Meta Mechanics: The Model of Hierarchical Complexity

Part 10 of the Theory of Emanism Series

Ouch. I’ve just read everything I’ve written here up to now. In one sitting. If you’ve read all of that I’m sorry part 2 was so much about nothing. I could say it all goes down hill from there. Although the story is nice. A bit religious maybe.

At the end of that metatheistic, kind of religiously atheistic, metaphorical, story of Zah, in part 3, I said I was going to link it with the model of hierarchical complexity. When I finished part 3 and I wrote that I will deliver this text next, in part 4 not here in part 10, I meant it. I’m sorry I was over-ambitious about how long it would take me. I worked on it and wrote it out (partially). Then I procrastinated, got distracted, forgot, and ignored what I said and moved on to ignorance and death. What a hypocrite right?

(I probably felt like a failure at some stage, it being much harder than I thought. I think looking back I got half way through part 2 and started to realise the magnitude of what I was saying was. I could feel these waves described in part 1, the intuition that non-existence was worth investigation, and the intuition that the model of hierarchical complexity was based on a deeper principle inherent in the fabric of existence.

By the end of part 2 I didn’t have the story in yet. I had a feeling it could be done. I didn’t have it until I finished it. I had to figure it out step by step working from the logic, hastily, and lengthily, outlined in part 2. (Or perhaps I cobbled this all together subconsciously but purposefully to create this kind of synthesis. Who knows where the trade wind blows.)

Anyway I think I felt pretty good at the end of part 3 and so I was overconfident about my abilities. This would have lead me to being too optimistic. It would have been better if I accounted for my emotional state, then again how else to learn.)

Well, this is where we look at this Model, of Hierarchical Complexity (MHC). Here complexity meaning intricately patterning, not confusingly complicating. The MHC is based on mathematical models and is used to quantify the complexity of a task, although it has several applications. Here the task and application is to existence itself, which is why part 3 seems so religious as a piece of metatheism in practice. It’s hard to not speak of god when investigating the first principles of existence. Even if it’s to only refute and negate god.

I decided that refuting god or magic wasn’t very metamodern of me. Especially as I link atheism to postmodernity. So I found metatheism, which I’ll come back to in depth at a later stage, and rituals of rememberance. This way I can stop oscillating between faith and skepticism, and superposition with belief, skeptical faith and faithful skepticism. Accepting the truth and power of metaphors and searching for the empirical reasoning behind the need for the stories. But back to the MHC. In Commons’ own words:

“Hierarchical complexity applies to any events or occasions in which information is organized. The kinds of entities that organize information include humans and their biological systems as well as their social organizations, non-human organisms, and machines, including computers.

The reason it applies so broadly is that it is a singular mathematical method of measuring tasks, and the tasks can contain any kind of information. Thus, its use of purely quantitative principles makes it universally applicable in any context.”

The MHC works self-recursively. Meaning it works by use of applying a repeated rule on to itself. It works in a way that “Each higher order action organised two or more lower order actions”. Every task is made up of a series of subtasks. Each subtask is simply a task from a less complex stage. There’s tons of writing, literature, about the MHC. I feel the best way forward here is to plunge in to the deep end. I’ll outline the MHC and explain how that quasi-religious, metaphysical story applies to it.

To do this I’ll name the stage number, the MHC name and short explanation of the stage, and the Zah metaphysical equivalent. In order to meta, and abstract, this part successfully I’m relying on the general principle of MHC “Each higher order action organised two or more lower order actions”. So each successive task requires two of the one before it, or four of the one before that, in order to qualify, and quantify, as more complex. For now I’ll say this is is all very meta when compared to the already quite meta MHC.

Stage 0

MHC: Calculatory – “Exact compuation” can differentiate between 0 and 1.

Meta: Zah can differentiate between non-existence and existence

Stage 1

MHC: Automatic – “Discriminate in a rote fashion”

Meta: Zah discriminates against non-existence

Stage 2

MHC: Circulatory-Sensory motor- “can reach” in response to two stimuli. (MHC puts language front and centre later on, however this is the first articulation)

Meta: Zah, responds to the two stimuli of existence and non-existence. This articulates time as the mo(ve)ment.

Stage 3

MHC: Sensory Motor – Co-ordinate two circulatory-sensor Motor actions into a superordinate concept.

Meta: Two mo(ve)ments of time are ‘coordinated’ in a timeline. The concept of space emanates as a higher order, superordinate concept, idea(r). Two points in time connect as a timeline, which is height, and our first dimension of space. With two mo(ve)ments in space we now have the concept of a past and a relative future. The line(height) can be seen as the difference between the past and what became the future.

Stage 4

MHC: Nominal – find relations among concepts

Meta: Our concepts here are timelines , which coordinate different mo(ve)ments in time. A link, a relation, is formed between first time line and a second, forming a time span. This timespan is the second spatial dimension, width. Here the area of the timespan can be seen as the difference between two pasts and two relative real futures.

Stage 5

MHC: Sentinal – imitate and acquire sequences

Meta: a link is formed between a first time span (a comparison of timelines) and a second time span. This gives us a timecube (sorry I can’t think of a better name, it’s not a cube though it’s any 3D shape) and the 3rd dimension of space, depth. Here we can see the volume of the timecube (so cringe) as differences between a series of pasts and relative futures.

Stage 6

MHC: Pre-operational – make simple deductions

Meta: the three dimensions of space, as relations of differences in times, keep expanding as time mo(ve)ments increase. The relationship between a past (smaller) timecube (I know, give me a second) and a relatively future timecube (I really don’t like this timecube term. How about quasicrystal?) produces “the superordinate projection concept” of the internal-external scale from two comparative points of depth. The simple deduction is that that smaller quasicrystal still exists inside the larger quasicrystal, and the larger quasicrystal (so much better than timecube) will become nested in an even larger one at a later date. (A quasicrystal is something that is patterened. It’s pattern is that there is no pattern).

Stage 7

MHC: Primary – simple logical deduction and empirical rules involving time sequences.

Meta: All of the information about nested quasicrystals (FKA timecubes lol) can be used in/at any and every potential mo(ve)ment in spacetime. The internal-external scale rule above is realised for every point in space. Where before the lines, areas and volumes of the above time-structures were inert differences between times now they are filled at once with potential of what could be at that point if that time-relation-space was a mo(ve)ment in time. This concentrates time in a magical way that emanates light (I explain what I mean by magical here). This light being an emanation of concentrated spacetime potential.

Stage 8

MHC: Concrete - Use variables of interrelations

Meta: Light is the variable of interrelations of spacetime. The light that most resembles other interrelations of time-structures (such as timelines, timespans and quasicrystals) are loosely connected, entangled, across spacetime. Attracting each other through gravity.

Stage 9

MHC: Abstract – Discriminate variables such as Stereotypes; logical quanti- fication; (none, some, all)

Meta: Gravity discriminates towards like light particles, bringing them together. Photons collide emanating electrons, and positrons. Electrons flow emanating the electrostatic force, which emanates the magnetic force. The stereotypes being positive (all) and direct, negative (none) and inverse, and neutral (some) and lateral.

Stage 10

MHC: Formal – Relationships are formed out of variables, solve problems with one unknown

Meta: Now I’m into quantum mechanics, and I need help. So I’ll make predictions given the previous logical woo. So here goes nothing: Weak interactions emanate from the neutral, lateral, spacetime potential in between electromagnetism positive, direct, and negative, inverse, charges. This is what gives rise to quark flavours.

Stage 11

MHC: Systematic – Construct multivariate systems and matrices.

Meta: Following on from the previous logic(al woo) the strong interaction emanates from the neutrality between the quark flavours. I have a feeling I should separate the colour force from the nuclear force. Meaning the colour force emanates first at stage 11.

Stage 12

MHC: Metasystematic – Create metasystems out of systems and perspectives

Meta: The nuclear force emanates from the lateral neutrality of the colour force.

So that’s it. I could go on but is this all mathematically possible? It seems so according to the MHC. I need help