Chaos and Form

[nativeastral]

Originally Posted by The Undecided

I came across something that I wrote a while ago and just thought I'd ask what people thought, put the ideas out there for criticism. It makes sense to me but does it make sense to you? All view points welcome.

Everything in the universe moves from Chaos to Form and back again. Chaos being the stuff everything is made from before it is created and Form being everything that exists in the universe once it has been created. Once something has a form it can only move back to chaos, it is inevitable. A person will die, a star will burn out, and a pen will run out of ink. All forms are transitional. The Second Law of Thermodynamics holds true here, that an ordered system will always become more disordered over time. However, the ‘ordered state’ mentioned here is what we often assume form is the product of, as order is the opposite of chaos. This is how we think as a society, in opposites, good and bad, beautiful and ugly, right and wrong. In fact to describe a object or person as something creates its opposite description. To say something is beautiful creates the existence of ugliness. If an action is good then there must be actions that are bad. This is how we make sense of the world, and by we I don‘t just mean people, I am also including animals in this. A predator understands itself as such because its prey exists as it does, we humans understand ourselves as such because there is a world of other forms for us to interact with and depend on. Often our viewpoint of the world is divided into the subject (a person) and object (a chair, a pen, a car). We understand ourselves in relation to the objects in the world, and the objects exist as they do because we perceive them as such. As a result our understanding of forms is dependent on our perceptions of them. All forms are also dependent on chaos too, as without chaos there would be no forms, and without forms there would be no chaos, it is a cyclic system. But if we move beyond the dualistic viewpoint of subject and object and see things as only chaos and form then it becomes easier to see the best in things without creating the worst. To see all sentient beings as the same is to respect all life in a way that has no need for labels above nominal usage. Returning to the question of the existence of order, put frankly there is no order in the universe, there is instead a constant movement between chaos and form and back again, as I have mentioned. What is referred to as order is in fact the co-dependence of everything on everything else. Nothing could exist without this co-dependence, and it is precisely this that we mistake for order.

I'd recommend any of Alan Watts talks; heres one

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by c0de

If God creates a creature that is beyond His total control, than He has already forfeited His omnipotence/omniscience.

God can bring a creature back under His total control any time He likes ... but that does not mean God employs total control over His creature all the time.

If God is Infinite, there is no 'beyond' for the creature to go. But that does not mean God is controlling the creature where he is.

Originally Posted by c0de

[/B]We are not that special< ... just delusional.

Your faith, dude. Not mine.

Originally Posted by c0de

They are HIS standards, He created them. He is NOT subject to them.

No, but your argument is subjecting God to your logic.

Thomas

[immortalitylost]

Originally Posted by Thomas

But He is not the creator of evil in itself (How can He be? He would have to be schizophrenic, or at least not know His own mind.)

You've said this before. I would put out there that "God's mind" is beyond all ability for us to attribute a clear agenda to. Especially a cut and dry, dualistic, "good or evil" agenda.

People come up with all kinds of clever ways to define things to back up their own theories don't they. But I don't think God's will can be defined.

I don't think God can be defined, or sussed out, or made to be understood.

An example of how our "knowledge of God" really starts out it's quest on the power of assumptions. How is it that you know God's will is only good?

How did you come to such knowledge?

In your reasoning, the words god and good seem to be synonymous. Therefore evil, clearly not good, must defy God, and must also defy his will. So evil is a non-thing, because nothing is the only thing that can defy God's will.

But it all hangs on the wire that God is only good. Again, where does that come from? And what is considered good?

Let's say that God's will is the definition of good, instead of Good being the definition of God's will. I know it looks like it would be the same thing, but sift through it and find the subtleties.

Well, since nothing can go against God's will, then everything here must be good. And since we can acknowledge that there is evil here, it must be a thing, and therefore part of God's will, and therefore good.

I think the sticking point, the center of the knot, of this piece of the argument at least, is whether you choose to see evil as a thing or a non-thing. And since I can clearly see the manipulation behind classifying evil as a non-thing, I choose to say that it has thing status.

The funny thing is, by both our definitions, God is omnipotent over all. My universe just holds a bit more stuff it seems, than yours.

But that's just me starting off on a different preconception about the nature of God and his creation. Not necessarily the right one, nor the wrong, but a different one.

Another jammed cog in the search to understand God's will is the whole business of humans, and whether we're special, or separate, and somehow are beyond the deterministic nature of the rest of the universe.

It's one of the keys to learning something of the nature of God's will, and again it is a question at odds with itself, seemingly unanswerable.

It seems though, I'll agree, to be a problem of moral responsibility. Or rather, our predisposition to hold others responsible for their actions.

But is moral responsibility the only true argument against determinism?

Are we morally responsible? How are we to know? And I mean, really know?

Well, then there's hell. Hell and morals are forever intertwined. Hell, and morals, and free will, and the nature of evil, and the nature of God.

You know, I think the funniest part of all of this is how in trying to solve one question, you see how all the questions are linked, kind of little bits of a bigger question. And those linked bits make it impossible to solve the first bit, and round and round we go, unable to stop ourselves from asking why.

It seems I've fallen into the same conundrum as Socrates. All I know is that I know nothing at all.

Maybe none of us do...

Somehow, I don't think we're ever answering this one, guys...

But maybe that's God's will.

[c0de]

.


@ Thomas

Let us do a little recap. You have abandoned half your
argument (about scriptural definitions) and the second
half you are just restating, even when it has already
been nullified.

but that does not mean God employs total control over His creature all the time.

Already countered:

"If God creates a creature that is beyond His total control,
than He has already forfeited His omnipotence/omniscience."

If God is Infinite, there is no 'beyond' for the creature to go. But that does not mean God is controlling the creature where he is.

Red vs Blue dude. You just defeated your own argument.
If the creature can not go "beyond" God's control,
then by definition, it means that He is being controlled
where he is.

No, but your argument is subjecting God to your logic.

That's funny, considering my argument is based solely in scripture,
unlike yours which is filtered through accepted mainstream institutional dogma.

[c0de]

.

p.s.


@ iLost

Originally Posted by immortalitylost

Are we morally responsible? How are we to know? And I mean, really know?

pfffft

We are morally responsible because God has told us we are!

duh!

But is moral responsibility the only true argument against determinism?

Of course not. You are just confused because you believe in this:

Well, then there's hell. Hell and morals are forever intertwined. Hell, and morals, and free will, and the nature of evil, and the nature of God.

geez... relax dude... you'll give yourself an aneurysm

Even if hell lasts a billion zillion years, if heaven is infinite,
then mathematically, you really can't complain.

There is already ample evidence to suggest that the maximum
stay in hell would be a person's life in years that they spent here.

If you look at hell as a stepping stone, something God has decreed,
and something everyone has to go through (some in this life, the rest in the next)
then all of this will make much more sense.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by c0de

"If God creates a creature that is beyond His total control, than He has already forfeited His omnipotence/omniscience."[/I]

Not really ... God created a creature to participate in His omnipotence/omniscience; God created a creature to participate in His own freedom ... but the difference is that God is uncreated, the creature is created.

Thus the creature is always, and utterly, dependent on God for its existence, but that does not mean God is always and utterly deterministic towards His creation ... in Genesis He brings the animals before Adam to see what he will name them ... in Hosea He expresses a love that means He will not act in a deterministic way, as man tends to do.

So God creates, and sets His creature free within it ...

Thomas

[The Undecided]

Originally Posted by nativeastral

I'd recommend any of Alan Watts talks; heres one

Thank you nativeastral, I enjoyed watching that talk. I'll watch some of the others now.

TU

[immortalitylost]

*pouts*
...I'm not a dude...

Lol, and I don't believe in hell, or, if I do, not an eternal hell.

I've already had an aneurysm! It's too late for me! Save yourself!

[c0de]

.


Thomas + iLost


@ Thomas

Not really ... God created a creature to participate in His omnipotence/omniscience;

LoLz !!

So, here it is... finally...

Self deification... the goal of all organized religion.

Thus the creature is always, and utterly, dependent on God for its existence, but that does not mean God is always and utterly deterministic towards His creation ...

yea, sure...

(if you believe God is "sharing His omniscience/omnipotence")

in Genesis He brings the animals before Adam to see what he will name them ...

rite... as if God had no idea what Adam was going
to name those animals before he did??







@ iLost

*pouts*

...I'm not a dude...

ohhhhh .....

see now it all makes sense !!!

and I don't believe in hell, or, if I do, not an eternal hell.

need help pickin? okay!

Heads, no hell,

Tails, Hell but not eternal


























































































.... ah well

[immortalitylost]

Just got word from my crocagator friends in the sewers...

Jimmy ate the quarter...

And I still know nothing!!!

...what does me bein a girl explain?

Hey now... Don't make me call in my crocagator friends for a "favor" lol.



Brings a whole new meaning to friends in low places, lol.

[c0de]

Originally Posted by immortalitylost

Jimmy ate the quarter...

Jimmy's eatin quarters now???

Well, he's been crackin' corn for long enuff...

i say cut 'em sum slack

...what does me bein a girl explain?

the "meow"ness

Hey now... Don't make me call in my crocagator friends for a "favor" lol.

your crocogator friends???

excuse me, but they were MY friends
BEFORE they even knew who you were

[immortalitylost]

Ah, yes, the meowness. That it does, my friend. That it does...

[Penelope]

Originally Posted by The Undecided

Everything in the universe moves from Chaos to Form and back again. Chaos being the stuff everything is made from before it is created and Form being everything that exists in the universe once it has been created. Once something has a form it can only move back to chaos, it is inevitable. A person will die, a star will burn out, and a pen will run out of ink. All forms are transitional. The Second Law of Thermodynamics holds true here, that an ordered system will always become more disordered over time. However, the ordered state’ mentioned here is what we often assume form is the product of, as order is the opposite of chaos ... Returning to the question of the existence of order, put frankly there is no order in the universe, there is instead a constant movement between chaos and form and back again, as I have mentioned. What is referred to as order is in fact the co-dependence of everything on everything else. Nothing could exist without this co-dependence, and it is precisely this that we mistake for order.

Hi TU. Welcome.

It's the pits, isn't it?:
Trying to put complex thoughts into clear, concise language ... ?

Try this ...

1. Throw out the classical concept "form." It is a meaningless word, scientifically.

2. Stop using the word "order" like a concept which describes reality (it does not), and use it in its more informal, everyday meaning - only. As describing an ultra-simple system which - at face value - appears to have a nice, clean linear organization.

3. Use "chaos" as a key concept, but in its modern (Chaos Theory) sense only, not as the opposite of "order."
(In Ecological Theory, "chaos" is a natural organizing principle {one of two} operating all "systems" in the universe {systems which have any degree of complexity at all}. Chaos is a kind of occult-order - describing nonlinear "systems" in their relatively-dynamic aspect. Chaos embraces randomness without being unstable. Chaos is neither stable nor unstable, so it is always open to change and to new directions. Indeterminacy is a positive part of its nature. It is how the human brain works, and how any complex reality is able to become more complex still, without having to field a larger quantity of data than it already has to process. {Chaos exploits entropy and counters inertia.})

4. You need to add to this equation the idea of "symbiosis."
(Though your word "co-dependency" is pretty close - if, and only if, you dissociate it from linguistic dualities. Think whole ecosystem, every part relying on every other part. {Symbiosis exploits inertia and counters entropy.})

& & &

How "systems" work:
(These modern concepts have been around at least 40 years. I ran into them in high school 30 years ago: Ramon Margalef, Perspectives in Ecological Theory.)

1. Every physical system in the universe, mineral or organic, must have both "matter' and "energy" in order to exist. All science starts there. But what most theoreticians miss, according to Margalef, is that ...

2. Matter and energy interact.

3. Doing so, they initiate a "system."

4. Within this system, matter and energy become "regulated" (to at least some degree ... the more complex the system is, the more it is self-regulating).

5. There are two kinds of overlapping (i.e. "global") regulators (two subsystems) - operating within any system:

a. homeostasis (symbiosis, or a network of negative-feedback loops),

b. asymmetry (chaos, or a stepwork of at least one - but usually multiple - positive-feedforward ratchet-catches).

[nitelite]

An interesting conversation going on here. As you suggest Penelope the leader post labors under some common assumptive errors. Chaos is not chaotic. Order is only apparent if you freeze time, something Thomas especially fails to grasp. There is no order and chaos (theory) describes only unfolding potential not certainty. How that potential unfolds is subject to variables that are unmeasurable. Our minds are used to working with the perceptions we evolved to survive as animals, not high-faluting concepts that we try to grasp here. It is very difficult. Super-reality is still beyond the horizon of even the most astute minds. Yet this quest to perceive the truth is beautiful in its own right. Perhaps excepting when some are not just wondering for the sake of wondering but to build bastions against the inconsistencies and doubts that haunt their subconscious battles of need V intellectual honesty.

[Penelope]

& & &

Back when my grandfather was 86, I remember him at Christmas as being as spry as he was at 70. Back straight, head high, walking with a confident stride every day to the Boulevard and back, working half-an-hour each morning in the yard, straightening the kitchen immediately after meals. If you saw him fixing a martini before dinner - rather than pouring a glass of water or red wine - you knew it was Friday. Gramps wouldn't have been Gramps without these routines.

That March, I got a call from my cousin:
You seen Gramps lately? He looks awful.

Sure enough. His back was slumped, he sometimes walked in baby-steps, and there were other little things. When the family gathered that summer, Gramps was even worse. Ignoring the yard, leaving the kitchen till later to clean. Now walking fulltime in baby-steps, and walking to the Boulevard only on days he feels "up to it."

We took Gramps into his doctor. Battery of tests. Doctor tells us:
Find nothing wrong with him.

We know Gramps, and we know better. Got to be something. Something the doctors missed. Four years pass. We celebrate Gramps 90th birthday.

Back still slumped, walking in baby-steps, Gramps walks to the Boulevard only on nice days, works rarely in the yard, leaves the dishes in the kitchen till later to clean. But Gramps still makes a martini for himself on Friday.

Gramps health, at 90, is fine. What took us, in the family, four years to realize ... is that Gramps is an old man. He did not age gradually from age 70 to age 90. But his system was aging, invisibly, all along. Then, in his 86th year ... Gramps visibly aged from age 70 to age 90 - just like that - over a four-month period.

Apologies, Gramps, for depicting you as a "system." But this is how "systems" work. They do not follow nice clean linear laws.

& & &

Homeostasis

a1. Think: thermostat of a furnace. Set at 70-degrees Fahrenheit. When room temperature falls to 68-degrees, the furnace turns on - blasting warm air into the house. When the room temperature reaches 72-degrees, the furnace shuts off.

a2. Negative-feedback loops. Think: sonar. Send out a ping. If you get a ricochet-ping back, you know some object is in front of you.

a3. This regulatory subsystem promotes relationships, interdependency. It utilizes inner and outer stimuli to fashion elemental negative-feedback loops in order to regulate the internal climate of the whole system. And to generate and maintain a symbiosis between all parts of the system. Like a hologram or a stem-cell: within every part, there is a map of the whole.

a4. This is a relatively-static subsystem.
("Relatively" because there are internal changes going on, all the time, but they are slow to develop. But when change does occur - when critical-mass is reached - then bang! Change happens super-quick. {Remember Gramps.})

a5. This is a relatively-determinate subsystem.
("Relatively" because most days the whole system appears to be totally balanced. Harmonious. There is minor flux from day to day, which in-and-of-itself is insignificant. Random forces disrupt the stasis, all the time, in minor and controllable ways. What happened yesterday, you can reasonably predict as something that will also happen today. Yes, until some critical-mass is reached and something unpredictable transpires ... {Gramps, again.})

a6. What is a negative-feedback loop? Negative-feedback produces information. Like the sonar. A negative-feedback "loop" is ... the system actively seeking more information - rather than passively accepting only what data it gets by accident. Sending more signals out, to get more signs - more traces of what's out-there - bouncing back. The subsystem does this to fine-tune adjustments to the environment. In short, this subsystem seeks "intelligence" about its environment. This is what "intelligence" is, at its most basic level. The production of more and better negative-feedback loops, more and better information.

a7. Why negative-feedback and not "positive-feedback"? Positive-feedback is like a domino-effect. Send out a signal: it trips something in the (inner or outer) environment, which trips something else. This starts a cascade, a contagious action (like an epidemic), a physical hysteria. It destroys, rather than preserves, produces no intelligence because nothing feeds-back to the system. And this epileptic-type fit - the domino-action it triggers - is stopped only by entropy. Positive-feedback leads to entropy, negative-feedback leads to intelligence.
(Negative-feedback promotes synergetic behavior. Symbiosis.)

a8. Think: Einstein's Relativity Theory. Think: Deep Ecology. Think: James Lovelock's "Earth-feedback Hypothesis" & Lynn Margulis' "Symbiotic Planet." Or checkout this NewScientist article or Wetware by Dennis Bray, or an earlier post of mine.