Philosophy Discussion Forums

Felix:

No, more like saying: a river that has no banks is not a river or a system that has no organization is not a system.

You miss the point. Of course a river has banks, but the meaning of the term ‘bank’ in this case means something different than when we are talking about bands where money is kept. You are insisting that a well established use of the term chaos is either a misuse or that because the term means what it does they do not mean what they think they do when they use the term.

You cannot catch chaos in a net.

It is well known in fluid dynamics that a net can create or influence chaotic movement of the flow of water.

The squid eye is good for seeing underwater but not so good for seeing in the open air and the opposite is true of the human eye.

Would you conclude that a hurricane does not have an eye because a hurricane cannot see? As with chaos and banks, same word different meaning.

Fooloso4, I understood your point. My disagreement was with the idea that order arises from chaos. Chaos theory does not imply this. It is concerned with the seemingly random processes that occur within complex systems and says nothing about truly random or chaotic events - events that do not occur within a defined system.

Felix:

My disagreement was with the idea that order arises from chaos.

With regard to the origins of the universe, when physicists claim that order arises from chaos they are not referring to what occurs within a complex system but rather the chaotic conditions that give rise to a complex system or systems. They do not mean the complete absence of order but rather very low levels of order that are unstable. They are random in the sense that sensitivity to initial conditions means that a seemingly insignificant event can have large scale consequences. Extremely small changes in mass or temperature, for example, are random in so far as there is nothing that determines that things must have been exactly that way. Things could have been different.

When we get to the scale of biological evolution things are not so clear cut. There are many who claim that the system is entirely deterministic, but others argue that something like a meteor striking the Earth or a solar flare or a genetic mutation is a random event. This does not mean that it lacks causal determinacy but that it is not a necessary part of the evolutionary process.

My own view on determinacy is that if we were able to play it in reverse we could theoretically track the causal relations, but that if we were to start over I do not think things would occur again exactly as they did. First, because classical causal relations do not hold at the quantum level, and second, determinate laws do not yield invariant result but probabilistic results. But then again, it is probable that I don't know what I am talking about.

With regard to the origins of the universe, when physicists claim that order arises from chaos they are not referring to what occurs within a complex system but rather the chaotic conditions that give rise to a complex system or systems.

What I have read says otherwise, for example the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry: http://stanford.io/2dtVmoN

Chaos cannot be mathematically modeled.... "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” - Albert Einstein

Greta wrote: I have as little interest for Iron Age myths as you seemingly have for fossil evidence.

D.B. Kitts: "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them."
Colin Patterson: "I don't think we shall ever have access to any form of a tree (of life) that we can call factual."
Even Charles Darwin himself was disappointed by what the fossil record revealed. Nothing has changed.

Greta wrote: There is no need to believe in deities. The order-from-chaos scenario seems logical and obvious to me, which is why I embrace it.

Order-from-chaos = the non-theist's miracle.

Greta wrote: There was apparently nothing physical present before the big bang, so there could not be physical laws.

There was nothing (but energy - without laws, I presume) ... then it exploded to become matter with laws? Wow. This sounds like another miracle that non-theists can believe in.

Greta wrote: During the Planck Epoch of the big bang the "physical laws" were not as they are today.

The laws of physics changed over time! Thank goodness for "scientists" who come up with stuff like this - laughter is the best medicine.

Greta wrote: The problem I have with "the God solution" is that that is the end of the story. Stop thinking, stop looking, the problem's solved.

I would say your "problem" is imaginary - please be advised that many of the greatest scientists who ever lived were theists. I suspect that humans beings who think they can work out what happened billions of years ago are more dreamers than scientists. They'd do well to stop wasting their lives (and taxpayers' money) on their useless-as-a-fairy-tale theories and start applying their intelligence to science that is actually useful.

Anthony Edgar wrote:

Greta wrote: I have as little interest for Iron Age myths as you seemingly have for fossil evidence.

D.B. Kitts: "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them."
Colin Patterson: "I don't think we shall ever have access to any form of a tree (of life) that we can call factual."
Even Charles Darwin himself was disappointed by what the fossil record revealed. Nothing has changed.

Seriously, you need to catch up on scientific study. We do have a few animals with a fairly complete evolutionary record. The horse is an example. So quoting some guy does not make a fact. The fact seems to be that you are so set on ignoring facts you will do anything to disregard it.

Anthony Edgar wrote:

Greta wrote: There is no need to believe in deities. The order-from-chaos scenario seems logical and obvious to me, which is why I embrace it.

Order-from-chaos = the non-theist's miracle.

Order from chaos is not a miracle. It seems like a miracle. Read about this stuff. I promise you, without God, the world is a lot more magical. With God, He made it. Big deal. A super intelligent being made all this. Yaaawwwwnnnnn.....

Anthony Edgar wrote:

Greta wrote: There was apparently nothing physical present before the big bang, so there could not be physical laws.

There was nothing (but energy - without laws, I presume) ... then it exploded to become matter with laws? Wow. This sounds like another miracle that non-theists can believe in.

That is not really true. There was no space time. Whatever there was becomes meaningless without space time for us since we are observers from within space time and cannot "transcend" it. So effectively there was nothing.

Anthony Edgar wrote:

Greta wrote: During the Planck Epoch of the big bang the "physical laws" were not as they are today.

The laws of physics changed over time! Thank goodness for "scientists" who come up with stuff like this - laughter is the best medicine.

Again. Read a little science. The temperatures and pressures were such that the existing laws broke down when looking back. So it logically follows that the existing laws didn't exist then. Whatever laws there were or weren't during the Planck Epoch, they were not the same as as they are now.

Anthony Edgar wrote:

Greta wrote: The problem I have with "the God solution" is that that is the end of the story. Stop thinking, stop looking, the problem's solved.

I would say your "problem" is imaginary - please be advised that many of the greatest scientists who ever lived were theists. I suspect that humans beings who think they can work out what happened billions of years ago are more dreamers than scientists. They'd do well to stop wasting their lives (and taxpayers' money) on their useless-as-a-fairy-tale theories and start applying their intelligence to science that is actually useful.

Just because they were theists does not mean God did it. Even if He did, what is the big deal? What is magical about creation if a super intelligent being made it all? Are you seriously impressed? I would not even be entertained if such were the case.

Felix:

What I have read says otherwise, for example the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry

I do not know what specifically you are referring to. Where in this article does it say otherwise? Otherwise than what?

Chaos cannot be mathematically modeled.... "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” - Albert Einstein

I don’t see the connection. Are you claiming that chaos cannot be modeled because mathematical models are not certain?

Fooloso4: Where in this article (in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) does it say otherwise? Otherwise than what?

This article and others I've read do not support your contention that physicists "study the chaotic conditions that give rise to a complex system or systems." As I said, one cannot study chaos, it cannot be mathematically modeled, one can only study systems in which seemingly chaotic events occur. I say "seemingly" because they are not actually random or chaotic, they're occurring within a system that obeys particular rules or laws - which is why it's called a "system."

Vijaydevani said: Order from chaos is not a miracle.

Order produced from actual chaos would be a supernatural miracle, a higher or more complex order evolving from a lesser or more primitive one may not be.

Vijaydevani said: There was no space time (before the Big Bang occurred).

That is sheer speculation, we do not know what triggered the big bang or what existed before it occurred, but there is no reason to believe that it was preceded by chaos or even that chaos (complete disorder) has ever existed.

Felix:

This article and others I've read do not support your contention that physicists "study the chaotic conditions that give rise to a complex system or systems." As I said, one cannot study chaos, it cannot be mathematically modeled, one can only study systems in which seemingly chaotic events occur. I say "seemingly" because they are not actually random or chaotic, they're occurring within a system that obeys particular rules or laws - which is why it's called a "system."

You have not provided any specifics from this or other articles.
http://www.space.com/9255-big-bang-mom ... finds.html

“While past studies have suggested chaos reigned during the infancy of our universe, the new research offers what scientists say is iron-clad argument for the case.”

There is a peer review journal: Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science
http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/chaos

There is lots more out there.

As to mathematical modeling of chaos there are plenty of college level texts devoted to doing just that.

Felix wrote:

Vijaydevani said: Order from chaos is not a miracle.

Order produced from actual chaos would be a supernatural miracle, a higher or more complex order evolving from a lesser or more primitive one may not be.

Have you heard of self organization?

Vijaydevani said: There was no space time (before the Big Bang occurred).

That is sheer speculation, we do not know what triggered the big bang or what existed before it occurred, but there is no reason to believe that it was preceded by chaos or even that chaos (complete disorder) has ever existed.[/quote]

I never said anything about what preceded the big bang. You are putting words in my mouth. I have also never said anything about complete disorder. All I said regarding chaos was the first line above. Order from chaos is not a miracle.

Fooloso4, All your references concern the study of chaotic events or interactions within or between complex systems, not the creation of order or orderly systems from chaos. The universe itself is a complex system and it's to be expected that chaotic conditions would be prevalent during it's formation.

Vijaydevani: Have you heard of self organization?

That's a vague term, I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to. I've even heard it given as a definition of God: Mind conceiving itself.

Felix wrote:Fooloso4, All your references concern the study of chaotic events or interactions within or between complex systems, not the creation of order or orderly systems from chaos. The universe itself is a complex system and it's to be expected that chaotic conditions would be prevalent during it's formation.

Vijaydevani: Have you heard of self organization?

That's a vague term, I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to. I've even heard it given as a definition of God: Mind conceiving itself.

There is a wiki page on self organizing matter. I am not allowed to post it here but you can find it easily. There are also a lot of youtube videos on the matter and some ted talks on the subject too. There are some pages on google scholar which you might find interesting.

-- Updated October 22nd, 2016, 5:10 pm to add the following --

chemistryworld.com/feature/turing-patte ... 91.article

This is an article on turing patterns which explains how patterns can spontaneously form or tissues can spontaneously differentiate.

Felix:

Fooloso4, All your references concern the study of chaotic events or interactions within or between complex systems, not the creation of order or orderly systems from chaos.

From the first link:

According to the new study, chaos in our universe would have started ruling the realm about 10 to the minus 43 seconds (or 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds) after the Big Bang. And it would have lasted only a very brief time: at least 10 to the minus 36 seconds in duration.

Why do you think this statement is not about the creation of order or orderly systems from chaos? How is this statement about the study of chaotic events or interactions within or between complex systems?

Felix wrote:

The squid eye is good for seeing underwater but not so good for seeing in the open air and the opposite is true of the human eye. Gaining one biological advantage often requires relinquishing another one.

I'm talking about the way the nerves from a squids eye go out the backs of the cells and off to the brain, while humans come out the front so to get them round the back of the eyeball they have to go through the sensor layer leaving a blind spot. Anyone who designed a camera like the human eye would get laughed at.

Fooloso4: Why do you think this statement is not about the creation of order or orderly systems from chaos? How is this statement about the study of chaotic events or interactions within or between complex systems?

We do not know if the Big Bang marked the creation of our Universe, there is no reason to think that order suddenly arose out of complete disorder. The likelihood is that an older system or systems gave birth to a new and different one - our universe.

In the standard Big Bang model, the universe began in a state of near-infinite density and temperature. At such extremes the known laws of physics break down. For now, we can only speculate about what initiated the process.

To: Mark1955 - I'm not sure, cephalopod eyes develop as a dermal extension rather than as an extension of the brain as do our eyes. In both cases, I suspect that form followed function - range, depth, and medium (air vs water) of vision, etc. As I said, there are always evolutionary trade-offs.