Entropy is the most fundamental philosophical insight there is.

[Terxpahseyton]

Philosophy is about understanding truth and all animals need to be concerned with truth to survive. They live in the real world and need to know what is there and what is not to successfully interact with that world. But the way they primarily do so is by doing what feels right. Because that is how this very practical and to-be-directly-applied truth-mechanism in animals developed and mostly works. To think in abstract / supposedly objective terms – that is sort of an abhorrent freak child of animal truth-seeking. It is fundamentally different, unaesthetic, unpleasing, cumbersome, awkward, removed, cold, dead... It is very weird. And also terrifyingly flexible. Ingrained patterns of feelings coupled with experience-feed-back-loops: That is pretty straight forward and pretty reliable in its success rates.

Abstract reasoning on the other hand? That freaking crap is all over the god damn place. It knows no exterior pattern or red lines. It is entirely self-referential. You can go with it where the hell you want, in principle. That is scary man. And confusing. As the reality of it turns out to be, unsurprisingly.

So, we humans were burdened (and blessed) with that infinite beast of a universal tool, weighting down our shoulders, but also expanding our minds and sights.

Trouble is – that animal-truth-mechanism this abstract reasoning was born by – that was still around. And not just around. It still owned the place, and abstract reasoning was living in the basement in a state of permanent acute existential crisis. While its animal mom had cookies and cushions and oh yeah she had a great and wild and exciting life with great action and drama and conflict and self-importance and A LOT of sex and just all the good juicy stuff, just so much MEANING and LUST FOR LIFE (yes that analogy lost its illustrative merit a couple of words ago).

Basement Existential Kid and House-Freaking-A-Awesome Mom had some good talks. In fact, they talked all the time. And they could connect very well. But the kid had trouble to speak up to his mom and boy his mom had some temper. You know those artsy expressive types. They sometimes know no limits in their emotional self-expressions. And out of this passion of Mom, the relationship actually easily grew outright abusive.

My point is: Humans are so so so predisposed to think that their feelings give them clues to the truth. That pretty much means being an animal, which we still are, I am afraid. And in practical environments – they are often right! Most notable in social relations – our gut is extremely powerful and our brain can fail so easily so miserably. But the importance of the beast in us actually never stops.

Emotions play a vital role in logical thinking, as well. A good logical thinker just learned himself to feel good when being logical. (Otherwise, he would just give up on it.) But that is not something you naturally learn. And even a fantastic thinker never will do so entirely at all. Rather, you naturally will do about the opposite. Instead of using a mechanical technical system to find truth / feel good, you will use an intuitive one – pimped with abstractions here and there, where it is convenient.

What all this means is: Reasoning is not just hard in the sense that it requires large resources, be it energy or time. Reasoning is also non-existent, as such. There is only emotionally-reinforced reasoning. And that reinforcement has some terrible roots and natural shapes and it is quit difficult (while far from impossible) to properly adapt those shapes.

And what that means is: We not only love to see what we like to see but can not help to look for it and see it, somewhere.

And what that means is: We see patterns of our dreams in the mess that is reality.

And entropy extremely succinctly and at the same time conclusively reveals to you why this huge, fundamental and sadly necessary dimension of how we reason is about the exact opposite of what is happening. Because entropy means that things tend to make no sense whatsoever. Put differently: That they have no meaning whatsoever and that any meaning or design which happens to arise is entirely accidentally and will be quickly smashed again by the force of entropy. One way or the other.

I am of the opinion, that to keep entropy and its vast implications for understanding reality in mind solves the vast majority of issues humans have when trying to do some reasoning.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I have to warn you from shunning this multiverse-shattering thought-revelation of mine: I personally will judge this thread to determine a question as old as the posters' hypocrisy who manage to converse on a higher level than mainstream news (a feat rarely accomplished by beings finding themselves constrained in the limitations of physical matter): To be intellectualz.
And because I know people like rewards: I'll grant you an additional two "z"s to the first one. Just like me make a meaningful and thoughtful post taking hours of deep consideration and mediation. You may also tell me what, while mediating, your Zen told you to, since my terrible google translator did not even red-mark "Zen", so I am all the more validated in my authority of words.

 

[Synobun]

To what extent are you referring to entropy here? Perpetual order has never existed and never will. The very fabric of reality is built upon a tidal pattern of disorder, but it coalesces into ordered patterns regularly in order to progress to the next part of the cycle (or not). Order is as necessary to this process as disorder is.

 

[uppi]

Not really. Organisms require a something close to a thermal equilibrium, which means that free energy is the important parameter and entropy only matters in its contribution to free energy.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I am of the opinion, that to keep entropy and its vast implications for understanding reality in mind solves the vast majority of issues humans have when trying to do some reasoning.

I am of the opinion that the understanding of reality is better done outside of a domain of the reasons limited light. Reason is a powerful tool when dealing with physical reality and its processes but the core of what human being really is is rather supraphysical.

 

[Ryika]

My point is: Humans are so so so predisposed to think that their feelings give them clues to the truth. That pretty much means being an animal, which we still are, I am afraid. And in practical environments – they are often right! Most notable in social relations – our gut is extremely powerful and our brain can fail so easily so miserably. But the importance of the beast in us actually never stops.

This is why we must one day accept that we have reached the end of our journey and let the robots take over.

 

[timtofly]

This is why we must one day accept that we have reached the end of our journey and let the robots take over.

I wonder if God thought that when He decided to take a break and let the humans "take over"?

 

[Perfection]

To be honest Terx, your post feels a bit like a bait and switch (note that this is not a personal criticism, I respect what you're doing and encourage you to continue).

You start off with a reasonable and at times entertaining discussion of abstract reasoning versus more primitive truth-seeking. That is interesting stuff and though I have some skepticism (for instance is it positive reinforcement of being logical that inspires logical thinking or negative reinforcement of illogical behavior) it is still serviceable.

But then you state this:

Because entropy means that things tend to make no sense whatsoever. Put differently: That they have no meaning whatsoever and that any meaning or design which happens to arise is entirely accidentally and will be quickly smashed again by the force of entropy. One way or the other.

As I understand it entropy is a thermodynamic measure of energy that cannot be used for work, which correlates strongly to the statistical disorder of a system.

To state that it implies what you say it does seems reaching and perhaps incorrect, and it is certainly not the central theme of entropy.: "meaning" "sense" and "design" are not traditional thermodynamic terms.

And the conclusion you draw from it (which seems to be an argument for skepticsm of our own abilities to know truth) is an insight noted by philosophers long before modern thermodynamics. I don't see how entropy fundamentally changes that picture.

One last thing to note is there seems to be very little practical advice here. You're not giving much in the way of clues as to how to reason better. Can you provide an example of a situation where what you said would help someone distinguish between good and bad reasoning?

 

[Synobun]

As I understand it entropy is a thermodynamic measure of energy that cannot be used for work, which correlates strongly to the statistical disorder of a system.

Entropy also means "a gradual decline into disorder" which I believe is the definition he was using.

Or maybe he really does mean the thermodynamics one. I'm not his real dad.

 

[Perfection]

Entropy also means "a gradual decline into disorder" which I believe is the definition he was using.

Or maybe he really does mean the thermodynamics one. I'm not his real dad.

To clarify, I am not objecting to borrowing a physics term for a metaphorical or extended use. Taking aspects of the conceptual structure of entropy and applying it elsewhere would be fair.

An example of a good metaphorical use would be: "if one does not constantly work on the relationship with one's partner it will fall into discord". We could call that "relationship entropy".

I fail to see a workable literal or metaphorical usage of entropy in what Terx wrote.

 

[uppi]

As I understand it entropy is a thermodynamic measure of energy that cannot be used for work, which correlates strongly to the statistical disorder of a system.

Not quite. Entropy multiplied by temperature equals the energy that cannot be used for work as long as the temperature is constant. So two systems with the same entropy, but different temperatures have different amounts of energy that cannot be used for work. To have a correct understanding of entropy, there is no way to avoid statistical mechanics and the number of degenerate states.

Entropy also means "a gradual decline into disorder" which I believe is the definition he was using.

That definition is also wrong. The equivalency of entropy and disorder is already tenuous, but even then, entropy is no decline. What you are thinking of is the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which describes entropy in physical systems, but does not describe entropy itself.

 

[Perfection]

Not quite. Entropy multiplied by temperature equals the energy that cannot be used for work as long as the temperature is constant. So two systems with the same entropy, but different temperatures have different amounts of energy that cannot be used for work. To have a correct understanding of entropy, there is no way to avoid statistical mechanics and the number of degenerate states.

I stand corrected, good sir!

I don't think it undermines any of my large points but it needed to be said.

BTW do you have any book recommendations that work through the ins and outs of thermodynamics? I think what I said reiterates my need to understand it better.

 

[Lohrenswald]

Entropy S=k*ln(omega)
where omega is multiplicity lol

Anyway I basically agree with Perfection

the begining of OP is pretty good and as far as I can tell true. I can't really think of any objections or complementations or supplementations or w/e

but then the entropy thing doesn't really make sense

and in a way entropy can be pretty intuitive from the animal way of seeing it

like if you have say a plastic bag, then you pour some blue pebbles in it, then some red ones and finally some green ones, you get them in layers.
but then if you shake the bag a while, the pebbles move about and the colours get evenly mixed
I don't think anyone would expect anything else

also

the core of what human being really is is rather supraphysical.

no it's not

 

[Terxpahseyton]

To what extent are you referring to entropy here? Perpetual order has never existed and never will. The very fabric of reality is built upon a tidal pattern of disorder, but it coalesces into ordered patterns regularly in order to progress to the next part of the cycle (or not). Order is as necessary to this process as disorder is.

You say that the "fabric" was "built upon a tidal pattern of disorder" and order. But you do not even attempt to somewhat define order or disorder. Let alone "cycle". Basically, you just throw categories of change at me and expect me to naturally attribute meaning to them. Well - I do! Which really is the basis of your calculation. But - I don't regarding the topic at hand!
So - what are you even saying? Is there an actual pattern hiding behind your superficial phony pretense of an insight I could not see because I am full of it? Well... I don't think so. But I am able to reason quit property when directly challenged to do so. So please go on.

See - of course there is pattern and order. Of course not all is just randomness. But the reason is a bunch of in themselves quit meaningless random axioms which also for the VAST VAST VAST majority produce exactly what they are - random noise. And it is a fair question why there even are such axioms which, while very rarely, will eventually produce patterns creating life (assuming we got any idea about life).
It just is not fair to go ahead and assume that you would know the nature of those axioms or that you have remotely analyzed their properties. Rather, it is fair to assume that you are a clueless arsehole as the rest of us. Because there is no innate sense to reality whatsoever.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Not really. Organisms require a something close to a thermal equilibrium, which means that free energy is the important parameter and entropy only matters in its contribution to free energy.

I don't understand your line of thinking at all. And I believe to know that you are not exactly unlikely to exceed my intellectual capabilities. Yet, sou seem very daft to me right now. Of course free energy is useless. Of course you need stable relations of energy exchange. Or call it equilibrium if you must (from my times with economics I came to resent this term).
What does this even - AT ALL - contribute to the discussion at hand? I am describing how a rock is not sentient and you are saying "Not really , you need x minerals for a rock to be rock and a dolphin won't at all be a rock".
Go figure.

 

[Synobun]

You say that the "fabric" was "built upon a tidal pattern of disorder" and order. But you do not even attempt to somewhat define order or disorder. Let alone "cycle". Basically, you just throw categories of change at me and expect me to naturally attribute meaning to them. Well - I do! Which really is the basis of your calculation. But - I don't regarding the topic at hand!
So - what are you even saying? Is there an actual pattern hiding behind your superficial phony pretense of an insight I could not see because I am full of it? Well... I don't think so. But I am able to reason quit property when directly challenged to do so. So please go on.

See - of course there is pattern and order. Of course not all is just randomness. But the reason is a bunch of in themselves quit meaningless random axioms which also for the VAST VAST VAST majority produce exactly what they are - random noise. And it is a fair question why there even are such axioms which, while very rarely, will eventually produce patterns creating life (assuming we got any idea about life).
It just is not fair to go ahead and assume that you would know the nature of those axioms or that you have remotely analyzed their properties. Rather, it is fair to assume that you are a clueless arsehole as the rest of us. Because there is no innate sense to reality whatsoever.

Dude. I could say the same about literally everything in your opening post. I guess your "superficial phony pretense of an insight" is incompatible with mine. Write your posts on your bedroom walls if you don't want to talk to people about what you say.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

You could. But that would not matter. As my conclusion of your post you quoted does not matter. Rather, the arguments leading to that conclusion matter, and, curiously, you did not mention mine, while I addressed yours.
I am kind of an ass right now, given. But I try to be strictly so referring to the content. I grant you to not like my style. But not to mesh up your lack of content with it.

 

[Perfection]

I am describing how a rock is not sentient

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@above

Sentient rocks because humans project purpose onto dead abstractions.





Okay I only just now read all posts (which is my bad) and it is clear to me that the nature of entropy is the central point here.



First I will clarify my understanding and why it is important:



As I understand entropy, it is, by extension, the forecast of how disorder will, given time, outmatch order, and how in conclusion order is merely a circumstantial affair. And that is the whole body of my argument. Design is circumstantial. Design is there (which still is a curious phenomena), but as entropy teaches, only circumstantially so. And that principle effects all meta-physical principles of life.



Any meta-physical philosophical endeavour not orbiting this orb of circumstantiality but rather orbiting an orb of sense is bound to be rather daft. Because the human mind is just another physical orb and as in the universal world, it is going to be extremely circumstantial. Predefined instances of “sense” or “point” may be useful, as all nonsense is, but not when your axiom is that it is about truth. Which happens to be the case for philosophy. Moreover, as nonesense is not tied to anything, it is very likely and able to hurt you more than it helps you, since its direction is, in essence, random. Being the nonsensical mesh of projections it is. At last, its directions is, probably in the end, not even random, but driven by fulfilment of wishes, which makes its trajectory even less likely to align with fulfilling the real-life entropy-plagued demands of your brain.



So why does entropy matters? Because it is a perfect fundamental description and a perfect flowery allegory at the same time for why you need to be true to yourself and what you are. Because everything else is design and that won't endure. Unless it is designed on what you are. But you won't manage that without exploring what you are because you a dumb animal just projecting your primitive senses of truth, but without an experience-feedback-loop as nature enteted unless you face the philosophical insufficiencies of your abstract senses of truth as ingrained in the entropy of the universe.

So basically, in contrast to animals, humans are too smart and are able to detect patterns and sense and purpose in all kinds of nonsense, so they need to constantly keep in mind how utterly fleeting and circumstantial any meaningful pattern is to properly categorize it. And entropy provides this understanding with the greatest precision we know beyond mathematical precision (but maths carry no meaning on their own): physics.



However, uppi seems to have some reservations in that regard. And I honestly, I can not fully fathom them right now.

 

[Perfection]

Okay Terx, I agree that you're getting at the most fundamental philosophical insight there is. You just misnamed it. You're not talking about entropy; you're talking about death.