Order versus Chaos

[Nakosis]

People who have the deepest faith in science often claim there is a natural order to the way nature behaves? I've been wondering if seeing this order in nature is some kind of pareidolia (seeing images in clouds).

I've often thought that it the human mind which brings order to the chaos of the universe.

From a different, non-human perspective the "order" that we accept might be entirely different.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No they don't. Have you any idea what the statistics are for airline safety? It is incredibly safe. To have an evens chance of being killed in an air crash you would need to take a flight every day for the next 10,000 years!

That is a vivid testament to the ablity of science to understand nature and predict behaviour, through the detection study and measurement of patterns and order.

Where you certainly have a point is about imperfections. Science makes models of the physical world, often by simplifying and setting aside complicating factors, if we feel they can be safely ignored for the sake of seeing the underlying pattern more clearly. Almost all our models are approximations, of one sort or another. But they work, giving us approximately correct predictions as to what should happen in given circumstances. Perhaps that is part of the human genius: the ability to see the wood in spite of the trees!

...but can you explain, without human interpretation (bias), how seizures and cancer are not outside of the order of universe (chaotic)?

How can the beauty of earthquakes creating moutains is not in par with the many deaths it causes and plate techtonics slowly seperating continents further away?

If the universe is in itself ordely, lightening would hit the same places all the time or have patterns in where it hits. Our seasons here in the eastern part of the States used to be four. Now, we have one week of winter. Probably a day of summer.

Last month it snowed. Its fifty degrees outside when we should be in summer whether not spring fallish. About six years ago we had an earthquke which Never happened here when humans were around. Our mountains shaped before we existed in this area, at the least.

The universe is chaotic. People try to make order and sense of it because its human and animal nature to find patterns so we can predict things for survival. Seizures are the best example I can give. We try to control seizures because we assume the default is supposed to bea a healthy body. Our bodies: we are born, age, get sick, and die. How and when isnt predetermined.

Thats chaos. Nothing wrong with it.

 

[exchemist]

...but can you explain, without human interpretation (bias), how seizures and cancer are not outside of the order of universe (chaotic)?

How can the beauty of earthquakes creating moutains is not in par with the many deaths it causes and plate techtonics slowly seperating continents further away?

If the universe is in itself ordely, lightening would hit the same places all the time or have patterns in where it hits. Our seasons here in the eastern part of the States used to be four. Now, we have one week of winter. Probably a day of summer.

Last month it snowed. Its fifty degrees outside when we should be in summer whether not spring fallish. About six years ago we had an earthquke which Never happened here when humans were around. Our mountains shaped before we existed in this area, at the least.

The universe is chaotic. People try to make order and sense of it because its human and animal nature to find patterns so we can predict things for survival. Seizures are the best example I can give. We try to control seizures because we assume the default is supposed to bea a healthy body. Our bodies: we are born, age, get sick, and die. How and when isnt predetermined.

Thats chaos. Nothing wrong with it.

Oh sure there is of course a lot of randomness in nature.

But the OP was putting forward the hypothesis that the order we perceive may either be pareidolia, in other words imaginary, or that there may be equal incidence of violations of the laws of physics compared to incidence of compliance with them. Both of these strike me as absurd.

But that is by no means to say the there is no randomness in nature. Much of my own dscipline assumes the randomness of molecular motions. But the cool thing is that the random motion is still governed by certain laws, or order, and these laws, or this order, causes the bulk behaviour of the random molecules to be highly predictable, as for example in the kinetic theory of matter and statistical thermodynamics.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I've often thought that it the human mind which brings order to the chaos of the universe.

From a different, non-human perspective the "order" that we accept might be entirely different.

Gosh darnet. Thats my point in two sentences. Still workin' on it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think people have a bias to ignore how much chaos is actually occurring.

I don't see chaos anywhere in the universe. There is unpredictabilty, but I don't equate that with chaos.

As I've said many people claim the "order" we see in the Universe is evidence of God's existence.

Order in the universe is evidence against a god, in my opinion. A godless universe absolutely depends on laws if sentient beings are to evolve in it and discern those laws. A universe with a god does not. If a god were willing the planets to rotate about their stars, there would be no need for gravity, much less a gravitational constant.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Oh sure there is of course a lot of randomness in nature.

Yes. The universe is randomness (and chaos) without order.

But the OP was putting forward the hypothesis that the order we perceive may either be pareidolia, in other words imaginary,

or that there may be equal incidence of violations of the laws of physics compared to incidence of compliance with them. Both of these strike me as absurd.

a. I agree with the OP that the order we perceive is imaginary. We, as humans, have great tendency to find pattern. Its a survival technique and used to foster relationship with others by pretermining their behavior and assuming because we know they act one way fifty times, they cant do something different the fiftysixth time. Human nature.

b. I dont undertand the second point

But that is by no means to say the there is no randomness in nature. Much of my own dscipline assumes the randomness of molecular motions. But the cool thing is that the random motion is still governed by certain laws, or order, and these laws, or this order, causes the bulk behaviour of the random molecules to be highly predictable, as for example in the kinetic theory of matte

Randomness doesnt act in our definition or the laws of nature. It has ifs own chaotic "rules." We try to find order in chaos, but I find that absurd. If it helps save lives, like seizues etc, Im all for it. As a religious view, it sounds like a forgone conclusion. Something needed for comfort. My having seizures taught me differently. Thats why it doesnt make sense that you find order. If thats so, Id be healthy; Im not.

Randomoness (chaos) is the laws of the unverse. How do you find order in randomoness and still call it random?

 

[james blunt]

Oh sure there is of course a lot of randomness in nature.

But the OP was putting forward the hypothesis that the order we perceive may either be pareidolia, in other words imaginary, or that there may be equal incidence of violations of the laws of physics compared to incidence of compliance with them. Both of these strike me as absurd.

But that is by no means to say the there is no randomness in nature. Much of my own dscipline assumes the randomness of molecular motions. But the cool thing is that the random motion is still governed by certain laws, or order, and these laws, or this order, causes the bulk behaviour of the random molecules to be highly predictable, as for example in the kinetic theory of matter and statistical thermodynamics.

The randomness of the stars yet we pick out constant looking shapes , drawing in our mind imaginary lines that look like a constant pattern, like a gambler with fallacy looks for patterns of events, trying to give chaos an order.

 

[exchemist]

I think that reinforces some of @dfnj 's point - that the patterns we see in terms of "natural order" are some kind of pareidolia. It's fairly well-known that pattern-thinking is inherent to how human cognition operates, yes? It would upscale and downscale if our awareness did.

At any rate, interesting topic that's given me a few things to think about. Not sure what I think about it myself just yet.

No. Not in the least. Pareidolia is imagining patterns where no pattern is present.

What are discussing is here is not that at all: it is the ease of perceiving patterns operating on various timescales.

 

[james blunt]

No. Not in the least. Pareidolia is imagining patterns where no pattern is present.

What are discussing is here is not that at all: it is the ease of perceiving patterns operating on various timescales.

Because the ''deck'' is transparent, you would have some big problems if you could not see all the ''cards'' in the ''deck''

 

[exchemist]

Far be it for me to interfere with the sacredness of learning. I see your point of view. I don't disagree with it. I am, however, saying something different that I don't think you will be able to appreciate with your current mindset (which is fine). Maybe what I am saying is pure BS. I'm have no way to prove my assertions are true. How do you test something like compliance to the laws of physics. I think my point of view is either you see it this way or you don't. If you don't, you are probably going to think people who see chaos are insane. Maybe you can just think about it. Please don't take what I am saying to you as an insult.

You test compliance with the laws of physics every time you make an observation of the physical world or operate a piece of technology that relies on compliance with those laws.

Disorder exists*, no doubt of it, as I have said elsewhere on this thread. In fact to my mind one of the greatest triumphs of physics and chemistry is the way in which predictable, ordered, bulk properties of matter can be seen to arise from statistical randomness at the atomic or molecular level.

What I strongly disagree with is the notion that the patterns we detect through science - the so-called "laws of nature" - are pareidolia, that is to say imaginary. If that were true, we could not make aeroplanes fly.

* In fact disorder is given pride of place in thermodynamics, in the powerful concept of Entropy:
S=k logW is engraved on Boltzmann's tombstone in Vienna: http://www.esacademic.com/pictures/eswiki/66/Boltzmann_(427167382).jpg

 

[exchemist]

Yes. The universe is randomness (and chaos) without order.



a. I agree with the OP that the order we perceive is imaginary. We, as humans, have great tendency to find pattern. Its a survival technique and used to foster relationship with others by pretermining their behavior and assuming because we know they act one way fifty times, they cant do something different the fiftysixth time. Human nature.

b. I dont undertand the second point



Randomness doesnt act in our definition or the laws of nature. It has ifs own chaotic "rules." We try to find order in chaos, but I find that absurd. If it helps save lives, like seizues etc, Im all for it. As a religious view, it sounds like a forgone conclusion. Something needed for comfort. My having seizures taught me differently. Thats why it doesnt make sense that you find order. If thats so, Id be healthy; Im not.

Randomoness (chaos) is the laws of the unverse. How do you find order in randomoness and still call it random?

This is ridiculous. If pattern-seeking is a successful survival strategy, that must be because the patterns we find are real.

If they were imaginary they would not help us survive!

 

[Audie]

People who have the deepest faith in science often claim there is a natural order to the way nature behaves? I've been wondering if seeing this order in nature is some kind of pareidolia (seeing images in clouds). If we held the belief the Universe is nothing but chaos and nature's primary behavior is disorder would be we see or experience the evidence in equal measure? Are the laws of physics our primary experience or is there an equal amount of violations to the laws of physics?

I've heard many religious type people claim the natural order of nature, the way it can be represented with mathematics, and the idea of a clockwork Universe is evidence for the existence of God. Many people claim early scientists were all entrenched with religious beliefs as supporting evidence for their conjectures.

It seems to me what makes the Universe so great and interesting is the chaos. The idea of the Universe being ordered is like playing an Atari VCS video game. The digital is very boring because it repeats itself often. I have never experience reality ever repeating itself. In the movie the Matrix they have déjà vu moment.

I have never experience this in reality. Reality to me is analog, never repeats, just as disordered as it is ordered which is why reality is so interesting and fun to be in!

The part about what makes music "compelling" is interesting.

I saw a little thing in a "Whole Earth Catalog" that someone
had preserved since the Permian. Wish I had saved it, but it
went something like this.

"God decided to make a universe of perfect order. So, He created
a universe of enormous crystals of all the elements and compounds.

Pretty, but, boring.

So he tried the opposite, complete disorder. That was even
more boring.

(See statue of "The Thinker" now...)
t he thinker - Results For Yahoo Image Search Results


Then, in an infinite instant (God does time that way) He said
"Aha! I have a Divine Idea!
I will combine these forces, order and entropy,
and their dynamic interplay will make things
that even I cannot predict!"

And so He did.

 

[sealchan]

People who have the deepest faith in science often claim there is a natural order to the way nature behaves? I've been wondering if seeing this order in nature is some kind of pareidolia (seeing images in clouds). If we held the belief the Universe is nothing but chaos and nature's primary behavior is disorder would be we see or experience the evidence in equal measure? Are the laws of physics our primary experience or is there an equal amount of violations to the laws of physics?

I've heard many religious type people claim the natural order of nature, the way it can be represented with mathematics, and the idea of a clockwork Universe is evidence for the existence of God. Many people claim early scientists were all entrenched with religious beliefs as supporting evidence for their conjectures.

It seems to me what makes the Universe so great and interesting is the chaos. The idea of the Universe being ordered is like playing an Atari VCS video game. The digital is very boring because it repeats itself often. I have never experience reality ever repeating itself. In the movie the Matrix they have déjà vu moment.

I have never experience this in reality. Reality to me is analog, never repeats, just as disordered as it is ordered which is why reality is so interesting and fun to be in!

The part about what makes music "compelling" is interesting.

One of my favorite philosophical pasttimes is to try and understand how we humans see the world through "brain-colored glasses". What is interesting about this in this context is that the brain is a lot like the Universe which it re-presents. The brain as an evolved complex, adaptive system of interconnected parts has many of the same qualities as the Universe it has evolved in and it has evolved to reflect. From Chaos Theory to Complex, Adaptive Systems it is becoming apparent that order can arise out of disorder, that systems balanced on the edge of order and disorder have the greatest creativity and adaptiveness and that chaos is merely a more common form of order which is non-linear and not subject to predictable outcomes in the same way as linearly described systems (most of what you will find in a physics textbook).

There is no order without disorder, no god without satan,

The human brain "discovered" the laws of physics but it also invented them. While mathematics is our most universal language and is capable of describing the world with great objectivity...there is still the fact that this is all embedded in a complex, adaptive language system which is capable of evolving even as it represents a medium for coordinated communications being human beings. This language system runs like an OS on the hardware of the complex, adaptive neural system which is the brain and which is a part of the greater system which is the human body.

One of my favorite personal hobbies is playing Minecraft. I am attempting to play a survival game according to a system I have devised which allows me to engage with all aspects of the game but in a way where I don't get bogged down in any one area for too long. It is also devised to allow me to fully experience the game and follow it (and its mods) "progressions" to the fullest extent. Minecraft isn't a complex, adaptive system, but it is complex enough to simulate some aspects of the complexity of life and its various requirements and amusements. I find that I can strike the right balance of variety and order I can maintain my inspiration and respond to new, unexpected discoveries without getting lost in the order I have created to guide my play of the game. Too much order and I loose inspiration (too many chores, not enough "adventure")...not enough and I loose inspiration as well (lack of focus, sense of long term direction)

 

[Audie]

One of my favorite philosophical pasttimes is to try and understand how we humans see the world through "brain-colored glasses". What is interesting about this in this context is that the brain is a lot like the Universe which it re-presents. The brain as an evolved complex, adaptive system of interconnected parts has many of the same qualities as the Universe it has evolved in and it has evolved to reflect. From Chaos Theory to Complex, Adaptive Systems it is becoming apparent that order can arise out of disorder, that systems balanced on the edge of order and disorder have the greatest creativity and adaptiveness and that chaos is merely a more common form of order which is non-linear and not subject to predictable outcomes in the same way as linearly described systems (most of what you will find in a physics textbook).

There is no order without disorder, no god without satan,

The human brain "discovered" the laws of physics but it also invented them. While mathematics is our most universal language and is capable of describing the world with great objectivity...there is still the fact that this is all embedded in a complex, adaptive language system which is capable of evolving even as it represents a medium for coordinated communications being human beings. This language system runs like an OS on the hardware of the complex, adaptive neural system which is the brain and which is a part of the greater system which is the human body.

One of my favorite personal hobbies is playing Minecraft. I am attempting to play a survival game according to a system I have devised which allows me to engage with all aspects of the game but in a way where I don't get bogged down in any one area for too long. It is also devised to allow me to fully experience the game and follow it (and its mods) "progressions" to the fullest extent. Minecraft isn't a complex, adaptive system, but it is complex enough to simulate some aspects of the complexity of life and its various requirements and amusements. I find that I can strike the right balance of variety and order I can maintain my inspiration and respond to new, unexpected discoveries without getting lost in the order I have created to guide my play of the game. Too much order and I loose inspiration (too many chores, not enough "adventure")...not enough and I loose inspiration as well (lack of focus, sense of long term direction)

There is no god without satan,

Oh? Why is that?

 

[dfnj]

No. Not in the least. Pareidolia is imagining patterns where no pattern is present.

What are discussing is here is not that at all: it is the ease of perceiving patterns operating on various timescales.

I was using Pareidolia as a metaphor. I said maybe the patterns found in science are like seeing images in clouds. I wasn't saying it is exactly like Pareidolia.

I don't think you can ignore the role of the observer when doing science. Scientists create a controlled context in which to take measurements and verify theories. But in reality, there is no context.

It's kind of like the idea parallel lines do not exist in reality. Mathematically it is sound. And it is useful in working with reality. But there are really imperfections.

I still think there may be measurably more exceptions or equal occurrences to the laws of physics as there is compliance. You already used words like "absurd". I never said I was asserting what I was saying was absolutely true. I conceded it would be difficult to measure the number of exceptions to the laws of physics. However, you claiming what I am suggesting is "absurd" seems to me to show you have an extreme prejudice and bias to one way of it being. I am no way near as confident in saying there are an equal number of exceptions than you are in asserting the laws of physics are the dominate experience. Many people, and based on my own experiences with reality, there seems to be a large number of exceptions and randomness to suggest that there may be a different view about reality.

The laws of physics simply to not take into account all the additional variables that may affect any measurement or result. As I said, under "controlled" conditions of a very well defined context nature behaves in certain patterns. And those patterns can be represented with the language of mathematics. And how nature behaves is dictated to scientists. But just because you have an equation of natures behavior in a set of control conditions doesn't mean reality is ordered. There's a lot more going on in reality than simple equations. Given the wave nature of reality, it may be everything we measure to be an object is just a contextual delusion seen through the language we created. In reality however, there are no objects. Everything is part of a wave of energy where everything is connected to everything else.

Claiming the Universe can be perfectly understood may be what is absurd.

 

[sealchan]

There is no god without satan,

Oh? Why is that?

Without wanting to start up an old controversial topic in an unrelated thread...I would say that there is no god without satan because if you propose a god who is responsible for the Universe and all and is seen as a good creator, then the evil in the world must be due to another god who is the cause for that. There is a mystery that arises when we see the Universe as something fundamentally good whether it is good in its richness and beauty though "flawed" in its cruelty and destructiveness or whether we see a creator responsible for the created Universe. When we, as a culture of believers, can't fathom God as the creator of evil, we propose an evil underling who is truly responsible for the flaws. But we also should know that God is the only one who can be held ultimately responsible for His/Her/Its creation...when it comes to the level of His/Her/Its peers.

 

[Audie]

Claiming the Universe can be perfectly understood may be what is absurd.

Who on earth would make such an absurd statement in the first place?

 

[sealchan]

Who on earth would make such an absurd statement in the first place?

Somehow that quote got falsely attributed to me, but I agree with it in any case.

The answer to that question is anyone who feels that their burden in life is too much to take on trying to understand the problems or mysteries of the Universe and that it is better to rest in a certainty shared with a large number of other people (which is comforting for that reason) that the Universe is known sufficiently that we can get on with our lives with some measure in confidence that we know what we are doing and we are justified in doing it.

 

[dfnj]

There is no god without satan,

Oh? Why is that?

Because the only way human's can understand anything in language is through the Unity of opposites:

Unity of opposites - Wikipedia

 

[dfnj]

Who on earth would make such an absurd statement in the first place?

You can do better than this post. Put some energy and thought into what you are saying. I can respond by saying why would you ask such a question?