Discussion on order and chaos

[Apone]

I guess it might be arrogance to think that we would be able to make some sense of any possible universe. However, if we were exposed to other realities in which things behaved in a way radically different from our own, we would at least be able to recognise that this reality was different. And, presumably, be able to say how it is different from our own - in such a way that we could cogently describe the difference sufficiently, so that any one else who observed this different reality, would be able to recognise it as the same one we had described.

This in essence, might not operate on the level of our being able to fathom an alternate universe in itself. However, we being accustomed to the order of our universe, would use our order as a reference point by which to describe the alternate universe - or at least its difference to our own. In which case, by simply interacting with an alternate universe, we would have in reality made it part of our own - because even the slight contact of observation establishes a relationship between everything we currently know and that which was thereto unknown. So that even if we were to observe complete chaos, it would still form part of the order of our universe - as that part which is consistently not consistent - which is quite an orderly category.

I remember seeing something about anti-chaos theory a looong while ago-- which actually suggests that things are predisposed towards order by virtue of 'elements becoming enmeshed'.

http://itee.uq.edu.au/~comp4006/CxSys Readings/Antichaos/Antichaos and Adaptation.htm

It's not exactly light reading, it's about anti-chaos and evolution, and it's over 20 years old, but it is interesting that chaotic patterns seem to inevitably find order… not that this implies they're being 'guided' by a creator, just that there is an innate predisposition towards order in seemingly chaotic systems.

 

[Poetic Justice]

I remember seeing something about anti-chaos theory a looong while ago-- which actually suggests that things are predisposed towards order by virtue of 'elements becoming enmeshed'.

http://itee.uq.edu.au/~comp4006/CxSys%20Readings/Antichaos/Antichaos%20and%20Adaptation.htm

It's not exactly light reading, it's about anti-chaos and evolution, and it's over 20 years old, but it is interesting that chaotic patterns seem to inevitably find order… not that this implies they're being 'guided' by a creator, just that there is an innate predisposition towards order in seemingly chaotic systems.

Entropy cancels that out and then some

 

[Apone]

Entropy cancels that out and then some

In what way?

 

[Poetic Justice]

In what way?

This is going to be tricky if you don't know what entropy is.

I guess that should be my first question. Do I need to explain what entropy actually is from the beginning or just the specifics of why it cancels out other phenomena's attempts at creating order?

 

[Apone]

This is going to be tricky if you don't know what entropy is.

I guess that should be my first question. Do I need to explain what entropy actually is from the beginning or just the specifics of why it cancels out other phenomena's attempts at creating order?

Let's just skip to the second one.

 

[Poetic Justice]

Let's just skip to the second one.

Entropy always increases simply because it is overwhelmingly likely that it will. The universe is becoming more chaotic due to entropy. Thats what entropy is. The universes "journey" from order to chaos. No matter what you do or what anything does for that matter, the processes involved in creating order will cause more of an increase in disorder in different ways.

If you build a structure out of a deck of cards by balancing them on each other, that is creating some order. Overall though, more disorder will be created through the extra heat loss in your body and the cards and the chemical reactions involved in moving

Meh, I'll explain entropy anyway. The definition of entropy is the number of changes you can make to a system without changing it's characteristics. A pile of sand can be changed in many different ways and it's still just a pile of sand (high entropy). A sand castle can't take anywhere near as many changes without changing it's characteristics (low entropy)

because it's a lot easier to turn a sand castle into a pile of sand than it is to turn a pile of sand into a sand castle, entropy will increase. The wind will eventually turn the sand castle into a pile of sand. It's is staggeringly unlikely that the wind will turn a pile of sand into a sand castle

Entropy is the only real definition of time that exists. Order to chaos IS the arrow of time

Entropy is the reason it is easier to break things than to make things

Entropy will eventually decide the fate of the entire universe

It really is one of the most interesting phenomena in all physics. I have a theory I've been thinking of sharing on this forum about entropy and the big bang but I've been holding off on sharing it as it's a bit heavy on the physics. I suspect I would have to explain too many things and can't be bothered tbh. Also I don't want anyone stealing my nobel prize. heh

 

[Apone]

I don't think that the two ideas are completely incompatible, because I think that anti-chaos actually does leave room for partial entropy-- the 'avalanches' at the top of the ever-building sandpile in the hourglass. So instead of absolute order to absolute chaos you have an inability to peak and inability to completely break down-- barring some cataclysmic event, of course.

I'm not completely familiar with it all but from what I've read it seems that if entropy were universally true, then complexity would be constantly decreasing, evolution wouldn't be possible… and life would probably never have existed.

 

[Billy]

Entropy always increases simply because it is overwhelmingly likely that it will. The universe is becoming more chaotic due to entropy. Thats what entropy is. The universes "journey" from order to chaos. No matter what you do or what anything does for that matter, the processes involved in creating order will cause more of an increase in disorder in different ways.

If you build a structure out of a deck of cards by balancing them on each other, that is creating some order. Overall though, more disorder will be created through the extra heat loss in your body and the cards and the chemical reactions involved in moving

Meh, I'll explain entropy anyway. The definition of entropy is the number of changes you can make to a system without changing it's characteristics. A pile of sand can be changed in many different ways and it's still just a pile of sand (high entropy). A sand castle can't take anywhere near as many changes without changing it's characteristics (low entropy)

because it's a lot easier to turn a sand castle into a pile of sand than it is to turn a pile of sand into a sand castle, entropy will increase. The wind will eventually turn the sand castle into a pile of sand. It's is staggeringly unlikely that the wind will turn a pile of sand into a sand castle

Entropy is the only real definition of time that exists. Order to chaos IS the arrow of time

Entropy is the reason it is easier to break things than to make things

Entropy will eventually decide the fate of the entire universe

It really is one of the most interesting phenomena in all physics. I have a theory I've been thinking of sharing on this forum about entropy and the big bang but I've been holding off on sharing it as it's a bit heavy on the physics. I suspect I would have to explain too many things and can't be bothered tbh. Also I don't want anyone stealing my nobel prize. heh

So its kind of like say, striking two pieces of metal together. It takes a greater force to do the action, which results in embers of sparks being born, they burn out in a life of their own and slowly die as the heat and force is absorbed by the air around them and transforms from a heat glowing shard to a black bit of slag... it took greater order, my body to strike these things together, but it created something new, albeit lesser in terms of energy since much of the initial energy is lost in other ways, but it seems that the action creates something new and more orderly (the spark) which has potential for a snowball effect, say if it lands in a pile of tinder. Which would take on a life of its own as well but eventually die off as the heat and energy source wears out.

 

[Poetic Justice]

I have to admit, it's not something that I'm an expert on, but from what I've read it seems like entropy is a law of decreasing complexity… so how do you account for increases in complexity? How do you account for multiple rises and falls? How can you explain evolution? If complexity were decreasing, then wouldn't we have evolved into less complex creatures as a reaction to a less complex environment?

I don't think that the two ideas are completely incompatible, because I think that anti-chaos actually does leave room for partial entropy-- the 'avalanches' at the top of the ever-building sandpile in the hourglass. So instead of absolute order to absolute chaos you have an inability to peak and inability to completely break down-- barring some cataclysmic event, of course.

All the things which seem like increases in order are simply the side effects of order breaking down. Absolute order to absolute chaos is exactly what is going on

We start with super symmetry (the big bang before it banged). Any change at all to this changes it's nature as it starts off perfectly symmetrical in every way. Obviously only one change needs to happen to change its nature. This is the ultimate low entropy state.

Eventually everything will break down. Even the atoms and the nucleuses of atoms will eventually be ripped apart. All matter will become radiation and the universe will just become a sea of elementary particles. The ultimate high entropy state

Any efforts to create order will create more disorder in the system as a whole

 

[Poetic Justice]

So its kind of like say, striking two pieces of metal together. It takes a greater force to do the action, which results in embers of sparks being born, they burn out in a life of their own and slowly die as the heat and force is absorbed by the air around them and transforms from a heat glowing shard to a black bit of slag... it took greater order, my body to strike these things together, but it created something new, albeit lesser in terms of energy since much of the initial energy is lost in other ways, but it seems that the action creates something new and more orderly (the spark) which has potential for a snowball effect, say if it lands in a pile of tinder. Which would take on a life of its own as well but eventually die off as the heat and energy source wears out.

This exactly. Ultimately it's about heat loss. Energy is spreading out to fill the gaps created by the expansion of the universe. The main way it does this is though infra red radiation (heat)

 

[Billy]

I can see how this would work with evolution if bolts of lightning say were striking the original primordial soup, randomly breaking up and reassembling particles until one came about that coule self replicate, from there its just a lloooooooooong downward slide which seems to go up and down. but is ultimately always bubbling down to less complexity (death)

Stars do it too, one giant star explodes blasting its rich guts into an atomically rich cloud, which slowly condenses down because of gravity, and each time the star gets smaller and smaller because it loses some of the original mass, some of it becomes planets, etc so on... but for a moment that explosion and cloud of gas seem to become MORE complex when they turn into say, our sun and planet, but on a cosmic level the energy level is slowly dwindling down to death.

 

[Poetic Justice]

[h=1]Entropy and Disorder[/h] If you assert that nature tends to take things from order to disorder and give an example or two, then you will get almost universal recognition and assent. It is a part of our common experience. Spend hours cleaning your desk, your basement, your attic, and it seems to spontaneously revert back to disorder and chaos before your eyes. So if you say that entropy is a measure of disorder, and that nature tends toward maximum entropy for any isolated system, then you do have some insight into the ideas of the second law of thermodynamics.
Some care must be taken about how you define "disorder" if you are going to use it to understand entropy. A more precise way to characterize entropy is to say that it is a measure of the "multiplicity" associated with the state of the objects. If a given state can be accomplished in many more ways, then it is more probabable than one which can be accomplished in only a few ways. When "throwing dice", throwing a seven is more probable than a two because you can produce seven in six different ways and there is only one way to produce a two. So seven has a higher multiplicity than a two, and we could say that a seven represents higher "disorder" or higher entropy.

For a glass of water the number of molecules is astronomical. The jumble of ice chips may look more disordered in comparison to the glass of water which looks uniform and homogeneous. But the ice chips place limits on the number of ways the molecules can be arranged. The water molecules in the glass of water can be arranged in many more ways; they have greater "multiplicity" and therefore greater entropy.

 

[Apone]

I'm not arguing against the existence of entropy I'm mostly just not sure how it contradicts anti-chaos theory, which proposes that perhaps the progression from order to chaos, while undoubtedly present and inevitable, isn't so perfectly absolute, and by extension that the resilience of something like life isn't necessarily due to its 'mastery' of the entropic process but due to 'something' (which isn't to say it is God or a creator or a deity) that compels chaos to settle into a more stable and resilient form of order-- sort of like a common foundation vulnerable to massive, cataclysmic changes but largely impervious to 'natural' decay, and upon which multiple entropies occur.

Besides, wouldn't the stability of scientific laws in general seem to suggest that perhaps there is a common foundation of sorts? Wouldn't a complete lack of, or relatively unstable foundation result in a more 'absurd' universe in which nothing could be understood, patterns could never be recognized, etc?

Maybe I'm not getting it here?

 

[Poetic Justice]

I'm not arguing against the existence of entropy I'm mostly just not sure how it contradicts anti-chaos theory, which proposes that perhaps the progression from order to chaos, while undoubtedly present and inevitable, isn't so perfectly absolute, and by extension that the resilience of something like life isn't necessarily due to its 'mastery' of the entropic process but due to 'something' (which isn't to say it is God or a creator or a deity) that compels chaos to settle into a more stable and resilient form of order-- sort of like a common foundation vulnerable to massive, cataclysmic changes but largely impervious to 'natural' decay.

Besides, wouldn't the stability of scientific laws in general seem to suggest that perhaps there is a common foundation of sorts? Wouldn't a complete lack of foundation result in a more 'absurd' universe in which nothing could be understood, patterns could never be recognized, etc?

Anti-chaos (as I understand it) implies that instead of a single downward movement into decay and then another perfect symmetry which may or may not produce life ever again, it's more like an endless loop of big bangs and heat deaths, which could also rest upon a common foundation, which could also rest upon a common foundation, which could also rest upon a common foundation, and so on down into an infinity that doesn't cause or create so much as it allows/permits/enables.

I'm not saying it contradicts it, just creates more chaos on the whole.

Nothing is impervious to natural decay. Not even black holes. Even they are subject to entropy

I don't know what you mean by "lack of foundation". Entropy doesn't mean there is no stable laws of physics

I take it from your last paragraph someone has already posited my aforementioned theory of entropy and big bangs. Which you must have read. Bummer

*Kisses goodbye to nobel prize"

My theory in a very small nutshell:

Once the universe has been broken into it's constituent parts and they all spread out evenly across the universe, They would possibly all then start to "settle". By this I mean start vibrating in unison (after a loooooong time). If every particle is vibrating in unison and they are all smaller than an atom, location becomes irrelevant. Energy is what is important. If they all have the same energy (this part may not be possible) and are vibrating in unison, wouldn't that mean the whole universe is quantum entangled? Would this then qualify as super symmetry? i.e. the big bang before it banged. A quantum fluctuation then breaks the symmetry and it starts again

Please tell me you haven't read this somewhere before

 

[Poetic Justice]

I just googled it and came up with an awesome description of entropy which, kinda proves me wrong (in part)

This the bit that you will probably want to rub in my face...

Before we go on to some practical manifestations of entropy, we need to be aware of a very important characteristic of entropy: The Laws of Thermodynamics pertain only to a system that we refer to as a closed system: An entity that does not exchange energy, information or mass with anything outside the system. The universe in its totality is a closed system because no new energy is injected into it. Therefore, all laws of Thermodynamics apply to the universe. Earth is not a closed system because our sun constantly injects it with new energy. This infusion of energy into the non-closed system of the earth makes it possible to comply with the Second Law while achieving an increase in the complexity of life forms, as necessitated by the process of evolution.

Here's the rest. It's fascinating and well worth a read

http://www.rationality.net/entropy.htm

 

[Poetic Justice]

Oh dear. I just googled anti-chaos theory

It religious nonsense masquerading as science (I'm entitled to my opinion. Don't troll me)

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I remember seeing something about anti-chaos theory a looong while ago-- which actually suggests that things are predisposed towards order by virtue of 'elements becoming enmeshed'.

http://itee.uq.edu.au/~comp4006/CxSys%20Readings/Antichaos/Antichaos%20and%20Adaptation.htm

It's not exactly light reading, it's about anti-chaos and evolution, and it's over 20 years old, but it is interesting that chaotic patterns seem to inevitably find order… not that this implies they're being 'guided' by a creator, just that there is an innate predisposition towards order in seemingly chaotic systems.

Perhaps thinking of an anthropomorphic creator - as one who guides, as we might guide - by tweaking, pushing, disposing, shoving, etc. towards order obscures what is meant by 'that which causes the existence of things'.

To hypothesise about the possibility of a cause in any sense (and the possible nature of such a cause), one must take into account the nature of its effect. If one is to posit that existence itself has a cause, that cause must be consistent with its effect.

My earlier point is that every existing thing that we know of is orderly in that it contains and displays a consistency and stability in some, or several respects which makes it possible for us to recognise, describe and understand. Even if 'pure chaos' were discovered somewhere, it could be easily recognised, described and understood as being 'that which is consistently different to other things' - in other words, it seems impossible that the existence of pure chaos could actually ever be confirmed, without proving that it isn't purely chaotic in the process.

Practically this means that one can say with some high degree of confidence that existence itself is something possessing the characteristic of order. So that if existence, as we observe it, should have a cause, then that cause effects both existence and order; implying that it is essentially something existing and orderly. (Much as one can say that the physical cause of electromagnetism has both electric and magnetic properties).

 

[Apone]

Oh dear. I just googled anti-chaos theory

It religious nonsense masquerading as science (I'm entitled to my opinion. Don't troll me)

It wouldn't surprise me if some people seemed to think that it was and 'adopted' it… creationists have managed to corrupt pretty much everything else in their desperate attempt to justify a literal interpretation of the Bible.

I haven't really been keeping up to date with the whole thing and it seems like something that never really caught on, so I'm not completely sure what happened to it or how the meaning of the term has changed in the past 20 years or so.

It's mostly just the idea that order inevitably springs from chaos-- that's all. It doesn't mean that God or Jesus is responsible… if you were reading the same article that popped up when I googled it just now then yeah, I can see how you would come to that conclusion-- some guy just liberally added his own BS to it and completely removed it from reality. It's basically the same old boring stupid process of saying 'we don't know this, therefore Jesus did it', which is especially amazing when it's actually their own fault for not even trying to understand what they're reading.

And I think I would only rub it in someone's face if I definitely knew the answer in the first place and they were being a tool… but this isn't really something I know a lot about, so…

I don't know about your theory I just sort of assumed that that was what you were getting at… I would still encourage you to follow it and build it up because I don't think it's the actual theory that wins the nobel prize, it's more about how you can make it seem convincing due to your knowledge of the topic.

 

[Poetic Justice]

Perhaps thinking of an anthropomorphic creator - as one who guides, as we might guide - by tweaking, pushing, disposing, shoving, etc. towards order obscures what is meant by 'that which causes the existence of things'.

To hypothesise about the possibility of a cause in any sense (and the possible nature of such a cause), one must take into account the nature of its effect. If one is to posit that existence itself has a cause, that cause must be consistent with its effect.

My earlier point is that every existing thing that we know of is orderly in that it contains and displays a consistency and stability in some, or several respects which makes it possible for us to recognise, describe and understand. Even if 'pure chaos' were discovered somewhere, it could be easily recognised, described and understood as being 'that which is consistently different to other things' - in other words, it seems impossible that the existence of pure chaos could actually ever be confirmed, without proving that it isn't purely chaotic in the process.

Practically this means that one can say with some high degree of confidence that existence itself is something possessing the characteristic of order. So that if existence, as we observe it, should have a cause, then that cause effects both existence and order; implying that it is essentially something existing and orderly. (Much as one can say that the physical cause of electromagnetism has both electric and magnetic properties).

I kinda get what your saying but I think you have misunderstood what order and chaos actually mean. Firstly, you need to abandon all the socially accepted connotations of order and chaos. Order is simply structure. Specific arrangements of particles, limited in the ways they could be described. Chaos is less specific arrangements of particles and therefore can be described in more different ways (see the glass of water thing above)

I don't think there is such a thing as pure chaos because if everything was as spread out as possible it would suddenly become orderly again (if it's uniform that means there is only one way to describe it). Hence my theory

The orderly thing which created order in our universe could simply be the universe itself btw. Balancing itself out by returning to a 0 energy state

I admit I'm kinda on the edges of my understanding here and am applying some of my own theory to this.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Oh dear. I just googled anti-chaos theory

It religious nonsense masquerading as science (I'm entitled to my opinion. Don't troll me)

The abuse of a theory does not nullify the theory itself.

I have never read any religious opinion on chaos theory, but it seems that to be able to verify the existence of chaos requires that one be able to identify chaos. But to identify something is to find a recognisable, stable quality of it. And such a quality implies orderliness, nullifying the assertion of chaos.