The Explanation of Life

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I have recently published an Amazon Kindle ebook entitled “The Explanation of Life” (found here: http://www.amazon.com/The-Explanation-Life-Mysterio448-ebook/dp/B01D5HMONK?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0). As the title suggests, I propose an explanation for our existence. I propose that my explanation satisfies the “meaning of life” and “purpose of life” questions that are ubiquitous in philosophy. The explanation that I propose happens to center around a certain concept which I call “entasy.” To introduce this concept, I will provide an excerpt from the book:

This idea is the foundation of my book.  Regarding things such as predictability, structure, coherence, meaningfulness, usefulness and so on, I group these together into a phenomenon I call "order."  Regarding things such as unpredictability, randomness, confusion, meaninglessness, futility and so on, I group these together into a phenomenon I call "chaos."  Order and chaos are cosmic forces.  They are the opposite of each other, yet paradoxically they form a primal, inseparable union.  I call this union "entasy."  In a way, entasy is similar to phenomena such as spacetime, electromagnetism, mass-energy equivalence, and the wave-particle duality.  These four scientific phenomena are each composed of two things which are very different from each other, yet the two things are simultaneously the same thing, forming an inseparable union.  Such is the same with entasy.  

I describe the relationship between order and chaos as a tension, like a game of tug-of-war.  Regarding the dice-rolling analogy, the "pull" that causes the dice to want to produce random results is the pull of chaos, and the "pull" that causes the dice to want to produce an ordered sequence is the pull of order.

. . .

There are many examples in science of a strange kind of harmony between order and chaos.  We can see much of this in quantum mechanics.  Particles at the quantum level are subject to much chaotic and unpredictable motion, yet somehow all of this chaos translates to order and stability at the macroscopic scale of things.  Electrons move unpredictably around an atomic nucleus, yet statistically they produce probability clouds which have orderly, predictable shapes.

Radioactive decay is a completely random process.  There are no known mathematical formulas, laws or rules that can explain when a particular radioactive nucleus will decay, or explain why it decays when it decays.  However, despite this randomness, the half-life of a given sample of a radioactive isotope is predictable enough to be used as a dating method in archaeology.

 If you were to inflate a balloon, you would notice that the balloon forms an orderly, spherical shape.  Seeing this, you would assume that the air or helium inside the balloon is pushing equally on all parts of the balloon's interior in an organized manner.  But this is not the case.  Counterintuitively, the gas molecules on the inside of the balloon are actually zooming around chaotically, bouncing off of each other and hitting the inside of the balloon in various directions and at various speeds.  But there are so many molecules hitting the balloon that this chaos translates statistically into order on the macroscopic scale.

We can perhaps see evidence of entasy in the context of fluid dynamics. The laminar (smooth) flow of fluids, such as gases and liquids, is known to undergo turbulence under certain conditions. Turbulence is the swirling, chaotic motion of a fluid, which you might see in the smoke rising from the end of a cigarette. Yet interestingly, scientists and mathematicians are recently beginning to discover certain “coherent structures” hidden within this turbulent motion.

. . .

There are two important things to know about entasy.  One is that chaos has the potential to produce order.  This can be demonstrated by many examples.  For example, take snowflakes.  Snowflakes are beautiful, ornate, symmetrical designs that materialize out of random activity in clouds.  Another example is gemstones, which are orderly-shaped minerals that materialize from random geological processes.  The sphericity of stars, planets and moons is a product of the force of order emerging from the chaos of mindless astronomical activity, such as the coalescing of cosmic dust and rocks.  Another interesting example of this is in the phenomena of supernovas and black holes.  Both of these are extremely destructive and chaotic phenomena, yet strangely they also produce order.  The intense temperatures and energy of a supernova explosion is capable of causing enough nuclear fusion to produce elements heavier than iron – something that a star alone cannot do; and supernovas also give off stellar gases that can accumulate into nebulae, which can eventually give birth to new stars.  A black hole is also orderly in that it is said to be the ordering mechanism at the center of many galaxies, holding the galaxy's stars together with its gravitational pull; and a black hole also emits jets of particles which can lead to the production of new stars.  Probably the most fascinating example of order from chaos is evolution by natural selection.  Natural selection has created the diverse array of life forms that exist on Earth.  These life forms all possess a distinct sense of form and design and functionality, yet paradoxically all of this hinges upon the chaos of genetic accidents called "mutations."

This emergence of order from chaos is a result of something I call the "randomness paradox."  The idea is this: the nature of chaos is to be unpredictable, but it would be predictable for chaos to be [i]consistently[/i] doing chaotic things, so therefore chaos – in order to be chaos – must at some point do something non-chaotic, i.e. orderly.  One example of this that I mention in my book is the decimal number of pi.  Pi is an irrational number whose decimal is an infinite, random number sequence.  But interestingly, there are rare points in pi where the sequence briefly stops being random and transitions to a limited sequence of repeated numbers.  One of these points is known as the "Feynman point"; it is a sequence of six consecutive nines (999999) occurring at the 762nd decimal point of pi.  There are more sequences like this in the decimal of pi.  One might think that such sequences are merely "accidents," statistically inevitable instances of randomness stumbling upon structure.  But I think there is much more to it than that.  I think it is the result of entasy.

On the other hand, another important feature of entasy is that order has the potential to yield chaos – orderly things and orderly processes often have a tendency to fall apart.  This is a phenomenon I refer to as "Murphy's law."  Murphy's law is essentially the opposite of the randomness paradox.  While the randomness paradox is often difficult to detect in practical, everyday life, Murphy's law is often readily observable.  One obvious example is the fact that mistakes happen.  Mistakes are a phenomenon that we just take for granted, but I believe they actually have cosmic implications.  When we make mistakes or when plans don't turn out the way they are supposed to, this is an example of chaos emerging from order.

Murphy’s law also manifests in our own bodies. We all know that mankind is subject to various forms of infirmity. The bodies of living things are subject to diseases, disorders, deformities, and defects. When we see people with things like multiple sclerosis, panic disorders, stuttering, blindness, retardation and so forth, we just accept these things as simply endemic parts of the human condition. But a question we often neglect to ask is: why? Why do our bodies tend to falter? I argue that this aspect of our existence can be explained by primal cosmic forces. The anatomy and physiology of our bodies is a manifestation of the force of order, and that order is inseparably linked to the force of chaos which disrupts that order.

The universe is full of orderly things, but all of these orderly things are flawed somehow.  However, this does not mean that there is something wrong with the universe itself.  This ubiquitous flawedness is simply the signature of the principle of entasy that lies as the heart of reality.

. . .

I had an incident happen to me recently that I think is very illustrative of the entasy concept.  When I go out, I usually carry a pen in my pocket in order to jot down notes or ideas as they come to me.  But one time I happened to misplace one of my pens.  I looked around for it for a while but eventually just gave up and started using one of my backup pens.  Subsequently, one day I got into my car to go to work and the backup pen that I had in my pocket accidentally fell out and became lodged deep in the tight space adjacent to the car seat.  I readjusted the car seat in order to open up the space and reclaim my pen, however in doing so I happened to find not just my backup pen but the other pen I had originally misplaced.

Now this story may seem rather mundane and trivial to you, but I actually believe it is indicative of cosmic forces.  Here is a meaningless, random accident which, paradoxically, proves meaningful and useful.  I view this incident as a further example of the randomness paradox – of order emerging from chaos.  Incidents such as these fall under the category of a phenomenon known as "serendipity."  Another similar phenomenon is called "synchronicity."  While a serendipity is defined as a "useful accident," a synchronicity is defined as a "meaningful accident/coincidence."  The phenomenon of entasy can cause life experience itself to appear to speak to us and give us relevant and useful messages from time to time.  I have encountered numerous instances of synchronicity in my own life.  Both of these phenomena -- serendipity and synchronicity -- are important parts of the entasy concept, and I discuss both of them in detail in my book.

. . .

This is a brief overview of the contents of my book and the concept of entasy.  My book goes into much more detail.  In the book, I argue that this entasy concept is the key to understanding why we exist, as well as why anything exists and why things exist in the way they exist.  People often contemplate the reason for the universe's existence apart from the mundane details of reality which we observe everyday; however, I argue that the little details of this universe in which we live are actually crucial to understanding the [i]raison d'etre[/i] of the universe.  What are your thoughts about this idea?  Any questions, comments, criticisms?  Do you think that this concept explains our existence?
2

To what extent is order vs. chaos determined simply by our propensity and ability to discern patterns, rather than any objective state of the universe? The example of the pens seems to be an example of the former; do you see it as the universe speaking to us, or is it an instrumental thought process to encourage us to listen to ourselves?

3

Our propensity and ability to discern patterns is contingent upon an existence of patterns in the first place. I happen to believe that the existence of patterns is the product of the cosmic force of order. Whether we are able to discern patterns is influenced by the locations in which those patterns are found. Some patterns are easier to detect than others; for example, the coherent structures in turbulence are a subtle form of order that has only been discovered recently.

To answer your question, I would say both. Meaning is not really an objective thing; it exists only in the mind. I think that the universe does not really convey literal messages to us, but rather it can sometimes show us certain specific things which can stimulate our minds to form useful ideas or conclusions. It is a sort of meaning without meaning.

4

We can’t and neither is there anything else deciding the fate of the dice. Mostly chance occurs off the cuff – so to say, nature doesn’t begin with random or other mathematical pattern, and chance often works differently once the first throw has occurred.

The rule is – there are no rules [patterns].

5

Subatomic particles formed of pure chaos are anentropic for at least billions of years. They maintain the same roughly spherical shape. That consistency in shape through time is what we “discern as patterns”. And that is what “order” means. So it isn’t merely a case of observer bias.

I call it “anentropy”, the balance between entropy and anti-entropy. A subatomic particle is the best example of that union, made of pure random affectance yielding a stable, “anentropic” form with the emergent property of inertia/“mass”. Can I ask how you came up with “entasy”? The word seems odd and arbitrary.

“Forces” … as in responsible for causing change? Order, chaos, and randomness are states of a situation. In what way do you believe that a state of order in itself forces action/change? Same with the state of randomness. How is it that bits laying about in a random pattern “forces” anything to happen?

6

I derive the word “entasy” from the Greek word “entasi,” which means things like “tension,” “intensity,” “tautness,” “strain,” etc. The word indicates how there is a certain tension and a mysterious interaction between order and chaos.

In my book, I do not use the terms “order” and “chaos” in the conventional sense of those words. I define them as more than just the states in which things appear in a certain configuration, but the primal forces which induce those states. Things that are orderly are such because the force of order makes them that way; and random things are such because chaos makes them that way. I explain the concept in more detail in Chapter 2 of my book, which appears in the free sample on my book’s Amazon page.

7

That would certainly be one of the ancient ways of viewing things; “The force of Black fighting the force of White creating color”. But I have a problem with ontologies that conflate states of being with forces, such as fate being a force that brings destiny. It becomes very misleading. And thinking that if I had 3 blocks neatly stacked beside another of the same, there would be peace but if I scattered one of the stacks, there would be tension between them, “entasy”. It sounds a bit too poetic for the scientist in me.

8

I applaud your scientific mindset. But one must keep in mind that science is limited. Science can only answer our “how” questions; it cannot answer our “why” questions. Why do certain things behave chaotically? Why do certain things coalesce into orderly patterns or functional processes? You yourself acknowledge that random subatomic motion can yield a stable sense of form. Science may be able to determine how this happens, but why does this happen? We know that random, accidental mutations can yield meaningful, functional changes in species phenotypes over time; science knows how it works, but why does it work? Why does this happen? There is no answer to these questions to be found in the realm of science. Therefore, we must look beyond science for the answers.

9

I can answer all of those “why” questions, even when science cannot. But I do not invent “forces” in order to do it, paving the floor with “superstition” (the process of superimposing an invented entity to stitch a gap in understanding). To me, there is no such thing as a “force” except as an emergent appearance (ie. “it acts as if it is forced”). The forces expressed in contemporary science are merely high-tech superstitious entities, a more modern and technically detailed version of gods and spirits being responsible for everything (and no wonder, proposed by the same people). Forces make for limited ontologies. Why would they exist? …so as to lead to yet another superstition. In a metaphoric sense, a force is merely a Godwannabe attempting to create all understanding (aka “all reality”).

Neither the universe, nor an extremely detailed understanding of it, has need for forces.

10

OK. Let’s hear it.

OK, so you don’t think existence can be explained by forces. What would you suggest in their place?

11

Research of the past six months has finally led me to the following conclusion:
Reason as one being absent is reason as possession not possessing reason.

I completely understand what you speak of, about the truth concerning structure and reason; the problem is that structure requires reason as division, but if one separates reason from division they have no structure, thus no presence.

12

Oh sorry, I missed that post.

My creation of understanding of the universe (and all reality) is Rational Metaphysics: Affectance Ontology, “RM:AO”. And you could probably get the best quick overview of it from a few short videos of just a couple of days ago in this philosophy thread. Essentially, all physicality is caused by and made of the impossibility (mathematically provable) of ever having perfectly homogeneous Affectance (subtle propagating affects known in modern physics as “random minuscule electromagnetic radiation”). Such randomized affectance forms all known fields in physics as well as sub-atomic particles with all of the properties known to modern day physicists, except without any use of any kind of “force” (gravitational, electric, magnetic, “strong”, “weak”, or whathaveyou). Those videos in that thread explain most of the fundamentals. Feel free to question them.

13

Back to the basics for the OP.

The reason that dice don’t make patterns of 2,3,4,5,6 over and over isn’t due to mythical concepts of order and chaos keeping themselves in check.

The reason is very scientific. It is because it takes increasing amounts of energy to create the dice pattern of 2,3,4,5,6.
Naturally, the dice wants to roll in irregular patterns. So in order to keep it from rolling in irregular patterns, energy must be added to the dice.

Let me put it another way…the natural tendency of a dice is not to be mathematically evenly random.
The natural tendency of the dice is to roll a number of that which it is not.
It takes extra energy (or on the opposite end, no energy at all, no roll at all, stationary dice, not giving the dice a fair shake) for a dice to roll the same number.
These energy spurts naturally occur, and so supposed “even” spreads are observed, but there is an inherent tendency for dice to not repeat themselves or order themselves.
There is also an inherent tendency for dice (but not quarters) to excessively repeat themselves due to human muscle ordering of the throw.
Due to both of these tendencies, you are almost never guaranteed to get 2,3,4,5,6 patterns over and over again.

Basically, the crap Satyr says about words applies here.
Basically, this guys idea of “chaos” and “order” are basically words in his head, with little connection to any reality.

14

Interesting thread… I’ll have to give it a read first before I can make any valued comments.

15

[quote]
Interesting thread… I’ll have to give it a read first before I can make any valued comments. [/img]

That would be a first.

16

Please keep within forum rules, Turd.

17

I’m not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify?

I don’t recall seeing any videos on that page. Where are they? Is this idea an established idea in the scientific community or did you come up with it yourself? This “random minuscule electromagnetic radiation” sounds a bit like the zero-point energy field.

What makes the dice “want” to roll in irregular patterns?

What is the scientific basis of this statement? It is my understanding that a rolling of the dice (or any other random process, for that matter) does not favor any one outcome over any other. Which means that if the dice has landed on, say, five, the next throw does not favor a not-five throw any more than another five-throw.

What is the scientific basis for this idea that “these energy spurts naturally occur”?

Would it be any different if a machine threw the dice?

18

I would call these coincidence or deja vu, and sometimes a bit of both. I’m not denying that they occur, but the reasons they occur are scientific, since you would have had to drop the pens in roughly the same manner twice, with the same scientific forces applying (eg. gravity) in order to find both pens in approximately the same place.

19

A probably-better example of synchronicity has happened to me more recently. Lately, for nutritional reasons, I have been trying to include oysters in my diet. However, being new to oysters, I was unsure as to whether store-bought oysters were safe to eat right out off the can or if I needed to cook them first. Soon after this concern began, I was watching a TV show in which a woman opens up a store-bought can of oysters and eats them right out of the can. (This kind of scene is uncommon; I don’t recall ever seeing anything similar to this in a TV show before.) This scene from the TV show resolved my concern perfectly. In this situation, neither gravity nor any other scientific force played any role.

20

It’s just how it is. When the dice is off kilter, it will likely take a different path than before.