• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is the universe chaotic?

paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
What does the science say about it?
Please quote from a text book of science and or from a peer reviewed article in a reputed journal of science in support of your opinion.
Regards
 
Ouroboros

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
The expansion at the moment of Big Bang was chaotic: http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2010/09/universe-chaotic-from-beginning.html

It is very anisotropic up to the level of superclusters, walls, filaments, and such, but beyond that it becomes more and more isotropic. My understanding is that the background radiation is also extremely isotropic (a form of order).

But... I can't say for sure either way. Personally, I time, space, life, all comes from an interaction between chaos and order.

An interesting thing is that the word "Cosmos" is the Greek word for "order", and the Greek used it as the opposite to chaos. Chaos v Cosmos. Disorder v Order.
 
LegionOnomaMoi

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
paarsurrey said:
What does the science say about it?
Click to expand...
On the complexity of "simple" solids:
"The most fundamental question that one might be expected to answer is "why are there solids?"; That is, if we were given a large number of atoms of copper, why should they form themselves into the regular array that we know as a crystal of metallic copper?
We are ill-equipped to answer these questions in any other than a qualitative way, for they demand the solution of the many-body problem in one of its most difficult forms. We should have to consider the interactions between large numbers of identical copper nuclei-identical, that is, if we were fortunate enough to have an isotopically pure specimen- and even larger numbers of electrons. We should be able to omit neither the spins of the electrons nor the electric quadrupole moments of the nuclei. Provided we treated the problem with the methods of relativistic quantum mechanics, we could hope that the solution we obtained would be a good picture of the physical reality, and that we should then be able to predict all the properties of copper.
But, of course, such a task is impossible. Methods have not yet been developed that can find even the lowest-lying exact energy level of such a complex system. The best that we can do at present is to guess at the form the states will take, and then to try and calculate their energy."
Taylor, P. L., & Heinonen, O. (2002). A quantum approach to condensed matter physics. Cambridge University Press.

On the complexity of brains & biology:
"In biological and cognitive systems, finally, myriad closed causal loops and networks with positive feedback obscure the relationships between cause and effect, leading both to the emergence of new dynamic entities with unanticipated properties and to chaotic interactions among them"
Scott, A. (2006). Physicalism, Reductionism, and Chaos. In J. A. Tuszynski (Ed.) The Emerging Physics of Consciousness (pp. 171-191). Springer.

On the chaotic behavior of "simple" 1-dimensional systems like the pendulum:
"No analytical method is known for constructing the exact solution of this problem."
Greenspan, D. (2004). N-Body Problems and Models. World Scientific
(see also The Chaotic Pendulum)

For chaos in chemistry, see e.g.
Argoul, F., Arneodo, A., Richetti, P., Roux, J. C., & Swinney, H. L. (1987). Chemical chaos: from hints to confirmation. Accounts of Chemical Research, 20(12), 436-442.

On chaos in astrophysics:
"The three-body problem arises in many different contexts in nature. This book deals with the classical three-body problem, the problem of motion of three celestial bodies under their mutual gravitational attraction...
At the suggestion of leading scientists, the King of Sweden Oscar II established a prize for the solution of the general three-body problem...Nobody was able to claim the prize for many years and finally it was awarded in 1889 to Poincar´e who was thought to have made the most progress...
Now that the orbits can be calculated quickly by computer, it is quite obvious why this line of research could not lead to a real solution of the three-body problem: the orbits are good examples of chaos in nature, and deterministic series expansions are utterly unsuitable for their description."
(emphasis added)
Valtonen, M., & Karttunen, H. (2005). The Three-Body Problem. Cambridge University Press.


Chaos Everywhere:
"One of the major concepts central to the deeper understanding of contemporary Physics is the concept of chaos. It would not be an exaggeration to say that chaos is everywhere in Physics." (emphasis added)
Bolotin, Y., Tur, A., & Yanovsky, V. (2009). Chaos: Concepts, Control and Constructive use (Understanding Complex Systems). Springer.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
LegionOnomaMoi said:
On the complexity of "simple" solids:
"The most fundamental question that one might be expected to answer is "why are there solids?"; That is, if we were given a large number of atoms of copper, why should they form themselves into the regular array that we know as a crystal of metallic copper?
We are ill-equipped to answer these questions in any other than a qualitative way, for they demand the solution of the many-body problem in one of its most difficult forms. We should have to consider the interactions between large numbers of identical copper nuclei-identical, that is, if we were fortunate enough to have an isotopically pure specimen- and even larger numbers of electrons. We should be able to omit neither the spins of the electrons nor the electric quadrupole moments of the nuclei. Provided we treated the problem with the methods of relativistic quantum mechanics, we could hope that the solution we obtained would be a good picture of the physical reality, and that we should then be able to predict all the properties of copper.
But, of course, such a task is impossible. Methods have not yet been developed that can find even the lowest-lying exact energy level of such a complex system. The best that we can do at present is to guess at the form the states will take, and then to try and calculate their energy."
Taylor, P. L., & Heinonen, O. (2002). A quantum approach to condensed matter physics. Cambridge University Press.

On the complexity of brains & biology:
"In biological and cognitive systems, finally, myriad closed causal loops and networks with positive feedback obscure the relationships between cause and effect, leading both to the emergence of new dynamic entities with unanticipated properties and to chaotic interactions among them"
Scott, A. (2006). Physicalism, Reductionism, and Chaos. In J. A. Tuszynski (Ed.) The Emerging Physics of Consciousness (pp. 171-191). Springer.

On the chaotic behavior of "simple" 1-dimensional systems like the pendulum:
"No analytical method is known for constructing the exact solution of this problem."
Greenspan, D. (2004). N-Body Problems and Models. World Scientific
(see also The Chaotic Pendulum)

For chaos in chemistry, see e.g.
Argoul, F., Arneodo, A., Richetti, P., Roux, J. C., & Swinney, H. L. (1987). Chemical chaos: from hints to confirmation. Accounts of Chemical Research, 20(12), 436-442.

On chaos in astrophysics:
"The three-body problem arises in many different contexts in nature. This book deals with the classical three-body problem, the problem of motion of three celestial bodies under their mutual gravitational attraction...
At the suggestion of leading scientists, the King of Sweden Oscar II established a prize for the solution of the general three-body problem...Nobody was able to claim the prize for many years and finally it was awarded in 1889 to Poincar´e who was thought to have made the most progress...
Now that the orbits can be calculated quickly by computer, it is quite obvious why this line of research could not lead to a real solution of the three-body problem: the orbits are good examples of chaos in nature, and deterministic series expansions are utterly unsuitable for their description."
(emphasis added)
Valtonen, M., & Karttunen, H. (2005). The Three-Body Problem. Cambridge University Press.


Chaos Everywhere:
"One of the major concepts central to the deeper understanding of contemporary Physics is the concept of chaos. It would not be an exaggeration to say that chaos is everywhere in Physics." (emphasis added)
Bolotin, Y., Tur, A., & Yanovsky, V. (2009). Chaos: Concepts, Control and Constructive use (Understanding Complex Systems). Springer.
Click to expand...
To expand upon this with an example.....
After many billions of years of chaotic interaction between energy, matter
& other stuff, we find the emergent property of life which enjoys bacon.
Who knows what future delights await?
 
psychoslice

psychoslice

Veteran Member
What seems chaotic to our little minds is far more than we could ever imagine, nothing in the universe is truly chaotic, everything is in harmony, under the laws of nature, no god needed, for that would only get in the way.
 
LegionOnomaMoi

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
psychoslice said:
What seems chaotic to our little minds is far more than we could ever imagine, nothing in the universe is truly chaotic
Click to expand...
The problem here is that the concept "chaotic" is one that has emerged from our "little minds". In other words, to say that "nothing in he universe is truly chaotic" is a bit like saying "the way we conceive of certain things in the universe isn't how we conceive of them". Chaotic is a descriptor. We apply it to processes that actually occur. True, we apply it differently depending on background and context, and it is also true that said applications of the term may conceal deeper truths that are not readily discovered using the methods of the sciences (I grant this possibility whilst disagreeing with it). But the point of fact is that WE define what it means to be chaotic, and under that definition most of the universe is, indeed, chaotic.

everything is in harmony, under the laws of nature
Click to expand...
1) Nature is fundamentally opposed to nature (or rather, the laws of nature are rather fundamentally opposed to the kind of conception of nature you seem to subscribe to).. Evolution proceeds by competition (usually violent competition, so violent that almost every species that has ever lived is no extinct, and the primary mechanism for evolution is "survival of the fittest").
2) Nature arguably is not governed by laws (see e.g., Are there laws of physics?). Quantum physics has shown that the "fundamental" processes governing natural processes are probabilistic, whilst relativistic physics has shown that even so fundamental a concept as "time" is problematic at best ("now" is relative in a way that fundamentally challenges classical models of causality).
3) Nature, like all complex systems, cannot exist in "harmony". Everything from cellular biology to solar orbits is possible only via disharmony. The term used in thermodynamics is "far from thermodynamics equilibrium". "Harmony" is death, stagnation, and an utter lack of motion or activity. The "laws of nature" dictate that everything everywhere should come to rest and stay at rest. The entirety of the cosmos and life are at odds with any such laws, although there are no "laws" that can explain why this is so.
 
psychoslice

psychoslice

Veteran Member
LegionOnomaMoi said:
The problem here is that the concept "chaotic" is one that has emerged from our "little minds". In other words, to say that "nothing in he universe is truly chaotic" is a bit like saying "the way we conceive of certain things in the universe isn't how we conceive of them". Chaotic is a descriptor. We apply it to processes that actually occur. True, we apply it differently depending on background and context, and it is also true that said applications of the term may conceal deeper truths that are not readily discovered using the methods of the sciences (I grant this possibility whilst disagreeing with it). But the point of fact is that WE define what it means to be chaotic, and under that definition most of the universe is, indeed, chaotic.


1) Nature is fundamentally opposed to nature (or rather, the laws of nature are rather fundamentally opposed to the kind of conception of nature you seem to subscribe to).. Evolution proceeds by competition (usually violent competition, so violent that almost every species that has ever lived is no extinct, and the primary mechanism for evolution is "survival of the fittest").
2) Nature arguably is not governed by laws (see e.g., Are there laws of physics?). Quantum physics has shown that the "fundamental" processes governing natural processes are probabilistic, whilst relativistic physics has shown that even so fundamental a concept as "time" is problematic at best ("now" is relative in a way that fundamentally challenges classical models of causality).
3) Nature, like all complex systems, cannot exist in "harmony". Everything from cellular biology to solar orbits is possible only via disharmony. The term used in thermodynamics is "far from thermodynamics equilibrium". "Harmony" is death, stagnation, and an utter lack of motion or activity. The "laws of nature" dictate that everything everywhere should come to rest and stay at rest. The entirety of the cosmos and life are at odds with any such laws, although there are no "laws" that can explain why this is so.
Click to expand...
Most of the universe does seem chaotic, but in the bigger picture its not, its only when we take a frame of what we call chaotic that it seems chaotic, and in some way it is chaotic within the frame.
 
LegionOnomaMoi

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
psychoslice said:
Most of the universe does seem chaotic, but in the bigger picture its not, its only when we take a frame of what we call chaotic that it seems chaotic, and in some way it is chaotic within the frame.
Click to expand...
What is the difference between seeming to be chaotic and being chaotic? That is, if a system exhibits chaotic behavior ("seems chaotic"), it is necessarily chaotic because the term "chaotic" (or complex, or dynamical, or nonlinear, or whatever) applies to the behavior of a system and the behavior of a system is what characterizes it. So if most systems appear chaotic (i.e., exhibit chaotic dynamics), that means they are in fact chaotic, because chaotic systems are those that exhibit chaotic behavior. But you seem to be distinguishing between the appearance of chaotic behavior in systems and the characterization of a system as "chaotic", and I don't understand how you are making this distinction. Thanks
 
psychoslice

psychoslice

Veteran Member
LegionOnomaMoi said:
What is the difference between seeming to be chaotic and being chaotic? That is, if a system exhibits chaotic behavior ("seems chaotic"), it is necessarily chaotic because the term "chaotic" (or complex, or dynamical, or nonlinear, or whatever) applies to the behavior of a system and the behavior of a system is what characterizes it. So if most systems appear chaotic (i.e., exhibit chaotic dynamics), that means they are in fact chaotic, because chaotic systems are those that exhibit chaotic behavior. But you seem to be distinguishing between the appearance of chaotic behavior in systems and the characterization of a system as "chaotic", and I don't understand how you are making this distinction. Thanks
Click to expand...
I suppose what I am trying to say is that there is order and harmony behind all in the cosmos, and at times things do seem to be chaotic, which in the frame it is chaotic.
 
LegionOnomaMoi

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
psychoslice said:
I suppose what I am trying to say is that there is order and harmony behind all in the cosmos, and at times things do seem to be chaotic, which in the frame it is chaotic.
Click to expand...
This is why hate the term "chaos theory". Chaotic systems are not actually chaotic. Chaos (randomness) is boring and of no interest. Chaotic systems are of interest precisely because they AREN'T chaotic, or rather from the chaos they exhibit we find order. An excellent visual illustration of "chaos" in a chemical system is the BZ reaction:

Introduce bromate ions into an acidic medium and you get a nonlinear (chaotic) activity. Only it isn't really "chaotic" in the colloquial sense, as the emergent patterns/oscillations clearly show. There is order to the "chaos" (method in the madness).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top