God and Order

[irichc]

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.

 

[DeeCee]

Do your tie yourself in knots for fun or only when trying to create an abstract framework that supports the existence of whatever mythical entity you get down on your knees for?
BTW how do you fit thermodynamics/entropy into this spurious allusion of a theory?

It is impossible that order can be generated by disorder.

Err consider the movement of individual water molecules in a river
Ordered and predictable?
Now consider the rotation of a waterwheel.
Oh look it's order from chaos!

For a more naturally occuring example consider the processes that form stars from gas clouds.
Welcome to Sci-Forums!
Dee Cee

 

[Leo Volont]

In my Youth I took my Inheretance, cashed it in, and trapsed off to the Himalyan Mountains in Pursuit of the Timeless Wisdom. Eventually finding the Greatest Satguru that was still on this Side of Transcendence, I asked him One Question, "What is Life?"

He told me I must Meditate continuously for Seven Years to be worthy of receiving an answer. I meditated.

Finally, the Great Maharishi came and revealed the The Answer -- "Life is that which brings Organization out of Chaos, raising Matter up to Spirit".

 

[audible]

It is the final proof of God's omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us.
Operationally, God is beginning to resemble not a ruler but the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat.

 

[James R]

Welcome to sciforums, Daniel.

Definition 1: I call a real unity to that which has an individual movement.

You probably need to define individual movement.

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

I don't understand.

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.

If two objects are moving parallel to one another, aren't they travelling in the same direction?

Definition 2: Movement is the self-succession of a real unity.

What's self-succession?

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.

This isn't obvious to me. Are you simply saying that order and disorder are related to the locations of objects, or something else?

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.

You seem to be saying that when things move, they move relative to other things. Is that all?

Proposition 1: Movement is an accident.

Demonstration:

Let’s say that a real unity moves (or it is moved) in a multiple environment.

It seems it must, by your definitions.

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.

Things which are individual stay individual?

That is to say, change affects it accidentally, not substantially.

Stopping a "real unity" would effect a substantial change, would it not? Because then it would cease to be a real unity, according to definition 1. Is that right?

I don't understand how your "demonstration" actually supports your proposition here.

Proposition 2: Order can be understood as the characteristic of some kind of movement.

Hmm.... so it's not about position, then?

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.

By definition 1, a real unity cannot lose its identity with movement, since it is a real unity because it moves. Right?

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 1: Movement is an accident.
Proposition 2: Order can be understood as the characteristic of some kind of movement.

Therefore, it seems to me to follow that:

Proposition 3a: Order can be understood as the characteristic of some kind of accident.

I don't see how proposition 3 follows from 1 and 2.

Proposition 4: Every notion of order implies the notion of real unity.

Demonstration: By Proposition 3.

That doesn't follow, logically, since it is an inductive assumption based on a single example. But perhaps you need only show that your particular notion of order follows from the notion of real unity.

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.

Seeing as you haven't really established propositions 3 and 4, and your logic doesn't seem to be water tight anyway, this is quite a stretch. But perhaps you can expand on what you've said so far.

It would be good if you could explain in a less opaque manner. Your meaning is quite difficult to grasp. It is almost as if you're trying to be obscure. Can you explain your point in simpler terms, please?

 

[b0urgeoisie]

If two objects are moving parallel to one another, aren't they travelling in the same direction?

I think they could be moving in opposite directions. Although, if you think about it two lines that are parallel cannot be moving because they never end. But trains, for example, I think could be called parallel if they never intersect but move in opposing directions.

 

[MarcAC]

Problem:

Is it rational to suppose that disorder generates order?

For the record I do not think 'rational' and 'possible' are mutually indicative terms. Thus, in the end, it might be irrational but possible and impossible yet rational - as far as our knowledge goes.

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.

Clear. Because you are trying to associate order with disorder you have to define your elements in terms of movment (not only position)... or else everything would remain in the same state and thus nothing to differentiate order from disorder.

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.

Makes sense. I'm just trying to use my finite mind to follow your logic.

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.

You lose me here with the word accidental. Do you mean change/movement occurs incrementally? If so it makes sense (to me of course).

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.

O.k... but why call it a 'disordered movment'? Has the original unity disappeared and/or are new ones generated?... Anyway...

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.

Very clear assuming I get Proposition 2.

Proposition 4:

Every notion of order implies the notion of real unity.

Demonstration:

By Proposition 3.

More the notion of a multiplicity of unities (to me).

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.

Well illustrated (that order cannot be generated from disorder - assuming the principles are timeless). In other words, as long as you aren't just 'defining shapes in a cloud' where order is whatever you say it is, nicely done all round. I have a problem with the term 'disordered movement' - it seems ad hoc.

 

[Q25]

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.

what a load of horse manure!

It is very easy, when defining one's own terms as one sees fit, to prove anything one likes.
words change meaning with context, and made up words can mean whatever you want them to.

It will never be brillig in the slithy toves, nor will it be partly slithy with a thirty percent chance of brillig. I could define a positive unity as a fart in the wind and people would still not have a clue as to what I am talking about.

you are starting from an assumed answer and then creating an elaborate quasi-logical construct to justify it, hoping that we will be so confused by the list of axioms and corrolaries and erudite application of splediferous terminology that we would agree that you had conclusively proven that swine could at the very least levitate if not fly just so that we didn't have to try to pick apart your tangly-woven web to get at the heart of the argument. If we did,we would find only the answer that you started with in the first place.


Watch the funny phrases go, see their silly antics.
The men who make the wiggle so are teachers of Semantics.
-The Space Child's Mother Goose

 

[MarcAC]

It is very easy, when defining one's own terms as one sees fit, to prove anything one likes.

What else can one do really? Define them as Q25 sees fit?

 

[Leo Volont]

For the record I do not think 'rational' and 'possible' are mutually indicative terms. Thus, in the end, it might be irrational but possible and impossible yet rational - as far as our knowledge goes.Clear. Because you are trying to associate order with disorder you have to define your elements in terms of movment (not only position)... or else everything would remain in the same state and thus nothing to differentiate order from disorder.Makes sense. I'm just trying to use my finite mind to follow your logic.You lose me here with the word accidental. Do you mean change/movement occurs incrementally? If so it makes sense (to me of course).O.k... but why call it a 'disordered movment'? Has the original unity disappeared and/or are new ones generated?... Anyway...Very clear assuming I get Proposition 2.

More the notion of a multiplicity of unities (to me).Well illustrated (that order cannot be generated from disorder - assuming the principles are timeless). In other words, as long as you aren't just 'defining shapes in a cloud' where order is whatever you say it is, nicely done all round. I have a problem with the term 'disordered movement' - it seems ad hoc.

yeah, I agree.

I thought back-track logic died with Descarte... or should have.

For any train of logic we must start with something that is self-evident, and here the Self Evident thing is that these boring strings of logic that don't prove anything interesting anyway are retarded.