[quote]nephorm wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Now THAT’s interesting! I don’t want to turn this into a religion thread, but why does what we take as being ‘order’ arise automatically from chaos? Is there a rational answer w/o invoking a design argument? Why does the hexagon appear at the North Pole and not the South?
I find this anamoly interesting.
It is somewhat easier to rest on an Aristotelian or Alfarabian notion of a First Cause, or that “which ought to be called God,” rather than a Judeo-Christian god.
The difference, for your question, is that the former implies that order emanates from the first principles of being, whereas the latter implies thoughtful (and arbitrary) organization of the universe. There is a spectrum, of course, between arbitrary and necessary.
For an easy, non-metaphysical account, we can simply appeal to the extended anthropic principle. That is, the universe must have laws that are consistent with human life.
It may be possible for a universe to exist in which there are no laws of physics as we understand them. But such a universe probably could not support life. Arbitrariness in nature would make planet formation impossible, not to mention evolution.[/quote]
Wow! I had to read that a couple of times to understand (I hope) what you’re saying. But I like your answer. So as I understand it, and please correct me if I’m wrong: the Judeo-Christian point of view is that the universe is arbitrary and chaotic and requires intervention to have order. The Aristotelian view is that order comes built into the universe and that it can pop up.
Only someone with the JC viewpoint would look at order as a instance of intervention, when its actually all around us.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wow! I had to read that a couple of times to understand (I hope) what you’re saying. But I like your answer. So as I understand it, and please correct me if I’m wrong: the Judeo-Christian point of view is that the universe is arbitrary and chaotic and requires intervention to have order.
[/quote]
Pretty much… but God Himself is capricious, and so the order he imposes is also arbitrary. It is the same way in the classical Greek tradition, as well as many early faiths: gods are immortal, powerful, often personifications of natural forces - but they are ultimately as capricious as men. To give “God willed it” as an explanation is not to say that the cause is unknown, or that the causal structure is poorly understood, but rather to say that the cause is the direct intervention of the Deity Himself, and the event has no necessary relation to anything that precedes or follows it.
As with anything, of course, painting with too broad a brush leads you to trouble. Saint Augustine certainly pointed out some of the flaws of this line of thinking. He also had the Greek philosophic tradition to rely upon for some excellent thinking in that area.
The Aristotelian view seems to be that hierarchy and order is natural, yes.
I wouldn’t say “only someone.” We need only look to the Aztecs to see that capricious gods are found in cultures throughout the world. It is only natural, I think, to regard nature with awe and to imagine that its complexity is due to its own will rather than mechanics. If nature and happenstance (those things we cannot easily ascribe to proximate causes) are the modes in which the gods communicate, it is also natural to assume that those happenings that benefit us are the rewards of a happy god, and those that hurt us are his wrath.
So much of our lives seems to be chaotic and arbitrary. Our brains have only recently evolved to discern patterns, really. When something we have previously seen as chaotic suddenly displays a great deal of order, it is surprising. It challenges one’s view of the world. And when we contemplate the beauty that is around us, and the mystery that is creation, such observations easily give way to an oceanic feeling that senses the hand of the divine.
[quote]florin wrote:
Classic example of chaos theory and self-organizing dynamic systems. Given enough complexity, order arises from chaos automatically.
Another example: two parallel sheets of glass, the bottom one heated, the top one cooled, in between there’s a fluid (like water). After a short while, the fluid starts moving between the sheets in a hexagonal pattern - tiny convection cells appear throughout the fluid, each cell has the shape of a hexagon.
I’m not saying that’s what happens on Saturn, I’m just saying that the presence of order does not imply a Grand Designer. Order already exists hidden in chaos, and complexity is what reveals it.[/quote]
So then, who put the two giant sheets of glass on the north pole of Saturn? Huh, mr internet smart guy?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
So as I understand it, and please correct me if I’m wrong: the Judeo-Christian point of view is that the universe is arbitrary and chaotic and requires intervention to have order. The Aristotelian view is that order comes built into the universe and that it can pop up.[/quote]
There are also all sorts of intermediate opinions.
E.g., if I’m doing the synthesis correctly, the hindu tradition seems to imply a combination of:
some sort of original design: Brahma, the creator, setting the Universe in motion long time ago
some sort of sparsely triggered periodic interventions: the avatars such as Krishna, Buddha, Christ (yes, that means Jesus), as incarnations of the divine, descending to set the world straight when things get too bad
some sort of continuous “trickle down effect”, because the Universe, after all, is claimed to be actually Shakti: the “energy of God”, seen both as a person and as an impersonal energy
Fairly sophisticated metaphysics, created before Aristotle or anyone else in Europe. And to think that the christian missionaries were trying to convert the indian “idol worshipers” seen as primitive - that was pretty ironic.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
How can nature produce a hexagon, lacking the presence of intellect?
Snowflakes are full of hexagons. Are they the product of intellect?
[/quote]
I don’t know. But if all the snow flakes you’ve ever seen were disc shaped, and then you came across one that was hexagonal, would you simply shrug, or would you be curious about ‘why’?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
How can nature produce a hexagon, lacking the presence of intellect?
Snowflakes are full of hexagons. Are they the product of intellect?
I don’t know. But if all the snow flakes you’ve ever seen were disc shaped, and then you came across one that was hexagonal, would you simply shrug, or would you be curious about ‘why’?[/quote]
I’d be curious about why, but I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that an intellect is involved. It’s a lot more probable that our understanding of the physics involved will be improved by finding the natural explanation for this phenomena.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
How can nature produce a hexagon, lacking the presence of intellect?
Snowflakes are full of hexagons. Are they the product of intellect?
I don’t know. But if all the snow flakes you’ve ever seen were disc shaped, and then you came across one that was hexagonal, would you simply shrug, or would you be curious about ‘why’?
I’d be curious about why, but I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that an intellect is involved. It’s a lot more probable that our understanding of the physics involved will be improved by finding the natural explanation for this phenomena.
[/quote]
Pookie,
It looks like your avatar just got the explanation and he was quite astonished.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
How can nature produce a hexagon, lacking the presence of intellect?
Snowflakes are full of hexagons. Are they the product of intellect?
I don’t know. But if all the snow flakes you’ve ever seen were disc shaped, and then you came across one that was hexagonal, would you simply shrug, or would you be curious about ‘why’?
I’d be curious about why, but I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that an intellect is involved. It’s a lot more probable that our understanding of the physics involved will be improved by finding the natural explanation for this phenomena.
[/quote]
seemed like merely a question and an appeal for input to me. nothing so sinister as a “jump to the conclusion”…
[quote]stymie wrote:
How can nature produce a hexagon, lacking the presence of intellect?
seemed like merely a question and an appeal for input to me. nothing so sinister as a “jump to the conclusion”…[/quote]
The question would be “How can nature produce a hexagon?” Phrasing it as above let’s the poster suggest his reason, but in an easily deniable way.
You see it all the time on Fox News. They put “statements” in the form of questions. Stuff like “Saddam & 9/11?” or “Is The Liberal Media Helping To Fuel Terror?” or “The #1 President on Mideast Matters: George W. Bush?”
They’re not saying anything, just innocently “appealing for input.” Don’t be fooled by such transparent tactics.
[quote]pookie wrote:
stymie wrote:
How can nature produce a hexagon, lacking the presence of intellect?
seemed like merely a question and an appeal for input to me. nothing so sinister as a “jump to the conclusion”…
The question would be “How can nature produce a hexagon?” Phrasing it as above let’s the poster suggest his reason, but in an easily deniable way.
You see it all the time on Fox News. They put “statements” in the form of questions. Stuff like “Saddam & 9/11?” or “Is The Liberal Media Helping To Fuel Terror?” or “The #1 President on Mideast Matters: George W. Bush?”
They’re not saying anything, just innocently “appealing for input.” Don’t be fooled by such transparent tactics.
[/quote]
fox news ? what are you talking aboot ? this thread starts w/ a question which is followed number of interesting and entertaining answers. how am i “being fooled” by reading about tri-spoked blenders and how liquid behaves when trapped between glass …not to mention giant saturnian bees ?
[quote]pookie wrote:
stymie wrote:
How can nature produce a hexagon, lacking the presence of intellect?
seemed like merely a question and an appeal for input to me. nothing so sinister as a “jump to the conclusion”…
The question would be “How can nature produce a hexagon?” Phrasing it as above let’s the poster suggest his reason, but in an easily deniable way.
You see it all the time on Fox News. They put “statements” in the form of questions. Stuff like “Saddam & 9/11?” or “Is The Liberal Media Helping To Fuel Terror?” or “The #1 President on Mideast Matters: George W. Bush?”
They’re not saying anything, just innocently “appealing for input.” Don’t be fooled by such transparent tactics.
[/quote]
You know, as much as that is correct most of the time, there are actually people who really ARE just asking a question. I don’t like to “jump to the conclusion” that they’re all douchebags with ulterior motives. Except politics and news.
Other than that, I generally like to assume that it’s an honest question until given reasons to doubt that assumption. Even with religious topics. It’s always good to get a conversation going, and sometimes people have an opinion but really want to hear other sides, or even better, actually don’t have an opinion prior to asking.
fox news ? what are you talking aboot ? this thread starts w/ a question which is followed number of interesting and entertaining answers. how am i “being fooled” by reading about tri-spoked blenders and how liquid behaves when trapped between glass …not to mention giant saturnian bees ? [/quote]
You previously posted:
seemed like merely a question and an appeal for input to me. nothing so sinister as a “jump to the conclusion”…
Headhunter began his post with:
“How can nature produce a hexagon, lacking the presence of intellect?”
Question part: “How can nature produce a hexagon”
Jumping to conclusion part: “lacking the presence of intellect?”
Clearer?
If I started a thread by asking “Stymie: average forum member, or complete retard?” would you see it as only an appeal for input, or would you be a little miffed at my phrasing? I could deny any bad intention by invoking that I’m just asking a question, nothing more.
As for Fox, well, they’re just masters of that technique. If you ever watch it, look at how often they have similar questions at the bottom of the screen.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
You know, as much as that is correct most of the time, there are actually people who really ARE just asking a question. I don’t like to “jump to the conclusion” that they’re all douchebags with ulterior motives. Except politics and news. [/quote]
It’s a Headhunter post. He practically invented the “douchebag with ulterior motives” motif.
Then a simple “How does nature create an hexagon?” does the trick.
Anyway, you’re free to take HH’s question any way you want; I’m not laying out rules as to how this is to be discussed. I’ll address it as I perceive it; you have full permission to do the same.
Now, can we get back to those giant saturnina bees?
