Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

irichc · Aug 9, 2004, 12:11 am

Problem:

Is it rational to suppose that disorder generates order?

Before I answer, I should explain what do I understand by “order” and “disorder”.

Definition 1:

I call a real unity to that which has an individual movement.

Demonstration of the implicit proposition:

The disparity of movements proves that real unities exist. Otherwise, the same thing could be moved in opposite directions, which is nonsensical.

Corollary:

Someone could object that two different things can move in the same direction. Nevertheless, their direction won’t be exactly alike or they will be the same thing. Thus, there are as many “things” as directions.

Definition 2:

Movement is the self-succession of a real unity.

Axiom:

It is obvious that order implies multiplicity. A real unity alone can’t be ordered or disordered, because it lacks a relative place. Same could be stated of movement, which bears multiplicity too.

Then, order would be the property which gives a consistency to the movement. A real unity, as it has been said, isn’t ordered or disordered. However, when it moves it presupposes a place among multiplicity, since there is no possible movement in the void.

Proposition 1:

Movement is an accident.

Demonstration:

Let’s say that a real unity moves (or it is moved) in a multiple environment. So, as far as the real unity is identical to itself in every different state of its movement, we can affirm it is the same real thing which is moving. That is to say, change affects it accidentally, not substantially.

Proposition 2:

Order can be understood as the characteristic of some kind of movement.

Demonstration:

If a real unity lost its identity with movement, it wouldn’t exist movement at all, but a succession of multiple different things. I call it a disordered movement.

Proposition 3:

Order appears to be the actual possibility of any real unity to move in the whole set of things without being confused with it. That possibility is only given by the movement (as an individuation principle) and particularly by the ordered movement.

Demonstration:

By Propositions 1 and 2.

Proposition 4:

Every notion of order implies the notion of real unity.

Demonstration:

By Proposition 3.

Proposition 5:

It is impossible that order can be generated by disorder.

Demonstration:

If that “generation” forces us to think of movement, it isn’t conceivable that a disordered movement generate an ordered movement (by Proposition 3). Even though, every notion of order presupposes a real unity (by Proposition 4), therefore it implies necessarily something which is previous to movement, and which isn’t itself ordered or disordered, but orderer. I’m speaking of God.

Greetings.

Daniel.

Ross · Aug 9, 2004, 01:04 am

Quote:

Is it rational to suppose that disorder generates order?

Entropy. The answer is no.

Technosoul · Aug 9, 2004, 02:33 pm

In nature we observe that it seems to have built in orders that always attempt to return to the norm if individual parts of the unity stay from what is normal.

Example if the body becomes damaged it will attempt to restore it's health as much as possible to the norms that were originally known.

Example; if you got rabbits and due to a lack of preditors they overpopulate then they will not find enough food and so they become weaker and get sick and start to die off and the overpopulation excesses are thus reduced back to the normal count for that envrionmental location.

It is called the "balance of nature" in the theories of science.

If nature did not constantly return balance to motions that create an out-of-balance situation then the whold unity would self-distruct in short order.

Now I know everyone will say that the noone can difine what normal is, but apparently nature has a norm that sort of works like gravity to pull things back together when possible (and possible is what happens most of the time). Sometimes new norms are established as an adaptation for the sake of unity as a whole, which is part of the overall structuring present in the master designing on a higher level then the balancing of norms that influence lesser problems relative to going completly out of control.

The very observation that the systems of nature has a number of built-in checks and balances would be suggestive of something intelligent (God or supermind) because it seems nature cannot void out the wisdom of that balancing act to the point where individual acts of the parts could bring the whole machine to a stand still.

We cannot likewise thank our lucky stars that humans are not directing that balance within the collective because we have difficulty overcoming confusion when it comes to comprehending a fair just balance of what should be.

I hope my remarks address the proposed debate that you activated.

Technosoul.

Technosoul · Aug 9, 2004, 02:36 pm

Please try to overlook the goofs in my words and that I failed to read my remarks to make the needed corrections before posting them in haste. Technosoul.

Ross · Aug 10, 2004, 12:43 am

Quote:

The very observation that the systems of nature has a number of built-in checks and balances would be suggestive of something intelligent (God or supermind) because it seems nature cannot void out the wisdom of that balancing act to the point where individual acts of the parts could bring the whole machine to a stand still.

It is my impression that our finely-tuned universe with all its juuust riiight universal constants are there because of there being an infinite number of universes.

For example: an infinite number of universes have a value for gravitational attraction that could be slightly less than our universe's. That single part brings the whole machine to a halt as no sun can get hot enough to start fusion, because of that lesser constant of gravity.

We live in a section of infinite universes where all the constants line up quite nicely to allow for life to spring up.

SlySpy · Aug 11, 2004, 11:03 pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Ross,

Entropy. The answer is no.

Nice try, thermodynamics says nothing about order not being able to arise from disorder, it just claims that a closed system naturally moves towards a disordered state. If what you said was true then you wouldn't see convection currents and the weather cycle, for example.
As well, as far as I know the earth is not a closed system.

Technosoul · Aug 18, 2004, 11:05 am

By the order of gravity water will flow downhill towards the lowest point it can reach in the surface of the earth (or even below the surface). However the surface of the earth often constantly changes and so the water might not flow the same way or reach the same objective each time.

Because of the flexable nature of water (when not forzen) it cannot be ordered to go just one way each time or ordered to reach the same location each time unless the surface of the ground is also created to be unchangable.

And so because the water can be flexable and because the soil (surface) is flexable can we really say that gravity as the director is in control of anykind of duplicatable order?

Is gravity also controlling how the surface of the earth changes in order to organize water so it can have different purposes (objectives), perhaps based on some reasoning that speading the water around from time to time would be needed.

Is gravity a fixed authority or an effect established by accident or by direction of yet another factor (God) that determines what point in the universe or earth will have the greatest influence as the greatest magnetic point of attraction?

Why would one person like Jesus, or Darwin, or President Bush have more influence as a source of gravity to unit people under their authority then someone like me who is lucky to find one person who would agree with my ideas as a source of gravity (unification or influence)?

Sometimes flexable water gains enough power from a superstorm to push the soil around and thusly to carve out a new pathway downhill, instead of moving around rocks to take the easy and less confrontational tour.

So is such force in conformity with some established order or is a flood out-of-order?

Can any order come out of the confusion of these ideas I have just presented?

Technosoul.

Technosoul · Aug 18, 2004, 11:08 am

Please read my above post first.

Here is a joke.

The judge shouted "order in the courtroom:.

Someone raised their hand "Judge your honor, did you say order in the courtroom".

Judge repeats his law (slamming his mallet down harder) shouting "yes, I said order in the courtroom".

"Okay" said a member of the jury "I would like to order two hot dogs and a beer".

Aug 9, 2004, 12:11 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
irichc Sedimentary Rock Posts: 8	Problem: Is it rational to suppose that disorder generates order? Before I answer, I should explain what do I understand by “order” and “disorder”. Definition 1: I call a real unity to that which has an individual movement. Demonstration of the implicit proposition: The disparity of movements proves that real unities exist. Otherwise, the same thing could be moved in opposite directions, which is nonsensical. Corollary: Someone could object that two different things can move in the same direction. Nevertheless, their direction won’t be exactly alike or they will be the same thing. Thus, there are as many “things” as directions. Definition 2: Movement is the self-succession of a real unity. Axiom: It is obvious that order implies multiplicity. A real unity alone can’t be ordered or disordered, because it lacks a relative place. Same could be stated of movement, which bears multiplicity too. Then, order would be the property which gives a consistency to the movement. A real unity, as it has been said, isn’t ordered or disordered. However, when it moves it presupposes a place among multiplicity, since there is no possible movement in the void. Proposition 1: Movement is an accident. Demonstration: Let’s say that a real unity moves (or it is moved) in a multiple environment. So, as far as the real unity is identical to itself in every different state of its movement, we can affirm it is the same real thing which is moving. That is to say, change affects it accidentally, not substantially. Proposition 2: Order can be understood as the characteristic of some kind of movement. Demonstration: If a real unity lost its identity with movement, it wouldn’t exist movement at all, but a succession of multiple different things. I call it a disordered movement. Proposition 3: Order appears to be the actual possibility of any real unity to move in the whole set of things without being confused with it. That possibility is only given by the movement (as an individuation principle) and particularly by the ordered movement. Demonstration: By Propositions 1 and 2. Proposition 4: Every notion of order implies the notion of real unity. Demonstration: By Proposition 3. Proposition 5: It is impossible that order can be generated by disorder. Demonstration: If that “generation” forces us to think of movement, it isn’t conceivable that a disordered movement generate an ordered movement (by Proposition 3). Even though, every notion of order presupposes a real unity (by Proposition 4), therefore it implies necessarily something which is previous to movement, and which isn’t itself ordered or disordered, but orderer. I’m speaking of God. Greetings. Daniel. Theological Miscellany (in Spanish): http://www.miscelaneateologica.tk

Aug 9, 2004, 02:33 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	In nature we observe that it seems to have built in orders that always attempt to return to the norm if individual parts of the unity stay from what is normal. Example if the body becomes damaged it will attempt to restore it's health as much as possible to the norms that were originally known. Example; if you got rabbits and due to a lack of preditors they overpopulate then they will not find enough food and so they become weaker and get sick and start to die off and the overpopulation excesses are thus reduced back to the normal count for that envrionmental location. It is called the "balance of nature" in the theories of science. If nature did not constantly return balance to motions that create an out-of-balance situation then the whold unity would self-distruct in short order. Now I know everyone will say that the noone can difine what normal is, but apparently nature has a norm that sort of works like gravity to pull things back together when possible (and possible is what happens most of the time). Sometimes new norms are established as an adaptation for the sake of unity as a whole, which is part of the overall structuring present in the master designing on a higher level then the balancing of norms that influence lesser problems relative to going completly out of control. The very observation that the systems of nature has a number of built-in checks and balances would be suggestive of something intelligent (God or supermind) because it seems nature cannot void out the wisdom of that balancing act to the point where individual acts of the parts could bring the whole machine to a stand still. We cannot likewise thank our lucky stars that humans are not directing that balance within the collective because we have difficulty overcoming confusion when it comes to comprehending a fair just balance of what should be. I hope my remarks address the proposed debate that you activated. Technosoul.

Aug 9, 2004, 02:36 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	Please try to overlook the goofs in my words and that I failed to read my remarks to make the needed corrections before posting them in haste. Technosoul.

Aug 18, 2004, 11:05 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	By the order of gravity water will flow downhill towards the lowest point it can reach in the surface of the earth (or even below the surface). However the surface of the earth often constantly changes and so the water might not flow the same way or reach the same objective each time. Because of the flexable nature of water (when not forzen) it cannot be ordered to go just one way each time or ordered to reach the same location each time unless the surface of the ground is also created to be unchangable. And so because the water can be flexable and because the soil (surface) is flexable can we really say that gravity as the director is in control of anykind of duplicatable order? Is gravity also controlling how the surface of the earth changes in order to organize water so it can have different purposes (objectives), perhaps based on some reasoning that speading the water around from time to time would be needed. Is gravity a fixed authority or an effect established by accident or by direction of yet another factor (God) that determines what point in the universe or earth will have the greatest influence as the greatest magnetic point of attraction? Why would one person like Jesus, or Darwin, or President Bush have more influence as a source of gravity to unit people under their authority then someone like me who is lucky to find one person who would agree with my ideas as a source of gravity (unification or influence)? Sometimes flexable water gains enough power from a superstorm to push the soil around and thusly to carve out a new pathway downhill, instead of moving around rocks to take the easy and less confrontational tour. So is such force in conformity with some established order or is a flood out-of-order? Can any order come out of the confusion of these ideas I have just presented? Technosoul.

Aug 18, 2004, 11:08 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	Please read my above post first. Here is a joke. The judge shouted "order in the courtroom:. Someone raised their hand "Judge your honor, did you say order in the courtroom". Judge repeats his law (slamming his mallet down harder) shouting "yes, I said order in the courtroom". "Okay" said a member of the jury "I would like to order two hot dogs and a beer".