Order vs. Randomness

[Mudhammam]

Indeed, the earth is an infinitesimal spec in this universe amongst many, but I disagree that everything else is "completely random."

Complete randomness in nature is not only unproven, but is also impossible at the smallest scales.

That immediately strikes me as presumptuous given our limited scope on origin questions but my understanding of a quantum vacuum is that it indeed produces quite random quantum behavior, particles popping in and out of existence. However, I'm open to alternative views.

If life was found to be more common in this universe, then I suppose that would be just more evidence of order. However, my point is that if there exists any amount of order in this universe at all (especially the amount of order that exists in biological systems), then there also must be order at the most fundamental level of reality.

I'm not really familiar with various information theories but again I think you would have to demonstrate this to be the case for it to be something other than speculation. Changes occur, and to organisms within the process, sure it seems ordered, because self-organization is inherent to our biology... but is that a fundamental element to (unconscious) existence itself? It hardly seems like it.

Since orderly systems cannot arise from purely random processes,

Is that the second law of thermodynamics?

Since orderly systems cannot arise from purely random processes, nor out of nothing, it must come from an underlying pre-existing order. And, in my mind, the concepts "order" and "design" are inseparably fused together with the idea of an intelligent designer because order is an aspect of intelligence, not of randomness.

Even the universe operating on an "algorithm" (as you said) implies that the universe is best described by an underlying order, not randomness.

EVEN IF THAT IS TRUE, why does order imply mind? It seems to me that rather mind apprehends orderliness and uses this knowledge to mimic it, but that need not necessitate that mind is needed for the existence of order. It could just be, if it is, THE WAY IT SIMPLY IS.

[Assimilate]

Rayaan, I don't doubt their is order, but to throw randomness out the door is pre-mature IMO. I think the order came about through the randomness and the things that were able to sustain had to fit the bill of what you would possibly conceive of this order. There are still to many things were not sure about, but the universe that we know is way to chaotic an abnormal to really label it as order. How can we claim something has such order when we don't even completely understand it.

[Odysseus]

Since the universe had a finite beginning it has to be finite in size

Let me rephrase. There is no experiment that can be done to show that and because dark matter = we don't know what the fuck is going on I don't trust lamda cdm

[Alex K]

Since orderly systems cannot arise from purely random processes, nor out of nothing, it must come from an underlying pre-existing order.

The following can be said: the perceived arrow of time in our universe comes from the fact that things macroscopically move from lower to higher probability states. Within a perfectly thermalised heat bath in a static universe, there wouldn't be an arrow of time as we know it. This is a separate question from whether quantum measurements are true random events.

And, in my mind, the concepts "order" and "design" are inseparably fused together

That's just prejudice

with the idea of an intelligent designer because order is an aspect of intelligence, not of randomness.

You are merely prejudiced to assume such a complicated contrivance such as an intelligent designer without realising how contrived it is and how little it solves, because you are as most of us, part of a culture that sees it as some kind of default explanation. If you think about it, it doesn't even solve your problem of order and randomness! Postulating an intelligent designer to explain "order in the universe" necessitates a further explanation why there is an intelligence to start with - you have gained nothing but introduced an gigantic unnecessary complication!

[Neo-Scholastic]

I completely agree with the OP. You stated the problem very well. You start with something, like a singularity, that has no formal property, only the propensity to produce being. To balance this, an informing principle is needed to give structure to how being manifests itself. Perfectly logical.

[Alex K]

I completely agree with the OP. You stated the problem very well. You start with something, like a singularity, that has no formal property, only the propensity to produce being. To balance this, an informing principle is needed to give structure to how being manifests itself. Perfectly logical.

Who says that "the beginning" of our universe is a perfect singularity without formal properties? That's just an extrapolation of general relativity beyond its realm of validity.
Read about inflation to get an idea how little "intelligent" input is needed for a universe to arise. Start with a universe and a quantum field, and when it tunnels to a higher energy state this will trigger rapid expansion of the corresponding region of space, the field will decay and heat up the universe. The resulting thermal fluctuations are enough to trigger the formation of structure.
There are some laws to be postulated in this picture, but nothing that requires design or intelligence.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...quantum vacuum is that it indeed produces quite random quantum behavior, particles popping in and out of existence. However, I'm open to alternative views.

And if that is the case, then pretty much anything could happen. Horses could turn into trees. The Cubs could win the World Series. Etc. You have two principles acting simultaneously: a random existence generator (the singularity, quantum foam, or other fundamental ground of being) and an informing principle (something that collapses the wave function, etc.)

... why does order imply mind? It seems to me that rather mind apprehends orderliness and uses this knowledge to mimic it, but that need not necessitate that mind is needed for the existence of order. It could just be, if it is, THE WAY IT SIMPLY IS.

Unless a strong version of the Copenhagen interpretation is actually correct. In this case you have a kind of Berkleyian type ultinate observer that imposes order by means of its own observation. Such an observer, distinct in principle from, but united in fact with the ground of being would be pure intentionality - the primary feature of mind.

[houseofcantor]

Meh. Geometry.

[Mudhammam]

...quantum vacuum is that it indeed produces quite random quantum behavior, particles popping in and out of existence. However, I'm open to alternative views.

And if that is the case, then pretty much anything could happen. Horses could turn into trees. The Cubs could win the World Series. Etc. You have two principles acting simultaneously: a random existence generator (the singularity, quantum foam, or other fundamental ground of being) and an informing principle (something that collapses the wave function, etc.)

Sure but I'm talking about in empty space, where there is negative energy, which isn't the environment any living organism would exist in...unless I'm misunderstanding your point?

[Rayaan]

That immediately strikes me as presumptuous given our limited scope on origin questions but my understanding of a quantum vacuum is that it indeed produces quite random quantum behavior, particles popping in and out of existence. However, I'm open to alternative views.

Quantum events are thought to be random only because currently we have no way have predicting them. Whether or not they are truly random is an issue of debate amongst scientists and philosophers. In fact, no one has actually proven whether or not quantum behavior is truly random.

And scientists believe that the "random" quantum behaviors in reality are either random or deterministic - i.e. there is no "in between."

I'm not really familiar with various information theories but again I think you would have to demonstrate this to be the case for it to be something other than speculation.

This is not a speculation, actually. It is called abductive reasoning which is not necessarily provable but explainable and logical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning

Changes occur, and to organisms within the process, sure it seems ordered, because self-organization is inherent to our biology... but is that a fundamental element to (unconscious) existence itself? It hardly seems like it.

Self-organization requires an organizing principle to exist in the first place - so yes - I would say that order/organization is a fundamental element in reality.

Is that the second law of thermodynamics?

Not exactly, but it is related to it in a sense, because my argument is that order has to be a fundamental aspect of reality for self-organization to be even possible.

If randomness was the description of nature at the most fundamental level, then there would have been nothing but randomness ... forever.

EVEN IF THAT IS TRUE, why does order imply mind? It seems to me that rather mind apprehends orderliness and uses this knowledge to mimic it, but that need not necessitate that mind is needed for the existence of order. It could just be, if it is, THE WAY IT SIMPLY IS.

Because, as I said earlier, order and complexity are aspects of intelligence, not of randomness. Intelligence and consciousness are also aspects of intelligence. They cannot be produced from a primordial state of reality which was random in the true meaning of the word. And the only way to get rid of randomness as a primordial state of reality is to postulate the existence of order, which, again, is an an aspect of intelligence.

Rayaan, I don't doubt their is order, but to throw randomness out the door is pre-mature IMO.

But when we are talking about nature at it's deepest, most fundamental level, either randomness exists or it doesn't - and there is no "in between." If you want to see a research that supports that view, here is a quote from an article which says that although physicists haven't proven yet whether or not the world is truly random, they believe that there is nothing in between:

The two scientists stress that they have not thereby proved that the world is non-deterministic. However, they say there is nothing in between.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...093015.htm

I think the order came about through the randomness and the things that were able to sustain had to fit the bill of what you would possibly conceive of this order.

So if order came about through randomness, then the "randomness" was only pseudo-random; it just appears to be random to us.

There are still to many things were not sure about, but the universe that we know is way to chaotic an abnormal to really label it as order.

But we don't know whether or not all the chaos and disorder are truly random, do we?

True randomness - supposing that it was the primary condition of our reality - would logically mean that there was not a single amount of order to begin with because simply put: Randomness = no order, at all. And if there was no order, then that would have made all the kinds of self-organization that exist today an impossibility. However, self-organization does exist, so there has to be a fundamental order, and the existence of a fundamental order automatically negates the existence of true randomness.

How can we claim something has such order when we don't even completely understand it.

By a simple thought experiment as I just explained in the comments above.

Postulating an intelligent designer to explain "order in the universe" necessitates a further explanation why there is an intelligence to start with - you have gained nothing but introduced an gigantic unnecessary complication!

So, your statement that an intelligent designer necessitates a "further explanation" means that you believe that, ultimately, there has to be a simpler relationship/order/pattern behind the intelligent designer (and everything else in reality) which can be described as "non-intelligent," which I think is paradoxically self-defeating since even the notion of order itself is an aspect of intelligence.

The more you discover new explanations (or theories, concepts, algorithms, relationships, etc) that simplify something else, the more coherence and order you will find between those things and in reality in general. And the fact that there is order and coherence in reality, is what allowed you to discover all those simpler explanations. What does that tell us? It tells us that there is a logically dependent correlation between order and intelligence. Order and intelligence are so much in correspondence that, in opinion, they can't even exist without each other. And they would have to exist as fundamental aspects of reality itself (which, altogether, I regard as an intelligent designer) for any kind of self-organizing intelligent system to be able to emerge in the first place.


Now, you might say that this intelligent designer would have to be infinitely more complex than the kind of answers that science is looking for. But I think that the amount of complexity that exists right now (and will ever exist) was something that was already present eternally; it was just out there in a more simplified state until manifesting itself (i.e. after the Big Bang).

I mean, whatever or whoever created the universe, it's not unreasonable to think that it can be just as complex as the total complexity in the universe because it already contains within itself all the information necessary for generating the amount of complexity and self-organization that will ever come about as a result of its operation.

Take some time to think about it.