Mother Nature

[Rr6]

To grasp Mother Nature it is best to start with the greatest whole. That way no parts are excluded. My top-to-bottom, cosmic hierarchy/"U"niverse does just that beginning with a cosmic trinity, ergo triangulation and triangulation is inherently structural and systemic integrity.

Eternally existent Universe/]UniVerse has no purpose other than a purpose humans assign to it.

When I use UniVerse in that specific formatting we begin the bottom-to-top cosmic hierarchy as the ultra-micro aspects of Space-Time-Space.

Space{ ( ) } as gravity i.e. a property of space-time that I propose is positive curvature surface of torus.

Time{ ^v } as observed time{ phyiscal/energy/reality } frequencies{ ^v } as the body/volumetric of same torus.

Space as dark energy that I prose is 2nd property of space-time, as the diametrically opposing, negative curvature surface of a torus.

Cosmic Trinity aka "U"niverse

1) metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept ergo concepts of God, Universe, Space, Concepts etc.....
-------------line-of-demarcation----------------------------------
2) macro-infinite non-occupied space

3) finite, occupied space Universe/UniVerse.

r6

-- Updated April 20th, 2016, 6:50 pm to add the following --

The language of Mother Nature is often considered to be mathematics. Geometry is a subcategory of mathematics.

Ultra-micro, fundamental scales of existence that we deduce and observe are as follows;

Gravity as positive curved space ( ) surface of a torus,

Dark energy as negative curved space )( surface of a torus, and

observed time as sine-wave patterned frequency ^v inside body/volumetric of a torus.

Physical/energy = observed time aka reality ad represented by the texticon symbols { ^v }.

Vertical ( side-wise ) bisection of torus represented as surface space only is ( )( ).

Vertical ( side-wise ) bisection of torus with time inversions from surface is (><)(><).

Horizontal( birds-eye-view ) bisection of torus with abstract great circles where peak of inside observed times sine-wave peaks and troughs/valleys ( (( ( ) )) )

r6

[Just Me]

If ‘Nature’ has a reason or purpose, can you tell me what it is? If you are unable to tell me, then why do you infer it? Can you tell me how you think there may be reason or purpose in the absence of consciousness or intelligence? I have been refering to processes in feedback systems. These do not require an entity or sentience. This is why I tried to explain what I saw as a danger in applying a name – Nature – to these processes. It suggests an entity when there does not have to be one.

(Nested quote removed.)

Nature does has a purpose. You are nature. I am nature. We have a purpose that we share with all biology - to grow.

All of reality - life and otherwise - is a self assembling non linear fractal process (to borrow from former member, Leo) and it builds up information as it goes, which of course is why the universe is as it is today as opposed to a trillion degree cloud of ultradense plasma.

The progressive aspect of nature and reality is confusing because intent cannot be discerned. But intent is not necessary. When water flows over a cracked path it will find every single crack. It does this, not through intelligence, but by pushing outwards in all directions, so all possibilities will be explored. The universe / reality /nature does the same thing, exploring all avenues, all the time. The reality that we are and observe today are avenues followed by reality that were able to persist up to now.

You've basically taught me two things. One Nature isn't all warm and cuddly. Two that Nature is ever changing and growing. Thanks.

[Rr6]

“Earth-Rap Poetry”
.....r6......

This here poem,
Is kinda long,
If you are good,
Then sing it like a song.

Its an earth-rap poem
An has some rhyme,
Easy to write,
Takes a little time.

Planet earth,
Is real fine place,
Home for da bugs,
And the human race.

It’s covered with water,
That’s H20,
An awesome blue planet,
In space it glows.

A blue-green machine,
That's friggin alive,
Pumping and breathing,
And that's no jive.

Ecology,
Is not just a word,
It’s the way of life,
Or had you heard.

Micro-organisms,
Living in the dirt,
Too much sun
Really makes-em hurt.

It’s more than a rock,
It shakes and rolls,
Got deep oil wells
And chemical holes.

Beans and meat,
Are what we grow,
Pollution we seed,
Is what we sow.

Oil, coal
And carbon soot,
Real bad stuff,
Is getting underfoot.

I don’t want scare,
Or do no harm,
I think more folks,
Ought to be alarmed.

There’s radiation,
Ionizing us,
No place to escape,
got to ride this bus.

By now you think,
I like to complain,
Want you know,
Livin on Earth, ain’t no game.

Come on people,
Don’t be afraid,
Speak your mind,
Get out of your cage.

Grow some food,
Or vegetate,
Head for the garden,
Ain’t never too late.

Six billion strong,
Is a lot a steam,
Come on people,
And join our team.

Do the locomotive,
And oscillate,
Raise your spirits,
No time to hate.

Life comes in waves
Sometimes your on top,
Ride that surf,
Till it comes to a stop.

Living on the earth,
Is all we know,
Caring for the earth,
Is coming kinda slow.

It’s a planet,
That needs a rebirth,
Come on people,
Lets think about the Earth.

I’m a Greens-bean,
I’m an Eco-nut,
Living in a forest,
In a shell called hut.

I eat tofu,
And raisin bread,
Those sweet tasty greens,
Are going to my head.

[Belinda]

Rr6, Earth rap poetry. post#48. I like it

[Iapetus]

Reply to Greta:

I am sorry, Greta, but I have only just come across your post, and then only because it was requoted by Just Me.

Iapetus wrote:
If ‘Nature’ has a reason or purpose, can you tell me what it is? If you are unable to tell me, then why do you infer it? Can you tell me how you think there may be reason or purpose in the absence of consciousness or intelligence? I have been refering to processes in feedback systems. These do not require an entity or sentience. This is why I tried to explain what I saw as a danger in applying a name – Nature – to these processes. It suggests an entity when there does not have to be one.

Greta wrote:

Nature does has a purpose. You are nature. I am nature. We have a purpose that we share with all biology - to grow.

All of reality - life and otherwise - is a self assembling non linear fractal process (to borrow from former member, Leo) and it builds up information as it goes, which of course is why the universe is as it is today as opposed to a trillion degree cloud of ultradense plasma.

The progressive aspect of nature and reality is confusing because intent cannot be discerned. But intent is not necessary. When water flows over a cracked path it will find every single crack. It does this, not through intelligence, but by pushing outwards in all directions, so all possibilities will be explored. The universe / reality /nature does the same thing, exploring all avenues, all the time. The reality that we are and observe today are avenues followed by reality that were able to persist up to now.

You have stated that nature does have a purpose but I am unable to identify it from what you have written. I do not constitute nature but I am a part of it. The same goes for you. You suggest that our purpose – which “we share with all biology” – is to grow. Does the same thing apply to inanimate objects? Is it the purpose of a rock to grow? Or a river? My understanding of the definition of nature is that it includes living and non-living elements. Do you agree with this?

Even if we concentrate on the ‘biology’, whilst accepting that growth is a commonly-occuring feature, I am not sure that it is a pre-requisite. Many bacteria hardly grow at all throughout their lifetime, but they certainly multiply. It seems to me that reproduction is far more typical of life – ‘biology’ – than growth.

But none of that would apply to a rock or a landscape or a volcano or a cloud. I agree that intent cannot be discerned, so how do you discern purpose? Or, by purpose, do you mean response to physical processes? Water flow certainly responds to processes such as gravity, evaporation, pressure and internal friction. I don’t agree that it necessarily explores all possibilities; it doesn’t have a purpose to do so. What it does do is respond to physical forces, which is why it has a preference for flowing downhill or evaporating upwards.

[Sy Borg]

You have stated that nature does have a purpose but I am unable to identify it from what you have written. I do not constitute nature but I am a part of it. The same goes for you. You suggest that our purpose – which “we share with all biology” – is to grow. Does the same thing apply to inanimate objects? Is it the purpose of a rock to grow? Or a river? My understanding of the definition of nature is that it includes living and non-living elements. Do you agree with this?

That's the formal definition. About seven of so characteristics denotes the living and absence of all "seven characteristics of life: cells, organisation, metabolism, responsiveness, growth, reproduction and adaptation. Numerous phenomena have one or more of the above characteristics and can be considered to be "closer to living" than those things with none of the attributes.

Certainly rocks and rivers grow - we are currently residing on a rock that "out competed" [sic] most other rocks in the proto-planetary gas cloud. Rivers constantly expand their boundaries if they are full enough. Intent is not needed. Usually all you need is a subject, gravity and time.

Even if we concentrate on the ‘biology’, whilst accepting that growth is a commonly-occuring feature, I am not sure that it is a pre-requisite. Many bacteria hardly grow at all throughout their lifetime, but they certainly multiply. It seems to me that reproduction is far more typical of life – ‘biology’ – than growth.

Reproduction is just a cellular approach to growth.

But none of that would apply to a rock or a landscape or a volcano or a cloud. I agree that intent cannot be discerned, so how do you discern purpose? Or, by purpose, do you mean response to physical processes? Water flow certainly responds to processes such as gravity, evaporation, pressure and internal friction. I don’t agree that it necessarily explores all possibilities; it doesn’t have a purpose to do so. What it does do is respond to physical forces, which is why it has a preference for flowing downhill or evaporating upwards.

The purpose would seem to be to achieve equilibrium. I don't know what that might mean in terms of metaphysics but, chemically and energetically, the constant push towards equilibrium seems to be constant and ubiquitous.

[Iapetus]

Reply to Greta:

Regarding the definition of nature:

That's the formal definition. About seven of so characteristics denotes the living and absence of all "seven characteristics of life: cells, organisation, metabolism, responsiveness, growth, reproduction and adaptation. Numerous phenomena have one or more of the above characteristics and can be considered to be "closer to living" than those things with none of the attributes.

You have offered me comments relating to the definition of life. But I thought we were talking about nature. I wanted to check with you that you were in agreement that it also included non-living elements such as rocks, landscapes, rivers and so on. Nonetheless, taking your seven characteristics of life and applying them to the concept of purpose, why do you select growth as ‘the purpose’? Could we not equally refer to reproduction? Or adaptation? Or responsiveness? These, by definition, could not apply equally to non-living elements because, as you say, they are characteristics of life. If, as you seem to suggest, there are things that have none of the attributes, then we can say that they are non-living. But would that mean that they were non-natural?

Certainly rocks and rivers grow - we are currently residing on a rock that "out competed" [sic] most other rocks in the proto-planetary gas cloud. Rivers constantly expand their boundaries if they are full enough. Intent is not needed. Usually all you need is a subject, gravity and time.

I think that if a rock could be demonstrated to have grown visibly – beyond heat expansion - it would make headline news. If our planet has done anything over the past few billion years, it has certainly contracted slightly. Rivers can expand but they can also dry up. The Aral Sea and Syr Dar’ya haven’t been doing too well lately. If you claim that their purpose is to grow, then I think you are pushing your argument beyond what is supportable.

The purpose would seem to be to achieve equilibrium. I don't know what that might mean in terms of metaphysics but, chemically and energetically, the constant push towards equilibrium seems to be constant and ubiquitous.

Now we are coming closer together. As long ago as post #26 I wrote, “For the universe to have persisted for so long we need to understand the processes which ensure survival, regeneration, adaptation, stimulus and response. Science. Particularly, it seems to me, an appreciation of feedback systems and their impacts on equilibria”. My point in saying this is that “the constant push towards equilibrium” might appear to be purposeful but it is the automatic response to physical forces.

It comes down, of course, to how we might choose to define purpose. You seem to agree that it does not require sentience.

[Sy Borg]

Regarding the definition of nature:

That's the formal definition. About seven of so characteristics denotes the living and absence of all "seven characteristics of life: cells, organisation, metabolism, responsiveness, growth, reproduction and adaptation. Numerous phenomena have one or more of the above characteristics and can be considered to be "closer to living" than those things with none of the attributes.

You have offered me comments relating to the definition of life. But I thought we were talking about nature. I wanted to check with you that you were in agreement that it also included non-living elements such as rocks, landscapes, rivers and so on. Nonetheless, taking your seven characteristics of life and applying them to the concept of purpose, why do you select growth as ‘the purpose’? Could we not equally refer to reproduction? Or adaptation? Or responsiveness? These, by definition, could not apply equally to non-living elements because, as you say, they are characteristics of life. If, as you seem to suggest, there are things that have none of the attributes, then we can say that they are non-living. But would that mean that they were non-natural?

My point was that everything is a set of living systems. Rivers are living systems, as are viruses, prions, stars, planets and moons. They are not biological life, but they are living systems nonetheless with origins, growth, development and decline. I don't question the definitions of biological life, just the semantics of "living" and "dead" matter. "Dead" matter would seem to be an incomplete part of a larger living system.

Certainly rocks and rivers grow - we are currently residing on a rock that "out competed" [sic] most other rocks in the proto-planetary gas cloud. Rivers constantly expand their boundaries if they are full enough. Intent is not needed. Usually all you need is a subject, gravity and time.

I think that if a rock could be demonstrated to have grown visibly – beyond heat expansion - it would make headline news. If our planet has done anything over the past few billion years, it has certainly contracted slightly. Rivers can expand but they can also dry up. The Aral Sea and Syr Dar’ya haven’t been doing too well lately. If you claim that their purpose is to grow, then I think you are pushing your argument beyond what is supportable.

The Earth was not always this huge world but started out as a small aggregation in the chaos of the proto-planetary dust cloud. It would have started small but aggregated faster than most of the budding conglomerations around it. Gradually collisions and gravity resulted in ever greater accumulation. A tad old to be headline news, though. Bear in mind that ageing plants and animals contract slightly too, rather than continuing to grow, but they do continue to develop.

The purpose would seem to be to achieve equilibrium. I don't know what that might mean in terms of metaphysics but, chemically and energetically, the constant push towards equilibrium seems to be constant and ubiquitous.

Now we are coming closer together. As long ago as post #26 I wrote, “For the universe to have persisted for so long we need to understand the processes which ensure survival, regeneration, adaptation, stimulus and response. Science. Particularly, it seems to me, an appreciation of feedback systems and their impacts on equilibria”. My point in saying this is that “the constant push towards equilibrium” might appear to be purposeful but it is the automatic response to physical forces.

It comes down, of course, to how we might choose to define purpose. You seem to agree that it does not require sentience.

Of course purpose doesn't need sentience. We didn't need sentience to grow into bouncing babies either. Nonetheless we mindlessly but furiously do everything in our power to survive and grow. Often we still do so as adults, despite our refinements, because of the depth and strength of the survival drive within us. We too are seeking a kind of equilibrium - peace and safety.

[3uGH7D4MLj]

You have offered me comments relating to the definition of life. But I thought we were talking about nature. I wanted to check with you that you were in agreement that it also included non-living elements such as rocks, landscapes, rivers and so on. Nonetheless, taking your seven characteristics of life and applying them to the concept of purpose, why do you select growth as ‘the purpose’? Could we not equally refer to reproduction? Or adaptation? Or responsiveness? These, by definition, could not apply equally to non-living elements because, as you say, they are characteristics of life. If, as you seem to suggest, there are things that have none of the attributes, then we can say that they are non-living. But would that mean that they were non-natural?

My point was that everything is a set of living systems. Rivers are living systems, as are viruses, prions, stars, planets and moons. They are not biological life, but they are living systems nonetheless with origins, growth, development and decline. I don't question the definitions of biological life, just the semantics of "living" and "dead" matter. "Dead" matter would seem to be an incomplete part of a larger living system.

We may have that just reversed. If we take Nature to mean everything -- the universe -- then "live" matter would seem to be an incomplete part of a larger dying system.

Iapetus, I jumped headfirst into this mistake by reflexively going for "life=nature" when you could say that "nature" also includes the violent and fiery entropic dynamics that are trying to turn us into dust. Can we say that nature is everything, our entire context including stars, stones, and black holes? Would the sympathetic term "Mother Nature" still apply?

Greta, I understand what you are saying, the Gaia hypothesis and all, everything is a living system, but is it? Isn't the majority of "nature" by this definition dedicated to turning itself into smaller and smaller particles of lifeless dust? We, on the other hand, we of the category "life" are a renegade outpost -- a revolutionary niche subversive to the overarching purpose of the universe. We should watch our step because the juggernaut of entropy wants to pulverize us.

Or, maybe my first impulse was correct, maybe "Mother Nature" does equal life, and maybe earth, water, air, and fire should be included. Mother Nature is a pretty casual term.

[Iapetus]

Reply to Greta:

I suspect that our conversation may come down to semantics. You designated a purpose which “we share with all biology”. You refered to biology rather than nature. You then identified seven characteristics of life. Not nature. I was trying to keep to the idea of whether or not nature has a purpose. We need, therefore, to be clear what we mean by ‘nature’. I had sought to refer to living and non-living elements but that won’t work if you regard everything as living.

My point was that everything is a set of living systems. Rivers are living systems, as are viruses, prions, stars, planets and moons. They are not biological life, but they are living systems nonetheless with origins, growth, development and decline. I don't question the definitions of biological life, just the semantics of "living" and "dead" matter. "Dead" matter would seem to be an incomplete part of a larger living system.

I would happily go along with your first three sentences if you subtracted the word, ‘living’. I don’t see how it changes the meaning at all but it then enables us to separate biological from non-biological concepts. The systems remain systems. I am not happy about talking of rocks as ‘dead’ things, as if they were once living and are no longer. But I do recognise them as non-living. This would then avoid confusion over your seven characteristics of life. Do you mean life to mean ‘living living’ or do you mean your characteristics of life to apply to all ‘living systems’? The planet Venus, for example? However we get around this, I need to confirm whether or not you understand ‘nature’ to include biological and non-biological, living and non-living, animate and non-animate, sentient and non-sentient elements. I need also to remind you of a question I put to you in my last post; If, as you seem to suggest, there are things that have none of your seven attributes, would that mean that they were non-natural?

The Earth was not always this huge world but started out as a small aggregation in the chaos of the proto-planetary dust cloud. It would have started small but aggregated faster than most of the budding conglomerations around it. Gradually collisions and gravity resulted in ever greater accumulation. A tad old to be headline news, though. Bear in mind that ageing plants and animals contract slightly too, rather than continuing to grow, but they do continue to develop.

You seem to be telling me that things sometimes grow and sometimes don’t. I understand this. I have given you examples of things that do not grow and sometimes shrink. We can, of course, stretch the term, ‘grow’ to mean develop, in which case we can include everything which has ever existed, but that would defeat any meaningful application of the term, ‘purpose’.

Of course purpose doesn't need sentience. We didn't need sentience to grow into bouncing babies either. Nonetheless we mindlessly but furiously do everything in our power to survive and grow. Often we still do so as adults, despite our refinements, because of the depth and strength of the survival drive within us. We too are seeking a kind of equilibrium - peace and safety.

Now you have me confused. Are humans not sentient beings? Does their development not depend on sentience? Perhaps it is our sentience which enables us to give ourselves purpose. I was trying to work one idea round to proposing that a definition of life can involve degrees of sentience and that this might help to distinguish living from non-living entities.

-- Updated May 1st, 2016, 4:00 pm to add the following --

Reply to 3uGH7D4MLj:

We may have that just reversed. If we take Nature to mean everything -- the universe -- then "live" matter would seem to be an incomplete part of a larger dying system.

Iapetus, I jumped headfirst into this mistake by reflexively going for "life=nature" when you could say that "nature" also includes the violent and fiery entropic dynamics that are trying to turn us into dust. Can we say that nature is everything, our entire context including stars, stones, and black holes? Would the sympathetic term "Mother Nature" still apply?

If we take ‘nature’ to mean everything then, surely, ‘everything’ is a more accurate term. We need to understand what ‘non-natural’ might mean. I am assuming that meaning to be those things which are created and/or managed by humans. We might possibly extend the definition to animals other than humans which are capable of changing their environment but I think this needs to be argued through. If we discovered other advanced civilisations, then the definition might need to adapt. For now, we might equate ‘non-natural’ with ‘artificial’.

I have never thought that the sympathetic term, ‘Mother Nature’, should be applied, precisely because nature is often far from nurturing. Animals often live and die in excruciating pain. Stars and planets are destroyed. Yet out of that destruction comes renewal. Life is dependent on that process. Nature can be nurturing but it can also be extremely threatening and we can regard it from either viewpoint. Or both.

[Belinda]

Is nature entropic or creative? In some ways e.g. the wearing down of sea cliffs and the aging of human bodies nature is entropic. In other ways the formations of those same sea cliffs, and the natural selection process and its living effects are creative.

Do scientists know the answer to my question?

Is the answer to my question a matter of perspective like the cup half full or half empty? Or is the answer to my question a matter of times and seasons, that natural events are sometimes waning and sometimes waxing like the moon in her cycles?

[Iapetus]

Reply to Belinda:

As far as I can see it, you have answered your own question. Nature can create and destroy. The process of natural selection is creative and necessarily destructive. Entropy is a concept which requires examination over immensely long time scales but is difficult in the extreme to ascertain over a human lifetime.

[3uGH7D4MLj]

If we take ‘nature’ to mean everything then, surely, ‘everything’ is a more accurate term. We need to understand what ‘non-natural’ might mean. I am assuming that meaning to be those things which are created and/or managed by humans. We might possibly extend the definition to animals other than humans which are capable of changing their environment but I think this needs to be argued through. If we discovered other advanced civilisations, then the definition might need to adapt. For now, we might equate ‘non-natural’ with ‘artificial’.

I have never thought that the sympathetic term, ‘Mother Nature’, should be applied, precisely because nature is often far from nurturing. Animals often live and die in excruciating pain. Stars and planets are destroyed. Yet out of that destruction comes renewal. Life is dependent on that process. Nature can be nurturing but it can also be extremely threatening and we can regard it from either viewpoint. Or both.

Good definition, clear, and I appreciate the slackening of the rigor at the end. Nature is wonderful when we look out the airplane window or go hiking, but it's terrifying outside of our little anomalous biosphere. It's good to think about regarding it from either viewpoint or both.

What is the OP getting at? "I'm an atheist, what should be my take on Mother Nature?" Posting in the religion section, mentioning Mother Nature twice. Is the OP taking a run at Pantheism, or Panentheism? (I learned this from Belinda) Here's a friendly mythic personification of the environment, or life. A Goddess, why not give her a whirl?

Personally, I see the environment, the universe, as substrate, the given context, and life as what's really going on here. Life is the exciting thing, what we're all part of. Life is the big deal. Life is the blind genius, trying everything, and life's purpose is to grow, carrying the seed forward. Mother Nature? as good a way as any to look at it.

[Steve3007]

Belinda:

Is nature entropic or creative? In some ways e.g. the wearing down of sea cliffs and the aging of human bodies nature is entropic. In other ways the formations of those same sea cliffs, and the natural selection process and its living effects are creative.

The second law of thermodynamics applies to entire physical systems. It's possible to lower the entropy in one part only by increasing the entropy in other parts by at least the same amount. There are creative processes on the Earth because it is not closed. It is not the entire physical system. Take the formation of sea cliffs or mountains. It's caused by tectonic plate movements. Those are driven by the heat stored in the Earth's core and, like any other work in a thermodynamic system, are done by the movement of heat from a high temperature source (the Earth's core) to a low temperature sink (outside the Earth's core). As the Earth cools and the heat in its core gets spread out into space the system as a whole gains entropy, more than compensating for any local reduction in entropy.

[Iapetus]

Reply to 3uGH7D4MLj:

What is the OP getting at? "I'm an atheist, what should be my take on Mother Nature?" Posting in the religion section, mentioning Mother Nature twice. Is the OP taking a run at Pantheism, or Panentheism? (I learned this from Belinda) Here's a friendly mythic personification of the environment, or life. A Goddess, why not give her a whirl?

Personally, I see the environment, the universe, as substrate, the given context, and life as what's really going on here. Life is the exciting thing, what we're all part of. Life is the big deal. Life is the blind genius, trying everything, and life's purpose is to grow, carrying the seed forward. Mother Nature? as good a way as any to look at it.

I’m not sure that I do see a clear link between atheism and the concept of Mother Nature, though I don’t find it particularly strange. According to my interpretation of the definition, atheism is the non-acceptance of a God claim; it isn’t a belief system in itself. Atheists can, therefore, believe all sorts of things, including a ‘mothering spirit’, as long as they don’t end the explanation with God. I don’t personally subscribe to a pantheistic belief but, if somebody wants to equate the universe with the divine, then it does not trouble me. I just can’t see what it adds. I have more of a problem with a belief that God is greater than the universe because I see no evidence, need or logic in such a belief. But that is just me.

Yes, life is interesting. So is non-life. The accelerating expansion of the universe, the mystery of dark energy, nucleosynthesis, the complexities of the astonishingly small, quantum dynamics are all fascinating, before we get to the question of how life came about. I don’t see why you assume that life’s purpose is to grow. Who said so? I have asked a similar question of Greta. The combined effect of many processes may produce growth but purpose does not self-generate from this. I don’t think that that reference to Mother Nature is at all a useful way of looking at such processes because it produces a one-sided – nurturing – view which does not correspond with what we observe.