g/G is the dice — 180 Proof

'Order' is in the eye of the beholder, that is, an aspect of disorder (chaos) we happen to be 'mapping' – like 'seeing' faces in clouds – just as a 'whirlpool' is an emergent aspect of a storming sea. — 180 Proof

Reality cannot be inconsistent. — Yohan

Reality is consistent with our model because the model is our reality. That's truth. — magritte

So there is nothing but models of models of models ad infinitum>? — Yohan

Reality is the standard by which we measure if something is consistent or not.
What ever is consistent with reality, is true. Whatever is not, is false. — Yohan

What do you mean by consistent? Because if you mean repeatable then I’m afraid there are myriad examples of phenomenon and things in the universe that can never be repeated more than once. That doesn’t make them false just exceedingly rare or “unique”. — Benj96

Then the models can be tentatively presumed to correspond to what is now labelled reality. — magritte

Are you saying we have a model of reality — Yohan

What do we observe? Order. Ergo, it's got to be either God or Chance. Here's where it gets interesting. Our observation of order in the universe can't distinguish between God and Chance. — TheMadFool

That means, God is just another name for Chance and the converse is true as well, Chance is God's alias. Atheism and Theism are one and the same thing!

That reasoning does not work. — Cuthbert

All this is very nice and I found a lot of good arguments. However, the subject of order vs. randomity in the universe seems quite debatable, as well as how someone perceives one or the other. So I am not going to get involved in it, but only remind us that Einstein has also stated that "God Plays Dice with the Universe" in a letter regading his issues with quantum theory. The context and conditions in which these statements were made were different, of course. But they show the debatability of the subject — Alkis Piskas

What exactly is it that you find "debatable" about chaos and order? — TheMadFool

Whether Einstein, eh, I mean God, plays dice or not! :grin: — Alkis Piskas

Note: Maybe physicists know better? I am not good in Physics ... so I can't take part in the debate! — Alkis Piskas

Whether Einstein, eh, I mean God, plays dice or not! :grin:
— Alkis Piskas
Irrelevant! — TheMadFool

Physics is (becoming) a branch of mathematics. — TheMadFool

"Irrelevant!"
(Really, how does this statement relate to anything else in here? Who has said anything about mathematics?) — Alkis Piskas

-> — TheMadFool

First of all, I said that jokingly. (Didn't you see the laughing emoji?) Second, it's not that irrelevant as you say, since we are talking about order vs disorder. I remind you that your question was"What exactly is it that you find "debatable" about chaos and order?" Besides, it is you who brought up the concept of "God" in real terms (literally), based on Einstein's statement, altghough, as I mentioned, he used "God" metaphorically. — Alkis Piskas

Anyway, whether God is involved in the order of the universe or not, we have to bring in physics, and in particullar, quantum physics. So, regarding always my "debatable", here is something interesting from Prof. Alan Tennant, who has won the Europhysics Prize:

"Prof. Tennant remarks on the perfect harmony found in quantum uncertainty instead of disorder. ‘Such discoveries are leading physicists to speculate that the quantum, atomic scale world may have its own underlying order. Similar surprises may await researchers in other materials in the quantum critical state.'"
"If there’s an underlying order in the quantum world, that would be a rather significant philosophical shift. So I’m guessing this meaning of this result is going to be rather highly debated."
(https://entangledstates.org/2010/01/09/golden-ratio-observed-in-quantum-states/):

Do you see now what debate I am talking about? However, I can't go further than this, because as I already told you, I have little knowledge of physics. — Alkis Piskas

Physics is (becoming) a branch of mathematics.
— TheMadFool
Well, it's my turn now: "Irrelevant!"
(Really, how does this statement relate to anything else in here? Who has said anything about mathematics?) — Alkis Piskas

->
— TheMadFool

What's that? — Banno

What do we observe? Order. Ergo, it's got to be either God or Chance. — TheMadFool

The early founders of the Scientific Revolution in the seventeenth century — such as Galileo, Boyle, Descartes and Newton — were deeply religious men, for whom the belief in the wise and benign Creator was the premise behind their investigations into lawfulness of nature. However, while they remained loyal to the theistic premises of Christian faith, the drift of their thought severely attenuated the organic connection between the divine and the natural order, a connection so central to the premodern world view. They retained God only as the remote Creator and law-giver of Nature and sanctioned moral values as the expression of the Divine Will, the laws decreed for man by his Maker. In their thought a sharp dualism emerged between the transcendent sphere and the empirical world. The realm of "hard facts" ultimately consisted of units of senseless matter governed by mechanical laws, while ethics, values and ideals were removed from the realm of facts and assigned to the sphere of an interior subjectivity.

It was only a matter of time until, in the trail of the so-called Enlightenment, a wave of thinkers appeared who overturned the dualistic thesis central to this world view in favor of the straightforward materialism. This development was not a following through of the reductionistic methodology to its final logical consequences. Once sense perception was hailed as the key to knowledge and quantification came to be regarded as the criterion of actuality, the logical next step was to suspend entirely the belief in a supernatural order and all it implied. Hence finally an uncompromising version of mechanistic materialism prevailed, whose axioms became the pillars of the new world view. Matter is now the only ultimate reality, and divine principle of any sort dismissed as sheer imagination. — Bhikkhu Bodhi

'Order' is in the eye of the beholder, that is, an aspect of disorder (chaos) we happen to be 'mapping' – like 'seeing' faces in clouds – just as a 'whirlpool' is an emergent aspect of a storming sea — 180 Proof

Buddhists don't worship a creator God, but they have no trouble acknowledging there's an order to nature. They also believe there is karma, the results of intentional actions, which in their view is a natural moral law that has consequences beyond the individual's current existence. But there's no God in their belief system required to underwrite that. — Wayfarer

Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. ("I had no need of that hypothesis). — Pierre-Simon Laplace

[...]divine principle of any sort dismissed as sheer imagination.
— Bhikkhu Bodhi — Wayfarer

However, there is/has to be difference between answering the question, "whence this order?" with chance and simply refusing to answer the question (Noble Silence, the Buddha). — TheMadFool

karma being moral cause and effect. Rather, or for some, too scientific don't you think? — TheMadFool

A video on youtube reports that the solar system is unstable - the earth is drifting, only by a few centimeters every million years or so, away from the sun and our dear ol' moon is doing the same, inching away from the earth. — TheMadFool

Fundamental constants are finely tuned for life. A remarkable fact about our universe is that physical constants values needed to allow for complex structures, including living things. Steven Weinberg, Martin Rees, Leonard Susskind contend that an exotic multiverse provides a tidy explanation for this apparent coincidence: if all possible value enough collection of universes, then viable ones for life will surely be found somewhere. — George Ellis, Does the Multiverse Exist? Scientific American Aug 2011

To my knowledge, the question of whether the Universe was ordered was never put to the Buddha. It was not one of questions he declined to answer, because he wasn't asked it. — Wayfarer

But really I think it's a specious comparison, I don't think it's a scientific principle in the modern sense. — Wayfarer

exotic multiverse — George Ellis, Does the Multiverse Exist? Scientific American Aug 2011

Tell me what the definition of identical means. — TheMadFool

Take a walk outside the philosophy studio for a minute. — Cuthbert

I am not the same as my brother. Now go back inside. Whatever account of identity we come up with it has to be consistent with that. If we come up with a meaning for 'the same as' in which I'm the same as my brother, we've gone obviously wrong. And not going obviously wrong can often be as good as it gets in philosophy. Sometimes even that it out of reach. — Cuthbert

Sorry, I'm bad at humor. I used to be a jolly chap until I discoverd fate had other plans for me. — TheMadFool

Order insofar as my argument is concerned is only a representative of the category of evidence that makes theists go, God! — TheMadFool

Ergo, you're barking up the wrong tree :grin: — TheMadFool

You seem to be enamored of physics as if physicists are privy to information mathematicians are not — TheMadFool