BWE wrote:
Abuse: this is dumb as shit. Order is an emergent property of reality.

Parrotspeak.

There's not even a semblance of hope that you could, even a thousand years, justify that bullshit one-liner.

jamest wrote:

BWE wrote:
Abuse: this is dumb as shit. Order is an emergent property of reality.

Parrotspeak.

There's not even a semblance of hope that you could, even a thousand years, justify that bullshit one-liner.

You failed to even challenge his statement despite stating that you didn't find it credible. Why is it not believable to justify that order is an emergent property of reality -> insert some form of reasoned response here <-

I know of precisely zero parrots who have ever said 'order is an emergent property of reality'.

Spearthrower wrote:

jamest wrote:

BWE wrote:
Abuse: this is dumb as shit. Order is an emergent property of reality.

Parrotspeak.

There's not even a semblance of hope that you could, even a thousand years, justify that bullshit one-liner.

You failed to even challenge his statement despite stating that you didn't find it credible. Why is it not believable to justify that order is an emergent property of reality -> insert some form of reasoned response here <-

I know of precisely zero parrots who have ever said 'order is an emergent property of reality'.

I stated that there was not a semblance of hope that he could justify that bullshit because it's an utterly irrational comment. What he is actually parroting is:

"Chaos is self-ordering by nature".

This is obviously fucking ridiculous nonsense to parrot, especially so in the philosophy forum. How can you defend such bollocks?

jamest wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

jamest wrote:

BWE wrote:
Abuse: this is dumb as shit. Order is an emergent property of reality.

Parrotspeak.

There's not even a semblance of hope that you could, even a thousand years, justify that bullshit one-liner.

You failed to even challenge his statement despite stating that you didn't find it credible. Why is it not believable to justify that order is an emergent property of reality -> insert some form of reasoned response here <-

I know of precisely zero parrots who have ever said 'order is an emergent property of reality'.

I stated that there was not a semblance of hope that he could justify that bullshit because it's an utterly irrational comment. What he is actually parroting is:

"Chaos is self-ordering by nature".

This is obviously fucking ridiculous nonsense to parrot, especially so in the philosophy forum. How can you defend such bollocks?

You've just made more spluttering noises, but still haven't managed amidst an increasing number of words to explain what it is you find unbelievable.

You're talking about parrots again instead.

And of course, everyone honest reading can see that I have made no defense whatsoever, merely pointed out that your expression of indignation/incredulity puts no onus on anyone. Use reason, yeah - especially in the Philosophy forum if it's such a vaunted and prestigious location?

Spearthrower wrote:
You've just made more spluttering noises, but still haven't managed amidst an increasing number of words to explain what it is you find unbelievable.

You're talking about parrots again instead.

And of course, everyone honest reading can see that I have made no defense whatsoever, merely pointed out that your expression of indignation/incredulity puts no onus on anyone. Use reason, yeah - especially in the Philosophy forum if it's such a vaunted and prestigious location?

"Something is an emergent property of absolutely nothing".
Or, "Intelligence is an emergent property of the absolutely stupid".

How devoid of basic reasoning skills does one have to be to not understand why absolute nonsense is self-evident?

jamest wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
You've just made more spluttering noises, but still haven't managed amidst an increasing number of words to explain what it is you find unbelievable.

You're talking about parrots again instead.

And of course, everyone honest reading can see that I have made no defense whatsoever, merely pointed out that your expression of indignation/incredulity puts no onus on anyone. Use reason, yeah - especially in the Philosophy forum if it's such a vaunted and prestigious location?

"Something is an emergent property of absolutely nothing".

And this is exactly why you should feel obliged to engage with clearer and more relevant substance, because your reframing of BWE's claim is not remotely similar to what he said, nor even relevant. It's a fundamental misapprehension or mischaracterization, either/or.

BWE made no claim about 'nothing'.

BWE's claim says that order is a property of the universe.

You have either misunderstood or misinterpreted that.

You are trying to talk about a scenario prior to the universe's existence - i.e. nothing, which is not what BWE was talking about.

Nothing cannot have the property of 'order' or of 'chaos' - i.e. equilibrium or disequilibrium, because it's nothing.

However, the universe (reality in BWE's term) is already 'something', so your rendition is entirely wrong if you are trying to talk about what BWE said.

jamest wrote:Or, "Intelligence is an emergent property of the absolutely stupid".

jamest wrote:How devoid of basic reasoning skills does one have to be to not understand why absolute nonsense is self-evident?

Once again, you engage in your entirely routine poisoning of the well.

In reality, what you're actually doing is projecting your own state - as seen by your complete confusion attempting to render BWE's position accurately - onto other people.

Your ideas are not axiomatic, jamest. Just because something seems right to you, that doesn't automagically make that the case.

Finally, your entire final sentence should just be read as trolling - you've got nothing to say, but you want to get an emotional reaction out of people.

I suggest that all of this song and dance is because you're actually quite well aware when facing yourself frankly that you are not equipped at all to deal with any of these discussions, thus you always engage in chest-pounding where you should be producing reasoned argument.

Spearthrower wrote:
And this is exactly why you should feel obliged to engage with clearer and more relevant substance, because your reframing of BWE's claim is not remotely similar to what he said, nor even relevant. It's a fundamental misapprehension or mischaracterization, either/or.

BWE made no claim about 'nothing'.

Obviously, for your understanding I was providing similar examples of the self-evident abuse of absolute reason.

BWE's claim says that order is a property of the universe.

He actually said that "order is an emergent property of reality".

By logical default this implies that reality must initially/fundamentally be devoid of order - otherwise it would be present from the onset and would not have to 'emerge'.

Consequently, something that is utterly devoid of order is fundamentally/initially chaotic, absolutely so. Therefore, what he is actually stating is:

"Chaos is self-ordering by nature"
Or,
"Order emerges from absolute Chaos".

Any rational contemplation of the concept of 'absolute chaos' leads one to conclude that such a reality cannot exist, because 'things' are themselves ordered/defined structures by necessity as must be the arena (space/time/whatever) in which they interact. That is, there can be no finite things in a chaotic reality.
Therefore, if reality was chaotic it would necessarily have to be indivisible and therefore singular in nature.
But then, how could a reality of one be said to be chaotic? It would make no sense because 'one' has nothing else to interact with. Therefore, a 'chaotic reality' is a nonsensical concept. I.e., whatever reality fundamentally is, it cannot be chaotic.

And this is why we can see that BWE was talking nonsense. Just parroting a rubbish mantra.

Trying to impose clumsy language onto whatever one means by "reality" is simply the mantra of a rubbish parrot.

newolder wrote:Trying to impose clumsy language onto whatever one means by "reality" is simply the mantra of a rubbish parrot.

You don't say a lot do you?

Thanks for that.

jamest wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
And this is exactly why you should feel obliged to engage with clearer and more relevant substance, because your reframing of BWE's claim is not remotely similar to what he said, nor even relevant. It's a fundamental misapprehension or mischaracterization, either/or.

BWE made no claim about 'nothing'.

Obviously, for your understanding I was providing similar examples of the self-evident abuse of absolute reason.

None of which were relevant, which then shows that you've misunderstood what BWE said.

jamest wrote:

BWE's claim says that order is a property of the universe.

He actually said that "order is an emergent property of reality".

My rendition is an accurate way of paraphrasing what he said, whereas yours wasn't.

jamest wrote:By logical default...

What? What is a 'logical default'? I know what 'default logic' is.

Are you just, once again, trying to frame your opinions as facts? In a response to a post in which I'd just shown that your understanding was irremediably flawed?

jamest wrote:... this implies that reality must initially/fundamentally be devoid of order - otherwise it would be present from the onset and would not have to 'emerge'.

No, that's not what it says at all - it could emergy with the evolution of the universe.

Further, as we've discussed earlier in the thread, your conception of 'order' is not modern. Order is equilibrium. A universe that is maximally ordered is one in which nothing happens at all - no interactions of any kind. Life can't exist in a maximally ordered universe.

Instead, there are pockets of equilibrium, systems cut off from external input, but if they're brought into contact with other states, they will experience resulting disequilibria.

jamest wrote:Consequently, something that is utterly devoid of order is fundamentally/initially chaotic, absolutely so. Therefore, what he is actually stating is:

No, these absolute Platonics are not serving you well with a modern understanding.

In an ordered system, there are few to no potential changes that can occur. In a chaotic system, ie. one in disequilibrium, there are many more possible states - the possibilities of direct are multivarious, but as time continues and interactions occur, partial equilibrium can occur.

The universe itself was never either fully 'ordered' or fully 'chaotic' - both concepts existed only once the universe began (making assumptions of the origin of the universe from nothing), but existed immediately as characteristics of it.

jamest wrote:"Chaos is self-ordering by nature"
Or,
"Order emerges from absolute Chaos".

There's no such thing as 'absolute chaos' - this was already pointed out.

jamest wrote:Any rational contemplation of the concept of 'absolute chaos' leads one to conclude that such a reality cannot exist,...

Indeed: such a reality cannot exist - this is because the concept of 'absolute chaos' is completely false - that's the problem with the contention.

jamest wrote:because 'things' are themselves ordered/defined structures by necessity as must be the arena (space/time/whatever) in which they interact. That is, there can be no finite things in a chaotic reality.

The universe is full of disequilibrium yet finite things exist.

jamest wrote:Therefore, if reality was chaotic it would necessarily have to be indivisible and therefore singular in nature.

Doesn't follow, there are too many unstated and apparently false premises creeping in.

jamest wrote:But then, how could a reality of one be said to be chaotic?

What's a 'reality of one'?

For me, you're just arguing yourself into confusion - it's self-mystification.

First things first, you need to get a modern understanding of 'chaos' and 'order' - that would be concerning equilibrium and what form that takes in different states. Different temperatures in a shared medium, for example, will eventually reach equilibrium, becoming some average of the two initial temperatures. That average of the two initial temperatures is what you would call an 'ordered state' i.e. homogeniety.. If locked away thermally from any other source, it is a 'maximally ordered state' as no further change can occur.

jamest wrote: It would make no sense because 'one' has nothing else to interact with. Therefore, a 'chaotic reality' is a nonsensical concept. I.e., whatever reality fundamentally is, it cannot be chaotic.

But this is purely semantics when there never was a 'one' characteristic of the universe. It was always diverse - different temperature distributions, different balance of subatomic particles, different density of space - instead there were heterogeneous gradients with pockets of equilibria.

jamest wrote:And this is why we can see that BWE was talking nonsense. Just parroting a rubbish mantra.

Factually, it's you talking nonsense as you've just shown. Your concept is... I don't know... maybe even a thousand years out of date? Certainly it's not anything like talking to a modern academic involved in any relevant field.

BWE can confirm who rendered his statement more accurately.

If BWE says that I did, you're going to dispute it, aren't you jamest?

If we're trying to determine who better understood BWE's statement, it might be helpful to have his entire statement. So:

"Abuse: this is dumb as shit. Order is an emergent property of reality. A) it take mind to create boundaries. B) self explanatory, see A."

Spearthrower wrote:BWE can confirm who rendered his statement more accurately.

If BWE says that I did, you're going to dispute it, aren't you jamest?

I know what he said and what that logically entails. If he didn't mean what he said then he needs to edit his post.

jamest wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:BWE can confirm who rendered his statement more accurately.

If BWE says that I did, you're going to dispute it, aren't you jamest?

I know what he said and what that logically entails. If he didn't mean what he said then he needs to edit his post.

Or you need to revise your rendition which, as I already noted, appears to have nothing at all to do with what he said.

jamest wrote:

BWE wrote:
Abuse: this is dumb as shit. Order is an emergent property of reality.

Parrotspeak.

There's not even a semblance of hope that you could, even a thousand years, justify that bullshit one-liner.

Interesting. I feel like it wouldn't take me a thousand years. But it's possible that we have different standards. I will say that emergent order and dissipative structures are sort of a given in the field of complex adaptive systems, a field with which I am relatively well acquainted. And order from chaos is the actual subject of chaos theory with which I am familiar though less so than with adaptive systems.

But a challenge is given and I did make the claim. It's quite possible that I oversold it. First, we need to define order and chaos. Would you be willing to offer the definitions you would accept so I don't write a huge thing on an irrelevant topic?

Spearthrower wrote:

jamest wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
You've just made more spluttering noises, but still haven't managed amidst an increasing number of words to explain what it is you find unbelievable.

You're talking about parrots again instead.

And of course, everyone honest reading can see that I have made no defense whatsoever, merely pointed out that your expression of indignation/incredulity puts no onus on anyone. Use reason, yeah - especially in the Philosophy forum if it's such a vaunted and prestigious location?

"Something is an emergent property of absolutely nothing".

And this is exactly why you should feel obliged to engage with clearer and more relevant substance, because your reframing of BWE's claim is not remotely similar to what he said, nor even relevant. It's a fundamental misapprehension or mischaracterization, either/or.

BWE made no claim about 'nothing'.

BWE's claim says that order is a property of the universe.

You have either misunderstood or misinterpreted that.

You are trying to talk about a scenario prior to the universe's existence - i.e. nothing, which is not what BWE was talking about.

Nothing cannot have the property of 'order' or of 'chaos' - i.e. equilibrium or disequilibrium, because it's nothing.

However, the universe (reality in BWE's term) is already 'something', so your rendition is entirely wrong if you are trying to talk about what BWE said.

jamest wrote:Or, "Intelligence is an emergent property of the absolutely stupid".

jamest wrote:How devoid of basic reasoning skills does one have to be to not understand why absolute nonsense is self-evident?

Once again, you engage in your entirely routine poisoning of the well.

In reality, what you're actually doing is projecting your own state - as seen by your complete confusion attempting to render BWE's position accurately - onto other people.

Your ideas are not axiomatic, jamest. Just because something seems right to you, that doesn't automagically make that the case.

Finally, your entire final sentence should just be read as trolling - you've got nothing to say, but you want to get an emotional reaction out of people.

I suggest that all of this song and dance is because you're actually quite well aware when facing yourself frankly that you are not equipped at all to deal with any of these discussions, thus you always engage in chest-pounding where you should be producing reasoned argument.

Yes, this is what I meant. And, since you seemed to understand relatively quickly, I assume I was clear enough - although I didn't provide details

That said, it was a bit of a throwaway comment so I might not be able to defend it although I think I can

BWE wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

jamest wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:
You've just made more spluttering noises, but still haven't managed amidst an increasing number of words to explain what it is you find unbelievable.

You're talking about parrots again instead.

And of course, everyone honest reading can see that I have made no defense whatsoever, merely pointed out that your expression of indignation/incredulity puts no onus on anyone. Use reason, yeah - especially in the Philosophy forum if it's such a vaunted and prestigious location?

"Something is an emergent property of absolutely nothing".

And this is exactly why you should feel obliged to engage with clearer and more relevant substance, because your reframing of BWE's claim is not remotely similar to what he said, nor even relevant. It's a fundamental misapprehension or mischaracterization, either/or.

BWE made no claim about 'nothing'.

BWE's claim says that order is a property of the universe.

You have either misunderstood or misinterpreted that.

You are trying to talk about a scenario prior to the universe's existence - i.e. nothing, which is not what BWE was talking about.

Nothing cannot have the property of 'order' or of 'chaos' - i.e. equilibrium or disequilibrium, because it's nothing.

However, the universe (reality in BWE's term) is already 'something', so your rendition is entirely wrong if you are trying to talk about what BWE said.

jamest wrote:Or, "Intelligence is an emergent property of the absolutely stupid".

jamest wrote:How devoid of basic reasoning skills does one have to be to not understand why absolute nonsense is self-evident?

Once again, you engage in your entirely routine poisoning of the well.

In reality, what you're actually doing is projecting your own state - as seen by your complete confusion attempting to render BWE's position accurately - onto other people.

Your ideas are not axiomatic, jamest. Just because something seems right to you, that doesn't automagically make that the case.

Finally, your entire final sentence should just be read as trolling - you've got nothing to say, but you want to get an emotional reaction out of people.

I suggest that all of this song and dance is because you're actually quite well aware when facing yourself frankly that you are not equipped at all to deal with any of these discussions, thus you always engage in chest-pounding where you should be producing reasoned argument.

Yes, this is what I meant. And, since you seemed to understand relatively quickly, I assume I was clear enough - although I didn't provide details

It hardly takes much in the way of applying the principle of charity:

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

In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.[1] In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies, or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available.

I would personally have recommended using 'the universe' instead of 'reality', but I got what you meant anyway.

Whatever that rendition of jamest was certainly didn't involve any attempt to interpret your statement with rationally, and seemed to engage in wholly fabricated flights of fantasy, more suggestive of a lack of grasp of what was being discussed than anything.

Yeah. Reality was the wrong word for sure. My laziness often gets the best of me

BWE wrote:Yeah. Reality was the wrong word for sure. My laziness often gets the best of me

This thread, in the philosophy forum, is about absolute chaos.

I'm not sure why you're here if you don't want to talk about reality nor chaos as an absolute concept thereof, because being the thread starter I kinda intended that to be the case.