However, on your comment about information within the nooks and crannies being strange attractors, you might just be on to something.

I was watching a news/ op-ed piece on ABC last night, basically talking about how bloated and unnecessary our government regulations have become – really a roadblock to the common person.

However, one illustration used was how there was a natural and instinctual movement of things without having the need of rules or a leader – something along the lines of 'mutual benefit'.

As an example, think of skaters on an ice skating rink, a flock of birds, or a school of fish. All move in similar directions because it benefits them. There is no need for spoken rules, or leadership; all have a common interest in perpetuating the event. Now liken this to the theory of free markets.

Back to your comment, I cannot help but wonder if certain information types indeed 'find there way together”.

I used to be of the opinion that information was much like a key to a door; once unlocked, the secret revealed. However, now I subscribe more to a belief that information is all around us, but it is our lack of perception that prohibits us from seeing it.

In listening to Chuck Missler, he indicated science has found that infinite regress is not possible; there is a state in which we have found things are as finite as they may become. However, I am no expert in this area, but I think I at least understand some of your assertion in this area

Welcome to ChangeForge… Ben

However, on your comment about information within the nooks and crannies being strange attractors, you might just be on to something.

I was watching a news/ op-ed piece on ABC last night, basically talking about how bloated and unnecessary our government regulations have become – really a roadblock to the common person.

However, one illustration used was how there was a natural and instinctual movement of things without having the need of rules or a leader – something along the lines of 'mutual benefit'.

As an example, think of skaters on an ice skating rink, a flock of birds, or a school of fish. All move in similar directions because it benefits them. There is no need for spoken rules, or leadership; all have a common interest in perpetuating the event. Now liken this to the theory of free markets.

Back to your comment, I cannot help but wonder if certain information types indeed 'find there way together”.

I used to be of the opinion that information was much like a key to a door; once unlocked, the secret revealed. However, now I subscribe more to a belief that information is all around us, but it is our lack of perception that prohibits us from seeing it.

In listening to Chuck Missler, he indicated science has found that infinite regress is not possible; there is a state in which we have found things are as finite as they may become. However, I am no expert in this area, but I think I at least understand some of your assertion in this area

Welcome to ChangeForge… Ben

After untold years beavering away at every aspect of ontology/taxonomy/cognition I threw my hands up. But reading a text on AI allowed me ?what? a notion: what if the thingies that reside in those nooks and crannies behave as, well, as “strange attractors”. If we keep fractals in mind, we realize that zooming in on any thingie won't yield clarity … it's an infinite regress … at best we'll find something like a constellation, at worst a mass of fuzz. (Like Julia sets, yes? *grin*)

That's what allowed me to couple Jurgen Habermas' “discourse ethics” and John Willinsky's work on OpenAccess to derive a design for “participatory deliberation” … dialectical analysis on utterances, verbal gestures. *beam*

–bentrem