Order Out Of Chaos

Laurent <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...

It's as old as fresh crap if you don't have any data. It's older than
festering crap if you deny the necessity of observation. The range
of philosophy is inversely related to its mass: R = h / mc (Compton).
Drawing it's energy from the vacuum, its virtue is entirely virtual.
[Old Man]

Old Man wrote:


I disagree, and I think that Al nailed it, but he's just to much of a
***** to follow up on the obvious metaphysical ramifications of the fact
that the universe's effort toward mass equilibrium defines the "NEED"
for balance or "harmony" in nature. That is to say that the
philosophical ravings of Mr. Laurent and Master Tao are just incomplete
and unquantified local observations of the physical manifestations that
result from all of the different kinds of interactions that take place
as a consequence of differences between related energy forms as they
work against each other toward the common effort.

This says nothing to accuracy, but you can't say that a local
observation is wrong, just because you can't precisely quantify it, and
you damned sure can't say that it can't be quantified just because you
don't have any better means to place a value on it than the measure that
you've obviously made from your observation!

If Al had the balls that he pretends to have, then he'd explain to the
poor misguided fool that every object in the universe moves in a common
effort, from the rock that "rests" on the surface of the earth, to the
biggest freaking bang to ever hit the fan, where, existence itself
precludes any choice in this matter, (which is no small detail, BTW).

If Al's had the guts that are needed to justify the perpetuation of his
lowly species, then Al would even go so far as to say that humans are
therefore, nature's logically preferred theory, because humans attempt
to mix all levels in this effort. Humans simply have more degrees of
freedom in the endeavor than rocks or cows or even a super-nova... e.g.,
humans are logically chosen by nature to equalize all levels = nature's
"theme"... (cuz it's universal)... duh.

The vacuum at g=0 is "entirely virtual", but in our reality g doesn't
equal zero, so it's all about an effort to get there from here, which is
what Al said before he turned into his usual ego-inflated obnoxious
self, instead of trying to help some poor kid get interested in really
understanding something that they very OBVIOUSLY... have some measure
for, because he is so afraid of... "that word"

Can I formalize my claim?... nah, but that doesn't mean that it isn't
qualified, because it is, and it sure as hell does NOT mean it's not
quatifiable, because you could formalize it if you had a better means to
measure the observations, so it sure as hell does have a very APPARENT
and meaningful philosophical value.

.... and I'll kiss Al's fat smelly arrogant ass if I'm wrong...

Now that's one serious qualification!...



Disclaimer: I'm only messing with Uncle Chirality, and he knows it.

island <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...

Harmony? Balance? You're working in a vacuum. Take a look out
the window once in a while. The universe is not in equilibrium and
never has been. It's expanding at the speed of light! Life is not the
result of harmony. Life cannot arise out of equilibrium, and its
existence is not a move towards equilibrium. To be eaten by a lion
or to be struck down by a few bacteria cells is not harmony. It's
beastly, progressive competition! Balance? The Universe is a one-
way super highway that is regulated by ever increasing entropy. All
of this is hard won knowledge that has to be the bases of any
valid philosophy of the Universe, but then, philosophy isn't supposed
to be tied down by scientific knowledge of nature, is it? metaphysics
is the playground of free spirits. [Old Man]

"Old Man" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:3f353265_1@newsfeed...
person but
was
everything came
is a
years
older than
range
(Compton).
virtual.
of a
the fact
"NEED"
and
not the
lion
one-
All
supposed
metaphysics


I found this at alt.philosophy.debate

Was he responding to you Old Man? I wonder.


"john lerch" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:10d1a752.0308071543.1982228f@posting.google.c om...

Here is my story:

Suppose the driving force that powers evolution from the moment of
the Big Bang until today is not "survival of the fittest" but
harmony and resonance. In the Big Bang beginning each bit that came
to be had its own specific set of characteristics and were nearly
all identical. Then two nearby bits found themselves joined by their
common harmony producing resonance. It is this harmony and resonance
that builds the particles, the neutrons, electrons and protons that
make up the atoms that make up molecules which exhibit even greater
complexity, harmony and resonance.

And so goes the universe.

For instance assume the driving force that powers love is harmony.
Every individual has a specific, complex harmony within the
universe, harmony within the world around them, harmony within
themselves. That harmony is a combination of physical, mental and
emotional processes. Love between two people is simply two harmonies
that join in resonance. Sometimes it is an instant resonance so
powerful it produces lightening and thunder. Sometimes it is so
fundamental that the resonance echoes for a lifetime. And sometimes
that resonance builds because we want it to build. It spreads
because we want it to spread. It creates families, neighborhoods and
communities.

It is this very same harmony and resonance that builds the universe.
Chaos and simplicity mark the beginnings of the universe. Increasing
complexity and order mark its changes and progression.

The human mind evolved from this process and is Mother Nature's
highest known achievement in complexity and order. We bring
consciousness and intelligence to Mother Nature's process.

The entire process rests upon the principles of harmony and resonanc
e. They are the foundation of order and complexity. That which
increases harmony and resonance in the universe aids Mother Nature's
journey from chaos to order and from simplicity to complexity.
Harmony and resonance pervade all things from the simplest particles
of physics to the feelings of love between two people.

They can be used as standards that define good and evil, right and
wrong. They are the standards we need as the human race assumes its
duty to advance Mother Nature's imperative.

It took 15 billion years of blind chance for Mother Nature to arrive
at where she is today. Imagine what will happen now that we add
consciousness and intelligence to the process.

Now I know who I am, why I am here and what I must do with the rest
of my life. I have found standards for good and evil that yield to
the principles of math and science. Harmony and resonance are
objective standards we can use to measure good and evil.

This philosophy is built on the assumptions that there are no limits
to eternity and infinity, and that things which are in harmony are
attracted to each other whereupon they join harmonies to create new
harmonies and resonance in an endless progression from simplicity to
complexity, from chaos to order. It is nature's fundamental process.

I know the secret of life.

It is love.


Toward a unified theory of philosophy:

All philosophies are built upon seldom seen assumptions and
premises. The foundations of good and evil, right and wrong,
eternity and infinity are usually among those neglected things. And
that is as it should be because generations may pass without
important change in those assumptions and premises.

On the other hand when those changes do occur the entire world
becomes a different place. For example, substitute "harmony and
resonance" for "survival of the fittest" in the philosophy and
science of evolution. The history, record, facts and science do not
change except where the ideas of harmony and resonance lead us to
understand odd things that
did not appear to fit before.

But the fundamental essence of the story changes from one of
conflict and death to one of creation and growth. Evolution becomes
an entirely different thing as does our understanding of the reality
it describes, the future it enlightens and our place in both.

Harmony and resonance create a profound change in the very nature of
the way we see the universe and life itself. If they are a valid way
to describe the universe and life then we must rewrite our political
philosophies, our economic philosophies, our social philosophies and
our theologies where it is appropriate.

Right now we need to explore that validity. Are harmony and
resonance at the core of our evolution, our reality and our
relationships? Or is the universe built on the survival of the
fittest?

[Only registered users see links. ] drop the dumpit

Laurent wrote:

Are harmony and

Our universe is "built" on nature's primary directive that "Balance is
Good", and you don't need to goto alt.lost.puppies to find that out.

Whether or not entropy is ever increasing is debatable, but that doesn't
matter anyway, because all effort is made in the name of equilibrium,
regardless.

Nature's First Principle is that "Balance is Good".

"island" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...

Where's the equilibrium in stars burning their fuel
and ending as dying cinders? Where's the equilibrium
in an ever expanding, ever cooling universe? Where's
the equilibrium in the continual degredation of energy
to waste heat?

A debate about whether or not entropy always increases
would be a short one, with you on the losing end.

Greg Neill wrote:


You and Old Man both need to learn to read and get past the fact that I
never claimed that equilibrium can or does actually exist... and then
maybe we can discuss this:

Old Man wrote:

Idiot, you contradicted yourself by claiming that equilibrium can't
be... which is what I said.

Let's start over again, shall we?, but this time let's bear in mind two
things:

1) There is no claiming that equilibrium can be achieved.

2) Theoretical speculation is only a strawman if there is no supportive
evidence.

The universe's effort toward mass equilibrium defines the "NEED"
for balance or "harmony" in nature. That is to say that the
philosophical ravings of Mr. Laurent and Master Tao are just incomplete
and unquantified local observations of the physical manifestations that
result from all of the different kinds of interactions that take place
as a consequence of differences between related energy forms as they
work against each other toward the common effort.

This says nothing to accuracy, but you can't say that a local
observation is wrong, just because you can't precisely quantify it, and
you damned sure can't say that it can't be quantified just because you
don't have any better means to place a value on it than the measure that
you've obviously made from your observation!

Every object in the universe moves in a common effort, from the rock
that "rests" on the surface of the earth, to the biggest freaking bang
to ever hit the fan, where, existence itself precludes any choice in
this matter, (which is no small detail, BTW).

By this exact same logic, humans are therefore, nature's logically
preferred theory, because humans attempt to mix all levels in this
effort. Humans simply have more degrees of freedom in the endeavor than
rocks or cows or even a super-nova... e.g., humans are logically chosen
by nature to equalize all levels = nature's "theme"... (cuz it's
universal)... duh.

The vacuum at g=0 is "entirely virtual", but in our reality g doesn't
equal zero, so it's all about an effort to get there from here, which is
what Al said before he turned into his usual ego-inflated obnoxious
self, instead of trying to help some poor kid get interested in really
understanding something that they very OBVIOUSLY... have some measure
for, because he is so afraid of... "that word"

Can I formalize my claim?... nah, but that doesn't mean that it isn't
qualified, because it is, and it sure as hell does NOT mean it's not
quatifiable, because you could formalize it if you had a better means to
measure the observations, so it sure as hell does have a very APPARENT
and meaningful philosophical value.

.... and I'll STILL kiss Al's ass if I'm wrong

"island" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...

Why did you snip your text? Here it is again:


Looks like you're a balance and equilibrium advocate from
where I'm sitting.