Somewhere Between Order and Chaos

[Sojourner<><]

That might be a little oversimplified, but yes, essentially.

May be it's just me but it's starting to sound like there could be an intelligent mind of a theist underneath that cold, sarcastic, Nietzche loving exterior of yours .

 

[quatona]

Give me a break, Quatona.

Ok.

I'm describing variance as being random in nature.

So "random variance" was a tautology?
How exactly do you tell that something is random?

In a disordered system, the probability distribution of an event is uniform and variance is wide.

Basically agreed. However, such a statement requires a comparandum and an observer to compare the two.
1. When talking about the universe or everything there is no such comparandum.
2. As said before the determination of variance is a result of the criteria the observer applies. (If the observer is part of the system, the system is likely to appear ordered to him.

In an ordered system, variance tends to focus in on one more more possible outcomes. So as a system becomes more ordered, variance becomes less random and more predictable.

You seem to be talking about development here. Do you think the Universe has become more ordered or less ordered throughout the ages?

 

[Sojourner<><]

Ok.

So "random variance" was a tautology?

It was a little redundant. Who cares?

How exactly do you tell that something is random?

Through observation and measurement.

Basically agreed. However, such a statement requires a comparandum and an observer to compare the two.
1. When talking about the universe or everything there is no such comparandum.
2. As said before the determination of variance is a result of the criteria the observer applies. (If the observer is part of the system, the system is likely to appear ordered to him.

I disagree. An observer needs only to compare sytems within reality to see the differences between unordered, ordered, unintelligently ordered and intelligently ordered systems.

You seem to be talking about development here. Do you think the Universe has become more ordered or less ordered throughout the ages?

I have no idea, but in order to understand the difference between order and disorder, it helps to consider change within a system.

 

[quatona]

It was a little redundant. Who cares?

It was completely redundant, if I am to follow the definition that you gave later.
I care because I am trying to understand your line of thought.
I also was assuming that you cared for being understandable and understood.

Through observation and measurement.

Please explain.

I disagree. An observer needs only to compare sytems within reality to see the differences between unordered, ordered, unintelligently ordered and intelligently ordered systems.

Please expand on the method you are suggesting.
For example: Compare a guitar and an anthill in terms of order and the intelligence of this order.

Next step: Please explain to me - once we have such a method to compare the degree of order of systems within reality - how we can compare the system "reality" (the sum total of everything) itself to something. To what will we compare it,, and which method do we use?
And - isn´t calling something a "system" actually begging the question? Is not order the prerequisite for something to be considered a system?

I have no idea, but in order to understand the difference between order and disorder, it helps to consider change within a system.

Well, if you even feel unable to compare different states of the same system (in terms of degree of order) to each other - how the heck are you hoping to be able to make a general statement about the system (in terms of order), and by comparison to what?

 

[The Nihilist]

May be it's just me but it's starting to sound like there could be an intelligent mind of a theist underneath that cold, sarcastic, Nietzche loving exterior of yours .

It's just you.
Seriously, though, this is why I think it's nonsense to talk about whether the galaxy, for example, is ordered or chaotic.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Could you elaborate?

If patterns are what you wish to call order, then the video shows unplanned orders arising from simple harmonics. We could call these "spontaneous orders", an idea that applies to economies, ecosystems, and many other phenomena.

But, in my view, order is not about patterns, but is simply about non-contradiction, which cannot help but exist and doesn't require any sort of divine intervention. Any non-contradictory universe is orderly, and all possible universes are non-contradictory. Even a universe, such as ours, with quantum randomness is orderly, and open to reason.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Sojourner<><]

It was completely redundant, if I am to follow the definition that you gave later.
I care because I am trying to understand your line of thought.
I also was assuming that you cared for being understandable and understood.

Did you actually come back and modify your original statement here to ensure that it would be especially captious?

Please explain.

Here, you can debate with the dictionary.

According to Merriam-Webster.com:

Observation: "2 a : an act of recognizing and noting a fact or occurrence often involving measurement with instruments <weather observations> b : a record or description so obtained"

Please expand on the method you are suggesting.
For example: Compare a guitar and an anthill in terms of order and the intelligence of this order.

Next step: Please explain to me - once we have such a method to compare the degree of order of systems within reality - how we can compare the system "reality" (the sum total of everything) itself to something. To what will we compare it,, and which method do we use?
And - isn´t calling something a "system" actually begging the question? Is not order the prerequisite for something to be considered a system?

My line of logic is that if it can be determined that a system has some degree of order, then there must be some underlying cause(s) for that order to emerge. Whether or not there is an intelligence associated with that cause is main question.

I'm not sure if the level of that intelligence (if there is an intelligence that is responsible) can be quantified, but there may be ways around that. The Turing Test was first proposed to determine whether or not an AI truly possesses intelligence. I think it would be really interesting to see the results of a modified Turing Test if it were used to compare "natural" patterns with verified intelligenty created patterns.

Well, if you even feel unable to compare different states of the same system (in terms of degree of order) to each other - how the heck are you hoping to be able to make a general statement about the system (in terms of order), and by comparison to what?

I'm not, at this point, asserting anything about the whole of reality. I'm questioning and speculating about the nature of the whole based upon the nature of its parts.

 

[quatona]

Did you actually come back and modify your original statement here to ensure that it would be especially captious?[/quote
I am open to do this if it turns out to be necessary. What in particular about it do you think requires modification?

Here, you can debate with the dictionary.

I won´t debate with you nor the dictionary. Currently I am in the state of trying to understand your line of thoughts.

According to Merriam-Webster.com:

Observation: "2 a : an act of recognizing and noting a fact or occurrence often involving measurement with instruments <weather observations> b : a record or description so obtained"

I know what "observation" means.
I meant to ask about the methods and measurements that you are planning to use for determining whether the universe is chaos or order.

My line of logic is that if it can be determined that a system has some degree of order, then there must be some underlying cause(s) for that order to emerge. Whether or not there is an intelligence associated with that cause is main question.

I would agree with the assumption of cause and effect being observable for there to be order. I have no reason to assume that intelligence is necessary.

I'm not sure if the level of that intelligence (if there is an intelligence that is responsible) can be quantified, but there may be ways around that. The Turing Test was first proposed to determine whether or not an AI truly possesses intelligence. I think it would be really interesting to see the results of a modified Turing Test if it were used to compare "natural" patterns with verified intelligenty created patterns.

It has been shown that patterns emerge without any intelligence involved. Of course, if you assume there to be an intelligent creator of everything, this possibility is excluded right from the start, since everything could then be attributed to this hypothetical creator entity. Thus, I can´t think of a method to conclude from processes within the system on the system itself.

I'm not, at this point, asserting anything about the whole of reality. I'm questioning and speculating about the nature of the whole based upon the nature of its parts.

I wouldn´t know how to do that in a reliable, conclusive way that doesn´t beg the question. The determination of order an chaos are results of comparative observation of comparable objects and processes. I don´t see how there can be something that the universe can meaningfully be compared to.

 

[Sojourner<><]

I know what "observation" means.
I meant to ask about the methods and measurements that you are planning to use for determining whether the universe is chaos or order.

I'm not sure that I am planning to use any methods. I'm a student, not a researcher, yet. It appears to me though that researchers in many different fields have developed many different methods for studying patterns. For example economists have their supply and demand curves and statisticians study the correlations between sets of data, etc.

I would agree with the assumption of cause and effect being observable for there to be order. I have no reason to assume that intelligence is necessary.


It has been shown that patterns emerge without any intelligence involved.

In that case, those patterns must have emerged according to some set of governing rules. Has the emergence of those governing rules been observed and do we know that there was no intelligence involved?

Of course, if you assume there to be an intelligent creator of everything, this possibility is excluded right from the start, since everything could then be attributed to this hypothetical creator entity. Thus, I can´t think of a method to conclude from processes within the system on the system itself.

By that line of logic, if you assume that the ultimate source of everything is unintelligent, everything could be attributed to this hypothetical cause, and so it too should be excluded from the start.

I wouldn´t know how to do that in a reliable, conclusive way that doesn´t beg the question. The determination of order an chaos are results of comparative observation of comparable objects and processes. I don´t see how there can be something that the universe can meaningfully be compared to.

Can you see all of the Pacific at once? If not, is it unreasonable or fallacious to assume that the Pacific, as a whole, mostly consists of water? Is it necessary to compare the Pacific to the Atlantic in order to draw any conclusions about the Pacific as a whole?

Say a Turing Test is performed for a set of natural patterns and a set of intelligently created patterns. If a judge cannot distinguish between the two, then it only means that an intelligence could have been involved at some point of the formation of the natural set. That might not be conclusive, but it would raise te question of whether or not one intelligent mind is recognizing real evidence of another. How is that begging the question?

 

[Sojourner<><]

If patterns are what you wish to call order, then the video shows unplanned orders arising from simple harmonics. We could call these "spontaneous orders", an idea that applies to economies, ecosystems, and many other phenomena.

But, in my view, order is not about patterns, but is simply about non-contradiction, which cannot help but exist and doesn't require any sort of divine intervention. Any non-contradictory universe is orderly, and all possible universes are non-contradictory. Even a universe, such as ours, with quantum randomness is orderly, and open to reason.

That's an interesting view of order. Personally though I don't believe in true uncertainty. Reality has to be deterministic, even on the quantum level, otherwise it would be very contradictory. Randomness in my view is really just the unmanipulated, natural course of some event.

On a side note... I pulled an entertaining quote off of wikipedia on the law of contradiction:

"Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned." (Avicenna, Medieval Philosopher)

If you were to ask me if I am being beaten at this very moment, I could answer: Yes, to the degree that I am receiving zero blows. I could also say that when my wife comes home I expect to receive negative one blows in the form of a hug. So I have to wonder, is even contradiction relative?

 

[quatona]

I'm not sure that I am planning to use any methods. I'm a student, not a researcher, yet. It appears to me though that researchers in many different fields have developed many different methods for studying patterns. For example economists have their supply and demand curves and statisticians study the correlations between sets of data, etc.

Yes, sure. That happens within the frame of reference of the universe (or, mostly, even narrower frames of references) and with the opportunity to make relevant comparisons.
What you are proposing is unique in that
1. it tries to make such statements about something for which we have no comparandum,
2. it attempts to conclude from properties within the system on properties of the system itself.
I would expect you to have at least a rough idea as to what means and methods could be used for this unique purpose. I can´t think of any, but I am willing to learn.

We observe patterns within the universe. That much is for sure.

(1)In that case, those patterns must have emerged according to some set of governing rules.
(2) Has the emergence of those governing rules been observed
(3) and do we know that there was no intelligence involved?

1. agreed, although "rules" seems to be sufficient, and "governing" is redundant - especially since it can have connotations that smell of begging the question.
2. I don´t think so. Then again, I don´t know that the emergence of natural laws or principles has ever been observed. And I am not even sure that they need to have emerged.
3. No, we don´t know that.

By that line of logic, if you assume that the ultimate source of everything is unintelligent, everything could be attributed to this hypothetical cause, and so it too should be excluded from the start.

Sure, exactly my point. That´s the problem with what you are trying to investigate. Either way, you will end up in circularity.
Btw., that there needs to be an ultimate source of everything hasn´t yet been established in our discussion.

Can you see all of the Pacific at once? If not, is it unreasonable or fallacious to assume that the Pacific, as a whole, mostly consists of water? Is it necessary to compare the Pacific to the Atlantic in order to draw any conclusions about the Pacific as a whole?

False analogy. What you are attempting is not concluding from a part on the whole, but concluding from properties within the system on properties of the system itself. E.g. you can not conclude that because everything you observe within the Pacific is sorrounded by water therefore the Pacific is surrounded by water.

Concluding from a part on the whole is not that much of an issue. We observe patterns in parts of the universe, and whenever we extended our reach we observed patterns, too. So I agree in that it is safe to assume that we will observe patterns everywhere in the universe.

Say a Turing Test is performed for a set of natural patterns and a set of intelligently created patterns. If a judge cannot distinguish between the two, then it only means that an intelligence could have been involved at some point of the formation of the natural set. That might not be conclusive, but it would raise te question of whether or not one intelligent mind is recognizing real evidence of another. How is that begging the question?

So far it is not begging any question. Then again, I wasn´t aware that the conclusion that a an intellgence could have been involved was your purpose. I wasn´t even aware that anybody has postulated that intelligence could not have been involved.
I wouldn´t find that result surprising. Actually, I would be highly surprised if it would turn out that the involvement of intelligence could be conclusively excluded.

On the other hand (and once we are concluding from within the system on the system itself - which I actually think is not a good idea) we haven´t observed any intelligence that was not dependent on physicality. We observe intelligence being produced by physical entities, but nowhere within the universe do we observe physical existence being produced from non-physical intelligence.

 

[Eudaimonist]

That's an interesting view of order. Personally though I don't believe in true uncertainty. Reality has to be deterministic, even on the quantum level, otherwise it would be very contradictory.

I don't see why it would be contradictory.

"Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned." (Avicenna, Medieval Philosopher)

He's right.

If you were to ask me if I am being beaten at this very moment, I could answer: Yes, to the degree that I am receiving zero blows.

Avicenna! We have another patient for you!

Seriously, though, receiving "zero blows" is precisely what it means not to be beaten at all. Creating numerical measurement systems isn't going to resolve the contradiction.


eudaimonia,

Mark