Counter-Entropy

Counter-Entropy

L. Edgar Otto   14 March, 2013

Just a short note today.  Art from my view trumps the other foundational views which is to say it can be seen as something as causative or dominant in an intelligible system.  But what is art or where does art begin and the workings of a complexity system by the lack of something or excess of something show for all practical purposes the evidence of something hidden that dominates- as in the left or right brains, or drugs, or what part of this at the gene or chromosome level.

Are the emotions that seem there as generated by music more than the workings of the music, that which moreover brings the awareness of space as the separate notes and flow is seen with a sense of integration over an interval of time even after its binding and its relation to memory itself?

Is it beautiful or in a higher sense is it art?  Is it hard but hardly beautiful? Is civilization so superficial that we cannot define a higher art of it as like sheep in a strand it clings to its traditions of culture as absolute and a drive to incorporate all things in the organization so as to explore and dominate the world- and is this wrong to do anyway or does it contain some idea of meaningful struggle and ends?

Complexity is not as simple as a collection of choices even from what amounts to some level of a finite set over limitless but countable choices- nor is cause as necessity or chance simply defined.  Even as we may understand, and on that understanding something can be art or trivially not relevant- beauty as dimensionless or not existent for the idea of art, is our higher theory even reaching some ultimate and absolute depth and end to more than art can see about the truth of ourselves?

I choose counter-entropy because to me the term anti-entropy in systems theory seems to contain misleading assumptions, we have more a general confluence of concepts as with time rather than the fourth root of some large body and its metabolism- namely the nature of causation for one example.

We can decide in such arrays of dimensions and numbers that the pixel cell locations or motion functions do not resolve as in a complimentary manner, that the colors can fall anywhere in such an array, but then we have the paradox again that some greater confluence or principle may be contributing to the general ordering in which on that level it would seem deterministic in the main.

This question raises in me not only the issue of what I am seen as a creative being, but what is constant as art as something deeper than what appears as a self... that is someone may be beautiful yet what we see in depth is all there is- if our minds and bodies are at least self repairing machines, as is nature evidently, can we really say they are machines at all?  We can or will be able to repair and maintain much of the mechanical aspects- but our hearts and soul, if these are in any sense there and accessible, would certainly take a wider theory of everything beyond our existing concepts- if not something even more radically different of which the other world views- philosophy, science, and religion do have some sort of hints within our foundations.

* * * * *