rationalskepticism.org

Spearthrower wrote:

jamest wrote:I have zero interest in what maths has to say about a concept it has no business in defining.

I think math is probably the only valid way of defining chaos: statistics & probability

It struck me as being akin to suggesting we discuss fine art while dismissing looking at any paintings or descriptions of them. It's fundamentally self-defeating, rather than "smart" or "courageous".

I can understand the impulse, just as I could if someone presenting us with Kyrani's drawings (if you remember those) and declaring them the definitive works of art might not feel too comfortable having them compared and contrasted with traditional masterworks. Chicken scratchings tend to look poor in comparison.

If we did allow logic and mathematics into the discussion, we might quickly find that it is perfectly possible to describe non-empty sets which have no order defined on them. If they are, as a philosopher might say, logically possible the next question might be "are they metaphysically possible?" at which point arguments, reasons and discussion might ensue. Is logical possibility persuasive? Are there reasons to deny the metaphysical possibility of such a structure? What would it mean, or look like if it could exist? Does our inability to visualise or describe it in terms we can relate to have any fundamental meaning, or is it sheer incredulity that can't be further justified? What does it mean when we start adding qualitative terms like "absolute" into the mix? Is jamest's blurring of the lines between metalanguage statements and statements in the language itself justified? Is Cito's suggestion that "absolute" must mean that it could not be otherwise (akin to necessity) the most natural reading of the concept?

As it stands I'm stuck at the content of the OP (and every subsequent contribution to the thread) amounting to little more than an inference from:

jamest wrote:So, by rational default there can be no amount of order in absolute chaos.

(my colour)
That jamest imagines chaos as some nonspecific lack of order, where order is some sort of quantifiable property (I'm inferring it must be quantifiable from the assertion that it exists in amounts, but there's just as much chance I'll be chastised for the inference as having it elucidated).