universe/laws?

We've been round this one before! "Raw data" is an oxymoron.
Life as an autopoietic process (in which "information" takes no part) makes more sense to me, than an evolutionary process. But you have too much of a vested interest in "information" to entertain alternatives.

I would very much like to know how does autopoesis work without info...I apply the idea not to the subject but to the world...nevertheless I don't fall for that Gestalt ill informing crap where the whole is.more then the sum of its parts...instead I just say that taking dynamics as a set of parts onto the sum, the funtions, you can actually do the sum...
...Any question has a relative domain, thus it asks not for an infinite answer...it has a scope on what it means to ask, it necessitates an optimal functional corresponding answer...

...more, by "raw data" I only meant in relation to me raw data, since Physically I am slready just getting a partial string of data, a segment, that functionally can adress my position even before I interpret it and change it again even further...

...another thing, up there, I meant the computable whole, in a relative frame of work...and not the uncomputable whole itself...Gestalt is an interesting idea that unfortunately explains itself badly...I improve on it with my sum of dynamics...

You see.... to ask how autopoiesis works has already defeated any chance of getting to grips with it !
Read (or re-read) Fritjof Capra, "the Web of Life", with particular reference to criticism of "science" tending to being delimited to "prediction and control". If you can take that point on board, the rest might follow.

...you see...that which does not work, at least mentally, ends up not being even a belief...

Correct....its not "a belief"..its "an understanding"...a mental remolding.

To me all data is "cooked" if it is to "mean" (or count for) something.
I consider a researcher's use of archival data for making sociological conclusions. It is "raw" in the sense that it is unformed by the researcher but "cooked" in the sense that the archivist has made choices as to its meaning.
I'm thinking right now about church archives speaking to the ethnic identity of babies baptised in rural Mexico. The priests who decided on the ethnicity of the babies were making highly ideological (i.e., "cooked") determinations, but the researcher presumes that their decisions generated "raw" (objective) data for his research.

The point about the concept of "raw data" is that is generally assumed to be objectively "out there". But what constitutes "data" ? ......answer: "that which informs a decision to act". (For the Azande this could be of the entrails of a chicken). But Maturana (et al) point out that this "decision procedure" is an anthropocentric concept with no application to the general "life process". A lion does not "decide" to select "its victim" by sifting "data". A lion and its prey is one existential system at one level, formed by the coupling of two existential systems "observed" from another level. The "mistake" of the observer (btw all observation is verbalization) is to assume that the ontological status of "the lion" remains constant.....the observer(verbalizer) is conned by the persistence of the word "lion".

Just divide that time into the smallest packet possible and you will get the constant in the lion...
(drop Maturana readings he is a mystifier)
"Decisions" don´t need choices only the manifestation of necessary triggers..."Indecision" is due to incompleteness of calculus while a system is asked to "act" upon a string of data, that is/means, to present an output, an effect as a result...this is valid at any level from Stars , to animals, to people...

Terms like Decision/Indecision are build upon expectations in an human observer while the sense of urgency requires immediate action towards the completeness of a "task" such that the calculation of a optimally functional algorithm requires analysis on the best set of instructions (say, left, right, left, left, right) until you get it right...we are speaking on one of those words which is born out of confusion and pretentiousness...

...another thing, before you come to lecture me that I am wrong based on the idea that people, animals, or whatever " work" otherwise because best decisions are not always taken quite the contrary, let me just remind you of two variables implied in there, capacity of computation/calculus for one, and available information at time X...so in turn I should have said, best possible algorithm, regarding what was computed in so far to reach a critical mass point for "decision" in an "open" system...(open not because its really open but because it surpasses the capacity of being computed by the analyst machine/person/animal etc...)

Well this was well said, and perhaps, one of your least "mystifying" posts.

...fair !
...the reason some people may find my posts "mystifying" is because I take a series of shortcuts or implied presupposed concepts to spare a vast explanation on the matter...holistic grounds are so vast that if I were to explain any subject bit by bit without shortcuts I would take months and several "PHD´s" to straight things out with 100% consistency ! I don´t want to do it ! I am not running for a Noble, I am all to happy with hinting here and there and let somebody else do the hard (boring) work from where I left ! I dislike bureaucracy...have to many interests to dive in depth on a SPECIFIC formal engagement of any kind...I only am careful with impartial frames of work and logic up to where I can calculate...

If the past is over and the future has yet to arise and the present is over with no duration whatsoever...can anything really be said about the true nature of things? ... Words are like an echo in an empty cave or words drawn on the surface of water with your finger. Our words can rearrange our perceptions of reality but its nature remains untouched…for ever beyond words and concepts. We can rearrange phenomena but for every relative benefit there will be a host of relative drawbacks.

...well...that dwells on infinity as a true Infinite, which points to transcendence...and not infinity as out of finity itself, a NEEDED LOOP...our computation although relative for us still is resolved in the final lenght of the world, the Whole, where the "I" is no longer, where the "I" is dissolved...what we can do is consistency ! Relative questions which are limited in scope, require optimally functional relative in scope contextual answers !

We are all mystifiers in that sense; we always have to leave something unsaid. But my statements regarding the zen perspective--the little that I see of it--is intentionally non-sensical, or as I prefer to call it, transendental (pardon my conceit). But it's ultimately a matter of cognitive style which is in turn a matter of personality.
In extreme terms, I see your approach as an impossible attempt to shrink the world to the size of your mind/skull and Igm's, Cryacuz's and mine as the difficult, but not totally impossible attempt to expand our minds to the size of the world (in mystical, not rational-empirical terms, of course).
Fresco's efforts strike a nice balance between the two extremes, as I see them.

...I perfectly agree with everything you said ! (see, it is possible for us to agree !!!)

...another thing, if time to time my reply comes slightly abusive duo to commitment to debate ignore it once it is not truly ill intended...

...still I think of me as a sort of middle ground man in relation to some guys out there which are far more formal in debate...I dwell on creativity and logic and not on a formal historian account of western thought alone...they end up playing "politic wars" with other groups in Science/Philosophy/Knowledge to see who pisses first on the damn tree to establish or expand formal territory instead of being concerned with moving on...

...if you care to take notice you will see that I am perfectly half way between rationalists and empiricists trying to bridge the gap...
(since middle ground never attracted any kind of sympathy I end up "fighting" with everybody)

G H
thanks for the reply
sorry I didn’t reply sooner was on vacation.

I do appreciate your candor and clarification of “Big Bang”, but that is not what is believed about the Big Bang theory in the general public’s mind, is it? They believe it science’s explanation of how the universe began. Whether that is true or not, doesn’t really matter, and what it means to science or the general public is not on topic. The question is was there chaos first then order “law”. Or was law first, that sets things in order in the mist of chaos. Simple does and object fall to the earth because it is, and the earth is or because both the earth and the object obey the law without question. And if so, then does life question or obey the law?