Does order exist?

[igferatu]

A stupid question perhaps, but only because the term can be applied to literally any pattern we can recognize, subjectively or objectively. Even chaos is a but a kind of order. Order itself however, can be seen as a category in need of no larger context context. In consideration of it's universality, it's curious that we can discuss it at all. How

Comments

[root_fu]

Order consistency**.

[poisongirlxv]

I think good questions to answer before embarking on all the other questions you pose is: where did 'order' come from? When did we begin to use 'order' as the model for explaining how things 'work'? What did we use prior to the 'order' model? That is, if we did use any other concept besides order to explain how properties and elements function. I wouldn't know. I don't have the time to read into all of this. If we did use something else, then it'd be interesting to know how did we shift from perspective a. to perspective b. which has become the dominant lenses to explain away at everything

[igferatu]

You make a good point about the model we use giving rise to the questions or problems we have, and in a roundabout way it relates to what I'm thinking of.

In this case, I'm not really using 'order' as a model so much as just an umbrella term for the intelligibility of the cosmos. I'm saying that the universe has to make sense before our brains can evolve to make human sense of it.

The recognition of the limits of models is a good starting point if we consider the human organism a kind of model itself. It's perceptions and endeavors all fall under the set of all things human and therefore incapable of getting beyond it's own ontological bias.

[11christina11]

Cause and effect is a really good example of how order exists. If a glass is broken it does not reassemble for a minute and then go back to being broken. Once a person's cells are dead they are dead. Time or cause and effect has to be order?

[igferatu]

I would say that sequence is a universal primitive, but that cause and effect is a second order logic on top of that. It's a privileged interpretation that is probably limited to living organisms with some kind of memory and abstract thought. Without any organic chemistry in the universe, I don't know that there is a sense of one thing causing another, it seems like it might just be limited to kinetic events in the moment. As far as I know, all chemical level changes are reversible. Glass can be broken, heated to liquid, cooled, and broken over and over again. Only living organisms care why things might be happening or have expectations about it.

Since I posted this I've elaborated on these ideas into more of a formal hypothesis. Have a look if you're interested: http://s33light.org/SEEES

[11christina11]

I really don't feel like reading all of that, it looks awesome though. My point was sequence. I think cause and effect is a result of sequence. Sequence is an event that has order that we can observe, even with the human perspective. Eventually I think what makes us human will only hold us back as an intelligent species. Also in DNA, highly organized, so organized that its mistakes are scheduled. I think order or no order all ends being a paradox or to ambiguous to recognize.

[igferatu]

Sure, cause and effect depend on sequence, but sequence isn't an objective event, it's a sensorimotive interpretation. It is the sense of repetition, progress, and continuity which 'insists' through physical experiences, feelings, thoughts, etc. Think of a DVD. It doesn't 'have' a movie on it unless DVD players exist (not to mention human beings who can watch movies). It just has a-signifying radial etchings with no inherent sequence or significance.