Entropy and Order as opposing forces of Chaos

Entropy and Order as the opposing forces of Chaos
Chaos is as follows: anything that happens; occurrences of events involving all things through all time. I have commonly used chaos to describe entropy, which is understandable but untrue. Instead, I have realized that chaos can be seen as the sum of two forces: entropy and order. Entropy is the tendency for things to fall apart, the tendency for destruction. Order is the tendency for things to organize, the tendency for construction.

All systems, down to the singular system of the universe, have both entropy and order at work at all times. Even an organic body, with all its organized synchronization and creation, fails to escape entropy. All transformations of energy involve lost energy, usually released as heat. Since heat is released, we are able to measure it. I believe that it is possible that no matter how destructive events are, there is some organized or constructive nature (or product) to it, whether or not it is measureable (as entropy is with heat).

Agents of Chaos
We are all agents of chaos. We all cause change, cause events to occur, affecting the flow of events through time (present to future – not the past, because the past is unchangeable). Chaos is anything that happens, including all events, no matter the reason, cause, or effect. I guess in a way everything is an agent, as well a product of chaos. Chaos can be predictable and unpredictable. The predictability of events does not necessarily have to do with their inherent order or entropy. Constructive and destructive events can be equally predictable or unpredictable. I think many people associate predictability with order, and unpredictability with entropy. This is a common misconception to do with the idea of chaos (or at least my idea of chaos; I do not know if my version is correct).

chaos is change, which encompasses and ultimately unifies the dichotomy between creation (or order) and destruction (or entropy)

and an ‘Agent of Chaos’ is essentially an individual will capable of willing both order and entropy?

i like this

“chaos” is a term used to designate unpredictability. nothing more. as a corrolary, high levels of chaos usually entails high levels of disorder, because in practice states of disorder tend to be more unpredictable than complex organized states; however, there is no necessary relationship between chaos and disorder (entropy). chaos is a mathematical term; entropy is a metaphysical or thermodynamic term.

“entropy” is the tendency of all closed systems to tend toward greater disorder. in every interaction of matter/matter or matter/energy, order tends to be lost, because there is an energy cost involved in the interaction (heat loss, photon emission, etc). in this way, the order or complexity of a system decreases over time, because less and less energy is available to directly interact in meaningful ways.

of course, the closed system as a whole remains constant with regard to its total amount of energy; but the organization of said energy does tend to disorganize as time goes on. however, localized areas of the system can display decreases in entropy, for various reasons. but this can only occur in conjunction with an equivolent increase in entropy throughout other areas of the system.

order and disorder are opposing states of matter. entropy designates the tendency of systems to lose order over time, and gain disorder over time.

no agent of KAOS is safe from him…

-Imp

Entropy is an ordering principle. That’s ironic in a classical sense, but also in the degree to which it displays the human mind’s inability to grapple with disorder as such.

it can still seem a mystery why such amazing complexity can arise in limited locales given the fact of entropy… while any level of order is theoretically possible (but increasingly improbable as order increases), the fact is that the amount of complexity and order we experience on earth is almost incomprehensibly greater than that which we see out in the known universe. to this extent, it is tempting to look for further explanations to describe the lack of entropy experienced here on earth.

however, this search for further explanation would be in error. earth itself is an astoundingly small area of the universe itself; when compared in relative size, earth is perhaps so small as to seem literally or mathematically meaningless by comparison (as its approach along the limit of zero-dimensionality from the perspective of the universal whole is so close as to be in practice indistinguishable). mathematically, it may actually be zero, as counterintuitive as this is (if we assume the truth of certain claims regarding the infinite or unending nature of the universe, and also since we know that 0.9 barred, or 0.99999… to infinity, is mathematically equal to 1).

this entails that in fact, when we consider that the system which counts as reference to entropy is the universe itself, earth, being but a near-zero locale of the universe, can easily be understood to be virtually exempt from the disordering tendencies of entropy. while the statistical improbability for such a high degree of order as seen on earth may make said order seem impossible, when we realise the near-zero aspect of the size of earth relative to the totality, any improbability, regardless of its limitation or unlikeliness, fails to seem a persuasive argument against the creation of any amount of order at all.

given this, it may still seem unikely that “even if we grant the existence of earth-like exceptions to entropy”, what are the statistical odds that we would just happen to exist within this infintesimally small region of the universe; the combination of both unlikelihoods may seem a powerful case against earth after all.

of course, this is not the case. a living, experiencing entity capable of perceiving and understanding itsself and its surroundings, to a sufficient degree as to comprehend such concepts as entropy and order, could only exist at all within one of these limited locales of sufficiently-decreased entropy. in that sense, the fact of our existence necessitates our experience within one of these limited realities. therefore, the probabilities do not multiply, but occur in conjunction and without adding their unlikeliness.

the fact of our existence, as conscious beings in a world rich with order and meaning, is a statistical given. it must exist, given the immense scope of size, and length of time, of the universe. and since an entity such as ourselves will only come about in such a state of order, our existence in an earth-like locale is also a statistical given. no god, higher purpose or explanation is necessary. a complete analysis of the total energy level of the universe, as well as a reasonably accurate account of the real improbabilities of our high level of order, would be necessary to determine any exact calculations about specific probabilities; however, absent this information we may still assert with confidence that our existence is metaphysically given. we must exist. a lack of specific information as above mentioned does not alter this fact; however, it does make it impossible to determine just how probable it is that there are other locales with such reduced levels of entropy present in other areas of the universe.

since a complete and accurate analysis of the true probabilities of our evolution through nature, including all extra facts, risks, and lucky entailments, will likely never be possible, we cannot ever calculate just how likely it is that we are alone in the universe. but if i had to hazard a guess, i would say that there are probably out of necessity many locales of decreased entropy comparable to our own. this claim may be unjustified, but seems to gain relevance by simply contemplating the sheer magnitude and duration of the universe as a whole. surely, our high level of order as exists on earth cannot compensate for the entirety of disorder displayed throughout the whole universe. or maybe it can; likely we will never know.