World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Is the universe orderly or chaotic?
date
newest »
newest »
I see it as orderly on the micro level, but chaotic higher up.Although we've not got to the basics yet (not even with quarks and quantum theory) I think there is a small set of relatively simple rules that govern the behavior of physics, but the sheer numbers involved make the aggregations and interactions chaotic.
And I see the same principles at play in other systems, e.g. relatively simple human motivations of individuals lead to chaotic and unpredictable behaviors of mobs, corporations, nations ...
Orderly linear systems and disorderly (chaotic) non-linear systems.REF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonline...
Personally, complex systems are a fascinating phenomenon. I actually think that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of a sufficiently complex physical system.
Graeme wrote: "Personally, complex systems are a fascinating phenomenon. I actually think that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of a sufficiently complex physical system."
It is an interesting issue. Most people would assume a bacteria is not conscious, but where on the evolutionary scale does it cut in? I heard a neuroscientist argue there is a piece of the brain that has evolved that is present in mammals, birds, not so sure about lizards, and not in frogs. Is a frog conscious? Then on Graeme's hypothesis, if you make a computer sufficiently complex, it becomes conscious. I wonder what comprises "sufficiently"?
Graeme wrote: "Personally, complex systems are a fascinating phenomenon. I actually think that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of a sufficiently complex physical system."
I agree with this, and to answer the other Ian's question that leads me to believe that a sufficiently complex computer could indeed become conscious. However, this comes with a number of caveats:
1. I think what we experience as consciousness is not an on/off switch - something is not conscious, then step over a threshold and bingo it is. I think it's a continuum. e.g. Some animals (IMO) are probably conscious in a way we'd recognize, but barely so. They have subjective experience, but no real sense of self.
2. What's to say there's only one kind of consciousness? There could be different ways for a being to be conscious - i.e. it's aware of itself and its surroundings, and can experience things (I think the ability to experience, as opposed to mechanically sense and react, is key here), but in a way that we can't imagine or understand. So would we even recognize it as such?
3. Finally, back to the subject of emergence, IMO sheer complexity on its own is not sufficient. A system has to be complex in a suitable way for a particular property such as consciousness to emerge. So, it may not be enough to simply throw more computer power hooked up in complex ways, There may be underlying rules for how that complexity is organized, without which all you have is a complex, but not conscious, system.
Expanding on point 3, waves are an emergent property of a mass of particles acting according to very simple rules - the main one being that if they collide or come too close to each other, they bounce or repel each other.So you see waves in gases, liquids, solids. You can also see waves in unexpected places such as a busy highway. Ever come to a hold-up on a stretch of highway, but when you get past it there's nothing to explain the hold-up? You've just experienced a standing wave in a line of cars.
But start with particles obeying very different ground rules, and there'd be no waves. So it consciousness is indeed emergent, the question is - emergent from what? What properties must the substrate possess in order for consciousness to emerge?
I guess we have to be careful to define what we mean by "conscious". Fish swim away from a disturbance. Is that a conscious decision, or a reflex hard-wired into them by evolution to avoid predators? (Of course that might be the mechanism consciousness arises over time - how we arrange that for AI boggles the mind. Have you seen those "robot wars"? Could such machines evolve consciousness???)I would question the waves, though, with traffic. A true wave transmits energy, and has been given continuous energy from somewhere, for example the wind above it generates waves on the sea as energy is transferred to the sea. What you see in traffic is more like a pulse. The highway below my house has them - they are generated by traffic lights some distance away. On the main road into Wellington near peak times they may seem inexplicable, but I think they are due to erratic lane changing by erks who seem to think another lane might be faster (it often is not really - they may gain two car lengths) but have a whole lot behind having to brake/slow to avoid colliding with them.
Ian wrote: "And I see the same principles at play in other systems, e.g. relatively simple human motivations of individuals lead to chaotic and unpredictable behaviors of mobs, corporations, nations ..."Wonder whether 'orderly' is always synonymous to 'predictable' and "chaotic" to "non-...".
Some say corporations are predictable, as their motivation's often restricted to a nicer profit line.
And there is always a debate whether this or that country/leadership is a 'rational' (predictable) player or not, especially in the context who's likely to press a nuclear button
"Predictable" can become "chaotic". As an example, consider a solar system, where you have a star, planets, satellites, asteroids, etc. Newton's very simple law of gravity means that everything, in principle, is predictable when you have a starting position. However, the odd thing about this is there are no simple analytical solutions once you have more than two bodies, with the exception of three when there is a special size relationship. If the system is sufficiently compact for the number and size of the bodies, before long they start colliding and the system becomes quite chaotic. In principle everything is predictable but you can't. Another analogy is a snooker break. In principle, the physics are clear and the outcome of any given one is predictable, given enough time to do the computations, but in practice it is quite chaotic in appearance.As for politics, I predict that Trump will continue to be chaotic :-)
I would add that this question is plagued by the problem of perception. The universe may indeed be orderly, but we lack the essential comprehension to see it. Currently, quantum mechanics seems like a chaotic environment because we haven't pinned down the rules just yet. Whereas on the larger scale, relativity seems to explain large-scale phenomena quite well.But the fact that we can't bring both of these realms together seems like an indication that we can only make sense of systems when they are restricted to certain criteria or frames of reference. Once you try to see how all those systems interact with every other system you know of, you perceive chaos, but only because you haven't made sense of it yet. Perhaps we never will.
Frank Herbert said something about this. It was in one of his later books in the Dune series and I can't seem to find it. But the gist was that rules apply only in small, confined systems. The second you start to look bigger, rules no longer apply.
Matthew wrote: "I would add that this question is plagued by the problem of perception. The universe may indeed be orderly, but we lack the essential comprehension to see it. Currently, quantum mechanics seems lik..."I think the problem Matthew raises is that we have yet to comprehend because something is missing from one (or both) of those theories. More than once before in history, people have thought we fully understood physics, but for the odd irritant, and then found out the odd irritant indicated a huge hole in the understanding. I suspect we might be somewhere like that again.
I like reading discussions like these. We're always searching for answers, but should I conclude that we just don't have enough information to know the answer?
Scout wrote: "I like reading discussions like these. We're always searching for answers, but should I conclude that we just don't have enough information to know the answer?"In my opinion, yes. We don't.
And a few people are making guesses, including, I suppose, me :-)
Can't we say that some events in the universe are orderly and that some are chaotic? Does it have to be one or the other?
Indeed we can. The rules of classical dynamics are clear, and everything can be calculated if you know enough, but when we look at simple collisions, the snooker break will be totally unpredictable to most people.
I think about all those snooker balls colliding at unpredictable angles. When we make a decision, we do it with the intention of making things go a certain way, but maybe that decision sets into motion things we can't predict. Life certainly seems chaotic to me on a personal level. But other things - the turning of the earth, seeds germinating and reaching for the sun, aging and death - those seem orderly.
With the snooker ball, the angle a ball leaves the collision can depend on as little as a few micrometers, as well as any spin on whatever hits it. It is theoretically possible to calculate all this, but in my opinion, practically impossible. So the determined actually ends up being chaotic because you can't do the calculations.
What bothers me about online discussions is that one can reply to a part of a post and ignore the rest.
Maybe, Scout, it is not ignoring the rest but rather not having anything useful to say about them. If that was aimed at my last post, I didn't want to comment on whether your personal life is chaotic because I don't know. The rotation of the Earth is certainly orderly - basically conserved angular momentum. Seeds germinating and growing is, in my opinion, very complicated, but I guess it is largely physical chemistry together with some planning wired into the seeds (so they know to go up). Aging and death seem to me to be a bit chaotic, although again there are chemical reasons why everything happens that way. Having seen that, I suspect you will see why I was reluctant to write about those things in the first place.
Sorry about being grumpy - personal things, you know, and chaotic, and certainly not orderly :-) My father suffered a compound fracture of two bones in his foot and had to have an operation. Still, some things in the universe are orderly and predictable? I count on that.
No need to worry about being grumpy - we all get that way some of the time. Sorry about your father - hope all goes well.
Cool :-) So have we concluded that the universe is both orderly and chaotic? That is, some things are orderly and others chaotic.
But how do you perceive it?