I think yes, more ordered state must be unsustainable, eternally. But, chaos also must be unsustainable. If so [...]
You’re putting the cart before the horse here. You’ve said that they must be—why must they be? If they are then what predictions does their being so let you make and how have you tested them?
What, for that matter, are your formal definitions of order and chaos? The way I’d define them, chaos exists mostly on a quantum level and when you start to generalise out correlates start showing up on a macroscopic level really quickly, and then it’s not chaos anymore because it’s—at least in principle—predictable.
I mean it’s not silly to suppose that selection and mutation—with the former being the order enforcing part of evolution and the latter being the ‘chaotic’ part, operate in cycles. I believe if you model evolution of finite populations using Fokker Planck equations you tend to have an increasing spread of phenotypes between periods of heavy selection—but it’s not really an area I’ve much interest in so I couldn’t say for sure.
We have two systems modelling evolution at Earth. 1) the astronomical system (biggest size and less evolved), which is our ancestor, but we are inside it, he created us. This system is a perfect machine, but not intelligent, not rational like us. Whatever, he is the agent behind natural selection, because he is the whole environment. 2) The second system is untenable, but he must exists, because here there is mind, consciousnesses and our ancestral astronomic has no mind.
I don’t know what this means. You’re assigning an overarching system agency. But agency tends to mean that something is alive and thinking in English. Like a human would be said to have agency, whereas a computer—at least in the common “I’ve got one under my desk” sense—wouldn’t. Systems don’t tend to be considered to have gender in English either. In French lots of words are gendered but in English very few are. The only English things I can think of that are gendered other than living creatures are ships; traditionally thought of as female.
The second system just seems to be undefined.
I don’t accept that this Universe creates things that he has no information for, so, the system that made the emergence of mind here must be superior to the Universe.
If you want to find a human how easy is that for you to do? Turn out of your front door and go to town and you’ll probably find a fair number of them. If you want to find a specific human how much information do you need? I believe if you start off knowing nothing about them other than that they’re somewhere on Earth you only really need something like 32 bits of information but in any case it’s a lot more.
If you want to create a table you just make a table. It’s not hard. If you want to create a specific table design you need to know what it looks like at the very least.
If you want to create a child you need a partner. If you want to create a brown haired, blue eyed girl and no other kids besides … you’re probably going to be off picking particular partners to up your chances or running off to play with genetic engineering.
Generally the rule is that the more picky you want to be the more info you need.
If you just wanted to create a person, and nothing else, you would require a lot of information. If you wanted to create an entire universe you would need very little information. The universe is very large, and seems to consist mostly of repetitions of fairly simple things, which suggests to me an informationally sparse genesis.
And if he is ex-machine, makes no sense to talk about ordered or chaotic states. He must be more sustainable than the Universe. I am not talking about supernatural gods, I am suggesting a natural superior system from which this thing called consciousness is coming from..
Do you need to suppose a system at all? If what you’re talking about can be defined entirely in terms of a conflict between order and chaos—which really just seems to be evolution in progress. What explanatory power does this system have?
So, it is possible that a natural super-system existing beyond our universe have transmitted before the Big Bang the informations for the mind appears here at the right time.
Sure, anything’s possible. But how probable is it and what grounds do you have for believing that it’s that probable?
In the alternation between cycles, there are the alternations between dominant and recessive. If chaos is dominant here and now, the ordered state is weak and a loser, till the chaos being extinct. And rationality is more relative to order than chaos. But rationality is not the wisdom. Must have a third superior state. What do you think ?
Broadly you seem to be saying something to the effect of: In the absence of strong selection pressures the trend is towards disorder and decay. Which I agree with. And I can see how that would relate to rationality—there are systems, like schooling, that lose their purpose and essentially go insane in the absence of strong demands. Why are schools so crappy? A large part of it seems to be because adults don’t have an economic need for children at that age and it’s politically expedient to conduct education in a certain way that seems to produce work—without actually testing whether that work is useful because by that point the government will be out of power.
I suspect rationality carries connotations in your language that it doesn’t necessarily have in English. If a chaotic/random/brute force method of traversing the search space turns out to be better suited to certain situations I’d assign it a really high prior that people who define themselves as rationalists would make their decisions in that regard by throwing dice or some equivalent that introduced chaos into their actions. Like my passwords—what are my passwords? I don’t know. Most of them are 128 character gibberish.
If you think of rationality as systematised winning it seems more like: Whatever works. Than anything particularly tied to a specific selection/mutation ratio.
You’re putting the cart before the horse here. You’ve said that they must be—why must they be? If they are then what predictions does their being so let you make and how have you tested them?
What, for that matter, are your formal definitions of order and chaos? The way I’d define them, chaos exists mostly on a quantum level and when you start to generalise out correlates start showing up on a macroscopic level really quickly, and then it’s not chaos anymore because it’s—at least in principle—predictable.
I mean it’s not silly to suppose that selection and mutation—with the former being the order enforcing part of evolution and the latter being the ‘chaotic’ part, operate in cycles. I believe if you model evolution of finite populations using Fokker Planck equations you tend to have an increasing spread of phenotypes between periods of heavy selection—but it’s not really an area I’ve much interest in so I couldn’t say for sure.
I don’t know what this means. You’re assigning an overarching system agency. But agency tends to mean that something is alive and thinking in English. Like a human would be said to have agency, whereas a computer—at least in the common “I’ve got one under my desk” sense—wouldn’t. Systems don’t tend to be considered to have gender in English either. In French lots of words are gendered but in English very few are. The only English things I can think of that are gendered other than living creatures are ships; traditionally thought of as female.
The second system just seems to be undefined.
If you want to find a human how easy is that for you to do? Turn out of your front door and go to town and you’ll probably find a fair number of them. If you want to find a specific human how much information do you need? I believe if you start off knowing nothing about them other than that they’re somewhere on Earth you only really need something like 32 bits of information but in any case it’s a lot more.
If you want to create a table you just make a table. It’s not hard. If you want to create a specific table design you need to know what it looks like at the very least.
If you want to create a child you need a partner. If you want to create a brown haired, blue eyed girl and no other kids besides … you’re probably going to be off picking particular partners to up your chances or running off to play with genetic engineering.
Generally the rule is that the more picky you want to be the more info you need.
If you just wanted to create a person, and nothing else, you would require a lot of information. If you wanted to create an entire universe you would need very little information. The universe is very large, and seems to consist mostly of repetitions of fairly simple things, which suggests to me an informationally sparse genesis.
Do you need to suppose a system at all? If what you’re talking about can be defined entirely in terms of a conflict between order and chaos—which really just seems to be evolution in progress. What explanatory power does this system have?
Sure, anything’s possible. But how probable is it and what grounds do you have for believing that it’s that probable?
Broadly you seem to be saying something to the effect of: In the absence of strong selection pressures the trend is towards disorder and decay. Which I agree with. And I can see how that would relate to rationality—there are systems, like schooling, that lose their purpose and essentially go insane in the absence of strong demands. Why are schools so crappy? A large part of it seems to be because adults don’t have an economic need for children at that age and it’s politically expedient to conduct education in a certain way that seems to produce work—without actually testing whether that work is useful because by that point the government will be out of power.
I suspect rationality carries connotations in your language that it doesn’t necessarily have in English. If a chaotic/random/brute force method of traversing the search space turns out to be better suited to certain situations I’d assign it a really high prior that people who define themselves as rationalists would make their decisions in that regard by throwing dice or some equivalent that introduced chaos into their actions. Like my passwords—what are my passwords? I don’t know. Most of them are 128 character gibberish.
If you think of rationality as systematised winning it seems more like: Whatever works. Than anything particularly tied to a specific selection/mutation ratio.