Order vs. Randomness

[Rayaan]

Sorry for not following your links. I'm not interested in an in-depth debate on the subject.

Why? Because the links support the points that I made so far?

You suggest that you can increase utility while minimizing the information content. While there is a seeming elasticity between information content and compressed representations, according to Kolmogorov-Chaitin, that is an illusion. The minimum size of the smallest representation of a given amount of information is a fixed, though incomputable quantity.

Not sure why that's an illusion (even according to Kolmogorov Chaitin) because it's quite obvious that compressed representations - such as scientific theories, for example - are more useful to us because they represent a greater understanding of the patterns in nature. Hence theories (mathematical or scientific) are "elegant" in the sense that they increase the utility while minimizing the information content from a larger set of data; they describe a lot of things with a less amount of information; they are effective; they are valuable; they are interesting; they are simple but at the same time contain hidden patterns and intricacy. It doesn't require any kind of rocket science to understand this concept.

If you're accepting Kolmogorov-Chaitin, arguing that specific types of information content have better compressibility than others, you're simply confusing computability with actual quantification. In that case, you are in conflict with Kolmogorov-Chaitin.

I don't believe that our answers to the compressibility of a data set is the same thing as the actual quantification of it, so no conflict here.

I really don't care all that much other than to suggest that you're appealing to information theoretic concepts in a way that is unsound.

But apparently you didn't do a good job in proving it to be unsound, as I demonstrated several times.

Design arguments have a much more substantial Waterloo when you get to the key inference.

And what would that key inference be?

By empirical I mean one in which you can provide robustly quantifiable probabilities under some form of Bayesian or other probability framework. Obviously, subjectively based arguments are hard to describe with any metric.

Oh, a probability framework? Well, for one, there's something called the Anthropic Principle, which I also talked about in this post.

But, now that you're going on about "robustly quantifiable" probabilities (which you identify as an empirical argument for design) and considering that you believe in intelligent design (since you're a theist), what exactly is your empirical argument for a designed universe? I'm asking that because if you don't have any empirical argument to support your theism, then it's intellectually hypocritical of you to call out my inductive inference with a "Hey that's not an empirical argument!" response and then follow that up by labelling it as an "argument from incredulity," as if your arguments are more empirical than mines.

(I'd also suggest you don't understand the meaning of the term 'induction', as the way you've used it doesn't appear to conform to either the mathematical or philosophical meaning.)

I said that simplicity and complexity are matters of induction, and I know what induction means. One of the central concepts in inductive inferences is simplicity.

That doesn't appear to conform to either the mathematical or philosophical meaning? Well, you're wrong once again, and here's the proof ...

1. Simplicity and Inductive Inference

2. The Use of Simplicity in Induction

3. Ludwig Wittgenstein, in his book Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1921), wrote: "The process of induction is the process of assuming the simplest law that can be made to harmonize with our experience. This process, however, has no logical foundation but only a psychological one. It is clear that there are no grounds for believing that the simplest course of events will really happen."

Still doesn't conform eh?

I'd say you don't understand either Taoism or mathematics sufficiently well.

Then why not explain to me what my misunderstanding is?

... or at the very least point out the error in what I said instead of simply saying "I don't understand" and then running away.


Let me make this clear to you and everyone else once again. You wrote (colored emphasis mine):

My background is in mathematics, so while I appreciate the notion of elegance, I view that as more a property existing in a strange and disordered pattern throughout mathematical space.

Then I said that this view clearly contradicts with Taoist philosophy (which you claim to profess), and then I cited materials that support this, which are the following:

---

Trust in Nature as an Organic Pattern

The Chinese yin-yang conception of nature is an organic reproduction pattern of nature and the cosmos. Nature exists outside of and beyond human control. Taoists regard this human embedding in larger universal processes with wonder, awe, and deep appreciation.

In nature, there is an ordering - dizzying and exquisite in its variety - that exists endlessly. (Think of the infinitely proportioned, kaleidoscopic images of fractal geometry, and you'll begin to get a sense of the intricacy, beauty, and endless "scalability" of natural patterns in the Taoist view.)

This order, this series of resonances, is both indescribably vast and intricately interdependent. It is an order that includes other "makers' of order - like bees and humans. The associated notion from the poem "Desiderata" - that we are all children of the universe, on a par with the planets and the stars, and that the universe unfolds in the proper way whether or not we recognize it as doing so - comes close to providing a parallel with the Taoist reverence of nature and its patterns.

- The Complete Idiot's Guide to Taoism (p. 33)

---

---

And this:

Dao can be roughly thought of as the flow of the universe, or as some essence or pattern behind the natural world that keeps the universe balanced and ordered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao#Descrip...he_concept

---

According to the information above, Taoism teaches that there is an underlying pattern and a harmony at a fundamental level of reality. But, you, as a Taoist yourself, said that you believe that there is a strange and "disorganized pattern" throughout mathematical space, which is a contradiction between Taoism.

So, if you want to prove that I'm wrong about Taoism, then all you have to do is to show something that refutes the information that I provided. Very simple.

[Angrboda]

Sorry for not following your links. I'm not interested in an in-depth debate on the subject.

Why? Because the links support the points that I made so far?

How would I know this if I haven't followed your links? I wouldn't. And I know from prior experience that your lack of understanding leads you to linking to material that sounds related, but really isn't.

I tire of your argumentum ad nauseum, and your insulting insinuations.

If you want to learn Taoism, study it. Become it.

But your approach to Taoism has the same failings as the rest of your thinking, composed of over-emphasis on superficial resemblances and totally lacking in any real in-depth understanding.

[*Deidre*]

One of the very fascinating things (well, to me at least) is the apparent order, coherence, and beauty in the things we perceive around us and in the cosmos at large. Although this is not necessarily a proof of God (nor any specific deity), I think this is at least consistent with the hypothesis that, at bottom, all the weird subquantum processes were initially set off by something which itself behaves in an orderly, creative, and almost purposeful manner - in ways relatively similar to the functioning of a "mind," so to speak - as opposed to behaving randomly.

If the underlying process behind everything was truly random, then it wouldn't have been possible for the universe to exist as a self-organizing system, let alone have spawned intelligent beings - aspects of itself - which can, self-referentially, learn about themselves and ponder their own existence and their origin. The countless dust particles floating in space would have been just floating there, and would have never been able to organize themselves into eyes, ears, brains, and the myriads of living things as evolution has made them to be.

Some people like to counter this argument with the infinite monkey theorem. The way this idea goes is that a monkey (or monkeys) hitting keys on a keyboard at random for an infinite amount of time would "eventually" produce the complete works of William Shakespeare. When the same reasoning is applied to the universe, the typing monkeys would be analogous to random quantum fluctuations, which can eventually produce the amount of complexity we see around us given an infinite amount of time, out of pure randomness. However, again, even this theorem doesn't make sense at the most fundamental level of reality.

If there was pure randomness at the very beginning, then it would have always stayed that way. Purely random processes can't give rise to lesser and lesser random processes or a partially random process (such as natural selection, for example). Random processes can't produce anything but randomness unless they have an order or an organizing system lurking behind them.

That being said, what is your take on this?

Do you think that, at bottom, life and everything in this universe was generated by something that can be described as being random in the true meaning of the word, or do you think that there is a subtle order lurking behind all the randomness?

I find your theory very intriguing. I would say that in part you could be correct, for no one truly knows if there exists a Creator or not. But, my question for you is why do you seem to equate randomness as chaotic? Order is not the opposite of random. It's the opposite of chaos. So, could you clarify?

[Rayaan]

How would I know this if I haven't followed your links? I wouldn't.

Yet you were telling me that my ideas are unsound, unsupported, doesn't conform with philosophy nor mathematics, and such, all the while ignoring the supporting information ...

And I know from prior experience that your lack of understanding leads you to linking to material that sounds related, but really isn't.

And your prior experience of this doesn't justify that my links will always be unrelated. You cannot possibly know whether they are related or not until you visit those specific links.

(Then again, I can't fully trust you, and so maybe you did follow the links but just telling a lie now).

But your approach to Taoism has the same failings as the rest of your thinking, composed of over-emphasis on superficial resemblances and totally lacking in any real in-depth understanding.

I know that I don't have an in-depth understanding of Taoism.

Regardless of that, the point that still remains is that Taoism teaches that the fundamental level of reality is characterized by a perfect order, not disorder. You view the opposite to be true (even though you're a Taoist), because you said that the beauty around us is more property existing in a strange and "disorganized pattern." That goes against the teachings of Taoism, the same philosophy that you claim to profess. And you haven't provided a solution nor a clarification to this contradiction yet.

^ You dodged this single point twice, by simply saying that I don't understand Taoism. But I'm predicting that you'll probably dodge this one once again, making it the third time.

I find your theory very intriguing. I would say that in part you could be correct, for no one truly knows if there exists a Creator or not.

Thanks, although (of course) this was not just "my" theory. It seems to fall generally under the well-known "teleological argument."

But, my question for you is why do you seem to equate randomness as chaotic? Order is not the opposite of random. It's the opposite of chaos. So, could you clarify?

No, I didn't equate randomness as chaotic. Chaotic has a different meaning from randomness, although it appears to be random. I explained it in the following post:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-23665-po...#pid591162


The opposite of "order" is "disorder," and "disorder" is the same as "randomness" because they both mean an absence of order.

"Chaotic," on the other hand, just means that the system in question is unpredictable. And it's been proven that a lot systems known as "chaotic" in fact have a great amount of order. So chaos is not an accurate antonym for order. Chaos might be the opposite of order only in a perceptual sense because chaotic systems appear disorderly to us, but not the opposite based on its actual definition.

See the article below on the meaning of "chaos" (which I posted earlier as well).

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Chaos.html

[Angrboda]

I tire of your argumentum ad nauseum, and your insulting insinuations.

If you want to learn Taoism, study it. Become it.

But your approach to Taoism has the same failings as the rest of your thinking, composed of over-emphasis on superficial resemblances and totally lacking in any real in-depth understanding.

I know that I don't have an in-depth understanding of Taoism.

Regardless of that, the point that still remains is that Taoism teaches that the fundamental level of reality is characterized by a perfect order, not disorder. You view the opposite to be true (even though you're a Taoist), because you said that the beauty around us is more property existing in a strange and "disorganized pattern." That goes against the teachings of Taoism, the same philosophy that you claim to profess. And you haven't provided a solution nor a clarification to this contradiction yet.

^ You dodged this single point twice, by simply saying that I don't understand Taoism. But I'm predicting that you'll probably dodge this one once again, making it the third time.

You're making a claim based on your understanding of Taoism. If your understanding is wrong, the claim is wrong. Telling you that you don't understand Taoism is addressing the point head on. And you admit you don't understand Taoism. So calling it "dodging" is just an insult and a loaded mischaracterization.

Now fuck off.

[*Deidre*]

I find your theory very intriguing. I would say that in part you could be correct, for no one truly knows if there exists a Creator or not.

Thanks, although (of course) this was not just "my" theory. It seems to fall generally under the well-known "teleological argument."

But, my question for you is why do you seem to equate randomness as chaotic? Order is not the opposite of random. It's the opposite of chaos. So, could you clarify?

No, I didn't equate randomness as chaotic. Chaotic has a different meaning from randomness, although it appears to be random. I explained it in the following post:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-23665-po...#pid591162


The opposite of "order" is "disorder," and "disorder" is the same as "randomness" because they both mean an absence of order.

"Chaotic," on the other hand, just means that the system in question is unpredictable. And it's been proven that a lot systems known as "chaotic" in fact have a great amount of order. So chaos is not an accurate antonym for order. Chaos might be the opposite of order only in a perceptual sense because chaotic systems appear disorderly to us, but not the opposite based on its actual definition.

See the article below on the meaning of "chaos" (which I posted earlier as well).

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Chaos.html

I'm satisfied with your explanation, so you know. Really, that is an excellent way of describing your view and now I understand your view much better, so thank you.

[truthBtold]

I tire of your argumentum ad nauseum, and your insulting insinuations.

If you want to learn Taoism, study it. Become it.

I know that I don't have an in-depth understanding of Taoism.

Regardless of that, the point that still remains is that Taoism teaches that the fundamental level of reality is characterized by a perfect order, not disorder. You view the opposite to be true (even though you're a Taoist), because you said that the beauty around us is more property existing in a strange and "disorganized pattern." That goes against the teachings of Taoism, the same philosophy that you claim to profess. And you haven't provided a solution nor a clarification to this contradiction yet.

^ You dodged this single point twice, by simply saying that I don't understand Taoism. But I'm predicting that you'll probably dodge this one once again, making it the third time.

You're making a claim based on your understanding of Taoism. If your understanding is wrong, the claim is wrong. Telling you that you don't understand Taoism is addressing the point head on. And you admit you don't understand Taoism. So calling it "dodging" is just an insult and a loaded mischaracterization.

Now fuck off.

Understanding something u dont understand.. thats nice.. wtf!!

[Rayaan]

You're making a claim based on your understanding of Taoism. If your understanding is wrong, the claim is wrong. Telling you that you don't understand Taoism is addressing the point head on. And you admit you don't understand Taoism. So calling it "dodging" is just an insult and a loaded mischaracterization.

You dodged once again from explaining the specific point that I raised, which is that according to the Taoist view, the universe has an endless scalability of patterns, of ordering. But you contradict the Taoist view when you said that you consider elegance to be a property existing in a rather "disorganized pattern."

Secondly, I've provided two sources that support what I said, which is what you're supposed to refute in order to justify that I'm wrong in making the point above.

Trust in Nature as an Organic Pattern

The Chinese yin-yang conception of nature is an organic reproduction pattern of nature and the cosmos. Nature exists outside of and beyond human control. Taoists regard this human embedding in larger universal processes with wonder, awe, and deep appreciation.

In nature, there is an ordering - dizzying and exquisite in its variety - that exists endlessly. (Think of the infinitely proportioned, kaleidoscopic images of fractal geometry, and you'll begin to get a sense of the intricacy, beauty, and endless "scalability" of natural patterns in the Taoist view.)

This order, this series of resonances, is both indescribably vast and intricately interdependent. It is an order that includes other "makers' of order - like bees and humans. The associated notion from the poem "Desiderata" - that we are all children of the universe, on a par with the planets and the stars, and that the universe unfolds in the proper way whether or not we recognize it as doing so - comes close to providing a parallel with the Taoist reverence of nature and its patterns.

- The Complete Idiot's Guide to Taoism (p. 33)

And from Wikipeida:

Dao can be roughly thought of as the flow of the universe, or as some essence or pattern behind the natural world that keeps the universe balanced and ordered."

If you think that my understanding of the quotes above is a "misunderstanding" or you think that the quotes themselves are misinformation, then go ahead and prove it, if you can.

And if you can't do that, then don't waste your time trying to act as if you're right without presenting anything to support that even.

[Angrboda]

... according to the Taoist view, the universe has an endless scalability of patterns, of ordering ...

Citation needed.

... you said that you consider elegance to be a property existing in a rather "disorganized pattern." ...

Citation needed.

Secondly, I've provided two sources that support what I said, which is what you're supposed to refute in order to justify that I'm wrong in making the point above.

Supposed to? According to whom? I told you I wasn't interested in an in-depth debate, so you respond in-depth and fault me for not engaging you in depth. That's an obvious and dishonest tactic.

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Taoism

Yes, you've already demonstrated that you don't know shit from shinola about Taoism. You're just trying to bury me in detail. It's the typical argumentum ad nauseum of a religious fucktard.

If you think that my understanding of the quotes above is a "misunderstanding" or you think that the quotes themselves are misinformation, then go ahead and prove it, if you can.

That is not the way of the Tao. And if I remember the little I've read about the relationship between Kalam and Islam, it is not the way of the Muslim, either.

And if you can't do that, then don't waste your time trying to act as if you're right without presenting anything to support that even.

Fuck you. You want Taoism. You got Taoism. If you can't handle that, it can't be helped. You are just a dull pupil.

[truthBtold]

... according to the Taoist view, the universe has an endless scalability of patterns, of ordering ...

Citation needed.

... you said that you consider elegance to be a property existing in a rather "disorganized pattern." ...

Citation needed.

Secondly, I've provided two sources that support what I said, which is what you're supposed to refute in order to justify that I'm wrong in making the point above.

Supposed to? According to whom? I told you I wasn't interested in an in-depth debate, so you respond in-depth and fault me for not engaging you in depth. That's an obvious and dishonest tactic.

The Complete Idiot's Guide to Taoism

Yes, you've already demonstrated that you don't know shit from shinola about Taoism. You're just trying to bury me in detail. It's the typical argumentum ad nauseum of a religious fucktard.

If you think that my understanding of the quotes above is a "misunderstanding" or you think that the quotes themselves are misinformation, then go ahead and prove it, if you can.

That is not the way of the Tao. And if I remember the little I've read about the relationship between Kalam and Islam, it is not the way of the Muslim, either.

And if you can't do that, then don't waste your time trying to act as if you're right without presenting anything to support that even.

Fuck you. You want Taoism. You got Taoism. If you can't handle that, it can't be helped. You are just a dull pupil.

Potty mouth.. I have soap.