Order doesn't "come from chaos". Order is a contingent, repeating pattern within chaos (e.g. whirlpool in a tempest ... 'law of large numbers' effect, etc) — 180 Proof

As far as I'm concerned, chaos can't be satisfactorily ruled out; after all, as you seem to be implying, order is a phase in chaos. Reminds me of skepticism and skeptical hypotheses - the point is not to prove that something is the case but simply to cast doubt on what we believe to be the case.

You've misread me, Fool. I don't "rule out" chaos; it's fundamental as far as I'm concerned.

You've misread me, Fool. I don't "rule out" chaos; it's fundamental as far as I'm concerned. — 180 Proof

My English needs work. That's what I wanted to say!

↪Yohan Order doesn't "come from chaos". Order is a contingent, repeating pattern within chaos (e.g. whirlpool in a tempest ... 'law of large numbers' effect, etc) — 180 Proof

Chaos is lack of order. It isn't a thing in itself. So I don't know what you mean. A tempest doesn't lack order. Can you give an example of an occurrence which lacks order?

e.g. Noise, radiactivity, vacuum, incompressible strings, thermal equilibrium... You're quite mistaken.

↪Yohan e.g. Noise, radiactivity, vacuum, incompressible strings, thermal equilibrium... You're quite mistaken. — 180 Proof

Everything that happens in nature is in conformity with the laws nature.
Everything that happens makes sense in light of the rules of nature.
If something appears to not make sense, it means there is an of yet undiscovered or not fully understood law of nature.

I am drawing a parallel between "making sense" and order, and "not making sense" with chaos.

Edit: I might go so far as to say that to understand means to make/perceive order

Edit ps. I don't know about radioactivity, vacuums, impressible strings, or thermal equilibrium.

While the likelihood of him walking past just as you’re talking about him is the same as any other moment
— Possibility

Explain yourself. I spend, maybe, 5 minutes talking about him and the rest of the day, 1435 minutes, not even thinking about him. — TheMadFool

The likelihood of him walking past doesn’t change just because you’re talking about him. The fact that you’re thinking about him increases the chance of him attracting your attention in a crowd, not the chance of him walking past. He may have walked past you half a dozen times that day, but you were focused on other things and didn’t notice.

Everything that happens in nature is in conformity with the laws [of] nature. — Yohan

And "the laws of nature" – they came to be without "conforming to laws of nature", they continue to be "without conforming to laws of nature" and when they cease to be they will do so without "conforming to laws of nature". That's how fundamental chaos is: just as 'north of the north pole' doesn't make sense, 'order to which order conforms' is nonsense – doesn't say anything.

And "the laws of nature" – they came to be without "conforming to laws of nature" — 180 Proof

The fundamental principles of reality cannot be created, destroyed, or violated. All activity is contingent upon them. Only their expressions come in and out of being.

That's how fundamental chaos is — 180 Proof

How can a negative be fundamental? Chaos = absence of order.
Perhaps you mean "primordial substance" has no "order". But if primordial substance has any possibilities inherent in it, those possibilities would be contingent upon some inherent principle.

just as north of the north pole doesn't make sense, order to which order conforms is nonsense. — 180 Proof

Order is conformity with principle. Principles are not order or chaos. They are the source of both order and apparent chaos.

Okay. Nevermind ... :confused:

-"I believe at root, consciously or unconsciously, the naturalists believe order comes from chaos."
- I am a Methodological Naturalist and I don't believe that there is a contingency there or a relation between two human made abstract concepts . It might be a feature of the "picture"...like "fuzziness" is visible in any painting IF you decide to stand really close.
Or maybe it can be an inability of our methods to see the patterns in a chaotic system due to its inherent complexity.
What I don't understand is why people who subscribe to different Worldviews feel the need to include observations of reality as "explanations" for their beliefs beyond reality!!!

-" I know that is what I think when I try to think from a naturalist point of view. Opposite for divine origin theory."
-Or you can think that the noise that we see and describe in chaos theory is just a "by product" of the self organizing process caused by really simple "rules" between properties of fundamental particles.

-" Reason creates the appearance of chaos for the sake of amusing itself, being bored of a perfectly reasonable (thus predictable) reality.""
-Not really. Direct observations guide reason to identify chaotic systems.

-"What is meant by 'Chaos' ?"
-Chaos is a observable phenomenon in nature.
Is a property displayed by physical systems that appear highly disordered and irregular.
The chaos theory has nothing to do with "comforting mathematical formulations" (at least comforting).
As the definition explains, its the study of "dynamical systems whose apparently random states of disorder and irregularities are actually governed by underlying patterns and deterministic laws that are highly sensitive to initial conditions."
So we deal with systems that appear chaotic to the observer due to the lack of initial data.

I am not sure you use " Chaos" under the scientific usage of the term. Chaos is not a "container". Its a property we observe in dynamic systems " whose apparently random states of disorder and irregularities are actually governed by underlying patterns and deterministic laws that are highly sensitive to initial conditions."
So it doesn't mean that those systems are "outiside" or immune to physical laws. Our inability to know initial conditions and variables is what makes them appear to our eyes "Chaotic".
It Observer dependent "fussiness" or known as "Observer Objectivity Collapse".

-"And "the laws of nature" – they came to be without "conforming to laws of nature", they continue to be "without conforming to laws of nature" and when they cease to be they will do so without "conforming to laws of nature". That's how fundamental chaos is: just as 'north of the north pole' doesn't make sense, 'order to which order conforms' is nonsense – doesn't say anything. "
-Again I am not sure that you use the term "laws of nature" under the accepted scientific definition.
The laws of nature are human descriptive law like generalizations of the emerging "rules" being observed in the interactions of the properties displayed by fundamental elements and their processes.
i.e. we through two magnets randomly and specific poles attract each other producing a predictable result. In short this is what our laws work....how properties "force" specific "behavior" in a system.

The current scientific paradigm doesn't validate the change of those properties hence it isn't reasonable to expect change in the emergent rules (described by our laws).
Now even if that was possible, that doesn't mean that this "Chaos" will prevail. No properties means no dynamic interactions, no dynamic interactions means no Chaos or order. As long as you have some kind of properties of matter those will always "force" the emergence of patterns and rules.
In short, the term chaos doesn't describe an opposite intrinsic state of a system, but our inability to have a complete observation of the process, its initial conditions included.

I think you are using the concept of Chaos in a colloquial every day sense.

From what I understand, most people in here use an idealistic version of the idea of Chaos and that doesn't really help their philosophical conclusions.
In order for a philosophical conclusion to be "wise"(ultimate goal of philosophy) it needs to be based on knowledge, not on idealistic artifacts.

I'm using "chaos" in the context of an exchange with Yohan. Read in context the meaning is clear: not conforming to the laws of nature. Do laws of nature conform to some other (more general ... ad infinitum) laws of nature? If you think so, explain it to me. If they don't, then the laws of nature are, in these terms, chaotic.

Sure! I never thought that it was not clear. The problem I see resides with the definition it self ."chaos=not conforming to the laws of nature".
We know from science that such a state(with that definition) is NOT an observe state within the reality.
What we have found is that chaotic systems are the product of laws of nature, but our inability to identify a pattern or to make any predictions is based solely on our inability to have access to the early conditions and the complexity of the system.
-"Do laws of nature conform to some other (more general ... ad infinitum) laws of nature?"
-Under a scientific scope, I can not really understand what that might mean.
As I already explained what a law is..is just a description of the rules that are observable between different elements interacting through their different properties. A specific property of an element (i.e. positive charged) allows a specific interaction with an other property of an element with different characteristics(i.e. negative charged). This doesn't only apply at a quantum level of reality where the properties are based on charges and kinetic attributes, but they apply to chemical properties in larger scales(molecular biological).
So our laws are descriptions that conform to rules displayed by those interactions. There is no reason to assume anything beyond that basic observation, since this mechanism is necessary and sufficient to explain the emergence of those "rules" that we describe in our laws.

-" If they don't, then the laws of nature are, in these terms, chaotic. "
-Again I don't really understand what that statement means.
Those properties of matter by definition create "rules" followed by different interactions. Even when a process of many interactions appears chaotic to us, its caused by numerous individual interactions "obeying" the same rules(physical laws) with to us, unknown initial conditions!

Thanks for your reply and links. I think that the connection between synchronicity and serependity is interesting, because it is about our own role in perception of meaning. In a way, we could say that self fulfilling prophecy is the opposite of serependity because it involves negative states affecting the pathways we navigate in creating our own destiny.I do believe that synchronicity is mostly about intuition and perceiving patterns, but it may be important in volition.

I have thought about the post which you wrote on the importance of attention and I believe that it is important but it is not just attention to the outer aspects of experience. In seeing the meaningful connections it is about the parallels within the outer world and the experience of thoughts. It may be that many people do not make links and some may not even remember their thoughts clearly enough.

I come from the perspective of noticing and remembering my thoughts. I had many experiences during adolescence, which were clear premonitions. I won't go into detail because some of them were extremely unpleasant as they were premonitions of people dying, and the individuals died shortly afterwards. At the time, I even started to worry that it was my fault that the people were dying. Fortunately, I discovered Jung's writings and it made a lot of sense.

I think that it is hard to know how far to go with Jung's theory, but it does seem to show that we can perceive patterns and it does seem to me to go beyond the physical world. I think that attention is important but it is a way of going beyond ordinary daily experience.

I am not sure about your interpretation of the idea of karma. It is an extremely complex topic and I feel that you are interpreting it is in the context of secular materialism. I am not opposed to the ideas within the secular aspects of philosophy because these predominate. However, I am also interested in esoteric thought, which includes ideas of hidden realities. However, these can be romanticized and mystified. So, I think that it is a mixture of looking towards various traditions, ranging from the ideas in various traditions of philosophy and the ideas within science, for trying to formulate the best possible understanding of 'reality' and the manifestation in experience.

Do you think that the perspective of materialism, or naturalism, is completely adequate for the explanation of the many varying aspects of human experiences?

Do you think that the perspective of materialism, or naturalism, is completely adequate for the explanation of the many varying aspects of human experiences? — Jack Cummins

Yes. Humans are natural creatures, sentient aspects of nature, which implies that "human experiences" are natural – figments of our meta-cognitive functions as an ecology-bound, animal species – as well. Whatever else nature is, it can only be consistently, reliably, explained (and thereby tested) in terms of nature with and by natural means. 'Super-natural' entities are mysteries and mysteries do not answer questions, they merely beg them and, therefore, are only placeholders – woo-of-the-gaps – which cannot be used to explain any aspect of nature or human experience in particular. Libraries stacked with millennia of *non-natural just-so stories* and I can't think of one which has held up under historical, scientific or conceptual scrutiny as an explanation of any phenomenon which we need explained. Can you tell me of one? Human experience, Jack, might not now or ever be "adequately explained" in natural terms alone; nevertheless, I prefer to admit that we simply don't / can't know something rather than just to make up shit and fetishize 'illusions of knowing'.

I am not entirely convinced by materialism but I thought that your answer was very good. Understanding and explaining human experiences is very complex, as there are so many aspects and variables involved.

I'm not entirely convinced either but I am even less convinced of the oft-proposed alternatives to (methodological) materialism.

In short, the term chaos doesn't describe an opposite intrinsic state of a system, but our inability to have a complete observation of the process, its initial conditions included.

I think you are using the concept of Chaos in a colloquial every day sense. — Nickolasgaspar

Even as a well-defined mathematical concept, talk about chaos is too broad here perhaps.

A metaphysical naturalist wanting to talk about order emerging from disorder would take their cue from models of criticality and spontaneous symmetry breaking.

So the beginning of the system - if we are talking about a law-bound Big Bang Cosmos - would be some kind of quantum critical state. And any fluctuation in terms of an action with a direction would crystallise a breaking of its symmetry. Global order would emerge as the new rules of this cooling-expanding game. Classicality would be the general description of nature as everywhere the “other” of quantum uncertainty was being decohered out of sight.

So this is a modern view of the ancient impulse to understand nature as the imposition of global order on local chaos. We now understand plenty about critical systems and phase transitions. There are mathematical models that can be applied in efforts at constructing quantum gravity theories where the regularity of spacetime is emergent from the correlations of localised quantum fluctuations - a foamy network starting point.

This view means that the initial conditions - in terms of some particular triggering cause - become irrelevant. In spontaneous symmetry breaking, some fluctuation is always going to tip the balance. Like the fabled flap of the butterfly wing, absolutely anything at all could have set things in motion. The deterministic fantasy is to think that ascribing causality to some random butterfly is adding any useful information to the understanding of what happened.

And contrariwise, this view argues that it is indeed the intrinsic balancing act which is the causal story. The beginning state is critical because it is finely poised between two opposing limits. It is exactly balanced at the point between its correlated and uncorrelated behaviour. It is equally differentiated and integrated over all scales.

So in fractal fashion, a generating algorithm is what primally exists. The cosmic system begins with the duality of being neither yet integrated, nor differentiated, but at the critical point where that dichotomy could begin to emerge into being as a symmetry breaking.

In other words, order arises out of chaos as the Big Bang sees spacetime start to expand and gain the regularity of global lawful habits as its energetic contents start to cool. But also, a positive notion of disorder arises as well. The local energetic contents undergo a condensation to become material particles bumping around kinetically in a void. Randomness becomes a concrete thing in the Cosmos - the blind independent wandering of atoms with ever weakening interactions. Eventually, the Cosmos becomes a vacuum with a sprinkle of dust - a perfect blend of global law and local freedom.

My point is that methodological naturalism can indeed lead one to look at reality through a model-theoretic lens. And I agree that many have read the salvation of classical determinism into the huge success of theories about deterministic chaos.

But if you dig a little deeper, you find even better support for an “order out of chaos” metaphysics. Models of criticality and symmetry breaking in particular tells us that initial conditions - as particular acts of measurement - don’t really matter if you have a proper handle on the deeper thing of the system’s generating algorithm.

And then this generator is not a monistic law but the begetter of cosmic dialectics. It is a division that speaks to a unity of opposites. If everything is a matter or relations, then that brings with it a tension between integration and differentiation, between global correlation and its local “other”.

Methodological naturalism risks just collapsing all explanation to a classical metaphysics. Metaphysical naturalism may be better served by paying closer attention to specific aspects of generic chaos theory such as the physics of critical systems.

Methodological naturalism risks just collapsing all explanation to a classical metaphysics. — apokrisis

Since "classical metaphysics" isn't theoretical – doesn't produce testable explanatory models – I don't see how "methodological naturalism just risks collapsing all explanation". I suppose I'm mostly a nominalist / instrumentalist in this regard.

The likelihood of him walking past doesn’t change just because you’re talking about him — Possibility

I'm not saying my talking about Will Smith affected the probability of him walking by. That's silly. I'm saying he could've walked by me at any time in a 24 hour period (1440 minutes) but that he appeared when I was talking about him (for 5 minute) is improbable. Do the math.

1440 - 5 = 1435

P(Will Smith walking by when I'm not talking about him) = 1435/1440

P(Will Smith walking by when I'm talking about him) = 5/1440

Since "classical metaphysics" isn't theoretical – doesn't produce testable explanatory models — 180 Proof

Classical metaphysics is that familiar Newtonian concoction of determinism, materialism, atomism, monism, mechanicalism and locality which we all so love.

As a reductionist metaphysical framework, it has a splendid track record for producing models that explain nature in terms of efficient/material cause.

My point is that this classical metaphysics only works within its own limits. It excludes the other two Aristotelean causes - formal/final cause. It isn’t a holistic or systems metaphysics.

So while classicality gives us elegant models of reasonably simple and reasonably complex physical systems, it runs out of steam when science wants to venture into the realms of the fundamentally simple, or the fundamentally complex. It breaks down when we get to the holism of quantum theory or the semiotics of living and mindful dissipative structure.

If by “classical” metaphysics, you instead meanancient metaphysics, you are still wrong. Or at least, Aristotle neatly divided causal explanations in a way that atomistic metaphysics could gratefully and usefully leave half of the four causes out when it came to “doing science”. :grin:

I suppose I'm mostly a nominalist / instrumentalist in this regard. — 180 Proof

Good luck trying to be a true natural philosopher while leaving formal and final cause out of your reality picture.

Even physicists have moved on from that kind of Newtonian extremism.

I simply quoted you back to yourself, apo. Actually, I mean metaphysics as such – "ancient" "classical" "modern" or what have you – cannot explain physical systems or occurrences, only speculate about them, maybe plausibly but usually not. If metaphysics – philosophy – ever produces truth-apt statements which describe or explain physical reality, then the sciences are wholly redundant and never would have developed as independent theoretical practices. Like a well-crafted pair of corrective lenses, philosophical 'speculation' may bring certain details into sharper focus but, IME, it does not compose (explain) or project (predict) what is seen (re: "transcendental illusions").