A whacky theory - comments please

[Adam]

EQUIOTICS

C / U --> O + E + U --> e + t + U --> C + U

Chaos <--> Uncertainty

PRIMARY REACTION
Chaos / Uncertainty --> Order + Entropy + Uncertainty

SECONDARY REACTIONS
I. Order + Uncertainty --> Expressions of Energy + Uncertainty

II.Entropy + Uncertainty --> Expressions of Entropy + Uncertainty


TERTIARY REACTION
Expressions of Energy + Expressions of Entropy + Uncertainty --> Chaos + Uncertainty


The Axioms of Equiotics
I. Uncertainty Permeates
II. Order is the basis of Existence
III. Existence is subjugated to Entropy

The Precepts
I. Existence remains consistent within it’s self
II. Components of Existence influence one another in an observable manner.
III. The universe can be perceived at multiple levels

Copyrighted material.
The author reserves all rights.
--------------------------------------------------

This model gives a general accounting of all that exist. It's the reason I am a "scientist" who cannot discount religion. It doesn't conflict with science, religion, metaphysics, societal behavior, individuality, or voodoo magic.
At least as far as I've been able to ascertain--so far.

The term "Equiotics" is derived from the latin for "equal" and the greek for "chaos". It describes the overwhelming tendency toward entropy, or chaos. This tendency can be seen in particle physics and everyday life. It can also be seen in the geometrical increase in incidence of breakdown that occurs as complexity of any system increases.

Life, like existence, begins in a "localized spasm of order". That order immediately begins to degrade, and the life-form (or universe) begins consuming energy (increasing entropy) at a rate greater than it can countinue producing order (decreasing entropy). Life eventually dies, and the universe will eventually re-enter a state of complete chaos.

Opinions? Questions? Rigorous attacks?


A chap posted this theory (though I hesitate to use the word) on a website. Anyone want to make reasoned comments?

[Zero]

That's just...whacky!!

[FZ+]

Er... it doesn't actually say much, doesn't it?

And presuming we are talking the scientific versions of the words he used, there are some serious errors.

"Chaos <--> Uncertainty"

This cannot be an initial step, because chaos is only a description of behaviour of certain entities/phenomena. The quantum fluctuations and broken symmetry that are generally thought to have caused the initial particulars are not considered as examples of chaotic motion.

"II.Entropy + Uncertainty --> Expressions of Entropy + Uncertainty"

I also don't think he can really characterise entropy, energy etc in this way, as things that must "express" themselves, especially as the second law of thermodynamics is a statistical law.

"at a rate greater than it can countinue producing order (decreasing entropy)."

Life doesn't break the second law at all. Life, like many other reactions, decrease entropy in one location at the expense of increasing entropy at the other, at very bad efficencies.

Other than this, his theory looks like just a mixture of the second law and common sense.

Universe started at low entropy.
Entropy is increasing.
Life is a temporary part of the universe.


Well.... duh?

[Adam]

I just asked the guy if his use of "+" indicates "plus" or "Boolean or". His answer: "I simply mean 'a reaction occrus'."

[FZ+]

In that case, he is certainly misguided. Things like uncertainty, chaos et al are concepts, or descriptions of phenomena, and do not 'react' to anything.

[geckopelli]

and it's being misrepresented here by this Adam dork.

It's a philosophical module, not a mathematical nor hard science module. I'm a writer.

What pisses him off is the definition of "what is real?"

"Componets of reality influence one another in an observable manner."

I don't care if the idiot desseminates this particular intellectual property far and wide; by I do demand that geckopelli be given due credit.

[Ivan Seeking]

Hi geckopelli,
Welcome to PF. I am moving this to the Philosophy Forum in case you wish to clarify or debate your ideas.

Thanks,
Ivan

[jammieg]

I don't understand it, it seems really vague and too broad in scope, but what it says to me is you like to spend lots of time comming up with your own theories and that's far more important than being right or wrong, although the goal is to be more right than wrong eventually.

[Adam]

Originally posted by geckopelli
and it's being misrepresented here by this Adam dork.

No ad hominems please. Stick to the topic.

[geckopelli]

Then ask a question, and I'll answer it.

Just don't misrepresent me.

[wuliheron]

A chap posted this theory (though I hesitate to use the word) on a website. Anyone want to make reasoned comments?

Scientifically speaking, words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context. Because there is no clear context or function, this supposid theory resembles nothing more than mystical mumbo jumbo.

[geckopelli]

It's very unscientific to have overlooked this statement:

"It's a philosophical module, not a mathematical nor hard science module. I'm a writer."

in an earlier post.

All things must be held within thier context.

Generally, time proceeds in a single direction. Passage through time increases entropy. That passage more-or-less constitutes our Reality. General statements can be made by observing that Reality. And that is the purpose here- to be a general as possible, all the time being aware of the statistical nature of the Universe, and the precieved laws of physics.