BothAndBlog Forum

Agnosticism, sensu amplo [in the broad sense]
In essence, how do we/should we deal with doubt and uncertainty, and possibility?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ensu-amplo

3. Theism/Atheism — Agent Smith

I abandoned the Theistic religion of my childhood long ago. But I was never able to become an assured Atheist, because that theory-of-absence offered no explanation for such philosophical questions as "why is there something instead of nothing?" Apparently, Atheists are not troubled by such ontological or epistemological or existential quandaries. But Agnostics seem to need some closure on universal & general questions. So, my BothAnd philosophy combines Theism & Atheism into Agnosticism. Based on my Enformationism (enforming is creating) worldview, it's obvious that our contingent world is not self-existent. So, logically there should be some kind of First Cause to explain the chain of causation that led to my own contingent existence.

Unfortunately, sans revelation, I have no way of knowing about anything prior to the Big Bang beginning. So, I must admit that I don't know for sure that there is a God. But, just admitting practical ignorance doesn't satisfy the quest for impractical philosophical speculation : not what-is, but what-ought-to-be, logically . Therefore, I have proposed a reasonable god-model that is not Theistic, but also not a tower-of-turtles assumption like Many Worlds and Multiverse speculations. Instead, my hypothetical god-model is what odds-maker Blaise Pascal derisively called "the god of the philosophers". Apparently, he was more comfortable with a god of statistics (Chance). Yet, my own, non-anthro-morphic, non-miraculous First Cause notion is a god only in the broad sense (sensu amplo) of logical necessity.

Contingent :
1. subject to chance
2. dependent
3. occurring or existing only if (certain circumstances) are the case

It's natural to ask questions and equally natural to look for reasonable answers. God is just one of the many manifestations of our curiosity (that killed the cat). Your logic is not new but that's a compliment - you see the value of ancient arguments or, at the very least, have found a means to reconstruct trains of thought that are as old as the mountains. Why reinvent the wheel? — Agent Smith

Actually, I didn't reinvent the wheel --- and I didn't find a full-size spare tire in the trunk of my new worldview. Instead, I have merely patched timeworn ancient philosophical wisdom with 21st century knowledge. Specifically, in the squishy Quantum foundation of reality, and in the ubiquity of Causal Information. These are not traditional factors in religious or philosophical arguments. But lots of pragmatic scientists*1 are beginning to see the philosophical implications of those fruitful features of cutting-edge Science.

I didn't go looking for God, but I couldn't ignore the logical arrows pointing toward a creation event in the beginning, and of directional causation in evolution. I'm still not a worshiper of G*D, but I do appreciate the ontological & epistemological closure of the First Cause concept. Plato & Aristotle were not conventionally religious, but even though they knew nothing of a Big Bang beginning, they saw the logical necessity for an outside force to cause Space & Time to emerge from Infinity & Eternity.

Faithful Atheists may still cling to hope for an infinite regress of space-time -- for which there is no evidence -- to provide a reasonable alternative to an act of creation. They have even been imaginative enough to find fabulous workarounds for the emergence of space-time from a dimensionless & timeless Singularity. They seem to find comfort in hypothetical sci-fi scenarios that conveniently ignore the first law of physics, and bypass the inconvenient physical bottleneck a few billion solar-cycles back. Yet, if only our thermodynamic universe can find a way to avoid the inevitable heat-death ahead, it will overcome Entropy and rise to live forever, like a vampire, or like Jesus. Hallelujah!

Those eternal-time schemes -- like Doctor Who and time-traveling Marvel heroes -- provide dramatic fodder for the adolescent imagination. But, personally, I don't find their various evasive tactics to be philosophically believable. So, unlike many religious people today, I assume that this life, and this world, is one & done. But, I'd be happy to be proven wrong in one of infinite parallel-world afterlives. As long as I can remember who I was/am -- and what that round-thing-with-a-hole-in-it is supposed to do.


*1. See my Enformationism Thesis and BothAnd Blog for references to those wheel-patching scientists. Some may still claim to be Atheists, but others will admit to being Agnostic about the ultimate implications of their non-classical worldviews. Only a few are orthodox Theists.

THE WORLD RESTS ON TIME-TURTLES
. . . . . .ALL THE WAY DOWN . . . . .
Turtles%20all%20the%20way.png

If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion, there's ample room in your EnFormAction for science by treating it as answers to how G*D (primum movens) created and runs the universe. Aristotle's 4 causes (material, efficient, formal, final) is just what the doctor ordered for the inclusion of science in EnFormAction. — Agent Smith

Yes. That's what I'm doing in the BothAnd Blog. I now take the necessity for a First Cause (Enformer) for granted. Beyond that axiom, I don't concern myself with super-natural matters, such as miracles & magic. Instead, I apply the principles of Quantum uncertainty and Information ubiquity to understanding how the Natural (material) & Cultural (mental) world works : "how G*D . . . runs the universe", as you expressed it. Reductionist & Empirical Science does a good job of revealing the deterministic mechanical workings of Nature. But it has been less successful in understanding the non-linear vagaries of the Quantum Queerness, inextricably entangled with the human Mind, and its cultural extensions.

Did you get the idea that Enformationism excludes modern science? That's what the woo-fighters on this forum assume, due to their prejudice against Metaphysics. But my thesis is built upon two cutting-edge sciences -- Quantum & Information -- that deal with the non-classical underbelly of reality. So, those who are uncomfortable with non-mechanical non-deterministic systems & processes, close their eyes & ears, while chanting the woo-woo mantra to drive away the evil spirits of the mysterious human Mind.

I'm currently reading a science book by Phillip Ball -- former editor at the technical journal Nature. The title of the book is Beyond Weird, and it deals with the natural phenomena that Einstein rejected as "God [nature] playing dice" and as "spooky action at a distance". Since then, pragmatic empirical scientists [see below], have decided not to concern themselves with the weird stuff, but to just "shut-up and calculate". Unfortunately, I'm not a math maven. So, in my waning years, my interests are directed toward the mundane stuff that has occupied philosophers for millennia : not Physics, but Meta-Physics, the non-physical (mental) aspects of our material world.

I assume that "weird" Metaphysics is what you are suggesting is a waste of time. The woo-birds treat that topic as mere Mysticism. And indeed, the pioneers of Quantum science -- Bohr, Heidegger, Schrodinger, Bohm, etc -- were accused of being mystics, when they suggested that the human mind has some causal effect on matter. So, I'm in good company. Since then, despite Feynman's quip, other scientists have made some progress toward understanding how that natural magic might happen. The key to that perception is the connection between Quantum Physics and Mental Information. Which is the insight that led me to the -- seemingly "weird" but actually natural & normal -- Enformationism thesis.


Quantum Weirdness :
Phillip Ball introduces his topic by clarifying the murkiness of Quantum Physics : “what has emerged most strongly from this work on the fundamental aspects of quantum theory is that it is not a theory about particles and waves, discreteness or uncertainty or fuzziness. It is a theory about information.” [My emphasis] He then admits that “quantum information brings its own problems, because it raises questions about what this information is . . . because information is not a thing that you can point to . . .” Consequently, his book is more about Philosophy than Science. Ironically, the exotic mathematics of Quantum Theory has become the foundation of 21st century science, even though its implications cannot be understood intuitively, or in terms of 19th century Classical Physics. Hence the so-called “weirdness” of QT has remained as queer as ever over the last century.
BothAnd Blog, post 125

Nature :
First published in 1869, Nature is the world's leading multidisciplinary science journal.
https://www.nature.com

Quantum Mysticism :
https://phys.org/news/2009-06-quantum-m ... otten.html

DON'T TRY TO UNDERSTAND QM
JUST SHUT-UP AND CALCULATE
quote-i-think-i-can-safely-say-that-nobody-understands-quantum-mechanics-richard-p-feynman-56-40-56.jpg
177e164c5870e27bc039ba261129e475.jpg

Look, I wouldn't dare to say I understood your EnFormation thesis or its auxiliary idea BothAnd. — Agent Smith

The core idea of Enformationism is simple : everything in the world is a form of Generic Information. That's illustrated most succinctly in Einstein's formula E = MC^2. Energy is invisible & intangible*1, so we know it only by its effects on Matter. Hence, Energy is the physical power-to-enform (to cause changes in material form). But the less well known application of the power-to-enform is the metaphysical ability to change minds. I won't go into that right now, but it's covered in the blog.

Anyway, some related 21st century scientific concepts are a> the Mathematical Universe theory*2, and b> the Computer Universe theory*3. In both of those hypothetical worldviews, the basic substance of reality is Information, not Matter or Energy. And Evolution is really processing (computing) Information, not Matter. The BothAnd (yin/yang) philosophy is a corollary of the Enformationism worldview. If you are interested in how they are interrelated, I can give you links to the blog. All you have to do is ask, and you shall receive.

*1. Why is energy invisible? :
Energy is invisible yet it's all around us and throughout the universe. We use it every day, we have it in our bodies and some of it comes from other planets! Energy can never be made or destroyed, but its form can be converted and changed.
https://ypte.org.uk/factsheets/energy/types-of-energy

*2. Mathematical universe hypothesis :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathemati ... hypothesis

*3. Is the Universe Actually a Giant Quantum Computer? :
http://cmsw.mit.edu/angles/2015/is-the- ... -computer/

Anyway, a question. If mind has anything to do with the quantum world, why on Earth is quantum physics so hard to understand? — Agent Smith

Some physicists routinely use Quantum Theory in their work, even though they find it philosophically absurd. But my response is that QT is not "absurd", just coy (shy ; reluctant to reveal information). Pragmatic scientists don't understand QT, because they are trying to comprehend the math from a materialistic perspective. In his book, Quantum Weirdness, Phillip Ball informs us that "it is not a theory about particles and waves, discreteness or fuzziness. It is a theory about information". In a YouTube video, he says "Quantum Mechanics Isn’t Weird, We’re Just Too Big". So, if you want to grasp the meaning of the quantum foundation of the world, you'll need to look at it from an Information-Centric perspective, where abstract information is the focal point.

Quantum Mechanics Isn’t Weird :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaqwlJtrakw

↪180 Proof

Gnomon might wanna respond. I'll wait. — Agent Smith

I no longer respond to those who think "boo, hiss" is a philosophical argument. But I'll let you decide if his assertion is plausible : that the "no [physical] boundary conjecture"*4 eliminates the philosophical (logical) necessity for a First Cause. When I speak of a pre-big-bang Causal Agency, I'm not talking about anything physical or material ; but about an Enforming Mind. If you don't believe in Metaphysical (non-physical) Minds, the idea of a primordial Timeless Mind will seem absurd.

Hartle-Hawking Conjecture :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2 ... king_state

*4. A sphere has no geometric point-of-beginning, and no final boundary. But, if it exists in reality, even a sphere must have an existential point-of-being.

In essence, how do we/should we deal with doubt and uncertainty, and possibility? — Agent Smith

Are you familiar with the Enlightenment era philosophy of Deism? They were Agnostic about the G*D of Theism, specifically Judeo-Christianity, but they continued to accept the logical necessity for a First Cause of some unspecified kind. So, they doubted the existence of the Bible God, and were uncertain of the characteristics of the rationally revealed "G*D of the philosophers". Yet, they dealt with their lack of empirical evidence, by trusting in their own reasoning ability. Ironically, the Faith religions advise us to doubt our own ability to make sense of the world, and to trust some ancient prophets & scribes to tell us what to believe. If it comes down to Faith vs Reason, which are you more likely to trust? :halo:

Deism Beyond Reason :
In his respectful critique of Deism, he makes one telling observation : "Most deists I know do believe in more (about God) than what natural, unaided reason can discover." Although Reason is their raison d'etre, Deists cannot deny that some of their beliefs and hopes are not derived from pure Reason, but from reason supplemented with hope or speculation. So the original post-enlightenment boast of a “rational religion”, was true only by comparison to the more dogmatic Faith religions of the day.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page69.html

I've always had (major) issues with logic - I think I'm a right-brained person and hence reasoning is not my strong suit. — Agent Smith

If the formal Logic of Pure Reasoning is not amenable with your right-brain Holistic thinking, maybe you can dabble in Practical Reasoning. What difference does it make to you, whether there is a transcendental deity to serve as an explanation for existential questions : such as "why is there something rather than nothing?" What are the logical possibilities : a> eternal evolving Matter, or b> eternal creative Mind? Is your matter permanent? Is your mind creative?

PS__Atheists will challenge the practical aspects of a transcendent deity : "what has he done for you lately?" (i.e. miraculous interventions). But Deists would answer, she/he created the magnificent world "in which we live & breathe and have our being". Is that enough of a miracle for you? Although astronomers have been looking-in-vain (100 years) for extra-terrestrial life, as far as we now know, our "blue dot" is unique in the universe.

Critique of Pure Reason :
* Immanuel Kant, in his 1781 treatise, distinguished between Pure and Practical reasoning.
* Early Deists of the same era, idolized the transcendental form of reasoning. But in practice, their thinking was contaminated with the same worldly concerns that have always led men from the “true path”.
* However, a BothAnd combination of Pure philosophical reasoning, and Practical scientific problem-solving can allow us to contemplate transcendental possibilities without the risk of believing in impossible things.
* G*D is a transcendental concept, hence with no practical applications. Yet, the notion of an ideal Being can have important theoretical implications. Yes, G*D is just a theory, but also a reasonable inference from the meta-physical aspects of physical reality.
http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page69.html

Practical reasoning is basically goal-directed reasoning from an agent's goal, and from some action selected as a means to carry out the goal, to the agent's reasoned decision to carry out the action.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practical_reason

With regard to information, are you proposing a reductionist thesis - that everything boils down to information? As I suggested to you earlier, in addition to positing a who (created the universe)? - your Enformer - you might also wanna explore how (the universe was created) - with information. — Agent Smith

In accordance with the BothAnd philosophy, Enformationism is both Reductive (it all boils down to Information Bits as the atoms of reality), but it's also Holistic (as in PanEnDeism : all is in G*D). If you're no comfortable with the G*D terminology, you can just as well call it "LOGOS" per Plato, or "TAO" per Lao Tse. Whatever you call it, "the Who" or "The All" is the potential source of all actual things and processes in the contingent world. "Sufficient Reason" will tell you that much, with no need for divine revelation.

Even Atheist scientists have conceded that something with the ability to Create (Enform) a new world from scratch (mathematical Singularity) is logically necessary. But they tend to think of Materialistic causes, such as eternal regression of Multiverses (tower of turtles), or Many Worlds (hypothetical parallel universes), or Materialistic Magic (Instantaneous "Inflation" of a universe from a minuscule quantum fluctuation). All of these scenarios presume eternal Space & Time, and Energy & Laws. So, Enformationism lumps all those resources under the heading of "Causal Information", otherwise known as "Intention". But the Power of Intention is found only in Living & Thinking things -- not in space-time or energy/laws -- which have the ability to imagine the future, and to progress toward a preset goal.

I call that creative power in the universe "EnFormAction" (the ability to transform Potential into Actual). So, the creative act of enforming -- via the mechanism of Evolution -- progresses toward some unknown (to us) teleological destination. However, it's obviously not top-down Teleology (as in Genesis), but bottom-up Evolution, with only the standards of Natural Selection to guide the program toward the Intended Final State.

Hows that, for "how the universe" is creating itself via innate Intention?

Intention :
1. a thing intended; an aim or plan or program.
2. stretching or leaning toward something
3. purpose ; design

It generalizes the intuition/rationale of the multiple hypotheses floatin around such that each one fits with your x-based EnformAction thesis; how snugly is up to how good is your generalization is of course. — Agent Smith

Yes. Philosophy is all about generalizing Principles from specific Instances. The operative Variable "X" is the shape-shifting power to enform, that we generically call "Information". That word originally referred to the contents of a mind (knowledge, meaning, intelligence, etc). But Shannon applied that term to non-specific "Data", which could be anything meaningful to a mind. The range of meanings or values is encoded from 1 (100% ; rigid order) to 0 (zero ; total randomness). Ironically, Shannon also realized that the potential of his data carriers (bits & bytes) can be evaluated in terms of Entropy, which is the ashes of Energy. Yet, the flip-side of Entropy is Enformy [see below].

More recently, physicists have realized that the essence of Information is equivalent to what we know as Energy : the power to cause change. In the Enformationism thesis though, I expand the range of Information to include a> Energy, b> Matter (E=MC^2), c> Intention (design ; mental causation), and various other instances of Form Change, such as physical Phase Transitions. FORM is essentially a meaningful or structural pattern, such as Morse Code or DNA. In general, I call that Causal Information "EnFormAction". It's what allows the random mutations of Evolution to produce non-random Forms (organisms) that survive & reproduce; to progress. Hence, Natural Selection is a form of Intention ; it chooses only the mutations that meet its standards of fitness.

Harking back to the OP, the biggest variable of all is the mysterious Enformer or Intender, Who defined the rules of Natural Selection. Most physicists are functionally Agnostic, in that they just take those evolutionary standards and natural laws for granted. And assume that the laws keeping our world on track are random & arbitrary. But then, they proceed to rely on the mathematical exactness of those regulations as-if they are orderly & absolute. As an Agnostic myself, I don't claim to know anything specific about the X-factor (the Who) serving as the Initial Cause of the chain of causation that we know as evolution. But, I can see the fingerprints of the culprit all over the natural world.


Information :
(1) : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction. (2) : intelligence, news. (3) : facts, data.
Merriam-Webster

Data : Philosophy
things known or assumed as facts, making the basis of reasoning or calculation.
Oxford Dictionary

EnFormAction :
Intentional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Let's test how good your idea is: Try and harmonize the following thesis-antithesis pairs:
1. Theism-Atheism (everyone's favorite don't-get-along-at-all couple).
2. Rationalism-Empiricism (another such pair). — Agent Smith

The BothAnd principle is Holistic. It assumes that all apparent oppositions in the natural world are ultimately complementary. For example, Matter & Antimatter, when brought together, commit mutual suicide. And yet, the energy they are composed of is not lost, but returns to the universal thermodynamic system from whence it came. Positive & Negative energy are harmonized in the Neutrality of the whole.

Likewise, clashes between Theists & Atheists, can be reconciled in Agnosticism and Deism. The material world is obviously temporary & contingent. So, even atheist scientists concede that there must have been an external cause of the Big Bang, that is not a part of the expanding system itself. The well-aimed cue-ball requires an aim-er with a cue-stick (creative power). But as arrogant Atheists, they cannot admit that a mind is needed to explain Evolution. So, they merely imagine another dumb cue-ball zooming-in from off-table, which accidentally impacted the BB cue-ball. On the other hand, prideful Theists do see the need for an intentional mind to aim the stick or ball. But they take their ability to imagine a divine pool-shooter (Faith) as logical evidence. However, humble Agnostics are aware that their Logic is derived only from evidence inside the system. So, they don't pretend to know anything about the logical, but imaginary Who, out there in the great beyond. Hence, they stand in the middle of the argument, and say "can't we all just get along"?

Early philosophy was mostly a rational exercise of discovering logical patterns for How & Why the world works as it does. But around the time of Aristotle, they began to physically analyze (dissect) the world around them, in order to discover the hidden mechanisms inside. The hands-on (empirical) approach soon proved to be very effective in leveraging the human mind to control the natural world. Yet, they found that the immaterial mind itself is not so easy to dissect. So the early Psychologists (Freud) were essentially impractical philosophers, using pure Reason as a scalpel to analyze minds. Now we have more empirical methods for mind-reading, but the meaning of MRI blobs still have to be interpreted rationally & logically. So, to this very day both Rationalism and Empiricism are working together to advance our understanding of How & Why the mechanics of Physics has evolved Metaphysical Minds, whose inner thoughts still resist the crude empirical methods of Trepanation (drilling holes in the skull) and Magnetic Imaging (MRI).

So, you see, Theism & Atheism and Rationalism & Empiricism can harmonize like Ebony & Ivory, if we give them a chance.


Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Ebony and Ivory :
Ebony and ivory live together in perfect harmony
Side by side on my piano keyboard, oh Lord, why don't we?
We all know that people are the same whereever you go
There is good and bad in ev'ryone
We learn to live, when we learn to give
Each other what we need to survive, together alive
___Paul McCartney

EnFormAction
General ideas:
1. Primum movens aka EnFormer/Intender
2. BothAnd (yin-yang)
Specific ideas:
1. Information-based theory
2. EnFormy (anti-entropy, vide supra BothAnd) — Agent Smith

Good summary! You are open-minded and reasonable enough to entertain unfamiliar (weird) ideas, and attempt to make sense of them, in order to learn new ways of philosophizing. But you also apply a healthy dose of skepticism toward unproven philosophical conjectures. Unlike some Trolls, who just repeat "j'accuse", but provide no viable alternative ideas -- only standardized (settled ; classical) conventions to be taken on faith.

If the Enformationism hypothesis doesn't seem plausible -- it's a lot to take in -- you are not expected to believe its information-centric worldview. But once you grok the ubiquity & activity of Generic Information, your eyes will be opened to a whole new world of non-classical Possibilities (as in Quantum Theory).

A1. Philosophers & Physicists agree that all motion (change) must have a Prime Mover to impart momentum into the system of Causation. But some disagree on the nature of that First Cause : Intentional vs Accidental.
A2. BothAnd Complementarity : Physics
"the concept that two contrasted theories, such as the wave and particle theories of light, may be able to explain a set of phenomena, although each separately only accounts for some aspects."
___Google

B1. Information-Centric Worldview :
"Noted English mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose theorizes that at the level of the Planck scale (an unfathomably small and unimaginably energetic scale at which even quantum field theory breaks down) the entire universe is actually pure, abstract information."
http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/cont ... t-Real.pdf
B2. Enformy :
“Enformy is the principle of creation. Life didn't just happen. Life had to happen. Enformy compelled it. Enformy compelled DNA to organize."
https://vxm.com/link.enformytheory.html
Note : Watson's Theory of Enformed Systems is more liberal & literal than my own conservative & metaphorical interpretations of the logical con


PS___Enformationism takes current knowledge and projects (speculates) into the unknowable time-before-time, in order to grasp at answers to ancient philosophical questions of Ontology and Epistemology. Theism and Atheism are both gnostic worldviews, that claim to know for sure, either by revelation or by reason, what it's possible to Know about Existence. But Agnosticism (Epoché) understands that Reason is not bound by physical barriers, so we can legitimately conjecture on concepts that we can't prove empirically. What matters is only that it makes sense -- not necessarily in a conventional belief system, but in the light of Reason.

Correct me if I'm wrong, the whole idea of your EnFormAction theory boils down to, from the little that I know, yin & yang (the interaction of opposites) &Hegelian dialectics, both of which remind me of Heraclitean dualism (thesis-antithesis dynamics). — Agent Smith

Yes, the role of EnFormAction (energy, causation) in physics is to cause change-of-form (geometry, interrelationships). However, perhaps due to the curvature of Angular Momentum, the direction of change (motion) varies (not a straight line). Hence, the convoluted pathways of billiards and Brownian Motion.

Therefore, like billiard balls, any causal input (action) results in inter-action (collisions). And the result is something like Hegelian Dialectics (literally "cross-talk"). So, geometrically, any collision of two forces (added momentum) produces a new angular momentum (vectors) [see Dialectic below]. A more complex version of the flow of EFA (causation) through the world is illustrated in the math of a Random Walk [see Squiggles below]. Thus, Positive (aggregating) complexification results in Organization and organism. but Negative (segregating) action results in Disorganization.

Heraclitus postulated two opposing forces in the world, which work together to cause change. Today, we call those oppositions "Positive" & "Negative" -- or in a different context : "Good" & "Evil" -- and they can be illustrated by Vectors (arrows) in which the angle represents geometric direction and the length represents the amount of Force (energy ; momentum). In Taoism, those dual forces are labeled Yin (dark ; female) and Yang (light ; male) -- pardon the implicit misogynism.

INTERACTION OF OPPOSITES
Dialectic%2007-14-07.jpg
COMPLEX DIALECTIC = RANDOM WALK = BROWNIAN MOTION
3D-simulation-of-a-random-walk-in-a-solution.ppm