Consiousness and Order

[Quiddity]

This is something I have been pondering for some time now and do not know if this is new or if I am just repeating an old parallel. But here goes. Bare with me.


In a world that is magnificent and full of incredible detail how do we fit in the human conscious with everything else? What I mean by this is everything (that I can think of at least) wants to move toward order (animals, plants, organisms, societies, etc) and away from disorder. Granted that things do die and are in a disordered state at some point. But my point is that everything WANTS TO move towards order. The fact that hydrogen bonds to oxygen is a WANT of nature. The fact a tree will repair itself if you take an ax and take a whack at it shows that it wants to maintain internal order and not die. Millions of examples can be given but I hope everyone got the gist of what I’m saying. What does this have to do with the human conscious? Be patient, its coming.


Not only do things move toward order but there is a fulfillment/solution of that want. What is the fulfillment of a hydrogen? The fact that it can bond to something else is the
fulfillment/solution. At every level of matter you can see a solution/fulfillment. You can’t be thirsty without water existing. And water does exist.


So things move toward order and have some sort of solution to it. It seems to me (unless someone shows me otherwise) that the human conscious is immune to this. There is no doubt that it tries to move towards order (look at world societies/governments). But where exactly is the solution from a religious or non-religious aspect.


Let me know your thoughts.



~Victor

 

[Pah]

I'm not sure, Victor, what you mean by "order". But I would decribe chemicals as having properties. Isotopes, though not chaos, do not really reflect order in elements..

 

[Quiddity]

I'm not sure, Victor, what you mean by "order". But I would decribe chemicals as having properties. Isotopes, though not chaos, do not really reflect order in elements..

I'm glad you caught that cause I can see people asking that or misunderstanding what I meant.

Order - arranged so to make preparations for some type of purpose.

As an analogy I see the human conciousness as a blue marble in a sea of red marbles. The red marbles can blue and red. But the blue marble stays blue. It is rather odd to me that the human conciousness would not have sort of solution to it. It can never turn red because there is nothing to bind it.

Hope this clarifies things.

~Victor

 

[Pah]

Sorry to say, your analogy confused me even more. I would also suggest that purpose is not a property of order. Order seems to me to be a final or beginning state of "whatever".

 

[Mr Spinkles]

What I mean by this is everything (that I can think of at least) wants to move toward order (animals, plants, organisms, societies, etc) and away from disorder.

Actually, the exact opposite is true. The second law of thermodynamics--which is well supported by years of experimentation--holds that all isolated systems tend to move toward disorder. The reason animals, plants, organisms, and societies become highly ordered is because they are not isolated systems--in other words, outside forces act on them, or energy flows through them. The universe as a whole, however, is an isolated system, and so the only way highly ordered systems like animals, plants, etc. can exist within it is if they increase the disorder of the universe as a whole. Organisms do, in fact, fulfill this role: they absorb the highly ordered energy of the Sun and convert it into more disordered forms of energy (thermal energy, waste chemicals, etc). In computer simulations with lots of small balls and a few big balls bouncing around, the small balls tend to "herd" the large balls into a corner....the corner is thus highly ordered, but this frees up space for the small balls to move around, so the overall disorder of the system is at a maximum.

Why to things tend toward disorder? Simple: disorder is a more probable state than order. So, in effect, ordered systems like organisms are really the consequence of the universe moving to a more probable (disordered) state, not the consequence of anything trying to be more ordered.

 

[mr.guy]

It seems to me (unless someone shows me otherwise) that the human conscious is immune to this. There is no doubt that it tries to move towards order (look at world societies/governments). But where exactly is the solution from a religious or non-religious aspect.

Some neurologists might point to brain damage as an increase in disordered consciousness.

 

[Quiddity]

Actually, the exact opposite is true. The second law of thermodynamics--which is well supported by years of experimentation--holds that all isolated systems tend to move toward disorder.

MS, I know things move toward disorder. I noted that when I said "Granted that things do die" in my first post. My point was that they dont want to move in that direction. Thats why I said WANT. Your stance the same?

~Victor

 

[mr.guy]

I noted that when I said "Granted that things do die" in my first post. My point was that they dont want to move in that direction. Thats why I said WANT. Your stance the same?

It's hard to apply the hydrogen analogy to "want". We could say with most other elements that general valence electron configuration will almost always "want" a polorized element to itself, but this leaves hydrogen as a thoroughly confused particle. How do we assign desire in this premace to an element that is frequently found as a lone proton and not uncommonly as hydronium?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

My point was that they dont want to move in that direction. Thats why I said WANT. Your stance the same?

No. If atoms "want" anything, it is to adopt the most probable state--a disordered one. It takes outside forces acting on a system to compel it to do anything different. Left by themselves, all systems "want" to get more disordered.

 

[JerryL]

Actually, the exact opposite is true. The second law of thermodynamics--which is well supported by years of experimentation--holds that all isolated systems tend to move toward disorder.

No it doesn't.

Let me repeat that, because it bears repeating

The second law of thermodynamics does *not* involve order/disorder; that's an equivocation fallacy.

What the second law of thermodynamics does discuss is the movement and concentration of heat. In a closed system, you can have no process by which the sole effect is the movement of heat from an area of lower concentration to an area of higher concentration. This dispersion of heat is referred to occasionally as entropy. Unfortunately, the entropy is also synomious with "disorder" and the law is often equivocated.

If you would like to see an example of something becomeing more orderly, put cooking oil and water in a jar and shake it up... look at the mix. Leave it for a few days and come back. Amazingly, they have "ordered themselves".

 

[JerryL]

From a FAQ I wrote a few years back:


What is Thermodynamics? Thermodynamics is a field of science interested in studying the movement (dynamic) of heat (thermos).

Why do I hear so much about it? Thermodynamics is important because it describes the movement of energy.

What does Thermodynamics say? Thermodynamics says a lot, but most discussions here focus on the first two "laws of thermodynamics".

1. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed.
2. In a closed system, you can have no process from which the sole result is the movement of heat from an area of low concentration to an area of high concentration.

These are commonly referred to as "the law of conservation" and "the law of entropy".

I keep hearing about entropy and evolution and disorder, what is that about? When thermodynamics's second law started being applied to more forms of energy than heat, a convention came into use. This convention used the term "entropy" to describe the distribution of energy within a system. Functionally the more entropy a system has, the more evenly distributed the energy within the system is.

I don't understand, what does that have to do with order? Pretty much nothing. The problem is that the word "entropy" occurs in English with other, similar uses. One synonym (though not correct in the context of thermodynamics) for entropy is "chaos", and a synonym for that is "disorder". In a feat of equivocation, certain groups have been arguing that the second law prohibits any order from forming because A. they falsely equate entropy with disorder; and B. they forget that local entropy can decrease as long as overall entropy increases.

Local? Overall? Huh? Basic concept of entropy: if I have a hot rock in a cold room, the heat will bleed off the box until they are the same temperature... This is an increase in entropy (dispersion of energy). What cannot happen is the rock bleeding off energy until it becomes colder than the room it's in; that would be a reduction in entropy. But, this only works within a "closed system". It is perfectly possible (for example) for the box to be a refrigerator and for it to cool itself off (internally) (decreasing entropy within the fridge). The payoff is that to do so requires the use of energy and that creates waste (law 3) in the form of heat... were this heat forced to remain with the fridge, it would result in the increase in the overall temperature of the fridge (an increase in entropy)... But what a refrigerator does is bleed that heat out into the room. The room and fridge together have more entropy now (more heat has been added to the room than was removed in the fridge), but the fridge itself has reduced entropy.

OK, that was a little confusing... Are these laws always true? It was thought so, but modern information is showing options we had not considered, it appears that these laws may be violated under certain circumstances.

 

[Quiddity]

No. If atoms "want" anything, it is to adopt the most probable state--a disordered one. It takes outside forces acting on a system to compel it to do anything different. Left by themselves, all systems "want" to get more disordered.

Ok MS, that is still a want. The want within (atoms) or from the outside (outside forces). Either way the WANT is still there. Things that are in a disordered state are things that either die off or it moves toward some order. Once it reaches order and some form of function; disorder is it's only destiny. Unless of course it continues to duplicate itself without error. That would be leaning toward being god-like.

So here is what I got so far:
1. Things move toward order and once it reaches some order it moves toward disorder (hence things die)
2. The want of moving toward order can be seen with the simple fact that energy moves things to bond and assemble.
3. The fulfillment of that want is simply that energy exist.

So how this applies to the human consciousness is that a want and fulfillment can be found in every aspect of the cosmos that has energy. Everybody has wants and everybody fulfills them in some way or another. I am not only speaking of objective needs like water, food, etc. but subjective wants like morality. This leads me into my final conclusion that morality seems to be the ONLY thing (that I can think of) that does not have a true solution/fulfillment. At least from a human race and atheistic perspective I can't see it. I hope I was clear.

Thoughts?

~Victor

 

[michel]

Ok MS, that is still a want. The want within (atoms) from the outside (outside forces). Wither way the WANT is still there. Things that are in a disordered state are things that either die off or it moves toward some order. Once it reaches order and function disorder is it's only destiny. Unless of course it continues to duplicate itself without error. That would be leaning toward being god-like.

So here is what I got so far:
1. Things move toward order and once it reaches some order it moves toward disorder (hence things die)
2. The want of moving toward order can be seen with the simple fact that energy moves things to bond and assemble.
3. The fulfillment of that want is simply that energy exist.

So how this applies to the human consciousness is that a want and fulfillment can be found in every aspect of the cosmos that has energy. Everybody has wants and everybody fulfills them in some way or another. I am not only speaking of objective needs like water, food, etc. but subjective wants like morality. This leads me into my final conclusion that morality seems to be the ONLY thing (that I can think of) that does not have a true solution/fulfillment. At least from a human race and atheistic perspective I can't see it. I hope I was clear.

Thoughts?

~Victor

3. The fulfillment of that want is simply that energy exist

Energy (unless someone tells me differently), is a constant. It will be turned from one type of energy to another depending on the reaction on it's environs.

Everybody has wants and everybody fulfills them in some way or another. I am not only speaking of objective needs like water, food, etc. but subjective wants like morality.

Fulfill needs as regards morality ? - I think most everyone would love to see a world where there is only peace; but in the way they deem that peace should beachieved. I doubt that you could find a group of people who are 100% agreed in a comon moral code..... Having said that, it sounds like your next comment actually comfirms what I have just said - so I guess I agree with you.

 

[Quiddity]

Energy (unless someone tells me differently), is a constant. It will be turned from one type of energy to another depending on the reaction on it's environs.

Just means there is a greater want. Unless I misunderstood you. Please advise.

Fulfill needs as regards morality ? - I think most everyone would love to see a world where there is only peace; but in the way they deem that peace should beachieved. I doubt that you could find a group of people who are 100% agreed in a comon moral code..... Having said that, it sounds like your next comment actually comfirms what I have just said - so I guess I agree with you.

lol...thats right. You, me, and many others try to find a solution but we fall short because we can't agree. That is hardly a solution and is what causes lots of problems. So why no solution when everything else does?
I am not saying that we should agree on absolutely everything (that would be boring). But I think it's crucial that we come to agree in morality and anything outside of that is freedoms we can all enjoy.

~Victor

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

ENTROPY...The tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity.

The Universe is slowly winding down ...You might call this ordered...Dead certainly.



Terry_______________________-
Blessed are the gentle, they shall inherit the land

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No it doesn't.

Let me repeat that, because it bears repeating

The second law of thermodynamics does *not* involve order/disorder; that's an equivocation fallacy.

What the second law of thermodynamics does discuss is the movement and concentration of heat. In a closed system, you can have no process by which the sole effect is the movement of heat from an area of lower concentration to an area of higher concentration. This dispersion of heat is referred to occasionally as entropy. Unfortunately, the entropy is also synomious with "disorder" and the law is often equivocated.

According to Physics for Scientists and Engineers: A Strategic Appraoch by Randall Knight,

Scientists and engineers use a state variable called entropy to measure the probability that a macroscopic state will occur.
. . .
The fact that macroscopic systems evolve irreversibly toward equilibrium is a . . . law of physics, one known as the second law of thermodynamics.
. . .
The second law of thermodynamics tells us that an isolated system evolves such that

• Order turns into disorder and randomness
• Information is lost rather than gained
• The system "runs down"

An isolated system never spontaneously generates order out of randomness. It is not that the system "knows" about order and randomness, but rather than there are vastly more states corresponding to randomness than there are corresponding to order.

According to wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

In thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, the thermodynamic entropy (or simply the entropy) S is a measure of the internal disorder present in a system at thermodynamic equilibrium; or, equivalently, the number of possible internal configurations available to the system.

. . .

The concept of entropy was originally introduced in 1865 by Rudolf Clausius, in the context of classical thermodynamics. In 1877, Ludwig Boltzmann formulated an alternative definition of entropy as a measure of disorder, which is now regarded as one of the basic postulates of the theory of statistical mechanics. The closely-related concept of information entropy, used in information theory, was introduced by Claude Shannon in 1948.

. . .

In Boltzmann's definition, entropy is a measure of the number of possible microscopic states (or microstates) of a system in thermodynamic equilibrium, consistent with its macroscopic thermodynamic properties (or macrostate).

. . .

We are now ready to provide a definition of entropy. Let Ω be the number of microstates consistent with the given macrostate. The entropy S is defined as

. . .

Disorder and the second law of thermodynamics

We can view Ω as a measure of the disorder in a system. This is reasonable because what we think of as "ordered" systems tend to have very few configurational possibilities, and "disordered" systems have very many.

. . .

This is an illustration of a principle that we will prove rigorously in a subsequent section, known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that

The total entropy of an isolated system can never decrease. Since its discovery, the idea that disorder tends to increase has been the focus of a great deal of thought, some of it confused. A chief point of confusion is the fact that the Second Law applies only to isolated systems. For example, the Earth is not an isolated system because it is constantly receiving energy in the form of sunlight. Nevertheless, it has been pointed out that the universe may be considered an isolated system, so that its total disorder should be constantly increasing.

If you would like to see an example of something becomeing more orderly, put cooking oil and water in a jar and shake it up... look at the mix. Leave it for a few days and come back. Amazingly, they have "ordered themselves".

I did not say systems cannot become more orderly, I said isolated systems cannot become more orderly. The system you described is not isolated from its environment.

In a closed system, you can have no process from which the sole result is the movement of heat from an area of low concentration to an area of high concentration.

The total energy of an isolated system can never decrease. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy


In physics, the second law of thermodynamics, in its many forms, is a statement about the quality and direction of energy flow, and it is closely related to the concept of entropy. This law and its derivatives, such as the law of friction, define the arrow of time: most other physical laws are time-reversal invariant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

The entropy of an isolated system never decreases.

In a feat of equivocation, certain groups have been arguing that the second law prohibits any order from forming because A. they falsely equate entropy with disorder;

Boltzman's definition of entropy appears to be the conventional one, which is (by definition) a measure of disorder.

and B. they forget that local entropy can decrease as long as overall entropy increases.

No, they don't forget that. This is simply a straw man argument. Both myself, wikipedia, and my physics textbook clearly state that entropy must increase only for isolated systems.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

This is an increase in entropy (dispersion of energy). What cannot happen is the rock bleeding off energy until it becomes colder than the room it's in; that would be a reduction in entropy. But, this only works within a "closed system". It is perfectly possible (for example) for the box to be a refrigerator and for it to cool itself off (internally) (decreasing entropy within the fridge).

Exactly as I said. The entropy of an isolated system never decreases.

 

[JerryL]

According to Physics for Scientists and Engineers: A Strategic Appraoch by Randall Knight,

http://secondlaw.com/two.html "Energy spontaneously tends to flow only from being concentrated in one place to becoming diffused or dispersed and spread out. "

According to wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

And the equivocation moves to "order" Look how the Wikipedia uses it in practice:

However, the entropy can only be a constant if the system is in the highest possible state of disorder, such as a gas that always was, and always will be, uniformly spread out in its container.​

So "disordered" is "evenly and uniformly dispersed in its container". The is quite the opposite of the layman use of "disordered", and why it's an equivocation.

I did not say systems cannot become more orderly, I said isolated systems cannot become more orderly. The system you described is not isolated from its environment.

Hypothetically do so. Create a universe that exists of nothing but a giant mass og water and oil. Assume, because freezing screws things up, that at full entropy the universe's temperature is above the freezing point of water? What will the eventual result be? A sphere with water at it's core and an even layer of oil above it.

The problem that you are having is that you are defining "order" and "disorder" backwards from the way it's used in thermodynamics... which is why I refer to it as an equivocation fallacy; you are not using the correct meanings.

To make another analogy, take an aptmosphere with a high-pressure zone and a low pressure zone and all the air swirling around chaotically... This would be *more* orderly (less entropy) than one where all the air was still and uniform. That's exactly the Wikipedia example... and it's exactly my example with water an oil.

BTW, your response to my oil-water example is how I know that you are using "disorder" backwards. The seperated oil and water is, per thermodynamics, more disordered than the mix

Boltzman's definition of entropy appears to be the conventional one, which is (by definition) a measure of disorder.

Disorder, in this case, meaning the opposite of what you think it means.

No, they don't forget that. This is simply a straw man argument. Both myself, wikipedia, and my physics textbook clearly state that entropy must increase only for isolated systems.

And what statement of your physics book's was I responding to? At best your retory moves the equivocation one step farther, it's not "entropy" but "order" that's being misused.

Let me give you an example. The following numbers represent temperatures or pressures or most anything else you like at various sensors within a conatiner. Let's see which one you think is more ordered.

A - More Orderly: 1,5,3,2,7,6,4,3,8,9
B - Less Orderly (disordered): 2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2

The second one is a higher state of entropy: "A" is more orderly than "B". Again, this is the *opposite* of how "order" is understood in a lay-application... and what my previous post attempts to address.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

And the equivocation moves to "order" Look how the Wikipedia uses it in practice:

However, the entropy can only be a constant if the system is in the highest possible state of disorder, such as a gas that always was, and always will be, uniformly spread out in its container.​

So "disordered" is "evenly and uniformly dispersed in its container". The is quite the opposite of the layman use of "disordered", and why it's an equivocation.

I'm sorry, Jerry, but you are once again reverting to a straw man argument. I'm unsure as to what "layman use" of the word 'disordered' would qualify gas molecules clumped in one area of a container "disordered" and gas molecules spread out within a container "ordered". I would think that even laymen would hold the opposite to be true. In any case, that is not how I think of the word, so here you're simply putting words in my mouth.

Hypothetically do so. Create a universe that exists of nothing but a giant mass og water and oil. Assume, because freezing screws things up, that at full entropy the universe's temperature is above the freezing point of water? What will the eventual result be? A sphere with water at it's core and an even layer of oil above it.

Oh okay, I see what you're saying. This sounds like the example I referred to earlier with the computer simulation: lots of small balls "herd" a few big balls into a corner....the overall "disorder" of this system is, in fact, maximized because the small balls have more room to fly around randomly.

The problem that you are having is that you are defining "order" and "disorder" backwards from the way it's used in thermodynamics... which is why I refer to it as an equivocation fallacy; you are not using the correct meanings.

To make another analogy, take an aptmosphere with a high-pressure zone and a low pressure zone and all the air swirling around chaotically... This would be *more* orderly (less entropy) than one where all the air was still and uniform. That's exactly the Wikipedia example... and it's exactly my example with water an oil.

I'm sorry, I don't see what you're trying to say here.

BTW, your response to my oil-water example is how I know that you are using "disorder" backwards. The seperated oil and water is, per thermodynamics, more disordered than the mix

My response to the oil-water example was based on ignorance of how the process works (e.g. I didn't know if heat was exhausted from the system or not). You have said here that the seperated oil and water is more disordered than the mix, so it sounds to me analogous to the example I've provided a number of times in which (in a computer simulation) small balls "herd" large balls into a corner. The increased randomness due to the small balls having more space to fly around randomly is greater than the increased order due to having the large balls pushed into a corner, thus the total disorder of the system is maximized. The same principles must be true in the oil-water system.

Disorder, in this case, meaning the opposite of what you think it means.

Nope, disorder means precisely what I think it does. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that isolated systems tend toward disorder. The system of seperated oil and water is more disordered than the mix. I don't understand what the problem is.

And what statement of your physics book's was I responding to? At best your retory moves the equivocation one step farther, it's not "entropy" but "order" that's being misused.

I quoted my physics book because it's a more authoritative source on physics than I am, and because it clearly supports what I'm saying. If anyone has misused the word "order", it is you: you are the one who suggested (near the beginning of your last post) that the "layman use" would designate spread-out molecules of gas as 'ordered' and, by extension, a container of gas in which all the molecules are clumped together right in the middle 'disordered'. I think even most lay people would consider the opposite to be true.

Let me give you an example. The following numbers represent temperatures or pressures or most anything else you like at various sensors within a conatiner. Let's see which one you think is more ordered.

A - More Orderly: 1,5,3,2,7,6,4,3,8,9
B - Less Orderly (disordered): 2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2

The second one is a higher state of entropy: "A" is more orderly than "B". Again, this is the *opposite* of how "order" is understood in a lay-application...

It doesnt' matter: that is *not* how I understand "order". In fact, I think that even most laypeople would think of a uniform container as less ordered than one in which molecules are bunched up in one area, or where the temperature is higher in one area but lower than another area, etc. (just as most laypeople would consider blocks randomly thrown around the room as less ordered than blocks piled up in stacks at certain places in the room). In any case, it matter not what other people think: my understanding of "order" is that A is more ordered than B, as you say. Thus, your argument is reduced to a strawman, and much of your FAQ incorrect.

 

[Quiddity]

Some day we can get back to what I have been pondering and whether my conclusions are flawed.
This is turning into an entropy debate. Related, but you can spend a whole thread on that alone. With a little sprinkle dust I will bring the topic back to order....poof....oh wait that was a fart. :banghead3

~Victor