Discrete states and discretisation.

"Each state presented to our consciousness is discrete and it should be treated as such. The process by which our mind is able to distinguish between discrete states (it can be called a discretisation process), makes it possible to identify the states and the processes which are responsible for bringing them about, in the first place.

A human individual's discretisation powers come by learning and it leads to enhanced ability in discerning the boundaries between states and avoid the confusion of one state from another no matter how much their boundaries might overlap. This is where language helps. A tool that attempts to provide precise definitions elaborating concepts that make up and reveal a state's organisation.

By being able to distinguish between states in the environment, we increase the ability to recognise their presence and occurrence in the surroundings, no matter how subtle they appear to be. Further, by being able to recognise a greater amount of states, we are able to take in a greater chunk of the surrounding environment. As most states are components of other states this process assists in the recognition of the comprised states as well.

I found this entry in a draft form, in the Pandora's Box blog I maintain, but I fail to make out, what is it for. The thought that triggered and instantiated its existence has been lost. But the notion intrigued me and I felt an impulse to trace its meaning, and reach a conclusion, if there is any.

By starting with the notion of discrete, and arrive upon a meaning, as referred to, and as it applies upon the state, a discrete state. That states presented to our consciousness are discrete!! The information gathered in Answers.com states

"The word discrete comes from the 15th Century Latin word discretus which means separate".

and

"It is used with different meanings in different contexts:.."

Discrete then, meaning, being separate. Going a little bit further,

"Consisting of unconnected distinct parts."

or

"A component or device that is separate and distinct and treated as a singular unit."

A state that is separate, and should be treated as a single unit, consisting of unconnected distinct parts? A state to be regarded as a unit? A simple mechanism among a population of like states-mechanisms, that bring about complexity? Complexity that could lead to emergence? But what about unconnected? A state unconnected with its environment, with other neighbouring states? Certainly not. There are an enormous amount of interactions with other states, the surrounding environment. It can not be unconnected.

Though the unconnected property might refer to the parts of a state, the parts of the single mechanism. Which can be a unit, the whole out of the parts. Along the lines of a whole that is more than the sum of its parts? And the parts are unconnected? Without excluding the interactions between states?

Chaotic explained

You are talking about emergence. Why chaos then. Chaos because when, even if a simple system unfold its mechanisms (game of chess), the states created are numerous, unable for a brain to comprehend, fathom, include at once. And becomes an even more formidable task when try to comprehend systems that are build out of mechanisms which by themselves are complex mechanisms, comprised of simpler mechanisms, and these in succession are by themselves complex and comprised by other simpler mechanisms and so on ... the combinations seem endless.
Our poor brain is helpless, can not cope. And to cap it up the world, our very own immediate environment for that part makes up the state spaces of many many systems, all with their own mechanisms unleashed to wreak havoc upon our poor senses and intellect, trying us hard, overwhelm our limited mental processing powers, bringing chaos in. All around us appear chaotic, unconnected, a ramble of states all competing hard to attract our attention.
But there is more to chaos than meets the eye as amidst it there is order underlying and once we accept that, we can see that chaos is not chaos at all, and what appears as chaos is the jumbling up of states, the constant re-arrangements, the cross-linking and breaking up of a system's mechanisms that has to take place so apparent order can finally emerge.
So what appears as chaotic is the transition from one ordered state to another, potentially emergent states, as the interactions between a system's multiple copies of the few allowed mechanisms, continue unabated, constantly re-arranging the geometry of the system, but always under the direction of the same simple rules, even at their most chaotic stages, that define the ordered emergent states.
How can it be chaotic if its development follows a path that is completely defined by the set of the few simple rules? There is order inherent in the rules, so chaos develops in an ordered fashion.