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

The Basis of Order

  1. May 10, 2003 #1
    If my esteemed board-mates would be so kind as to pick this apart from very possible angle paying particular attention to logical consistency and physics aspects I would be much obliged.

    Thanks in advance,
    Sigma the Grey

    The Observer

    Order brings life. Chaos leads to death. This is not belief, this is fact.

    The Master is not one with reality. He is independent of reality - he is an Observer.

    Observation by an independent entity is synonymous with creation.

    Chaos is throughout the Multiverse. Chaos is the natural state of the Multiverse. Chaos over an endless amount of time resulted in Order.

    Hence, chaos eventually yields to Order and Order gives dichotic definition to chaos. For without Order, chaos cannot be observed and is therefore inexistent.

    Order was first observed by the first Sentient creature in the Multiverse, making both the Observer and Order distinctly real. Thus Sentience is defined by the ability of a consciousness to observe Order, independent of an outside source’s criterion.
    Order and chaos, the Multiverse, and Sentient beings all exist - irrespective of whether or not a God does. The concept of god/s is irrelevant to the study of Order and chaos.

    In the first act of Observation, Order was brought to the formless void of swirling chaos that was reality until that point. Observation brings meaning to chaos.

    Whatever and whomever was the first Sentient being created the Multiverse – despite the fact that such a being was necessarily born of chaos. Without the Observer the Multiverse was meaningless and void. Space/Time/Probability has no meaning without an Observer present to determine if energy exists at a certain point. Thus the fundamentally dualistic nature of physical reality is made clear: the Multiverse is composed of energy and information. Information necessitates an Observer.

    Energy comprises both the Observer’s body and physical reality. Yet energy is only a derivative.

    Clearly the Multiverse is not merely physical reality. In the higher realms of reality the thing which defines the physical – energy – ceases to be and only information exists, information clumped into data. These separate (yet related and interacting) pieces of data are called concepts. Worlds within worlds of the concepts exist in the higher realms of reality. And even here the Master must bring Order. As with reality this is done through the act of Observation.

    The datum which says whether or not energy exists at a point is said to be a Qualium. A Qualium is the fundamental atom of meaning. The Observer decides in what mater Qualia comprises Order. The Master manipulates the Qualia to increase Order. He does this first by Qualia integration, also known as conceptualization; and secondly by taking actions in the physical reality to increase Order. Hence a Qualia is a single unit of perception.

    Meaning is the Basis of Order. Meaninglessness and nothingness, both being hollow concepts in themselves, are the origins of chaos. There is no such thing, by definition, as nothingness; anything called nothingness is nothing more than pure potential. So dictates Observation. Once an Observer is present nothingness ceases to be possible; for the conceptualizations of the Observer bring meaning to the universe.

    Chaos is destruction. Chaos in only necessary insofar as its presence contrasts with and in doing so defines Order.

    Even though Order and chaos (being eternal concepts) are static principles in themselves, nothing in the physical Multiverse is static – not so long as the clock ticks. Thus all material things are dynamic, irrespective of whether or not they are in Order or chaos.

    The Multiverse always was, but was not relevant until there was life. The great paradox is that the Multiverse’s original form being one of chaos, beginning without form and lacking an Observer, could have been said not to exist – yet was there. Look beyond the words.

    The eternal cause of Order is life. The meaning of life is dependent upon the Observer.

    The Observer is the root of all real things. The Master's life is a work of art, meant to absorb beauty and create beauty.

    The act of Observation is dualistic - involving feeling and thought.

    Thought is lame without emotion. Emotion is blind without thought.

    Thought is necessary to continue life and to create Order. Feeling is necessary to give that continuation meaning.

    An Observer’s perspective defines the Observer’s truth.

    Objective truth is the truth that exists in all possible perspectives – and subjective physical reality is a thing derived from it. It is the plight of the Master to see the world subjectively and have to learn about her surrounding reality by induction. This is the case both because the Master is not omniscient and because the forces of chaos lead reality to be in a state of constant flux. The Qualia being both subject to Observation and in a constant state of change are not objective things in themselves.

    Integration of Qualia to concepts and concepts to yet greater concepts on higher realms of reality may lead to Objective truths – principles. This is the essence of philosophy.

    Those who serve chaos jump perspectives without learning from them. Those who serve Order master each perspective before moving onto the next one. The act of mastering a perspective is the act of concept integration.

    Just as serving chaos will lead to death in the long run; in the short run it will lead to the loss of ones mind.

    Mastering a perspective is an act of beauty and fulfillment; if perspectives are jumped too quickly the lack of emotional/intellectual equilibrium eventually leads to loss of Self.

    One’s Self is one’s totality: The Observer’s feelings, mind, Soul and physical container. An Observer is not merely a body. One’s Ego is the Self’s defense against chaos.

    The Ego should be cultivated by Order, in Order to protect the Self. The Observer’s most important Observation is herself. The Observer should ask herself what and who it is, what it seeks in existence, where it will go to find that thing, and why it is in its present local. By asking herself these questions the Observers gradually becomes the Master by bringing the Order of her Soul to her inner chaos also called suffering. The Soul is the core of one’s inner Self and the home of Order. The Soul contains emotional memory.

    Defense is the martial law of Order; attack of chaos. One should never attack unless the action serves the higher Order – generally when one has been attacked first and is in jeopardy.

    An Observer should endeavor always to protect two things in this Order: 1. The Observer’s values; 2. The Observer’s Self. Naturally, both encapsulate each other. Such is the essence of life.

    The way of Order among Observers is to seek to better oneself while at the same time bettering the Society as a whole. If one is in a state of inner Equilibrium this synthesis is one’s natural course of action, and would appear obvious and inevitable to the Master.

    A healthy Observer should be involved in a constant struggle to learn better the nature of the Multiverse. Ignorance is a weapon of chaos. All things of chaos lead to death.

    The Master understands the balance of the Multiverse. The presence of chaos yields time. So long as the clock ticks chaos continues to eat away at life. Contemplation of this mystery yields the great truth which cannot be placed into words directly. The ancient ones basked in this truth.

    As the Observer observes she creates the Multiverse around herself. As the Master comes to understand that which is around her (truly by understanding her own nature) she comes to Master the environment around her and to dispel chaos from out her midst.

    Thus the Master always pushes chaos further away from herself. This can be seen within the very body itself; on all levels of which chaos in the form of harmful waste is removed as prescribed by the very coding of life it’s-Self.

    Yet life by its nature also creates chaos as we can clearly see. Life must learn to deal with this chaos and turn it back to Order. This is the act of Mammon.
    Sentient life must be a self-organizing never-ending Mammon Machine. The Mammon Machine serves the purposes of life and Order thus giving increasingly more time to the individual Observer to feel.

    Due to the nature of Order the Mammon Machine of life always becomes more efficient. However, the Master’s must never forget that efficiency in itself is not the goal; greater ability to feel and experience the world for the individual Observer is the goal of the Mammon Machine. This is the essence of Society.

    Hence the Mammon Machine must be balanced. The machine must turn chaos to Order while allowing the Observer to think and feel. The Master understands this. This is the essence of Government.

    The physical is only a shadow world that is cast by chaos. Light is reflected into our eyes showing us the world. Sounds are bounced into our audio sensors, allowing us to hear the world. Tactile contact is pushed to the mind through re-uptake of nerves allowing us to touch the physical. Our olfactory senses warn us of dangers around us. Yet none of this is reality.

    Reality, like an Observer, exists on many planes, not merely the physical. In the intellectual plane the mind differentiates Order from chaos. On the physical plane the body seeks to implement the knowledge contained by the mind and produce greater Order. In the realm of feelings the Self finds its comfort and reason for existence. In the Soul these things are integrated and stored, it is in the world of the Soul that all things are integrated.

    Reason is the language of Order. Reasonable communication must be facilitated through protocols. Anything less will yield chaos.
  2. jcsd
  3. May 10, 2003 #2
    In the last post I attached a file for viewing concerning my theory on time but I can't figure out how to link to it so for the time being I'll leave it out and later if I get enough requests I'll post it elsewhere.

    For the time being here is a small extension to the idea being put forth above. As with the one that came before pelase make me aware of any shortsidedness that you observe here.

    Sigma the Grey.

    Qualia, Mathematics, and Philosophy

    When a Qualium is seen by the Observer one piece of meaning is created.

    This is called the Quantification of Meaning. In utilizing it, the Master may create a personal Arithmetic, Algebra, and Calculus of meaning.

    Yet this presupposes that an Observer sees individual Qualium and has the time to bring these separate Qualia into an Ordered pattern within her mind. This is hardly, if ever, the case. And even if this were this case, Qualium are still subjective.

    Yet the integration of Qualium into Objects and Concepts eventually reaches into the world of the Objective.

    In the act of conceptualization (Meaning Calculus) the Master determines her priority assessment of things.

    Since time is a dimension it follows that it flows in both directions, like other dimensions. Hence chaos is at one end of time and Order Unity of all Qualium at the other end.

    (attached picture goes here)

    This property of time implies that the past is as subject to the present as the future, proportionately. Or, alternately that different events are related to different values going across the probability axis, depending on how you choose to see it. The meaning is the same. History is as unknowable as future, if time truly is a dimension.
  4. May 11, 2003 #3
    Dead Formalism

    Order brings life? ... Wrong!

    Chaos is the beginning. Formality spells death. Once we set up the status quo, "nothing new" (as in life) is tolerated. All we have left is "dead formalism" ... as our buildings begin to crumble.

    So where is the spark of life? Could there be some "supereminent principle" (law of nature) existing within the storm, which strikes the earth with lightning flashes, igniting everything in a blaze of chaos, everything which is dead, formal and decrepit ... by which the whole cycle of life begins anew?
  5. May 11, 2003 #4
    I'm affraid the first posting in this thread contains false axioms, especially to define an observer as being out of reality.
    There are no known observers that are not part of the same reality which is observed. In particular the human observer is part of reality. And all acts to observe reality, are physical acts.
  6. May 11, 2003 #5
    To Iacchus32,

    I thought of that...not according to MY definition of Order. According to the traditional one, yes perhaps.

    To heusdens,

    I'm defining the Observer as being partly the Soul within or underlying Sentience. By doing this I can get away with saying that the Observer is independent of reality, becuase at least on the 'spiritual realm' she is.
  7. May 11, 2003 #6
    There is no soul. It is just an "invention" of humans, but in reality it does not exist. For that part of your philosophy, I hold it, it does not fit reality.
  8. May 11, 2003 #7


    User Avatar

    Define life.
    By the thermodynamic definition of order and chaos, this is generally correct...
    My classic quibble with "not of this reality". How can you justify using logic, which is of this reality, to identify what you place outside?
    Creation, but not of the object itself - rather of a virtual image of the object. To say that perception = creation violates cause and effect.
    Nein! Nein! Chaos is the natural state. Yes. But order is the initial state of the universe, and will end up in chaos.
    No.... order eventually results in chaos. And not being observed does not neccessitate non-existence.
    Logical problem: How can order give existence to sentience, if without sentience order cannot exist? Solution: Sentience transcends time, which is absurd.
  9. May 11, 2003 #8
    One might have to take this over to the God & Religion forum in order to debate on it, but over there I would most likely agree.
  10. May 11, 2003 #9
    Time and space comes together in the here and now! ... And believe it or not that is transcendent!

    "I close my eyes, only for a moment and the moment's gone ..." And yet the moment "always is," and that's what trandscends time -- i.e., through "the observer." This is what the focus of meditation is supposed to entail, tuning into the "stillness of moment," and using that as a springboard for one's "inner-experience."
  11. May 11, 2003 #10


    User Avatar

    Actually... I don't think so.

    Rather, it is the nature of awareness that creates time - not the reverse. The universe doesn't move around us, but we move linearly through time.
  12. May 11, 2003 #11
    And yet the moment is. Which is existence itself. Only "the observer," which is cognizant, can recognize this.

    You see this is what makes us unique.
  13. May 11, 2003 #12


    User Avatar

    The moment is... what?

    And really... that's what makes us unique? Where did that come from?

  14. May 11, 2003 #13
    I'm answering all of the questiosn revolving around Thermodynamics (which I believe are very on track) and order with the following:

    I stated that in order for time to be a true dimension like the others it must flow both ways. Re-read, reconsider, and then tell me again if what I've put forth is still problematic. I think it is, but I'm having trouble verbalizing how, maybe you can though...
  15. May 11, 2003 #14
    Cognizance gives us the ability to know we exist. Cognizance gives us the ability to know the truth. Cognizance belies the fact that we're awake and alive. Yet cognizance cannot be "realized" except within the moment. We can only become aware in the moment. We can only acknowledge truth in the moment. We can only know we exist in the moment. Therefore the process of knowing (and acknowlegment) "coincides" with the moment. Whereas each moment becomes a new awakening, and a new awareness to the fact that we exist (through cognizance, consciousness, awareness, etc.).

    If you're still confused, just become aware of the fact that you exist "within" the moment, and realize you couln't do so out side of it.
  16. May 11, 2003 #15


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !

    Welcome to PF Sigma Greyhamn !
    I'm terribly sorry but my life is too short
    to adress your message in that manner. :wink:
    Also, I do not see the point of doing that.
    Your problems begin at the very beginning
    and are fundumental, there is no need to go
    much forward. First, you claim things without
    presenting an argument that supports them.
    Second, you claim things with no place left
    for doubt. If you can fix these two fundumental
    aspects then I personally may see a point of
    going further with your ideas.

    Peace and long life.
  17. May 11, 2003 #16


    This is meant to be philosophical underpinning - a metaphysics, not really philosophy or arguementation. CERTAINLY NOT SCIENCE!!!

    I want to know if this system of thought is self-consistant.

    If you can show me that it isn't or that it blantantly conflicts with things that are 'known' about the universe then I will listen, take you seriously, and if I (or enough people on the baords) agree I will atempt to fix the problem.

    But just telling me that it's all flawed to begin with because of the style in which it's written and because it assumes itself correct means nothing to me since that is exactly what I am going for: metaphysics.

    What I'm trying to do with this is make a system of belief, if you will, that integrates most of the religouns of the worlds common beliefs with what science now assumes about the universe. Think about that some and tell me it isn't a good idea.

    Besides that you would do well to note that Aristotle (who had much to do with the birth of scientific thought) and a number of other philosophers (I'll give you a list if you insist) began their philosophies with a metaphysics that was just to be assumed and (if I might be so bold) many of those ideas I tried to unify here.

    There are certainly beliefs that EVERYONE holds which are just plain unprovable assumptions from Steven Hawking to the Pope. In this way science is no different from religoun or any other philosophy. * This piece is my try at bringing all of these assumptions together as well as possible into a funtioning system of thought.

    Ok, are we clear now?

    * It's even argueable that empiricism is no more credidble than mysticism as an epistomology though I won't argue it unless you push me on the issue becuase I actually don't think that this is the case myself. Obviously the fact that I took this work first here shows I have a strong faith in science. ;)
  18. May 12, 2003 #17


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !
    No, thank you. I was slightly afraid that as a
    new member you might take my message as offensive.
    I see. Well, for one thing, since there is little
    argument construction involved as I see it,
    you require a relativly large amount of
    enitial assumptions. Even the belief in God
    is still an attempt to simplify things whereas
    you seem to do the opposite, which is just
    a bit uncomfortable when you want to use it
    and fully understand it (not to mention what
    you don't want to do here - question it).
    If you define good in terms of usefullness and
    if you define usefullness on a scale that descends
    from one's perspective unto others then I think
    it is usefull indeed if it will be a bridge
    between science and God that will mostly be
    crossed by those on the God side (according to
    my perspective), however, the value of usefullness
    is defined by the amount of people who make use of
    your system - and that's the hard part. :wink:

    One of the great things about the concept of
    God is that it's so simple and "user-friendly".
    It's a "human" and humane "face" to the otherwise
    faceless and perhaps scaryy for some mystery of
    existence. To throw it away is not that easy
    for people who believe in it, aspecialy if all
    you leave them with is a complicated
    multi-assumptional system the likes of which
    they only currently accept because it is
    connected to the notion of God (religion).
    Don't compare horses to race cars...:wink:
    Science is TOTALLY different from any belief
    because it is not, it is NOT a phil. perspective
    at all - it is just observation. Sometimes,
    people confuse science for philosophical
    perspective, it isn't one.
    It is the case however that there is the
    correct(or most likely) phil. perspective and
    that uses the info that science provides.

    Live long and prosper.
  19. May 12, 2003 #18
    You are correct that science is not a phil. POV. However, science does rely on empiricism as an assumption basis and it IS a phil. POV.

    Just the fact sir, just the facts.

    Um, I do not equate religoun with god as quickly and seemlessly as you seem to. Many religouns have no concept of God (Taoism, Buddhist, Zen) and some of said religouns have millions of adherints in the east.

    Furtheremore the vast majority of religouns over the centuries have been polytheistic.

    Besides that many MANY religouns over the years HAVE NOT had the idea of an anthropomorphic God that is currently so popular amoung Christianity, Islam, and certain forms of Judaism. (And Judaism's God ISN'T actually very anthropomorthic if you really get into it - at least not from the Kabbalistic POV)

    Having said that: Your completely right; I've elimninated God from out of the picture. Yet unlike everyone who has done that before me I haven't said: Not God. I've said: Forget God for a second - I don't think that is as problematic.

    In order for this to work I absolutely have to throw out the idea of God. I can't allign mysticism with scientific thought in any other way and still get the atheists and all the like to take it seriously. And I would rather (for the time) loose some of the stronger beleivers in the religous boat in order to do this. They are always easier to convince later on through sheer social pressure and upbringing anyways.

    As for the interface aspect of God. I find it extrmely immature to assume that God would real give a damn about any particular human and, in fact, possibly even the entire race in general. No doubt our blatant immorality turn her/him off to us years ago as a failed experiment.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 12, 2003
  20. May 13, 2003 #19
    From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50&perpage=15&pagenumber=9" ...
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
  21. May 13, 2003 #20


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings Sigma Greyhamn !
    But there is no need for such a view. If
    originally you make no assumptions and you have
    some input data which appears to follow
    certain patterns then you just follow it,
    no assumptions are neccessary. You can measure
    it in terms of usefullness for example at this
    point or in terms of your curiosity. But, you
    make no assumptions you just see possibilities
    to find more patterns and understand the vague
    ones you observe more clearly and do it if you wish.

    The scientific method is the seeking of
    connections in the world - not explanations.
    It does not assume there MUST be connections.
    Science is the obsevation of the world. But,
    it does not assume that the world CAN be
    observed or explained through observation.

    Unfortunetly, many people confuse the above
    definitions and DO add assumptions to them.
    O.K. you're right. However, in that case you'll
    also need some advantages over such religions.
    I have no idea, I don't think it exists. :wink:

    What I did mean and you should recognize is
    that God DOES serve a role in religions where
    it exists in terms of treating people in certain
    ways (ussualy positive - if its "demands" are
    settled at least) and it does affect people's
    lives according to these religions. This
    creates a certain "comfort" which means that
    you don't have to wonder about the paradox
    of existence and you (in many religions) have
    this nice, warm and soft God (or at least one
    with whom you can bargain) and that "comfort" IS
    a powerful idea that you have to reckon with.

    Anyway, I believe the original subject was
    the self consistency of your approach. Well,
    like I said you have a LOT of assumptions
    and not a very evolved system to look at it
    all. So, I guess it's not exactly the "basis
    of order" even if you ignore the "external" view.
    But, it's really not that bad...:smile:

    Peace and long life.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook