1. Neither. Order is just a "slower-to-dissipate" aspect-zone of chaos to which observers belong and, therefore, they are interested in enough – have time enough – to map, model and foolosophize about

2. "Peace, that glorious moment in time when everyone stops and reloads." ~Thomas Jefferson

3. Zebras are black(?)

1. Neither. Order is just a "slower-to-dissipate" aspect-zone of chaos to which observers belong and, therefore, they are interested in enough – have time enough – to map, model and foolosophize about. — 180 Proof

Order is stages/phases in chaos — TheMadFool

Did you click the link, Chaos (Cosmogony)?

Some excerpts for your reading pleasure:

Ramon Llull (1232–1315) wrote a Liber Chaos, in which he identifies Chaos as the primal form or matter created by God. Swiss alchemist Paracelsus (1493–1541) uses chaos synonymously with "classical element" (because the primeval chaos is imagined as a formless congestion of all elements) — Wikipedia

Chaos has been linked with the term abyss / tohu wa-bohu of Genesis 1:2. The term may refer to a state of non-being prior to creation or to a formless state. — Wikipedia

Pherecydes of Syros (fl. 6th century BC) interprets chaos as water, like something formless that can be differentiated — Wikipedia

Take a look at this :point: Tohu wa-bohu (Without form and void). and some extracts from it below:

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

— Genesis 1:2, New International Version — Wikipedia

The words tohu and bohu also occur in parallel in Isaiah 34:11, which the King James Version translates with the words "confusion" and "emptiness". — Wikipedia

Chaos (Ancient Greek: χάος, romanized: kháos) refers to the void state preceding the creation of the universe or cosmos in the Greek creation myths — Wikipedia

Also relevant, Randomness is the apparent or actual lack of pattern or predictability in events.

I'm intrigued by two things:

1. Formless (Chaos) sounds very much like Randomness (Patternlessness)

2. The Void is considered an idea equivalent to Formless (Chaos). My best guess is the emptiness of the void becomes a Possibility Space [In probability theory, the sample space (also called sample description space or possibility space) of an experiment or random trial is the set of all possible outcomes or results of that experiment] of infinite possibilities (anything's possible so far as The Void goes). Please note, I'm not claiming that something comes from nothing; all I'm saying is if there's nothing (The Void) then, anything's possible, that's all.

Why?

The Void is nothing and nothing doesn't contradict anything. Nothing is a like a blank page. You can write anything on it! However, after you've written something down, we have to start worrying about contradictions i.e. after nothing becomes something, the possibility space of The Void (Nothing) is drastically reduced from infinite to finite.

Thus, some ancient cosmogony (Greek) seems to consider the original state/ of the universe as chaos/void/formless which basically means the current order of the universe with a stable set of laws of nature could be, as you said,

slower-to-dissipate" aspect-zone of chaos to which observers belong. — 180 Proof

We should be always prepared then for sudden/gradual alterations in the order, a return as it were to the primordial chaos/the formless/the void!

2. "Peace, that glorious moment in time when everyone stops and reloads." ~Thomas Jefferson — 180 Proof

:fire: :clap:

3. Zebras are black(?) — 180 Proof

So they say but following the logic that makes that claim, Caucasians are Africans. :rofl: I think we have a strong case against racism! :smile:

No I haven't checked the link. Xaos and I have been acquainted for a very long time, much of your quotes are familiar. My reply paraphrases Ilya Prigogine (& Jacques Monod) from reading him (them) in the mid-80s I think. In my TPF post history there's many of references to "void" equated with "randomness" and total unbroken "symmetry" or the object of Noether's theorems, related to Quentin Meillassoux's ""hyperchaos", "logical / phase space" and even "autopoiesis" – which, I suppose, are the fundamentals of (my) ontology.

following the logic that makes that claim, Caucasians are Africans. :rofl: I think we have a strong case against racism! :smile: — TheMadFool

That is actually the standard argument against “race realism” (i.e. the argument that race is a social construct): none of the usual racial categories map onto biological reality, because if they did all Native Americans would be “Asians”, all such “Asians” would be the same race as Caucasians, and there would be a ton of different African races on par with them, or else if you tried to treat all Africans as one race, all humans would belong to that race.

"void" equated with "randomness" — 180 Proof

How do you justify this equivalence? Why is the "void" equated wih "randomness"?

That is actually the standard argument against “race realism” (i.e. the argument that race is a social construct): none of the usual racial categories map onto biological reality, because if they did all Native Americans would be “Asians”, all such “Asians” would be the same race as Caucasians, and there would be a ton of different African races on par with them, or else if you tried to treat all Africans as one race, all humans would belong to that race — Pfhorrest

:up: Noted!

The thing is, even if we made the switch from race as biology to race as s social construct, it doesn't seem to help at all. That race is now to be viewed as a social construct instead of a biological one did nothing, in fact can do nothing, to the simple fact of the matter that I, for instance, can tell the difference between an African, a Caucasian, and a Mongolian.

What do I mean?

Yes, it's true that at some level in biology (biochemistry for example), races can't be distinguished but the truth is race isn't based on biochemistry at all. Race ideology, because its older than the branches of biology that erase racial boundaries, couldn't have been based on false ideas about these various subdisciplines of biology. Au contraire, race was/had to be based on those biological and cultural features that were overt, visible, in an in-your-face kind of way. What exactly are these "features"? Exactly those that help us, any one of us, tell the difference between Africans, Caucasians, and Mongolians. Anyone who claims that fae can't recognize a Caucasian when fae sees one, an African when fae sees one, a Mongolian when fae sees one, is probanly lying.

What I'm trying to get at is better explained with an analogy. Suppose I'm given three objects (three races), a triangle, a circle, and a square. Now, I can clearly see that these three objects are distinct shape-wise, one a triangle, the other a circle, and the third a square. Suppose I develop an ideology based on the shapes of these 3 objects (races/shapes). Now, someone can't come along and tell me my ideology of shapes/races is wrong because all 3 objects are made of plastic. My ideology os shapes/races wasn't based on what the objects were made of but on their shapes.

Likewise, human races are based on certain overt, clearly visible, biological (and cultural) features that people can observe without the help of a lab in some biological research center. To then say races aren't real because a scientist can't tell whether the blood sample in a vial in his lab is Caucasian or African or Mongolian is to miss the point completely. Right? :chin:

That race can then become the basis of an hierarchy of races (racism) is a different story altogether. I'm not fishing so I really don't need to open that can of worms.

Why is the "void" equated wi[th] "randomness"? — TheMadFool

Void is non-orientation (non-asymmetrical). Randomness is incompressibility (non-asymmetrical). Complementary ways of describing the non-asymmetrical (symmetry-free) state-of-affairs.

Void is non-orientation (non-asymmetrical). Randomness is incompressibility (non-asymmetrical). Complementary ways of describing the non-asymmetrical (asymmetry-free) state-of-affairs. — 180 Proof

Well, that sounds like fashionable nonsense à la postmodernism to me but good judgment has never been my forte (my strong suit). Care to expand and elaborate? Too many words in your post that seem to have a very technical meaning in some context I'm not familiar with.

That out of the way, did you go through my simple (simplisitic?) argument why the void and the random are essentially the same thing? In a very basic sense, the void is nothing and so no property can be ascribed to it let alone the notion of patternlessness (category mistake) while the random is patternlessness. It's like saying a man (can't have a uterus) = woman who's had a hysterectomy (can have a uterus but it's absent). It gets me thinking about the so-called Mu mind state which has been translated, inter alia, as N/A (not applicable). So, the concept of pattern is N/A to the void (category mistake) but then, for some fascinating but insofar as I'm concerned, unknown reason(s), it's treated as equivalent to the patternless void. I feel like asking a question, "what's the difference between, say, having a condom and not using it and not having a condom at all?" The end result is identical - a baby. Maybe there's something worth looking into here.

2. Paradoxical pity: Y lacks something X has but X wastes that something, whatever it is. For instance, X is a talented singer but Y can't carry a tune in a wheel barrow but...X has no interest in music at all. In this case, Y pities X for X is, in a sense, no different from Y; it's as if X couldn't sing even if faer life depended on it and that's exactly how Y perceives faerself. — TheMadFool

I picked that up from :point: Pity=bad?.

I guess it's a question of equating wasted potential to absent potential. The void is sans potential (can never possess patterns) while the randomless has the potential (can possess patterns) but it's untapped.

No! Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try. — Yoda

It seems, going by Yoda's philosophy, potential means zip, nada, nothing if it isn't actual. I'm sure there are a number of weltanschauungs that have this principle as a corollary of their axioms. What the heck was Yoda's philosophy? Any ideas?

Unfashionable sense for the cogniscenti, my friend.

Void = symmetry-free.
Randomness = symmetry-free.
Void = randomness.

Google, SEP, wikipedia are at your fingertips. Edification is just a few key-strokes away. :smirk:

What the heck was Yoda's philosophy? — TheMadFool

"Do or do not, there is no try."

Unfashionable sense for the cogniscenti, my friend. — 180 Proof

I thought as much! As you said,

And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who couldn't hear the music. — Wikipedia

Why in God's name can't I hear the music? Any remedies that you might wanna recommend a good friend with this condition?

"Do or do not, there is no try." — 180 Proof