Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Form VS chaos

  1. Feb 15, 2005 #1
    Ok so if we put alot of particles into a glass and give it a good shake, a form will come forth, whatever it is.
    But will that form have a greater purpose than just being a muddled blob of particles?

    Let me see if I can explain it.
    What's the difference between an ant, and a stone?
    The stone, in many ways, represents what I'm talking about with the glass. It doesn't have much of a greater purpose other than just existing as a blob of particles.

    Is that how the universe started out?

    More so, do particles contain information about their position and function in the greater form all in itself?
    A human being is pretty complex.
    For they to function like they do, do the particles in my arm have properties where if left alone in a room, it would only fit in my arm?
    As opposed to, if you could just throw the particle in any part of my body, and it would just fit right in with no spatial properties.
    It seems to me there needs to be order in the smallest levels for the higher levels to function.
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 15, 2005 #2
    Followup thoughts I just had:

    let me try to explain again.
    im trying to figure out the difference between chaos versus order.
    now im not talking chaos as in random numbers or chaos math, im talking chaos as in a cloud of particles with no meaning.

    but this is clearly not the case in our universe.
    so my question is; what is a human being to a particle?
    imagine if we have a glass box, about 1 meters in all axis, we throw some superglue and tons of marbles in there, then we shake the box really hard for like 20 minutes.
    what will we end up with?
    a box full of glue with lots of marbles entangled within.

    not very much like our world now is it?
    where is the error in this picture?
    with the marbles.
    they don't have a shcematic, or, they don't have properties which make them bind in a way so that they create a form with a function higher than the sum of their parts.

    sigh on the other hand ive now opened up another can of worms, namely the quantity of the marbles.
    and the timeline of the marbles.
    if we had 5 trillion marbles, and 3 trillion tons of glue, would complex patterns and forms emerge?
    or doesnt it matter?

    either way we seem to be missing something about the quantum world, it's not just particles that bind in complex ways, there is something else.
  4. Feb 15, 2005 #3
    That's a multi-billion dollar question! Forms, as I have pointed out in several of my postings on this PF, are mysterious creatures. There are so many problems with any attempt to underpin their exact Epistemological Status. First, there is the need to give the precise logical and mathematical accounts of them. For example, how many forms are there? Second, there is the metaphysical need to determine their catigories with regards Parts-Whole relations, Change, Continuity, space and time location, and the very notion of perfecting a given form. The most problematic question being 'Do forms exist in time or outside time? And most improtantly, do formless things exist? Or can anything exist without taking on any form? Perhaps, Aristotle's 'FORMLESS SOUL' is a possible candidate!

    Well, on this one, the question worthy of asking is this: If a grain of sand is removed from, or thrown out of, our preset universe, would this affect the overall configuration of it? For example, would the laws of physics of our unverse change? If the answer to this question is a big 'YES', then this would have far-reaching implications on your attmept to purposively distinguish a stone from an ant. Philocratically, this would be by measure meaningless.

    Well, reductionism which is currently raging on in many disciplines suggests that rearrangement of things (tightening nuts and screws) at the level of physics would automatically improve things structurally at the macroscale level. Whether this is true or not is currently being fiercely debated in many threads on this PF. So, the race for in-discipline and inter-disciplinary reductionisms is now on. You only have look around your own discipline to see what kinds of reductionism are there.

    Save our Planet.....Stay Green! May the 'Book of Nature' serve you well and bring you all that is Good!
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2005
  5. Feb 15, 2005 #4

    If the answer to your question is a 'No' (that is, somethings can be removed or thrown away without affecting the way our unverse works, then this suggests that, as a WHOLE system, the universe may contain REDUNDANT PARTS. In which case, you can gracefully classify things pruposively as you initially did.

    Consequently, this would trigger you to inevitably distinguish between:

    1) FUNCTION-CRTICAL PARTS of the universe (any part of the universe that if removed renders the whole universe functionless or grinds it to a halt.)

    2) NON-FUNCTION-CRTICAL PARTS of the uiverse (any part that if removed merely renders the whole universe functionally disadvantaged.

    3) REDUNDANT PARTS of the universe (any part that if removed does not affect the working of the universe at all. It continues to function normally.)

    NOTE: For those who think of improving things structurally, this distinction must in one way or another affect their judgements!
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2005
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook