User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 40

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    When the theory of Natural Selection emerged, people thought it was a threat to religious beliefs because evolution was not mentioned in the bible. (Pfft! Evolution and Creation! Mutually exclusive? please...)
    It allowed for a possibility that life might have appeared without an intelligent creator engineering it.
    The first argument against the theory was simple: "You can NOT get order and complexity from random chaos alone."

    But what is chaos? Does chaos even exist?

    In Thermodynamics, Entropy means that the state of the universe will ultimately fall from a higher level of order to a lower level of order. Chaos will increase. What, then, is our definition of chaos? Anything that does not conform to our definition of order. The further a state is from our definition of order and the harder it is to arrange it into order, the more chaotic it is.

    What, then, is order? What is structure? We consider order when something is organized. We consider it a structure designed to carry out a specific function as we see fit. If a water fountain produces water when we press the button and stops when we let go, it is in order. If it takes a longer time to produce water, it is less in order, because it performs its function less well. If it produces too much water, it is further from order. A fountain that never produces water is considered out of order. It cannot perform its function correctly as we intended it to.

    How, then, can we define order on an ultimate, universal scale? By comparing the current state of the universe to its ultimate function? What, then, is the function of the universe? How can we know the ultimate function of everything? If we don't know the function of the universe, how can we define order? If we cannot come up with a universal-scale definition of order because the universe has no single function to fulfill, how can we define chaos? If a ball rests on a table, it is doing the job of sitting still well, but not the job of rolling. If a ball rolls, it is performing the function of rolling well, but not sitting still. Ultimately, to define order you must have a clear function of the system you're planning in mind, and an intended function automatically makes the question subjective. If the question is subjective, then there is no universal definition of order.

    In Entropy, all things in this universe wish to become constant. We consider this a descent into chaos because it does not allow us or anything else in the universe to perform functions we are used to. We say "our way is order" and "entropy is chaos," but it's just our idea of order. Any state the universe is in, that is its current order, because there is no ultimate form of order.

    That said, life did not emerge from "chaos," it simply emerged from a vague sequence of events in the past (the details we will debate elsewhere).

  2. #22
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilogen View Post
    When the theory of Natural Selection emerged, people thought it was a threat to religious beliefs because evolution was not mentioned in the bible. (Pfft! Evolution and Creation! Mutually exclusive? please...)
    It allowed for a possibility that life might have appeared without an intelligent creator engineering it.
    The first argument against the theory was simple: "You can NOT get order and complexity from random chaos alone."

    But what is chaos? Does chaos even exist?

    In Thermodynamics, Entropy means that the state of the universe will ultimately fall from a higher level of order to a lower level of order. Chaos will increase. What, then, is our definition of chaos? Anything that does not conform to our definition of order. The further a state is from our definition of order and the harder it is to arrange it into order, the more chaotic it is.

    What, then, is order? What is structure? We consider order when something is organized. We consider it a structure designed to carry out a specific function as we see fit. If a water fountain produces water when we press the button and stops when we let go, it is in order. If it takes a longer time to produce water, it is less in order, because it performs its function less well. If it produces too much water, it is further from order. A fountain that never produces water is considered out of order. It cannot perform its function correctly as we intended it to.

    How, then, can we define order on an ultimate, universal scale? By comparing the current state of the universe to its ultimate function? What, then, is the function of the universe? How can we know the ultimate function of everything? If we don't know the function of the universe, how can we define order? If we cannot come up with a universal-scale definition of order because the universe has no single function to fulfill, how can we define chaos? If a ball rests on a table, it is doing the job of sitting still well, but not the job of rolling. If a ball rolls, it is performing the function of rolling well, but not sitting still. Ultimately, to define order you must have a clear function of the system you're planning in mind, and an intended function automatically makes the question subjective. If the question is subjective, then there is no universal definition of order.

    In Entropy, all things in this universe wish to become constant. We consider this a descent into chaos because it does not allow us or anything else in the universe to perform functions we are used to. We say "our way is order" and "entropy is chaos," but it's just our idea of order. Any state the universe is in, that is its current order, because there is no ultimate form of order.

    That said, life did not emerge from "chaos," it simply emerged from a vague sequence of events in the past (the details we will debate elsewhere).
    Now here's a response that's getting closer. Entropy is a nice touch as well, but it is still indicative of existence and the universe and not what truly lies beyond the exterior of our little room. Perhaps something that might help others come to the conclusion would be to say that existence relies on circular reasoning. Existence essentially exists because existing is indicative of existence, yet at the same time not existing is still indicative of this little room and is therefore along with existence in this little room, thus the room is proving existence simply because the room creates existence and is an existence in of itself.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Now here's a response that's getting closer. Entropy is a nice touch as well, but it is still indicative of existence and the universe and not what truly lies beyond the exterior of our little room. Perhaps something that might help others come to the conclusion would be to say that existence relies on circular reasoning. Existence essentially exists because existing is indicative of existence, yet at the same time not existing is still indicative of this little room and is therefore along with existence in this little room, thus the room is proving existence simply because the room creates existence and is an existence in of itself.
    Well to start off, in general, when you want to be an Olympic marathon runner, you don't lift weights, you practice running. And when you want to be an Olympic swimmer, you practice swimming. Although there is no objective definition of "order," the closest thing we have is internal consistency. What you are, do what that thing does. If you are a TypologyCentral user, talk about TypeC and not Myspace. Internal consistency is more or less the "root principle" of everything in the most objective terms. Ultimately the best painter will always be one with the most talent and devotion to painting, not the Renaissance Man who paints here and there.

    That said, there are two fields of understanding: Objective and Subjective.

    The Objective equates all information. It sweeps away the glorification of certain information. It removes existing assumptions for the sake of understanding the core principle.
    In understanding the universe, the only thing that we can measure objectively is that which is found in the universe. Integrating the principle of Internal Consistency, Objective Understanding should be kept as free as possible from Subjective to avoid confusion.

    In the concretely measurable world of our Objective universe, the Self does not exist as discussed on other threads, and we can go back to this later perhaps.

    In the Subjective, certain things are made greater or lesser than others for their own intrinsic values. It's harder to analyze and gain new information this way, so it's probably best saved as a final step to integrate your understandings gleaned from the Objective into your Subjective beliefs.

    Subjectively, I am me. More objectively, I am human. Even more objectively, I am a machine fueled by sugars and made of proteins. When you get down to an extreme, universal level of objectivity, "I" in fact do not exist because there's no subjective criteria to identify what we are naming as Me. For this reason, the Self is a completely Subjective construct.

    The human species recognized that, on a more detailed but relatively Objective level, that the bipedal creatures that were Us looked and behaved differently than other animals, so we mutually agreed that we were Human. Though the Self is essentially a Subjective, personal construct, it became more diluted when we began saying "We have all agreed that you, Jethro, are a Viking, and all the rest of us are Gauls." Now we say it's an objective truth to say Medieval-era plunderers from Scandinavia were Vikings and the Gauls were not, but this is because naming has become mutual subjectivity in the guise of objectivity. In other words, if I said I were a Viking, that would be true for me. If I said philosophy and metaphysics were hokum that would be true for me, but if you disagreed your opinion would be true for you. History is the best interpretation of past events people have decided to agree upon.

    Applying Internal Consistency to Subjectivity, the universe does not exist. Applying it to Objectivity, I do not exist. Aiming for universal Internal Consistency and applying both simultaneously, I do not exist and the universe does not exist. Rethinking that, combining Consistent Objectivity and Consistent Subjectivity would probably not only cancel out Internal Consistency, but Objectivity and Subjectivity might negate each other...

  4. #24
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilogen View Post
    Well to start off, in general, when you want to be an Olympic marathon runner, you don't lift weights, you practice running. And when you want to be an Olympic swimmer, you practice swimming. Although there is no objective definition of "order," the closest thing we have is internal consistency. What you are, do what that thing does. If you are a TypologyCentral user, talk about TypeC and not Myspace. Internal consistency is more or less the "root principle" of everything in the most objective terms. Ultimately the best painter will always be one with the most talent and devotion to painting, not the Renaissance Man who paints here and there.

    That said, there are two fields of understanding: Objective and Subjective.

    The Objective equates all information. It sweeps away the glorification of certain information. It removes existing assumptions for the sake of understanding the core principle.
    In understanding the universe, the only thing that we can measure objectively is that which is found in the universe. Integrating the principle of Internal Consistency, Objective Understanding should be kept as free as possible from Subjective to avoid confusion.

    In the concretely measurable world of our Objective universe, the Self does not exist as discussed on other threads, and we can go back to this later perhaps.

    In the Subjective, certain things are made greater or lesser than others for their own intrinsic values. It's harder to analyze and gain new information this way, so it's probably best saved as a final step to integrate your understandings gleaned from the Objective into your Subjective beliefs.

    Subjectively, I am me. More objectively, I am human. Even more objectively, I am a machine fueled by sugars and made of proteins. When you get down to an extreme, universal level of objectivity, "I" in fact do not exist because there's no subjective criteria to identify what we are naming as Me. For this reason, the Self is a completely Subjective construct.

    The human species recognized that, on a more detailed but relatively Objective level, that the bipedal creatures that were Us looked and behaved differently than other animals, so we mutually agreed that we were Human. Though the Self is essentially a Subjective, personal construct, it became more diluted when we began saying "We have all agreed that you, Jethro, are a Viking, and all the rest of us are Gauls." Now we say it's an objective truth to say Medieval-era plunderers from Scandinavia were Vikings and the Gauls were not, but this is because naming has become mutual subjectivity in the guise of objectivity. In other words, if I said I were a Viking, that would be true for me. If I said philosophy and metaphysics were hokum that would be true for me, but if you disagreed your opinion would be true for you. History is the best interpretation of past events people have decided to agree upon.

    Applying Internal Consistency to Subjectivity, the universe does not exist. Applying it to Objectivity, I do not exist. Aiming for universal Internal Consistency and applying both simultaneously, I do not exist and the universe does not exist. Rethinking that, combining Consistent Objectivity and Consistent Subjectivity would probably not only cancel out Internal Consistency, but Objectivity and Subjectivity might negate each other...
    Objectivity and Subjectivity are inevitably effects caused by the existence of the room that contains existence. What lies beyond, and what you may have not grasped yet, is incorrigible from creations and concepts tied within the room. You are still thinking inside the room, when what I am elucidating is outside the room, that which cannot be known yet is so infinitely simple that it doesn't even contain any dichotomies like simplicity and complexity, or objectivity and subjectivity, it is the foundation of it all, which lies beyond the reach of our sealed off, little room, and from which our little room was ultimately arisen out of, in the strangest fashion with the strangest structure (or no structure, which is a strange structure in of itself).

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Now here's a response that's getting closer. Entropy is a nice touch as well, but it is still indicative of existence and the universe and not what truly lies beyond the exterior of our little room. Perhaps something that might help others come to the conclusion would be to say that existence relies on circular reasoning. Existence essentially exists because existing is indicative of existence, yet at the same time not existing is still indicative of this little room and is therefore along with existence in this little room, thus the room is proving existence simply because the room creates existence and is an existence in of itself.
    Hmmm, that means Objectivity and Subjectivity might be smaller "loops" of circular reasoning within the universe. I remember what you said about Reintegration and Non-existence, how that depends upon the fact that the Self cannot have properties if it is within non-existence because non-existence is devoid of properties.
    And if we look at the Internal Consistency argument as the standard for all order, that would mean that non-existence, or the realm containing existence and non-existence, might contain a bigger "Meta-Internal-Consistency" loop that contains Internal Consistency; much the same way Internal Consistency would contain Objectivity and Subjectivity.
    This would also allow for Internal Inconsistency. If something hypothetically "resided" (not existed) in non-existence, it would be found nowhere in reality and in effect would have no Internal Consistency and hence would have no one integrity that made it what it was. This hypothetical thing resides in non-existence and can never exist. Everything in Existence can be refined down to one Internal Consistency that makes it what it is, while something residing in Non-Existence is in the same way dependent upon Internal Inconsistency.

  6. #26
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilogen View Post
    Hmmm, that means Objectivity and Subjectivity might be smaller "loops" of circular reasoning within the universe. I remember what you said about Reintegration and Non-existence, how that depends upon the fact that the Self cannot have properties if it is within non-existence because non-existence is devoid of properties.
    And if we look at the Internal Consistency argument as the standard for all order, that would mean that non-existence, or the realm containing existence and non-existence, might contain a bigger "Meta-Internal-Consistency" loop that contains Internal Consistency; much the same way Internal Consistency would contain Objectivity and Subjectivity.
    This would also allow for Internal Inconsistency. If something hypothetically "resided" (not existed) in non-existence, it would be found nowhere in reality and in effect would have no Internal Consistency and hence would have no one integrity that made it what it was. This hypothetical thing resides in non-existence and can never exist. Everything in Existence can be refined down to one Internal Consistency that makes it what it is, while something residing in Non-Existence is in the same way dependent upon Internal Inconsistency.
    Interesting assertion, but the concept of non-existence still lies within the room. The foundation outside of the room is completely free and unfettered by designations such as non-existence and existence, as those concepts are intrinsic to one particular area inside the foundation, the room (which would be utterly infinite). The foundation is the metaphorical earth beneath our feet, where this particular room sits atop, a house among an infinite amount of houses with different dichotomies and particularities to the point where the only common denominator between them is the foundation, and here we are stuck in one of these little houses, abiding by the rules intrinsic to the house itself but not the rules of the foundation on the outside, as there simply are no rules on the outside. The foundation is the personification of sheer possibility.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    Interesting assertion, but the concept of non-existence still lies within the room. The foundation outside of the room is completely free and unfettered by designations such as non-existence and existence, as those concepts are intrinsic to one particular area inside the foundation, the room (which would be utterly infinite). The foundation is the metaphorical earth beneath our feet, where this particular room sits atop, a house among an infinite amount of houses with different dichotomies and particularities to the point where the only common denominator between them is the foundation, and here we are stuck in one of these little houses, abiding by the rules intrinsic to the house itself but not the rules of the foundation on the outside, as there simply are no rules on the outside. The foundation is the personification of sheer possibility.
    Let's say Existence is inside Consistency and Non-existence within Inconsistency. A "Superconsistency" would surround both Consistency and Inconsistency. Superconsistency is neither consistent nor inconsistent, it is dominant over both. Maybe that would extend outside the "room" or be the border for the "room." If non-existence and hence inconsistency are both in the room, Superconsistency would have to be the walls of or outside of the room.

  8. #28
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilogen View Post
    Let's say Existence is inside Consistency and Non-existence within Inconsistency. A "Superconsistency" would surround both Consistency and Inconsistency. Superconsistency is neither consistent nor inconsistent, it is dominant over both. Maybe that would extend outside the "room" or be the border for the "room." If non-existence and hence inconsistency are both in the room, Superconsistency would have to be the walls of or outside of the room.
    The walls of the room are what restrain us from being assimilated by the foundation (or the superconsistency, I prefer symbolism a bit better than rote categorization in this case), and ultimately the walls and the inside of the room are both "non-existence" and existence, as they ultimately keep us from truly rejoining the foundation by keeping us in the loop of its own system.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    The walls of the room are what restrain us from being assimilated by the foundation (or the superconsistency, I prefer symbolism a bit better than rote categorization in this case), and ultimately the walls and the inside of the room are both "non-existence" and existence, as they ultimately keep us from truly rejoining the foundation by keeping us in the loop of its own system.
    Well in any case, if the "Superconsistency" is the "Foundation" or "Outside," that would mean that once you've united with the Foundation, Consistency and Inconsistency would both be meaningless. In our Existence (a "reflection" of this anecdote might occur in Non-existence which is still inside the room, just an opposite part), you can't be Alea_iacta_est but not be Alea_iacta_est and be Nihilogen instead, because inside the "room," the rules of Internal Consistency would make something essentially what it is. In Inconsistency, still within the room and the part containing respective Non-existence, the opposite would be true: you can't be what you "are." Both sets of rules exist in their respective halves of the "room."

    Joined to the Foundation, Inconsistency and Consistency would no longer have meaning and you could in fact be both at the same time. You could be either Consistent, Inconsistent, Consistent and Inconsistent, Consistent and Inconsistent and Inconsistent, Consistent and Consistent and Inconsistent and Consistent but not Consistent, to infinity. Consistent and Inconsistent would not cancel each other out here: Consistent and Inconsistent is its own state you can exist in, and would be different from Consistent and Inconsistent and Consistent. Consistent and Inconsistent would also be different from Consistent and Inconsistent and Consistent and Inconsistent. However, the "product" you would get from combining all of them or any number of them would still be one, unified. Consistent and Inconsistent plus Inconsistent would be the same as Consistent plus Consistent...etc. All would yield the same "product," even though the states are different. Multiple such states could exist in the same place when joined to the Foundation.

    And within the Room, combinations of Consistent and Inconsistent would cancel each other out and form a "continuum" from purest Consistent to purest Inconsistent, but in the Foundation this would not be the case and these states could coexist in amounts that wouldn't make sense.

  10. #30
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilogen View Post
    Well in any case, if the "Superconsistency" is the "Foundation" or "Outside," that would mean that once you've united with the Foundation, Consistency and Inconsistency would both be meaningless. In our Existence (a "reflection" of this anecdote might occur in Non-existence which is still inside the room, just an opposite part), you can't be Alea_iacta_est but not be Alea_iacta_est and be Nihilogen instead, because inside the "room," the rules of Internal Consistency would make something essentially what it is. In Inconsistency, still within the room and the part containing respective Non-existence, the opposite would be true: you can not be what you "are." Both sets of rules exist in their respective halves of the "room."

    Joined to the Foundation, Inconsistency and Consistency would no longer have meaning and you could in fact be both at the same time. You could be either Consistent, Inconsistent, Consistent and Inconsistent, Consistent and Inconsistent and Inconsistent, Consistent and Consistent and Inconsistent and Consistent but not Consistent, to infinity. Consistent and Inconsistent would not cancel each other out here: Consistent and Inconsistent is its own state you can exist in, and would be different from Consistent and Inconsistent and Consistent. Consistent and Inconsistent would also be different from Consistent and Inconsistent and Consistent and Inconsistent. However, the "product" you would get from combining all of them or any number of them would still be one, unified. Consistent and Inconsistent plus Inconsistent would be the same as Consistent plus Consistent...etc. All would yield the same "product," even though the states are different. Multiple such states could exist in the same place when joined to the Foundation.

    And within the Room, combinations of Consistent and Inconsistent would cancel each other out and form a "continuum" from purest Consistent to purest Inconsistent, but in the Foundation this would not be the case and these states could coexist in amounts that wouldn't make sense.
    Welcome to philosophical mayhem. The foundation is devoid of everything yet teeming with possibility and creation.

Similar Threads

  1. What is this god of which you speak?
    By juggernaut in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: 06-09-2009, 07:41 PM
  2. What is this guys personality type?
    By titanguy in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-31-2008, 10:35 AM
  3. [Other] What is this?
    By swordpath in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 09-26-2008, 06:23 PM
  4. [INTP] What is this fun you speak of?
    By Cerpin_Taxt in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06-10-2008, 12:46 PM
  5. What is this indicative of?
    By Ezra in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-05-2008, 11:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO