Order vs. Chaos

[megaxxx]

In a world where order is preserved and chaos is let loose, there is questionable doubt of which has the higher hand in the game, but how is it so? I mean, with the idea that without order, there would be chaos, and without chaos, there would be order. On the other hand, the more chaos there is, the more order comes from it and vice versa. Anyone care to elaborate?

[Kilroy_x]

False dichotomy derived entirely from ignorance. You don't know that there might not be some sort of pattern to everything. Similarly, a radical skeptic might suggest anything resembling order is a fluke and things that resemble axiomatic truth simply haven't been examined in enough instances to disprove them.

You're also ignoring a number of very important questions. Such as, if there is neither order nor chaos (if there is nothing), could that be order? Is a null set a form of order? How about a distribution of only one object? Are you equating chaos with absence of order or simply excess of possibility? If something can turn out several trillion different ways based on innumerable factors is that chaotic or simply extremely complex order?

Given the perpetual march forward of human knowledge, it seems reasonable to assume that there is order in everything and it is simply the limits of human language and perception that keep us from seeing and describing it. As Einstein said, the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it seems to be comprehensible.

[jewpinthethird]

The fundamental presupposition of science is that nature is ordered.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by megaxxx

In a world where order is preserved and chaos is let loose, there is questionable doubt of which has the higher hand in the game, but how is it so? I mean, with the idea that without order, there would be chaos, and without chaos, there would be order. On the other hand, the more chaos there is, the more order comes from it and vice versa. Anyone care to elaborate?

I don't know if you're just trying to be philosophical or something, but I'm just going to say that you're dead wrong.

Chaos will ultimately win. The Second Law will make sure of that.

Every time you make order, you lose a little something, so you can't indefinitely order things.

This isn't like a clockwork chemical reaction, where one side of the equation will be abundantly produced, but then the excess of that will produce that which is on the other side of the equation, and then vice versa.

Please explain "the more chaos there is, the more order comes from it".

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[TheRapingDragon]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Please explain "the more chaos there is, the more order comes from it".

I believe he is trying to use the "if there was no evil then there would be no such thing as good" theory.

Basically, with more chaos, you have to impose new laws, new legislation etc. to have order. So you are effectively creating more order from the increase of chaos.

I personally don't like the theory, man, as a whole and when in a community of people, will always end up developing a "norm" with which people will follow, and if people stray from the "norm" then those people are breaking the order that this community has created.

Still, what he has posted does seem to be trying to be philosophical, or else he has just worded it incorrectly. Saying order is controlled and chaos is let loose is the same as saying "well black is a colour and white is a colour". It doesn't really take much to describe the word.

[megaxxx]

This is exactly what I am talking about. It is like Newton's law, "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." This is the same for order and chaos. Raping hit my point dead on. Thanks for wording it better.

[GuidoHunter]

Then explain to me why the two are intimately related.

I propose that order and chaos are NOT like good and evil; they can exist without the other.

With regard to thermodynamics, a closed system of maximum entropy will NEVER become ordered. NEVER. Maximum chaos, zero order, and that will never change.

And with Reaper's social example, order will not necessarily come to exist. Many peoples around the world still live in relative chaos and are quite content to stay that way.

Why should I believe that one could not exist without the other when the natural world says otherwise?

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[FoJaR]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

I don't know if you're just trying to be philosophical or something, but I'm just going to say that you're dead wrong.

Chaos will ultimately win. The Second Law will make sure of that.

Every time you make order, you lose a little something, so you can't indefinitely order things.

This isn't like a clockwork chemical reaction, where one side of the equation will be abundantly produced, but then the excess of that will produce that which is on the other side of the equation, and then vice versa.

Please explain "the more chaos there is, the more order comes from it".

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

everything that is, everything that has been has followed natural law. order and chaos are all relative.

anything that you could describe as "chaotic" still follows the laws of physics. there isnt some "chaotic entity" that is pure randomness.

guido: even in your closed system with maximum entropy(lol) everything is still behaving according to natural laws. and i GUARANTEE that there is still cause and effect for everything that goes on in that system. just because things break apart doesnt mean that "chaos did it". it happens according to natural processes.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by FoJaR

everything that is, everything that has been has followed natural law. order and chaos are all relative.

Relative to what? Each other?

guido: even in your closed system with maximum entropy(lol) everything is still behaving according to natural laws.

So what does that mean? I'm reading that you're saying natural laws = order. If that's what you intend (please correct me if I'm wrong), then...

and i GUARANTEE that there is still cause and effect for everything that goes on in that system.

why do we have the study of statistics, the study of random behavior? Even then, if that's what you mean, then we perpetually have order and chaos in indeterminate amounts and this discussion is moot.

Or would you say that statistics is part of the natural laws?

Quantum mechanics gives plenty of situations in which there is no clear cause or effect due to random behavior.

just because things break apart doesnt mean that "chaos did it". it happens according to natural processes.

Natural processes exist to strive toward chaos. "Chaos" itself may not have actually performed the actions, but it's the reason that the action happened.

I wanted to clarify how he was arguing since I'm not a philosophical fellow. I'm arguing simply from a scientific standpoint. Order and chaos equate to exergy and entropy, respectively. This is a quantifiable battle like the OP wants to discuss, and it's also a battle that one will win. Chaos. Order cannot possibly gain on it, and disorder will ultimately prevail.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[megaxxx]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Then explain to me why the two are intimately related.

I propose that order and chaos are NOT like good and evil; they can exist without the other.

With regard to thermodynamics, a closed system of maximum entropy will NEVER become ordered. NEVER. Maximum chaos, zero order, and that will never change.

And with Reaper's social example, order will not necessarily come to exist. Many peoples around the world still live in relative chaos and are quite content to stay that way.

Why should I believe that one could not exist without the other when the natural world says otherwise?

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Just becuase the system has loop holes (everything does) does not mean that it is impossible to have both chaos and order in our world, but to answer your question, the fact that order and chaos does coexist inside of each other does mean they equal out. To simply put, if this entire world was of chaos, then we would all destroy ourselves and order would rise from the ashes. If our entire world was of order, then somewhere, there would be at least one bad apple because we are not perfect. Being that, there may not be equal amounts of order and chaos at one point, but instead, they correspond to each other in an equal amount at different times. This is where it is balanced. Maybe your not really looking at it at my perspective. Just because you don't see it dosen't mean it dosen't exist. I wish I could word my posts better too. Also, as you can see here, there is an equal amount of chaos and order in my post. This should explain it. The chaos in this post is that I am not able to word it correctly, but the order of this post is that if someone can understand it the way I intended it to, then I did word it correctly. Under other circumstances, you may not understand, but others do. Another example of order and chaos. I hope you see where I am going with this.

[FoJaR]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Relative to what? Each other?

yeah, they're relative terms not absolutes that describe our ability to understand a situation. there is no absolute ORDER or any absolute CHAOS, just things that to us appear more orderly or more chaotic, the chaotic ones being the more complex in structure.

So what does that mean? I'm reading that you're saying natural laws = order. If that's what you intend (please correct me if I'm wrong), then...

i'm saying that nothing absolutely chaotic exists. there is nothing that is completely random, so when we use the term "chaos" it refers to something that is in a less predictable state not unpredictable, less predictable.

meaning we could predict it if we had the understanding, but we dont, so we use statistics to cover that part of whatever it is that we dont understand.

why do we have the study of statistics, the study of random behavior? Even then, if that's what you mean, then we perpetually have order and chaos in indeterminate amounts and this discussion is moot.

Or would you say that statistics is part of the natural laws?

Quantum mechanics gives plenty of situations in which there is no clear cause or effect due to random behavior.



Natural processes exist to strive toward chaos. "Chaos" itself may not have actually performed the actions, but it's the reason that the action happened.

I wanted to clarify how he was arguing since I'm not a philosophical fellow. I'm arguing simply from a scientific standpoint. Order and chaos equate to exergy and entropy, respectively. This is a quantifiable battle like the OP wants to discuss, and it's also a battle that one will win. Chaos. Order cannot possibly gain on it, and disorder will ultimately prevail.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

just because we dont currently understand all of the forces involved in the interactions of lil quantum particles doesnt mean that their actions are RANDOM. the reason we have probabilities and statistics is to account for the parts of these interactions that we cant see yet, or dont understand yet.

Quantum mechanics gives plenty of situations in which there is no clear cause or effect due to random behavior.

hit me.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by FoJaR

just because we dont currently understand all of the forces involved in the interactions of lil quantum particles doesnt mean that their actions are RANDOM.

You don't know that.

hit me.

Which path a photon will take in a doubleslit experiment with both slits open, quantum leaps, hell, even the Schroedinger's Cat experiment is based on the fact that atomic decay is 100% random. I'm sure there are more, too.

And yes, it is possible that there are equations and forces to explain those things, but it's also equally likely that they're purely random. Considering how much we know about those phenomena and how not close we are to finding equations governing them, though, I'm inclined to believe the latter.

Also, thanks, FFR, for making me rewrite this post. /me grumles.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[FoJaR]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

You don't know that.



Which path a photon will take in a doubleslit experiment with both slits open, quantum leaps, hell, even the Schroedinger's Cat experiment is based on the fact that atomic decay is 100% random. I'm sure there are more, too.

schroedinger's cat experiment is based on the fact that atomic decay is not understood fully, and therefore a probability rather than completely predictable.

And yes, it is possible that there are equations and forces to explain those things, but it's also equally likely that they're purely random.

there's nothing that proves that they're random. when you say something is random that's just giving up because you're too lazy to put in the time to understand.

Considering how much we know about those phenomena and how not close we are to finding equations governing them, though, I'm inclined to believe the latter.

Also, thanks, FFR, for making me rewrite this post. /me grumles.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

lol, you're saying that it's un-understandable just because we havent understood it yet. LOL

seriously all dont bother we are as close as we're gonna get it's random

[FoJaR]

man i feel like a broken record.

basically the fact that anything can be understood scientifically makes it so there's a greater chance that everything can be understood.

if there were true randomness, it would make its way up and we'd have really weird **** going on all the time.

[megaxxx]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

You don't know that.



Which path a photon will take in a doubleslit experiment with both slits open, quantum leaps, hell, even the Schroedinger's Cat experiment is based on the fact that atomic decay is 100% random. I'm sure there are more, too.

And yes, it is possible that there are equations and forces to explain those things, but it's also equally likely that they're purely random. Considering how much we know about those phenomena and how not close we are to finding equations governing them, though, I'm inclined to believe the latter.

Also, thanks, FFR, for making me rewrite this post. /me grumles.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

I do know that some things are considered random. I mean, take lightning for instance. There are many factors that contribute to its position. For instance, where will the clouds meet at? Where will the lightning go to? How much lightning is in the bolt? But it is not that hard to produce random data. The key aspect is that in my last post.

[MeaCulpa]

Originally Posted by FoJaR

i'm saying that nothing absolutely chaotic exists. there is nothing that is completely random...

Well not yet, but according to the Second Law, this will happen eventually.

I presume by "natural processes", mega was referring to spontaneous ones? In that case, such processes naturally lead to a decrease in free energy and an increase in entropy. More entropy = more randomness = more chaos in the long run.

Also, I think there might be conflicting views here on what "order" and "chaos" are referring to. I don't see mega's view (chaos and order in his forum post) in the same light that I see Guido's view (exergy, entropy, etc.)

[Reach]

if there were true randomness, it would make its way up and we'd have really weird **** going on all the time.

Oh but there is. You just don't see any of it. The entire world around you, if broken down into fundemantal pieces, would make absolutely no sense to you. It is inherently impossible to attempt to understand what the world actually looks like and what is really happening, because your brain has been tuned by evolution to put things together into chunks we can understand.


Also, the random vs non random argument is pointless. Realize that even if quantum mechanics is goverened by an outside, quantifiable set of parameters, you still can't tell the difference between that and the random events we can see. Thus it has no practical value. All experimental results suggest randomness, and they would still appear random in the same way to us even if they were controlled values.

It's semantic nonsense and leads to a whole bunch of arguments that lead nowhere.

[Kilroy_x]

Well y'know, semantics is the part of language that handles meaning. I don't think it's unreasonable to want to have mutually agreed upon definitions for a word.

For instance, does entropy really imply chaos? It seems to me it only implies a decrease in the available energy to do work. If my arm falls off because I used it too much, my arm can still be described, it just can't be used and it isn't in a form I'm comfortable with.

If we're defining chaos as whatever patterns create immediate discomfort to human perception, then I suppose entropy very well is chaos. Death is certainly a form of entropy, although death is also part of natural order.

If we're defining chaos as lack of order then I truly don't see how entropy could be chaos, in a system of maximum entropy nothing is happening. There are no processes to be disordered. If there is anything in the system at all it remains in an order determined by the laws of physics and by what work was done before the energy was depleted from the system.

Reach, you seem to be using some sort of conglomeration of these two understandings, as do most of you, but you seem to be leaning more towards the first one.

Originally Posted by Reach

Also, the random vs non random argument is pointless. Realize that even if quantum mechanics is goverened by an outside, quantifiable set of parameters, you still can't tell the difference between that and the random events we can see. Thus it has no practical value. All experimental results suggest randomness, and they would still appear random in the same way to us even if they were controlled values.

This goes back to my first post, argument from ignorance. It doesn't particularly matter that human beings are incapable of understanding a form of order, it only matters that there is order or not. Since there very well could be order, there is no reason why there couldn't be order, and there is a large amount of suggestiveness that there is order, there is probably order.

If we're talking for purposes of psychology or in some bizarre enmeshment of physics and spirituality, then your statement can take us somewhere down that road.

As I said at the very beginning though, the picture we get of chaos as something 'real' is likely an illusion, caused by the fact that all the facts are not yet in.

[FoJaR]

^^^^^^^ what i am trying to say.

[Reach]

I understand that. It's still not practical.

From a practical point of view, random is taken to mean 'random for all practical purposes'. You achieve nothing by saying it is ordered, because I don't think quantum mechanics claims to be absolutely random in the first place.

The randomness occurs in particular because when ATTEMPTING TO MEASURE (this is key), i.e. observe a 'random' event, wave functions become entangled (I'm sure you've heard that observers change the outcome).

My point being, it will always be random with respect to measurement and observation. I think you're wrong when you say that it only matters if it is ordered or not, because otherwise I agree with you.