Ouroboros Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Entropy is movement toward chaos and disorder, right? I... hmm... it's confusing for me too. Entropy is the measurement of chaos/order or randomness. High entropy is higher level of chaos. But I think it's also a lower level of energy. A system in the highest order of entropy is at equilibrium and does not have any spontaneous events. I don't understand this at all. Can you say it using Dick & Jane language? Sorry to be so simple-minded regarding these topics. Equilibrium is that all forces are at rest and in balance. Spontaneous events are things like quantum events etc, and would be the random events. So what is confusing to me is: high entropy=high level of chaos=no random events, yet chaos is randomness!? Someone with more sciency background must come to my rescue here! The question is: is chaos really random? Ever? Isn't....isn't that the definition of chaos? I suppose...it is possible that which appears chaotic may have an order too complex for our perceptions and measurements. My question is based on the first question: is the universe deterministic. If it is, then nothing is random. So for true chaos to exist, true randomness must exist. But then it can't be deterministic. Right?!? So maybe, rather than chaos being disorder, it is possibly order so complex that it is imperceptible by human measurement, yet still doing its work on us. Yes? Did I get it? I think so. I'm in the progress of understanding some of these things too. When one kind of "thing" transforms from order to chaos, then another "thing" transforms from chaos to order. I was thinking about an example using random plotting in an x-y graph, and if the plots resemble something, we'd consider it to be "ordered," but if we can't recognize the pattern and it seems like random, then it is "chaos." But what if the formula is extremely complicated and produce a seemingly random pattern? We think it's chaos, but it isn't. So how can we ever really know what chaos or order is when we don't have all the answers to the Universe yet? Is this something scientists believe, or is this some radical, fantastical idea? It's me, trying to understand the world. Radical, fantastical, and extreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I am not much of a science guy either.....but it seems as though you could break down the whole thing into a yes/no, +/- relationship(s). Maybe there is a smaller unit than sub atomic stuff pushing and pulling.....been a while since I thought about it.....a long time. The point is NBBTB was saying there was no set order. I am proposing that this +/- thing is an order. It won't hurt my feelings though if this thought goes down in flames. Love always, END Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 It won't hurt my feelings though if this thought goes down in flames. Love always, END I'm not sure how to respond to your post. Not that it's bad at all, I just can say what "order" is. In a sense, when you say it's +/-, it still makes me think about humans creating definitions of what they think order is. What is +1 degrees Fahrenheit or +1 degrees Celsius? It's what we have made up, based on what we've observed. And it's based on specific conditions. So I still think "order" vs "chaos" is relating to the ability of the human mind to organize, rather than any actual existing things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Equilibrium is that all forces are at rest and in balance. Spontaneous events are things like quantum events etc, and would be the random events. When you have two libriums that weigh the same, they're equilibrium, just kidding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Equilibrium is that all forces are at rest and in balance. Spontaneous events are things like quantum events etc, and would be the random events. When you have two libriums that weigh the same, they're equilibrium, just kidding. Or maybe it had something to do with librarians? I used to know this stuff better... I think I've suppressed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight-mindwanderings Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I missed the main event, but I had a thought on entropy. From what I remember it has to do with energy becoming less 'useful'. Whenever something happens - using energy - more energy is used than what is left. The remainder becomes heat and since heat disapates by evening out and cooling, the energy is 'lost'. There are other processes at work of course, other ways of getting energy, so entropy isn't the sort of end result of the universe. I am not a scientist but I like watching lectures about these things. The Universe from Nothing video on the main blog was extremely illuminating. Though it doesn't talk about entropy directly, it shows the exceedingly complex nature of what we'd call empty space. So although the tendency is to break down, become heat and spread out, there are things happening in that empty space that have no discernible causes but the energy becomes more complex again. I always figured there had to be more than the force or law of entropy at work. We see it as order/ chaos but its really just the same thing. Maybe some day I'll learn more about it and be able to discuss it better. Sad he left. He did have some different ideas, at least that I had never really heard before. But my family is made up of all strict Young Earth Creationists and literalists so my experience with less literal but still not quite allegorical interpretations is small. Plus prophecy has never made any sense to me and even as a strict Christian I could see the problems with defending prophecies from one part of a book to another as being 'proof.' I always liked the idea of there not being a known outcome by anyone (or anything). That way there is always hope for something better. [Nerd warning alert] One of my favorite lines from the Lord of the Rings trilogy is when Sam discusses how characters in the greatest stories don't know if they are going to make it, but they keep going. They wouldn't be great stories if the characters in them knew how it was all going to end. I never could feel quite sad for Jesus because he was god - he didn't have to fear death because he knew it would be temporary and it was his plan to begin with. His divinity uses up what inspiriational power his humanity could have had, at least for me. Ah rambling at the end of a dying thread. How like me . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 It won't hurt my feelings though if this thought goes down in flames. Love always, END I'm not sure how to respond to your post. Not that it's bad at all, I just can say what "order" is. In a sense, when you say it's +/-, it still makes me think about humans creating definitions of what they think order is. What is +1 degrees Fahrenheit or +1 degrees Celsius? It's what we have made up, based on what we've observed. And it's based on specific conditions. So I still think "order" vs "chaos" is relating to the ability of the human mind to organize, rather than any actual existing things. I'll have to think about it Hans....I'm already over my head.....again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 It won't hurt my feelings though if this thought goes down in flames. Love always, END I'm not sure how to respond to your post. Not that it's bad at all, I just can say what "order" is. In a sense, when you say it's +/-, it still makes me think about humans creating definitions of what they think order is. What is +1 degrees Fahrenheit or +1 degrees Celsius? It's what we have made up, based on what we've observed. And it's based on specific conditions. So I still think "order" vs "chaos" is relating to the ability of the human mind to organize, rather than any actual existing things. Order and chaos are relative terms like hot and cold, but not necessarily digital (+/-). Some changes in states of energy are indeed "digital" (like changes in energy of electrons), but on a large scale it's all relative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Sad he left. He did have some different ideas, at least that I had never really heard before. But my family is made up of all strict Young Earth Creationists and literalists so my experience with less literal but still not quite allegorical interpretations is small. Different ideas may be interesting, but I have always thought of them as attempts to reconcile irreconcilable concepts. As theologians debate the existence of Heaven or Hell, they may be entertaining, but it's all so fluid and subject to opinion that it becomes useless. Theology has no firm foundation because the whole subject is a fabrication, and anything built on that crumbling foundation will itself have no substance or stability. Plus prophecy has never made any sense to me and even as a strict Christian I could see the problems with defending prophecies from one part of a book to another as being 'proof.' I always liked the idea of there not being a known outcome by anyone (or anything). That way there is always hope for something better. [Nerd warning alert] One of my favorite lines from the Lord of the Rings trilogy is when Sam discusses how characters in the greatest stories don't know if they are going to make it, but they keep going. They wouldn't be great stories if the characters in them knew how it was all going to end. I never could feel quite sad for Jesus because he was god - he didn't have to fear death because he knew it would be temporary and it was his plan to begin with. His divinity uses up what inspiriational power his humanity could have had, at least for me. Ah rambling at the end of a dying thread. How like me . This is profound. Prophecy, at some level, entails predictability and even determinism. It takes meaning out of life. Could anyone really blame Judas if his role in the crucifixion was written before the beginning of the earth? And as discussed before, what kind of sacrifice is it when Jesus got all of his toys back after "sacrificing" himself? To himself. Christianity is so sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiverDale Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Rats! I sat here and read this whole thread tonight hoping our friend the WindWalker would listen to why I left christianity. I don't remember any name calling. If you ask someone how they feel, shouldn't you stick around and listen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 It won't hurt my feelings though if this thought goes down in flames. Love always, END I'm not sure how to respond to your post. Not that it's bad at all, I just can say what "order" is. In a sense, when you say it's +/-, it still makes me think about humans creating definitions of what they think order is. What is +1 degrees Fahrenheit or +1 degrees Celsius? It's what we have made up, based on what we've observed. And it's based on specific conditions. So I still think "order" vs "chaos" is relating to the ability of the human mind to organize, rather than any actual existing things. Order and chaos are relative terms like hot and cold, but not necessarily digital (+/-). Some changes in states of energy are indeed "digital" (like changes in energy of electrons), but on a large scale it's all relative. Why is it not relative to the very small....or can we just not compute the change when it moves to a complex system? Just guessing at this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mriana Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Wow! Nine pages since the 10th! As usual, I'm late, but as I was reading what Wind Walker said, my chin dropped. You truly believe it is an issue with the rules for us? I've studied religion and mythology and quite frankly I can't believe Xianity anymore. It is the same motifs as anything else Man has conceived of and it was created by man. God is just a human concept and so is religion. The same motifs are played over and over again, they are just rewritten for a particular culture and religion has evolved from animism to anthropomorphism. It is the same thing though and just more mythology. Xianity is the same song and dance as Horus, Mithra, Krishna, etc, even the Buddha, just slightly different words. Of course, I've been a humanist long before I actually acknowledge it to myself, even though I was raised Xian. It had nothing to do with the rules though and I even saw one similar response towards the beginning of this discussion, yet you chalked it all up to having to do with the rules of Xianity. Your response made no sense and was shockingly unbelievable that you came to that conclusion that we all has issues with the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mriana Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Dammit, y'all scared the xian away again. And I didn't even get a chance at him. Damn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MultifariousBirdLady Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Oh shoot...remember that study, the one where they did a brain scan of someone think about their God concept...or was it them actually praying?...and the bits of their brain associated with the self lit up? I wonder if this is related to attacks on a deity concept hitting people as being about them personally. Wow, no, I never heard of that one. If you do happen to run across it again, I'm interested in taking a look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 It won't hurt my feelings though if this thought goes down in flames. Love always, END I'm not sure how to respond to your post. Not that it's bad at all, I just can say what "order" is. In a sense, when you say it's +/-, it still makes me think about humans creating definitions of what they think order is. What is +1 degrees Fahrenheit or +1 degrees Celsius? It's what we have made up, based on what we've observed. And it's based on specific conditions. So I still think "order" vs "chaos" is relating to the ability of the human mind to organize, rather than any actual existing things. Order and chaos are relative terms like hot and cold, but not necessarily digital (+/-). Some changes in states of energy are indeed "digital" (like changes in energy of electrons), but on a large scale it's all relative. Why is it not relative to the very small....or can we just not compute the change when it moves to a complex system? Just guessing at this... It's not the size as much as it is the number of things involved. Chaos and order are statistical phenomena. Think of a stack of bricks, then a pile of bricks. The stack has lower entropy (less chaos). Now think of a single brick. How can it get more chaotic? Likewise, single atoms seem to conform to energy changes in digital terms. An electron may move to a higher level, but that is not more chaotic, just more energized. Chaos at the atomic level usually refers to multiple particles and, for example, their rate of movement with respect to each other. At 0 degrees Kelvin, there is no movement and low entropy, but as the temperature increases the particles begin to move with respect to each other until they are completely random (although this may not be gradual as the energy required to break bonds may have a threshhold.). Basically, the definitions seem to fall apart when describing very small numbers of things (or one thing). It is difficult to define order when there aren't enough things to describe what their order is. At least, that's the way I seem to remember it - from 40 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Oh shoot...remember that study, the one where they did a brain scan of someone think about their God concept...or was it them actually praying?...and the bits of their brain associated with the self lit up? I wonder if this is related to attacks on a deity concept hitting people as being about them personally. I have heard of this study and unfortunately never bookmarked it, but I had never considered the implications of a personal attack before. Brilliant observation! Insulting their god is in fact insulting them! This may lead to me being able to handle them a bit better... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Ah man, we screwed up by not buying what that guy said he wasn't selling...and now he's gone. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Oh shoot...remember that study, the one where they did a brain scan of someone think about their God concept...or was it them actually praying?...and the bits of their brain associated with the self lit up? I wonder if this is related to attacks on a deity concept hitting people as being about them personally. I have heard of this study and unfortunately never bookmarked it, but I had never considered the implications of a personal attack before. Brilliant observation! Insulting their god is in fact insulting them! This may lead to me being able to handle them a bit better... That's actually my approach to arguments sometimes. I like to point out when I criticize how vain, malicious or petty their god is, and when they get upset about it, I mention that I'm really not attacking God, I'm attacking THEIR perception of what THEY think God is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Marty Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Bummer. We lost this one in record time. And I think everyone was cordial and nice. He will go home, think things over, and then eventually de-convert too and come back here. You all actually believe how you talked to me was nice? Everything I said was dissected and challenged, and when I replied every fact I laid on the table was then again challenged and dissected. The only reason things stayed relatively cool was because I bit my tongue and let it go after just responding to the larger issues. A few of you were absolutely nasty and disrespectful to both me and the God I worship and serve, but at the end of the day it's not why I am leaving. I didn't expect to be treated any different and was not at all surprised by either my treatment here or the self congratulatory reaction after I tried to step out and respect your space, and I wasn't shocked by any aspect of my experience here. It was exactly what I expected in regards to how people talked to me. A few of you were cordial at times, but you have to be on another planet to think that how a guest was treated by the old guard here was anything but rude. Or perhaps you think that that isn't rude and you all are okay with talking to people like that. If so you are welcome to your space and your world, I'm not interested in the least. I came back out of morbid curiosity and it was confirmed. Self congratulatory smugness because a Christian left your little hallow. Please! I left because I got the answers I sought and didn't feel welcome in the least. See you all on the other side You do realize this is an EX-xtian site, right? Geesh, I will never understand why they can not get it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolution_beyond Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Oh please! Don't feel so special. We tear each other's arguments up all the time! It helps us understand ourselves. Get over yourself and come back. That's true. We're hardly all sweetness and light with each other either. There are constantly rival viewpoints amongst us here on ex-c. FFS even those who are atheist have disagreements with each other and differing perspectives on atheism. We often argue quite intensely among ourselves, thrashing these issues out in order to gain some more perspective. Even if we agree to disagree it often helps because it can refine the arguments so that they get explained more logically. It's called debate. Why don't the christians who visit understand this principle? It just confirms what I often suspect: Philosophy is an alien concept to the religious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Hey! Look, I'm wearing a facial mask. It might improve my complexion... now wait, my face already looks better with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakefoot Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 I believe that Buddha was a seeker who was indeed enlightened and sought God with all of his heart. I have always wondered what his reaction would have been to Jesus and vice versa had they met each other in life! Yes, it would be an interesting conversation, I am sure. I wouldn't say Buddha Shakyamuni was actually interested in seeking God. He was interested in finding a remedy for suffering. He came out of Hinduism and he would only know about many different gods. As far as we know, he never advocated the idea of a supreme creator God Why, don't you people know... "Oh it won't be old Buddah, that's sittin' on the throne "And it won't be old Muhammed, that's callin' us home "And it won't be Hari Krishna, that plays that trumpet tune "And we're going to see the son, not reverend Moon." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakefoot Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 I have no idea what these particular alleged prophecies in Daniel are, but I am sure that if they appeared to be fulfilled in the New Testament they were written in such a fashion as to appear that way. After all, these people in 70-100 AD had access to this book Daniel. They were trying to bolster their claims that Jesus was God or the Messiah or whatever. The NT is full of statements that, "Jesus [said or did this or that] so that the [OT] prophecy might be fulfilled." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakefoot Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Wind Walker, I asked in the other thread about the physicality of Jesus and Heaven, so let me ask it here too, just in case. If Jesus was resurrected in physical form, and Heaven is, according to you, not a physical place and does not have space or time, then where did Jesus's body go? Did he leave it behind? Did he leave it on the cloud he ascended on? Why was it necessary for Jesus to be resurrected to a body if he didn't need it? Was it just for the show, "look how amazing God the magician is to do these unnecessary things"? Following the same line, why did Gabriel dispute with Satan over possession of Moses' body? Was it to prevent Israel from worshiping a carcass? Pretty sappy people, and a pretty impotent gawd if a carcass was deemed more a suitable object of worship, don't you think? And what did Gabriel/gawd do with the body after Gabriel won? And what of the bodies of Enoch and Elija, who went up to heaven bodily without dying? How did an ethereal heaven accommodate these corporeal bodies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakefoot Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 ([Flood narrative/explanation snipped for brevity.) The notion of "local flooding" as an explanation for the worldwide ubiquity of flood myths has always perplexed me when a much simpler explanation seems far more plausible: Early man would find deposits of fossilized seashells in areas far removed from any water source. He knew these shells existed in water, but not several hundred feet up the side of a hill miles from the water. How did they get there in such great numbers? He had no doubt found shells and even fishes left behind on land after seasonal flooding (such as along the Nile), so he understood that advancing/receding waters could leave shells and other marine detritus high and dry. Clearly, then, if shells existed even far up the hillsides, all of the world must have been flooded at some time. This makes far more sense in terms of worldwide societal flood myths, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts