Whence came the order in the cosmos?

[QED]

Self-organization is a widely recognized and well understood principle. It can operate over a vast range of scales in any dynamic system that is far from thermal equilibrium. One example of this is our biosphere which is driven away from thermal equilibrium by the Suns radiant energy. Self-organization arises from various feedback mechanisms such as those operating within our biosphere serving as a good (and very large) example: the energy output from the Sun has fallen by some 30% while the average temperature within the biosphere has remained far more constant over the same period.

What may not be so widely recognized is that the principles of self-organization extend much further up in scale than our planet: Galaxies are ecology's in their own right within which stars are born and die. Carbon plays a central role in the self-regulation and evolution of galactic systems. So it turns out that we ourselves are riding on this carbon regulated merry-go-round of stellar evolution.

In principle there is no upper limit on the scope of self-organization. Astronomers have started to recognize structure in the distribution of galaxies hinting at higher levels of organization. So, it seems that a sound philosophical conclusion can be drawn here: self-organization is a natural principle within the cosmos as it can be seen operating over some 40 or so orders of magnitude. A few more orders would take this to the entire extent of our universe and, according to Professor Lee Smolin and others, there is good reason to believe that our universe is but one of a vast collection representing yet higher opportunities for self-organisation.

Now, what strikes me about all this is that we have potential answers to some very fundamental questions here. We should not be surprised to find order among the chaos. As a natural principal of the cosmos it should be expected for life to emerge. Now that we're here it is not surprising that we find ourselves looking upon order and chaos and speculating over such matters as good and evil. The simple fact is that goodness and order are prerequisites for our existence and they are born out of nothing more fancy than feedback in systems far from thermal equilibrium.

I would like this to stimulate a debate over the implications this has for the opposing worldviews of theists and atheists.

[Cathar1950]

QED wrote:

The simple fact is that goodness and order are prerequisites for our existence and they are born out of nothing more fancy than feedback in systems far from thermal equilibrium.

I might agree with you but thermal equalibriam and feedback systems are pretty fancy.

We should not be surprised to find order among the chaos. As a natural principal of the cosmos it should be expected for life to emerge. Now that we're here it is not surprising that we find ourselves looking upon order and chaos and speculating over such matters as good and evil.

We are always being suprised. We are finding out that much that seems so special is diverse and self ajusting. It is also abundant.
Well check, I am in, and I raise you two. Let's see how this hand plays.

[QED]

QED wrote:

The simple fact is that goodness and order are prerequisites for our existence and they are born out of nothing more fancy than feedback in systems far from thermal equilibrium.

I might agree with you but thermal equalibriam and feedback systems are pretty fancy.

Quite true Cathar, that's just my way of saying that ultimately no divine hand is required to produce patterns like this one in nature:



when they can be produced according to cellular automata rules e.g. rule 110 shown below:

[Cathar1950]

The concept of God I enjoy is the One related to all and influenced by all. This God would not create as such, but would be added to by all of creation. It would be akin to the memory of the universe. It is something like an organic view of the universe. This is nothing more then a metaphysical position due to my need to find closure with life and meaning. It is most likely something we humans have developed in our evolution like art. The snail is very beautiful.

[ST88]

We should not be surprised to find order among the chaos. As a natural principal of the cosmos it should be expected for life to emerge. Now that we're here it is not surprising that we find ourselves looking upon order and chaos and speculating over such matters as good and evil.

Using such terms as order vs. chaos as if they happen to apply to the systems we are observing, in my opinion, does a disservice to the systems. These terms are relevant only to ourselves as observers. When we identify order, it's because we recognize what's going on based on some ideas of what we think should be going on. Order makes us feet better, becuase we like to recognize and generalize patterns. When we identify chaos, it's troubling because it doesn't look like any pattern we can identify. Since the universe is supposed to be in harmony, we might possibly associate chaos with not only disharmony, but also with an active force creating disharmony.

The supposition here is that the universe was created for our benefit. That is, we should be able to recognize the difference between order and chaos as if they were intrinsic qualities. Maybe this is because we recognize a certain order in ourselves e.g., simple biofeedback mechanisms like eating, or because prediction is such a rewarding experience when you're right. In short, there is no such thing as order & chaos except as concepts of how to describe systems in terms of our own psychology.

The simple fact is that goodness and order are prerequisites for our existence and they are born out of nothing more fancy than feedback in systems far from thermal equilibrium.

"Goodness"?

I would argue that the systems that produced us are ordered only insofar as they produced us. In other words, there is no intrinsic order that made our existence pre-determined, that's just the order in which things happened. My strict determinism prevents me from saying that this was all completely "random accident", but the system is sufficiently complex that randomness is not a completely invalid term.

I would like this to stimulate a debate over the implications this has for the opposing worldviews of theists and atheists.
Atheism requires self-organization because no guiding hand is available to put into the equation. But the big question isn't the self-organization, the forces of which we can readily observe (gravity, etc.), the big question is what set that system in motion. If self-organization is an all-encompassing principle, then the intantiation event of the universe was part of a process, possibly an inevitable part, which means there must have been other forces at work beforehand (if the concept of "before" even applies).

[QED]

Using such terms as order vs. chaos as if they happen to apply to the systems we are observing, in my opinion, does a disservice to the systems. These terms are relevant only to ourselves as observers. When we identify order, it's because we recognize what's going on based on some ideas of what we think should be going on.

I would argue that these terms do have an absolute meaning away from observers such as ourselves; All closed systems eventually reach thermal equilibrium. This phase is distinct from all others where a flow of material/energy has the potential to support critical non-equilibrium systems.

Order makes us feet better, because we like to recognize and generalize patterns. When we identify chaos, it's troubling because it doesn't look like any pattern we can identify. Since the universe is supposed to be in harmony, we might possibly associate chaos with not only disharmony, but also with an active force creating disharmony.

What I'm attempting to do here is convey the physics that underlies the more colloquial terms that appear in most forum debates. The reason for doing this is to identify, clarify and demystify some of the notions that frequently crop up.

The supposition here is that the universe was created for our benefit. That is, we should be able to recognize the difference between order and chaos as if they were intrinsic qualities. Maybe this is because we recognize a certain order in ourselves e.g., simple biofeedback mechanisms like eating, or because prediction is such a rewarding experience when you're right. In short, there is no such thing as order & chaos except as concepts of how to describe systems in terms of our own psychology.

But people have a strong intuition that it is otherwise. By relating the scientific concept of the thermodynamic behaviour of closed systems to what happens to a tomato plant inside a sealed box (for example) we have a way to bring the two spheres of thought together.

The simple fact is that goodness and order are prerequisites for our existence and they are born out of nothing more fancy than feedback in systems far from thermal equilibrium.

"Goodness"?

I would argue that the systems that produced us are ordered only insofar as they produced us. In other words, there is no intrinsic order that made our existence predetermined, that's just the order in which things happened. My strict determinism prevents me from saying that this was all completely "random accident", but the system is sufficiently complex that randomness is not a completely invalid term.

Perhaps you can see where I'm coming from now; Theists see goodness in the world, they identify goodness in theirs and other peoples actions and ultimately relate the source of all this to some ultimate, personified well-spring of good. But what they are in fact identifying is the general disposition of the dynamic system that we have emerged from. Our life is hitching a lift on the greater carbon cycle that regulates star production. Gravity is the ultimate motor that drives this with matter/energy as the fuel. I think that the concept of Goodness is tightly bound to the principles of self-organization which take place in such commodious environments.

Furthermore, there are potentially verifiable reasons for all this (as you are about to enquire into)...

Atheism requires self-organization because no guiding hand is available to put into the equation. But the big question isn't the self-organization, the forces of which we can readily observe (gravity, etc.), the big question is what set that system in motion. If self-organization is an all-encompassing principle, then the intantiation event of the universe was part of a process, possibly an inevitable part, which means there must have been other forces at work beforehand (if the concept of "before" even applies).

One reason might be that we are a byproduct of a system of self-organization that extends beyond the boundaries of our universe. Lee Smolin proposes that the 'settings' of a dozen or so critical physical constants are the product of a form of cosmic natural selection. In this proposal black holes are the birthplaces of new universes which inherit their physical constants from their host universes. Given that the production of black holes is critically connected to the evolution of stars (and the regulation of their production through carbon in the dust clouds that formed them) we are ourselves surfing on a wave that is commonplace in the larger collection of universes.

Such proposals can be more than mere pipe-dreams as well. Despite the fact that our horizons are necessarily restricted, it is possible in this case to look at the fitness of the physical constants for the production of black holes. If, either by increasing or reducing certain values, black hole production would go down then it is a strong indication that the universe is 'selected' according to this criteria as the theory suggests. There are other theories which postulate multiple universes but the only ones of any value will be those like Smolin's that can in some way be tested.

[Cathar1950]

Order and Chaos do seem to be related to our experiences. We see order because that is the way we work. It might be that chaos is just our inability to see the pattern. Science seems to be in part a quest for order.
ST88 wrote:

Atheism requires self-organization because no guiding hand is available to put into the equation. But the big question isn't the self-organization, the forces of which we can readily observe (gravity, etc.), the big question is what set that system in motion. If self-organization is an all-encompassing principle, then the intantiation event of the universe was part of a process, possibly an inevitable part, which means there must have been other forces at work beforehand (if the concept of "before" even applies).

It seems to me any myth or idea of God is doing the same as atheism,
looking for a "self-organizing all encompassing principle". Maybe when we find one we have found the other.

[Cathar1950]

ST88 wrote:

If self-organization is an all-encompassing principle, then the intantiation event of the universe was part of a process, possibly an inevitable part, which means there must have been other forces at work beforehand (if the concept of "before" even applies).

The time before time! It should be a movie. Hawkins writes about the singularity and there being no time before that. I understand what he is saying and it kind of make sense believe it or not. But like ST88 asks what are those "forces" at work before time. Did the singularity exist for a second or billions of light year(pretending I am out side of it)? Is what we think of as God the singularity. Provided you believe in God. It doesn't seem to matter in my opinion because it seem the same to me regardless if there is a God or isn't and if I believe, it is even less relevant.
I guess that is why I like the idea of everything as the memory of God or the Universe. I dream that someday we will understand better as science explores further. I realize it might be beyond our comprehension and tools. Our tools and sciences seem to produce some sort of order such as math and physics as well as discover order, just do to it's nature and ours. I was reading about memory and the brain. They studied the activity of the brain during both remembering and experience and found that the brain acts the same. In other words even our immediate experience is a form of memory. This might be why we sometime seem so determined as ST88 states

My strict determinism prevents me from saying that this was all completely "random accident", but the system is sufficiently complex that randomness is not a completely invalid term.

In a sense it is determined because it is memory and interpretation. Only in one we anticipate the future, and the sense of randomness or chaos. After the anticipation is gone it seems pretty determined and I guess it is until one of you come up with my badly wanted time machine. I am sure I will regret it but it sounds fun. As I recall statistics is based on probability and it always concerns prediction with-in historical(gathered) data. In other words it isn't predicting the future that has not happened except by extension.
What I like about it is, it is all way over my head and that makes it interesting and fun. So I am looking forward to this thread.

[QED]

Order and Chaos do seem to be related to our experiences. We see order because that is the way we work. It might be that chaos is just our inability to see the pattern. Science seems to be in part a quest for order.

This is why it's a slightly tricky issue: Complexity of pattern is often order in disguise. This is not the property that I'm ascribing to chaos -- a better measure of which is entropy. Considering things at the microscopic scale, equilibrium is associated with the distribution of molecules having the greatest probability of occurring. Such states are the ones with the greatest degree of disorder and are hence the most chaotic.

In any closed system the rise in entropy to a maximum at equilibrium is simply the consequence of the trend from less probable to more probable states. From this it's easy to see why the things we're all familiar with are the way they are: For example, flip the cap off a bottle of coke and all the gas bubbles escape into the air. If we leave the bottle open we never see them getting back in. The state of all the gas being inside the bottle was far less probable. This is what gives rise to the apparent "one-way" direction of time. In any closed system chaos is more probable than order because the number of different possible arrangements of matter/energy acts as a powerful attractor.

It seems to me any myth or idea of God is doing the same as atheism, looking for a "self-organizing all encompassing principle". Maybe when we find one we have found the other.

I couldn't agree more. This is the crux of the topic Essentially people are looking for the reason why everything started in such a highly improbable condition such that Statistical Mechanics could go to work disordering it all. The scientific answer to this lies in what went on in the various phases of the big bang: In the inflation model, 'negative pressure' plays a crucial role for the spectacular doubling in size every 10-34seconds. The large vacuum energy density exerted an enormous negative pressure putting the expanding universe in a state very far from equilibrium.

Now it might be argued that the scientific account of the origin of order and the principles of self-organization merely capture that which has been known to theologians all along but if they sign-up to the scientific account then they have a great deal of explaining to do when it comes to the other 99.999% of everything presented about God's 'special' relationship with mankind (and his various likes and dislikes). With each insight into the principles at work in the cosmos, and particularly those concerning the apparent 'fine-tuning' of the physical constants I suggest that all of the more 'Gothic' notions such as judgment and salvation become more like Freudian misfits in an otherwise reasonable colloquial interpretation of the natural world.

[harvey1]

Now it might be argued that the scientific account of the origin of order and the principles of self-organization merely capture that which has been known to theologians all along but if they sign-up to the scientific account then they have a great deal of explaining to do when it comes to the other 99.999% of everything presented about God's 'special' relationship with mankind (and his various likes and dislikes). With each insight into the principles at work in the cosmos, and particularly those concerning the apparent 'fine-tuning' of the physical constants I suggest that all of the more 'Gothic' notions such as judgment and salvation become more like Freudian misfits in an otherwise reasonable colloquial interpretation of the natural world.

Why? When I look at self-organization, I like you suggested, see the very principles of religion at play on a larger scale. Eschatology corresponds with a critical point, judgment corresponds to a second-order phase transition and symmetry breaking event, while salvation corresponds to entering a new phase and having new symmetry laws. Sure, eschatology, judgment, salvation reflect a specific event in human history, but I think this is because we are part of a collective system that is moving toward its critical point.

Now, regardless whether you think that is insane or not, I think that even a naturalist can appreciate that self-organized principles are observable in nature. Those observations could and would naturally affect the people who were either inspired or invented their religious lit, and therefore it is not surprising that self-organization principles are heavily referred to in religion.

I would go even one step further. I suggest that each of us are living in many kinds of systems (e.g., families, extended families, local communities, cities, companies, universities, churches, internet forums, etc.), and each of those systems can be viewed as an entity that has its own state space which is describable as a self-organized system.

Thus, in my view, self-organization is a deep, deep principle of nature. So deep that whereever two or more are gathered, a part of God exists in that.