A Few Questions

[Left Now]

Well I want to ask you guys a few questions,but I am not going to ask them all at once and I want to ask them one by one since I need the answers to these questions to be separately reviewed.

Judean Zealot

Plus+This thread is going to be a place for discussion and probably not debate,so the best place for it is RoTW.

Please give short answers to these questions,they do not need long answers.


#Question N1. Are the laws of universe following any order? (Preferably with Yes/No)

[Flapjack]

No I think this world does not have discipline. I think across the world there is a two tier justice system. The system for the poor who get unfairly targeted and punished and then the second tier for the rich, who get away with too much.

[Left Now]

No I think this world does not have discipline. I think across the world there is a two tier justice system. The system for the poor who get unfairly targeted and punished and then the second tier for the rich, who get away with too much.

This thread is not about Sociology my friend it is about philosophy!By discipline I mean "Universal Order" not such thing like what you said.

[dxcxdzv]

Could you define, please:
-World
-Universe
-Order
-Discipline

[Left Now]

Could you define, please:
-World
-Universe
-Order
-Discipline

-World and Universe:The existence and everything
-Order and Discipline:The very thing that causes a system to be lawful.

[Porpoise101]

Yes, I think that there is an order to the world, it has certain defined rules nothing can shatter. Within this shell of order, it is like a yolk; chaotic, colorful, and dynamic.

[dxcxdzv]

Well the World I don't know but the Universe tends to be a pretty nasty guy when it comes to "Discipline and Order".

[Left Now]

Well the World I don't know but the Universe tends to be a pretty nasty guy when it comes to "Discipline and Order".

You mean for example a day you will sleep with your eyes on your head,but then wake up with your eyes on you palms?By discipline I mean this.

Yes, I think that there is an order to the world, it has certain defined rules nothing can shatter. Within this shell of order, it is like a yolk; chaotic, colorful, and dynamic.

So you believe that there is order in the world.Nothing shatters.

[dxcxdzv]

Mmmh, someone here watched the Pan's Labyrinth.

The Universe (I'm mainly talking about physics here) seems to be ruled by some "natural laws" like mass distorts space and time. However our beloved "singularities" are here to remind us that there isn't no really fixed rules.
For example when you look at matter Classical Physics is kind of outdated, electrons are believed to move "chaotically", I like to say that it is because we didn't find out the whole explanation.
Another example is the Planck Length, below a particular scale known rules of the Universe (like gravity) are simply thrown to the bin.
Kinda the same shit for black holes.
The Universe is so believed to be "random".
Heisenberg pointed out that "matter" and "randomness" are indivisible.
Chances that you wake up with your eyes on your palm are however way to low to be credible, haha.

Not sure if this is the answer you expected, not even sure if this is an answer at all but, well, Science is Philosophy nah? :p

[Left Now]

Reise,

First,science is not philosophy.Never tell this to someone studying philosophy.

Second,I think your answer can be shortened to No.Right?

[dxcxdzv]

Reise,

First,science is not philosophy.Never tell this to someone studying philosophy.

Second,I think your answer can be shortened to No.Right?
Well, for a guy studying Philosophy this is kinda weird to be satisfied with a yes or a no.

[Left Now]

Well, for a guy studying Philosophy this is kinda weird to be satisfied with a yes or a no.

I am not studying philosophy myself,but many philosophical questions have certain short answers.

[dxcxdzv]

I am not studying philosophy myself,but many philosophical questions have certain short answers.
If you say so.

[sqishy]

Does this World and Universe have Discipline and Order?

No and yes, respectively.

It is more reasonable to see the world as having some order to it, rather than not having any.

I personally (but not without argument) don't like analogies being drawn between our ideas of justice, and the ideas of order in the world. It brings a presupposition that things are such for a reason determined by some consciousness, and/or sees at least some processes/aspects of the world as being authoritarian in some manner.

I will give an example soon, but not now (sorry for any cliffhangers caused :P ).

[Left Now]

Does this World and Universe have Discipline and Order?

No and yes, respectively.

It is more reasonable to see the world as having some order to it, rather than not having any.

I personally (but not without argument) don't like analogies being drawn between our ideas of justice, and the ideas of order in the world. It brings a presupposition that things are such for a reason determined by some consciousness, and/or sees at least some processes/aspects of the world as being authoritarian in some manner.

I will give an example soon, but not now (sorry for any cliffhangers caused :P ).


I think you have misunderstood.I just wanted to know if people here believe the very world that they are living in is not going to change 180 degree when they sleep and get up.I gave an example about it above and it was "Sleeping with your eyes on your head" and "Waking up with your eyes on your palms"

[sqishy]

I think you have misunderstood.I just wanted to know if people here believe the very world that they are living in is not going to change 180 degree when they sleep and get up.I gave an example about it above and it was "Sleeping with your eyes on your head" and "Waking up with your eyes on your palms"

You mean something like Hume's argument of the problem of inductive reasoning?

A presumption that the future will resemble the past?

[Left Now]

You mean something like Hume's argument of the problem of inductive reasoning?

A presumption that the future will resemble the past?

It is pretty simple my friend!I'm not asking you to think too much.All I want to know is one thing:

"Do you believe that the very basic of universe itself is stable?"

By order and discipline I mean this.I want to know if there is anyone who actually believes there is a very probability that tomorrow he wakes up and his eyes are on the his palms instead of head.

[sqishy]

It is pretty simple my friend!I'm not asking you to think too much.All I want to know is one thing:

"Do you believe that the very basic of universe itself is stable?"

I believe that the basic nature of the world as we know it is stable.

With example in physics, I believe spacetime to be a substance that is due to something more fundamental. This more fundamental thing sure has some stability to it, for spacetime is really big (a lot of things exist 'in' it) and very consistent in its nature.

Beyond that, I don't see any reason why spacetime cannot break away or down into something else, or why whatever is 'behind' the world is necessarily stable. The universe itself could be an ilsand of relative order in a sea of chaos for all I know.

It is more reasonable for me to see the world as we know it as being essentially ordered in some way.

[Left Now]

I believe that the basic nature of the world as we know it is stable.

With example in physics, I believe spacetime to be a substance that is due to something more fundamental. This more fundamental thing sure has some stability to it, for spacetime is really big and very consistent in its nature.

Beyond that, I don't see any reason why spacetime cannot break away or down into something else, or why whatever is 'behind' the world is necessarily stable. The universe itself could be an ilsand of relative order in a sea of chaos for all I know.

So you agree that the world has discipline and order and is stable in its very basics that nothing unrelated to the world itself like the example that we said above will happen in the middle of it.

In other words you agree that Laws are following Discipline.

If yes we are getting very close to second question for you and Porpoise101

[sqishy]

So you agree that the world has discipline and order and is stable in its very basics that nothing unrelated to the world itself like the example that we said above will happen in the middle of it.


I agree that the world has order, I'm leaving discipline out of it.

Something 'not of this world' could appear within e.g. spacetime, I cannot say it can't happen, so I disagree with that.

Have you read Flatland?



In other words you agree that Laws are following Discipline.

I invoke my example I was speaking of before, now.

You have heard of the Law of Universal Gravitation, I'm assuming. The scientific accuracy of it is not relevant for my dislike of seeing Law in the world, it is the presence of presumptions.

This physical law says that two objects with mass will gravitate toward with each other, this movement having quantities dependent on the particular quantity of the masses of these objects. So, it looks to be like this is a fundamental nature of the world being played out at our scale, which could be imagined as being different if we talk of alternate universes and whatever (masses could gravitate away from each other, etc).

I don't like this. Firstly, this law presupposes a certain nature of the dimensions that these objects are 'in'. If space had two dimensions and not three, then this 'law' would be different. Also, the law states a process that is large-scale, but which depends on certain smaller scale events interacting between each other so as to have this large scale process happen. An example of this is that the process of water spilling from a glass depends on the processes of the water being fluid, the glass solid, and even those depending on the interactions between the molecules of the water and glass themselves.

The fundamental nature of gravitation is to be found in the nature of mass and dimensions themselves, not large scale structures that only have these as properties.

So, I don't see any fundamentality to the law of gravitation at all - it presupposes certain conditions to already be in place. I use this to argue that if you want fundamentality and 'laws', you can at least look at processes that involve a smaller number of known entities, not greater ones which are already ordered sets of many other entities. Better you investigate the nature of electricity through electrons and atoms, rather than just at power lines and batteries.

The second point I already mentioned, that I don't like comparisons of important similarities being drawn between ideas of justice in society, and ideas of order in the world. Laws in our human realm can be broken, and also punishments can be issued for this. The law of universal gravitation cannot be broken in the context of its own reasoning.

Hope this makes sense.

[Left Now]

Paraxiom,

What you are apperantly involved in right now is called self-tricking.I am just asking one simple question.

In this very world that we are living,we are seeing,we are existing,we are having this mind blowing discussion in this damned VT (with respects to VT though :) ),is there order and discipline or not?I am not talking about out of this world I am talking about this world itself.This universe itself.The very our own place itself.Can anything out of this existence happen in existence or not?It just can have two answers:Yes or No.

Take your thinking inside our own borders not out of it.

[Microcosm]

Order? I'd say so. Natural order of course.

Discipline? No. Discipline is a concept created by and for the moral progression of humans. The universe, insofar as we are talking about the material universe, has no sense of ultimate morality and cannot regulate or discipline itself.

Mass extinctions occur because the natural order of the universe seems to not care for life.

Of course by natural order I'm in no way referring to anything supernatural. Rather, I mean only the material, scientifically proven laws that do regulate the behavior of the universe and the world.

So,

Order: Yes.

Discipline: No.

[Left Now]

Order? I'd say so. Natural order of course.

Discipline? No. Discipline is a concept created by and for the moral progression of humans. The universe, insofar as we are talking about the material universe, has no sense of ultimate morality and cannot regulate or discipline itself.

Mass extinctions occur because the natural order of the universe seems to not care for life.

Of course by natural order I'm in no way referring to anything supernatural. Rather, I mean only the material, scientifically proven laws that do regulate the behavior of the universe and the world.

So,

Order: Yes.

Discipline: No.

Maybe I'd better say that by Discipline I mean Order.They both means causing a system to have laws in my language.Sorry.

Let me make it more simple:

#Question N2. Are laws of this universe following any Order?

[Vlerchan]

Firstly, this law presupposes a certain nature of the dimensions that these objects are 'in'.
A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

Catastrophe averted.

---

Q1: I believe there's a stable universe insofar as empiricism is a useful epistemological strategy.

Q2: No.

[Left Now]

8A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

Catastrophe averted.

---

I believe there's a stable universe insofar as empiricism is a useful epistemological strategy.


So are laws of universe following any order?

Plus+After clarifying that by Discipline I meant Order itself?

[Vlerchan]

So are laws of universe following any order?
The laws of the universe order bring order to the universe, but that those not mean they are ordered themselves.

[Left Now]

The laws of the universe order bring order to the universe, but that those not mean they are ordered themselves.

How many laws do we have Vlerchan?

[sqishy]

Paraxiom,

What you are apperantly involved in right now is called self-tricking.I am just asking one simple question.

I'm not trying to trick anyone, I'm giving the reasons behind my answer to your question, in enough detail as to be more than sufficient.



In this very world that we are living,we are seeing,we are existing,we are having this mind blowing discussion in this damned VT (with respects to VT though :) ),is there order and discipline or not?I am not talking about out of this world I am talking about this world itself.This universe itself.The very our own place itself.Can anything out of this existence happen in existence or not?It just can have two answers:Yes or No.


I cannot answer within your context with a yes or no, because I'm can't put order and discipline together and give my reasoning for either 'no' or 'yes'.

The universe itself is ordered in some way, yes. Discipline I am not bringing into it (why the union of discipline and order here?).

I can't say that something 'outside' the world cannot then 'pass through' or exist in it, so I have to say that it can happen. I can't argue that the 'boundary' of the world (whatever it is) is impassable, so I have to say that it can be passed.


I'm getting a feeling that you want to take me on a tour within an argument you'll set step-by-step; alright then.


A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science

Catastrophe averted.


There's no catastrophe - I don't dislike the description the law gives, I dislike how we view it as a law, etc.

I prefer 'observance' than law, at least. My point is that we should be setting apart the language in human Law, and observances of at-least-apparent order in the world at large, more. Analogies are useful, but very useful ones can be misinterpreted as being the thing itself, which is not useful in this topic, and meta-science in general too.

The laws of the universe order bring order to the universe, but that those not mean they are ordered themselves.

Preferably they shouldn't be thought as having order at all, if we are looking for fundamental 'laws'. For example, it makes no sense in particle physics to ask if an electron is an ordered entity or not, as there is no known substructure an electron has, this substructure being where we ask how much order there is.

[dxcxdzv]

Paraxiom : If tomorrow we finally succeed to establish a Theory Of Everything, will what you say here still be valid? x)

It's not especially in the law of gravitation that we see a fundamentality but rather in Gravity itself.

The laws we can deduct from this are (as far as we know) at least applicable to a certain scale. This brings an important question of wether we're talking about our Universe (the cute little Universe) or of all the possible existence (like you mentioned with the Multi-Universe Theory).
Hawking's concept of an Universe without borders and a complex time is kinda exciting btw.

[Vlerchan]

How many laws do we have Vlerchan?
I have no idea what the number is.

How many are there?

[Left Now]

Paraxiom, Reise,

Scientifically,nothing out of this universe has ever happened in this universe since its beginning.

What I am trying to do here is to bring you guys in a cascade.A cascade that at the end you might even get into serious problems with your mind;the very thing which happened to me and now I have come out of it.If you fear your very sanity to be threatened then I suggust you not continue anymore.

When I say this universe has order,I mean I am sure about its order and about the existence of this universe.Just this universe.Has anything out of this universe ever happened inside it?No for sure.

[Left Now]

I have no idea what the number is.

How many are there?

I am asking you.Actually let me ask this way:

Does only one law rule the world?

[Vlerchan]

Does only one law rule the world?
No.

There's at least four that govern the interactions between the four fundamental forces.

[Left Now]

No.

There's at least four that govern the interactions between the four fundamental forces.

Why doesn't any of them defy the other?

[dxcxdzv]

Why doesn't any of them defy the other?
Why do you think they don't defy the other?

Btw, don't worry for my sanity, I won't leave this thread. Unless your final answer is God.

[Left Now]

Why do you think they don't defy the other?

Btw, don't worry for my sanity, I won't leave this thread. Unless your final answer is God.

Do they?Show me then.

And I just have already asked the first question.The very thing that I want to reach to is your answers to questions that I ask,not anything certain.

The second question seems a little too far right now,since we have at least two people who believe in an orderless world.

[Vlerchan]

Why doesn't any of them defy the other?
Because each governs a separate and independent fundamental of the universe.

Unless your final answer is God.
Spoiler: It is - or at least I'm quite sure I've come across a dead similar argument to this before.

[sqishy]

Paraxiom : If tomorrow we finally succeed to establish a Theory Of Everything, will what you say here still be valid? x)

Yes, because I'm talking about the explicit/implicit usage of 'law' in legal analogy to physics. I'm not talking about theories.


It's not especially in the law of gravitation that we see a fundamentality but rather in Gravity itself.

In newtonian physics, gravity is a force between masses, fundamentally. The magnitude of this force is actually secondary, and the 'law of universal gravity' is only talking about the values it can have and the relation between them and the masses of objects involved.

The force can have different magnitudes because of how fast it disperses in the dimensions it carries through. The fundamentality is that there is a force at all, and that it disperses in a certain radial way.

I'm saying that the label of it as a 'law' is wrong, because it draws analogies between the social realm Law is in, and the physical realm. Analogies can be misinterpreted as the actual things they analogise, which can lead to people presupposing that the order in the universe is similar to how authority works in Law.

Laws in 'our human realm' can be broken in our realm, newtonian physics' 'laws' cannot be broken in their own realm.



The laws we can deduct from this are (as far as we know) at least applicable to a certain scale.

That's my problem; I hope you are getting my subtle but important angle at this. Recognise the useful analogy as not necessarily being the thing that it analogises.


This brings an important question of wether we're talking about our Universe (the cute little Universe) or of all the possible existence (like you mentioned with the Multi-Universe Theory).

Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned alternate universes, it might complicate my POV. Interesting though yes.


Hawking's concept of an Universe without borders and a complex time is kinda exciting btw.

Ik this is off-topic, but you mean an physical world like ours but posited as certainly unbounded (ours could be unbounded too but not certainly known), and as having 2-dimensional time.

Preferably I see time as linked to space like Einstein's spacetime. If we want to talk about 2-dimensional time in the context of our consciousnesses and how 1D time is linear, then this is less about Einstein and more about entropy, how information is distributed, neuroscience, and such.

I have no idea what the number is.

How many are there?

345,173 :D .


There's at least four that govern the interactions between the four fundamental forces.

But which depend on the context of space, time and any related/'parallel' dimensions, so I argue that there is more fundamentality than that.

In the context of the standard model in the current conditions of the universe it's fundamental, but I'm guessing this thread is going for as far as possible, so the standard model is only physical, etc.

Because each governs a separate and independent fundamental of the universe.

Symmetry breaking and the 'condensing' of four forces out of one unified superforce, say otherwise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction :
"Although these two forces appear very different at everyday low energies, the theory models them as two different aspects of the same force."



Spoiler: It is - or at least I'm quite sure I've come across a dead similar argument to this before.
Left Now

Perhaps it would be better that you lay out your argument in one go, rather than try to lead us very difficult people along it in steps :P .

[dxcxdzv]

When a star dies its gravity crushes itself (well, its core, which is the center of gravity therefore the place where it more or less comes from) surpassing the Weak interaction resulting sometimes in a neutron star which is a a big pile of neutrons, incredibly dense btw because they are crushed by the gravity of the body they themselves constitute.

Each fundamental interaction has its own scale, two operating exclusively at a subatomic level and two at a macroscopic level (with one operating at a large scale as well). This is why most of the time they cohabit pretty easily, it doesn't mean they can't defy each other though.

----------------------

I'm saying that the label of it as a 'law' is wrong, because it draws analogies between the social realm Law is in, and the physical realm.
I see, yeah of course.

Ik this is off-topic, but you mean an physical world like ours but posited as certainly unbounded (ours could be unbounded too but not certainly known), and as having 2-dimensional time.
It looks exciting because I can't stop thinking about tachyons and their imaginary mass. O_o
I'll need to check some documentation about multi-dimensional time though.

[Left Now]

See next post.

[Left Now]

Because each governs a separate and independent fundamental of the universe.



Spoiler: It is - or at least I'm quite sure I've come across a dead similar argument to this before.

Spoiler:My aim is not God,but it might need God to be discussed about.It all depends on where we go.

A universe with four independent fundamentals.Well if they really are independent,then there is no reason for their not defying each others.If universe has seperate fundamentals,then there is no need for a unified universe,we can have four different worlds with four different orders.But there is only one order in the universe,not several.We all realize this.
Paraxiom,

The beauty of this debate is actually because of the method that I have chosen for it.This method make you think about the question solely,not the final destination.

Also,it is little by little revealing the inner cores of your thoughts.


Let me ask this question once again: Does this universe of ours have order?

[sqishy]

What I am trying to do here is to bring you guys in a cascade.A cascade that at the end you might even get into serious problems with your mind;the very thing which happened to me and now I have come out of it.If you fear your very sanity to be threatened then I suggust you not continue anymore.

Don't worry about my sanity, I've been through enough in the past few years.


When I say this universe has order,I mean I am sure about its order and about the existence of this universe.Just this universe.Has anything out of this universe ever happened inside it?No for sure.

I am taking within the frame of our physical universe, and giving the best reasoning I find for whatever may be 'outside'.


Has anything 'outside' of this universe ever happened inside it?

Is this question trying to have a go at a logical tautology?


Spoiler:My aim is not God,but it might need God to be discussed about.It all depends on where we go.

Alright then. So far I'm finding this enjoyable, I'll add.



The beauty of this debate is actually because of the method that I have chosen for it.This method make you think about the question solely,not the final destination.

It can be better to travel in hope, than to arrive at the destination.



Also,it is little by little revealing the inner cores of your thoughts.

My reasoning here is not necessarily the whole picture of how I am, in ideas and perspectives. I only chose what I thought would be appropriate.



Let me ask this question once again: Does this universe of ours have order?

Yes.

[Left Now]

Paraxiom,


I already made an example:Has the sudden swap of eyes' position ever happened in the universe before?

[Vlerchan]

A universe with four independent fundamentals.Well if they really are independent,then there is no reason for their not defying each others.If universe has seperate fundamentals,then there is no need for a unified universe,we can have four different worlds with four different orders.But there is only one order in the universe,not several.We all realize this.
The universe, as we know it, is constructed from the interactions between these four forces. There's no reason to presume that these forces could necessarily construct an operable universe of their own.

[dxcxdzv]

Oh, y'know, 'was just joking.

It's funny that you implicitly stated that fundamental forces don't defy each other but you omitted to answer to my first example.
I won't do the same to you, no worries.

Has the sudden swap of eyes' position ever happened in the universe before?

This is fallacious, first because you take a "ridiculous" situation and second because it's not because it never happened that it can't happen.
However when it comes to talk about the lack of "Discipline" of the Universe nobody is expecting to see eyes swap position. This is slightly more complex than that.

And if you try to show us something more specific you really should start to go in the explanations.

[sqishy]

I already made an example:Has the sudden swap of eyes' position ever happened in the universe before?

Not that we know of, no.


The universe, as we know it, is constructed from the interactions between these four forces. There's no reason to presume that these forces could necessarily construct an operable universe of their own.

What do you mean here?

[Left Now]

The universe, as we know it, is constructed from the interactions between these four forces. There's no reason to presume that these forces could necessarily construct an operable universe of their own.

So you agree that these four forces interact with each others according to One Order?These four forces are acting as Unit Force if our universe is what it is.They are unified by one Order then.
Reise,

Do not get angry,as I said I will not change my method.If it makes you uncomfortable you can leave.

I just asked One simple question and told you all that I do not want Long answers,the exact thing which you did opposite of it.

When I say does this Universe has order?I only expect two answers:Yes or No.

[sqishy]

So you agree that these four forces interact with each others according to One Order?These four forces are acting as Unit Force if our universe is what it is.They are unified by one Order then.

Some leading physics theories need a 'superforce' that existed as such just 'after' the 'beginning' of the universe, yes.

It does not make sense to see it as ordered or not, though, from what I already said.

We speak and think of order as an entity 'between' other entities, like a particular arrangement of entities. If an entity is fundamental than you cannot ask about what inherent order it has, because there is no other entity in this context that 'gave rise' to it.

[Vlerchan]

What do you mean here?
Our universe can be reduced to four fundamental interactions.

So you agree that these four forces interact with each others according to One Order?These four forces are acting as Unit Force if our universe is what it is.They are unified by one Order then.
It might seem as if this is the case - but presumptions about the nature are presumptions.

It's not clear that the operations of these forces are determined by anything else but their own internal dynamics - and it's unclear whether these are self-caused or not.

[Left Now]

Some leading physics theories need a 'superforce' that existed as such just 'after' the 'beginning' of the universe, yes.

It does not make sense to see it as ordered or not, though, from what I already said.

We speak and think of order as an entity 'between' other entities, like a particular arrangement of entities. If an entity is fundamental than you cannot ask about what inherent order it has, because there is no other entity in this context that 'gave rise' to it.


Do not get it complicated.Order simply means that when you shoot someone right in the eye,and when his eye is all splashed,he will not be able to see anymore.I just want ro know do you believe this is only this way or not?



It might seem as if this is the case - but presumptions about the nature are presumptions.

It's not clear that the operations of these forces are determined by anything else but their own internal dynamics - and it's unclear whether these are self-caused or not.

Still I have not gotten a clear Yes or No answer.

[dxcxdzv]

Left Now
I'm not angry bruh. But you're kind of underlying sophism is a bit irritating if I dare say.

[sqishy]

Our universe can be reduced to four fundamental interactions.


In context of known physics, yes.


Do not get it complicated.Order simply means that when you shoot someone right in the eye,and when his eye is all splashed,he will not be able to see anymore.I just want ro know do you believe this is only this way or not?

It is tautological in your context.

Trust me, I am keeping this as simple and clear as possible.

What you are saying now is more of the presence of determinism and the principle of non-contradiction (PNC) in the world, rather than order.

PNC: Something cannot both be and not be, in a certain way.

[Left Now]

Reise,

Come on Man!I just asked for one short answer I didn't want lectures.Yes or No?
Paraxiom,

Believe me I am just saying that does this universe has order or not?Just Yes or No.As I said since first.

Me?Determinism?Joking?

[Vlerchan]

In context of known physics, yes.
I don't feel I know enough about unknown physics to bring it into the discussion.

:)

[sqishy]

I don't feel I know enough about unknown physics to bring it into the discussion.

:)

Worry not, you do more than enough.



Believe me I am just saying that does this universe has order or not?Just Yes or No.As I said since first.

I already said yes a few replies ago.


Me?Determinism?Joking?

No. I'm trying to follow you.

I am interested in knowing your argument. Please continue!

[dxcxdzv]

I ain't gonna answer with a so primitive choice to let you present your proof-less and short thinking. Unless you bring some matter to what you say. You're expecting people to spontaneously assume certain things that you say.
Tbh I'm not even satisfied of the definitions you gave me at page 1.
Well, perhaps it's my fault, I dunno, I prefer to know the clockworks rather than just see the machine run.

[Left Now]

I ain't gonna answer with a so primitive choice to let you present your proof-less and short thinking. Unless you bring some matter to what you say. You're expecting people to spontaneously assume certain things that you say.
Tbh I'm not even satisfied of the definitions you gave me at page 1.



This means you are not certain and you lack self confidence.If you couldn't answer with short answers why did you actually joined this discussion?I have already announced that in the first post I do not want long answers,I also told you that this thread is more likely to be disscussion not debate.

Paraxiom,

Thanks.So I will count you as One Yes for a World with Order.
Vlerchan,

Shall I count you as a yes too?

[sqishy]

This means you are not certain and you lack self confidence.If you couldn't answer with short answers why did you actually joined this discussion?I have already announced that in the first post I do not want long answers,I also told you that this thread is more likely to be disscussion not debate.

Reise

It would be much better if we set aside impressions of the other, and get to the argument itself in greater detail and layout, pre-emptively in face of possible unnecessary conflict.



Thanks.So I will count you as One Yes for a Word with Order.

Good.

[Vlerchan]

Shall I count you as a yes too?
I'm yes for question one, and no for question two.

[Left Now]

I'm yes for question one, and no for question two.

Have not asked question 2 yet.

[Vlerchan]

Have not asked question 2 yet.
#Question N2. Are laws of this universe following any Order?

No?

If that's part of question one, you can put me down as 'no' then.

[sqishy]

Have not asked question 2 yet.

Vlerchan is confident regardless :D .

[Left Now]

#Question N2. Are laws of this universe following any Order?

No?

If that's part of question one, you can put me down as 'no' then.

Wrong on my side apologize.This was another way of asking question number one.

Well forces of the universe are they themselves included in the universe,so if universe has order,how can its forces not follow its order?

[Vlerchan]

Wrong on my side apologize.This was another way of asking question number one.

Well forces of the universe are they themselves included in the universe,so if universe has order,how can its forces not follow its order?
I mean order in that there is a consistent reality - consistent because it is bound to a set of laws.

The laws themselves are not necessarily ordered.

[Left Now]

I mean order in that there is a consistent reality - consistent because it is bound to a set of laws.

The laws themselves are not necessarily ordered.

Consistence comes from a unifying factor.There must be an order that places all these forces in one direction as they are.

Also a question:By forces you do not mean laws right?

I actually believe we are in contrast with each others that I consider Order the cause of Laws,and you consider Laws causes of Order.

[sqishy]

Consistence comes from a unifying factor.There must be an order that places all these forces in one direction as they are.

The order comes from the 'laws', not the other war around.




I actually believe we are in contrast with each others that I consider Order the cause of Laws,and you consider Laws causes or Order.

So you are saying that fundamental 'laws' come from the larger-scale order they appear to give rise to?

[Left Now]

The order comes from the 'laws', not the other war around.




So you are saying that fundamental 'laws' come from the larger-scale order they appear to give rise to?


There is no way that fundamental laws be independent.They are all in one direction,not defying each others since they are all unified in a greater concept.

There is One reality which gives Order,the Order put all forces on one direction,the forces interactions will create laws as we call them,laws maintain the normal and stable world we are living in.

[sqishy]

There is One reality which gives Order,the Order put all forces on one direction,the forces interactions will create laws as we call them,laws maintain the normal and stable world we are living in.

To be clear, what do you mean by 'order', and 'direction'?

[It is past midnight here, but I stayed around for interest. Luckily I only work at 12.

This can be continued tomorrow!]

[Left Now]

To be clear, what do you mean by 'order', and 'direction'?

[It is past midnight here, but I stayed around for interest. Luckily I only work at 12.

This can be continued tomorrow!]

Direction means one specific Mean.Order means stability in laws.These are not laws which bring stability,they themselves are stable by a factor,a unifier which is Order.This is why I said why laws should not defy each others,because one unifying factor is putting them in a specific direction toward an specific mean.That is order.Laws bring balance,but they themselves are stable and will not change since one Unit order is at their authority.

Vlerchan said that the laws are independent and separated,we all know by instinct that this is not true since there is only one universe which we are talking about not multiverse,and there is only one order present in this universe,not different orders and basic principles.

[Vlerchan]

Direction means one specific Mean.
The fact that the fundamental interactions produce a specific picture - which is not the same as them acting as one: it's conditioned on their interaction which implies many - does not mean that the fundamental forces are guided by a greater force.

It could easily be chance - and our 'instinct' is the product of selection-bias.

[Left Now]

The fact that the fundamental interactions produce a specific picture - which is not the same as them acting as one: it's conditioned on their interaction which implies many - does not mean that the fundamental forces are guided by a greater force.

It could easily be chance - and our 'instinct' is the product of selection-bias.


Independence of Laws is not possible at all.The interaction is controlled by a factor which is what I call Order.Unity of Existence is inevitable Vlerchan,we do not have multiple existences.Still at the end you will have one Existence not many.

Even nurologists and evolutionary scientists cannot say what you said with ceratinity.There is debate about whether Logical Instinct is a product of selection-bias or actually something common among everyone.For example the very Existence of oneself is instinctly clear for them,if they deny it then they have a problem.The unity of Existence is also the same.

Chance is just the certainity that we are not aware of its principles,like the movement of electerons.They might now say that this is absolute chaos and randomness,but there is a high chance that they are just not aware of required knowledge to study it.

[sqishy]

I have returned, do not worry.

Direction means one specific Mean.Order means stability in laws.These are not laws which bring stability,they themselves are stable by a factor,a unifier which is Order.This is why I said why laws should not defy each others,because one unifying factor is putting them in a specific direction toward an specific mean.

What would happen if these 'laws' defied each other, in your view?



That is order.Laws bring balance,but they themselves are stable and will not change since one Unit order is at their authority.

Stable by what measure?

[Left Now]

I have returned, do not worry.



What would happen if these 'laws' defied each other, in your view?


A very beautiful question:

Imagine a flashlight in my hand in position A and a wall in position B,if I turn on the flashlight and point it toward the wall in front of me directly,in absolute normal conditions and predictions,light will directly go to the wall and lighten it and we will have a bright straight line from A to B with the wall in be getting lightened:




A ---- Light ---- Light ---- Light ---- Light ---- Light ---- B

Now what if laws were going to defy each others?Well when I turn on the flashlight in A,I am not going to have the process above anymore.For example it might be such thing like this:

---- Light ----Light

A ---- Light ---- Light B

---- Light ---- Light

And at the end no light is going to reach B neither and the wall will not get lightened.The ultimate universal chaos that nothing would be measurable anymore.



Stable by what measure?

No measure at all.When Laws are not stable there will be no measure at all anymore.

[Judean Zealot]

Very interesting. I apologise for not having been able to make it here earlier.

With regards to universal order, the answer varies based on what exactly we are asking about?

(1) Before I say anything, I want to address Reise's point about the motion of electrons and Planck singularities - these things cannot in principle demonstrate an absence or even the undermining of stable natural laws - all it shows is that these anomalies are subject to either a separate algorithm of determinacy or else merely an expanded version of our current algorithms. Even the chaotic movement of electrons (presuming that they in fact are random - a rather doubtful claim) operates within a number of given paradigms (dimension, spacetime, and an implicit causality) and is thus subject to natural laws as well.

(2) The question of whether the elements of the universe are subject to any given number of natural laws is, so far as the predictive success of empiricism indicates, indisputable. The same goes for the immutability of those laws. Now, obviously, this isn't a question that empiricism can ever conclusively answer, but it does strongly indicate to us that the elements of the universe are constrained by certain natural laws - and remain inert unless changed by a different law of nature.

(3) Thus far we've only discussed the existence and strength of natural laws with reference to individual components of the universe; now we turn to the question of whether the entire set of the universe is governed by an overarching natural law. I would say, with a significant caveat, that there is no reason to presume that this is the case. Unless, of course, we can count the very set of {all elements existing} as being bound by the law of existence itself - but I consider that universality to transcend the universe itself and thus not to qualify as a "natural law" or even as order belonging inherently to the universe as such.

(4) So if the question is "Is the universe in its entirety neccessarily governed by a single and immutable natural law?" my answer would have to be "no".

(5) If, however, the question is whether the various elements of {the universe} are immutably ordered in their existence by a causal chain culminating in the First Cause, then I would say "yes", although I believe the question was actually (4).

[Left Now]

Judean Zealot,as I introduced the Order and Laws,I was trying to say that Laws are ordered in One way,not that only one Natural Law exists.Actually let us say that Universe has One Unit Principle and Different Laws,which although they are different,they do not defy each others because their origins,the Principle,is one and unique.

Well it seems that I have already spoiled enough of Question No.2,right?I was going to ask if your answer to the question "Are Laws of the World Ordered?" Is Yes,which seems Vlerchan Paraxiom Reise are against it:

#Question No.2:How many Orders are Laws Ordered in?

[The Trendy Wolf]

Well I want to ask you guys a few questions,but I am not going to ask them all at once and I want to ask them one by one since I need the answers to these questions to be separately reviewed.

Judean Zealot

Plus+This thread is going to be a place for discussion and probably not debate,so the best place for it is RoTW.

Please give short answers to these questions,they do not need long answers.


#Question N1. Are the laws of universe following any order? (Preferably with Yes/No)
I am encouraged to say 'no' given that I believe that we live in an endless stream of events that follow no rhyme or reason and have no true beginning or end.

[sqishy]

A very beautiful question:

Imagine a flashlight in my hand in position A and a wall in position B,if I turn on the flashlight and point it toward the wall in front of me directly,in absolute normal conditions and predictions,light will directly go to the wall and lighten it and we will have a bright straight line from A to B with the wall in be getting lightened:




A ---- Light ---- Light ---- Light ---- Light ---- Light ---- B

Determinacy? Light coming out of one entity, interacts with another.



Now what if laws were going to defy each others?Well when I turn on the flashlight in A,I am not going to have the process above anymore.For example it might be such thing like this:

---- Light ----Light

A ---- Light ---- Light B

---- Light ---- Light

And at the end no light is going to reach B neither and the wall will not get lightened.The ultimate universal chaos that nothing would be measurable anymore.

What I'm getting from this, is you saying that not even light itself could exist in a stable way, if fundamental forces did not interact with each other as we know them to.

I wouldn't consider it an 'alignment' of these forces, but rather happenstance results from particular interactions between them, that give rise to a stable determinate world in some way.

[dxcxdzv]

(1) Before I say anything, I want to address Reise's point about the motion of electrons and Planck singularities - these things cannot in principle demonstrate an absence or even the undermining of stable natural laws - all it shows is that these anomalies are subject to either a separate algorithm of determinacy or else merely an expanded version of our current algorithms. Even the chaotic movement of electrons (presuming that they in fact are random - a rather doubtful claim) operates within a number of given paradigms (dimension, spacetime, and an implicit causality) and is thus subject to natural laws as well.
Okay I know this is a bit old but my knowledge in physics is not (yet) as extended as I want it to be.
However I've came across some information that might permit me to properly answer you.

There is in quantum mechanics a certain principle of fundamental randomness, well this is no news.
What's interesting is concerning the measure of particles, you may know that particles have various quantum states and more particularly that the determination of the precise state of one given particle is made at the very moment of the measure.
Well, Albert Einstein didn't really like that idea and proposed a thinking experience where you take two particles and study their spin.
There are only two states possible |+⟩ and |−⟩ for each particle and thus 4 total possibilities for the couple of particles, which are:
|-;-⟩ ; |-;+⟩ ; |+;-⟩ or |+;+⟩

Einstein was particularly interested in the two center ones (-;+ and +;- ) because if you measure one particle's state you deduct immediately the other particle's state (if one is - in this case the other has to be +).
Things get interesting when you put a long distance between the two particles, because if you measure one +, the other has to be - but in such a case how did the other particle know in what state it should be?
Einstein then said that there are two theories, either particles "communicate" at a speed that is theoretically greater than the speed of light (which he proved being impossible) or there are hidden variables that determine the state of the particles at the moment you separate them.
For Einstein it was the only explanation possible, that there is an underlying not yet understood phenomena behind that.
It's called the Paradox EPR.

However in 1982 Alain Aspect was able to demonstrate that there are no hidden variables for the Paradox EPR.
The only explanation being therefore the existence of fundamental randomness at a quantum level.

I will make a more detailed post on that if needed.

"God does not play dice!"
Well, sorry Albie, but until hypothetical new information arises, it looks like he does.

[Bleid]

Well I want to ask you guys a few questions,but I am not going to ask them all at once and I want to ask them one by one since I need the answers to these questions to be separately reviewed.

Judean Zealot

Plus+This thread is going to be a place for discussion and probably not debate,so the best place for it is RoTW.

Please give short answers to these questions,they do not need long answers.

I'm somewhat interested in seeing this continue, so I'll happily cooperate, but seeing as this thread was from June, I doubt it will.

#Question N1. Are the laws of universe following any order? (Preferably with Yes/No)

No.

[Uniquemind]

I haven't posted here by choice but I have been a spectator, I'd like to see it continue too.

[sqishy]

#Question N1. Are the laws of universe following any order? (Preferably with Yes/No)


No.

You tempt my curiosity as to if you take a more chaotic worldview, but you can clarify. Do continue.


Left Now

You can return, I always felt that you didn't finish with your intention for this thread.

[dxcxdzv]

Left Now

You can return, I always felt that you didn't finish with your intention for this thread.

Ghaem = Left Now = Broken Pen

[Bleid]

You tempt my curiosity as to if you take a more chaotic worldview, but you can clarify. Do continue.

When talking about the laws of the universe and order/rule together, it seems to me as though there's a bit of cart-before-the-horse going on. I don't quite think it's complete chaos, but I don't think it's order, either.

The post I made in this thread (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?p=3186525#post3186525) would summarize what I mean better than my reiterating it. I would be happy to clarify if it's unclear.

[sqishy]

Ghaem = Left Now = Broken Pen

I never made that connection (if that is the case).


When talking about the laws of the universe and order/rule together, it seems to me as though there's a bit of cart-before-the-horse going on. I don't quite think it's complete chaos, but I don't think it's order, either.

The post I made in this thread (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?p=3186525#post3186525) would summarize what I mean better than my reiterating it. I would be happy to clarify if it's unclear.

Being someone who likes to be awkward (perhaps difficult) with taking unusual alternatives with ideas and their settings, I can see why you have your motivations.

My relevance in this would be, for example, my dislike of using the term 'law' with observances of some order. I don't like the widespread use of analogy between legality and/or hierarchy with observations of order / patterns of some sort, because excessive use of analogy can make your mind meld the two together and be limited in what frames of perspective it can see the world. I'd at least prefer 'law' to be replaced with 'observance'. I don't like seeing the physical realm being presumed as being made up of a set of physical laws.

[Bleid]

I never made that connection (if that is the case).




Being someone who likes to be awkward (perhaps difficult) with taking unusual alternatives with ideas and their settings, I can see why you have your motivations.

My relevance in this would be, for example, my dislike of using the term 'law' with observances of some order. I don't like the widespread use of analogy between legality and/or hierarchy with observations of order / patterns of some sort, because excessive use of analogy can make your mind meld the two together and be limited in what frames of perspective it can see the world. I'd at least prefer 'law' to be replaced with 'observance'. I don't like seeing the physical realm being presumed as being made up of a set of physical laws.

Agreed. The most common English language fallacy is equivocation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation).