Chaos and Form

[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.

 

[iBrian]

Have you read anything on fractal geometry and chaos mathematics?

Now those are very interesting ways in which an apparently simple but expressively complicated order can be observed throughout the universe.

 

[Snoopy]

Indeed. At the root of Buddhism is the understanding of universal co-dependency (or contingency). From this all else follows.

s.

 

[The Undecided]

Have you read anything on fractal geometry and chaos mathematics?

Now those are very interesting ways in which an apparently simple but expressively complicated order can be observed throughout the universe.

I have read a little on chaos theory and fractals, as well as a little bit about quantum mechanics, both are very interesting. I find it interesting how these theories connect with Buddhism. Particularly how everything is interconnected.

 

[c0de]

.



Read an article yesterday which relates to this. Scientists threw a bunch of molecules together and waited for them to arrange themselves into a structure. They were expecting them to form something simple, like a circle. Instead, they ended up as a very complex shape which allowed much more flexibility. They realized that this was due to entropy, as simple shapes also have low entropy and this would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. (LINK)

What is more important to understand here, in my opinion, is how this is a perfect example of our biases getting in the way of understanding. Why did they expect simplicity to come before complexity? Entropy and disorder are terms that use to signify something negative, yet, if we really try and step outside of ourselves and our own dilemmas, it will be plainly obvious that the beauty in complexity far transcends the beauty in simplicity.

Let's do a little test:

Say I give you a choice between listening to two types of sounds:

A) Brittany Spears/Spice Girls/Backstreet Boys

B) Alice in Chains/TOOL/Nine Inch Nails

A 7-year old girl will pick A, whereas anyone with more than 10 functioning neurons in their head will pick B. Why? They chose A because the complexity of B was beyond what they could comprehend. But this also implies that they could comprehend the "complexity" of A. Which means they were still choosing the most complex/chaotic/highentropy option they could at the time.

Another example: Beethoven composed his sonatas not looking for the simplest note he could constantly repeat, but the most complicated rhythm he could manage to arrange in a discernible pattern that could be recognized.

In other words: intelligence is attracted to high entropy, naturally. Take a moment to realize what that actually means.

(elevator music)

.
.....
.............
..................
...........................


We naturally move towards high entropy, because there is no difference between us, and those molecules. And this is not just true for the molecules in our body, but our conscious actions which result from them, as well.

With that said, the real problem then becomes trying to figure out why death comes in the picture? Because it doesn't seem to fit this pattern. We should constantly be moving to states of further complication, yet we do not. We all end up as simple dust, back in the ground, from whence we came.

This is the same as saying: (quote from Undecided's post)

put frankly there is no order in the universe, there is instead a constant movement between chaos and form and back again

But this does not explain "why?" Why is there movement BACK and forth, if entropy always increases? There shouldn't be any movement "back" at all, if concepts like "disorder, entropy, chaos" are related.

As for chaos itself, the unanswerable questions here are:

#1: How does a chaotic system moves back into order?

#2: Why?

Mathematics itself is incapable of answering the first question, as it requires a calculation of irrational and infinite strings of numbers, which is impossible. The only thing we can do is observe chaos. We have no way to understand it, as that would allow us to, for example, predict the weather in the infinite future.

But, the real question, the more important question is the second one. But since I have already discussed it many times before, and it is the domain of religion, I'll end it here.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Undecided —

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 have enjoyed reading this, because it has caused me to shape up some ideas ... and in that process, I arrive at a deduction that the last element is flawed, for the following reason:

Something perceives.

If that 'I' is inherently chaotic, then everything it perceives will be inherently chaotic also, and furthermore it would lack the faculty or capacity to make any distinction.

But it does, by seeing the 'form' in the 'chaos'. If the 'form' was an artificial construct, and the human intellect is actually brilliant at imposing apparent form on what appears chaotic, then in every moment that form would drift back into chaos, and we could not see where it came from, and where it went. (And we're talking nanoseconds here.)

But forms persist, in the first instance as that which perceives, and in its perception is aware of three things: chaos, forms, and the continuity or persistence of its own perception. If there us persistence, there is something other than chaos at play.

True chaos is nothing. Nada. Empty. No perception of anything ... nothing to be perceived ... nothing to perceive it. There is no such thing as chaos, it's an abstract concept (a form so disorganised it's not even there), derived by taking the 'form' and mooting its utter opposite.

There is contingent chaos, of that which seems to possess no inhering form (like my daughter's bedroom), but that really derives from an inability to perceive how it is formed. (Like how she managed to get it in such a mess so quickly.)

As a scientist I would say 'there is no such thing as chaos, only forms we don't yet understand'.

Superior to that, I would suggest, is the idea of the 'I' that perceives, and without which there is no perception, and indeed without which there is nothing. We call it 'subjectivity'. To my mind, that is the highest form of all, in fact it is higher than forms, because the 'I' is ineffable.

It transcends forms and therefore all objectivity, and in fact determines objectivity as a category of its own subjective operation.

But then I'd launch off into Christian metaphysics as the most thorough and fully realised investigation of the subjective 'I'.

Thomas

 

[c0de]

As a scientist I would say 'there is no such thing as chaos, only forms we don't yet understand'.

So far, so good. But this next bit though... I think you are getting more
into metaphysics than actual physics.

Superior to that, I would suggest, is the idea of the 'I' that perceives, and without which there is no perception, and indeed without which there is nothing. We call it 'subjectivity'. To my mind, that is the highest form of all, in fact it is higher than forms, because the 'I' is ineffable.

#1: Red does not follow from blue. Quantum Physics does not state that if no one is observing schrodinger's cat, then the cat does not exist. It just states that its existence is in a superimposed state.

#2: What you said could be defended if you were talking about God as the ultimate/absolute Perciever, however, in that case talking about the "I" (as you or me) would be meaningless anyway.

#3: As for the question of "superimposed states" this can be removed by a better understanding of QM via Superdeterminism. Which also eliminates all forms of subjectivity. Here is a quote by J.S. Bell on the subject.

Bell discussed superdeterminism in a BBC interview:[2]

There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.
​

The only alternative to quantum probabilities, superpositions of states, collapse of the wave function, and spooky action at a distance, is that everything is superdetermined. For me it is a dilemma. I think it is a deep dilemma, and the resolution of it will not be trivial; it will require a substantial change in the way we look at things.
​

I forwarded this quote to my old professor, and he said that he would
rather prefer Bell be wrong, and have free-will, then the possibility that
he is right and there is no free-will. Bell himself here expresses concern
that superdetermism is true...

What is funny to me, is how similar scientists and theologians are when
it comes down to eliminating free-will. Both will accept deep contradictions
in their paradigms instead of just surrendering free-will.

 

[Snoopy]

I have read a little on chaos theory and fractals, as well as a little bit about quantum mechanics, both are very interesting. I find it interesting how these theories connect with Buddhism. Particularly how everything is interconnected.

If you haven't read it, you may be interested in the book Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory by Joanna Macy.

Snappy title huh?

s.

 

[The Undecided]

If you haven't read it, you may be interested in the book Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory by Joanna Macy.

Snappy title huh?

s.

Thank you Snoopy, I will certainly give that book a read. I am reading a book at the moment that I can definitely recommend. No Boundary by Ken Wilber. It's mind expanding, in the best sense.

 

[Snoopy]

Thank you Snoopy, I will certainly give that book a read. I am reading a book at the moment that I can definitely recommend. No Boundary by Ken Wilber. It's mind expanding, in the best sense.

And thank you.

I got an idiot's guide to Ken Wilber and I'm afraid so far I've not managed to get into it.

s.

 

[The Undecided]

.

But this does not explain "why?" Why is there movement BACK and forth, if entropy always increases? There shouldn't be any movement "back" at all, if concepts like "disorder, entropy, chaos" are related.

As for chaos itself, the unanswerable questions here are:

#1: How does a chaotic system moves back into order?

#2: Why?

Two very good questions c0de. The answers maybe beyond me but I'll have a go anyway. I am a believer in the concept of Yin and Yang, Yin being 'negative' and Yang being 'positive' Qi, or energy, which permeates everything in the universe.

...the real problem then becomes trying to figure out why death comes in the picture? Because it doesn't seem to fit this pattern. We should constantly be moving to states of further complication, yet we do not. We all end up as simple dust, back in the ground, from whence we came

.

This last sentence is exactly what I meant by returning to chaos, chaos is the 'space dust', or elements from whence we came. As part of the ‘circle of life’ things need to die before other things can be born. This is Yin and Yang, the natural balance of the universe. Everything must break down to a elemental level in order for new things to be made. By things I mean everything from plants to planets and suns, negative Qi makes this process possible, giving everything a lifespan.

To answer your first question I would say that it is in the nature of Yang energy to encourage elements to become life and the nature of Yin to encourage life to become elements, it is a cyclical system, 'the circle of life'. There is a finite amount of matter in the universe, so for life to continue there has to be death. New life has to come from somewhere, that somewhere being the elements that result from the decay of once living things. This I hope also answers your second question to, chaos has to move towards form for life to exist. It is an assumption granted but it is based on reason.

So chaos then is matter in an elemental state, where there are infinite possibilities, and form is the realisation of these possibilities, becoming a person, a tree, or a rock. So death is a return to infinite possibilities.

Hope this answers your questions.

TU

 

[The Undecided]

And thank you.

I got an idiot's guide to Ken Wilber and I'm afraid so far I've not managed to get into it.

s.

Presumably the Idiots Guide is written by someone else, not Ken Wilber himself. His book No Boundary is quite accessible and explains his ideas in an understandable way, though I do agree with a lot of what he has to say, so this will help with getting into the book. Regardless I don't think there is any substitute to going to the source, especially in the search of wisdom.

UT

 

[Snoopy]

Presumably the Idiots Guide is written by someone else, not Ken Wilber himself.

Er no, it's extracts of his own stuff from various books. (The Pocket Ken Wilber).

s.

 

[The Undecided]

Thank you for your comment Thomas.

If that 'I' is inherently chaotic, then everything it perceives will be inherently chaotic also, and furthermore it would lack the faculty or capacity to make any distinction.

From my point of view your statement here is incorrect as I don't believe that the 'I' exists in the way you suppose here. Our capacity to make distinctions between things is the reason why we believe we have an 'I' or a self. We make a distinction between the self and the world around us, when in fact there is no distinction. We are made from the same stuff. So to categorise things is to name them, nothing more.

But it does, by seeing the 'form' in the 'chaos'. If the 'form' was an artificial construct, and the human intellect is actually brilliant at imposing apparent form on what appears chaotic, then in every moment that form would drift back into chaos, and we could not see where it came from, and where it went. (And we're talking nanoseconds here.)

First of all by chaos I mean the state of being at an elemental level and full of infinite possibilities. By form I mean the state of possibilities being realised, to become a tree, a rock or a person. At every moment every form is drifting back into chaos, because it is moving towards death, which is inevitable. Also the 'forms' that we see are identities which we have given to things that are nothing more than a collection of matter. This wonderful capacity we have allows us to experience all that we do, but also causes many problems due to our attachment to those things that we have named.

But forms persist, in the first instance as that which perceives, and in its perception is aware of three things: chaos, forms, and the continuity or persistence of its own perception. If there us persistence, there is something other than chaos at play.

Perception of forms and the forms themselves are the same thing, they are inseparable. Beauty exists because we perceive it, it can not exist otherwise. It is also different for each person/being. The same is true of people, chairs, trees and planets.

True chaos is nothing. Nada. Empty. No perception of anything ... nothing to be perceived ... nothing to perceive it. There is no such thing as chaos, it's an abstract concept (a form so disorganised it's not even there), derived by taking the 'form' and mooting its utter opposite.

As I have said all things are empty of having any permanence or identity. Therefore all things are abstract concepts and only exist nominally.

Superior to that, I would suggest, is the idea of the 'I' that perceives, and without which there is no perception, and indeed without which there is nothing. We call it 'subjectivity'. To my mind, that is the highest form of all, in fact it is higher than forms, because the 'I' is ineffable.

Perception and the 'I' are both products of the same illusion. We mistake perception for a perceiver. When in fact there is no distinction.

 

[The Undecided]

Er no, it's extracts of his own stuff from various books. (The Pocket Ken Wilber).

s.

Oh sorry, I miss understood. UT

 

[Lillydragon]

#1: How does a chaotic system moves back into order?

#2: Why?


A white hole [scientist theorize it to be a quasar] [I theorize it to be the antimatter of God] is what creates a black hole, which creates matter…the earth elementals. A black hole then does the opposite and collects matter and feeds the information to the white hole. It is the balanced breathing process of God. Years after creating this theory, I learned that Tantric Buddhist have what is called a clear light. This clear light is a state of complete receptivity and perfect enlightenment. It represents the disappearance of or the merging of ones ego with its own essence, the universal soul. So, God is a white hole that breath’s and creates a black hole that connects to other white holes, which creates wormholes for travel.

“God devours us and feeds us at the same time.”
Ruysbroek – A Flemish mystic.

Just thought I might butt in and put in my two cents.....just my own succint theory on the questions above....

 

[c0de]

.

Undecided + Lillidragon

Greetings ppl






@ Undecided

I am a believer in the concept of Yin and Yang, Yin being 'negative' and Yang being 'positive' Qi, or energy, which permeates everything in the universe.

Serious issues dude.

RED: There is nothing inherently "negative" or "positive" about energy.
The charge (+/-) is determined by the arrangement of subatomic particles.

BLUE: It doesn't "permeate everything", it IS everything. (E=mc2)

To answer your first question I would say that it is in the nature of Yang energy to encourage elements to become life and the nature of Yin to encourage life to become elements, it is a cyclical system, 'the circle of life'.

There is nothing in the "nature" of +/-

It is just energy.

This I hope also answers your second question to, chaos has to move towards form for life to exist.

okay... but WHY???

Why does chaos "have to" move towards order?

That was the second question.

It is an assumption granted but it is based on reason.

How can it be based on "reason" if it is an "assumption" ???

So chaos then is matter in an elemental state

Chaos isn't matter/energy at all. It is a mathematical state of a
complex system, which comes about when 3 or more bodies interact.





@ Lillydragon

.... a white hole that breath’s and creates a black hole that connects to other white holes, which creates wormholes for travel.

"While this gives the impression that black holes in our universe may connect to white holes elsewhere, in reality, this is untrue, for two reasons. First, Schwarzschild wormholes are unstable, disconnecting as soon as they form. Second, Schwarzschild wormholes are only a solution to the Einstein" field equations in vacuum (when no matter interacts with the hole).

Collapse to a Black Hole

 

[Lillydragon]

Greetings to youn's also.

well, i am not talking about schwarzchilds theories at all, just my own. it is more like a puzzle box.....pulls apart, but always connected. worms holes in my theory do not dicsconnect as soon as they connect.

 

[path_of_one]

I nod and give a puzzled smile. Nod, because it resonates. Puzzled smile because I'm pretty sure I'm missing something. But, after all, I am not a physicist.

What I can speak to in terms of my beliefs, is a sense of divine unfolding and an encompassing of what might be termed darkness and light. This is not good/evil in my own worldview. Evil is a category of wilfully disharmonious intentions and manifestations/actions that occur when a being is disconnected from the Divine and the All. Destruction, death, decay and so on are not evil- they give rise to the fertile darkness of potentiality, the state before there is a becoming, a rising, an interbeing.

In between this state of potentiality, of fertile darkness (as in a womb), and the state of pure light, of return, of refinement and consummation... in this in-between space lives manifestation and incarnation. In this lives the self and individual consciousness. Here, in the space of illusory separation, we can have perception.

We arise out of the spontaneous fertility and creativity of the Divine, and we live a while in a sense of individuality and relative separateness, and then our journey is to re-connect, to re-member... and when this reaches its ultimate height, we are fully consumed by the Divine once more... and so "we" are no longer as individuals. As you say, our form- and I would say our identity- is likely impermanent, though perhaps quite long-lived.

So far as I understand your definitions of chaos and form, I can nod. However, I would not call it such myself. I would call it process- spiraling outward from the Divine singularity and back to it. Chaos and form imply that order only comes with incarnation and arrangement of physical matter, and that matter and energy are different things (when they are more like different ways of seeing the same thing). To posit chaos and form as opposites strikes me as chaos=disincarnate and form=order. However, I don't think this is the case.

So for me, it is more about process than chaos/form. I am always part of the fabric of God Herself. I am ever changing, ever decaying, ever being reborn. Her divinity runs through me, and so I am sacred- both my temporary manifestation in matter and my longer-lived energetic essence.

 

[Thomas]

Hi c0de —

So far, so good. But this next bit though... I think you are getting more into metaphysics than actual physics.

True. Nothing wrong with that.

Red does not follow from blue. Quantum Physics does not state that if no one is observing schrodinger's cat, then the cat does not exist.

I'm saying beyond that — I'm saying that existence itself is an observation ... if no observation, then no existence.

What is funny to me, is how similar scientists and theologians are when it comes down to eliminating free-will. Both will accept deep contradictions in their paradigms instead of just surrendering free-will.

What about the deep contradictions in accepting (super)determinism, or denying free-will? This is surely an act of faith?

Thomas