Ka-Tet- an Alternative Method

 

 Ka-Tet- an Alternative Method for
the Arrangement of Emergent Entities
Within the Hexorius Pantheon

Ka-tet  means "one made from many."  Ka  refers to destiny;  tet  refers to a group of people with the same interests or goals. Ka-tet is the place where men’s lives are joined by fate. Ka-tet cannot be changed or bent to any individual’s will, but it can be seen, known, and understood. The philosophers of  GILEAD  stated that the bonds of ka-tet could be broken only by death or treachery. However, Roland’s teacher Cort maintained that neither death nor treachery were strong enough to break the bonds of ka-tet, since these events are also tied to  KA, or fate. Each member of a ka-tet is a piece of a puzzle. Each individual piece is a mystery, but when put together, the collective pieces form a greater picture. It takes many interwoven ka-tets to weave a historical tapestry. Ka-tets overlap, often sharing members. A ka-tet is not always bound by love, affection, or friendship. Enemies are also ka-tet. Although usually referred to as positive or at least inevitable, the forces of  KA and ka-tet can sometimes cast a sinister shadow over our lives.

For the purposes of this construct the term Ka-Tet will mean a group of emergent entities that have been grouped together due to the shared attributes of their emergence and interactions.  Ka-Tet will refer to the collective group.  A pantheon can be comprised of one or more Ka-Tet.  The concept has been adapted from its original application.  It is  the underlying aspect of connection that most lends it to this purpose.  As a construct it works well with the Hexorius Emergence and the continued progression of interactive emergent entities.  It conveys the sense of related purpose between the entities and is adaptable to the continued process.  The term “Ka” also comes from  the Egyptian concept meaning one of the aspects of an individual soul.  The Egyptian pantheon placed the gods into groupings that were spoken of as “companies” and these were based upon the attributes of the individual gods as well as their relation one to the other. 

CONCEPTS ON EMERGENCE

Understanding the concept of emergence and its meaning helps to gain insight into the emergence of entities as well as assisting in determining what are truly emergent entities. 

In philosophy, systems theory, science, and art, emergence occurs when an entity is observed to have properties its parts do not have on their own, properties or behaviors that emerge only when the parts interact in a wider whole.

This concept of emergence dates from at least the time of Aristotle.^[2] The many scientists and philosophers^[3] who have written on the concept include John Stuart Mill (Composition of Causes, 1843)^[4] and Julian Huxley^[5] (1887–1975).

The philosopher G. H. Lewes coined the term "emergent" in 1875, distinguishing it from the merely "resultant": (Notes  This aspect is important as it speaks to the fact that emergence is not merely the result of a known process that is measurable and expected..  While the process of emergence can be discerned, the function and known outcome cannot)

Every resultant is either a sum or a difference of the co-operant forces; their sum, when their directions are the same – their difference, when their directions are contrary. Further, every resultant is clearly traceable in its components, because these are homogeneous and commensurable. It is otherwise with emergent, when, instead of adding measurable motion to measurable motion, or things of one kind to other individuals of their kind, there is a co-operation of things of unlike kinds. The emergent is unlike its components insofar as these are incommensurable, and it cannot be reduced to their sum or their difference.  (NOTES:  Simply put, 1+1=2 is a measurable resultant application.  1+1=3 is an emergent result as the sum of its parts is not measurable to the outcome and that the outcome is not merely an extension of the addition)

 

In 1999 economist Jeffrey Goldstein provided a current definition of emergence in the journal Emergence.^[8] Goldstein initially defined emergence as: "the arising of novel and coherent structures, patterns and properties during the process of self-organization in complex systems".

The common characteristics are: (1) radical novelty (features not previously observed in systems); (2) coherence or correlation (meaning integrated wholes that maintain themselves over some period of time); (3) A global or macro "level" (i.e. there is some property of "wholeness"); (4) it is the product of a dynamical process (it evolves); and (5) it is "ostensive" (it can be perceived)
(Notes: As a general statement of the attributes of emergence this is important for being the base point of discussion and debate.  It can be seen as a method of discerning emergence as it relates to entities and it should be noted that the Hexorius Emergence meets all five of the standards listed)

Corning suggests a narrower definition, requiring that the components be unlike in kind (following Lewes), and that they involve division of labor between these components. He also says that living systems (comparably to the game of chess), while emergent, cannot be reduced to underlying laws of emergence:
(NOTES:  Coming states with this the idea that emergence cannot be reduced to specific laws or properties as it is, by its definition, something that is more or different that the state of being from which it arises.  He asserts that the laws defining chess (often used as an example of interaction of natural laws and complex systems) cannot express the aspect of emergence.  If emergence is and outcome that is more than the sum of its parts then by extension, he asserts, that an emergent outcome cannot be reduced to the laws of emergence)

Rules, or laws, have no causal efficacy; they do not in fact 'generate' anything. They serve merely to describe regularities and consistent relationships in nature. These patterns may be very illuminating and important, but the underlying causal agencies must be separately specified (though often they are not). But that aside, the game of chess illustrates ... why any laws or rules of emergence and evolution are insufficient. Even in a chess game, you cannot use the rules to predict 'history' – i.e., the course of any given game. Indeed, you cannot even reliably predict the next move in a chess game. Why? Because the 'system' involves more than the rules of the game. It also includes the players and their unfolding, moment-by-moment decisions among a very large number of available options at each choice point. The game of chess is inescapably historical, even though it is also constrained and shaped by a set of rules, not to mention the laws of physics. Moreover, and this is a key point, the game of chess is also shaped by teleonomic, cybernetic, feedback-driven influences. It is not simply a self-ordered process; it involves an organized, 'purposeful' activity.
(Notes:  In essence Coming states that the game of chess is usable as a construct for the concept of emergence in its inability to express or define emergence.  While the game itself is structured and the interaction of its constituent parts is defined, known, and measurable, it is the variable of the players decisions and how they arrive at the move they determine that cannot be quantified and is outside of the known and stated structure.)

 

Strong and weak emergence[edit]

Usage of the notion "emergence" may generally be subdivided into two perspectives, that of "weak emergence" and "strong emergence". One paper discussing this division is Weak Emergence, by philosopher Mark Bedau. In terms of physical systems, weak emergence is a type of emergence in which the emergent property is amenable to computer simulation or similar forms of after-the-fact analysis (for example, the formation of a traffic jam, the structure of a flock of starlings in flight or a school of fish, or the formation of galaxies). Crucial in these simulations is that the interacting members retain their independence. If not, a new entity is formed with new, emergent properties: this is called strong emergence, which it is argued cannot be simulated, analyzed or reduced.
(NOTES:  The reason it is considered that a weak emergence can be viewed using computer simulations is that all the parts can be measured, outcomes defined, and the results known ahead of the actual process.  In essence it is a known progression and the outcome will still remain within the established structure of known results.  A strong emergence is more defined as a synergistic result where the outcome retains aspects that are different or unlike the component parts)

Objective or subjective quality[edit]

Crutchfield regards the properties of complexity and organization of any system as subjective qualities determined by the observer.

Defining structure and detecting the emergence of complexity in nature are inherently subjective, though essential, scientific activities. Despite the difficulties, these problems can be analyzed in terms of how model-building observers infer from measurements the computational capabilities embedded in non-linear processes. An observer’s notion of what is ordered, what is random, and what is complex in its environment depends directly on its computational resources: the amount of raw measurement data, of memory, and of time available for estimation and inference. The discovery of structure in an environment depends more critically and subtly, though, on how those resources are organized. The descriptive power of the observer’s chosen (or implicit) computational model class, for example, can be an overwhelming determinant in finding regularity in data.
(NOTES:  Crutchfield argues that all observation is subjective regardless of the system of observation and that subjectivity is unavoidable as every aspect is based upon the individual conclusions)

On the other hand, Peter Corning argues: "Must the synergies be perceived/observed in order to qualify as emergent effects, as some theorists claim? Most emphatically not. The synergies associated with emergence are real and measurable, even if nobody is there to observe them.
(NOTES:  This is an argument without a point.  To classify something, emergent or otherwise, requires discernable and measurable qualities.  There is no one claiming that emergent situations that have not been observed do not exist.  Only that they have not been observed)

The low entropy of an ordered system can be viewed as an example of subjective emergence: the observer sees an ordered system by ignoring the underlying microstructure (i.e. movement of molecules or elementary particles) and concludes that the system has a low entropy.^[25] On the other hand, chaotic, unpredictable behavior can also be seen as subjective emergent, while at a microscopic scale the movement of the constituent parts can be fully deterministic.
(NOTE:  While the proof is flawed on several points it is again speaking to the fact that all observable emergence must by the fact of being observed is subjective)

Systems with emergent properties or emergent structures may appear to defy entropic principles and the second law of thermodynamics, because they form and increase order despite the lack of command and central control. This is possible because open systems can extract information and order out of the environment. Emergence helps to explain why the fallacy of division is a fallacy.
(NOTES:  The point that is key in this is that emergent structures appear, in observation to defy applied concepts that could normally be applied to a known structure because they draw from energies outside of the perceived structure.  While this seems to argue for the idea of a mailable line of separation I am unconvinced that it negates the concepts of division)

EMERGENT CONCEPTS AS RELATING TO HEXORIUS ENTITIES

Godforms, egregores, deities, etc. can be considered to be emergent entities and this is true regardless of their historic placement in our awareness.  Emergent in the sense of being aware of their impact as well as our interaction with them.  They all meet the five aspects as outlined in Goldstein’s criteria for determining emergence.  The process of emergence becomes important when considering the continuation of the initial emergence of Hexorius and subsequent entities.

As entities arise that may or may not be emergent to the Hexorius Pantheon there is the underlying question of classification of the entity as to the incorporation into the pantheon.  There must be a manner of determination that speaks to the qualities of any given entity and the feasibility of its addition .

There will be, laws of probability assert, entities that arise which while valuable and workable in their construct for whatever reason do not fit within the Hexorius Pantheon.  It would be helpful to have at least a sense of a general idea of how to assess.  It might be possible to use the five criteria of emergence as a general assessment.

(1)   radical novelty (features not previously observed in systems)
The entity, while having similar and like attributes of known entities will have an attribute or function that makes it more than a simple repetition or extension.

(2)    Coherence or correlation (meaning integrated wholes that maintain themselves over some period of time)
The entity would display aspects that fit naturally within the Hexorius construct and would display attributes that promote interactive and responsive reaction within relations between itself and members.

(3)    A global or macro "level" (i.e. there is some property of "wholeness")
The entity would be accessible by a wide manner of interaction and would not have components of exclusion.

(4)   It is the product of a dynamical process (it evolves)
The entity displays continuing attributes which become known through use and interaction.  It is not static.

(5)   It is "ostensive" (it can be perceived)
All aspects of the entity, while they may not yet be perceived, CAN be perceived and that all aspects of the emergent entity can be discerned.

Ka-Tet of the Hexorius Pantheon