestation or reference in physical reality.</p> <p>On the other hand, we must advance an empiricist rejoinder that applied mathematics entails the application of mathematical formulas and models to natural problems sets such that the goodness of fit between the two is always imperfect and in need of improvement. If abstract mathematically systems are internally perfect, applied mathematical systems are externally imperfect. Translation of pure to applied systems, and the induction of purer from applied systems, is a challenge altogether different from the deduction of a logical proof from a set of formal presuppositions. The former is a practical problem of everyday science, the latter largely a pendantic issue of metaphysical philosophers and theoretical mathematicians.</p> <p>I believe it to be a source of infinite sublime wonder and awe that this is repeatedly demonstrated in nature--that we should have evolved a unique ability to imagine such possibilities, and by their imagination, to make them a part of our reality. Once we have defined the rules of science, they become as much a part of our world as if they were set in concrete or stone. Whether we wish it or not, we can realistically see the world in no other way than that defined by science--science permanently alters our view of the world. It then becomes our choice how we make use of this understanding.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <b><font SIZE="5"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Physical Systems Theory</p> </font></b><font SIZE="4"> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> </font> <p ALIGN="CENTER">The point of departure for comprehending physical systems theory rests in the articulation of a hypothetical construct that will yield several sets of answers at the same time. It will give us a clear understanding, in mathematical terms, of the so-called unified field; it will give us an understanding of the constituent and self-consistent dynamics of elementary physics; it will provide us with a coherent and testable model of cosmology and cosmogenic history. We have not yet arrived at such a theory, though a great many scientists and nations are investing a great deal of energy and money to the construction of super particle accelerators intended to unlock these questions by the discovery of the elusive and as yet hypothetical Higgs Boson that is held to account for mass interactions in matter. Short of the key discovery of a predicted boson particle that accounts for mass in the universe, I have sought to take a different and much less expensive tact to the construction of a comprehensive theory of the universal physical system. I have done so by means that are primarily conceptual. The alternative theory I have elaborated is similar to the newly emergent string theoretic constructions of physical reality, although there are imporatant hypothetical departures. A great deal of energy is spent training physicists in the mathematics of quantum mechanics and relativist theory, but relatively little is invested in the conceptual development of their metaphysical and philosophical understanding of the implications involved in their own work, implications that may play a profound part in shaping their approach and response to physical reality as a form of scientific worldview.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>Physical systems theory concerns fundamental and fundamentally important questions we ask about physical reality--about its basic properties, its basic structure and composition, its organization, its origin, and dynamics. We ask these questions of the very largest and the very smallest dimensions, and we are coming to a critical understanding of how the largest and smallest scales of reality and measurement are interrelated in inseparable ways. This is a kind of grand paradox, that in order to understand the largest structures we can imagine, we must seek the smallest. And we are finding that the largest and the smallest structures are both fundamentally beyond our spheres of observability by even indirect means, and these kinds of physical limitations, that define the physical relativity of our knowledge, sets limits to our science that force us to rethink and retool our scientific approaches to transcend such limitations.</p> <p>Observations are nonetheless available to us, and inferences possible, that allow us to extend the hypothetical compass of our sphere of knowledge beyond the relativistic boundaries of human observability. It is expected that eventually we will come to a sense of observational parallax in relation to the very large and the very small that will extend our compass of observability in at least an additive manner. It is expected as well that we will eventually devise new means of seeing indirectly in other ways, for instance, gravitational radiation, that may allow us to extend our compass of observation by several orders of magnitude, at least. Until then, we must rely, like the ancient Greek philosophers and mathematicians, upon the vision of our clear thinking and sound reason to see with our mind's eye beyond the limits of our relativistic sphere of physical observation.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>The basis for an alternative conceptioning of physical systems stems from several observations of our own physical reality:</p> <p>1. Gravitational radiation, and its effects within gravitational systems, appears to be not only ubiquitious and omnipotent in the universe, but these systems appear to last forever (or the extended life of the system) without significant alteration or change and without obvious input of energy or work.</p> <p>2. The first of these observations is that though the laws of thermodynamics appear to be inviolable, on a basic level the energy of gravitation does not appear to follow these principles in any strict sense. Gravity systems appear continuous and unending for the life of the body of the source of gravitation. This energy appears never to diminish to any significant level.</p> <p>3. The only known mechanism for the production of chemical elements occur in the physical fusion processes inside of stars.We can speculate and hypothesize on many other alternative systems for the production of matter, but scientifically speaking we can only isolate one general set of pathways for that production, and this set of pathways, as found in our own sun, appear to be ubiquitous and all pervasive in the universe "as far as the eye can see."</p> <p>4. Stars as solar furnaces appear to live, on average, for a very long time, and hence they appear to be quite stable and long-lived even though such life-spans are contraindicated by their size. In fact, the larger the star system, the shorter its expected life-trajectory; the smaller the size, the longer lived and more stable it is expected to be. The finite energy stores in their mass, and the amount of their mass they throw off in periodic rate intervals, cannot explain the long term dynamics of heat and energy production of such systems unless unknown mechanisms can be invoked.</p> <p>The point of departure of this construction of physical systems theory is the simple observation that gravity systems appear to defy the fundamental principles of thermodynamics in basic ways. Gravitation is emitted continuously from an object, for the entire life of the object, without any noticeable inputs of energy. In theory, such an object can continuously accrete new mass through the gravitational capture of foreign objects, and in the process only increase its net gravitational power. A related observation is the classic problem of the uniform fall of unequal sized mass objects within a uniform gravitational field. A similar observation is that if an object in space, unperturbed by any other object or force such as a distant gravitational field, is set in motion in a particular direction, then it will retain its speed and direction forever, almost as if it were a perpetual motion machine.</p> <p>The simple explanation for the last is that space is empty void, and the object encounters no resistance in its state-path trajectory, resistance that would result in friction that would slow the object and alter its trajectory. We notice such motion commonly in the universe, and even objects like the earth or the moon, that are locked within the gravitational embrace of some larger gravitating body, still maintain a permanent and nearly perfect orbital trajectory.</p> <p>All of these observations suggest that something interesting is happening in the universe, in relation to gravitational energy in space, that cannot be explained fully by the fundamental principles of thermodynamics or the basic principles of classical mechanics that are based upon the observation of mass objects and heat energies. It suggests that there may be more to apparently empty space and gravitational energy than meets the eye.</p> <p>These observations have given rise to an alternative theoretical explanation that revises the fundamental principles of thermodynamics to better account for the observable properties of gravitational energy in the universe. It has led to an expanded paradigm of gravitational dynamics that embraces and encompasses the principles of thermodynamics as a limited system in a larger and more complete system of energy exchange. Energy in an ultimate sense may not be created or destroyed, at least not in any way obvious to us, but the form that this energy assumes can be altered, and essentially converted into some other form of energy. The result is that the kinds of positive energies we think normally think about, because they are part of our system of physical observation in an intrinsic way, particularly light energy, can be in fact "created" and "destroyed" (or disintegrated) when it is converted from and back into gravitational energy. I maintain that this is a very common process in the universe, ubiquitous and continuous. We no longer question the notion that matter may be converted to energy, and vice versa. What we need to question is the notion that energy may not also be converted into some other form than what we know it.</p> <p>Furthermore, with the interactions of gravitational energy with other electromagnetic energy and mass (a demonstration of the extended principle of equivalence applied to mass and energy systems) we have the rise of complex systems of near perfect equilibrium that can be essentially described as dynamic perpetual motion machines. The universe is replete with machines of perpetual motion and machines that produce more energy than they appear to be consuming.</p> <p>The theoretical trick is that we may be only observing one half of the set of processes that are actually happening. The other half of the processes are only indirectly observable in terms of their relativistic, entropic and gravitational effects upon mass and matter, and may be essentially invisible because they occur on such a fundamental level that they are beyond our sphere of observability. The other half of physical reality may in essence be quite transparent and invisible to our means of visual perception, even though we must live with its consequences in everything we do in physical reality. Because of its great transparency and invisibility to our light perception, it has mostly gone unnoticed and therefore unaccounted for.</p> <p>As a result of this line of reasoning, physical systems theory has been extended as the basis for an alternative cosmological model of the structure of the universe, as well as a quantum-mechanical model for the fundamental structure of the very fabric of physical reality itself--what can be called the stuff of space-time. The theory therefore appears to satisfy all the main requirements for a comprehensive theory of physical systems stated previously. It does not require a huge particle accelerator to prove, because it concludes implicitly that such an accelerator will not be necessary to its proof, and will probably not be a fully satisfactory proof even if a Higgs Boson is discovered. Proof for this model may be found in other ways--in terms of its productivity, for instance, in allowing us to create an entirely new set of gravitational devices that will for once allow us to see and manipulate gravitational energy in a more controlled manner. Some of these devices will be scientifically and technologically useful, others might prove to be frighteningly destructive.</p> <b> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Physical Relativity and the Integration of Physical Reality</p> </b> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>The basis of physical systems theory as I have developed this is two-fold. First, it accounts for gravitation in relation to mass dynamics and space-time structure based on the critical observation that gravitational energy appears unique in that it does not seem to obey the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. The second observation stems from the first, and states something like this: gravitational effects upon mass appear to occur in systems that are independent of larger or alternative systems, while at the same time, all such systems appear to be gravitationally united upon one level or another such that there are no apparent or measureable discontinuities of space or time between them.</p> <p>The first observation leads to an alternative theory of gravitational dynamics that encompasses normal thermodynamics associated with electromagnetic radiation, and it leads to some rather remarkable predictions about the relations of space-time to mass and matter and the intermediation of different forms of energy between these systems.</p> <p>The second observation leads to a definition of an "already unified" field that is gravitationally integrated and that results in a kind of universal relativity that predicts that the universe is infinite, unbounded, and essentially dynamic in its basic multidimensional structure.</p> <p>First, it rests on one hand upon the conception of a basic model of the what can be described as the "total" universe. The kind of cosmological model we adopt in this regard will be determined by, and determine in turn, the kinds of implicit conclusions we make about our sense of reality. A cosmological view of the total universe is symbolically necessary on a number of levels. Human understanding and intelligence, being symbolic in structure, requires such a comprehensive view of the world, whether this view is achieved scientifically, religiously or in some other ideological framework of understanding. Such a comprehensive view of the complete physical world is structurally necessary both for a coherent social order, for a healthy sense of science and for a realistic sense of being in the world.</p> <p>In regard to this first point, physical systems theory attempts to take a step back from the paradigmatic commitments to certain kinds of conclusions and presuppositions of any particular cosmological model, to address and attempt to understand the implications of the underlying presumptions of any and all possible cosmological models of the universe. Depending upon our primes, different kinds of models we adopt of the universe will lead to different kinds of outcomes for our understanding and scientific praxis. In this heuristic sense, physical systems theory becomes meta-systematic in attempting to overcome the limitations that constrain adoption of any particular model.</p> <p>In this sense, we can speculate that the essential cosmological model of physical systems theory is not the "total universe" per se, so much as it is the question of the hypothetical universe, and of alternative possible universes that can be constructed conceptually depending on whatever primes we adopt. Consideration of the range of primes available to us, and their hidden implicatures for our construction processes, becomes an important process in the articulation and productivity of physical systems theory.</p> <p>The second side of the coin of physical systems theory involves primarily a fundamental question about the essential structure of physical reality. At the heart of this concern about basic structures of physical reality is a question of a unified field and the question of the irreducible structure of physical entities and processes. We jump from the cosmological scale of the total universe, to the quantum scale of the subatomic. As with the heuristics of alternative cosmological models, we have competing hypothesis about what constitutes the basic structure of the physical fabric of reality.</p> <p>It is evident that in the grandest or smallest scales, there is as yet a boundary of our knowledge beyond which we do not yet see clearly. We do not fully understand the structure of the universe on a large scale or the structure of reality upon a very small scale of observability. This is complicated especially by the physical relativity of our power of observation on either a very large or small scale--there appear to be intrinsic relativisitc limits of our resolving powers beyond which we cannot directly see. These kinds of limits may be ultimately inescapable.</p> <p>A unified field theory has not yet been sufficiently developed. We expect a certain kind of mathematical elegance and parsimony of such theory, whether it is really there to be discovered or not. String theory has arisen and become important to an understanding of this physical structure, though it remains as yet incomplete and partial, lacking the substantive empirical evidence that might allow it to achieve the degree of theoretical integration that would be required of a successful unified field theory. I have in a previous work proposed an alternate "Spring" theory, that is like the string theory in many ways, and yet it seems to me that the bottom line remains that we just do not know enough at a subatomic level to determine once and for all the basic structure of physical reality.</p> <p>It goes almost without saying that the structure of the very smallest is intimately connected to the structure of the very largest in physical reality, and that competing cosmological and subatomic theories interact with one another in basic and even in unseen ways to determine a composite view of physical reality at any and every scale possible. On the other hand, the fullest implications and connections between the very large and the very small have not been necessarily fully explored in a manner that may be sufficient to a fully integrated view of the physical world.</p> <p>It strikes me now as before that the key to resolving our view of the world, at whatever level we are operating on, hinges on the question of the still mysterious force of gravitation and its effects in gravity based systems. However much we may know of gravity and gravitational radiation, there appears to be much that remains unknown and even unconsidered about it. The paradox of this scientific predicament is that we live with gravity in a fundamental sense--it is such a basic constraint and aspect to everything we know and experience physically that we cannot escape its power and its consequences for our lives.</p> <p>Further, beyond the two sides of the coin of physical reality, there are many as yet unanswered residual questions relating to our physical reality that need to be mentioned at least in passing. On a chemical level, we must examine what the basis is for alternative chemical and physical properties arising from different molecular or elemental combinations. We must ask in terms of theoretical chemistry what are the origins of elements and what are possible alternative structures of nuclei. Similarly, our understanding of electromagnetic radiation and light appears to me to be as yet incomplete, either in terms of its basic structure and process as a pervasive phenomena, or in terms of its field effects and other essential properties.</p> <p>In addition to questions like these, it is apparent also that physical systems theory leads to further questions about operational methods that can be developed to explore and investigate the physical structure of reality in a more thorough and detailed way, and then to possible innovations or inventions that will allow us to exploit or utilize the basic properties of physical realtiy in our own alternative systems.</p> <p>I deal in the second part with the question of physical systems from a theoretical, operational and applied mode. In this, I adopt basic models that were developed in earlier works and attempt to extend and apply these models to basic devices or designs that may or may not have any larger efficacy in reality. These models resolve themselves in what I take to be fundamental questions concerning the structure and fabric of physical reality, including the central hypothesis that I refer to as universal relativity of space-time the issue of the unified gravitational field, gravitational dynamics and the interaction between mass and energy within the framework of the gravitational field.</p> <p>From this standpoint, whether we are dealing with only hypothetical models in some ultimate sense, or we are dealing with possible applications in a more practical sense, it needs to be remembered that physical systems science deals heuristically with hypothetical alternatives and the implicatures that arise logically or can be traced out empirically depending upon what primes we adopt. In such a manner, natural systems science must be in the most fundamental way non-paradigmatic in not being predefined by its commitment to any received point of view or set of operational methodologies. Secondly, it must be inherently interdisciplinary from the standpoint that natural problem sets intersect various domains of knowledge and expertise in the world.</p> <p>Though it is something of a grand paradox that the very smallest is intimately connected to the largest structures of physical reality, and that the intermediate levels of analysis are somewhat occluded, it remains the case that there is critical feedback between the extremes and the intermediate ground such that the answers we give to either extreme may influence our applications and models in the middle ground, and how we experience and think about the middle ground, as for instance the behavior of objects in gravity, or the behavior of light upon substances, does affect how we think about the extreme edges of our physical compass of reality.</p> <p>It is from this standpoint that whatever the level of focus, physical systems theory is about integration of our view of reality upon very basic levels, and these influence directly our ability to integrate ourselves with reality itself in fundamental and fundamentally important ways. Physical systems theory is therefore concerned with the problem of integration of physical reality in the most basic and most applicable of manners possible. By extension this basic problem of integration of physical reality on a basic level connects as well as to other levels of understanding of reality, for instance in biological, human and alternative systems theory. Just as there occurs critical feedback between basic and derivative levels of physical systems, there occurs as well feedback between different orders and kinds of systems, and how we think about order and pattern at one level affects how we think about the same issues on other and upon all levels simultaneously.</p> <p>We can distinguish it seems in natural systems theory basic levels of integration, or problems of integration, at different levels and orders of patterning, and in both a general or universal sense, and in specific, local and applied senses. From this we can see the importance of a cosmological view of the world and of a basic view of physical reality in prestructuring our science and our scientific activity, and in determining the ways in which we might symbolically integrate and come to interact with the world in basic ways. In this we can see also the central function of natural systems theory in the elucidation of metasystems integration of complex and often disparate realities. Integration is one of the key purposes of pursuing metasystems comprehension. In this role, physical systems theory is perhaps the primary player in integration of complex realities.</p> <b><u> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Thermodynamics and Alternative State Cosmologies</p> </u></b> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>Before proceeding with an account of physical systems theory, it is important to reiterate two sets of preliminary points. The first relates to the universality of the laws of thermodynamics in describing physical systems; the second relates to the heuristic framework for conceptualizing different kinds of cosmological models depending upon the heuristic and metaphysical primes implicit to alternative models.</p> <p>The first consideration concerns classical heat mechanics and the dynamics of physical reality as we conventionally experience this. All natural systems in their physical instantiation are fundamentally systems with physical presence that have therefore a set of shared physical properties, no matter what level of integration and complexity we are dealing with. All such systems defined in a classical way are fundamentally thermodynamic systems. They involve the transfer and exchange of a form of electromagnetic energy referred to as heat, and as such they must all obey, without exception, the fundamental rules of thermodynamics. In other words, all naturally occurring systems, at all levels of integration, are kinds of machines that function according to certain mechanical rules--they do work of some kind, and contain information. In addition, a characteristic overlooked in the analysis of natural systems is that all such systems, as finite machines with fundamental physical properties, always exist in real space and time within a larger context that sets certain fundamental constraints upon the behavior of such systems. Even complex and heterogenous biological and artificial human systems can and must be seen mechanically in terms of their heat exchanges within a larger, encompassing environment. The rules of thermodynamics are listed below:</p> <p>0. The zeroth rule of thermodynamics states that the temperature of any two systems will tend in the long run to be the same as a third common system, and that heat of the smaller contained system will tend to equilibriate with the heat of an infinitely large containing system, which represents an ideal energy sink or heat reservoir.</p> <p>1. The first rule of thermodynamics states energy can neither be created nor destroyed and therefore there can be no perpetual motion machines of the first kind in which work is accomplished without the transfer of heat energy into or from the system. No machine can exist or perform work if no heat or energy is transferred in the system. More simply put, work can only be done by a machine by means of heat energy being tranferred in relation to the system.</p> <p>2. The second rule of thermodynamics states the law of entropy, which is the measure of the state of disorder of a system or its proximity to a perfect energyless system. In other words, the state of entropy of any system can never decrease, but only increase, unless work is done. Heat cannot be transferred from a lower energy system to a higher energy system--heat always transfers from a high to low energy gradient or differential--and therefore there can be no perpetual motion machine of the second kind in which a machine can perpetually work without the transfer of energy.</p> <p>3. The third rule of thermodynamics is the law of absolute zero, or a state of no heat in an energiless system. Absolute zero can never be reached, only approached infinitely by a continuous number of steps or integrations. Thus, we cannot have a "perpetual motion machine of the third kind" which is any machine that exists in a completely energiless or motionless state--i.e., a total energy vacuum.</p> <p>It is important to reiterate these principles because they form the basis for a conventional scientific view of physical reality, and define the shared minimal constraints for all physically occurring systems. They are also the point of departure for the discussion of physical systems theory from a comprehensive standpoint. I have relegated the "laws" of the paradigm of thermodynamics to general "rules" because I wish to demonstrate, in an alternative hypothetical construction, that such rules may have important exceptions when gravitational energy systems are more carefully and fully considered. In such an enlarged theoretical system, the laws of thermodynamics become part of a covering law model of physically manifest entities and relations in the observable universe. They are essentially correct for the systems they apply to, except that they do not apply in the same way to all systems that may occur.</p> <p>The other main point I wish to consider is what can be referred to as the underlying presuppositions of alternative cosmological models we may hold for the whole of physical reality, or what we would call the total universe. In this we must first separate the concept of the total universe, as all inclusive, from what can be called the observable universe, or from the inferrable universe, which in theory should comprehend and encompass the observable universe, but not necessarily the total universe. Furthermore, we may designate what can be called the hypothetical universe, which is that set of models which exist primarily in theory, from the demonstrable or empirical universe, which can be substantiated with empirical evidence. We must further distinguish analytically what can be referred to as the "knowable" universe from the "unknowable universe" which leads us to speculate that the total universe may never be fully knowable in a certain way.</p> <p>Cosmological models are important to our understanding of physical systems, because they serve to provide the common frame of reference for all other naturally defined or definable systems. Hence what model we adopt, what presuppositions we choose, will in part determine how and what we see in that world as a fundamental part of our scientific worldview. If we conceptualize, for instance, what I call a finite or end state universe, then this leads to very different cosmological and quantum physical outcomes of thinking than if we hypothesize the alternative infinite state universe. In such metaphysical considerations of physical models, we cannot logically have it both ways and still hold a noncontradictory view of reality. In other words, we cannot implicitly presuppose a finite-state universe, and then speculate on its infinitudes. Vice versa, if we are to presuppose that the universe is infinite, then we cannot then conclude that it is closed and limited in some basic way.</p> <p>These issues broach a very fundamental set of questions that are in an ultimate sense unanswerable by science--but they are questions science must ask and seek to answer nonetheless as points of departure into realistic, if relative, systems of natural order. Thus, we must ask and seek an answer to the question of infinity, even though we might never be able to prove or falsify it. Another related question is whether there be nothing in an absolute, initial or ultimate sense. Answering these kinds of questions lead to antinomial paradoxes about our knowledge and a fundamental sense of contradition. We can say that infinity exists as a logical truth of our mathematical systems, but it may have no necessary demonstration in the real world if we assume a finite-state universe or otherwise.</p> <p>We present hypothetical or alternative state universes as a heuristic system for modeling metaphysically alternative cosmological models and their necessary logical outcomes. In this I distinguish what I call zero-state from non-zero state models. A zero-state universe, as for instance one defined by a principle of singularity, implies a universe that has some sense of fundamental nothingness. It implies, among other things, a fundamental constituent entity of the universe, below which there is no further division. It implies a model that is also finite-state in some way or another, versus the alternative infinite state universe. We may go further and speculate on other alternative state structures for the universe, as for instance a closed versus open state model, or a divergent or convergent state model, or a isotrophic or non-isotrophic state model, or a multi-state or single-state model, with implications of a positive and/or negative state model or an anti-state or parallel state model. Another kind of model that occurs in cosmological theoretization are steady-state versus dynamic state models, and metastate versus single state models.</p> <p>These alternative models have different kinds of implications and lead to different kinds of non-contradictory conclusions that are forced upon our conceptual systems in terms of a coherent metaphysics, and they point to the important role that philosophy still plays in the articulation of conceptual systems about physical reality and cosmology, whether scientists as astronomers, physicists and family men embrace metaphysics or not.</p> <p>Between the basic mechanical paradigms governing all natural systems and our metaphysical systems and their implications underlying our cosmological models and understanding of physical reality, exists a middle ground arena that we can refer to as physical systems theory, upon which all other natural systems are derivative and emergent.</p> <b><u> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Problems of Cosmogenesis</p> </u></b> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>The aspects of the universe requiring sufficient explanation include the following:</p> <p>1. If the only known mechanisms of the production of elements are fusion reactions occurring in older and hot stars, then how do we explain the presence and production of heavy elements in planets like the earth? It is difficult to explain the origination of these elements in any other fashion than in the known manner of their fusion production in the core of stellar systems. Thus, the presence of heavy elements, in the earth for instance, can only be explained by the previous production of these elements in stars.</p> <p>2. The speed of light is a peculiar property of electromagnetic radiation. This property is unique to this form of energy. It is possible that other forms of energy, for instance gravitational energy, do not have this property, and in fact may have another speed or set of speeds specifically associated with it. Several possibilities are suggested by this deduction.</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p>a. This leads to a composite theory of gravity that gravitational energy may exist upon a continuum that is composed of a range of energy forms.</p> <p>b. Gravitational energy may transmit itself at faster than the speed of light, and, possibly, even in an instantaneous manner. The significance of this is that the universe "holds itself together" beyond the relativistic space-time constraints determined by the speed of light.</p> <p>c. This suggests that cosmological relativity or universal relativity may not be based upon an immutable constant of the speed of light, but upon the relative instantaneity of gravitational radiation.</p> </blockquote> </blockquote> <p>3. Gravitational radiation does not appear to follow common thermodynamic principles attributed to electromagnetic radiation. In other words, it appears that this form of energy defies the important conventions of the laws of thermodynamics in basic ways. Evidence for this can be found in the continuous production of gravitational energy from all gravitating bodies, particularly very large or very heavy ones, especially black holes that are stable.</p> <p>a. The great stability of star systems can be accounted for by these gravitational processes in which thermodynamic energy and, in very large systems, new mass, is continuously created from gravitational energy. Most of this new energy is thrown off by the stars in the form of solar winds and electromagnetic and cosmic radiation. Some percentage of this new mass is captured in the mass of the system itself.</p> <p>Stars appear to achieve a relatively stable mass-size configuration, such that they do not significantly grow or shrink over the course of their lifetime. It is interesting that heavier stars have a shorter life cycle than smaller stars. This suggests the possibility that greater gravitational forces of larger star bodies act more rapidly upon such entities. Changes to stars that follow the typical state-path trajectory appear to be those kinds of alterations of internal structure and composition during its various phases. In particular, it appears that stars increase in the relative percentages of heavier and heavier elements, and in the corresponding loss of hydrogen nuclei or core nucleonic substance. This process of nucleonic fusion is accompanied by increasing temperatures of the star that are associated with the energy of fusion. The pathways followed by the production of elements in stars are probably extremely complex and to some extent quite variable.</p> <p>It is possible that even older stars are continuously producing new nucleonic "feeder" material that is subsequently either absorbed by the star or else blown off into inter-stellar space where it accretes to form large hydrogen clouds and new stellar masses.</p> <p>In understanding the production of elements in sun systems, we must understand the possible pathways that may occur in the fusion of hydrogen nuclei, or nucleons, into larger nucleic structures, and the possible fusion of these larger structures into even heavier nuclear structures. The key question to be asked in the universe is whether the distribution of basic elements in the universe is relatively uniform and the same throughout, or if not, then whether the relative presence and densities of different kinds of elements are different and essentially random in the universe.</p> <p>These fusion process alledgedly take place within the core regions of stars on a regular basis, fueled perhaps in the outer regions by reverse fission processes which serve to reduce nuclei back into smaller nucleonic particles. In general, though stars typically through off a vast amount of mass each year, the net mass of such systems appear to change little over its life-span. This net mass is defined gravitationally by the size of the total system.The nuclear composition of its core appears to alter, especially in its latest stages, with increasing temperatures and the possible buildup of more dense distributions of heavier nuclei. At some stage, the reverse fission processes that feed such systems slow down or eventually stop, and less nucleonic material is blown off in the normal radiation of such a star.</p> <p>This process is the only known or observed means of manufacturing heavier nuclear materials from lighter material. In other words, we know of no other means of making any of the elements that occur on earth or in any of the other planets, or naturally any where else in the universe. The original production of nucleonic material remains unknown, though I speculate that it can be made in one of two or more different state-path trajectories, and gravitational energy may be the basis of its production and its ultimate destruction. If new nucleonic material is produced as a result of gravitational forces in sun-sized systems, then it is apparent that there is an equilibrium of total mass of such systems such that they remain fairly stable and the same in size throughout most of their life-span. Thus, if new nucleonic material is constantly manufactured in sun-sized stellar systems, then this new mass must be a part of the material that is continuously ejected and blown off into outer space. It may be blown off only as free neutrons and protons, too light to remain trapped within the core of such systems. We do not know if the total universe exhibits a set amount of nuclear material, in some kind of grand equilibrium, or else if this total volume of its mass may fluctuate with time, decreasing or growing in time. We may perhaps never know.</p> <p>This theory suggests that new nucleonic material that constitutes the basis for all known forms of mass is regularly and continuosly created in the observable universe. Most forms of elements as these have been found to occur on earth in their relative abundances, were probably formed in the last stages of the death of a stellar system, and represent the multiple pathways of nuclear fusion that proceeded when the basic hydrogen of the system was spent or finally lost. It also suggests that there must exist an alternative pathway by which means such material is destroyed. It appears to me that the best candidate for the destruction of such material are black-holes that, due to their tremendous gravitational force, is capable of breaking all mass and nucleonic material into constituent entities, and possibly even into gravitational energy itself, which is then released back into the universe.</p> <p>For this theory to be successful, several things must be explained. Perhaps the most important is to explain the observed Doppler Shift of all electromagnetic radiation received upon earth from distant stars. The explanation I offer for this phenomenon is to suggest that in the long run, with increasing distance, light cannot change its speed, which is an intrinsic property of light. It can only lose its relative momentum, which would be the equivalent of its red-shifting towards lower frequencies. Light will systematically lose its momentum to its surrounding background over the long-run, and it does this at relatively steady rates. Mechanisms implied in this are the "bending" of light by intervening and differential gravitational fields.</p> <p>Random and non-uniform curvature of space-time reflects a genuine non-isotrophism and suggests that we cannot define an overall structure to the universe, especially if we hypothesize an infinite or non-zero state universe without extensive or intensive limit. The essential structure of the universe probably in effect changes over the larger context. The observational sphere of the universe, which is the universe of special and general relativity, may in fact also lack any larger sense of uniformity of structure or curvature to the purported fabric of space-time.</p> <p>We might state the following kind of hypothesis. The observable universe exists in space-time, and conforms to the structure of space-time, but space-time is not bound by the observational sphere of the universe, or by the structure of light, which is in effect the constant of the speed of light. Space-time may exist within the gravitational sphere of the inferrable universe, but gravitation exists within another dimensional field contained within the universe that is complementary to the positive space-time dimensions we experience, and which contains these dimensions as variable, continuous manifestations.</p> <p>It seems to me that the kinetic motion of molecules in a gaseous phase illustrate something important about the relationship of mass to the structure of space-time. Another way of looking at this problem is to ask whether if when a hydrogen molecule is in its gas phase attaining an enormous velocity a fraction of the speed of light, whether or not this energy that it contains does not represent the degree of inertia of the small mass of the hydrogen nucleus upon the space-time field within which it operates. Hydrogen gas in its natural state must be in a state of almost constant kinetic motion, and it is this kinetic energy which overrides and shapes the space-time context in which it occurs, or rather, is shaped by this space-time context in a random manner. It can be said that in such a state, space-time is in a state of relative disequilibrium and flux. Such motions, if they achieve a very concentrated state, can be said to possibly rend the fabric of space-time itself.</p> <p>Another way of looking at this is to consider that compound matter in a solid or liquid state exhibits properties of a shared mass about a common center that tends to exclude the effects of space-time within the material itself. In other words a kind of gravitational boundary layer of space-time is created between the object of mass, however large or small, and the surrounding space-time field. The molecules in such a substance become unified in terms of their mass, such that it can be said that a hypothetical center of gravity emerges from their unification. Such a center of gravity is neglible, even unmeasurable, for an object of very small mass, but as mass is compounded together, it becomes increasingly greater in an exponential manner. So slight must gravitational forces be for a small collection of unified molecules that it is the other attractive forces--the ionic and covalent bonds between the electrons, that serve as the primary basis for its chemical properties and physical structure. But the accumulation of enough material in unification leads eventually to the gradual increase in the strength of the gravitational field that is concentric about the shared center of mass balance in the object. A unified gravitational field exists in a state of relative equilibrium</p> <p>Again, like a gas cloud, the other way of looking at this unification of mass in solid and liquid phase matter is the manner in which it shapes and redirects the space-time framework within which it occurs.</p> <p>A gas cloud that is not contained within some kind of vessel must lack any common center. Its kinetic and chaotic sense of random disorder would entail that such an entity would expand until the cloud dissipates as such--the molecules eventually dispersing in every direction. The behavior of such a cloud of randomly distributed molecules would indicate the natural omnidirectionality of the space-time envelope within which it occurs.</p> <p>The origination of hydrogen gas clouds must have been achieved through the definition of a common center of gravity. It strikes me that this in its basic form may be an impossibility with hydrogen gas, unless this gas had achieved a degree of pressure and density of volume that created a sense of shared mass. Hydrogen gas in a cloud may exhibit a common central region within which, perchance, densities and pressures can increase to very high levels. At these high pressures/densities, it is possible for hydrogen to undergo a series of transformations. Among these transformations may be the production of plasma by the stripping of electrons, the occurrence of neutronic plasma as a result, and the fusion of hydrogen nuclei together with additional neutronic plasma to create other elemental forms.</p> <p>It strikes me as well that understanding the nuclear physics of an atom is critical to our understanding of the structure and dynamics of space-time as well. It appears that the nucleonic dissociation of a neutron into a proton/electron pair in which electro-magnetic forces and fields come into play and can be yielded, represents on one hand a more stable dissociation of mass than that found within a neutron. Neutrons appear only to exist within a nucleus in conjunction with protons and other neutrons. The foundation of all radioactivity is then the continous dissociation of a neutron and its tendency to breakdown into proton-electron pairs.</p> <p>As stars reach their final stages, it seems to me that a solid mass core takes over from a liquid plasma core, and as the composition of the plasma changes towards heavier and crystallytic elements, a degree of gravitational equilibrium is achieved at the core at which time the space-time fabric can repair itself to the point that no new nucleonic material will be produced, and material already existing within the system will either be blown out of the system or consumed and crystallized into heavier and heavier elemental forms. At some stage, secondary fission reactions might overtake the primary fusion generator reactions--these secondary reactions tending to redistribute heavier atomic nuclei.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>As the original fusion pathways continue, a greater density of heavier and heavier nuclei would emerge, and more pathways for more possible combinations for secondary fusion reactions would be available. A star apparently spends the greater part of its lifetime cooking up the basic elemental ingredients--primarily the hydrogen nuclei--followed by helium, lithium, beryllium, boron, carbon, etc. Whatever the final broth of the star in its final death throes, the greater mass and amounts of the heavier elements will be formed in the penultimate moments of the stars emergence. Once the processes come to completion, the pathway of the star can go in one of several directions depending upon its overall size--very large stars that have short state-path trajectories end up collapsing in upon themselves to form the dark stuff of blackholes in a gravitational vortex. Intermediate stars probably become unstable neutron stars and quasars, possibly exploding or pulsing. Stars below a certain threshold almost certain end up as brown dwarves that shrink upon themselves, throwing off the last remaining plasma fuel. At this stage, it is possible that the mass of such stars actually shrink to an indefinite limit. Gravitational energies in the unified mass of the core would become stablized and concentrated upon a common focus, at which point no new stellar material would be formed. In the very last stage, a dead star would emerge as a kind of planetoid within which the process of molecular compounding and crystallization would be the main remaining reaction.</p> <p>Space-time disequilibriation to electro-magnetic/gravitational interaction to stellar nuclear material to fused elemental material to fissioned heavy nuclei to chemical crystallization of molecular compounds to nuclear degeneration of compounds.</p> <p>It also is the case that once a star is formed in its proto-form then it will not change in size or dimension in any considerable degree. It attains a state of relative gravitational equilibrium that entails that any new nuclear material it may produce within its core, will be ejected and lost from its mass through stellar radiation. Such a star will only gradually change in its internal composition, the rate of change being dependent upon its relative size and possibly is relative plasma densities. This factor may be related to the relative size and density of the star's core. Equilibriation of a star may be related to the relative formation of the core about the outer sheath's of the star, which serve as a sufficient transport mechanism to carry off all new mass and energy produced within the core.</p> <p>It is apparent that gravitational energy is transported to the core of gravitating bodies by means of pressure that is exerted by increasing mass densities about a common center of gravity. This pressure is eventually translated into heat energy that is lost primarily through conductance from the core, back through the body of the mass of the planet and released back to space, relatively free of gravitational constraint by the object that created it in the first place.</p> <p>In understanding the production of elements in sun systems, we must understand the possible pathways that may occur in the fusion of hydrogen nuclei, or nucleons, into larger nucleic structures, and the possible fusion of these larger structures into even heavier nuclear structures. The key question to be asked in the universe is whether the distribution of basic elements in the universe is relatively uniform and the same throughout, or if not, then whether the relative presence and densities of different kinds of elements are different and essentially random in the universe.</p> <p>These fusion process alledgedly take place within the core regions of stars on a regular basis, fueled perhaps in the outer regions by reverse fission processes which serve to reduce nuclei back into smaller nucleonic particles. In general, though stars typically through off a vast amount of mass each year, the mass of such systems appear to change little over its life-span. The nuclear composition of its core appears to alter, especially in its latest stages, with increasing temperatures and the possible build of more dense distributions of heavier nuclei. At some stage, the reverse fission processes that feed such systems slow down or eventually stop, and less nucleonic material is blown off in the normal radiation of such a star.</p> <p>This process is the only known or observed means of manufacturing heavier nuclear materials from lighter material. In other words, we know of no other means of making any of the elements that occur on earth or in any of the other planets, or naturally any where else in the universe. The original production of nucleonic material remains unknown, though I speculate that it can be made in one of two or more different state-path trajectories, and gravitational energy may be the basis of its production and its ultimate destruction. If new nucleonic material is produced as a result of gravitational forces in sun-sized systems, then it is apparent that there is an equilibrium of total mass of such systems such that they remain fairly stable and the same in size throughout most of their life-span. Thus, if new nucleonic material is constantly manufactured in sun-sized stellar systems, then this new mass must be a part of the material that is continuously ejected and blown off into outer space. It may be blown off only as free neutrons and protons, too light to remain trapped within the core of such systems.</p> <p>We do not know if the total universe exhibits a set amount of nuclear material, in some kind of grand equilibrium, or else if this total volume of its mass may fluctuate with time, decreasing or growing in time. We may perhaps never know.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>The relationships suggested by the perfect gas law and the behavior of gases in space-time, lacking an apparent gravitational core, bring up the question of pressure theory as this may relate to gravitational pressures affecting gravitating bodies, albeit in inverse relationship to gas pressure. It is apparent that space-time has a fluidity almost like a gas or liquid in motion.</p> <p>Electrostatically bound entities constitute the basis for the reorientation of fieldlines about a common center of gravity.How this occurs exactly is unknown, but it is clear that at the level of gravitational fieldlines, electromagnetic forces interact and shape their structure of space-time. It is equally clear that gravitationally unified and bound systems, such as Earth, are not held together by electrostatic forces so much as by a gravitational field that keeps everything close to the ground, so to speak. But it is equally clear that all mass must exhibit electrostatic binding before they can become gravitationally unified and bound together as a single gravitating body.</p> <p>This is just the reverse of the case of gases, especially hydrogen gas. Gases can diffuse into each other without any apparent reaction--they appear to be spatially unbound unless they are confined to some kind of container. And yet the kinetic and random motion of their molecules suggests that these entities do interact with space-time fieldlines, albeit in disordered and perhaps a non-isotropic manner. If we examine the possible s-t relativity of such phenomena--if an object does not fall to earth, except that it may be carried by the space-time manifold to the earth, in a similar way we must ask whether the kinetic hydrogen molecules are really bouncing off one another, or is the s-t that they are contained within set into a kind of wild turbulence.</p> <p>It is apparent to me as well that plasmas have similar properties of pressure and flow dynamics as gases and fluids, especially in contexts such as in the sun where they apparent of a certain density. The expansion of a red giant may be due to the sudden change in temperature and the increase of relative pressure of the internal composition of the plasma. Pressure/density/temperature relationships--the outer shell of the sun acts as a boundary layer, possibly, maintaining internal equilibrium and unfication of the system. Pressures and temperatures may balance one another within the solar system to achieve a kind of equilibrium. It is possible that the perfect gas law would not apply to conditions of extremely high pressures and temperatures in the same manner.</p> <b><u> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Universal Relativity</p> </u></b> <p>The principle of universal relativity emerges from consideration of the dynamic state universe. It states that there can be no non-relative frames of reference by which to understand or define any subsystem of the universe. It implies that the universe is infinite and unbounded, and non-zero state, which implies as well that absolute zero is a physical constant of the universe that appears inviolable but which may be gradually changing as a zero-reference point for all coordinate periodic processes occurring in the universe.</p> <p>Universal relativity represents an extension of the basic principles of the theory of general relativity into a n-dimensional construct that allows the normal four-dimension construct of space-time independent variability as a result of kinetic energy and motion.</p> <p>Universal relativity may be stated or summarized by the following example. For each object that is embedded in a discrete space-time matrix, there is a single instantaneous set of values that can be associated with that object in relation to its direct frame of reference. At this level, the rules of mechanics governing the behavior of the object would be the same for any other object that occupied the same frame. The trouble is that the frame itself that defines the mechanical behavior of the objects it contains, can be part of a yet larger frame or space-time matrix, and this subframe, including the objects it contains, may be obeying a different set of rules of behavior than those that determine the behavior of the objects in reference to itself. The rules of behavior that determine the outcomes for the larger framework are completely independent of the mechanistic rules that determine the behavior of the objects it contains. In other words, depending on the scale we specify, any frame or object it contains may be a part of any number of larger frames, each of which obeys its own state-path trajectory that is independent of the frameworks and trajectories contained within it. In fact, there may be an infinite number of such frameworks simultaneously cooccurring in the universe, even within one area of the universe.</p> <p>I will call the framework within which set rules of mechanics conform all objects the gravitational frame of reference, because in all such systems gravitational force appears to be the common denominator and the main thing in common between all frames of reference, of whatever observable scale. We notice most our motion on the earth's surface in terms of gravity that pulls everything earthward, sometimes destructively so, and in terms of the earth's rotation, which we see as the rising and setting of the sun. We notice less the passage of the earth about its orbit of the sun, as the passage of days of the year and the seasons that recycle. These motions occur independently of our own actions or movements upon the earth's surface. We notice even less our passage about the Milky Way, or the possible travels of the Milky Way galaxy through space in relation to other galaxies.</p> <p>The possibility of relative gravitational frames of reference occurs as the result of the gravitational unification of a system in a state of relative equilibrium that defines a long-lasting state-path trajectory. There are few abrupt shifts expected in the rotation of the earth or in its orbit around the sun. There may be slight long term perturbations or periodic fluctuations. We cannot guess really the long-term behavior of any system. Once a system becomes gravitationally unified, it achieves an equilibrium of gravitational force within the framework that it is defined within, such that it remains relatively stable and quite predictable in its pathway over the long term.</p> <p>Gravitational unification is related to the notion of the physical definition of a fixed dominant center of gravity within a bounded system, such that all objects belonging to such a system have adjusted their motions and behaviors in relation to a common center of gravitation. Any object, within any single frame of reference, must obey certain laws of motion: it can be in only one place at one time, and it can travel in only one direction at one time. Furthermore, in order to accelerate the object, it must require the input of additional energy. Usually, such centers of gravitation are defined by the largest material body locally present in a system, but such local systems are indeed part of larger systems that are defined by centers of gravitation. It is possible that centers of gravitation can be defined in relatively empty space, in juxtaposition between two or more bodies in relation to one another. This would be a form of complex equilibrium.</p> <p>Free falling bodies of different masses within the same gravitational frame of reference will achieve equal speeds of accleration, all other things being equal. This points to the independence of the gravitational structure of space-time that surrounds and embeds the objects to the relative mass of the objects themselves. In such conditions of free-fall, it is the relative disequilibrium of the gravitational framework of these objects, and the corresponding disruption of their space-time matrix, that causes their uniform acceleration. What served as key evidence for general relativity remains primary observational evidence for universal relativity as well.</p> <p>Universal relativity thus suggests that space-time may have different values depending upon the frame of reference within which it is measured, and that each frame of reference would represent a different relative dimensionally of the system. The naturally stratified universe would therefore exist in a multi-dimensional set of spatio-temporal frameworks.</p> <p>One outcome of universal relativity is that acceleration of any object alters its relative gravitational frame of reference, and the energy required for aceleration, or the energy of inertia, is related to the negative threshold energies of the gravitational field that embed the object in the first place. A fast moving object will exist within a different space-time coordinate system than a slow moving object. Simultaneously, a very large and massive object may also exist within a different space-time structure than a very small one. The size of an object is indirectly equivalent to its speed of motion within a given frame of reference. In other words, they may have equivalent effects upon the structure of the space-time manifold that embeds such objects. It follows that if an object may become so massive and dense as to fundamentally disrupt the space-time manifold that embeds it, it is also possible that an object may be accelerated to a speed that it breaches the limits of the space-time manifold. The results might be similar in terms of the disappearance of the object from normal observability.</p> <p>In the larger scale of the universe, it appears that there is no central or common equilibrium for the overall system. In other words, at some scale at which the cosmological principle becomes operative, gravitational unification cannot be presumed to occur on a wide scale, and patterns of behavior can be said to be overall non-isotropic, and in the largest sense, random. There may be a larger frame of reference for the observable or total universe that has not yet been observed. In fact, gravitational unification may occur for larger scales that are essentially beyond the observational sphere of the universe, and that may be misleading because the main structures they contain may exhibit little or no isotropic equilibrium in relation to one another. It is upon this scale that we must speculate upon a universe that is parallel or else topographically stratified in spatial-temporal dimensions, or in alternative dimensions otherwise unknown.</p> <p>In this notion of multi-dimensionality, space-time, however convoluted or structured, may in fact not be a uniform or continuous entity, but may be heterogeneous in its constitution. The structure of space-time that would be encountered at any one point in the universe would be a function of the relative frame within which it, or rather our measuing instruments, were determined. Multiple structures of space-time may interpenetrate the same points at the same time without interference, albeit upon different dimensional trajectories. Space-time may be complexly structured in the same coincidental frame of reference without apparent interference or transference of energy from one frame to another. This complex stratification of space-time would be experienced as a continuous gradient or a continuum, much as uniform acceleration might be seen to occur in a continuous transition.</p> <p>Space-time can be said to be relative to the gravitational frame of reference that determines its measurement and its mechanical principles. Gravitation may thus represent a kind of well system of field-energies that are continuous and instantaneous throughout the universe at any scale of measurement or determination. Space-time would be structured differently at different levels within this well-system.</p> <p>One aspect of universal relativity thus defined is that all objects that have mass do so because they are essentially a part of some gravitational system, or in fact a complex set of such systems. Material objects with physical properties as we know them all share certain features of motion in common. Such objects have the inertia of energy or momentum in their motion when they are accelerated, and it is almost impossible to acclerate any such material entity at or beyond the speed of light. The resistance to acceleration is the entropic effect essentially of the gravitational field upon the object, or, looked at another way, is the consequence of the disruption of the gravitational field or its relative state of equilibrium in its acceleration.</p> <p>In such a system, the speed of light may not be so much a universal constant, as it is universally constant as a unique property of electromagnetic radiation. In other words, the speed of light is a specific property of this form of energy. There is logical reason to believe that gravitational energy may actually propagate at much greater than the speed of light, albeit almost instantaneously throughout the universe.</p> <p>Another feature of this conception of universal relativity is that there can be no object or energy that is at complete rest or at absolute zero. All objects are in some kind of motion, even if this motion cannot be observed due to our inability to escape the frame of reference that is a part of this motion. The motion of all objects in the Universe, however large or small, is inherent to the material definition of all physical phenomena as existing: 1. In relative space-time; and 2. Within at least one relative gravitational frame of reference. No material object can occur or happen outside of the gravitational frame of reference that defines that object in space-time.</p> <p>Gravitation itself can be said to exist at relative zero, because its simultaneous propagation through the universe achieves a unification of space-time at which space-time becomes essentially static and valueless. In this sense, gravitation is a form of "negative"energy the effect of which is just the reverse of the positive physical energies that we observe in the universe. Its effect is entropic in the sense that all such motions exhibit some relative measure of inertia that is equivalent to its mass and its motion.</p> <p>Universal relativity may be stated or summarized by the following example. For each object that is embedded in a discrete space-time matrix, there is a single instantaneous set of values that can be associated with that object in relation to its direct gravitational frame of reference. At this level, the rules of mechanics governing the behavior of the object would be the same for any other object that occupied the same frame. The trouble is that the frame itself that defines the mechanical behavior of the objects it contains, can be part of a yet larger frame or space-time matrix, and this subframe, including the objects it contains, may be obeying a different set of rules of behavior than those that determine the behavior of the objects in reference to itself. The rules of behavior that determine the outcomes for the larger framework are completely independent of the mechanistic rules that determine the behavior of the objects it contains. In other words, depending on the scale we specify, any frame or object it contains may be a part of any number of larger frames, each of which obeys its own state-path trajectory that is independent of the frameworks and trajectories contained within it. In fact, there may be an infinite number of such frameworks simultaneously cooccurring in the universe, even within one area of the universe.</p> <p>I will call the framework within which set rules of mechanics conform all objects the gravitational frame of reference, because in all such systems gravitational force appears to be the common denominator and the main thing in common between all frames of reference, of whatever observable scale. We notice most our motion on the earth's surface in terms of gravity that pulls everything earthward, sometimes destructively so, and in terms of the earth's rotation, which we see as the rising and setting of the sun. We notice less the passage of the earth about its orbit of the sun, as the passage of days of the year and the seasons that recycle. These motions occur independently of our own actions or movements upon the earth's surface. We notice even less our passage about the Milky Way, or the possible travels of the Milky Way galaxy through space in relation to other galaxies.</p> <p>Rules of universal relativity</p> <p>All things are in motion: there can be nothing that is not in motion.</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p>a. in the universe, there are no fixed points of reference that are unchanging.</p> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> <p>All motions are relative to the frames of gravitational reference in which they occur.</p> <p>All objects are in some kind of relative motion. All objects therefore have some relative mass.</p> <p>All frames of gravitational reference are relative to themselves and to the nested frames within which they are embedded.</p> <p>There are no nonrelative gravitational frames of reference.</p> <p>Any object may exist in any number of independent gravitational frames of reference simultaneously, as long as these frames of reference are ordered as a well system, relative to the object contained within such a systems.</p> <p>The possibility of relative gravitational frames of reference occurs as the result of the gravitational unification of a system in a state of relative equilibrium that defines a long-lasting state-path trajectory. There are few abrupt shifts expected in the rotation of the earth or in its orbit around the sun. There may be slight long term perturbations or periodic fluctuations. We cannot guess really the long-term behavior of any system. Once a system becomes gravitationally unified, it achieves an equilibrium of gravitational force within the framework that it is defined within, such that it remains relatively stable and quite predictable in its pathway over the long term.</p> <p>Gravitational unification is related to the notion of the physical definition of a fixed dominant center of gravity within a bounded system, such that all objects belonging to such a system have adjusted their motions and behaviors in relation to a common center of gravitation. Any object, within any single frame of reference, must obey certain laws of motion: it can be in only one place at one time, and it can travel in only one direction at one time. Furthermore, in order to accelerate the object, it must require the input of additional energy. Usually, such centers of gravitation are defined by the largest material body locally present in a system, but such local systems are indeed part of larger systems that are defined by centers of gravitation. It is possible that centers of gravitation can be defined in relatively empty space, in juxtaposition between two or more bodies in relation to one another. This would be a form of complex equilibrium.</p> <p>Free falling bodies of different masses within the same gravitational frame of reference will achieve equal speeds of accleration, all other things being equal. This points to the independence of the gravitational structure of space-time that surrounds and embeds the objects to the relative mass of the objects themselves. In such conditions of free-fall, it is the relative disequilibrium of the gravitational framework of these objects, and the corresponding disruption of their space-time matrix, that causes their uniform acceleration. What served as key evidence for general relativity remains primary observational evidence for universal relativity as well.</p> <p>Universal relativity thus suggests that space-time may have different values depending upon the frame of reference within which it is measured, and that each frame of reference would represent a different relative dimensionally of the system. The naturally stratified universe would therefore exist in a multi-dimensional set of spatio-temporal frameworks.</p> <p>One outcome of universal relativity is that acceleration of any object alters its relative gravitational frame of reference, and the energy required for aceleration, or the energy of inertia, is related to the negative threshold energies of the gravitational field that embed the object in the first place. A fast moving object will exist within a different space-time coordinate system than a slow moving object. Simultaneously, a very large and massive object may also exist within a different space-time structure than a very small one. The size of an object is indirectly equivalent to its speed of motion within a given frame of reference. In other words, they may have equivalent effects upon the structure of the space-time manifold that embeds such objects. It follows that if an object may become so massive and dense as to fundamentally disrupt the space-time manifold that embeds it, it is also possible that an object may be accelerated to a speed that it breaches the limits of the space-time manifold. The results might be similar in terms of the disappearance of the object from normal observability.</p> <p>In the larger scale of the universe, it appears that there is no central or common equilibrium for the overall system. In other words, at some scale at which the cosmological principle becomes operative, gravitational unification cannot be presumed to occur on a wide scale, and patterns of behavior can be said to be overall non-isotropic, and in the largest sense, random. There may be a larger frame of reference for the observable or total universe that has not yet been observed. In fact, gravitational unification may occur for larger scales that are essentially beyond the observational sphere of the universe, and that may be misleading because the main structures they contain may exhibit little or no isotropic equilibrium in relation to one another. It is upon this scale that we must speculate upon a universe that is parallel or else topographically stratified in spatial-temporal dimensions, or in alternative dimensions otherwise unknown.</p> <p>In this notion of multi-dimensionality, space-time, however convoluted or structured, may in fact not be a uniform or continuous entity, but may be heterogeneous in its constitution. The structure of space-time that would be encountered at any one point in the universe would be a function of the relative frame within which it, or rather our measuing instruments, were determined. Multiple structures of space-time may interpenetrate the same points at the same time without interference, albeit upon different dimensional trajectories. Space-time may be complexly structured in the same coincidental frame of reference without apparent interference or transference of energy from one frame to another. This complex stratification of space-time would be experienced as a continuous gradient or a continuum, much as uniform acceleration might be seen to occur in a continuous transition.</p> <p>Space-time can be said to be relative to the gravitational frame of reference that determines its measurement and its mechanical principles. Gravitation may thus represent a kind of well system of field-energies that are continuous and instantaneous throughout the universe at any scale of measurement or determination. Space-time would be structured differently at different levels within this well-system.</p> <p>One aspect of universal relativity thus defined is that all objects that have mass do so because they are essentially a part of some gravitational system, or in fact a complex set of such systems. Material objects with physical properties as we know them all share certain features of motion in common. Such objects have the inertia of energy or momentum in their motion when they are accelerated, and it is almost impossible to acclerate any such material entity at or beyond the speed of light. The resistance to acceleration is the entropic effect essentially of the gravitational field upon the object, or, looked at another way, is the consequence of the disruption of the gravitational field or its relative state of equilibrium in its acceleration.</p> <p>In such a system, the speed of light may not be so much a universal constant, as it is universally constant as a unique property of electromagnetic radiation. In other words, the speed of light is a specific property of this form of energy. There is logical reason to believe that gravitational energy may actually propagate at much greater than the speed of light, albeit almost instantaneously throughout the universe.</p> <p>Another feature of this conception of universal relativity is that there can be no object or energy that is at complete rest or at absolute zero. All objects are in some kind of motion, even if this motion cannot be observed due to our inability to escape the frame of reference that is a part of this motion. The motion of all objects in the Universe, however large or small, is inherent to the material definition of all physical phenomena as existing: 1. In relative space-time; and 2. Within at least one relative gravitational frame of reference. No material object can occur or happen outside of the gravitational frame of reference that defines that object in space-time.</p> <p>Gravitation itself can be said to exist at relative zero, because its simultaneous propagation through the universe achieves a unification of space-time at which space-time becomes essentially static and valueless. In this sense, gravitation is a form of "negative"energy the effect of which is just the reverse of the positive physical energies that we observe in the universe. Its effect is entropic in the sense that all such motions exhibit some relative measure of inertia that is equivalent to its mass and its motion.</p> <b><u> <p ALIGN="CENTER">The Negative Gravitational Field</p> </u></b> <p>The consideration of gravitational energy suggests a form of negative force in the universe. It confers the inertia of acceleration to all objects of mass, and it also imposes the rules of entropy upon all energy transactions in the universe. It appears to maintain a state of steady equilibrium, such that objects embedded within it tend to maintain a very stable and ordered trajectory through it. Gravitational fieldlines may transect the axis, such that it is the transverse lines an object crosses in its motions that provides the basis for the inertia of the object to acceleration, or the change of velocity which must be interpreted in terms of time and space dilation. A free-falling body on earth will transect in its trajectory an increasing number of these transverse lines that would be concentrically arranged in relation to the earth's center of gravity, such that the closer such an object came to the earth, the greater its speed as a consequence of transecting an increasing number of such field lines. The constant of acceleration of any such object, or of two different objects, is the product of any such objects crossing the same, increasing number of fieldlines upon its trajectory to earth.</p> <p>This brings up the question whether or not it is possible that distant fieldlines tend to become straightened out, or else stretched out, and that the fieldlines emanating from different distant gravitating bodies may interfere within one another upon their intersection, creating possible phase or periodic patterns in gravitation.</p> <p>Fieldlines define directional and unified flow of space-time. Fieldlines appear to transect this flow, which is always in the direction of the relative center of gravitational attraction. It is possible that in deep, empty space, where gravitating bodies are distant, these fieldlines are either smoothed out or possibly straightened or stretched out to the maximum limits--this state would resemble the most desirable equilibrium.</p> <p>It is clear that for any given object at any given speed maintains its own independent gravitational frame of reference. This frame of reference is determined by the gravitational field that surrounds and embeds the object in space-time.</p> <p>The communication of gravitational attraction between objects suggests that the gravitational fieldlines exist de facto within an already unified field, and that there may be a form of reciprocal vibration or oscillation along such preexisting lines. This reciprocity appears to be instantaneous. The frame of gravitational reference is already unified unless disturbed by a change of direction/or acceleration of an object. Such frames exist independently, and are already unified. The paradox of universal instantaneity is that in such a universe there is no time, or no sense of time. Time at such a rate is inconsequential. Hence, space is the only relevant dimension, and space is bridged.</p> <p>It is possible that neutrons are the basis for gravitational attraction, and gravitational fieldlines are a natural consequence of the neutron embedded within the nucleus. Evidence from hydrogen atoms that are not affected gravitationally suggest the possibility that the charge dichtomization of proton-electron pairs serves to neutralize the gravitational forces within these pairs. It is possible that protons bound in conjunction with neutrons derive their gravitational energies and characteristics from their bonds and proximity to their gravitational neighbors.</p> <p>It is possible that the same fieldlines that serve to unify all gravitational frames of reference about a gravitational body, serve as well to unify the constituent entities within the body as well, being the basis for the gravitation in the first place, even going so far as to orient sch entities about a common center of gravity, and possible permitting the transference of energy from one entiy to another or from all entities to the entire gravitating body as a whole.</p> <p>It is evident that fieldlines form a space-time unity of frame that is very ordered and predictable, and that relates objects to one another, to the background space-time context, and the constituents of the objects, to a common reference point. This act of unification occurs automatically and instantaneously, precisely and exactly, without further development or processing of information required. It is a form of natural physical intelligence that is the outcome of the rules of relation governing gravitation in the universe. Gravitational fieldlines have the further quality of uniting the frame of reference to the entire universe in such a way as to assure that there will be no fundamental disruption of the foundational mechanical laws of the physical information.</p> <p>Rules of gravitational unification</p> <p>1. There can be no non-relative discontinuity of space and time.</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p>a. Within any given frame of reference, an object may travel in only one direction at the same time.</p> </blockquote> </blockquote> <p>b. An object may not be in two different places at the same time,</p> <p>c. Time only flows in one direction. It flows forward, not backward.</p> <p>d. Two objects may not occupy the same space at the same time without</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p>dynamic interaction resulting in the transference of energy to obtain mutual gravitational equilibrium.</p> </blockquote> </blockquote> <p>2. Space and time are relative periodic properties of gravitational unification of physical reality (i.e. the unified gravitational field).</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p>a. Space and time vary in an inverse manner within the gravitational frame of reference in which they occur.</p> </blockquote> </blockquote> <p>b. Mass is a measure of the relative space-time density of the gravitational</p> <p>manifold continuously enveloping an object of matter.</p> <blockquote> <blockquote> <p>c. Motion and kinetic energy are the relative measures of the disequilibrium of the gravitational manifold that surround and object in a directional gradient.</p> </blockquote> </blockquote> <p>Rules of gravitational mechanics.</p> <p>The same rules of gravitational mechanics apply in the same way to all objects embedded within a common frame of gravitational reference. All measuring instruments would be equal within the same frame.</p> <p>Rules of gravitational mechanics are relative to the framework that they occur within.</p> <p>There is no object without gravitational properties as it occurs within at least one or more gravitational frames of reference. No object can escape the forces or effects of gravitation, or exist as an object beyond or outside of a gravitational frame of reference.</p> <p>The gravitational field is a priori and independent of the object(s) it contains, though the objects do affect the local gravitational field in critical relativistic ways.</p> <p>I define Absolute Zero as the point of minimum convergence of the positive and negative energy systems of the complementary-state universe, and I define the speed of light as the point of maximum divergence in disequilibrium of the two complementary systems. There appear to be two other points relevant to the structural description and articulation of such a complementary state universe. There appears to be a point of maximum gravitational concentration, definable as the Singularity, beyond which positive physical energy or matter cannot exist as such. There also appears to be a point of minimum gravitational dispersion, which I define as the Zeroth Simultaneity, beyond which physical matter and energy also cannot exist as such. There appear furthermore to be relative isoclines connecting these points in a common metaspace which defines the limits of physical transition for any complementary state energy system, beyond which such systems cannot exist.</p> <p>Gravity is negative energy, measured as the mass of inertia, or the energy required to counter the effects of gravity. It is thus like a counterbalance used in the determination of the relative mass of an object. It is the measure of the potential positive energy required specifically to alter or overcome the preestablished equilibrium of the system.</p> <p>Virtual gravitation is the total universal range of gravity, beyond the limits of effective gravitation, past which gravitation from alternative points of reference tend to cancel one another out, or average out, such that at great empty distances from any gravitating bodies, there is relative uniformity of the gravitational field. This would be experienced as a relative weightlessness, or a gravity-less environment. The only felt forces would be the inertia of acceleration that would accompany any change of speed or direction of a moving object.</p> <p>In the large and in the long run, all gravitational fields in the universe will average out to zero, or relative absolute gravitational equilibrium. Any locally or regionally defined gravitational field is only isotrophic in a relative sense, and in the large is non-isotropic in relation to the gravitational field as a whole. Isotropic gravitational systems are neutralized in deep space where multiple gravitational fields interfere with one another and where there is no single dominant field to overshadow the others.</p> <p>Space and time are physical properties of the gravitational field, and are a function of the relative gravitational frame of reference for any object within this field. It follows that physical reality as we know it, with the observable dimensions we can see in our reality, is defined and made possible by the unified gravitational field, and all occurring energies are but derivatives of this field, alternative forms of expression of the same basic energy. It is possible that disruptions of the gravitational field occur, and that this field or other fields may exist within other dimensional realities to which our physical universe is somehow connected, but these are at this time unknown, and unknowable, for us in any direct sense.</p> <p>Spin synchronization/spin orientation--orientation & synchronization may fluctuate with shifting frames of reference. A neutron is like a small compass or gyrator always aligned. This sense of alignment is determined probably by the gravitational force that is dominant in the local sense. The numbers involved in the calculus of gravitation forces are non-discrete ratio values, or else dimensionless numbers.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <b><u> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Gravitational Dynamics</p> </u></b> <p>If we are to understand the origin of the universe, then we must seek to explain the systemic universe, and we must seek to understand the nature and origin of universal entropy itself. If all systems tend toward such a universal and undifferentiated state in the long run, we can speculate as well the possibility that all systems also originated from such a state in the first place. The total universe may consist of nothing more than the continuous differentiation of natural systems from the entropic background, and the subsequent return of such systems to the background.</p> <p>What appears to us to be entropic, especially in the classical thermodynamic sense, may be on another level anything but chaotic. If we see entropy as being as a form of negative counterbalance upon a scale or balance beam, then we can see that the net sum of all systemic-entropic interactions is always zero or equilibrium. In other words, entropy always complements and makes up the difference between a system and its ideal state, and it always connects that system with the larger metasystem and other systems within the universal matrix. The observation of entropy therefore entails that there is a sense of possible structure, or rather potential information, in the universal background that is not clearly understood. It is in the instances where basic thermodynamic principles appear to be violated, as for instance in superconducting states when there is zero resistance, that we might be able to see more clearly the boundaries of boundaries and the structure of the constraints themselves.</p> <p>Understanding this sense of order in disorder constitutes, I believe, the basis for understanding the universal field. In this universal field, there may lie hidden before our eyes, in the voids of nothingness, an amazing sense of order and relation as yet undiscovered and even unimagined. In this field, time may flow not only forward, but backward, or not flow at all. In this field, multiple dimensions of multiple physical realities may collide comfortably with one another, and even interdigitate within one another such that we may hypothesize the instantaneous coexistence of an infinite number of universes within the same metaspace. Into this field, mass may eventually escape and disintegrate and energy may eventually disappear and become altered into some other form.</p> <p>In fact, what we understand to be weight, or the equilibrium of inertia, as the basis of gravity systems, may be nothing more than the dynamic effects of this background entropy system upon the structure of space-time itself, and upon the objects of the field contained within it.</p> <p>Thus the uniform acceleration of objects in free fall may be a function of the relative disruption of the space-time continuum by the fact of the greater mass of the gravitating body. This disruption may in fact be little more than a sense of disequilibrium of space-time structure on opposite sides of the falling body in relation to the gravitational center. The gradual increasing acceleration of such bodies, and their winding, spiraling trajectories, may in fact be little more than the result of such a differential relative to the distance to the center of gravity.</p> <p>At the other end of the gravitational continuum, if the evidence of the doppler shift does indicate an accelerating universe, then could it be that the expanding universe is acclerating because it is falling into the voids of space-time, where space-time becomes eventually disrupted or stretched in its fieldlines. In other words, the entire universe may be "free falling" into the voids of empty space at the perimeters of the system, albeit falling away everywhere at the same time. Rather than a primal big bang, is it possible that the original universe started off with just a small lurch.</p> <p>If such a model were correct, it would suggest that the normal structure of space-time is like a huge hill on a plane, or a mound, over which light and all objects must travel. One one side of this hill may be all the large gravitating bodies that drag everything small and local down. On the other side may be the empty cavern of the voids of space-time itself, dragging the hill itself down further and further into its vast emptiness.</p> <p>This brings a relative issue about motion. Though an object can travel in only a single direction in a given instant, the entire system within which that object may be traveling can simultaneously be traveling in any direction other than the one in which the object were traveling. If the entire system were traveling in the same direction as the object and at the same speed, then the object would appear motionless and we could not notice motion of anykind. One way of understanding the nature of acceleration and inertia is to conceive of the energy required to change directions of an object from its normal "metasystemic" trajectory to any other pathway, especially one that leads in an opposite direction from its metasystem.</p> <p>Of course, we can throw a ball almost anywhere upon the earth to the same general effect, and the distance and direction we can throw it is almost completely independent of the motion of the earth (and the ball and ourselves) upon its axis or about the sun or through the Milky Way.</p> <p>Rules of gravitational dynamics.</p> <p>1. Gravitational energy is continuous and unending.</p> <p>2. Gravitational energy cannot be made or destroyed, only altered in a relative sense.</p> <p>3. Gravitational energy always seeks a state of relative equilibrium defined as a unified frame of reference.</p> <p>4. The universal equivalence of mass to energy is an empirical measure of gravitational energy and its equivalence to other forms of positive energy.</p> <p>5. Gravitational energy may, under the right conditions, become transformed into other kinds of energy, and vice versa.</p> <p>6. Mass is the relative measure of the gravitational energy defined by a given object within an effective gravitational frame of reference.</p> <p> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p> </p> <p>The consideration of gravitational energy suggests a form of negative force in the universe. It confers the inertia of acceleration to all objects of mass, and it also imposes the rules of entropy upon all energy transactions in the universe. It appears to maintain a state of steady equilibrium, such that objects embedded within it tend to maintain a very stable and ordered trajectory through it. Gravitational fieldlines may transect the axis, such that it is the transverse lines an object crosses in its motions that provides the basis for the inertia of the object to acceleration, or the change of velocity which must be interpreted in terms of time and space dilation. A free-falling body on earth will transect in its trajectory an increasing number of these transverse lines that would be concentrically arranged in relation to the earth's center of gravity, such that the closer such an object came to the earth, the greater its speed as a consequence of transecting an increasing number of such field lines. The constant of acceleration of any such object, or of two different objects, is the product of any such objects crossing the same, increasing number of fieldlines upon its trajectory to earth.</p> <p>This brings up the question whether or not it is possible that distant fieldlines tend to become straightened out, or else stretched out, and that the fieldlines emanating from different distant gravitating bodies may interfere within one another upon their intersection, creating possible phase or periodic patterns in gravitation.</p> <p>Fieldlines define directional and unified flow of space-time. Fieldlines appear to transect this flow, which is always in the direction of the relative center of gravitational attraction. It is possible that in deep, empty space, where gravitating bodies are distant, these fieldlines are either smoothed out or possibly straightened or stretched out to the maximum limits--this state would resemble the most desirable equilibrium.</p> <p>It is clear that for any given object at any given speed maintains its own independent gravitational frame of reference. This frame of reference is determined by the gravitational field that surrounds and embeds the object in space-time.</p> <p>The communication of gravitational attraction between objects suggests that the gravitational fieldlines exist de facto within an already unified field, and that there may be a form of reciprocal vibration or oscillation along such preexisting lines. This reciprocity appears to be instantaneous. The frame of gravitational reference is already unified unless disturbed by a change of direction/or acceleration of an object. Such frames exist independently, and are already unified. The paradox of universal instantaneity is that in such a universe there is no time, or no sense of time. Time at such a rate is inconsequential. Hence, space is the only relevant dimension, and space is bridged.</p> <p>It is possible that neutrons are the basis for gravitational attraction, and gravitational fieldlines are a natural consequence of the neutron embedded within the nucleus. Evidence from hydrogen atoms that are not affected gravitationally suggest the possibility that the charge dichtomization of proton-electron pairs serves to neutralize the gravitational forces within these pairs. It is possible that protons bound in conjunction with neutrons derive their gravitational energies and characteristics from their bonds and proximity to their gravitational neighbors.</p> <p>It is possible that the same fieldlines that serve to unify all gravitational frames of reference about a gravitational body, serve as well to unify the constituent entities within the body as well, being the basis for the gravitation in the first place, even going so far as to orient sch entities about a common center of gravity, and possible permitting the transference of energy from one entiy to another or from all entities to the entire gravitating body as a whole.</p> <p>It is evident that fieldlines form a space-time unity of frame that is very ordered and predictable, and that relates objects to one another, to the background space-time context, and the constituents of the objects, to a common reference point. This act of unification occurs automatically and instantaneously, precisely and exactly, without further development or processing of information required. It is a form of natural physical intelligence that is the outcome of the rules of relation governing gravitation in the universe. Gravitational fieldlines have the further quality of uniting the frame of reference to the entire universe in such a way as to assure that there will be no fundamental disruption of the foundational mechanical laws of the physical information.</p> <p>within an effective gravitational frame of reference.</p> <p>Gravity is negative energy, measured as the mass of inertia, or the energy required to counter the effects of gravity. It is thus like a counterbalance used in the determination of the relative mass of an object. It is the measure of the potential positive energy required specifically to alter or overcome the preestablished equilibrium of the system.</p> <p>A virtual center of gravity is a common point of reference for a unified gravitational frame. It is the spatial anchor point about which a gravitational system becomes defined.</p> <p>Effective gravitation is that range about an object within which gravitational energies related to that object play a significant role in the behavior of that object.</p> <p>Virtual gravitation is the total universal range of gravity, beyond the limits of effective gravitation, past which gravitation from alternative points of reference tend to cancel one another out, or average out, such that at great empty distances from any gravitating bodies, there is relative uniformity of the gravitational field. This would be experienced as a relative weightlessness, or a gravity-less environment. The only felt forces would be the inertia of acceleration that would accompany any change of speed or direction of a moving object.</p> <p>In the large and in the long run, all gravitational fields in the universe will average out to zero, or relative absolute gravitational equilibrium. Any locally or regionally defined gravitational field is only isotrophic in a relative sense, and in the large is non-isotropic in relation to the gravitational field as a whole. Isotropic gravitational systems are neutralized in deep space where multiple gravitational fields interfere with one another and where there is no single dominant field to overshadow the others.</p> <p>Space and time are physical properties of the gravitational field, and are a function of the relative gravitational frame of reference for any object within this field. It follows that physical reality as we know it, with the observable dimensions we can see in our reality, is defined and made possible by the unified gravitational field, and all occurring energies are but derivatives of this field, alternative forms of expression of the same basic energy. It is possible that disruptions of the gravitational field occur, and that this field or other fields may exist within other dimensional realities to which our physical universe is somehow connected, but these are at this time unknown, and unknowable, for us in any direct sense.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">******</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>Gravitation remains as yet a fundamentally mysterious and unexplained force of nature--the greatest minds of the century have not yet been able to solve its most basic riddles. I have put forth a theory of gravitation that sees gravity as a force essentially different in nature than what we conventionally construe as energy, at least in a positive, radiative sense. It is a form of energy, but unlike what we can directly see. It seems as if gravitation cannot be thought of separately from space-time, and space-time exists only in the framework we know of as being gravitational. If this is true, then it follows that there can be no spatio-temporal juncture or rift in the universe and there can be no place or time in which gravitational force is not manifest and apparent.</p> <p>The primary observation about the separateness of gravitation from other known forms of energy are the following apparent properties:</p> <p>1. It is all pervasive in the known universe.</p> <p>2. It is virtually transparent or invisible to any known instrumentalities of direct observation or detection--it can only be detected indirectly in terms of its omnipotent effects upon things.</p> <p>3. It interacts with all mass and energy in predictable if as yet unexplainable ways.</p> <p>I would go two steps further, and say that what makes gravitation interesting in relation to other known energies in physical reality is that it appears to be essentially non-thermodynamic in the way that energy is usually thought of. In other words, in basic ways it appears to violate the fundamental laws of thermodynamics.</p> <p>I would add to this a second step, and this step relates gravitation as a known form of energy or force, with space-time. I would claim that space-time is not empty or devoid, but it consists of some form of mass or mass-relation. In other words, the emptiness of space-time is nothing but the invisibility of the substance of space-time, and this is essentially the stuff of gravitational energy and mass-relations. As a result of this substantive identity of space-time, I would claim that it interacts with gravitation in interesting ways that are critical to an understanding of gravitational dynamics and to the way the Univese works in the large and the long run.</p> <p>We must ask whether or not mass and solid matter is nothing but an electro-statically defined form of condensed space-time, and whether or not an object that is compounded and gravitationally unified, is not in a sense a distribution of space-time, a solid distribution, that is in at least one sense fairly uniform. If this is perhaps the case, then we can reason the rise of a common center of gravity in a large gravitating body, although there is no clear reason why all the molecules of all the matter of such a body, however distributed, should all be aligned to a common center.</p> <p>These kinds of questions suggest that perhaps gravitation, space-time and the universe are a little more interesting than an empty-space, hard matter, gravitational radiation type of model.</p> <p>It is clear that a star is defined gravitationally by its total mass-the larger the star, the quicker the life-trajectory and the formation of heavier and heavier nuclei from a hotter and hotter body, until this body eventually runs itself out and collapses under its own weight, blowing off most if its original starter fuel. But this process, nor the gravitational unification of the body, explains its long-term equilibrium as a continuously radiating body. Only the notion of the transformation of gravitational energy, or more realistically, of the substance of space-time, and its conversion into fuel in the star, can explain its great longevity as an energy producing system.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>Space-time may not really be empty void, so much as it may be invisible and transparent to our ability to see it for what it may really be--possibly composed of a basic constituent substance consisting of a kind of dark energy and dark matter. It is in essence invisible and transparent to light. Space-time is gravitationally integrated, and gravitational energy is the basic force and building block of space-time. What is normally referred to as space-time in this work will be called more appropriately the gravitational field or frame, with the implication that relativistic space-time relations are the four vector dimensional properties associated with this field, and that the gravitational integration of the field is the basis for these properties. Measures and awareness of space and time are how we understand this field, and the relation of this field to mass-objects is how we understand gravitation.</p> <p>In other words, gravitation can be said to be an intrinsic property of the integration of space-time, and it exists as a form of negative or potential energy within the integrated substance of the space-time manifold. It is brought to realization in the interaction of space-time with mass and energy that it contains, and constitutes a kind of accounting systems for all energy interactions in which there is held to be a net balance and conservation. These interactions constitute the basis for all known physical and mechanical phenomena, and constitute the basis for an experimental field of gravitational mechanics and engineering. According to this model, gravitational energy is a kind of negative binding energy--requiring the input of positive forms of electromagnetic energy in order to realize a change in its relative structure and equilibrium.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>Mass is not an intrinsic property of matter. It is an extrinsic property of matter in a space-time manifold that is defined by the relationship between the gravitational field and the total kinetic energy potential of the mass-energy system that the gravitational field contains. An object carries with it at all time a critical space-time manifold that is its gravitational context and frame of reference. Depending on the size, shape and motion of the object, the manifold that it contains will take on different shapes and density characteristics--relativistic properties associated with its structure, that require energy for its transformation or alteration to a new configuration.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>Motion is not intrinsic to an object of matter or to a particle of energy. It is the result of the differential space-time manifold in which the object or particle exists. This is most clearly demonstrated in the free fall of different mass-sized objects in a uniform gravitational field. It is also demonstrated in the continuous state-path trajectory of an object that is traveling through space in an unimpeded manner.</p> <p>The realization of tremendous kinetic energy from the sudden collision of an object in space represents the instantaneous and automatic conversion of the potential negative energy defined in the space-time manifold of the object into positive forms of energy. The potential energy of the object was contained within the space-time relationship of the object to its gravitational frame of reference. Alternatively, it requires a great deal of kinetic energy input into the system to alter the space-time manifold in such a manner as to result in the acceleration of the object to a faster speed.</p> <p>Positive and negative energy exist in a perfect balance, such that we can make the following kind of relationship:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Ep + -En = 0</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>It appears though that in the energy conversion processes, which is immediate, positive energy is entropic and escapes into the thermal sink of space-time. This diffusion of positive energy entails that the same level of negative energy could never be fully recovered from the amount of positive energy produced from such a reaction. It also entails that the gravitational field, as a universal construct, is the infinite energy sink into which all positive forms of electromagnetic energy must escape.</p> <p>While the principles of thermodyanamics suggests that we can never recover the full amount of energy lost from the reaction due to the realization of positive energy, we can much more efficiently transfer the full amount of negative gravitational energy into positive electromagnetic energy to begin with. This cannot be done without much work being transferred into such a system in the first place.</p> <p>Space-time therefore represents a gravitational frame of reference for any object or positive energy that is contained within it, and the entire structure of the universe in terms of space-time represents a grand thermal energy sink that exists in dynamic equilibrium with the objects contained within it.</p> <p>It appears that the structure of space-time is variable, and that it varies in its densities in a continuous manner. In general, the denser the space-time manifold becomes, the greater the time dilation and space-compression and the greater the net negative energy contained within such a thickened fold of space-time. It appears furthermore that such variable densities may be directionally variable and create differentials that result in motion. Space-time appears to be able to be condensed in one direction, but not necessarily in others. This reflects a certain interesting omnidirectional property of the structure of space time which suggests that multiple energies can pass simultaneously through simultaneously the same structure of space-time, but in variable directions and at variable velocities, without significant interference.</p> <p>Differentials in densities of the space-time manifold suggests also that there is continuous flow from a gradient of low density to high density. This pattern of flow is just the opposite of what would be expected. It is the flow from low to high density areas that is responsible for the realization of motion upon objects. It is the shape of the object, when in motion, that creates the space-time differential in the first place.</p> <p>The differential density of space-time is a relative phenomenon, and this differential can be expressed as the slope of a line, such that the faster the speed, the more vertical the line.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>The change in velocity, or relative acceleration/deceleration, would change the slope of the line, such that the the point would move upon a curve of changing velocities. The rate of change of speed that is the result, say, of a free fall in a uniform gravitational field, can also be plotted upon a line based upon a standard rate of acceleration.</p> <p>These gradients, and the slopes they represent, are an intrinsic property of the space-time manifold that determine the motion and affect upon objects contained within them, and can be used to describe the structural properties of these manifolds as manifest by the behavior of the object that they define.</p> <p>The alternative model is a flow from high to low density that serves to displace an object continuously forward from a low to high density plane--just the reverse of what can be expected in a gravity based system but what is found in thermodynamic systems. If this model is more realistic, then it suggests that space-time exists within mass objects at much lower densities than without, such that the differential between outside to inside creates a continuous flow of space-time into the object, condensing space-time more and more about the boundary layer of the object. In this sense, condensed positive energy, in the form of matter, can drive out space-time structure from within itself.</p> <p>It is evident that mass and energy serve to displace internally the structure of space-time in critical ways, and the internal space-time structure of mass objects must be in a state of critical disequilibrium. Within the internal dimensions of matter, space-time must exist in a turbulent way. There is also associated with mass a process of continuous space-time replacement, in which positive energy is drawn from the negative energy field to replace energy lost from the system due to the entropy of the system.</p> <p>Spime replacement is an alleged process that occurs within the structure of all matter having mass, and is a function of the density of the mass. I believe the rate of spime replacement to be directly proportional to the total relative mass of the object involved. Spime replacement provides the energy source in the transformation of negative energy to positive, and in the continuous production of heat energy in the core areas of very large mass objects. Energy is created through the extreme pressurization of space-time in such a dense interior zone.</p> <p>The exact mechanisms that might be involved in this process are unclear, but it is quite evident that such a process occurs normally and continuously in all large gravitating bodies. The larger the mass of a body, the more rapid the rate of spime replacement.</p> <p>The nature of the space-time relationships in the interior of large mass bodies is unknown, but it is known that the mass pressures of such systems build to tremendous amounts--this pressure is basically sustained by the condensation of the space-time envelope that exerts continuous pressures uniformly to the surface of the object. Usually if the object is large enough it is almost always spherically shaped, suggesting the concentric nature of omnidirectionally convergent space-time upon a common center of gravity at the center of the object.</p> <p>When an object is set in motion, it is the motion of the object that results in a permanent deformation in the space-time manifold defining the object in relation to the universe--motion is carried forward perpetually as long as no further interference affects its trajectory. There is a differential gradient of space-time established in the manifold, from forward to aft, which is defined by and defines as well the motion of the object in a particular direction and at a particular velocity. The "internal clock" of the object, in its matter, are the relativie periodicities and orbital trajectories of its constituent particles in relation to the space-time manifold in which they exist--or, in more precise terms, in relation to the gravitational frame of reference.</p> <p>One must wonder about the boundary layer about such an object, as well as the slope of the gradient which remains a permanent part of the structural properties of the motion of the object. Its motion in a sense becomes an intrinsic part of the object in its space-time manifold. It is to be asked whether or not solid objects do not create a kind of boundary layer of space-time about itself in such a manner as to affect the properties of space-time structure in the objects relation to the rest of the universe, resulting in a space-time or gravitational gradient. These considerations invite the possible invention of certain kinds of kinetic energy devices.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p>Evidence suggests that the entropic loss of positive energy that is part of any thermodynamic system is also a part of the same energy conversion process. The positive energy lost to the thermal sink of the gravitationally defined space-time background essentially returns to a negative form of energy. It appears as if even light itself must continuously push itself against the negative energy gradient represented by the gravitational structure of space-time. The result of this is that light exhibits a kind of universal Einstein shift that is equivalent to the Hubble Constant. This can be regarded as the natural entropy of light in the medium of space-time, and is expressed in terms of its loss of energy by means of continuous red shift to lower frequency levels, as a function of space-time traveled. The speed of light as a constant may also be understood in this way, as the instrinsic upper limit of positive energy.</p> <p>Positive thermodynamic energy may be created and destroyed--in essence it is produced or disintegrated by its conversion into gravitational energy. All matter is composed of positive thermodynamic energy that is trapped in a state of stable equilibrium. Energy escapes from such systems on a nuclear level, but this energy is replaced continously by the constituent substance of gravitationally integrated space-time.</p> <p>We can state that all energy systems in the universe exist in a kind of gravitationally dynamic equilibrium, in which positive energy is counterbalanced by negative energy that automatically structures the space-time field in which positive energy is expressed.</p> <p>The universe can be said to be fundamentally dynamic and universally relative because all components of its structure are in constant motion and there are therefore no fixed reference points by which to define the behavior of the entire system or of its many components in relation to one another. We call this the dynamic state universe.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>The basis for the claim of universal relativity lies in the statement that there can exist in physical reality no non-relative or absolute frames of reference by which the parameters of space and time, and the principles of motion and inertia, are not a function of the relative gravitational frame that these measures occur within. In other words, any measure of mass, energy, direction, velocity or space or time that we may make in the physical universe, will be made relative to the frame of reference it occurs within, and this frame of reference itself is relative to some larger frame or sets of frames of reference. What appears stable and absolute at one level or frame of reference, will appear dynamic and relative in some larger frame of reference. From this we can conclude the following:</p> <p>1. There are no final or total frames of reference by which all other frames can be evaluated or standardized. There is neither a grand total frame of reference encompassing all other frames, nor is there any smallest frame of reference that will be totally encompassed by all other frames.</p> <p>2. Frames of reference are stratified in a hierarchical manner, such that smaller frames of reference, or "gravitational systems," are relative to larger frames of reference, which in turn are relative to even larger frames, and so on ad infinitum.</p> <p>It appears at this time, from our observational sphere, that the frame of reference at any level is characterized primarily by the concept or the condition I would refer to as "gravitational unification." In other words, within that given frame, at whatever scale we may define, all parametric values or measures that are relevant to the description of that physical system are "coordinate" within that system, and from such a relativistic standpoint, the frame of reference appears fixed.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>The theoretical basis of physical systems theory stems from several basic observations of the physical universe and the presupposition of the cosmological principle, that what is true for our observational sphere of physical reality, holds true in all parts of the knowable physical universe. In other words, a fundamental framework of universal relativity holds that the fundamental laws that govern the relation and behavior of things in our observational corner of the universe, hold true in all corners of the universe, within the same universal frame of reference. This may or may not prove to be the case in the largest sense, but, for the sake of the unification and coherence of our science, we assume that it holds true in a significant and basic way for most of the universe.</p> <p>The obverse side of the application of the cosmological principle to a consideration of the larger scope and size of the universe, is that, though the same basic laws governing physical reality may apply equally in all sectors of the vast region of the universe, it appears as well that in the largest frame of reference the patterning of the universe is non-isotropic in that it follows no sense of overarching order or pattern, but at some regional level its patterning breaks down into random and stochastically determined directions. In other words, the relativistic universe that is the outcome of a principle of universal relativity, lacks a common center or edge by which to order its relations.</p> <p>It is not impossible to call into question both these fundamental tenets of the cosmological principle--to hypothesize that in the larger frame, basic rules and principles that appear to hold in our own observational fields are different or no longer apply in the same manner, and conversely, that in the largest scale of measurement--the cosmological scale--there may in fact be some general sense of isotrophism of pattern that we, in our locally bound view, cannot or have not yet noticed. But again, for the sake of our science, we assume that the cosmological principle will hold for most of the universe that is connected, more or less remotely, to our own corner. In the largest frame of reference available to us, we assume that the rules and principles that order physical reality as we experience it apply with equal validity and force in all other frames to which we might be connected, however indirectly.</p> <p>Another way of stating this concept of universal relativity of gravitational systems is to state a principle something like the following:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">There are no non-relative gravitational frames of reference.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>Such a concept implies the validity of the cosmological principle in both senses--in the largest sense, we can find no final limit or absolute boundary to the universe by which all other frames become oriented. This implies as well, among other things, that the universe is a non-zero state system and that it is encompassed or encompasses an infinite number of nested gravitational frames of reference. If there were an overarching universal frame of reference, then there would be some non-relative set of constants that would apply to all frames. Only once constant appears to be valid, and serves as a common connecting point for gravitational and thermodynamic energy systems, and that is absolute zero.</p> <p>Universal relativity implies as well the concept of the relative independence of frames that are contained within larger frames, such that the motions and measures serving to define a sub-system, are independent of the motions and measures defining the larger system that the sub-system is contained within. A subsystem is also independent of other subsystems that are not directly related to that system in a gravitational hierarchy.</p> <p>The concept of relative gravitational frames of reference invites further speculation about the relativisitic structure of physical reality. It is a case that relative gravitational frames of reference define units as subsystems that are in effect separate from the larger systems that contain them--fundamental relations within the frame are determined--the clocks and yard sticks are predefined at a subatomic level in their increments by the relative gravitational fields that determine and define the system, and that delimit the system as separate and unique. These systems are marked almost invariably by some focal center of gravity that, at least in a local sense, is predominant, even though other background gravitational forces may still be found and felt to exist.</p> <p>It seems that the essential question is how exactly does gravitation accomplish this kind of pattern and relativistic ordering in the universe--how can local gravitational istrophisms over ride much larger and more powerful gravitational systems, relatively nullifying their effects within the local system such that this local system proceeds independently in space-time in its own state-path trajectory.</p> <p>There is a clear sense that with gravitational attraction and radiation the former kind of cohesive force is most powerful locally, and quickly diminishes with distance from its center. The cumulative power of this local attraction of gravity may be much weaker than one of a larger range, more pervasive force that is defined by gravitational radiation from distant gravitating sources, but it seems to override this distant force, or set of forces emanating for divergent multiple sources, at least within a local frame of reference. Outside or beyond the boundaries of such a system, which might be referred to as the escape limits of a gravitational system, broader and more diffuse forces emanating from distant but even more powerful sources take over and become significant.</p> <p>Several caveats can be concluded from these kinds of observations:</p> <p>1. First, it is likely that space-time in any particular instance can only be oriented in one way, or set to one system, at any one time, and reseting space-time entails a sense of disquilibrium and an abrupt departure from a sense of local equilibrium. In other words, any area of space-time can be only oriented in one specific direction at one time, or else disequilibrium of space-time will result and will be resisted. All periodic processes occuring within a particular gravitational frame of reference are set to that reference, determining the resulting mass and equivalent energy relations of that system. This isotrophic property of space-time is determined by the dominant gravitational source that serves to constrain and delimit that area of space-time as a part of dynamic system. Such a source is invariably an object of matter.</p> <p>2. Second, of alternative distant sources of gravitation, it appears that the strongest source will achieve predominance in creating a concentric center of gravity of the entire system about itself. If we are to seek the strongest gravitational source for any system, then we must look to the center of the system to find the most massive and gravitationally powerful object. Another way of stating this is something like the following: there is a clear gravitational hierarchy and a competition among gravitational bodies for attractants, and clearly the strongest survive and the weaker bodies become subservient or bound to the dominant body. In this sense we can see a clear sense of size order in the cosmographical distribution of the physical universe.</p> <p>3. There is a third caveat possible, and I believe it goes something like this. Should two bodies of relatively equal gravitational power come into proximity with one another, without collision, then it is likely that the two bodies will enter into a kind of spatial waltz or pirouette about a commonly defined virtual center of gravity that is defined as some midpoint between the two systems at which point the gravitational attraction of one object precisely cancels that of the other object. Such a system is probably anomalous in the universe, but not uncommon in occurrence, and it is possible that it leads to interesting outcomes.</p> <p>These characteristics point of a certain duality about gravitational fields, which alledgedly prestructure and determine the isotrophic and relativistic properties of the local space-time manifold in which they occur. First, gravitational fields are defined by a form of gravitational radiation that, like electromagnetic radiation, is far reaching and in essence may be almost "instantaneous." We get from this the notion of "action at a distance" the result of which is a form of "remote attraction." Secondly, in a local framework, gravitational radiation appears to shape and orient the space-time manifold in certain discrete and directional ways, leading to the creation of gravity systems that serve to cause falling bodies to light to earth. This second force is strongest at its most proximate coordinates, and appears to dissipate rapidly with any great distance, to the point of becoming negligible or even nullified by the range of divergent gravitational forces emanating from a variety of alternative host bodies in deeper space. This apparent duality of patterning of gravitation has, I believe, critical significance for a theory of gravitation and gravitational unification of space-time.</p> <p>Another interesting facet of the notion of relative gravitational frames of reference is that though each frame can be said to be locally independent of other alternative frames of which it is composed, or with which it coexists, or of which it is a part, nevertheless all gravitational frames of reference at all levels appear to be integrated in a fairly seamless and smooth web of forces and attractions, such that the transition to one frame to another is one that is largely unnoticed except perhaps for the feeling of certain inertial forces due to an accelerative shift.</p> <p>Another way of possibly stating this relativistic relationship in a continuous way is that gravitational space-time clocks/scales (periodic processes) of positive energy systems (matter and electromagnetic energy systems) are always set to the highest gravitational energy system of which they are a part, this system overriding all other influences upon the system.</p> <p>The question is to understand how the universe becomes gravitationally integrated and unified as a single composite system, regardless of all the local isotrophisms and the countless subsystems that are defined independently within it. Needless to say there must occur a vast interstitial network of space-time fabric, relatively devoid of any matter, which serve as gravitational transition zones between different gravitational bodies, and that serve to both unite and separate these different systems as both independent and as part of a larger system. These interstitial zones are undoubtedly defined by relative distances between gravitational systems, but they may also be defined by other properties--perhaps a turbulence or inter-tidal zone of gravitational neutralization at which competing gravitational waves from distant alternative sources basically interfere with one another in a destructive manner, canceling one another out and essentially rendering the space as if it were without gravity from any particular source. If this is the case, such inter-space should not be seen as the smooth and calm space without any disequilibrium, but more like a sea of cross-cutting eddies and waves that clash and crash into one another and broil in all different directions at the same time.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>For instance, on earth, we do not notice the motion of the earth in its rotation or orbit around the sun except for the passages of the sun and the moon and the gradual changing of the seasons. We can see the motion of ourselves and earthbound bodies in the earth--a car or train moving relative to ourselves. But these earthbound motions become unified and irrelevant to the motion of the earth about the sun. Similarly, we do not notice the motion of the sun or the solar system about the Milky Way galaxy. In fact, we may as a system be traveling in almost an infinite number of directions, at an infinite number of different velocities, without our knowing it.</p> <p>To the next larger frame, a gravitational system is unified if all its parts occur as a single system to the larger frame. The solar system would appear as a single system from the point of view of a distant star, even though from the point of view of the earth, it appears to be a complex set of motions of a number of planets and lesser bodies about the sun.</p> <p>In this regard, we may speculate upon the following kind of proposition:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">In any given gravitational frame of reference, the net cumulative value of all larger scale frames of reference is gravitationally zero.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>We might say that an infinite number of independent motions in the universe has a reverse unification affect in relation to the immediate gravitational system, such that all motions tend in the largest sense to cancel one another out and to appear fixed. Similarly, we can say that any set of nested subsystems of a given gravitational system that is unified, appears as a single unity within that system, and thus their net cumulative value in relation to the larger frame of reference they occur within is also zero.</p> <p>Then we might go one step further and speculate on something like the following:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">The value of the immediate gravitational frame of reference is zero minus the net inertial and kinetic forces involved in the motion and dynamics of the local system.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p> </p> <p>In other words, gravitational energy is relativistically defined as the negative of positive energies in locally defined systems. We understand the relative parameters of any local system in terms of its net deviation from the zero-equilibrium established by its gravitational frame of reference. All higher or lower orders of motion are canceled out. We can say that a system achieves relative gravitational equilibrium within the larger frame of reference when its net deviations from zero-equilibrium become non-dynamic or do not change unless affected by agencies external to the system. Such systems will tend to indefinitely preserve their established patterns of motion in a stable manner.</p> <p>We might speculate as well that gravitational unification upon any and in theory every local level, implies gravitational relativity on the universal or grand scale, just as the relative independence of nested frames of reference implies a lack of non-relative frames on a grand scale.</p> <p>In terms of gravitational unification of subsystems, we can see that the center of gravity for any subsystem becomes the key defining point of consideration for the system as a unity in relation to the next larger system that it occurs within. Another way of looking at this is that gravitational unification is the result of, or alternatively results in, the creation of a common center of gravity by which all known sub-elements achieve relative gravitational equilibrium.</p> <p>Such a system of gravitational frames of reference implies a kind of well system of nested gravitational fields, such that locally concentrated gravitational centers that occur locally are part of deeper and broader systems that are locally less powerful, but cumulatively much greater. The gravitational field exists as a kind of well system of energies in which the relative strength or frequency to possible wavelength of gravitational energy exists along a gradient of increasing speeds. I would hypothesize that these speeds all tend to be greater than the speed of light, and are thus felt instantaneously in the integration of the universe.</p> <p>It is also the case that random, locally anomalous motions can occur within gravitationally unified systems to fundamentally alter the equilibrium of the system. The entire system can be seen to be stochastically chaotic in the sense that perturbations in one part of a system can result in resonating reverberations in other remote regions of such a system. Systems may be reponding to such remote anomalous patterns in a kind of butterfly effect, without our realizing it, unless, like a meteorite crashing in from space, they intrude in a real way upon our immediate frame of reference itself. It is unlikely but not impossible to imagine our sun eventually crashing into another solar system, or of two galaxies or clusters coming to occupy a common ground. This is a conseqence of the relative independence of all systems, such that the gravitational unification of one system does not directly effect the unification of any alternate subsystem that is occuring simultaneously in some other region.</p> <b> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Universal Simultaneity</p> </b> <p>Gravitational unification implies another principle that may have profound implications for the system as a whole. Universal relativity rests upon a hypothetical notion that I will refer to as the principle of universal simultaneity. The concept of universal simultaneity is logically demanded by the cosmological principle of universal relativity if we accept certain things as being true:</p> <p>The principle of universal simultaneity is important if we are to construe a physical universe that exists as an integral, instantaneous entity in some kind of real time and space. This concept is lost sight of in general relativity theory that sets the parameters of the speed of light as somehow the ultimate limit and measure of distances in the universe.</p> <p>1. The universe occurs everywhere at the same time in an instantaneous manner. This is what we can refer to as the "instantaneous universe." Even if the total instantaneous universe is beyond our ability to see, we must surmise based upon observational evidence that the instantaneous universe exists.</p> <p>2. The relativity of time within an instantaneous universe is merely the change of parametric scale of the system depending upon the gravitational frame of reference the clock occurs within (relative periodic processes). Time dilation that is a consequence of relativity theory is a natural outcome of the changing scale by which time would be measured.</p> <p>The paradox of this is that in the largest scale imaginable, the instantaneous universe, would be considered to be eternally frozen or in a sense time-less. Time on the largest scale would have no value. Time is only a measure of, and measured in terms of, local or regional frames of reference of subsystems.</p> <p>Universal simultaneity implies an important relationship of absolute distance, which states that no matter how fast a vehicle or line of communication between two distant objects in the universe, the distance between these objects is always absolute and fixed within the frame of reference that it occurs within. This is an important principle that maintains the spatial order and relations of things in the universe, and determines that the universe cannot instantaneously collapse upon itself or radically alter its spatial patterning unless some outside set of forces is brought to bear upon this patterning. Universal simultaneity implies a sense of universal spatial instantaneity.</p> <p>Temporal dilation and spatial contraction/expansion is evidence of the relative independence of different gravitational frames of reference that affect subsystems. An object traveling close to the speed of light occupies a different gravitational frame of reference compared to a similar object that is traveling the pace of a snail.</p> <p>The principle of universal simultaneity must be regarded as an important concept in the understanding of the hypothetical universe, as it states in general terms that a substantive physical universe can and must exist beyond the relativistic boundaries determined by our own light-based spheres of observation. In other words, we cannot see or guess the exact instantaneous disposition of the total universe at this moment or the next, when all we can see is light from stars that is thousands, millions or billions of years old. Nevertheless, because of the observational relativity of our light, we do not necessarily conclude that the instantaneous universe cannot or does not exist. We infer its existence, and it becomes part of what can be called the "inferrable Universe" that exists beyond the boundaries of the "observable Universe."</p> <p>The principle of universal simultaneity has other important implications to our understanding of the hypothetical and inferrable universe. First, it leads us to believe that though there may be no non-relative frames of gravitational reference in any grand cosmological sense, there must be some larger and larger frame of reference for the universe as a whole within which we may come to understand even the non-isotrophic juxtaposition of its many subsystems. In other words, the instantaneous universe must be held together, or gravitationally unified by some means, even if it is the default of a lack of a central gravitational frame of reference in shared space-time, and even though we may not be able to directly observe such unification. Even the hot-big bang model implicitly suggests a scheme of the grand unification of the universe in terms of its expansion and possible contraction. This is linked to the relative isotrophic curvature of space-time.</p> <p>In an instantaneous universe, both time and space become meaningless or non-relative parameters. An instantaneous universe would encompass all simultaneously, and time would be immeasurable and therefore meaningless. Like the related principle of singularity, the principle of universal simultaneity suggests some kind of absolute end state or non-relative frame of reference. We may or may not accept such a principle. It may be the case that real systems may approach such absolute conditions to an infinite degree, but never obtain them. In other words, the principle of universal simultaneity exists as a possibility, as a possibility demanded by the instantaneous patterning of the inferrable universe, like absolute zero,but it may not exist as anything more than such a possibility. It may be ultimately an unrealizable possibility that is there because it is inherent to the structural order of the universe in the most basic of senses.</p> <b> <p ALIGN="CENTER">The Dynamic State Universe</p> </b> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>The question of universal simultaneity of an inferrable universe suggests that in the largest sense the universe may be in fact what I have referred to as a "dynamic state" universe. A dynamic state universe can be looked upon as infinite. In a universe in which there occurs no nonrelative states, the only true absolute possibility is that of change itself. In other words, in such a universe, everything is changing continuously, on its own scale, relative to its own gravitational frame of reference. Isotrophic unification of systems can only be achieved in some relative and local sense. A dynamic state universe would suggest that even constants like the gravitational constant may be changing at its own rate in its own way.</p> <p>A way of stating the implicatures of a dynamic-state universe is to forumalte the following conditions that might apply:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">1. There are no non-variable constants in a dynamic state universe.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">2. There are no discontinuous or discrete states separate from alternate states in a dynamic state universe.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>Whatever constants we might wish to apply to a dynamic state universe, we must realize the possibility that in some larger frame of reference, those properties that might appear to be constant and unchanging may be in fact alterable and quite variable. These involve the constants of Absolute Zero and the speed of light, for instance. These variables may change without our realization or ability to measure their changes, as everything in the positive-universe we experience would be calibrated to these constants, and would change in a relatively coordinated manner.</p> <p>All variables that are subject to change do so in a continuous manner--in other words, we can have no discontinuous or sudden disruptions in a dynamic state universe, which implies that the universe should change from one state to the next without apparent connection between subsequent states.</p> <p>A dynamic state universe therefore comes to imply a general model of the universe that is in continuous transition or flux at all levels, even at the most basic levels. It suggests that the very principles and laws that govern the universe from one state or stage to the next may vary continuously in ways we do not yet understand. Evidence has been interpreted suggesting that the gravitational constant is weakening, and that the overall force of gravitation in the universe is weakening, such that all forms of matter, and perhaps space-time itself, is gradually expanding, albeit in relativisitic ways. Regardless of such theoretical interpretations, it remains the case that we still do not understand the basic patterns or processes or properties that govern the universe. In this regard we must ask how much the speed of light, as a constant that is central to the Einsteinian theories of relativity, may not in fact be, in some general frame of reference, a variable that is a defining characteristic of our own physical and observational limits in the universe.</p> <p>In consideration of a dynamic state universe, it is important to contrast this with the conception of a fundamentally static-state universe--a universe that in some basic sense does not change and remains permanently unalterable. We may state a third precept of a dynamic state universe, the inference that:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">3. In a dynamic state universe, there is nothing that is permanent in an absolute sense.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>This last point suggests that matter as we know it may be a function of a phase or period of development of the larger universe--however stable we may presume protons or other essential particles to be, it is possible that in the long run the total ratio and composition of matter in the universe may change in some irreversible direction.</p> <p>This last point is important because it defines change as uni-directional and as inherently irreversible. We see this in several principles relating to space and time. Motion is always unidirectional in an instantaneous sense, and such motion is always nonreciprocal. Similarly, clocks always move in one direction, but never in reverse, at least in what we can refer to as a hypothetical positive state universe.</p> <p>The unidirectionality of all change processes, whether this is entropic decay or the motion of objects in space or the passage of time, suggests that change processes are dimensionally constrained in some complex manner that we do not yet understand. This issue becomes important when we consider the possibility of multi-dimensional or parallel universal realities that simultaneously coexist with one another.</p> <p> </p> <b> <p ALIGN="CENTER">N-th Dimensional Structures and Universal Simultaneity</p> </b> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>The basic model behind this alternative system is recognition that space-time is not an empty void as implied by a relativistic model, but it has "substance" of a kind that can be said to be of an event-structure. This structure interacts with matter and energy in concentrated forms, defining the relative mass of the system, such that it is pulled into the mass system, and it is involved in the on-going replacement and construction of matter and energy on a fundamental level. A consequence of this process is the uniform gravitational attraction of objects of uneven mass, on the one hand, the increase of concentric gravitational pressures on the core of the mass system, on the other hand. Large mass systems tend to become spherical due to the concentric pressure exerted by the space-time manifold of the gravitational field on the object. Another important consequence of this interaction of gravitation with matter and positive energy is the continuous production of heat energy at the core of gravitational objects--the larger the object, the greater the amount and intensity of heat that will be generated, to the extent that in very large objects, this heat becomes the basis for thermonuclear reactions, and from these reactions, new nucleonic mass particles may be produced.</p> <p>This gravitational process becomes an important consideration in the dynamics of solar systems and planets, and in the production of elementary particles in large quantities and relative abundances. It becomes an important consideration in the origination of matter and energy in the universe and the explanation of the origins of the universe.</p> <p>On the other side of this model is a conception of a universal gravitational field that is probably infinite in extent and which inherently seeks a condition of near perfect zero equilibrium with itself. There nonetheless occur tidal forces in the relative space-time flow and folding of the gravitational field, and these tidal eddies and turbulence can be the source of spontaneous energetic events.</p> <p>The gravitational field is seen as a kind of seamless, convoluted structure that essentially exists in at least five or more dimensions, and which contains and determines relativistically the four-dimensional space-time construct that arises as a result of gravitational interactions with mass and electromagnetic energies. The fith-to n-th dimensions are paradoxically not experienced in the large and the long run, but on the level of the smallest coherent fundamental structures constituting matter and energy. On the largest scale, they are experienced in terms of alternative state universes, but in our own relative scale they are felt only as the degree of space-time slippage or "slop" in the system. In other words, the gravitational relativity of all periodic processes is evidence of the variability of space-time constructs in higher dimensional states.</p> <p>In understanding this structure of the universal gravitational field, I have superimposed the notion of universal relativity, which states, in general, that there are no non-relative frames of reference in which fundamental physical properties, for instance the speed of light, remain always and absolutely unaltered. In other words, in a universally relative world, there is nothing that does not change depending upon the frame of reference.</p> <p>Part of this notion is the idea of Universal Simultaneity which arises from a conception that something that can travel instantaneously exists with equal probability everywhere in the universe. We can understand the function of such a principle when we consider that the real momentary universe must be somehow instantaneous in structure, by inference, and that this instantaneous structure must exhibit some kind of ordering principle that regulates relations between things all at the same time. This notion of an inferrable instantaneous physical universe--of the exact instantaneous disposition of all physical systems at any particular moment--transcends what we can call the general relativity of the observational universe defined by the speed of light. The observational universe remains one that is bound to a specific speed, and hence to a certain degree of boundedness. We cannot in such a universe see the entire universe in its exact current disposition because we are bound to a positive-state, light based observational universe.</p> <p>We can say that in such a model, gravitational energies are fundamentally attractive, and they are omnidirectionally propagative. Unlike electromagnetic radiation, they do not propagate outwardly, but they propagate in reverse, in essence in reverse time, or backwardly. It is entirely possible that these forces propagate at faster than the speed of light, and hence appear as virtually instantaneous to us. Rather than moving from its source, they propagate towards a common source. It is difficult to conceptualize--it is almost as if gravitational fields exist within a separate set of dimensions and only interface with the four dimensional space-time universe as gravitational effects upon positive and relative states of matter and energy.</p> <p>I have hypothesized that the basis of gravitation is what I refer to as a zeroth entity, an event entity of some infinitesimally small size, but which can exist with equal probability almost everywhere at the same time. The only constraint of this entity, and of all larger structures that it composes, including subatomic particles, atoms and molecules, is that it exists as a periodic phase structure, such that it can be said to "blink" and not to exist discretely at any particular point at any one time. The possibility of omnidirectionality of the gravitational field becomes imaginable in consideration of the quantum dynamics of the zeroth entity. Another way of putting this is to say that gravitational fieldlines of a unified field propagate in all possible directions, infinitely, at the same time. These lines always integrate the gravitational field together.</p> <p>To picture an n-th dimensional universe, we must see that the normal four-dimensional structure of space-time is inherently variable. If we could topographically map this four dimensional structure onto a two-dimensional surface, like a large sheet of rubber or cloth, we would see that a smooth, steady state system would be like a flat sheet. If we twist and bend the sheet, and contort it topographically all kinds of ways, we create variability in the structure which is associated to its deformation and variation in an n-th dimension. As we travel across the surface of the sheet, as we would in normal space-time, we would experience the contortions, depressions and elevations of the sheet as so much gravitation, acceleration and relativistic space-time properties associated with differential velocities. Always being confined to the surface of the sheet, we can not notice the actual topography of the sheet except in how it affects our movements and our clocks--it would seem uniformly flat to us no matter how twisted it became. Furthermore, we can imagine the translation of the sheet itself in an a greater than n-dimension, though we would be hard-pressed to explain what consequences this added dimensionality, or set of dimensions, would have for our experience of reality.</p> <p>If we hold to our model of the rubber sheet, then the parameters that keep us bound to the surface of the sheet are the physical constants of absolute zero and the speed of light. These positive-state constants represent in a sense the tolerance limits in the deformability or stretchability of the sheet in the four space-time dimensions that govern the expression of all positive physical matter and energy in terms of mass and mass equivalence. The n-dimensional creates for us an additional frame for understanding the consistent variation of pattern of space-time coordinate reference systems that are operating upon different levels of energy. In other words it provides a dimension of flexibility by which to understand the patterning of space-time in a dynamic manner. At the same time, the hypothetization of a fifth, nth-dimension sets up other possibilities for the interpretation of evidence and the construction of alternative state cosmologies in the universe. The universe becomes then inherently more complex and dynamic with possibilities of structures that exist beyond the bounds of direct observation. To what extent we should accept such structures remains in doubt, although when possibilities of a anti-matter universe arise, or of alternative divergent universes made possible from a grand compartmentalization or isotrophic segmentation of structure, then we must ask ourselves how such possibilities might make sense in our models, and be used in such a way as to help us make better sense of phenomena we are capable of directly observing.</p> <p>If we can consider an nth-dimensional gravitational universe, then we can understand that normal values of space and time as we understand these in four dimensions no longer has any real significance. In an nth dimensional structure, gravitation is propagating in a direction that is transverse of time and space, the result of which are the relativistic structures that we observe. We cannot therefore ask such a question as where or when did it all begin, and where and when will it all end--it was in essence timeless and infinite in its most basic structure.</p> <p>On the other hand, we can ask such a question as this--what was the origin of mass and energy within such a preexisting system. We can say that energy and mass arose as the stochastic outcome of the structure of the long run of a system that grew increasingly dynamic with time. In such a reverse world, the laws of thermodynamics no longer strictly hold, and it is possible that we can create something from nothing, and create higher energy systems from lower energy systems. As mass and energy systems arose and propagated, time and spatial values also arose concurrently in an increasingly differentiated field. Mass and energy systems created their own dynamic equilibrium the consequences of which we commonly observe in the night sky.</p> <p>We can summarize this line of reasoning by saying that mass as a measure is really the relative effect of the displacement of space-time by the mass-object, and the resulting pattern of condensation or concentration of space-time about the object. Space-time conforms in a particular way to create a gravitational frame of reference that "holds" the object in some stable position or state-path trajectory. Mass is nothing therefore intrinsic to the object itself, but a measure of the amount of displacement the object causes upon the space-time manifold or the relative gravitational field. By the same token, we can say that gravity produced by a system is a measure of the amount of gravitational replacement that occurs within the body of a system, and it is a function of the relative density of that system.</p> <p>Another way of considering this is to note that all forms of matter are in essence forms of positive energy that are entrapped within the nuclear structures of atoms. Positive energy systems held at some level of density within a mass bound object are counterbalanced by the negative energy effects of the space-time manifold in which it is situated. Weight is really a measure of potential energy--the energy required to move or lift an object within a gravitationally defined field. There occurs therefore a process of dynamic equilibrium between positive and negative forms of energy that results in a net equilibrium or balance of the system. Acceleration of an object and its inertial resistance is really the resistance of the space-time manifold of the preexisting gravitational field containing the object to further displacement in some direction. It is the inherent resistance of negative gravitational energy, that seeks relative zero gravitational equilibrium to some directional displacement that is locally isotrophic. This displacement can only occur in one direction at once, unless the object becomes disintegrated and loses its basic structural integrity. The total kinetic energy of the system, its mass plus the force of momentum, is a measure of the degree of negative displacement of the system in the space-time manifold of the gravitational field.</p> <p>Unless acted upon by other outside agencies, in space-time an object that is accelerated to a certain speed in a specific trajectory, will retain this speed and trajectory permanently without the addition of any further force. It is in essence a perpetual motion machine, because of a permanent disequilibrium achieved in the space-time manifold of the gravitational field that contains the object, between the front and the sides of the object. This disequilibrium becomes attached to the object by its shape, density, direction and speed, and translates with the object indefinitely through space-time. Space-time remains always denser at the front of an acclerated object, in a specific direction, than at its rear, and this differential causes the object to continuously propel itself forward. Only the addition of further energy, either to decelerate or further acclerate or to shift the direction of the object, can cause a change in the state-path trajectory of the system in the gravitational field. In other words, gravitationally defined properties become indefinitely associated with the motion of the object in continuous ways.</p> <p>If we go back to the basic laws of thermodynamics, we can see that what appears to be violations of basic principles may in fact be a reinterpretation of the same principles in an expanded system of energy exchange. In this expanded system, things like perpetual motion, concentrative creation of something from nothing, and sustained disequilibrium of subsystems, can be accounted for by the interactions of negative gravitational energy fields that are integrative and concentrative with positive thermodynamic energies that are radiative and dissipative.</p> <p>On the surface, for instance, the first law of thermodynamics, which states that energy may never be created or destroyed, appears to be violated if we hypothesize that gravitational bodies may in their core generate new heat energy as a result of gravitational replacement and concentrative gravitational pressures. The theory predicts that this energy is produced by the reorganization of the constituent elements of the gravitational field into new packets of positive energy. If new energy can be thus created, then it can also be destroyed, and the same theory predicts the distintegration of energy in some systems into the same kinds of constiuent elements, and the reorganization of these elements back into the stuff of space-time or negative gravitational energy. Though the first law of thermodynamics appears to be violated, we can understand that in the processes of creation and destruction of energy, there is a net balance or equilibrium and conservation of total amount of energy between negative gravitation and positive thermodynamic radiation. Forms of energy can change, be created and destroyed, but the fundamental constituents of this energy remains conserved. We can predict therefore that in black holes, energy and mass that becomes entrapped in such a system is ultimately disintegrated back into constituent elementary units, and these units are then rereleased in some continuously entropic manner back into the manifold of space-time. A black hole functions as a giant energy trap or sink, returning energy back into the stuff from which energy was created in the first place.</p> <p>Similarly, the second law of thermodynamics appears to be violated in basic gravitational dynamics--the simple and ubiquitous example of an object in permanent motion in space demonstrates a kind of perpetual motion machine of both the first and second kind. No apparent energy needs to be transferred to the system to maintain its state-path trajectory beyond its initial inputs of the energy of acceleration, once such a system is set in motion, and this system appears to involve no further transfers of energy in its state-path trajectory, unless it collides or interacts with some other system. Just such a gravitational body that can be said to be stationary still exemplifiess a form of perpetual motion machine, as it appears to continuously generate gravitational energy and heat, without further apparent inputs being found. In all such systems, the apparent anomalies can be explained in terms of the continuous displacement and replacement of the space-time manifold in which such objects are situated. In other words, all such systems involve an established equilibrium of energy exchange between negative gravitation and positive thermodynamic radiation. The gravitational inputs in such systems, in all cases, exactly equals the total kinetic and thermodynamic outputs or potentials of such a system.</p> <p>The only law of thermodynamics which appears to me to remain inviolable, even in gravitational systems, is the third law relating to absolute zero. This suggests that the third law of thermodynamics holds true for both systems all of the time. We cannot have a true energyless vacuum of space-time in which there exists no positive energy. Another way of stating this that makes greater sense gravitationally, is to state that we can have no system that is without kinetic energy. All positive forms of energy are in continuous motion. Absolute zero appears to be a kind of zero-state that sets a fundamental limit to the energy dynamics of the universe as it can never be achieved. What seems to be achieved though is what can be called a form of relative zero, and this I would define as being the degree of energy balance in exchange between positive and negative energy systems.</p> <p>This basic principle appears as true for the kinetic energy of a photon or other subatomic particle, as it does for very large mass objects, and I believe the underlying principle is exactly the same. The constant speed of light is an intrinsic property of this form of energy--it can travel in space-time neither slower nor faster than this speed.</p> <p>It seems to me that we can understand gravitational attraction and the influence of gravitation on the relativistic structures of space-time containing in a machian sense matter and electromagnetic energy in terms of gravitation having what can be called negative or potential mass and negative (or potential) energy that counteracts in reverse manner the positive effects of normal mass and energy. This negative mass and energy is not the same as anti-matter or a form of anti-energy. Anti-matter and anti-energy become possible in a reverse dimension in a nth-dimensional universe. The effects of negative energy and negative mass can be said to be the inertial consequences of the acceleration of a system in space-time, and the entropic thermodynamic effects upon positive radiative forms of energy. Such negative energy and mass intrinsic to the gravitational field may be the basis for so-called dark energy and mass in the universe.</p> <p>If we can understand that all physical systems must be in some state of motion, containing kinetic energy, it follows as well that all gravitational fields must exhibit some measure of dynamic flux and local disequilibrium. Gravitational energies appear to follow their own revised laws of gravitational-spime dynamics that are similar to the laws of thermodynamics but in a reverse manner.</p> <p>We can understand and appreciate the importance of a nth-dimension for the articulation of gravitational energy in the universe and as the structural framework for the flow and shaping of the structure of space-time in a dynamic gravitational field, when we consider that all systems are in dynamic kinetic motion, and yet all motion is relative. The common point of conjuncture for negative and positive energy systems is Absolute Zero, and gravitational dynamics interacts continuously and in a complementary manner with thermodynamics. Such systems become increasingly dynamic up to the speed of light which sets the upper threshold for such dynamic interactions. There are in such a system no absolute reference points for such motion except for absolute zero on one end of the continuum and possibly light-speed on the other end. I would venture to claim that if we could isolate gravitational energy as true negative energy in space-time, in a perfect vacuum, then we would find that it exists at or below absolute zero--it would absorb energy, and it would be found to propagate itself at faster than light speeds, or nearly infinite speed.</p> <p>We cannot fix any single reference point or anchor in our mapping or understanding of the configuration of motions of the total universe--in the largest frameworks motion appears to be essentially non-isotrophic, chaotic and random.</p> <p>This is the basis for the claim of a dynamic state universe--such a universe can only occur in an n-dimensional frame that allows for continuous variability of gravitational frames of reference. A way of looking at this is to understand that the relativistic phenomena of time dilation and spatial contraction occurs as a result of the relative motion and total kinetic energy of a system. A system that exists at one level, exhibits basic space-time properties that are fundamentally different from a system existing at another level. Both systems can cooccur independently in the same general space-time framework, but they are running on different sets of space-time coordinates. It strikes me that this condition is only possible and only explainable if we invoke a pattern of variation along a continuum of dynamic energy exchange of such systems that fundamentally alter the space-time properties relative to each system. This is the basis of the conception of universal relativity of a dynamic, non-zero state universe. Gravitational frames of reference can occur independently of one another, and yet all such frames exist in coordination with one another.</p> <p>We tend to imagine the effects of space-time manifolds in terms of a topography of fieldlines that are interwoven. I do not know if fieldlines per se are the appropriate model to adopt of a negative gravitational system, as such a system can be seen to be flowing and turbulent and hence continuously in motion like a huge empty ocean. If we can assign such a thing as fieldlines to such a dynamic and continuous system, then we must think of such lines in relation to the propagative directions of energy particulates, and in terms of the transverse lines of gravitation that these lines transect in their passage through space-time. It appears that energy does propagate in relatively linear, or somewhat curvilinear manner, with the sense of original direction being maintained over the long term. At the same time, secondary transverse fieldlines, that are concentric and perpendicular to the force of direction, propagate out as a wave and a unified field simultaneously. In such a manner, propagative fieldlines of different energies, coming from different sources, appear to achieve a dynamic integration and interference pattern that appears something like a grand diffraction grating.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>One aspect of all energy systems seems to me to be that of a sense of relative directional reference--each energy signal in a field appears to retain information to the nth or rather zeroth degree, of its relative position and time of origin, such that even from very vast distances of space-time, information of its exact origin may be recovered. We might say that space-time curves and even folds or bends in various ways, but the energy traveling through this twisted manifold will retain correct and exact information about its original position. To understand how this might be, we must consider the case of the degree of angle of observation of an infinitely small point that is at an infinite distance of observation.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>It seems that if such is the case with individual periodic particulate structures of energy, then it is these same properties which permit a kind of omnidirectional transparency of space-time such that multiple, separate signals can pass through the same point in space-time without apparent interference or loss of information within the signal.</p> <p>It is important to account for motion in the universe in relation to the gravitational field in an nth dimensional universe, and in a more general sense, the phenomena of kinetic energy at all levels of its instantiation. Absolute zero appears to be a critical point at which all motion ceases--we can understand that all things in the universe are in essence in some kind of motion, and this sense of motion appears to have critical bearing on our understanding of gravitation and its affects upon space-time. First, we may observe that all positively observed motion is constrained in some basic ways--things can travel in only one direction and in one time trajectory. Things cannot travel two directions at once. It is also the case that the inertia of resistance to acceleration is a function of gravitation, but once acceleration is achieved, under ideal conditions, no further force is required to propel the object through empty space-time. On another level, the velocity of an object determines the scales of its clock and its spatial measures--the faster the object travels, the slower the clock and the smaller the scale of spatial measure becomes. Furthermore, we may assume some kind of basic equivalence of energy, such that we can see concentrated mass as really a form of very dense energy that is entrapped in a stable state.</p> <p>The model of gravitation that I have adopted suggests that mass-based matter and energy systems render the space-time manifold, and the gravitational fieldlines, more dense than otherwise found. Making these lines dense requires more energy to perturb the entire system, hence we experience a form of inertia. If we consider the model of gravitational displacement/spime replacement being greater for very massive systems, then we can see the condition of greater densities of space-time surrounding the system. The density of the surrounding space-time manifold, and its relative distribution, is directly proportional to the strength of the gravitational field, and this is directly equivalent to the total amouunt of energy contained within the system. In a sense, as a system is accelerated in motion, the motion confers upon the object an added directional density. Once a certain speed is achieved, the density of the space-time manifold, being uneven from forward to back, remains the same along the directional gradient as long as the object remains in the same state-path trajectory. This manifold allows the object to travel continuously without interrruption and without further addition of more kinetic energy to its system.</p> <p>We can say that such an object in motion achieves a stable but dynamic equilibrium within its space-time manifold, and it requires more energy to slow or speed the object, or to change its trajectory, than is involved in its steady-state maintenance. Space-time does not give drag to such a system, because it is flowing with the system, carrying the system through space. In other words, motion can be seen as an interaction of the space-time manifold of the gravitational field with the object--the gravitational field flows, carrying objects with them.</p> <p>Even the motion of energetic molecules in a gas can be seen to be the expression of a disturbed space-time manifold that contains the gas, such that the gravitational potentials that affect the surrounding space of a balloon, for instance, do not affect the balloon in the same way, in spite of its mass. The kinetic energy creates a form of pressure that is counter-resistant to the pressure effects of gravitational attraction. In such a condition, the space-time manifold is fundamentally in disequilibrium in a very local area.</p> <p>On another level, even within very massive objects, we can see that the space-time differential inside and outside the object sets up a basic gradient of disequilibrium that accelerates the rate of gravitational displacement and spime replacement within the object. This sense of internal space-time disequilibrium of a very massive object, especially extremely dense objects as a black hole, remains continuous for the life of the object.</p> <p>The differential densities of the space-time manifold that surround and embed the object must be seen as the basis for undertanding the dynamics of motion and gravity in systems in the universe. Where high densities can be found, there is greater gravity, greater inertia to acceleration, and greater disequilibrium of systems. In such a case, we can understand therefore the measurement and phenomena of mass to be indirectly equivalent to the relative measure of the space-time density of the manifold surrounding the object. In this case, very dense mass objects contain a great deal of potential positive energy, and this energy is offset by the density of the space-time manifold in a kind of gravitational bouyancy. Gravitation interacts with the energetics contained in the system, and mass is the resulting effect of the equilibrium of the system in the space time manifold.</p> <p>From this model, we can conjecture that the nth-dimension of gravitation is expressed and experienced in terms of the differentials of velocity and acceleration--in terms of the relativistic considerations that are attached to motion. In a sense, objects operating at different levels of motion, hence of net kinetic energy, whether they are stationary or in eternal flight, occupy different levels of the nth-dimension. In a sense, they exist in completely different gravitational frames of reference than slower or lower energy systems.</p> <p>If gravitational energies normally exist in an nth-dimensional universe that intersects with the four-dimensional structure of space-time at every point, and which defines the relativistic properties of these structures and all motions, then it is also the case that we can imagine "jumping" dimensions, somewhat like traveling in purported space-time wormholes, such that we may circumvent the normal structures of space-time. I do not know if it is possible to remain physically continent and integrated in such a jump. I suspect that blackholes create such a kind of gravitational vortex of the positive universe, that passes through the nth-dimensional structure, perhaps emerging in an anti-universe that may be the obverse of the structure of this universe.</p> <p>It is clearly the case that gravitational energies can be manipulated and can be concentrated or diffused in the structure of space-time. Exactly how to do so without employing huge mass objects or incredible energies has yet to be figured out. If we can tap gravitational energy, then we can imagine the construction of machines that function essentially as perpetual motion devices and that fundamentally violate the laws of thermodynamics.</p> <p>It is evident that the gravitational field as we normally experience this may have what can be called a "reciprocity of propagative structure" such that fieldlines propagate both directions equally and simultaneously, unlike thermodynamic radiation which appears to be non-reciprocal in its unidirectional propagation. It would be as if we shoot a laser beam into space, and the light would be traveling both away from and toward the laser source simultaneously. This is only possible in an integrative structure that is virtually instantanteous and universal in its rate and scale of propagation.</p> <p>This suggests that we may somehow one day construct a kind of device that counters the hypothetical reciprocal effects of gravitational energy in such away as to render it nonreciprocal and hence directly available to observation and manipulation in a positive way.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p>The gravitational unification of a body has the consequence of reorienting in a concentric manner the gravitational fieldlines and thus the structure of space-time surrounding the object, such that space-time at least appears to be flowing into the center of the earth.</p> <p>All objects not at absolute zero are in motion--absolute zero expresses in thermdynamic terms the equivalence of absolute gravitational equilibrium or rest. It is in fact a state of motionless and unification, at which point no spatial directionality can be realized. All physical bodies are in motion by definition of their physicality. They thus exibit dynamic relationships of time and space. All such objects are constrained in one direction in one time. If gases and molecules become motionless at absolute zero, then this suggests that in perfect space-time,there is no unequal or isotrophic gravitational attraction or flow of s-t in a particular direction.</p> <p>All bodies in motion have inertia of energy and entropy relating to their motion. Even very small entities, like photons and electrons and hydrogen nuclei, must at an extreme observe this same sense. In other words, all bodies above absolute zero are in motion, seeking a state of rest by the laws of gravitational dynamics. All such bodies are connected to space-time by relative fieldlines that constrain the motion in a particular direction and convey a given resistance to this motion that expresses itself as inertia.</p> <p>Relative gravitational equilibrium of a moving body through s-t is as if the body is not in motion, but frozen, relative to a local frame of reference. By bodies becoming gravitationally and electrostatically unfied, the motion possible of the individual components becomes transferred to the common possible motion of the entity as a whole--gravitationally at least, the whole body is something more than the sum of its parts.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <b><u> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> </u> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Quantum Gravitation</p> </b> <p>Consideration of the dynamic state universe leads to two further hypothesis: 1. the subatomic structure relative to gravitation, 2. and the cosmological structure of the universe that is also relative to this model of gravitation.</p> <p>The first, subatomic or elementary gravitational model proceeds from an observation that gravitational energies may act as a kind of well-system such that it occurs continously at multiple levels of negative energy and mass, rather than discretely as most electromagnetic radiation is found to do. In other words, a well system of gravitational energy is in a sense energy contained within energy contained within energy, each level being composed of energy-particulates of a smaller and smaller size, until we come to what can be called the hypothetical zeroth entity that in essence is something from nothing and exists everywhere and nowhere simultaneously. This suggests that the kind of gravitation experienced in a blackhole will be of a fundamentally different composite structure than gravitation that may be found to exist in in the empty depths of intergalactic space. It is important to emphasize "experienced" because it is as much an event as it is a thing or an entity--it is a phenomena that has only a partial particulate structure, and this partial structure may be phase-periodic at best.</p> <p>Thus we may imagine thickened gravitational fields, the effect of which would be dense space-time structures, and relatively thin gravitational fields. It is possible that gravitational fields may become so thin that their effect is essentially the opposite of what we normally experience--in essence, things would be structurally pulled apart in such a system, which may explain why large bodies are not seen traversing deep space. In other words, if we were to shoot a long-sojourning space ship to a distant galaxy to visit our neighbors, we might find that we would not arrive, because our spaceship would essentially "reverse implode" due to the gravitational "depressurization" effects of empty space-time upon the structure of the ship, constructed as it originally was in the gravitational fields of earth. On the other hand, we might find gravitational fields in such interstitial corridors merely to flatten out to some minimal level in a fairly innocuous or neutral manner.</p> <p>Behind this conception of the gravitational field as a well system of energies within energies, is a conception of infinitesimals, small small subatomic particles, that are composed of yet smaller particles. The smallest particle of positive mass and energy as we know it may be physical constrained somehow by the Planck constant, but this does not mean that smaller "particulates" may not exist that are not really particles so much as they may be said to be infinitesimal event-structures that cooccur with certain Einsteinian probabilities. I refer to this broad class of particulate event-structures as "n-particulates" and it is my theory that they compose an essential class of larger particulate structures that I refer to as "spime." A spime gravitational theory is similar to a string theory, but instead of "strings." I have hypothesized what I call a "spring theory"--these spime particulates acquire a basic helical structure of certain periodic properties. If we go a step down, we can speculate that the class of nth particulates are constituted of what I have referred to as wxyz infinitesimals that behave in certain stochastic ways to create all known subatomic particles. Helical spring structures constitute the normal phase periodic structure of space-time--it is normally invisible and "empty" by all known measures of positive mass and energy, and yet it can decompose down to wxyz infinitesimals, and become recomposed back into the subatomic structures that we are familiar with. Springs are in essence alternative gravitational structures--what can be called "dark matter" that is essentially transparent to light. Below the wxyz infinitesimals may be multiple series of lessor and lessor event-entities, which I broadly class as "zeroth entities" and which are in essence the infinitely reducible smallest "structures" of the universe--essentially ubiquitous and omnipresent in the universe, such that there is not point or place of the universe where the cannot be found in a probabilistic sense. The string structures of spime are the basis of the gravitational fields, and they occur in a n-th dimension that encompasses the space-time structure of the known positive universe.</p> <b> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Cosmological Structures</p> </b> <p>It comes as something of a grand paradox in the science of physical properties of reality that the understanding of the very smallest is used to explain the very largest. The model have developed can be considered to be one of an infinitesimal constituency of particle-properties or "event-structures" that, in a non-zero state universe, have no limit or no sense of fundamental essence. The hypothetical "zeroth entity" is nothing but a composite system with some minimal sense of basic constraint composed of far smaller and smaller systems of which we haven't a hint. At some scale of microscopic measurement, below the level of the Planck length, we end up with a system in which the normal properties of time and space no longer apply, and structures are no longer available to direct observation.</p> <p>It is interesting as well that if we are to seek the basis for a multi-dimensional universe, then we must seek evidence and explanation for these dimensional structures in the n-infinitesimals that in a sense exist before time and below space. The reason for hypothesizing an nth-dimensional universe is that the universe may be made up of an infinitude of dimensions--we would expect this from a non-zero state model. The so called 5<sup>th</sup> dimension would really be a composite structure of nth-dimensions embedded as a well-system in the structure of the gravitational field. I would hypothesize that this dimension is a fifth independent vector that applies to a geometrical-dynamic model of the structure of space-time.</p> <p>A paradox of this kind of non-zero state model is that we can predict the "contemporaneous" presence of parallel and divergent state universes and a cosmological scale of compartmentalization of structures, but evidence for this can only be found on the very smallest scales available to us. We cannot look out to the ends of the universe by means of our light-based observational systems and hope to see these parallel and divergent structures. We also cannot observe nth-dimensions directly on the very smallest scales either, because light by definition that forms the basis of our observations is of a certain fundamental size and scale, and below this we can predict that the variables of space time properties themselves dissolve. We can only infer them by means of our models of the dimensional aspects of the very smallest event structures of the fabric of physical reality. If we can build alternative observational instruments, that allow us to "see" gravitation no matter how indirectly, then we have a chance of expanding the compass of our observational horizon beyond a relativistic framework defined by the speed of light. We may in fact be capable of seeing such nth-dimensional structures already, if we realized what we were seeing and new what to look for in the epiphenomenal patterning of light distribution.</p> <p>If we travel to the other end of the physical scale, to the realm of the very largest, we must hypothese what can be referred to as the possibilistic structures of alternative-state universes. We are of course most comfortable with what can be called a zero-state and ultimately a finite-state universe. We have sought to define this universe in terms primarily of the observable universe, without realizing that the observable universe may be encompassed by a yet larger and more dynamic inferrable universe, which may be part of an even larger hypothetical entity classifiable as the unknown or total hypothetical universe. All of these larger hypothetical state universes are in essence part of what can be referred to as metauniverse system. The point of departure for this model of an nth-dimensioanl gravitational-spime dynamics is that the universe is essentially non-zero state--hence it is ultimately an unbounded and infinite universe. We may also speculate that it is not just a single, positive state universe, but in effect is a multi-state universe that may have both a negative and a reverse state. In other words, we can refer to a multidimensional universe that exists in dimensions that encompass the normal space-time construct that we define theoretically in terms of general relativity theory.</p> <p>If we go back to the cosmological principle, we can see that the structure of the universe in the large and in the long run is indeed non-isotropic and essentially random. This suggests that the universe is essentially non-zero state and unbounded. We can go a step further and suggest that the curvature ascribed to the normal structure of space-time is cosmologically nonuniform and variable--there is no reason to believe that this structure is uniformly positive, negative or flat.</p> <p>If we seek to understand the Hubble constant that is observed in the fairly uniform and omnidirectional redshift of light, we can suggest that indeed the structure of space-time is expansive as we know it, but the redshift is due not to the speeding away of galaxies of a balloon like universe, but rather the long-term state-path trajectory of light through a fairly contant if somewhat dynamic gravitational field, which determines that light that cannot decelerate, will shift to the red as it losses its energy. This shifting will be more or less uniform in all directions, as observed from earth, and will be increasingly noticeable with increasing depth of space-time. The Hubble constant can therefore be taken or interpreted not as a measure of the acceleration of distant galaxies, but of the long-term deenergization of light traveling through space-time.</p> <p>There are basic dilemmas of the observational universe that we need to account for in our determination of the basic size, shape and historical dynamics of the universe. If we can infer light omnidirectionally to a depth of say 16 billion lightyears, then we can infer an observational sphere with a diameter of 32 billion lightyears, andif we can infer that light traveling from the furthest sources we observe traveled equally in opposite directions, we can infer a universe that is at least 3 x 32 or 96 billion light years in diameter, and if we can infer a diameter of such vast proportions, then we can inform that light traveling the opposite direction from the furthest edge of this 96 billion lightyear circumference also traveled simultaneously in the opposite direction from each edge. We end up with a universe that grows exponential to the third power, or x cubed.</p> <p>If we hypothesize that light is at some point curvilinear such that it eventually comes back to its origin, we must speculate that the light would reach a point at which the origin no longer existed as such. Also, this kind of question yet begs the observational relativity of a generally relative universe that is defined by the speed of light. In other words, it cannot account for an inferrable universe that can be said to be instantaneous to the moment of contemporaneous observation. We can never physically observe, by known means of light observation, a universe that exists contemporaneously beyond the observational sphere.</p> <p>It is also the case that we lack great observational parallax of the universe. If we could travel with our telescopes to very distant galaxies, we might end up with a view of the universe and of new structures in the universe that are essentially unobservable from earth and yet which would be equidistant between earth and our new observational point of reference.</p> <p>It is these kinds of considerations, forced by logical extension of known observation, and by logical extension of a cosmological principle, that leads me to doubt critically a general relativistic view of a closed universe that is expanding from a common point of origin. If we can hypothesize a fifth to nth-dimensional structure to the universe, one that is strongly suggested by the logic of an instantaneous state, or contemporaneous state universe that still has gravitational structure, then we no longer need to be bound by a general relativistic conception of a finite state universe. Instead, we are bound by a conundrum of an infinite state universe in a model based upon the notion of universal relativity--ultimately we can have no absolute reference points for our model of the universe. The universe as a total entity lacks a center or an edge, it lacks a beginning or an end, and yet it remains totally dynamic.</p> <p>The dynamic state universe is one that can be said to have arisen from a state of relative nothingness, by a process of increasing stochastic differentiation of its own minimal physical structure in an anti-entropic manner. It is possible that the universe is growing increasingly dynamic, and we must speculate that what is referred to as the gravitational constant may in fact be gradually changing or fluctuating. If there is some larger sense of order to the universe beyond our observational sphere, in a total sense, that exhibits some sense of long term equilibrium of dynamic structure, we do not know yet and probably cannot soon guess. It is not impossible to imagine a larger dynamic equilibrium of structure of the total universe. How many dimensions such an equilibrium might encompass would be impossible to determine, but it is possible.</p> <p>Such a grand structure of the metauniverse would incorporate known positive and inferrable negative and anti universes as but one smaller subsystem of a much larger supersystem in as many more dimensions.</p> <p>I will speculate on a basic principle of the universe--what is physically possible in the universe, no matter how improbable, will eventually come to pass, and will grow increasingly probable. It is for this reason primarily, and not for an blind existential leap of faith, that I wills say that in the final analysis, God played dice with the universe. And where did it all come from after all is said and done. We can only say, it started in the hands of God. He cast the dice and let them land as they may.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <b><font SIZE="5"> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Biological Systems Theory</p> </font></b><font SIZE="4"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Coevolutionary Systems in Ecological Settings</p> </font> <p> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">The basis of biological systems theory rests in the recognition that life arose and always existed within a special set of environmental parameters to which it was orginally adapted, and that subsequently influenced the course of evolutionary development of all life in critical ways. Living systems at all levels, and as a total system, always interacted with its environmental surroundings in ways unique to the definition of life, and this constituted a form of non-linear control function that led to changes both in the patterning of life and in the patterning of the earth's environment that hosted life. In consideration of biological systems, it is important to recognize that all such systems always cooccur simultaneously upon three levels of patterning. On the microscopic level there are complex and vital biochemical interactions that take place with all living systems and that involve the capture, transfer and storage of heat energy in bonds. This is as true for one celled microbes as it is for multi-cellular life forms. For all living systems, as well, there is a level of individual-populational organiismic interaction that defines the organism both as a separate entity or being in the world, and as part of an on-going system of reproduction that involves social aspects of populations. We may distinguish mono-cellular life forms from multi-celled organisms, but either way the functional patterning and imperative of the independent organism in its struggle for survival and reproductive success remains basically the same. For all living systems as well, there is a third level of patterning that is important to consider and that involves the biotic-abiotic reorganization of the natural environment that is critical and conducive to living systems and their evolutionary development. On this third, macro-scopic level, we can hypothesize that living systems form complex self-organizational biotic surroundings for one another that affects evolutionary development of systems. When we consider living systems, we must consider such systems simultaneously from all three levels of processural patterning and interaction, and the feedback that occurs between these levels. What is clear from this consideration of biological systems theory is that life on earth has evolved at all three levels concurrently and has undergone numerous changes over time, but there as been an unbroken chain of continuity of such systems from its first biogenesis. This continuity has entailed that all living systems are interrelated and minimally integrated to one another, however remotely, and all living systems share a common comprehensive biospheric environment for their articulation and patterning.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>It would be wonderful to write a completely comprehensive theory of biological systems in just a few sentences, but biological systems resist the process of generalization at every level and turn of the resolving knob. The closest we can come is the now classic theory of evolution. We can say that biological evolution is driven by speciation that is the result of natural selection that takes the form of continuous trait-modification. And it is in the problem of defining natural selection that we can find the evolutionary implications of ecological theory most strongly focused. We can identify patterns of trait selection and various forms of populational selection that underlie speciation as the continuous operation of complex systems of biology upon many levels of integration, always within bio-geophysical surroundings that are somehow both constraining of and constrained by such patterns. Organisms must adapt to changing circumstances, or pay the price of failing the evolutionary game altogether. Nature is harsh in its demands, but not cruel thereby--death follows life, and is the price all organisms must ultimately pay for the opportunity to live in the first place.</p> <p>If we are to comprehend biological systems more fully and from a systematic perspective, we must take at least several kinds of analysis simultaneously as involving a special form of integration that is not found in non-biological systems. If we are to ask the question of what constitutes "life" in a general sense, we must understand that it is difficult in a general definition of life to separate one form or manifestation of living systems from others to which it may be interconnected and interdependent in history and function. "Life" thus embraces that "web" of life forms that interact at numerous levels and in different ways to create the common framework by which we understand biological systems.</p> <p>In other words, to consider biological systems theory, we must understand it as something that embraces the concept of a total or global living system that was in its essential form in place from the beginning. Such a system arose stochastically and continues to evolve by a means that is essentially a matter of blind chance, thus it is a complex self-organizing system and many of its epigenetic patterns are chaotic. It has increased over time in size and complexity into a total biosphere that encompasses most of the habitable areas of the earth's surface. It embraces and encompasses all component subsystems at every level--in other words, all organisms and all areas where life is found, are but parts of a larger biological mosaic of living systems. In the analysis of living systems at any level, we cannot separate a biological organism or some "entity" (a "species," a population, a community) from its surroundings, and biological systems always occur in surroundings that are defined by certain special and general characteristics.</p> <p>We may thus venture a definition of a biological system as being any living system that is capable of surviving and reproducing itself in relation to its natural surroundings within which that system arose or was transplanted. All such systems interact with their surroundings in complex ways, and the consequences of these interactions affect the outcomes for both the system and its surroundings.</p> <p>Before proceeding, we can venture a few first principles.</p> <p>1. Living systems have evolved towards more complex and elaborated patterns of organization at all three levels of analysis (i.e., the microscopic, metascopic and macroscopic)</p> <p>2. Living systems tend naturally as self-organizing systems to grow in scale, size, and complexity of pattern until supercritical states are reached. A supercritical state can be defined as a state of supersaturation of coevolutionary living systems in its biotic habitat, at whatever level or scale we wish to work on.</p> <p>3. Systems that coevolve in any dimensions toward greater size or complexity, often expressed in terms of trait-complex hypertrophism, find it more difficult than average to evolve back to simpler and smaller systems. Such systems reach what can be called and ecological cul-de-sac and an evolutionary precipice.</p> <p>4. In a system that has developed towards complex states of equilibrium, individual organisms or populations can be lost and easily replaced without disturbing greatly the overall functional stability of the system.</p> <p>5. The nature of the ecological relationship of such coevolutionary systems in the long run with their biotic-abiotic surroundings will change fundamentally, such that with long-term oversaturation of such systems there will arise increasing competition and this will lead to destructive alterations of the system resulting in widespread negative selection.</p> <p>6. In a supersaturated system, density dependent relationships can create resonance patterns of change between subsystems that may be extremely fine-tuned and potentially catastrophic in terms of their butterfly effects. They can result in what can be called "critical events" that destructively return the entire system to a lower level of basic integration. Such critical events in biological terms would entail mass destruction of ecosystems and even mass extinction of multiple species.</p> <p>7. Such systems therefore oscillate at many levels between an abiotic state of a virtual ecological vacuum, on one hand, and a biotic state of super-equilibrium or a supersaturated system. The pathway between a general condition of ecological vacuum and a saturated biotic system is usually gradual and lengthy, whereas the trajectory from an oversaturated biotic system back to a state of relative abiotic ecological vacuum may be rather sudden and precipitous. This makes for a pattern effect noticeable in the natural history record referred to as "punctuated equilibrium."</p> <p>In a biological nutshell, we may say in general that evolutionary development is historically and biologically irreversible. Systems tend towards increasing differentiation, and once differentiated, cannot as such return simply to more basic states except through negative selection. It can be said that increasing intraspecific competition in the short run leads ultimately to either extinction, dispersive or disruptive cladogenesis, and to interspecific competition in the long run.</p> <p> </p> <b> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Evolution & Ecology</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> </b> <p> </p> <p>Ecological theories for the most part are functionalist models of adaptation, hence they tend to be synchronic constructs that do not in general explain or account for dynamic changes very well. Evolutionary theory is in general a diachronic model that accounts well for biological changes on several levels, but it does not account clearly for the processes underlying natural selection as a synchronic function of trait fitness and adaptation. It is clear that biological systems from their very beginning existed within a environmental framework that fostered their equilibrium, and this sense of ecology has accompanied evolutionary development ever after.</p> <p>Ecosystems models can be applied to coevolutionary systems, but only in a transformed way. In general, we can relate the tendencies in the paradigm above towards increasing specialization and ecological elaboration of niches that are associated with increasing K-selection and size and relative complexity of living systems. From this, we can derive a model of evolutionary succession of biotic regimes in which the top eco-trophic runs of the pyramid of life are occupied successively by different dominate species, each successor being more K-selected than the precursor. These systems attain a level that can be characterized as an evolutionary climax. The top species are unlikely to be easily replaced by would-be invaders, though there may occur a prolonged period of sympatric speciation of the dominant species in such systems toward alternative trait configurations.</p> <p>Outcomes of adaptation within any given biological system do not necessarily predict the outcomes for the evolution of the system as a whole. Since all living systems are by definition evolving, it follows that coadaptational models do not necessarily fit evolutionary frameworks in an unmodified form. Simplistically we can say that such systems undergo transformations that are tied to evolution succession and development of alternative trait-profiles.</p> <p>The challenge of generalizing about multiple systems are that they are both determined in some ways and underdetermined in other ways. They are partial yet complete systems that are stratified upon multiple levels of natural information processing, from the molecular to the global, and everything living and breathing inbetween. Furthermore, the state-path trajectories of all living systems are complex and chaotic, forming a non-linear trajectory in which the final outcomes cannot be predicted by the initial inputs.</p> <p>All life as we know it is earthbound. As far as we now know, biological systems are unique in that they known to occur only upon earth. They appear to share a common history with a single period of biogenesis. What makes biological systems especially unique is that their evolution has given rise to natural forms of intelligence that are capable of independent apprehension and construction of alternative systems that transcend the natural constraints governing life. These constitute human systems and they are also unique to earth--bound not just to the earth, but to the fragile biosphere that envelopes the earth's surface. We, as the species Homo sapiens sapiens, are both earthbound and life-bound to bio-ecological systems of the earth. It is something of a tragedy that the same forces of intelligence that allow human beings to construct their own worlds allow them to so thoroughly destroy their worlds as well. The destructive and violent aspects of the human species is historically undeniable and promises dire consequences for all of life on earth unless drastic remedial measures can be collectively undertaken.</p> <p>The basis of a comprehensive biological systems theory rests with the successful theoretical integration of a general ecological approach with evolutionary theory upon a populational and species level of analysis. Ecology today exists as a set of important ideas and concepts, many of which have been extensively tested and demonstrated in the field, but without a central organizing theory. Evolution is of course the central comprehensive theory of biology, and the most comprehensive theory yet produced in the sciences.</p> <p>The theoretical integration of ecological and evolutionary systems has yet to be accomplished, and must be seen as a hybrid offshoot of central evolutionary theory. What is lacking is a central organizational paradigm within which ecological theory can be comprehensively organized and articulated within the larger framework of evolutionary theory proper. The other side of the coin is that though evolutionary processes have been thoroughly studied, the basic processes and consequences of natural selection patterns have not been fully articulated with on-going processes of evolutionary speciation. A comprehensive theory of ecological evolution and evolutionary ecology should be both productive and simplifying of the plethora of concepts and perspectives that serve to mark out ecological and biological research. The theory that we are seeking is one that is unifying of ecology and evolution, and that is basically rooted in the systematic extension of evolutionary theory in the explanation of the ecological dynamics of complex living systems.</p> <p> </p> <b> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Biological Relativity and Biological Integration</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> </b> <p> </p> <p>Two basic sets of concepts seem to me to be generally important to the understanding of the intersection of ecology and evolutionary theory. These are the principles of <u>biological relativity</u> and <u>biological integration</u>. The notion of biological relativity has rarely been addressed as such, but its elaboration has important implications in thinking about living systems in general. We may say that living systems are special in the universe, because they are both highly integrated, on one hand, out of necessity, and they are also simultaneously totally unique, on the other. No two biological systems are exactly alike, and systems emergent in one evolutionary epoch do not fit into frameworks of other epochs.</p> <p>In their complexity of epigenetic patterning, no two biological systems, upon whatever level of analysis, are exactly alike. Most systems are biographical and historically unique, and this bespeaks a form of biological particularism that is a key characteristic of such systems. The biological relativity of all living systems entails that generalizations about such systems need always to be framed in the chaotic and complex context in which such systems occur, at the appropriate level and involving the right kinds of variables and parameters. It entails also that whatever generalizations we adopt, there are liable to occur many kinds of exceptions to the rule. Therefore generalization about biological systems is always incomplete and inductively open, derived from specific examples that are held to be prototypical of a certain case.</p> <p>At the same time, as unique as all biological systems might be in their chaotic complexities of the unfolding of life, they are also simultaneously highly integrated as systems. As natural systems they are the most highly integrated and complex kinds of patterns that we know of, even dwarfing by comparison the rather crude and rudimentary systems of human technology. The integrity of natural biological systems is evident upon multiple levels of its design and functioning--systems cohere normally to perform rather sophisticated and specialized functions, given what means might be available to them.</p> <p>Biological particularism demands that each species is unique unto itself, and each individual organism of each species is unique as well. It tells us that no two ecological or evolutionary regimes or epochs will be the same, and that once a biological system has gone down a certain pathway of evolution, it cannot simply backup and return to what the line once was. In this sense, we may say that evolution is irreversible as a total pattern of life concerning centrally its integration.</p> <p>It is important to seek a more precise operational definition of relativity and its role in our theoretical understanding of living systems--all living systems demonstrate a unique integrity at all levels, and yet all living systems are interconnected to all other systems, however indirectly. If we are to specify a certain level or type of living system, then we must be careful to define the precise context in which that living system articulates with the larger systems of life. Life forms appear to present us with fairly clear and discrete boundaries of individual and unique populations, but when we understand biological systems as such, we must take care to designate in a precise way the framework in which such a system occurs in nature.</p> <p>Biological relativity renders fundamentally problematic the challenge of comparing any two different biological systems for purposes of research and study. We must take care to see that such systems occupy similar levels and kinds of integration, otherwise we end up with a paradox of comparing apples and oranges, sometimes quite literally. We end up with a notion of partial similitude or analogy between any two or more systems on delimited scale of measurement. Frequent cases of convergent evolution are provocative in that underlying basic morphologies and histories might be quite different, and yet environmental streamlining of continuous selection of traits lead to similar kinds of bio-functional solutions in similar contexts. We can more precisely specify this degree of overlap if we consider all biological systems to be fundamentally polytypical sets, and even more importantly, polytypical paradigms, composed of arrays and complex sets of distinctive features more or less shared between different organisms or species. The degree of similarity of any two such systems is the degree to which their polytypical profiles can be said to overlap and resemble one another, regardless of their actual evolutionary distance.</p> <p>We may combine the thereotical challenges of biological relativity and biological integration when we realize that all biological systems naturally seek to maintain a minimal degree of integration in relation to change over time. At the same time, all systems also tend toward maintaining a maximum of biological relativity at any one time. How biological systems accomplish these interrelated tendencies is the basis of the theory presented herein--in general it can be said that all biological systems oscillate between levels of minimal integration and maximal differentiation in both space and time, in the process they generally achieve a long term and large scale optimum stability of state-path trajectory.</p> <b> <p ALIGN="CENTER">A Functional Paradigm of Biological Systems</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> </b> <p> </p> <p>All biological systems of a certain order and level of integration, share certain basic principles of organization and functional interaction that permit us a common ground by which to compare such systems within a basic framework. In this regard, we must seek in our biological systems theory coherent explanations for the following interrelated problem sets:</p> <p>1. Biogenesis: how did the origin of life on earth occur, and what were the prerequisite conditions for such occurrence in the natural history of the earth.</p> <p>2. Biophysics: what common physical properties and systems do all biological systems share in differential distributions that define them as unique but minimally common systems.</p> <p>3. Biodynamics: how do biological systems change evolutionarily with the function of time.</p> <p>4. Biocybernetics: how do biological systems transmit themselves through time in terms of their informational capacities.</p> <p>5. Biosystematics: how do biological systems become integrated and increasingly diverse and complex over time.</p> <p>6. Biospherics: how do biological systems integration constitute a single global system referred to as the biosphere that interacts and actively reshapes the geophysical environment and forms its own biotic contexts.</p> <p>7. Biotics: How do different biological systems live together in complex interactions and create mutual biotic environments that influence evolutionary development.</p> <p>8. Biosis: How do biological systems form stable modes and patterns of organic functioning and maintain these patterns indefinitely, while at the same time individual members of such systems live natural life cycles and suffer natural death.</p> <p>9. Biochronics: How do biological systems develop temporal rhythms and periodicities that affect and influence their functioning, transformation and origination or extinction.</p> <p>10. Biocosmics: how might biological systems evolve in extraterrestrial habitats.</p> <p>These ten problem sets inform a general model of biological systems science in a coordinated manner. It is not only the answers to these questions that are important. It is perhaps more important to understand how each of the areas may and do interconnect with one another on the earth in various ways. From these kinds of interconnections we can see the emergence of a larger and more comprehensive theory of biological systems upon earth and beyond.</p> <p>Elaborated together, these fundamental perspectives of biological systems constitute a kind of paradigm that coheres to constitute a form of natural systems theory. In such a framework, we can specify the following kinds of generalizations applicable to each of the main perspectives:</p> <b><u> <p>Biogenesis</p> </u></b> <p>1. Life arose during a single period in a unique set of geophysical conditions affecting the earth.</p> <p>2. The precursors of proto-biotic life forms led to the development of the DNA complex within a biotic cellular framework that is shared by all life forms today.</p> <p>3. Once fully evolved, the first life-forms experienced a tremendous adaptive radiation and niche release as the result of the vast uninhabited expanses of the earth's pre-biotic state.</p> <p>4. This early adaptive radiation set the stage for the subsequent pre-Cambrian explosion of life.</p> <b><u> <p>Biophysics</p> </u></b> <p>1. All biological systems are thermodynamic and therefore entropic and exhibit certain basic bio-functional machine patterns that were in place from the beginning and that slowly evolved into more elaborate mechanisms.</p> <p>2. All biological systems have a beginning, a period of normal functioning, and an end.</p> <p>3. All biological systems are defined by basic physical parameters that influence the dimensions and functions of the system. We may distinguish between:</p> <p>a. biotic factors that relate to morphology, physiology and behavior</p> <p>b. abiotic factors that relate to the fundamental geophysical environment</p> <p>4. All systems must be produced and exist within the functional parameters of basic biomechanical design constraints that determine the limits of change that such systems can undergo and still exist as minimally integrated systems.</p> <p>5. Basic tradeoffs occur in such systems that constrain their development along particular pathways.</p> <b><u> <p>Biodynamics</p> </u></b> <p>1. All biological systems change endogenously in time, tending stochastically in certain directions of increased elaboration, complexity, size and number.</p> <p>2. All biological systems are adaptationally responsive to exogenous changes</p> <p>3. All biological systems are selectionally defined, the outcomes of which are generally stochastic</p> <p>4. All biological subsystems are subject to inter-biotic influences.</p> <b><u> <p>Biocybernetics</p> </u></b> <p>1. All biological systems are genetically informational.</p> <p>2. All biological systems communicate genetically in prescribed ways.</p> <p>a. Such communication often occurs upon multiple levels.</p> <p>3. All biological systems are sensitive and responsive to their environments in selective ways.</p> <p>4. All biological systems are environmentally informational in terms of their adaptive response patterns.</p> <p>5. All biological systems depend upon the successful transmission of critical information on both genetic and environmental levels in order to survive and reproduce.</p> <b><u> <p>Biosystematics</p> </u></b> <p>1. All biological systems are heterogeneously composite.</p> <p>2. All biological systems are eco-trophically stratified within a niche continuum upon several different levels.</p> <p>3. All biological systems are minimally integrated and therefore chaotically underdetermined.</p> <b><u> <p>Biospherics</p> </u></b> <p>1. All biological systems cohere into a single biospheric network that is global in scope and all encompassing of the earth's major realms and habitat foundations.</p> <p>2. All biological systems are part of and constitue a bio-geophysical strata of the earth referred to as a biosphere.</p> <p>3. This biosphere has hydrologic, geological and atmospheric components that tie together in complex ways to create the geophysical foundation for all life forms.</p> <p>4. Life forms have been continuously shaping and reshaping this biosphere in critical ways.</p> <p>5. Grand oscillatory cycles can be found in the regulation of the biosphere that has played a major role in the shaping and reshaping of life on earth.</p> <b><u> <p>Biotics</p> </u></b> <p>1. Living systems coevolve in complex ways, and form interdependent networks that cross basic boundaries of Kingdoms and phyla.</p> <p>2. The emergence of complex, elaborated biotic systems was based on abiotic precursors that maintained the fundamental differentials and interdependencies of such systems.</p> <p>3. Relations between different kinds of organisms range in a continuum between cooperative to competitive.</p> <p>4. Such relations tend toward nonlinear control systems that tend to result in periodic interharmonic oscillations of patterns of such systems.</p> <b><u> <p>Biosis</p> </u></b> <p>1. All living systems develop a unique phenotypical pattern of state-behavior that is genetically predetermined and environmentally constrained and expressed.</p> <p>2. Different kinds of biological systems adopt different ways of living that lead to different evolutionary consequences.</p> <p>3. Long term evolutionary trends of organisms lead to divergent pathways.</p> <p>4. All biological and biotic systems must eventually come to an end.</p> <b><u> <p>Biochronics</p> </u></b> <p>1. Biological systems all follow different periodicities at different levels of integration.</p> <p>2. Multilevel periodicities affecting or involving living systems form complex butterfly patterns and rhythms.</p> <p>3. All living systems are temporally constrained in vital and fundamentally important ways.</p> <b><u> <p>Biocosmics</p> </u></b> <p>1. Life as we know it is strictly confined to the Earth's biosphere, from which it eventually evolved.</p> <p>2. The likelihood is great that other biological systems have emerged in other planetary systems in the universe, though none have yet been discovered.</p> <p>3. The discovery of alternative extra-terrestrial biological systems would fundamentally broaden the parallax of our biological systems theory and sense of biological relativity considerably, and would lead to greater understanding as to the nature and possibilities of such systems.</p> <p>4. It is likely that so-called "non-intelligent" life exists in the vast depths of space, but it is likely that we will communicate with "intelligent" life forms first.</p> <p>In attempting to address these aspects of the problem of biological systems theory, it should be restated that all biological systems, and by extension ecological systems, are essentially "blind" systems in that they follow a pattern of implicit informational functioning that is fundamentally random and driven by processes of stochastic determination and differentiation. The ascription of purposive or deliberate intentionality structures to living systems, often done inadvertently, is purely an artifact of human language in the description and explanation of such systems. Among larger brained creatures some amount of learned and purposive behavior can be attributed, but except for the case of Homo sapiens, even this can be defined within a larger life-world context that is essentially closed.</p> <p>That we impose a sense of innate or predetermined "logic" to both bio-"logical" and eco-"logical" systems implies and imports as sense of self determination or deliberation about such systems that are in fact an artifact of our own human knowledge systems in conceptual construction and theoretical model building. I would say that they are a perhaps unfortunate implicit aspect of our language that we invoke to describe such systems, that imply a fallacy of self-determination and even purposive willpower in the processes of adaptation, selection and survival among biological life-forms that is in fact not there. In general it can be said that all biological life-forms survive and succeed as a function of the organisms innate design and functioning in a biotic-abiotic context. Living systems are complex, chaotic self-organizing systems, but they follow no predetermined sense of order or purpose.</p> <p>The outcome of this anthropomorphization of living systems is the tendency in our models to impose a sense and level of order, integration and higher level purposiveness to such biological systems that does not really exist in nature in the way that we might be led to believe. Individual organisms do not concern themselves with the relative state of their species or populations. In general they do not think about the long term consequences of their actions or about the future. To some extent they may learn from experience on some concrete level at least. For the most part they respond to events in their environments in ways predicated by their biological makeup and genetic predisposition. They do not plan, prepare or ponder their next move or the necessary reactions of other organisms in their life-world. When we talk about populations we are referring to collections of organisms that are defined by ourselves as humans in their shared traits.</p> <p>This consideration of biological systems is all the more amazing and sublime, I believe, when we consider the remarkable degrees of integration and adaptive elaborations that so many organisms have achieved in their evolutionary history. That all this should be mostly a product of chance and repeated elaboration and modification seems to defy all odds. When we recognize that most species eventually fail, but most genera also achieve evolutionary success through further speciation, then we realize that though the net odds may never favor any one individual very much, they tend in the statistical long run to favor the wider biological system as a whole much more favorably, even at the expense of most of its organisms.</p> <p>Though we cannot attribute deliberative or purposive logic to biological systems (except perhaps our own, and a few other large brained mammals) we can attribute an almost fautless logic to implicit order and regularities of the functioning of biological systems upon multiple levels of integration and state-behavior--this logic is embedded implicitly in the relational patterns maintained by such systems and their components, and much of this is amenable to applied mathematical description.</p> <p>We can say that systems adapt and evolve towards greater endogenous integration, but that they tend in the long run towards exogenous distintegration. Integration leads towards complex equilibrium of systems, creating both greater resiliency and susceptibility of such systems to stochastic and supercritical perturbation. The broader the base for integration, the higher the level of stratification achievable. A high level of integration can be measured in terms of relative biodiversity and bio-organization and distribution of pattern upon an epigenetic landscape. Such complex equilibrium can be thought of as a harmonic-resonance oscillating model that tends to be self-restoring under a certain broad range of multidimensional tolerance limits.</p> <p> </p> <b> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Biogenesis</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> </b> <p> </p> <p>Life emerged only during one period on earth, and all subsequent evolutionary development has been an extension and elaboration of this single first period. The circumstances surrounding the origination of life on earth appear to have been highly unique and stochastically improbable. In the heuristic modeling of biogenesis, I have adopted an analytical framework describing prebiotic, protobiotic and neobiotic phases, assuming that these arose in succession, and generally during a single period of time and in more or less a single area. It is possible that there may have been multiple prebiotic phases, played out in different regions, some of which experiments of nature failed. Similarly, we can guestimate that protobiotic phases may have been multiple or periodic, most failing and a few succeeding, leading into a neobiotic phase. At each turn of the evolutionary screw, it is possible that many natural experiments failed, but one or more succeeded to carry on the next phase of biotic evolution. This same pattern has carried on throughout evolutionary history until today. In this we can refer to a general framework of proto-evolutionary development, which should in theory be defined as the gradual development of life-like systems leading up to the development of full DNA reproductive systems.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <b><u> <p>Prebiotic Systems</p> </u></b> <p>Prebiological systems must have had most or all of the basic abiotic building blocks available before the design reorganization resulting in life occurred. Prebiological systems were self-organizing systems that arose stochastically due to a unique combination of environmental and molecular conditions that led to the formation of increasingly complex organic molecules from basic molecular substrates, and to the organization of interaction between these compounds. The concept of self-organization of complex systems upon a molecular level is important in the consideration of biogenesis and biological systems in general, as such a concept, systematically applied, allows us to better understand the possible pathways that might have led relatively inert and abiotic substances to become reorganized to produce living organisms.</p> <p>In considering the problem of biogenesis, it is important to partition the problem analytically to describe possible scenarios for the prebiotic foundations within which life could emerge. In understanding these prebiotic foundations, we must look at those essential aspects shared by all living systems that need to be accounted for in the set of originating conditions. Of these, the most important variables seem to be the presence of water, amino acids and DNA structures, cellular metabolisms involving primarily oxidation and respiration reactions, some bio-chemical energy platform, and the maintenance of a differential gradient of osmotic pressure internally and externally, driving the system.</p> <p>Of these foundations, the most important consideration, and the key to all other aspects of the prebiotic system, seems to me to be the formation of vast quantities of water on the earth's surface, and the formation of a consistent and stable hydrologiccycle arising from this formation. Water could have been formed in phases of other liquids, in solid formations of the earth's surface or underground, or atmospherically in the combination of gases. In whatever scenario we adopt, we must assume the presence of energy driving systems for the various processes of water production that did develop. Probably, multiple pathways to the formation of water was followed.</p> <p>It seems unlikely that all the water on earth could have precipitated out of an atmosphere, however dense, although the atmosphere could have lead to the first pooling and aggregation of water on earth, through the development of vapor and steam that eventually condensed and precipitated to the ground. If we look closely at the problem of the formation of water, we need to account for huge quantities of hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen as a gas is ephemeral as it readily escapes the pull of earth's gravitation. It is assumed that most gaseous hydrogen would have leaked out to space and been lost from the earth, unless it could be reacted with or condensed into other forms.</p> <p>It appears that before we can explain water, we must explain the formation of particular gases and compounds that would have allowed water-producing reactions to proceed in the first place. In this we must explain the fixing of both hydrogen and oxygen in very large quantities in combination with other gases and possibly with other solids in the early formation of conditions giving rise to water.</p> <p> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"><center> <table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="1" CELLPADDING="7" WIDTH="543"> <tr> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">H<sub>2</sub></td> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">O<sub>2</sub></td> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Cl<sub>2</sub></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">N<sub>2</sub></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">F<sub>2</sub></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">H<sub>2</sub></td> <td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">----</td> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">-----</td> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">-----</td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">------</td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">-----</td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">O<sub>2</sub></td> <td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">-----</td> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">-----</td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">-----</td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">-----</td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Cl<sub>2</sub></td> <td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">-----</td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">-----</td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">-----</td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">N<sub>2</sub></td> <td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">-----</td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">-----</td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">F<sub>2</sub></td> <td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">-----</td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">SiO<sub>2</sub></td> <td WIDTH="13%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> </tr> </table> </center> <p> </p> <p>The challenge is not explaining the possible pathways taken by the first emergence of water, or the resulting growth of a hydrologic cycle that produced more cycles and may have involved multiple pathways. The real challenge is to determine the pathways that led to the precursors that made such pathways possible. The early atmosphere must have been an extremely noxious combination of gases that were primarily non-carbon based. Condensation of water as a result of steam and evaporation would have lead to increasing acidic-basic conditions in early water reservoirs--these reactions would go to water, ionic salts, and various kinds of sedimentary precipitates.</p> <p>I believe it is important to account for the presence of so many silicates in the earth, and the tremendous abundance of silicates in the earth's crust. It is suggest that early reactions of silicate compounds, which may have formed early on, included the massive production of water as an outcome.</p> <p>One possible pathway is the formation of ammonia gas which is high in hydrogen. An alternative is methane gas. Two forms of gases, ammonia and methane, could possible react with a variety of oxide gases, as for instance, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide and sulfurous oxide, to precipitate water vapor. We can thus describe a kind of paradigm of possible pathways of reactions in the following kind of grid:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"><center> <table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="1" CELLPADDING="7" WIDTH="561"> <tr> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">O<sub>2</sub></td> <td WIDTH="23%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">CO<sub>2</sub></td> <td WIDTH="22%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">NO<sub>2</sub></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">SO<sub>2</sub></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">NH<sub>3</sub></td> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">2 NH<sub>3</sub> + 3O<sub>2</sub></td> <td WIDTH="23%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">2 NH<sub>3</sub> + 3CO<sub>2</sub></td> <td WIDTH="22%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">2 NH<sub>3</sub> + 3NO<sub>2</sub></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">2 NH<sub>3</sub> + 3SO<sub>2</sub></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="12%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">CH<sub>4</sub></td> <td WIDTH="21%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">CH<sub>4</sub> + 2O<sub>2</sub></td> <td WIDTH="23%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">------</td> <td WIDTH="22%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">CH<sub>4</sub> + 2NO<sub>2</sub></td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">CH<sub>4</sub> + 2SO<sub>2</sub></td> </tr> </table> </center> <p>Other possible pathways can be imagined, all leading to the production of water in certain finite amounts. Water, once produced, would have been a relatively stable compound with certain unusual properties that would have made it an end-state pathway. At the same time, the accumulation of water as liquid, or even as condensation, could have facilitated other types of pathways to further water production, as for instance certain strong-acid/strong-base reactions that proceed in aqueous solutions:</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"><center> <table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="1" CELLPADDING="7" WIDTH="619"> <tr> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="23%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">NaOH</td> <td WIDTH="23%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">KOH</td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">LiOH</td> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Ca(OH)<sub>2</sub></td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">HNO<sub>2</sub></td> <td WIDTH="23%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">H<sub>2</sub>O</td> <td WIDTH="23%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">H<sub>2</sub>O</td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">H<sub>2</sub>O</td> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">H<sub>2</sub>O</td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">HClO<sub>3</sub></td> <td WIDTH="23%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">H<sub>2</sub>O</td> <td WIDTH="23%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">H<sub>2</sub>O</td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">H<sub>2</sub>O</td> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">H<sub>2</sub>O</td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">H<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>4</sub></td> <td WIDTH="23%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">H<sub>2</sub>O</td> <td WIDTH="23%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">H<sub>2</sub>O</td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">H<sub>2</sub>O</td> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">H<sub>2</sub>O</td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="15%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">HCl</td> <td WIDTH="23%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">H<sub>2</sub>O</td> <td WIDTH="23%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">H<sub>2</sub>O</td> <td WIDTH="20%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">H<sub>2</sub>O</td> <td WIDTH="18%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">H<sub>2</sub>O</td> </tr> </table> </center> <p>All of these strong acid-strong base reactions yield water in large quantities, plus a number of ions that are common and important to life-functions. There are a number of plausible strong-acid-weak base, weak acid-strong base and weak acid-weak base reactions that might have also proceeded, some yielding solid precipitates, water and gases that might have lead to the current atmospheric rations.</p> <p>We should also not neglect the important role that iron and other trace metals may have played in early formations, in terms of oxidation-reduction reactions that might have lead to the formation of certain oxides and compounds that might have been important to a prebiotic brew.</p> <p>I put forward a hypothetical model of a combination of strong acid-base redox reactions that led to the production of prodigious quantitites of water precipitated from a thick atmosphere. Once water formed and pooled on earth--in lakes, etc., this pooling of water had several effects. It served to cool off the earth's surface and to stablize conditions on the earth, and it served to induce further production of water by the augmentation of a hydrological cycle that increased gradually. In this context, biogenesis occurred--perhaps before there were oceans as full blown as we have today, but sometime after the first precipitation of water on earth.</p> <p>Four sources of energy were probably available for the first pre-biological substrate to form--sunlight, vulcanism and geo-thermal energy from underground, electrical enegry from lightening storms, especially produced from thick dust conditions produced by volcanic eruptions, and meteorite storms. Any combination or all of these sources of energy may have contributed to the overall processes of the development of a prebiotic geophysical environment. Of these, sunlight is the most constant and steady form of energy, the most pervasive and continuous. Volcanism may have thrown tremendous clouds of particularized dust into the atmosphere to interact with the noxious gases already there. It may have released many of these noxious gases, as it has been found to do today, as well as providing some of the heat energy necessary to warm thermal pools. Electrical lightening storms in a clouded and dense poisonous atmosphere may have facilitated many of the basic reactions that occurred. Energies required for conversion reactions to take place would possibly be volcanic eruptions, electrical storms, and intense solar radiation. Of these, intense solar radiation seems to me to be the best candidate for providing the amounts and kinds of energies in a regular manner for inducing the chain of chemical events required for biogenesis.</p> <p>In all these reactions, carbon is not directly implicated. Carbonates are in general weak bases. The main ingredients of the reactions above appear to be Nitrogen, Oxygen, water, and a variety of other elements, especially Chlorine, Calcium and Sodium. Once water formed, mild reactions proceeded with increasing precipitates. Under these conditions I believe, complex nitrogen-carbon molecules would form that would be the precursors of true living systems. Such molecules perhaps "fed" off of other molecules, metabolizing the energy from the chains of broken bonds under the right conditions.</p> <p>The development of an early context for the emergence of life must explain the origins of so much water on earth in a context of an atmosphere primarily nitrogen and oxygen and carbon-dioxide in composition, in proportions of roughly 3-1. It is also evident that carbon and calcium are or have been at least ubiquitious in the biosphere, and must have been an important substrate of the entire process, as were certain basic salts and trace minerals.</p> <p>It is apparent that evidence for this biological origination appears residually in the current geophysical cycles of the basic nutrients relevant to life--particularly in carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen. A mixed nitrogen-carbon cycle must have occurred, in context with the production of water in very large amounts, that set the stage for biogenesis. The essential process seems to be the formation of a nitrogen-carbon based molecule that was capable of synthesizing energy from carboxylation and oxygenation.</p> <p> </p> <b><u> <p>Protobiotic Systems</p> </u></b> <p>Once the stage was set, complex sets of molecules emerged that formed systems that were the precursors to living forms. It is assumed that these systems formed in stable conditions of tide pools or other lotic systems where water conditions could be maintained in some kind of complex balance. Life forms could not have originated in open oceans or in fast running river systems where continous currents and intermixing would prevent the emergence of stable configurations of complex acqueous molecular solutions. We should not discount the possibility that such protobiotic forms emerged in relative "fresh" water conditions on land, in eddy-pools of stable streams or in lake or estuary conditions. Almost all biological systems today cannot tolerate large doses of salts in their systems, and have evolved sophisticated mechanisms for removing ions and maintaining a delicate balance within the cell.</p> <p>Early protobiotic systems were possibly a form of abiotic decomposers that depended upon the metabolization of minerals and ions in solution. From these early a-biotic decomposer systems, early proto-biotic decomposition systems may have emerged, that essentially depended upon the first proto-biotic trophic level of a-biotic decomposition. Such forms had to be capable of producing the complex amino acid chains and basic carbon compounds necessary for the metabolization of a-biotic compounds and for the development of complex tissue systems.</p> <p>In this, we can see a single pool of water, under the right conditions of sunlight, temperature, and composition of ions and compounds, as forming its own kind of proto-biotic boundary or partitioning system. Such pools of water would not need to be very large, should have been stable over a very long period of time, perhaps evaporation and run-off being replaced by precipitation. This suggests that life may have formed in small lakes rather than in tide-pools. How big or how small such a lake system could be to be optimal for protobiotic systems to stabilize and develop is an open question. I can imagine a system that fits the following kind of struture:</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <b><u> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> </u></b> <p>In such conditions, we can imagine water concentrating in stable systems in small tidal pools or peripheral pools to a larger lotic system, possibly near a sea-coast that might have had the effect of inputing tidal water into the system. Seasonal fluctutations and/or tidal actions may have affected the ebb and flow of water into and out of the system, replacing any lost from evaporation and outflow to a larger sink by precipitation and run-off. The smaller peripheral pools in such a system may have formed semi-closed systems that were extremely stable and optimal for the emergence of protobiotic systems. In a sense, they would have constituted "gigantic cells" or very macro-cellular systems in which the boundary of the pool was the boundary of the proto-cellular system. In such a system, emergence of increasing complex organic compounds might have stimulated the subpartitioning of the entire system into smaller and smaller subsystems and units. Such protobiotic systems may have become exceeding complex in a long and enduring process of protoevolutionary development. Eventually, microscopic cellular sizes were achieved that were stable systems, laying prereproductive foundations for the self-organizing behavior of such systems im perpetuity.</p> <p>These earlier precellular systems would eventually have been carried out from their original habitats to colonize other habitats. It is possible that such early systems devised a means or a mechanism for "carrying" their habitats with them, permitting them to recreate the essential conditions in new pools and places.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>If we take a step back from the previous model, we can imagine this system as being a part of a larger lacustrian-estuarine system that would have allowed early proto-biotic colonization to proceed in a number of interconnected pools, allowing for exchange and prebiotic niche expansion of such systems.</p> <p>Outflow from such lotic systems would allow the prebiotic systems to travel out and potentially colonize other neighboring pools, or to eventually spread in larger reaches of the oceans. Such periodic outflows would also have permitted a regular renewal of new populations of organic compounds and complex molecular interactions. In such a system, it is possible that these macro-cellular entities developed their own crustaceans or surface layers that served to stabilize conditions within the system and to mediate between external conditions, regulating environmental inputs into such systems. This may have been at first just a layer of surface scum or a more solid lattice structure that developed eventually into a kind of abiotic skin surrounding the entire habitat. Subsequent preevolutionary development of the pool would result in the possible partitioning of the system and its continuous subsegmentation into smaller and smaller subunits.</p> <p>At the same time, it is possible that the entire system or parts of the system could be carried from one location to become introduced to another location. Such transplantation of systems would seem necessary to carry the entire system forward and for the renewal and development of new systems within the older frameworks. The role played by dispersals and transplantations of parts of such protobiotic systems or of entire systems cannot be underestimated in later evolutionary history.</p> <p>It is evident from a protobiological model that many dynamic balances between basic level molecular interactions and larger environmental contexts were probably critical to the emergence of life long before life actually emerged on the DNA template that we know it to be now. It is possible for instance that in proto-biological systems, basic functions of respiration and even of photosynthesis may have been occurring before there occurred the organization of DNA systems. We cannot discount the notion of a prebiological ecology that was maintained by and within such systems that was critical to their continuation as self-organizing systems.</p> <p>We must also look at the likelihood of pre-genetic structures of such systems that would have entailed the reconstruction and at least partial reproduction of such self-consistent and self-sustaining pregenetic structures through time. A pre-genetic design template may have consisted of partial segments of a larger chain, or even multiple units of the links of such a chain, that had yet to be assembled into a coherent entity. Processes of RNA transcription may have been occurring already with the segments of links of the larger chains yet to be assembled into a coherent organiismic entity.</p> <p>In this model we must recognize the role of complex self-organizing systems as essentially chaotic and leading to patterned results that would have emerged through complex relationships and interactions. We can explain protobiotic and prebiotic formations as only possible stochastic systems that had the potential for self-organization and sub-partitioning of structures in time and place due to a functional a-biotic stability of such systems. It is possible that such self-organizing systems reached a point of critical complexity that a set off a chain-reaction of events that may have occurred in a relatively brief burst of activity and that would have eventuated in the full and complete emergence of fully biological life systems. This process of "punctuated equilibrium" may have happened more than once along different basic pathways, leading to multiple forms of life at the same time.</p> <b><u> <p>Neo-biotic Systems</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> </u></b> <p>As precursors, neo-biotic had to have basic structural functions of all living forms--genetic information and processes of growth and reproduction that allowed the same design to be extended indefinitely through time against a complex energy gradient, and to adapt and become altered over time to an increasing array of environmental niches and zones. From a long period of preevolutionary development, there must have occurred a rather rapid rise of differentiation and niche release to a wide range of basic environmental habitats. Increasing biogenic elaboration in different environmental circumstances resulted in a rapid proliferation of species. There must have occurred several such early explosions of life--the most evident is the pre-Cambrian explosion during which period of time all the major Kingdoms and phyla presently extant were represented.</p> <p>The earliest biological systems to have fully genetic structures of transmission must have had a cellular morphology and metabolic structure already formed. The biological cell is its own microscopic biological system and the precursor of all subsequent multi-cellular biological life forms. The prokaryotic form is regarded as the most primitive biological structure.</p> <p>Cellular organization and subsequent differentiation on a microscopic level, and then reorganization into larger multi-cellular systems, was an important first step in neoevolution. DNA structures are almost exclusively found within a natural habitat of the cell, and all living organisms are essentially cellular in structure. It is important to recognize cellular systems as constituting their own stable internal habitat and set of internal environmental conditions allowing for the maintenance, production and reproduction of its DNA content.</p> <p>In a sense, all subsequent evolution proceeds fundamentally upon a cellular level, and this microscopic level of cellular-evolutionary differentiation allows for an almost continuous patterns of trait modification and a wide range of basic trait plasticity that results from the reorganization and reconfiguration of cellular structures.</p> <p>The emergence of cellular structure therefore marked the true beginning of living forms on earth. In this process, it is possible that segmentation of prebiotic systems reached a point of microscopic cellular scale, at which size true cells emerged and, in exponential time, evolved into multi-cellular systems that were increasingly organized and differentiated and that progressively exhibited synergetic properties at the super-cellular level.</p> <p>We can thus see a pre-biotic process of increasing segmentation of gross and unintegrated systems from a macroscopic size into increasingly smaller and smaller size subsystems, until at the point of an average cell size, such systems became reorganized in fundamental ways into neobiological systems, after which they continued to increase and differentiate in a continuous manner into larger multicellular organic and oraniismic structures.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>In the emergence of neobiological systems, we must speculate on the gradual rise of shared trait function and the trophic differentiation/specialization of such functions on basic levels. As biological subsystems emerged, such trait function stratification tended to separate groups of organiismic structures and systems from one another, and also to partition such systems internally within organiismic frameworks. Such systems were also fundamentally growing in both size and complexity of organization.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <b><u> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Biophysics</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> </u></b> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>In the model presented above, we can picture the original emergence of a prokaryotic life form as the most basic form of life to evolve. Its principle function was that of decomposition of the basic mineral and chemical molecules that were a part of its environment. These forms eventually differentiated into more specialized varieties of protists, on one hand, and fungal forms on the other, life forms that were precursors and antecedents of even more complex differentiations of plant and animal forms to emerge at a later sequence.</p> <p>Accompanying this emergence of the basic Kingdoms of life were the specialization of basic functions in a growing system of feedback, between production on one hand, and consumption on the other, both of which were intermediated on an underlying level by means of decomposition processes. It is apparent that the basic photosynthetic processes that are at the heart of the organic production processes were there at the time of the emergence of fungal life forms, and that fermentation reactions became supplanted or supplemented by basic carboxylization and oxygenation reactions. Respiration seems to have been a basic metabolic function of cellular growth and maintenance that was existent pretty much from the beginning, and the rise of consumers seems to be a natural consequence of the rise of producers in conditions that some forms of life came to depend directly on other forms of life, instead of decomposing and feeding directly upon the environment.</p> <p>It follows that production derived from basic processes of organic decomposition and consumption processes derived from basic processes of inorganic decomposition at an early period. It suggest that the earliest life forms must have functionally differentiated into organic and inorganic decomposers--those that directly processed inorganic minerals from the environment, and those that followed by processing the tissues and substances produced by these original inorganic processors.</p> <p> </p> <b> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Biophysical Systems</p> </b> <p> </p> <p>I have chosen to adopt a basic bio-mechanical model to the challenge of integration of ecological and evolutionary theory. In general, all living systems, at whatever level of patterning organization, represent semi-closed mechanical systems that, like all mechanical systems, obey the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. They involve energy exchange upon multiple levels, and they are ultimately entropic in the sense that they are inefficient and that, in time, as imperfect machines, they will eventually disintegrate as systems. In other words, all living systems, whether they are organisms, populations, species, ecosystems or entire epochal regimes, must eventually come to an end. Mortality is the basis for understanding natural selection on one hand, the driving force behind evolution, and natural ecology and adaptation, on the other hand. If an organism cannot successfully adapt to changing environmental conditions, then that individual will perish.</p> <p>In general, I will state that rates of genetic mutation remain more or less the same for all living systems, unless specific mechanisms are evolved that may interfere with some of the energetic pathways that can result in genetic mutuation. Related to this notion is that all cells are of a fairly standard and uniform size range, and the periodicities involved in their rates of division and reproduction are more or less the same for all living systems. This entails that, though rates of genetic mutation may be similar across the board of all living organisms, those multi-cellular organisms that are larger in size will on average grow and reproduce at a relatively slower net rate than smaller or single celled organisms. Hence, rates of mutation and genetic variation will be felt more rapidly with smaller sized organisms than with larger organisms in general, and this difference follows a linear regression trendline in nature. Rates of evolutionary differentiation of species are tied to several factors, some of which are related to exogenous changes in the surroundings and interactions of organisms. But there occurs a fundamental variable in such rates of evolutionary differentiation that is a function of the average size of an organism per the average natural longevity of such an organism if no other selective factors are involved. This can be expressed as a fairly uniform ratio of average size/average longevity of an organism, a general rule for which there are only a few exceptions in nature. It follows that large, K-selected type species evolve more slowly over time than small r-selected species, and also that more generalist adapted species will evolve more rapidly than more specialized species. The first case is an obvious outcome of the principle of size in relation to genetic rates of variation and modification. The second case is the outcome of a generalized species being more adapted to a wider range of ecological variations, such that any genetic variations that do arise in such species are more likely to become expressed and selected for. I would express these kinds of relationships in the following kind of paradigm:</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="1" CELLPADDING="7" WIDTH="590"> <tr> <td WIDTH="29%" VALIGN="TOP"> </td> <td WIDTH="34%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Generalized Trait Adaptations</td> <td WIDTH="38%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Specialized Trait Adaptations</td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="29%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p>r-selected</td> <td WIDTH="34%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Very rapid rates of evolutionary trait differentiation</td> <td WIDTH="38%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Intermediate rates of evolutionary trait differentiation</td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="29%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p>K-selected</td> <td WIDTH="34%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Intermediate rates of evolutionary trait differentiation</td> <td WIDTH="38%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Slow rates of evolutionary trait differentiation</td> </tr> </table> <p> </p> <p>The principle followed by all biological systems upon whatever level seems to be that of the fundamental biological imperative to survive and reproduce. I will call this the biological imperative. Its first order is biological survival, and its second order is successful reproduction as a system.</p> <p>The basic laws of bio-mechanics determines that all systems much change, and each time a system goes through reproduction, the result is in some minimal manner at least fundamentally different than the parent system. This follows as well from the basic laws of thermodynamics that predicts that there can be no perpetual motion machines.</p> <p>It appears as if life is naturally attempting to accomplish the impossible--it has an anti-entropic function of maintaining itself as somehow a minimally integrated system that continues into the future indefinitely, in the process changing itself and growing and elaborating all the possible permutations of its fundamental design potential. We see this because, inspite of much extinction, the thread of life continues today unbroken with a natural history of about 3.5 billion years. If we hold strictly to our fundamental laws, we know that life, as a living system that is minimally integrated, will eventually come to an end on earth--all living systems must die eventually. The real question is how old it will become before its final demise. This question is especially important in light of the fact that we seem to be hastening its final demise as much as possible. But humankind also holds the power of perpetuating and extending life, even beyond the boundaries of the earth, in a manner that might assure it of its continuing survival into the indefinite future.</p> <p>The following principles apply in biophysical systems theory:</p> <p>1. Evolutionary systems are defined by basic geophysical parameters from which they arise and by which they are always fundamentally constrained.</p> <p>2. Evolutionary systems tend towards increasing growth, differentiation and complexity as a natural function of their stochastic underdetermination in following the biological imperative to survive and reproduce.</p> <p>3. Patterns of differentiation and complexity tend to be historically irreversible, such that one species that divides into two, cannot become one again.</p> <p>4. Patterns of growth, differentiation and complication result in cyclical patterns of periodic alteration and replacement once basic limits of growth of the overall system are overpassed.</p> <u> <p>Bioevolutionary mechanics</u> defines for me the basic structural aspects of living systems, defined as energy, information and heat exchange systems of a special genetic design that results in reproduction and modification of the entire system. Biomechanics concerns organismic energy pathways, size, biomass, as well as the same parameters for larger sets of populations and ecosystemic communities. We may identify a basic principle of <u>ecological and evolutionary entropy</u> of all biological systems that implies that they will never achieve perfect equilibrium of adaptation to fluctuating exogenous changes or circumstances. Such entropy creates "noise" in biological systems leading to dysfunctional relationships, disequilibrium and the overall instability of such systems.</p> <p>Models of biological systems cannot be further comprehended outside of the context of a global biological or biospheric context, as this larger framework sets certain basic conditions and constraints upon all subsystems in critical ways:</p> <p>1. The total biosphere at any given point in time is represented by a number of ecosystems composed of one or more biotic communities.</p> <p>2. All biotic communities occupy one or more eco-systems and are evolving as biological systems, and such communities cohere into evolutionary eco-systems with distinct but relative and transitional boundaries.</p> <p>3. All evolutionary communities are evolving at different rates along different adaptational pathways.</p> <p>4. All biotic communities undergo evolutionary succession in several stages resulting eventually in the establishment of complex equilibria of stable climax evolutionary regimes.</p> <p>5. In terms of basic biological and physical constraints, all biotic communities are at least partially open communities. There can be no completely closed eco-system upon any level.</p> <p>6. Being partly open and always evolving, all biotic communities are at least indirectly connected to one another, and all are therefore coevolutionarily integrated upon some minimal level.</p> <p>7. Coevolutionary relationships can lead to adaptational and counteradaptational selection patterns between members of different biological systems that is a function of relative evolutionary entropy and equilibrium.</p> <p>8. Coevolutionary relationships tend in the long run to result in anti-climactic destabilization of climax communities and in evolutionary collpase and mass extinction of certain communities, especially at the apex of the established trophic pyramid.</p> <p>9. Evolutionary collapse is rarely complete, and may follow a cyclical pattern of endogenous/exogenous change mechanism.</p> <p>10. Evolutionary collapse results in room being opend up with the "evolutionary pyramid" for replacement of many forms of life from peripheral biotic communities, leading to a new round of evolutionary development.</p> <p>To encapsulate this general model which is held to govern eco-evolutionary patterning of biological systems at all levels, the requirement of biological systems to adapt and survive, especially in relation with other biological systems, leads invariably to biological systems growing in size and complexity to the point that they eventually collapse due to supercritical complexity of their own self-organization in a larger context defined by random exogenous and endogenous variables. Biological systems, poised in equilibrium at some climax state, will sooner or later collapse due to factors beyond their adaptational control.</p> <p>It appears that biodiversity may exist in an inverse relationship with biomass of systems--in other words, high biodiversity would require that individual organisms grow to an optimum size, but no larger. Areas where biodiversity is relatively low often support species with an unusually large biomass, both in terms of size of the organisms and size of the population. Oceans provide an example where, in tropical zones about coral reefs, there might be a tremendous biodiversity of many kinds of species, but it is in the open, often barren oceans that the very largest creatures can be found in greater numbers.</p> <p>If generational time is shorter in tropical systems than in temperate systems, then it is the case that the rates of mutation and speciation are also faster in such contexts, and it average size of creatures filling a niche would on average be less. In a tropical zone, the picture is of a large number of relatively specialized niches across a highly variegated terrain. In a temperate zone, the picture is of a fewer number of species in large niche areas, spreading out more across a landscape that is inherently less variegated.</p> <p>In this comparison, Dinosaurs deserve consideration and explanation--they have unusually large sizes and tremendous biomass. Surely the feeders were browser's and grazer's capable somehow of processing into protein the vegetable/cellulose fiber it consume. The question is how could such great creatures have developed in extremely hot and humid tropical conditions--when a Savanna-like environment would seem more appropriate for their biomass.</p> <p>There is also a sense that biotic systems can grow old, and in the process of growing old and in establishing entangled webs within webs of delicate equilibrium, they become slower and gradually climb the eco-trophic pyramid to larger and larger sizes. The old world rain forests seem to harbor a fundamentally different fauna than the new world, and these old world forests are more diverse.</p> <p>There is a sense that tropical systems are high energy systems, cycling nutrients and organisms at much higher rates than in more temperate zones. In such a condition, creatures would not grow too large. In temperate zones that are characterized by lower overall energy levels and slower dynamics, creatures may grow nevertheless to an unsually large size. In these latter contexts there appears to be more efficient processing of basic food resources in bulk. It is like the baleen whales that feed on tiny plankton or large woolly mammoths grazing on tundra and prairie grasses.</p> <p>There is a sense as well that biological systems can evolutionarily and ecologically reach a cul-de-sac or a cliff in terms of their direction of further development. This deadend is as much a function of size to reproductive period, as it is to the strain of such large systems upon a biological niche. Once large and hyperdeveloped species have developed in specialized ways especially, it is much more difficult for these species simply to backup upon the evolutionary pathway and to return to some lower level of fitness-adaptation. Such species become prepositioned for eventual extinction when they cannot evolve fast enough away from a set of changing environmental conditions.</p> <p>Another way of putting this is that systems tend towards increasing size selection or increasing diversity in the long run. There is an inverse linear relationship between absolute rate of reproduction and generation time and body size. Increased body size confers certain adaptive advantages, especially in density-dependent relationships, and is evident in the fossil record as phyletic size increase, but it puts such species out on an evolutionary limb, or, rather upon an evolutionary plateau from which they cannot easily escape. Small species may more easily and readily evolve into large species, than large species can evolve back into small species.</p> <p>And as it goes with species, it goes in a similar way with all other levels and kinds of biological systems. The more biomass and fundamental physical input into a larger system, the greater the problem that system has in changing itself in a finite way into some other kind of system.</p> <p> </p> <b> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Biodynamics</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> </b> <p> </p> <p>The basic framework of biodynamics in biological systems theory is a kind of modified taxon cycle that all biological systems purportedly undergo in the course of time. This modified taxon cycle is a tendency, as previously noted, for all systems to change in certain general directions towards either increasing size and biomass or towards increasing biodiversity. The kind of cyle I am referring to I call the r-K taxon cycle, which refers as much to phases of a populations growth and size as it does to a species or specific organisms relative selective and adaptive trait profile. In an r-K taxon cycle, organisms progress through various alternative stages during which different kinds of selection regimes become critical in determining the outcomes. They progress in general from an r-r through an r-K to a K-r and final to a K-K model of selection-adaptation, and these stages are presented by certain characteristic trait configurations of size, generalized or specialized functional morphologies, key traits, reproductive patterns and longevity. As biological systems progress up the pyramid from an r-type selection-adaptation pattern toward an increasing K-type pattern, they become less susceptible to the problems of local environmental fluctuations and density independent factors, and more susceptible to factors of increasing competition and density dependence in complex or climax biotic regimes.</p> <p>Within this framework, it can be seen that different groups and biological systems at different levels of this r-K continuum undergo different periodicities and cycles during which different kinds of selectional and adaptational regimes are predominant. Species move along the continuum through various forms of key-trait developments that place the species into new level of adaptation-selection regime. In general, when that happens, the species grows larger and larger. This kind of taxon cycle is true for the evolution of lines at all levels of the taxonomic tree, and constitutes the basis for the classification of different taxa based upon their history of trait development and functional adaptations.</p> <p>As previously reiterated, the general stochastic tendency for all evolving species is to move from r towards increasing K modes of adaptation-selection. The problem is that as species move generally in this direction, there occurs increasing levels of competition associated with increasing K, through greater density-dependency. This is offset to some degree by a larger adaptational trait-profile of the species, but this larger profile also predisposes the member organisms to a greater range of potential risks and trade-offs.</p> <p>As reiterated previously, it is also easier for a r-type species to move in a K direction, than it is for a strongly K type species to return to a more r-mode of adaptation-selection. The result in general is that K-type species will more readily step of the ladder of evolution into the abyss of extinction, to be replaced from below by more r-selected types of species. To look at this another way, it is possible to imagine a small single cell organism to eventually evolve into a large behemoth, but it is impossible to imagine a large behemoth evolving back into a single cell organism.</p> <p>The way to understand adaptation and fitness of organisms and species is to understand such adaptations in terms of critical or key trait configurations that are exhibited in the profiles of these organisms. Trait configurations are complex solutions to the problem of biological survival, arrived at after millennium of exploration and blind genetic experimentation. Once arrived at, such trait configurations may prove highly robust and adaptive to a broader range of tolerance limits than those conditions that gave rise to them in the first place--once so adapted, it is probably more difficult for a species simply to back out of an evolutionary corner.</p> <p>The challenge of understanding the relationships between evolutionary and ecological theory is that these relationships are largely conceptual, and though both ecological adaptation and natural selection are proceeding simultaneously, the long term effects of these patterns are much more difficult to ascertain on the ground. A conceptual problem of largely hypothetical models of ecology and evolution entails that we have a plethora of interesting concepts, but no clear idea of how they all interrelate and integrate to achieve a systematic picture of the interaction of environment with evolution of species. There is also a critical sense that both evolution and ecology, locked in a kind of biological dialectic, are in a sense chasing one another's tale--ecological adaptation leads to evolution which leads back to ecological adaptation--and it it is equally apparent that ecological adaptation and evolution are always incomplete and fundamentally open processes, the outcomes of which are never certain.</p> <p>The fossil record teaches us that there have been far more evolutionary failures than successes in the long run, and even so, all extant life forms have been in a sense built upon a complex history of both success and failure. Because all extant life forms exhibit continuity with the remotes origins of life, in an uninterrupted if somewhat non-linear manner, they can all be considered successful even if their future is not bright or clear. One thing that is clear is that there is continuous biological replacement of forms, and biological replacement is a form of ecological release that follows a period or episode of restriction and extinction. To succeed, almost all organisms need to be capable of automatically exploiting a condition leading to replacement and release. In favorable conditions of empty niches and unrestricted resources, it is natural that biological reproduction will proceed exponentially in a Malthusian manner, and species will diffuse into and through a habitable, exploitable zone, until they can concentrate and create new patterns of equilibrium. This pattern of all life forms can be referred to as part of the biological imperative that life follows, must follow, if it is to remain successful on earth.</p> <p>We may say in general that evolutionary theory articulates with ecology through the principles of adaptation, especially as this affects natural selection. The trouble is that adaptation is a relative and general concept that is difficult to apply. Adaptation of an organism may shift almost daily or from season to season. We must specify the level and framework of adaptation, and we must acknowledge that ultimately all adaptation is blind response to changes that have already occurred. In such a way species or organisms cannot adapt to future changes or events before they happen. As a general form of response patterning to exogenous changes, adaptation is largely a stochastic process the outcomes of which cannot be predicted. It is probably the case that most organisms come into the world genetically preadapted to a general complex range of factors that hedge their bets for survival in their favor. It is also the case that even the best adapted and "fittest" organism can succumb unexpectedly to relatively change agents in the environment.</p> <p>It is difficult therefore to fit a general model of adaptation to the problem of survival and natural selection, or to rest an entire comprehensive theory upon such a nebulous concept. On the other hand, Darwin based evolutionary theory upon the principle of natural selection, a concept which until today remains poorly defined.</p> <p>We can say that life in general has had a long period of evolutionary history to work out and solve the problems of adaptation. Every new organism, every new generation, every new species, represents one alternative solution to the general problem of adaptation of life on earth. A great deal of experience and information can be said to be contained in the genetic profiles of different organisms, and no one profile can be said to be a necessarily better or more adaptive solution than another.</p> <p>For each new individual organism brought into a world, we can attach a specific, even unique adaptive profile, and we can assign a certain probability of outcomes based on this profile alone--even so, as previously mentioned, a well adapted organism still might make poor choices, or suffer misfortune that was not a part of the original calculus. The biggest and best seed of a flower can fall into a poor shaded place between rocks, never to see the light of day. Relatively poor seeds can nevertheless find the most optimum conditions for their growth and prosper to their own limits.</p> <p>In essence, from the beginning, living systems have tended to create there own ecosystems, and these ecosystems have evolved in due course along with the evolution of the species contained within them. The evolution of a unique species is not just about the development of a suite of traits within some specific eco-trophic niche profile, but the development of entire suites of adaptive systems that are intrinsically articulated within eco-trophic niches. We cannot treat the evolution of a species as something relatively or entirely independent, as in isolation, of the adaptive environmental forces that have always affected it and determined its success or failure in terms we refer to as natural selection. In this process, we must understand at least two levels of influence that occur, each of which is in itself extremely complex:</p> <p>1. Adaptation to the bio-geophysical conditions of the natural physical environment, including the physical environment created by other living organisms, in a relatively density independent manner.</p> <p>2. Adaptation to the bio-behavioral conditions created by the relative presence and influence of other organisms, either directly upon the organism (ie. predation, commensalism, etc.) or indirectly through influence upon the adaptive environment of the organism. In general type 2 adaptations can be thought of as being density dependent in nature, if we understand the concept of density to embrace a wider heterogeneous definition of biodiversity to include a broad range of different kinds of organisms.</p> <p>Adaptations can be either positive, negative or neutral in their net outcomes, though they may be quite variable in their immediate effects. Adaptation is fundamentally blind and hence stochastic. In other words, all adaptive systems are necessarily underdetermined systems. We may say in general that short-term exogenous (ecological) changes result in long term endogenous (evolutionary) changes while short-term endogenous (evolutionary) changes may result in long-term exogenous (changes).</p> <p>We must understand that the problem of adaptation proceeds ecologically and evolutionarily upon several levels at the same time--it proceeds at the level of the individual organism, at the level of the specific population, at the level of the interspecific ecosystemic context and at a level of an entire species or broader superecosystemic context that encompasses a range of different species that may not be in direct contact.</p> <p>Adaptation has a direct relationship to the concept of niche--an adaptive profile constitutes the niche occupied at the several possible levels mentioned above.</p> <p>Successful adaptation in the long run will have two important outcomes:</p> <p>1. biological survival of the organism, population, species or system</p> <p>2. biological reproduction and regeneration of these systems.</p> <p>On the other hand, failed adaptation can occur at one of two levels:</p> <p>1. Failure in biological regeneration and reproduction.</p> <p>2. Failure of organismic survival, especially in a prereproductive period.</p> <p>It is highly unlikely that any suite of adaptive traits is adaptively neutral or has no net conseqences on the likelihood of success or failure at any level. There must be in such a complex and underdetermined system a great deal of uncertainty of outcomes, rendering such systems largely blind and stochastic. Success or failure can only be known in the long run, and cannot be clearly determined in the short run.</p> <p> </p> <b> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Biosystematics</p> <u> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> </u></b> <p> </p> <p>In time, living systems influence their environments in basic ways, creating conditions that are suitable for survival and genetic stability. They tend towards establishment of a basic equilibrium of adaptation along key limiting factors within sets of environmental factors and surroundings that demonstrate certain consistencies of pattern in important ways.</p> <p>Living systems have become stratified upon multiple levels and across a broad range of biogeophysical areas. This pattern of stratification has varied from one biological epoch to the next, being frequently punctuated by periods of mass extinction that witnessed the creation of an general ecological vacuum under a new set of emergent conditions that provided the groundwork for an entirely new pattern to arise.</p> <p>Integration and stratification are complementary concepts in all natural systems, but especially in biological systems where such complementarity is played out to the nth degree in almost every fact of such systems at every level. What is remarkable about living systems is there shear complexity of multi-level interfunctioning that normally occurs with such systems. We cannot separate functions on a microscopic level with reproduction and basic production processes, from large scale functions on a global biospheric level that may literally encompass the entire earth.</p> <p>We can specify a fundamental size hierarchy of natural stratification of biological systems, which hierarchy of stratification is quite useful when it comes to the systematic comparison of different systems upon different levels. Systems are stratified on the basis of relative size and scale.</p> <p>1. Microscopic systems & molecular subsystems--cellular & subcellular systems</p> <p>2. Metascopic systems & microscopic subsystems--organismic systems & cellular subsystems</p> <p>3. Macroscopic systems & macroscopic subsystems--superoganic systems & organismic subsystems.</p> <p>In general, these incorporate three levels of living systems that can be roughly called the suborganic, the organic and the superorganic levels of integration. Furthermore, we must also take into account in a systematic way the inorganic substrate and superstrate of organic systems. In this regard we view normally biological systems as existing in an intermediate level between an inorganic substrate and a inorganic superstrate. Variability of substrate/superstrate is the source of much variability of pattern in living systems. Within the substrate and superstrate structure, there are natural divisions of classification that are very basic to the comparative identification of different living systems. One of the most basic divisions is between water-based and land-based systems, for instance.</p> <p>Implied in this hierarchy of size and scale are several other considerations. First and foremost, higher order systems subsume and incorporate lower order subsystems, and hence represent more complex patterns for living systems. Lower order subsystems are more basic and were evolutionary precursors to the development of higher order systems.</p> <p>Within each of the basic levels of systems, we can designate three sets of sublevels, small, medium and large, for a total system of 9 sets of sublevels--lower order systems arise independently in evolutionary terms, and become incorporated into higher order systems as a result of evolutionary development. We can see this process clearly in the rise of genetic trait anomalies that confer adaptive superiority to an individual leading to reproductive success-the result is the incorporation of the trait into a new population, and, in time, a new species.</p> <p>Adaptation refers to fitness profiles of an organism, and by extension, of a population, to a complex range of environmental factors that affect its chances for survival and reproductive success. These fitness or adaptive profiles are also defined environmentally in terms of the eco-trophic niche or multidimensional space occupied existentially and functionally by the organism. Fitness tends to be niche specific, and it is like fitting a round peg to a round hole of the right dimensions. Of course fitness-niche relations are complex and multi-factorial. There may be critical factors that affect the profile, but the profile represents a suite of interacting traits and adjustments that represent a complex genetic equilibrium that has been established by the organism in relation to its environment.</p> <p>Within each of the basic levels of systems, we can designate three sets of sublevels, small, medium and large, for a total system of 9 sets of sublevels--lower order systems arise independently in evolutionary terms, and become incorporated into higher order systems as a result of evolutionary development. We can see this process clearly in the rise of genetic trait anomalies that confer adaptive superiority to an individual leading to reproductive success-the result is the incorporation of the trait into a new population, and, in time, a new species. Exceptions to this rule can and do occur, but the likelihood is not great. In general, we can say some of the following:</p> <p>1. Similar species or related conspecifics that occupy different ecotrophic niche profiles tend in the long run to diverge.</p> <p>2. Different species that occupy similar ecotrophic niche profiles tend in the long run to converge.</p> <p>3. As ecological equilibrium develops coevolutionarily in a system it can be expected that trait complexes will exhibit in general a form of functional-formal streamlining that leads to the best or most optimum solution to a general eco-trophic niche.</p> <p>4. Convergence of different kinds of species along similar trait-complex or configurations can be an expected outcome of this kind of evolutionary streamlining. Divergence of similar kinds of species is an expected outcome of niche-divesification related to dispersion, differential selection and natural trait variation</p> <p>Species that are well adapted to a particular eco-trophic profile or range, tend to become in time evolutionarily streamlined in terms of the functional morphology. This streamlining is a multi-trait profile, or complex of traits affecting the total adaptability of a population to a specific ranges of environments. Streamlining emerges slowly and only within broad parameters defined by the genetic adaptive profile within the eco-trophic niche. Streamlining can only proceed down certain evolutionary pathways.</p> <p> </p> <b> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Biocybernetics</p> <u> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> </u></b> <p> </p> <p>We can understand that life on earth has always had a minimal degree of integration. We can perhaps understand this sense of complex integration best if we consider that life is a natural form of intelligence, expressed through genetic transmission and mutation, that leads to trait-modification in the face of selective pressures of the environment. In a sense, life is like a form of genetic algorythm, that is exploring stochastically a broad search-solution space many different combinations, seeing each time round what works and doesn't work. But unlike most genetic algorythms, the outcomes of any possible combination in real life organisms are influenced dramatically by the organisms that are directly and indirectly connected to the organism, and this occurs on a dynamic and epigenetic landscape that is in continuous flux and has little long-term stability of pattern. There is critical feedback in such systems from other organisms, responses to responses, that reverberate throughout the structure of such a field of relations. The net result over the many millennia has been a very broad plethora of different life-forms and different evolutionary regimes on earth, and the emergence of many different, highly elaborated trait configurations. In other words, there have been many different interesting solutions to the basic problems and challenges to Life--these solutions all represent viable alternative design templates in response to life's basic biological imperative. In other words they represent forms of implicit, achieved natural intelligence, achieved by design, that solves certain basic and derivative problem sets in life.</p> <p> </p> <p>Evolutionary streamlining and convergent evolution are clear examples of the natural self-organizing intelligence of living systems that are capable of "solving" complex natural patterns through continuous trait complex modification. This form of intelligence is essentially blind and stochastic, unlike what we normally think of as intelligence, but the ability to solve complex problems by simplifying the "information bottleneck" implicit to such problems is a basic definition of intelligent systems of any kind.</p> <p>The development of the Animalian brain was not merely a fortuitous outcome of playing evolutionary blind-man's bluff. As a possibility, its eventual emergence as a critical organ in the problem of the integration of life was perhaps inevitable, at least eventually. The basis of natural brain function is the sensory recognition and processing of critical environmental information, particularly to light, smells, sounds, touch, and taste, that allowed an organism to coordinate its complex biobehavioral response patterning. The second foundation of natural brain function is the motor coordination of behavioral and organiismic response of an organism--a brain brings the diverse functions of all different subsystems of an organism "under one roof" so to speak, and is necessary for the coordination of all these functions in a manner achieving the basic biological imperative.</p> <p>That the animalian brain would also emerge in time in larger and more complexly organized structures must also be seen as a natural biological consequence of continuous trait selection. In almost every instance, everything else being equal, a larger brain structure would have almost by definition conferred an adaptive advantage over one that is less well developed, as it would have permitted the organism a more sophisticated and unpredictable pattern of response.</p> <p>The challenge of biocybernetics is therefore not as much a matter of defining intelligent informational patterning in all living systems, as it is the challenge of explaining the rise and patterning of natural intelligence in such systems, that permitted greater levels of integration, coordination and stratification between systems and subsystems to be achieved than otherwise.</p> <p>This challenge extends to the issues of complex communication systems that arise biologically and that are expressed in social organization and interaction of living systems. We may find communication systems inherent to the behavioral and social organization of most species of the kingdom Animalia. Communication of species of kingdom Plantae or the other Kingdoms would be more difficult to establish except in a rudimentary form, for example, of the coloration and smells of angiosperm flowers that attract pollinators. Communication establishes patterns at a phenotypical level of social organization that is not directly mediated by genetic trait configuration, although it may be said that most such systems are strictly regulated and constrained by instincts.</p> <p>The natural biological brain, whether it takes a primitive form of an earthworm, or the complex form of a primate brain, permitted a level of adaptive response and flexibility of such systems that would not have otherwise been achieved, and it allowed for the organism to exist in a world that, though perhaps enclosed, was not perhaps totally dark.</p> <p>It is evident that a dog brain is close enough in basic structures to the human brain as to permit a fundamental level of communication and cooperation to occur between dogs and humans that would otherwise be impossible. All the rudimentary structures that underlie human brains are in place in the dogs, from simple mechanical conditioning to dreams, basic emotional responses,simple problem solving, long-term memory functions, to even a form of pre-symbolic thinking. Without these structures being in place and shared by both dog and human, there would be no basis for interspecific communication and cooperative relation between the two species.</p> <p> </p> <b> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Biosis</p> </b> <p>Biosis concerns the evolutionary patterning of living systems through time and across space in a coordinated manner, and it concerns the question of the stadial developmental cycles that living systems proceed through from their beginning until their eventual demise. In general, it concerns the life-history patterns of individual organisms, populations and species, involving reproduction, growth, and eventual demise.</p> <p>It can be said that most species that emerge from population dynamics are evolutionary failures. They represent unique natural experiments of life in complex genetic adaptations of populations to dynamic environmental contexts.</p> <p>In call cases, it can be said that the individual organism, of whatever type, represents a basic biological experiment. It is a unique combination of genetic traits within a unique evolutionary and ecosystem context, exactly unlike any other related organism. Organisms come and go, and must invitably die. Their success is to be defined by the succession of generations forthcoming from that organism.</p> <p> </p> <b> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Biotics</p> </b> <p>In general, the concept of biotics is complementary to the idea of biosis--biotics automatically engages the complex patterns of interaction between organisms, species and larger systems, and concerns the rise of complex biological systems formation in a systematic manner.</p> <p>No individual biological system can be considered in ecological or evolutionary vacuum, in isolation from other biotic forms that cooccur and coevolve in relation to that system. An eco-evolutionary regime is defined as a global-regional system that is dominated by a basic eco-trophic profile constituted by particular orders or phyla to the exclusion of other possible orders or phyla.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>This forms the basic global ecological system of life on earth that remains with us until today. Individual species and phyla have come and gone in great numbers, but the basic functional categories and Kingdoms remain as true today as they were when they first developed sometime before the Cambrian explosion.</p> <p>This structure is to be seen not just as a static pyramid of relations, but as a dynamic interaction between levels in a complex system of cause, effect and subsequent cycles of response.</p> <p>Changes in the bio-geophysical substrate result in major reverberatory changes and shifts in the entire global ecological substrate, resulting in a the fall and rise of a new eco-evolutionary regime. Such changes are generally density independent types of influences upon populations and ecosystems.</p> <p>The basis for evolutionary speciation of new populations occurs as the result of basic shifts in ecosystem profiles of trophic-niche adaptations--ie. in ecosystemic changes that lead to new derivative patterns of interspecific relation.</p> <p>Eco-trophic niche profiles define the unique combination of defining features for each organisms and for each member of a species. These profiles are complex matrices containing as many variables as can be found to occur. In such a way, individuals within species or across species can be compared by common traits or differences in values therein. Eco-trophic niche profile is an important method for the systematic comparison of trait patterns between individuals and populations. In general, the eco-trophic niche profile of a population can be taken to be the sum of the total range of eco-trophic niche profiles for each of the members, divided by the average for the entire group.</p> <p>In this model, I contrast genetic traits with what I have called eco-trophic niche profiles, that latter being a systematic means of accounting for the full range of variables and limits of adaptation for an individual, population or community system. Polytrophic niche profile is also contrasted with the other two dimensions, suggesting that for many species, niches are only partially occupied, and they may in fact functionally inhabit or overlap several niches together.</p> <p>In such a manner, matrix paradigms of polytrophic systems can be developed within which the relationships between individuals and types are implicit to the dimensional categories of the profiles themselves. Polytrophic systems can be taken as a measure of the achieved heterogeneity of the system.</p> <p>The eco-evolutionary potential of any epoch can be determined by the absolute biomass that can be developed and sustained by the global substrate. The larger the basic biomass of the entire system, the more elaborated and heterogenous the resulting eco-trophic superstructures that can be built upon it.</p> <p>We can more or less ascertain the evolutionary history of life on earth by the divergence and branching development of the so-called tree of life. This involved the emergence of all the relevant biological phyla, taxa, orders and suborders as they have occurred. Though species and entire genera may come and go with relatively rapid succession, the more basic orders remain relative stable and steadfast through the ages.</p> <p>Evolutionary developments tend to proceed more rapidly at the apex and top of the pyramidal structures than at the base, which appear to be more stable in pattern. As new pyramids arise, new patterns and evolutionary pathways are being explored by living forms. Interrelationships between different eco-trophic pyramids develop in time upon multiple levels, further enmeshing the basic global system in regional and more local subsystems. Within these subsystems differential patterns of development occur that tend to influence related structures in indirect ways.</p> <p> </p> <b> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Biochronics</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> </b> <p> </p> <p>Ecosystems that develop gradually a complex equilibrium at relatively high population densities and high indices of biodiversity, exhibit a intrinsic "clockwork" in the system as a whole that serves as a factor driving the adaptation and selection of the individual organisms of that system. In a "hot" system that is operating on high metabolic rates, the energy budgets may be quite small in fact, requiring rapid turn over and replacement. Such a system is bound to drive all the organisms within its framework towards more rapid metabolic rates, etc.</p> <p>This kind of phenomena I call eco-evolutionary clockwork, and once set in motion in a minimally integrated eco-system, it gradually grows, assuming an increasing degree of influence over the behavior of the system as a whole and of the constituent organisms of the system. Organisms within such a clockwork are constrained in ways by external factors that they may not otherwise be constrained in. The notion of eco-evolutionary clockwork brings us back to the notion of interharmonic, periodic oscillator mechanisms that drive coevolutionary development of complex eco-systems.</p> <p>There occurs basic and long-term periodicities in the basic structural patterning of the global ecosystem that has lead to a series of major succession events. These succession events can be defined by the collapse of the dominant global ecotrophic profile of one age, defined by dominant forms at eachof the levels of the ecotrophic pyramid. Such a collapse would have been globally catastrophic, but at the same time would set the stage for a new epoch and round of renewed evolutionary development and re-release.</p> <p>Succession is a clear and classic example of the functioning of an eco-evolutionary clock--if we know the types of species involved and other factors, we can guess the timing and rank order of a succession series in a given system. It is clear that species have their timing--they get old as a species, accumulating genetic "load" as well as a complex kind of adaptive equilibrium. We might say that ecosystems, to the extent that they are partially, corporate entities, have a typical series of stages that they may go through. The clockwork hypothesis is an inherent aspect of living systems as natural thermodynamic systems--the trick is that the systems fundamentally change over time by a kind of punctuated equilibrium that leads to a reorganization of the system into a completely new kind. Either systems at multiple levels achieve this kind of gradual but periodic transformation, or they will eventually pass into extinction.</p> <p>The basic model I seek to employ regarding biochronics is a basic model of an interharmonic periodic oscillatory mechanism. This model concerns generally biological interactions at all levels. Models of cyclical process that reflect the fundamental and general realities of evolutionary development can be built. The model I propose is that of a periodic oscillator. Any energy system that is bound to a stable state of equilibrium, such as a fully saturated ecosystem in a range of fairly stable environmental parameters, by some "restoring" or self-regulating force, which I take to be mechanisms of social selection based on reproductive competition, will upon disturbance from its equilibrium position, "resonate" at a frequency established by the reproductive rates and death rates of the populations involved. Achieved relative equilibrium of any population is a measure of its "evolutionary inertia."</p> <p>This oscillation tends to be driven periodically by a complex set of external forces that impinge upon the system in expectable intervals derived from the oscillation patterns of neighboring ecosystems.</p> <p>In general, increasing competition between forms of life tend to lead to a pattern of exclusion, such that other kinds of relational values are excluded between such life forms. We can say that in general, as things tend toward relative K, things also tend toward increasing competition. In the extreme form of competition, total exclusion results in either extinction or marginalization.</p> <p>Relational interactions that do not reflect direct competition, can be considered inherently and indirectly competitive, but are to be seen as efforts to maintain relative equilibrium in conditions that would otherwise result in disequilibrium or exclusion.</p> <p>Thus complex social organization and patterns of counteradaptational selection and coevolutionary interdependence arise precisely in conditions where potential competition can be expected to otherwise intensify. There would be no need for social organization or for complex patterns of interdependency to arise in conditions where there is no competition as a result of saturation and relative K-states.</p> <p>Thus it can be seen that competition constitutes a basic mechanism governing and leading to trait-displacement in natural selection and patterns of speciation.</p> <p>Social interactions between and within groups in ecosystems tend towards increasing complexity and are difficult to generally model in realistic terms. Nevertheless, it is evident that most forms of interaction can be at least partially depicted through competition, which illustrates a basic principle. Given any two (or more) organisms (or groups) in a finite resource system, a basic density-dependent relationship is inherently established, such that increasing growth will result in competitive constraints operating between all coexisting populations. Complex patterns of symbiotic mutualism and social interaction are derivative consequences of these basic constraints. While this model describes mutual coexistence and the rise and declines of populations about some hypothesized state of optimal equilibrium, they do not describe the resulting patterns of social selection that can be expected from them.</p> <p>Before proceeding, I will state that in general:</p> <p>Exclusive fitness and direct social competition are positively correlated with density-dependency and relative saturation within a system.</p> <p>With increasing saturation of any system, it can be expected that social selection will manifest itself in increased rates of premature (nonreproductive) death and dampened actual instantaneous rates of birth.</p> <p>In highly saturated, competitive environments, some species will increase at the expense of others that will face either extinction or marginalization.</p> <p>Any system must eventually become unstable if some species cannot be displaced by exclusion from the system, or the system cannot achieve a higher threshold of equilibrium.</p> <p>Unstable systems will result in relative innate competition that is density independent in its function, returning the entire system through increased death rates to a lower level of saturation. We may say that a form of nondifferential negative selection sets into the system.</p> <p>This suggests that there is an inherent long-term instability of all ecosystems that will tend eventually towards disequilibrium in spite of relative states of achieved mutual equilibrium between members of the system.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>We will go back to our basic formulas, and demonstrate that any presuppositions of density-dependence results in two-way interactions between any two organisms, groups, populations or species. The following kind of "interdependency" paradigm hold generally true for any kind of social interaction we may wish to represent in time or place:</p> <p> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"><center> <table BORDER="1" CELLSPACING="1" CELLPADDING="7" WIDTH="421"> <tr> <td WIDTH="26%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p>A + B</td> <td WIDTH="24%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p>B gains + 1</td> <td WIDTH="27%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p>B neutral 0</td> <td WIDTH="23%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p>B loses -1</td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="26%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p>A gains +1</td> <td WIDTH="24%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p>Both gain</td> <td WIDTH="27%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p>B 0, A + 1</td> <td WIDTH="23%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p>B-1, A+ 1</td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="26%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p>A neutral 0</td> <td WIDTH="24%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p>B+ 1, A 0</td> <td WIDTH="27%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p>B 0 , A 0</td> <td WIDTH="23%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p>B -1, A 0</td> </tr> <tr> <td WIDTH="26%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p>A loses - 1</td> <td WIDTH="24%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p>B+ 1, A-1</td> <td WIDTH="27%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p>B 0, A -1</td> <td WIDTH="23%" VALIGN="TOP"> <p>Both lose</td> </tr> </table> </center> <p>I will call this framework a discrimination table of basic interdependencies. We may hypothesize that any interaction, or any predictable set of similar interactions, between any set of individuals, groups or populations, regardless of the specificity or inequality of the compared terms, can be placed in one of the sets of squares, and in one square only. The same interaction cannot be placed in two different squares at the same time. Thus, the absolute value of the table as a whole will be equal to total number of finite interactions or relationships recordable, within a given area over a given period of time. This might be called the functional density of an area that would be a measure of the relative density-dependency of that area as well as of the relative saturation of the area and indirectly a measure of species diversity and heterogeneity.</p> <p>We would of course add cells to the table in a third dimension if we which to specify relations occurring between three or more compared terms and can be represented on an enlarged squared table. The range of possible interactions can be specified for any number of terms, as well as the degrees of freedom.</p> <p>This table is called a table of interdepedencies because it presumes a basic principle of density-interdependence operating between any two or more organisms, groups, etc., within any finite system.</p> <p>Several conditions hold in this representation:</p> <p>1. It is the natural imperative of each represented group to maximize its share of resources within an ecosystem. (innate competitiveness hypothesis)</p> <p>2. Each represented group will strive to minimize its loses within the ecosystem.</p> <p>3. In the growth of such systems, it can be expected that eventually the gain of some will come at the expense of others.</p> <p>4. Direct competition should emerge as the result of increasing densities of populations and net saturation of the system.</p> <p>The center value where interactions are "mutually neutral" would in an absolute sense be nonexistent or incorrect, if we assume a basic assumption of innate competition. But in a relative sense it is very possible to describe the mutual coexistence of different life forms that have no direct consequence upon one another. Innate competition is probably under most circumstances a residual and negligible factor in fitness and selection patterns, unless a case can be made for total supersaturation of the area in question. At the stage where innate competition would become a factor, it can be assumed that it becomes indirectly a density-independent factor, as it would probably affect all organisms in the system in the same proportionate degree. There are many contexts in which different species are not only mutually tolerant of one another, but actually indirectly codependent upon one another.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>We can say therefore that relationships tend to move away from the center of neutrality in one or another direction. We can say that maximum ideal equilibrium would be achieved in the upper left-hand corner of the table, and maximum disequilibrium in the lower right-hand corner. It will be demonstrated that probably both states are never achievable, and therefore most social relationships range between the two extremes.</p> <p> </p> <b> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Biospherics</p> <u> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> </u></b> <p>We must adopt a global framework of understanding the basic underpinings of the biosphere as a single integrated web of life that has long been adapted to earth, such that in time, it has come to influence and shape the geophysical aspects of the earth's surface and atmosphere. That sphere was biologically integrated from the beginning, and has undergone many periods of modification and subsequent development.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>The point of departure for an approach in coevolutionary ecosystems is positing of a basic and grand level of ecological integration of all life forms as a single global ecosystem, of which all other ecosystems are a part and a subsystem of the larger framework and can only be understood within its historical-evolutionary niche. The following kind of paradigm is applied. In time, living systems influence their environments in basic ways, creating conditions that are suitable for survival and genetic stability. They tend towards establishment of a basic equilibrium of adaptation along key limiting factors.</p> <p>All living systems, as a single comprehensive system, exhibit some minimal degree of integration within a bio-geophysical context that is ultimately global in size and scope. The global ecosystem defines a level of evolutionary interaction and ecosystem integration of all subsystem in fundamental and basic ways. The relationships expressed in the previous diagram between different kingdoms of life can be said to be manifest in any ecosystem that we define on earth--they constitute the biospheric substrate of the integration for all living systems on earth.The global system constitutes a substrate upon which multiple and numerous eco-trophic pyramids are evolutionarily constructed.</p> <p>Within these different ecotrophic structures unique historical and evolutionary specific relations emerge and occur. All areally or temporally definable ecosystems are in essence subsystems of this larger global system, and represent the emergence of convergent/divergent pathways of evolutionary exploration and elaboration.</p> <p>One model we may speculate upon in relation to general global biospherics is the hypothesis of long-term Carbon-Oxygen oscillation cycles. In general, the model predicts that carbon-dioxide levels will accumulate in contexts in which large respiratory biomass arises in conjunction with large instances of carbon sequestration through natural processes. In such a model, relative CO<sub>2</sub> levels fall, and oxygen levels rise. The result is a general cooling trend that leads to a collapse of a biotic ecosystem. Once such a system collapses, a new system will arise in which CO<sub>2</sub> is gradually released back into the environment in a new cycle, with a general warming trend that will lead to increasing plant productivity and a greenhouse effect. The result of this effect will be greater precipitation and rising sea water levels. A point will be reached in such a system when animal and respiratory biomass will gradually begin increasing. For this model to hold, it makes sense that relative levels of plant to animal tissues must gradually shift, plant growth presaging an explosion of animal growth by a significant time lag. Massive extinction of animal tissue will result in a limit of respiration, and the groundwork for a new oscillation period.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <b> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Biocosmics</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> </b> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>The cosmic seeding hypothesis suggests that basic organic molecules, waters, and even possible DNA may exist within the matrices of meterorites or asteroids, though how such material got there in the first place is difficult to answer. It suggests that the basic components for biogenesis may be spread throughout the universe by the collision of these bodies with different planets, depositing materials in conditions where they may take hold. It seems that the direct seeding of life in this way is highly unlikely and the explanation is rather fortuitous. It is likely that any useful material might be vaporized in its impact with its target planet. On the other hand, there is a residual possibility that basic prerequisites for life, water perhaps, may be thus deposited, and may contribute to a pre-biological seeding that fosters conditions leading to biogenesis.</p> <p>Consideration of a cosmic seeding hypothesis is far fetched, but the notion of alternative biological systems springing stochastically into being somewhere in the vast reaches of outer space is not beyond plausibility. Indeed it is most likely that such systems have developed and may be even contemporaneous with our own, even though they might also be essentially out of reach.</p> <p>Biological systems theory comprehends both evolutionary and ecological theory in almost equal measure, though evolutionary theory is as yet the most comprehensive theoretical construct yet produced by science. Ecological theory does not necessary follow evolutionary theory in any strict sense, and it appears as if neither takes precedence over the other in a full consideration of living systems as functional paradigms. It is apparent that as successful as evolutionary theory has been, it yet does not comprehend all fundamental aspects of living systems, and therefore it is as yet incomplete in its accounting for natural biological patterning as this occurs on earth, or may yet be found to occur in remoter regions of the universe. And therein lies the key to unlocking the mystery of such systems--given the right concatenation of events and conditions, biological systems can be expected to arise as a spontaneous result. Such systems cannot all be expected to share the same basic DNA structures--some living systems in the cosmos might have very different kinds of transmission structures and associated molecular processes, but on basic levels of adaptation, selection and evolution, they can be expected to share similar structural patterns and similar kinds of outcomes.</p> <p>I have therefore sought to weave biological systems theory in terms of a set of key perspectives that encompass both evolution and ecology as well as a number of other basic questions concerning such systems as they occur on earth. These questions are listed below and concern the issues of biogenesis, or the origins of living systems, the issues of biophysics, or the energy exchange mechanisms of living systems as complex natural machines that are self sustaining and self reproducing, and biocybernetics, or the natural forms of informational and intelligent patterning underlying living systems.</p> <p>Thus it is clear that evolution by itself cannot account for all important processes that concern life forms on earth, and that from the very beginning of life on earth presented a number of dimensions and challenges in the struggle for survival that life was successfully able to overcome. From the beginning, such systems occupied complex ecological habitats and therefore constituted complex ecological machines that were in part structured by the life forms that inhabited the environments. Evolution was itself influenced in critical ways by these patterns of adaptation to the environment that was forever dynamic and changing, often in fundamentally random ways. In other words, it is nowhere clear to me even that from the very beginning ecology did not play as significant a role in shaping life as did evolution.</p> <p>There is an implicit presupposition that alternative life forms have to be somehow like ourselves, or at least intelligent on some level. It seems likely that the odds for finding some form of living systems, no matter how rudimentary or primitive, are far greater than the likelihood of encountering living forms that gave rise to technological civilizations.</p> <p>On the other hand, it is probably also most likely that if such alternative extraterrestrial forms of life do exist, and that almost certainly do, then we will probably encounter intelligent forms capable of searching for us, and broadcasting their own signals into space, than we will find primitive forms hidden on some distant star system.</p> <p>If we encounter such forms, we are unlikely to know what they may resemble. Will they be carbon based, and respire with oxygen, and use photosynthesis for the production of sugars, and will they have DNA structures comparable to our own, or is it possible that they may be of a completely different biochemical design, breathing nitrogen and respiring chloroxides. They may not speciate in the way that we understand this process to occur. We are not likely to know much about the alternative possibilities about biological systems unless we encounter alternative life forms, or we are eventually capable of synthesizing such life forms in a laboratory experiment.</p> <p>Similarly the encounter with intelligent lifeforms from another planet in the universe is likely to be even more revolutionary than merely the discovery of life on another planet, as it will lead to a fundamental reconceptioning of our own selves and sense of intelligence in the world, and it will result in a totally new form of parallax to the universe that will revolutionize all of our sciences and will also provide us an entirely new foundation for alternative technological systems. Our sense of anthropological relativity will be broken, with both positive and negative consequences. The positive consequences will be that we can then see our own knowledge and reality from a non-human point of view, with equal or superior sophistication than we ourselves seem capable. At the same time, it is liable to destory our illusion of ourselves as masters of life, and as something unique and special in the universe.</p> <font SIZE="2"> <p> </p> </font><b><font SIZE="5"> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Human Systems Theory</p> </font></b><font SIZE="4"> <p ALIGN="CENTER">Symbolic Mediation and the Anthropological Construction of Reality</p> </font> <p> </p> <p>Human systems theory has as its point of departure the understanding of the role of culture and cultural symbolization in human adaptation and social patterning. There are key psychological, linguistic, sociological and biological components of this theory that are important to consider and must be taken clearly into account in any general formulation of the problem. At the same time, human systems theory deals with a level of comprehensivity and complexity, directly concerned with the anthropological relativity of knowledge systems, that makes a sense of paradigmatic consensus and unity impossible. There are tremendous political and ideological investments in certain kinds of theories and orientations regarding human reality and social organization. These commitments are an historical product and a conservative force of resistance to all types of changes, upon many different levels, whether they are obvious or not, masked or made evident in people's daily lives.</p> <p>Human systems theory begins with an understanding of the basic components that constitute human systems as natural patterns, as a force that was constituted by nature, and that remains, as far as we know now, unique in the universe. It also entails that we cleve to a central unifying principle in understanding the patterning and structure of human systems. This central principle is that all human systems are by definition and by design, symbolic systems first and foremost. There is always to be found a main component of human symbolization in all things people do and are, however material or otherwise they may seem. The symbolic realissum of human experience situates the objective reality of being human squarely in the domain of the anthropological relativity of knowledge in general. We are because we think--we know because we are, and as long as we are alive we cannot ecape the dilemma of knowing and being at the same time. This dilemma is the attempt to objectify in scientific terms that which remains on some intrinsic level inherently subjective--rather as it has been aptly put, of trying to get outside of the car we ourselves are riding in.</p> <p>Field methods in the human sciences demonstrate unequivocally that the only means of gaining this kind of objective parallax is to study other people, and to study ourselves as if we were other people, or by means of other people. This is known as a comparative approach and yet it is not without its own shortcomings and inherent weaknesses, as we risk the possibility of a non-reflexive view of others in the world, not as if they were people like ourselves, but merely as objects that have no greater than material significance.</p> <p>The basis for understanding human systems theory as unique and separate from other kinds of natural systems resides in the patterning of human response in adaptation to the environment in general, and in the human being's evolved dependency upon and pervasive use of symbolic mediation to achieve this form of adaptation. Critics of a symbolic approach would be quick to point out that such an conclusion leaves out the role of human tool use and tool construction methods in accounting for human adaptation. A symbolic perspective does not preclude the possibility of tool use, but in essence embraces it, and even implicitly mandates it. Tools, in their functional general application to a range of problems and scenarios, would be essentially the first sets of symbols that humans ever created for themselves. Tool use and function describe exactly complex processes that are fundamentally symbolic in pattern and structure. Tools as such are "symbolic devices" that work because the logic that stands behind them, however crude or rudimentary, is infallible.</p> <p>In this consideration of the symbolic function of tools, we must see the technological function of symbolic cognition being articulated at the same time. Tool industry and technology define clearly and concisely the function of symbolism in the life of hominids in direct terms that mediated survival and adapation to an increasing range of environmental niches. The tool also traces, as with other extant primate groups today, the early transitions to culture of these groupings, in which technologies were learned, adapted and taught to successive generations. Tools were the first items of material culture to be consistently made, used and transported by hominids. Tools also functioned symbolically as markers of identity and relation in complex natural and shifting social environments, and undoubtedly many a primitive cobble tool bore the distinctive imprint of their maker. Tools also came to be infused with power in a manner in which inanimate material objects of the general environment could be invested with supernatural properties or activities.</p> <p>The theory of the symbolic mediation of human culture in the struggle for survival gains significance when it is realized that the process of making and using tools describes a form of fundamental symbolic interaction with the environment, in which relations with the outside world are critically mediated by a special object that takes on special meanings and powers.</p> <p>I imagine that there probably existed a long dreamy period of huminid cultural development that could have been identified as "presymbolic" in pattern and structure, and which anticipated and set the stage for the subsequent emergence of a full blown material culture indicative of a keen and fully symbolic orientation towards the world. The key aspect of a presymbolic frame of mind anticipating the advent of full hominid patterns seem to me the general lack of specialization and stratification of function of symbols, hence their lack of elaboration on any level beyond the most basic types. The world and worldview of the presymbolic hominid, (and probably other contemporaneous primates) is that it was a generalist model tied in a very direct and concrete manner to the things that it represented and stood for. Things fit into basic categories, and I believe there was little differentiation between the symbol itself, and the thing that the symbol stood for--they were one and the same. The bow and arrow became a mechanical part of the animal it sought when it met this animal in both aim and final destination. If there was duality of patterning of such symbolic precursors, then this function was limited mostly to the most immediate and concrete contexts in which it occurred.</p> <p>All other aspects of the emergence of fully human systems are not unimportant to consider, but the concept of the symbolic use of tools is of central importance to the rise of the human brain, the associated characteristics of bipedality that freed hands for other functions, etc. All other significant traits, for instance year long sexual receptivity, long post-partum periods of infant dependency, etc, can be explained in terms of this central complex and its emergence.</p> <p>Though human's have accomplished something evolutionarily in a manner that was unparalleled in the natural history of the earth, it remains the case that these same humans are every bit as biological a species as any other, and are therefore subject in basic ways to the same kind of constraints by selective factors as any other species, except where and how the new use of tools provided them with an adaptive and selective advantage, which it most certainly did.</p> <p>One of the most basic aspects of human nature that I believe has yet to be sufficiently explained is our predilection for violence. I will not say it is more innate than it may be acquired and especially shaped by learning, but I will say we cannot ultimately separate these issues. It is clear as nothing else that human history has been marked by one of almost continuous violence wherever human's are found. If it is not innate, neither are any inborn taboos against such violence biologically preprogrammed.</p> <p>Related to this aspect of human nature I would also include a predisposition for social hiearchy and status competition, or what might be called Homo hierarchicus, as well as an apparently innate predisposition for sexual promiscuousness and exaggerated forms of sexual expression. It is not my intention to weave elaborated K. Lorenz type hypothesis about the naked ape, as I think the essential issue about human nature is one that runs much deeper than these kinds of superficial models about human instinct and aggression.</p> <p>The point of departure in my theory is that at some point in hominid evolution, human's became sufficiently successful, and hence sufficiently numerous, as to be distributed and dispersed through very broad ranges of the earth's biotic niches. At some point, intraspecific competition came to weigh more heavily than interspecific competition with other kinds of creatures. It is not clear when this point emerged, but it was well before our earliest points of known history. Such interspecific competition was marked by a principal characteristic of competitive exclusion, niche invasion and social-sexual dispersion of surplus people. People were not necessarily in a state of chronic warfare with other groups, so much as they were on the constant lookout for unknown trespassers and would be invaders of their own home ranges and territories.</p> <p>Another way of stating this is to see that in the rise of human populations that were marked clearly by tool bearing culture, competition quickly swung away from interspecific predator-prey kinds of relations, towards one of intraspecific inter-group competition over increasingly scarce and valuable resources.</p> <p>That humans must have been long territorial is evident even today in the demarcation of national boundaries. Human could as easily enter into a cooperative relationship with strangers as much as a competitive relationship, and hence such relations would always be marked by an inherent tension of uncertainty of outcomes.</p> <p>Humans did develop early patterns of primitive warfare alongside of early patterns of primitive trade and exchange--territorial privileges, belongings and persons could be as easily appropriated by violence as by reciprocity under the appropriate circumstances.</p> <p>Driving subsequent patterns of human social development therefore I take to be a pattern of human intraspecific or subspecific social competition that usually involved small groups or extended groupings in competition with other groupings over scarce and limited resources or access to such resources. This constitutes the second aspect of my theory of human systems, the social competition hypothesis, which states that humans as social animals in groups tend in the long run towards competitive social relationships with other alternative groupings. Such competition would tend to break down even relatively small groupings, except that contravening symbolic mechanisms become instituted that channel aggression ritually into some cooperative endeavor. The challenge of very large and complex states, as is evident in advanced modern nation states, is how to maintain a domestic environment that permits some level of such intragroup competition to occur, but which precludes and prevents the outbreak of violence between people which is frequent and expectable in any such system.</p> <p>The basic social competition hypothesis can be stated by the main points below:</p> <p>1. Human biology is comparable to other forms of biology, and involve key issues of adaptation and reproductive success.</p> <p>2. These drives come to express themselves in terms of feeding and breeding patterns within a society.</p> <p>3. These patterns become transformed fundamentally through basic, innate mechanisms of human symbolization that are culturally defined & constrained, such that no pure example of natural human evolutionary drives not symbollically transformed by the society that they occur within.</p> <p>4. Human societies have achieved evolutionary success in basic ways promoting their survival and reproduction, such that human social interrelationships tend to occur in fully saturated systems. Populations tend toward an endemic equilibrium.</p> <p>5. Therefore, social competition can be said to characterize most social interactions in a manner that is symbolically organized and expressed, taking on patterns of adaptive fitness homologous to evolutionary patterns.</p> <p>6. Patterns of social organization and relation that are competitive has the character of being innate and natural, but this is due to the symbolic appropriation of innate drives and to their symbolic internalization as if natural.</p> <p>7. Human beings are therefore socially prone to behave in manners symbolically justified as being natural but no necessarily connected to the actual circumstances of adaptive survival and reproductive success. This is referred to as cultural-symbolic displacement.</p> <p>8. While most animals are biologically preprogramed to behave in certain ways, the symbolic transformation of human biological drives and mechanisms of their social expression provide us with a choice. We have the quality of "world openness."</p> <p>9. So powerful are our drives towards competition and their symbolic appropriation, that we will choose by habit and default to behave in ways that seem most naturalized to our own disposition. We seek the maximization of our own symbolic sense of social fintess and social selection in the world.</p> <p>10. Human beings as social animals are therefore prone to repeat certain patterns of competitive behavior that emphasize exclusive fitness at most levels of society and that lead logically to competitive exclusion, conflict and violence.</p> <p>By invoking principles of social competition and its symbolic mediation in group interests, I do not thereby mean to undermine the importance of an ideal for human equality and peace on earth. This is just the point, as ideals they are worthy of people to aspire to, but they are as often as not empty ideals in the face of human suffering at the expense of others and of human hiearchy.</p> <p>Put into a composite form, the theory in general states that human's have come to symbolically rely upon cultural artifacts for the material manipulation and mediation of their environments in an adaptive manner, and this has conferred a measure of selective success upon the human species as a whole that has resulted in a heavy density-dependent pattern of K-type selection and leading to exaggerated forms of social competition between people of all kinds and at all levels. The same symbolic mechanisms allowing for this to occur, also provides the basic vehicle for its secondary manipulation and management in situations where group solidarity and identity take preeminence over the advancement of the selfish interests of individuals. In a competitive environment, individual interests must be subordinated to the needs of the group, as the individual would not survive long outside of the bounds of such a group. If discovered, a lost or banished soul would either be adopted or quickly dispatched to the other world.</p> <p>It is my contention that these same dynamics that drove groups 1.5 million years ago are still driving the most modern nation states of the world today. What has changed has been the symbolic context of the technologies and secondary institutions of cultural elaboration involved, but not the basic human drives and capacities of people to compete and do violence to one another upon one level or another. Human's are naturally aggressive creatures--this is just not a trait learned in a culture, though cultural patterning certainly does shape these aggressive tendencies to many different purposes.</p> <p>Another way of putting this argument is to say that humans have evolved with big brains to become culture creators--they capacity to create culture in a productive manner also confers upon them great destructive tendencies, as whatever that can be created, can also be destroyed.</p> <p>Cultural patterning is the inevitable result of the symbolic organization of the human brain that is tied to the articulation of material artifacts like tools in the environment. The beginning of human systems theory is the realization that human systems take on a cultural patterning that is confined to certain distinctive group contexts, and this patterning is unique to the human species. To a great extent, this cultural patterning has come to mediate for us the processes of our adaptation and survival in natural circumstances, thus cultural groupings that are distinct and characteristic of relatively homogeneous populations in certain regions, takes on characteristics of distinct species, and the processes of cultural dynamics and differentiation that occurs and is continuous, is not unlike in form or function the processes of evolutionary dynamics and speciation that lead to the creation of new species from old. Cultural groupings that are unified with a single symbological system are relatively coherent and are adaptively integrated to certain natural environmental contexts. Unlike speciation, the traits are culturally defined and phenotypical in expression, and the patterns of transmission are generally borrowing and acculturative contact between different groups, rather than genetic.</p> <p>In the symbolic transformation of human nature, we must see the dual symbolic function occurring that tends to externalize in the environment the symbolic patterns of culture such that these assume a material and behavioral form of expression that can then be naturalized. At the same time, these same externalized forms can then be reinternalized to oneself or to others such that they come to orient and influence the subjective realities of the culture bearer, to the point of having the force of human nature. Within such a context of dialectical symbolic feedback between external world and internal worldview, the self as a naturalized entity, our "nature" which is essentially unfinished business, can be projected out onto the larger world order and there give reinforcement and positive form.</p> <p>Though human cultural systems take on many of the characteristics of a natural genetic population, and serve many of the same essential functions and purposes in the realization of the biological imperative for survival and reproductive success, it is important nonetheless to emphasize that the basis for achieving adaptive equilibriation of human cultural systems is not a form of K-selection, so much as it is achieving a degree of symbolic integration of reality that achieves a transformaiton of genetic-based trait configurations and their related functions toward a higher level of productivity and problem-solving than otherwise achievable.</p> <p>Cultural equilibrium of such a system depends upon achieving and maintaining a certain level of conservative symbolic equilibrium between internalized ideational and attitudinal constructs, on one hand, and externalized material technologies and distributions of resources, on the other hand. Symbol systems at the heart of this integration provide human beings not only with templates for the organization of knowledge about the world, but also with prescribed agendas for action in response to the world.</p> <p>But symbolic transformation and integration are always incomplete and imperfect processes, and it entails therefore that there is chronic change in the adaptive equilibrium and profiles for different groups. There arises a form of cultural selection between groups in the exchange and development of ideas and symbolic forms that affects the ability of different cultural groupings to achieve long-term success under certain environmental conditions, especially in relation to other groupings. Cultural selection creates differential patterns of acculturation, and has a net effect upon different cultural groupings very similar to that experienced by natural biological populations under the forces of natural selection. Cultural systems can suffer loss and become extinct, or they can achieve a measure of mastery over their environment that allows them to dominate over other groups.</p> <p>Up until this point, anthropology has never sufficiently dealt well with issues of the human heart of darkness and their capacity for extreme forms of evil and violence in the world. And yet such a capacity is prevalent in the fossil and historical records, and is as strong today as it was in the beginning. Wishing it away from our lives will not make it go away--only by better understanding it can we hope eventually to exert more complete cultural control over it so that its outcomes do not carry the destuctive implications that they have in the past.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>This theory is in direct contradistinction to the kind of socio-biological theory as is framed by E.O. Wilson's sociobiological models and their elaborations within anthropology. The predisposition of human violence is probably deeply rooted in human nature, and may indeed have a number of genetic components influencing its expression and pattern of response in life. On the other hand, to claim a nebulous concept like "kin-fitness" implies a dimension of human sociality that, for the most part, simply does not exist, and this is what distinguishes us, as large brained, K-selected social mammals, from the small-brained, r-selected social insects. If many young men are induced into sacrificing their lives for their country, this induction is not biologically motivated or instinctually driven. It is symbolically mediated and manipulated, and there is usually a great deal of violent sentiment and shows of aggression involved in its expression.</p> <p>Sociobiological theories are more interesting when they concern only the analogically and possibly intercorrelational relationships between patterns of genetic trait distribution and cultural trait distribution, as both of these are tightly linked through the same chain human bearers in terms of both genetic and cultural transmission models. It is assumed that there was always a close tracking of the transmission of genes and culture in a vertical sense, although dispersion and human migratory patterns probably entailed that there was a great deal of early lateral gene flow along similar channels that promoted the exchange of ideas and artifacts between groups. There is indeed very tight tracking of gene and cultural information in extremely conservative groups that can sustain a separate social and group identity through many successive generations. The gypsies of Europe and North America are an example of this. Certain things have to be accomplished in order for this to occur. There must be complete endogamous closure to all outside groups--this is usually accompanied by marginal craft or trade specialization and to a restricted educational system that is promoted in the home and that permits no other alternation from occurring.</p> <p>Even tight gene-culture coevolution models of transmission breakdown in the face of realities of cultural transmission that occurs horizontally and continuously through widescale networks, and which occur completely independently of an genetic transmission processes. Any real connection between genetic and cultural transmission is at best fortuitous and extremely limited in scope and effect or consequence. Another way of stating this principle is that culture, once it came into its own, arose completely independently of genetic information of the culture bearer. Humans evolved a capacity for symbolic culture, but once this capacity developed, culture as a social patterning occurring in the world took off on its own independent state-path trajectory.</p> <p>But such an answer begs the question as to what exactly is human culture and how is it important to our understanding of human systems. Culture is foremost a function of environment and learning. Culture has certain key characteristics that serve to define it.</p> <p>In general culture can be said to be:</p> <p>Learned, it is not inherited</p> <p>Shared as knowledge between culture bearers</p> <p>Socially articulated & transmitted</p> <p>Symbolically integrated & mediated</p> <p>Materially embodied and environmentally embedded.</p> <p>Psychologically compulsive, transparent and constraining</p> <p> </p> <p>It can be said furthermore that there are few if any human beings who are born completely dispossessed of any sense of culture in their lives. There occur very rare and exceptional cases of severe child cultural deprivation (so called feral children) who suffer a severe case cultural deficit in their remaining lives. These children in general are characterized by mental retardation and psychological/behavioral disorders and the resulting inability to fully learn the patterns of rules and knowledge required to be a competent culture bearer in later life. In other words, the capacity for the early childhood acquisition of the basic aspects of human culture critical to development is deeply embedded evolutionarily in human prehistory, and involves a series of scheduled events and patterns of environmental reinforcement that must occur in some generalized sense of order if full human cultural development is to occur.</p> <p>Many anthropologists would see an approach to human systems theory via a definition of culture as inherently problematic, and would prefer a more apparently systematic approach, such as the sociobiological model presented above, or alternative materialist orientations that likes to link the decisive patterning of human social relations in environmental agencies that can be controlled and manipulated. On the other hand, it is both more realistic and necessary to incoporate a definition of symbolic culture into human systems theory as this is what is clearly distinctive about such systems over any others that occur in nature.</p> <p>The value of such an approach is more evident when it is realized that a symbolic approach to culture can be in fact quite empirical and systematic in method and theory when its definition is operationalized within a symbolic framing paradgim. Such an approach allows us to systematically compare, analyze and evaluate symbolic behavior that is a function of response to standardized and natural behavioral sets and settings. In other words, symbolic behavior, as culturally conditioned and psychologically manifest, is real and demonstrates significant comparative contrasts between different individuals and different categories of people across different dimensions of contrast.</p> <p>The point of human symbolic mediation of worldview and reality is that once formed, symbol systems develop their own noetic equilibrium and adaptive ecology that affects the behavioral responses of members of the group and the group as a whole. Such symbolisms are deposited organically in the brain and being of the individual culture bearers, and become essentially invisible and transparent to the culture bearers as such. Symbolisms thus culturally embedded become "naturalized" and reified as if natural, even if they ultimately stem from a source of social construction in human reality. Such symbols, if vital, can take on a coercive and controlling function in the lifeworld of individuals that come to have the force and effect of human nature, of instinct and of all the basic implications of the basic imperative for biological survival.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>The symbolic mediation of human experience entails as well that social competition in everyday life should take on certain distinctive and predictable symbolic dimensions, and that this is a consequence of the turning of the purposes of symbolization to the legitimization and justification of the world-order and social patterning that is the result of the attempt to manage and control human social competition in the first place. The symbolic structure of the structuration of competition takes the form of ideology that is self-serving and self-justifying of the social order. This process also involves the naturalization of this order as if it is innate. Social order that is justified on the grounds of an alleged natural ordering takes on a legitimacy and matter of factness that is difficult to refute or critique, especially from the standpoint of a true believer.</p> <p>The depth of ingrained socialization and enculturation implied by such symbolic reinforcement entails that members of a group generally adopt a strong sense of ethnocentric bias in relation to their group in relation to other alternative groupings. This bias can take many forms and defines the framework of preferences and prejudices that people adopt in relation to some shared cultural context.</p> <p>Human systems are first and foremost biological systems, but they are also simultaneously something more than just biological systems. Homo sapiens sapiens is a distinct subspecies of a line of hominid primates that is at least four million years old and that incorporated several distinct species and subspecies in a successive pattern of phylogenetic evolution. Periods of overlap of species suggest some degree of cladogenesis, based most presumably upon niche-diversification of traits, but overall the hominid line has been mostly a vertical one in which each successor appears to have replaced the predecessor.</p> <p>As a biological system, the human line has been subject for most of its natural history to the same kinds selective pressures and adaptive problems as any other form of mammalian life on earth. Even today, we must meet certain basic biological prerequisites for our continuing survival and our successful reproduction--the challenges of the biological imperative confront us in the same way as they confronted our earliest precursors.</p> <p>It is unknown today to what extent biological evolution of the human species continues, or if so, in what direction it will take. We support a single mono-specific biomass that is unprecedented in the natural history of life on earth--we can calculate that humans on average have something on the order of more than 1,000,000,000,000 pounds of organic biomass at any given time. I would not be surprised if this proved to be more total biomass than the total biomass of all other land-based vertebrate animal species combined. It is clear also that our gene pool is becoming increasingly heterogeneous and gene flow is incorporating larger and larger groupings of people, such that humans are carrying a tremendous load of genetic variability. At the same time, modern medical practices and social ethics promote the survival and even reproduction of many individuals who would not have survived within a natural selective regime. We cannot say that this unprecedented phenomena of a monospecific biological social order, of a single dominant species on earth, is necessarily a good or a bad thing. Neither can we now the eventual outcomes of its evolution, if natural selective processes have not been arrested altogether at least in regard to the human species.</p> <p>At the same time, it is clearly evident that human systems, as natural systems, are not just biological systems. What makes them different and more complex is that they are humanly constructed systems that have emerged as a consequence of a complex history of cultural evolution and development. The basis of this unique patterning of human evolution is its degree of achieved symbolic intelligence, and the externalization of this intelligence in the form of cultural construction and patterning of the environment. This process has allowed humankind to achieve a basic measure of control over forces of natural selection, and even to implement their own pressures and patterns upon the environment of cultural selection.</p> <p>Anthropologists search for the basis of this unique human systems patterning in terms of models referred to generically as "anthropogenesis" or the rise of humankind as a unique and dominant species upon earth. We search for the answers in the evolution of certain traits that arose under certain selective conditions, that gave rise to the human capacity for culture, language and symbolic intelligence. Most models and theories of anthropogenesis are just so stories. We know a few indisputable clues from the fossil record--humans were fully bipedal before the developed big brains, and big brains seemed to emerge "hand-in-hand" with the development of tools. The question of language remains quite controversial, but I cannot but help think that a system of gesture-gesticulation involving various calls and sophisticated sounds, along with many hand signs, were a precursors to a prototype to true forms of human language. I also cannot but help think other uniquely human traits were involved somehow in this emergent complex--female sexuality, pair-bonding and prolonged periods of infant dependency and nurturance, the rise of material cultures including clothing, shelter, the hearth and probably the emergence of some form of presymbolic ritual culture and probably other important social patterns as well, as for instance some form of exchange and interaction between different groups.</p> <p>Whatever the exact sequence and functional significance and environmental contexts of these different trait patterns, I believe we cannot fully account for a sufficient model of anthropogenesis unless we understand that these traits evolved as part of a larger trait complex. In other words, the traits emerged together as part of a protohuman system of anthropogenesis, and their emergence and development fed back into the system leading to the further development of the trait complex.</p> <p>The important traits that need to be accounted for in this complex if we are to understand fully human systems are the following list: big brains capable of symbolic intelligence, a unique capacity for speech, manual dexterity with an opposable thumb, extremely fine hand-eye motor coordination, efficient bipedalism, year-round female sexual receptivity, prolonged neo-natal post-partum development and infant development, and a cultural context that was increasingly of humankinds own making. Of these traits, which appear to be interconnected and interdependent, I believe the most significant are the features of human language, human symbolic intelligence and human manual dexterity.</p> <p>On the basis of this very rudimentary model of anthropogenesis, I have elaborated a theory I have adopted within this framework of human systems is that of the Anthropological construction of reality, which is rooted in the esoteric field of the Anthropology of knowledge. It embraces and incorporates theories of the psychological and social construction of reality, as well as of symbolic linguistics, symbolic culture and materialism, and symbolic intelligence and information systems.</p> <p>It is a big bone of contention among anthropologists the extent to which human biology and evolutionary models of biology underly and predetermine human cultural patterning. Biocultural and socio-biological models, some crude, some more sophisticated, have long been put forward claiming that there is a direct and deterministic linkage between human biology and human cultural and social behavior.</p> <p>E. O. Wilson's sociobiological models, based upon notions of an altruistic gene and kin-selection, are adapted from observations of insect communities and are applied directly to human society with the presupposition that humans, like insects, are innately social creatures. I must call into question such a line of thinking on several levels. First, it is not clear in any manner that humans are the same kinds of social creatures who evolved in the context of large colonies like insects. To apply an unmodified insect analogy, or are organized mechanical on the basis of signal-chemical response systems and very primitive instincts, to human beings who are sophisticated omnivorous mammals, overextends the model. Humans evolved in the context of small kin-based groups in hunting-gathering conditions that probably couldn't support very great densities of people over relatively small areas for prolonged periods of time. Stable human communities and colonies of any great density probably only arose especially over the last 10 to 20 thousand years. The high levels of violence within populations today suggest that humans are not that social of a creature, but frequently can be quite anti-social.</p> <p>There is an inherent danger, both theoretically and operationally, in the direct application of deterministic biological models in the explanation of human cultural and social patterning. Even so, it is quite common to see this style of theoretization occuring. Such models invariably fail to take into account the critical differences between human cultural patterning and the biological patterning of other kinds of creatures. It is true that primitive culture has been demonstrated in Chimpanzee communities--it is found in variability of adoption of acquired or learned cultural traits between different groups. But what is consistently underestimated is the full power that human intelligence has had in shaping the pattern, function and outcomes of culture--this power is primarily symbolic and it has had the result of transforming human experience and existence in ways unparalleled in nature. These processes are furthermore inherently underdetermined by genetic or other biological considerations--in a real way that can be said to be self-determining components of human systems patterning that transcend many of the constraints predetermined by nature.</p> <p>More sophisticated models of gene-culture coevolution presuppose that for an early run-way, genetic development of Homo saipens was tracked closely by and linked more directly to human cultural development and transmission. This makes sense if we consider that for most of human history, small family groupings were both the main purveyors of genes and culture from generation to generation, and most transmission was accomplished vertically. But on a very basic level, we must recognize fundamental differences between human cultural transmission and human genetic transmission, and these differences entailed that from the first inception of a hominid protoculture, it assumed a trajectory more or less independently of the evolutionary paths taken by its culture bearing humans. It did not take long, therefore, for patterns of cultural development to diverge widely and develop wildly in relation to continuing patterns of human biological development.</p> <p>The theory I have elaborated thus far, entails two main aspects:</p> <p>1. The first aspect is what I refer to as the symbolic mediation and transformation of the human experience, that basically sundered and forever altered the basic human relationship to the natural world by the intermediation of constructed symbolic forms.</p> <p>2. The social competition hypothesis, which states that humans are prone, both biologically and culturally, to compete with one another at all levels of social interaction. Social competition drives the development of coalitional structures that enables people to form consistent alliances, friendships, and families by which individuals, as members of groups, are able to better compete with other individuals of other groups.</p> <p>I seek in the remainder of this chapter to develop in a more thorough form aspects of each of this two main aspects that have not been previously developed. It must be seen how each aspect entails and in a sense makes necessary the other aspect--symbolic mediation of experience made human social competition a fundamental aspect of human social reality because it confered a basic adaptive success of human populations in natural environments. At the same time, human social competition becomes organized culturally by means of symbolic systems that serve to demarcate definite noetic and behavioral terrain, and to give natural justification and common sense to such patterns of competition.</p> <p> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>It is beyond the scope of this work to elaborate the all the aspects of human systems theory. Human systems theory is rooted in the hypothesis of the symbolic mediation of human experience that is brain based and environmentally contextualized. Symbolic mediation takes certain definite functional and behavioral forms and this can be elicited and analyzed in a variety of ways, principally by means of symbolic framing tasks. From this work it is evident that there occurs broad natural classes of symbolisms that occur that are to some extent segmentable into smaller and smaller units, and replaceable or substitutable by other equivalent or alternate symbolic forms. It is beyond the scope to elaborate this entire framework of human symbolism, especially sense its outermost boundaries blur and shade off into the edge of the unknown in human history. Symbolisms are arranged internally in a manner that can be said to be thematic, and the thematic organization of symbolisms within anyone coherent cultural grouping can be said to be probably historically particular and relative to that grouping, in contrast to alternative similar kinds of systems that may occur among other groupings. The thematic organization of cultural symbolic systems gives to these systems a uniqueness and sense of relativity that they are part and parcel of one particular cultural system and no other.</p> <p>Symbolisms as active devices form the basis for human long-term memory, and allow people to construct and continuously repair and reconstruct their memories, through active thought processes, dreaming, conflict resolution and dialog. To a great extent, the symbolic substrate of the unconscious psyche is in essence the symbolic organization of memory content in a meaningful, dynamic manner. Much of this organization is also a shared process, and unconscious processes of the human mind take on directly collective aspects that are culturally common within a group context.</p> <p>Symbolisms help to chunk experience and to organize reality for people in a way that not only makes sense on a rational level, but makes sense behaviorally and emotionally as well. In this manner, symbolic systems provide a kind of semantic language of meaning, behavior and belief that serves to organize our world and to make sense of it. We may say that such systems constitute an informal kind of practical grammar for the organization of behavior and attitudes in a coordinate manner. We have an unspoken investment in and commitment to the maintenance of the coherence and consistency of such a system, and that is why changes from without are seen as threatening and discomforting, and can in fact prove to be disrupting.</p> <p>The symbolic organization of experience is subject to continuous review and revision in an active manner such that different symbolic frames can be evoked and "tested" against the frameworks of others, revised or repaired, and then filed back away again. The need to daily evoke and evaluate symbolisms in our lives attests to the important adaptive function symbolic behavior plays, and to the critical need that they be regularly edited and updated to stay in tune with the events and configuration of the world from the standpoint particularly of the organization of knowledge and meaning.</p> <p>The symbolic chunking of experience is criticial to humans being able to make sense of the world and to make sense of their place and purpose in the world--if this sense of order disintegrates for whatever reasons, whether it is some catastrophic external event or there occurs a degree of internal crisis of noetic equilibrium, then this sense of symbolic organization quickly becomes chaotic in a destructive sense and the source of much dissonance rather than consonance about the world.</p> <p>Symbolisms are hierarchically stratified in a complex landscape. The principles of organization of this natural human informational-behavioral system are not clear and vary with different cultural orientations and cognitive styles, though in general they follow natural sets (or, alternatively, cultural sets), they tend to be polythematically defined, such that one symbolism at one level may and usually does carry a multiplicity of significances that connect it to multiple other symbolisms, often at multiple levels; and symbolic systems cohere into larger thematically organized systems such that especially key symbolisms are displaceable or replaceable by other alternative symbolisms, but within which two or more competing paradigmatic symbolisms cannot occupy the same space at the same time. In other words, there is a complex noetic equilibrium of symbolisms that allow alternative symbolic constructs to compete for the same "spaces" in relational complexes, and to displace one another from such spaces. Often such substitutions result in symbolic reverberations throughout a larger system that lead to multiple new relationships being defined and reconfigured in the overall schema.</p> <p>Symbolization is the way that human beings think in normal, common sense terms and it constitutes the basis for human cognition and intelligence. Indeed, the basis for the anthropological relativity of knowledge of natural systems stems from the symbolic transformation of human consciousness as principle knower in the world--we cannot escape the constraints of our own symbolic consciousness even if we try. The symbolic nature of this consciousness becomes most apparent in madness and when the brain runs awry of its normal functioning. In such instances the discrepancies between inner perceptions and beliefs and external realities are so obvious and discrepant that they are clearly wrong and discordinate with the outside world.</p> <p> </p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>The problem of social structure has not yet been directly broached in terms of the theory of human systems as I have defined this so far. The problem of social structure I take to be as much a residual reification of our theoretical constructs in the social sciences, as it is a real problem occurring in human society. Without a doubt, social structuration processes occur that confer to any society a sense of organization, usually that is corporate and institutional in nature, and that assures a degree of functional integrity and continuity over space and time of the pattern produced within such systems. In the understanding of such processes of structuration, we can separate political, economic, social and religious-ideological aspects of the system, all of which I believe have an important influence in the resulting and underlying patterning. Indeed, we find no societies that have some degree of coherence without any sense of religious ideology of one form or another, or without an economic organization, a social organization and sense of social process, and a political system by which power and resources are articulated to achieve collective group aims and purposes.</p> <p>What I take issue with is the idea of finding any deep or abstractly a priori principles underlying these patterns of social organization and social formation in human history--indeed, history is an important consideration of human social structure, as all such structures are in the final analysis a product of a complex history of unintended causes and effects that is analytically inseparable from the problem of structuration itself.</p> <p>But great social systems have been organized on grand principles from time to time, to become more or less successful in the larger scheme of things. Modern experiments in state communism were recent examples of such experiments that for the most part failed or at least produced only mixed results that were far shy of the stated ideological goals. The rise of great market societies on capitalist models have proven to be far more successful kinds of structural patterns for social organization and social formation, but they have generated unpleasant consequences of structural and social inequalities and assymmetries between different groupings and peoples in the world. Many traditional cultural systems that were tied to certain patterns of subsistence livelihood and craft organization adopted, as much out of necessity as out of convenience, a kin-based model of some form of social organization by which to define the sphere of relations and values in an individual's life. The rise of modern nation states, especially in a post-colonial era, but prefigured in the European Kingdoms of the Colonial era and earlier Renaissance period, with stable bureaucratic administrative hierarchies and formally codified legal systems, often buttressed with national conscription, national armies, etc., entailed generally a subordination of principles of kin-based social organization to achieve a more organic form of solidarity in which role-trade specialization in a complex system marked out one's status and lot in life.</p> <p>I do not believe there are any hard and fast principles that determine why one type of social organization arises and not another. Their configuration, like the configuration of different cultural patterns to which they are related, tends to be a matter of historical happenstance and circumstance rather than governed by any natural rules of social structure. Sociopolitical organization and integration does seem to develop from small and informal groupings to large and highly stratified systems, with a range of possibilities occurring between. It is clear that in all very large social systems, the interests of the individual human being clearly become subordinated to the interests of the system as a whole, and in all such systems some form of principles of stratification give rise to segregated classes or subgroups that are marked by differential access to basic resources and by assymmetries of power and privilege.</p> <p>Such differences are marked and reinforced by authoritarian attitudes of innate or social superiority/inferiority, and these feed into ethnocentric bias about the superiority of one's own way of life over that of alternate others. What is evident is that symbolic justification of inequality and competition, even if not directly real, can drive human social systems towards mobilization for mass aggression. This capacity of human social systems to achieve a high state of tension and aggression in relation to other people perhaps serves to set human social organization apart as unique. We do see the mobilization of ant colonies and the hives of other social insects to aggressive defense and attack against invaders or intruders, and this is very analogous to what happens in human social systems as well.</p> <p>The basis of this pattern of organized human agression and authoritarianism in human life can be said to be a very fundamental sense of social symbolic dependency of the individual upon the group. This sense of dependency is a central weakness and insecurity of human beings that entails that they must, within the group framework, assume forms of aggressive action and chauvinistic behaviors that tend to ameliorate or deny the basic sense of human social weakness that is involved in such affairs. It is evident too that human beings vary considerably along a natural continuum as to exactly how sociable and socially dependent they are--some people seem to have an innate sense of asocial independence and a capacity for being alone, where other people seem always to need and thrive in the company of others. Human social dependence is a relative characteristic, but it is one that all people must deal with more or less.</p> <p>The same sense of symbolic capacity that conferred upon us cultural dependency, made us also both socially dependent and socially competitive creatures as well. I believe these must be understood in terms of their fullest implications, both positive and negative, for human social life and behavior. We gain ou sense of identity and even sense of psychological well being via the sanctions and feedback of the group to which we belong, and we must make us of continuous reference back to the main group of our identity in order to maintain and cultivate a sense of meaningful identity in the world.</p> <p>The social stage is therefore the main forum for the playing out of human identity, value and meaning in the world, and it becomes the main focus and preoccupation of a great deal of symbolization.</p> <p>It suggests as well that no matter what we may or may not do in the future, we as a society will always have to deal with some minimal level of intrasocial violence in the world, even fairly bizarre and acute forms of violence that stem from socio-pathy and psycho-pathy. That people should seek to commit violence and victimize other people in the world, and that this occurs with regular frequencies and expectabilities in almost any society, suggests that it will be a very long, long time before we, as human beings, outgrow our fundamental sense of social dependency and insecurity in the world, and this sense is going to continue to drive a few of us over the edge of the abnormal.</p> <p>The social dependency hypothesis stems from the unavoidable social predicament that all people find themselves within in the course of their lives. It can be seen as a form of weakness, but also as a source of strength in the world, to the extent that people derive from their social identity and sense of connection to a larger social organization some sense of superiority, strength and power they would not otherwise gain. It also entails that people will always be prone to certain kinds of plagues of violence and authoritarianism that tends toward the victimization of others.</p> <p>On the basis of this hypothesis of social dependency, we can speculate that there will occur with historical prevalence the rise of certain kinds of social formations as ossified social systems that serve to prevent and hinder change. I have referred to these social formations as authoritarian power structures, and I allege that these kinds of social formations reccur with regular consistency throughout human social history and in most locations of the world simultaneously. These kinds of social formations are a natural consequence of human social competition and human social dependency. The best way of describing such authoritarian power structures is to note the central tendencies for highly socially dependent people who gain monopolistic control over basic resources and possibly who gain control over the political instruments of an organization or social systems, such that they can use their power to threaten and manipulate other people within the system to their own exclusive advantage. In this regard, an authoritarian power structure must be construed as a kind of coalitional structure that emerges within a framework of potential or actual social competition, as a means of controlling and restricting competition for the advantage of a few at the expense of the rest. This type of social formation is quite common place and prevalent in human society anywhere we find it. In general it leads to forms of corruption that tend to reinforce the status quo of the assymmetries of power and resource distribution of the system, and often it may even have the implicit or direction sanction of the legal and political apparatus of a society, such that police and other authorities serve to protect and promote the interests of the authoritarian elite who are in power over any others of the society. The problem with the common place rise of authoritarian power structures in the world is that they tend to be so common and so corrupt that they interfere with the development and progress of the society as a whole, by interfering with thechanges that such systems need to effect in order to achieve long term stability and growth.</p> <p>Authoritarian power structures have predictable patterns of social ethos and relation within themselves, and tend to demarcate as well a clear sense of boundary between member and nonmembere. Membership in such organizational structures tend to be hierarchically stratified, and this can be reinforced symbolically by the maintenance of a sense of false consciousness and pride about one's own superiority. Often such organizations designate clear out-groups that are defined as less than human and that are clearly targetable for any show of aggression by members of the in-group. In such a manner, potentially aggressive relations between members of an authoritarian power structure, or of the larger host society upon which such a structure may be attached, are consistently channeled beyond the boundaries of the group, and are left to focus on members of the outgroup. One of the clearest examples of this in the 20<sup>th</sup> Century was the Nazi's of World War II and their treatment of the European Jews as if they were not human and had no place in the world. When the Germans invaded Russia, they were found to mistreat the Russian peasants that they captured or encountered with the same sense of disdain and disrespect as human beings as they had done the Jews, and this indicates that the driving mechanisms for such behavior were as much the same in origin, in the need to maintain a sense of unquestionining obedience to Hitler and to do all of his bidding, regardless of the consequences.</p> <p>So common and pervasive are authoritarian powers structures in social life, that we expect to find their occurrence in almost any social formation where there is limited control over access to resources and uneven distribution of such resources. In general, the formation of such structures in society attest to the power of human symbolization to be: 1. Socially self-serving and self-justifying. 2. Ideologically closed.</p> <p>Human symbolization serves the function of promoting isomorphic identification between the individual as a socially dependent member, and the authority and power of the group as a whole, often as this is invested focally in some central figure of authority or power. In a sense, human families replicate such structures on a more basic level, and issues relating to primary and secondary socialization and the extension of symbolic identification from primary reference group members to larger social contexts, is a normal part of the socialization of the individual into the ethos of the corporate group and its culture.</p> <p>It is not too difficult to go from this theory of social dependency and the rise of human authoritarian power structures to an understanding of the occurrence of imperialism in society. Tendencies embedded in everyday human affairs would tend towards large scale social formations and towards the mobilization for aggression towards outgroups. Such groups would in time be attacked for the purpose of dominating them or securing their resource base. Strongly marked authoritarian ethos in human social life demands that certain individuals must be exploitable and kept in a condition of exploitability by other individuals. This form of macroparasitism, of a few people taking advantage of others for their own advance, is a common pattern in human systems as well.</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER">*****</p> <p ALIGN="CENTER"> </p> <p>I have sought in the elaboration of human systems to identify those key features of such systems that serve to set them apart from other non-human systems, particularly other forms of biological systems, and that are the most common distinguishing characteristics of such systems. In this I have identified symbolization as a key operator in the definition of human cultural dependency. People cannot function outside of a cultural context and continuum that prestructures their environment. As a result of such cultural dependency, that is biologically rooted in an unfinished human character, people have achieved success in social terms that leads to relatively high population densities of humans in their natural and carpentered environments. These tendencies have resulted as well in marked forms of pervasive social competition, and an ingrained human competitiveness, as well as a marked form of social dependency of people to social organization and group identity. The consequence of this is a predisposition of human beings toward one form or another of social aggression and the social formation of authoritarian power structures.</p> <p>The last principle I wish to address in relation to human systems is the notion of the transculturative effects of civilizational progress. Certain technological and ideational forms, once discovered or invented, tend in the long run to become widely adopted and to lead to revolutionary changes in human systems. Such processes are transcultural because they tend to pass rather rapidly across cultural boundaries, people quickly realizing the benefits of new technologies regardless of the symbolic or cultural resistance that might accompany such new adoption. They are also transformative because once adopted, they lead to further changes in a human system that entails that the system becomes increasingly dependent upon the new innovations that are adopted. Understanding of this process of technological development of transcultural human civilization is often jaded by the notion that such acculturative patterns are uneven and serve the advantages of wealthy, "colonizing" countries over those countries that are backward and colonized. But I believe that, divested of the political aspects involved in world affairs, the process of the spread of new technologies and new forms of knowledge that are beneficial to people in their adaptation and everyday lives is a fairly neutral and innocuous occurrence. It is from the standpoint of demand almost inevitable. Though certain nation st