Yes, but those things make goals worthwhile. Without entropy the world would be a boring place, perhaps moreso than it already is. — Posty McPostface
Is there anything wrong with this situation? — Posty McPostface
...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? — Banno
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. — Banno
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
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, a secondary feature of what underlying principle? — schopenhauer1
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
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
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 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
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. — StreetlightX
Root? Again, from what POV? And why afford it any significance? — StreetlightX
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
The striving of the human animal, as seen in our goals mitigated through language/enculturation is a manifestation of this proscription... — schopenhauer1
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. — StreetlightX
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.