Yes, but those things make goals worthwhile. Without entropy the world would be a boring place, perhaps moreso than it already is. — Posty McPostface

The world wouldn't be a place without entropy, so that's slightly mischaracterized. Boredom is simply striving without a fixed goal- an understanding of one's striving nature at its essence.. its propensity for tasks-at-hand.. the mind needs to be occupied. The striving nature of the work to survive/maintain/entertain.

Is there anything wrong with this situation? I do not see a problem with it.


If these are the terms and conditions of life, then so be it

Is there anything wrong with this situation? — Posty McPostface

Yes, the striving.

...the generalized telos of the universe... — schopenhauer1

Isn't it just an error to say that since the total entropy of the universe does increase, that's the purpose of the universe?

What's to stop you claiming that the Will remains the purpose of the universe, despite - indeed, in the face of - entropy?

Isn't it just an error to say that since the total entropy of the universe does increase, that's the purpose of the universe? — Banno

I was trying, for the sake of this thread at least, to accommodate the purely realist position that would discount a noumenal reality (like Schop's Will). But, even discounting the foundation of Will, Entropy, does just fine in being its backup. In other words, all the functions of being-as-function-of-will, can be explained (roughly) as being-as-function-of-entropy without too much of a hiccup in consequence and conclusion. We are still striving- little manifestations of entropic principle (instead of illusionary manifestations of a monistic Will). We strive because of our negentropic tendencies that necessitate it rather than strive because of our willing tendencies that necessitate it (in the realm of "playground" of the phenomenal illusion, I guess).

So, it was less of a hard claim, then a compromise that was showing the similarities between the two. Of course Schop's noumenal Will has a lot of interesting implication (experience is explained as a double-sided nature, etc.), but putting issues of theory of mind aside, the pessimistic nature of beings striving to survive/maintain/entertain, and mediated and felt directly through the language-mediated goal-seeking, is intact in either conception.

So, using phrasing it as the purpose of entropy is to show the overarching theme that we are manifestations of this general principle, "living out" the very principle of entropy in our self-ordering, negentropic way.

Sure, that's not too eccentric.

So, using phrasing it as the purpose of entropy is to show the overarching theme that we are manifestations of this general principle, — schopenhauer1

For me, "the purpose of entropy" is a misappropriation of purpose. Entropy just is.

For me, "the purpose of entropy" is a misappropriation of purpose. Entropy just is. — Banno

Okay, and I guess the goal of the OP was to explain more that we are manifestations of entropy, so if I changed the topic to:
Entropy- Universe's Overarching Principle or
Entropy- How we are One Manifestation of General Principle of...
Would that be more satisfactory to the goal set out in the OP for you without misappropriation?

However, to challenge your claim that the use of "purpose" is an error, if the universe is heading, inevitably in that direction, than "purpose" as it is seen as "final cause" (in an Aristotlean sense) seems to be appropriate.

You will find plenty of folk hear who will agree to the primacy of entropy. I remain unconvinced; I still think that it might be a secondary feature.

The problem with "purpose" is the hint of intent it carries with it. Forever oust that and I see no problem. Replace Will with Purpose, and the hint of intent becomes apparent.

You will find plenty of folk hear who will agree to the primacy of entropy. I remain unconvinced; I still think that it might be a secondary feature. — Banno

Okay, a secondary feature of what underlying principle?

The problem with "purpose" is the hint of intent it carries with it. Forever oust that and I see no problem. Replace Will with Purpose, and the hint of intent becomes apparent. — Banno

Okay, I will agree that perhaps changing purpose to something else, conveys the topic better. I was using it in the vein of Aristotle's final cause, not in the idea that there is some being's purpose or intent behind it. However, interestingly (and a bit tangential), if entropy was baked in from the beginning (the universe could not but necessitate that it entropifies) then there is necessity built in from the beginning, though not "purpose" in terms of a being that designs something to run a certain way.

However, true enough, if I am making connections with Schop's Will, that has no hint of purposefulness, then using that word draws too much attention to the idea that there is an end goal to strive for. So for the purposes of clarifying my own position, I will change the title.

Okay, a secondary feature of what underlying principle? — schopenhauer1

Unlike some, I am not so particular about having an answer. My basic physics tells me that entropy arrises only at a macro level, and I take that as indicative of other stuff like time and mass being somewhat more central. But i do not have the answer.

Niether, I suspect, does any one else, despite their claims.

Fair enough. I saw the connections there and wanted to share it. Entropy does not have to be the underlying principle for this to be what is the case. Mass/time can be more fundamental, but not essential to what it is we are "doing" in our work-striving as negentropic entities.

Now, if entropy doesn't exist in other possible universes, what are the implications? I am not sure. First I am not sure if that is even something that can happen. Second, if it is, it certainly would change things in terms of what is fundamental to reality as a whole. In that possible universe though, striving would maybe not be a thing. In ours it would still hold.

To the degree that entropy is a principle it is a peculiar one insofar as it doesn't actually prescribe anything in particular (it might be better to say it proscribes things in general): from the point of view of existing things, its structure is closer to that of a double-negative*: you can't not put in work in order to sustain a particular organization of matter. Framing it this way makes it kind of like a meta-rule for organized structures: whatever structures there are (planets, plants, or pond ecosystems), they can't not be kept fed with energy if they are to persist. I'm fudging the language a bit (our linguistic resources are poor when it comes to this sort of thing), but the point is that entropy says nothing, strictly speaking, about how that imperative or constraint is to be satisfied - it is 'multiply reliazable', and further, it is utterly silent about how or what those realizations will be or arise. Meaning simply that entropy leaves alot of room for a great deal of stuff, without saying much about the details of that stuff, which are goverened by other, finer-grained parameters.

In any case, the langauge of 'purpose', as ordinarily understood ('that for the sake of which', roughly), does seem a poor fit to speak about it.

*Perhaps this framing as a double-negative also does some justice to @Bannos intuition that entropy is in some sense derivative?

In any case, the langauge of 'purpose', as ordinarily understood ('that for the sake of which', roughly), does seem a poor fit to speak about it. — StreetlightX

Yes, I agreed with Banno for reasons you bring up here, and changed the thread's title accordingly. Though, I did mention the caveat that if it is a necessity that entropification occurs, then in a way, entropy is a necessity and thus a baked in final cause or telos that the energy of the universe is leading towards.

from the point of view of existing things, its structure is closer to that of a double-negative: you can't not put in work in order to sustain a particular organization of matter. Framing it this way makes it kind of like a meta-rule for organized structures: whatever structures there are (planets, plants, or pond ecosystems), you can't not keep feeding it with energy if you want it to persist. — StreetlightX

Yes, every thing seems to be ruled by it. However, I wouldn't even use the phrase "in order to sustain". As you and Banno noted, there is no intention here. The principle exists and thus, localized negentropic organized matter that is dynamically self-regulating/generating/evolving (life) is an outcome. It probably didn't have to go that way, but then again, perhaps it was inevitable at some point, even if not in the exact contingent manner it actually did go down.

What the consequence is for us, is the striving principle. The main point in the OP is thus:

the localized negentropy of the animal is characterized by all that work of the body/mind to survive, maintain, entertain. The stresses of life, the stresses of society, the stresses of psychology, the stresses of circumstances of the animal vs. the environment, this is all just localized negentropy (contributing its part in the universal entropy). The quietus of non-existence interrupted for the work-to-b-done. Yet we can see this from the internal view. We see the very essence of our striving in our individual goals, social organization, and the individual restless mind that needs stimulus and entertainment.

We are the universe's self-reflecting strivers. Pursuing due to the unrecognized underlying principle of entropy. We must work, work, work..

The stresses of life, the stresses of society, the stresses of psychology, the stresses of circumstances of the animal vs. the environment, this is all just localized negentropy — schopenhauer1

I take issue with this 'just' here. Surely, all the things you mention are indeed cases of localized negentropy, but they are quite plainly not only cases of localized negentropy. They are, well, anything they can possibly be from points of view other than that of entropy. The privilege afforded to the entropic POV seems unmotivated and at the very least unjustified so far.

Or rather, I know exactly what your motivations are and I think you're leaveraging those motivations to draw conclusions from entropy that are not warranted by it.

I take issue with this 'just' here. Surely, all the things you mention are indeed cases of localized negentropy, but they are quite plainly not only cases of localized negentropgy. They are, well, anything they can possibly be from points of view other than that of entropy. The privilege afforded to the entropic POV seems unmotivated and at the very least unjustified so far. — StreetlightX

Fair enough. But the point is not to deflate all POV to localized negentropy. The point is that BEING localized negentropy, we can be characterized, at essence, what Schopenhauer characterized existence at its essence- a striving principle. In the human animal that would be seen in our striving towards goals, restlessness, stresses I brought up earlier, etc. It has larger implications of the essence of being, it is not meant to merely create synonyms (i.e. life= negentropy or life is just negentropy or some such). It is the pessimistic implication surrounding this idea.

The point is that BEING localized negentropy, we can be characterized, at essence, — schopenhauer1

Can be, yes, but I see no reason to. Nor even adopt or rather import and impose the langauge of 'essence' on the discussion, which is just alien vocabulary.

Can be, yes, but I see no reason to. Nor even adopt or rather import and impose the langauge of 'essence' on the discussion, which is just alien vocabulary. — StreetlightX

How so? Essence here meaning "the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character" (Google Dictionary). The principles of negentropy create the circumstances for the very striving at root in the human animal. I categorize the basic goals into survival/maintenance/entertainment.. but whatever category our striving nature falls under, it is proscribed due to the principle of negentropy.. Our work is a localized version of the general principle of energy eventually being more disordered and spread out until all work is used up.

If you want to bring in phenomenology- goal-seeking is very much part of the human work to survive/maintain/entertain.

Root? Again, from what POV? And why afford it any significance? These are value judgements, imposed from without, unmotivated but for a taste for shitty ancient metaphysical claptrap.

Root? Again, from what POV? And why afford it any significance? — StreetlightX

So wait, you don't seek out goals as a normally enculturated human (not asleep/coma/unconscious)? You don't do work or make sure work is done to survive/maintain/entertain? I'd like to see you counter that.

Long story short: Schop's Will can be roughly equated with principle of entropy.. compromise with realists on metaphysics.. same pessimistic conclusion from both.

Sure I do, but is this 'striving' my 'root' or 'essence'? Does this question even make sense? What would even motivate this line of questioning? Surely nothing about the cold and mundane fact of entropy. No, the motivation comes from elsewhere, and there is no reason to take it seriously.

Sure I do, but is this 'striving' my 'root' or 'essence'? Does this question even make sense? What would even motivate this line of questioning? Surely nothing about the cold and mundane fact of entropy. — StreetlightX

This is rhetorical equivocating to make what I'm saying seem incomprehensible. By root or essence I mean, a principle which we are all "proscribed" by in its negentropic form. The striving of the human animal, as seen in our goals mitigated through language/enculturation is a manifestation of this proscription.

The striving of the human animal, as seen in our goals mitigated through language/enculturation is a manifestation of this proscription... — schopenhauer1

....Among other things, sure. It still seems like you're trying to read much too much into it.

Not really. We cannot help but live out the very parameters that organize the universe. That’s a pretty big implication. But as beings affected by the principle, it brings the pessimistic outlook..mainly to do with the stresses and striving mentioned earlier.

Again, these are value judgements imposed from without, and which also, I might add, do not respect the level of generality at which entropy operates. In any case, pessimism is not philosophy, just a quirk of psychology mistaken for it. As Agamben once said: "Pessimism and optimism are two psychological categories that have nothing to do with philosophical thought. Let them be left to fools."

Value judgements are part of the work/stress of beings working on the principles of entropy. Actually no, I don’t think entropy too general a principle when applied specifically to its more complex version of negentropy. I’d like you to outline how it would be some category error or misplaced POV if you are not just dismissing out of hand.

Fighting against entropy might be something we could choose as a gaol, @schopenhauer1.

But we are not obligated to do so.

Consider a counter example, in which, since it is obvious that entropy must win, our task ought be to create as much disorder as possible.

I don’t think entropy too general a principle when applied specifically to its more complex version of negentropy. — schopenhauer1

This is not a sentence that makes sense in English, and is not what I said.

This is not a sentence that makes sense in English, and is not what I said. — StreetlightX

Sure it does. Negentropy is a temporary state of order (like life), where organization is increasing, but these clumps of orderliness are following principles of entropy and eventually contribute to universal disorder. And we are living out the principles of this temporary state of orderliness and thermodynamics. All the principles from biochemical/cellular development, evolution, to the complex minds of animals, are working on this general principle. But, as a thinking, feeling, self-aware human, it is seen in our experiences of life, and specifically in the WORK we do in survival/maintenance/entertainment- what one might call the phenomenological aspect of being a normally enculturated human being.

Can I check that I understand - you are proposing something like that the will and the struggle against entropy are two aspects of the same thing?

Can I check that I understand - you are proposing something like that the will and the struggle against entropy are two aspects of the same thing? — Banno

Not quite. I would never say Schopenhauer would equate his idea of Will with something from the phenomenal world like some physical law/principle. But I am saying that for all intents and purposes, if you replaced his noumenal will, with the law of entropy, the ideas that he concludes of a striving-but-for-nothing principle can still be reached, with its same pessimistic conclusions regarding the suffering human animal. Now, StreetlightX says this is a value judgement, but I am saying the very fact that we are embodied beings of a principle of striving can be a basis for proving a structural suffering of sorts- all the more so for a self-reflecting being.