Chaos?

[TMA_1]

Aristotle said in one of his many themes that the infinite is by definition void of matter. That the infinite cannot contain anything. To have a place of time or matter in the infinite creates a number, a sum that destroys the eternal structure of it.

I have two reasons to refute chaos as the rule of the universe, first is how aristotle so wonderfully wrote about it.

The idea of infinity is the true idea of chaos. Because there is nothing, there cannot be any sort of thought or idea that can put barriers around it. It is all encompassing. And since our ideas and thoughts circle around a material universe we cannot fully understand the infinite. The infinite is nothing, and nothingness is in true words chaos. Chaos cannot be held in a finite universe since the finite is by all probabilities a reoccuring thing. The finite, no matter how large it is has to repeat the actions it commits, as there is only a certain number of things matter can do, and only a certain number of patterns it can do it in. These actions and patterns might be large in scale, super large for that fact. But still they have to cut themselves down in the idea of probabilities. THat brings my second arguement about the issue.

This universe is finite. By energy existing, it creates a "place" so to speak. This place can be put into an idea of numbers. If you place numbers upon infinity it is no longer infinite. As infinity is the very essense of that which is "neverending" (I use that word because I cannot think of a better one, it is a crude word to use.)

Because of this, everything has a sum. If we place matter in units, and say each unit is a "place" as I have said before, than each place exists with other places. No matter how many places there are, and how many actions these places do, there in the end will always be patterns. No matter how large the number of places, and actions these places can do, they still have to fall back into patterns, as the matter of probabilities says that all things in numbers will eventually repeat themselves. It is just that there are so many units and places of matter and energy, that it is on a time scale we cannot comprehend.

See what I mean? I know this was worded poorly, but you all know I am not super sharp.lol And it is hard to place words on matters so expansive.

do you guys disagree? or agree?

[Acriku]

Ah, the limitations of our vocabulary.

In my mind, infinity is a faulty concept. A concept made up by the seemingly 'infinite' imagination we have, just like perfection and omnipotence. But perhaps it's the finite characheristic of my mind that denies the infinite existence. ;)

Can you define chaos properly? Saying 'nothingness is in true words chaos' is meaningless to me without a proper definition.

[Scrinlord]

Well, actually, I like to take it one step further than that: Weather or not the universe is finite or infinite is irrelevent, considering the fact that we cannot even prove that the universe exists at all. Think about it, how do we know that we are not all just some guys wet dream? Honostly, we don't.

[Acriku]

Such a concept is meaningless, because there's no evidence to suggest such a thing. I could say we're existing in a very large pink unicorn's large intestine, giving it an eternal gastral problem. But then again, it's meaningless.

[Scrinlord]

But what has meaning, when you get right down to it?

[Acriku]

Things that involve actual evidence have meaning to determining reality, otherwise we'd be swamped with ideas with no evidence to support them that can range from the seemingly plausible to the outrageous.

[Apollyon]

What serves as 'evidence' is incredibly subjective. If I drop something I can say that's evidence of gravity, I can say that's evidence of a 4D world, I can say that's evidence of the existence of a god, to me this could be 'evidence' of just about anything. This evidence can only be perceived through the senses as it is and we have no way of knowing whether these senses are indeed truthful in their recounting of our surroundings. Afterall it takes just one bottle of vodka or a hit to the head to make everything we see very different. If we can't trust our senses then what makes it so certain we can now? Of course it serves no purpose to disbelieve our senses for the most part like you said roughly ("we'd be swamped with ideas with no evidence to support them that can range from the seemingly plausible to the outrageous") but then it's also pointless to even consider whether the universe is infinite. The universe expands faster (supposedly - evidence points to it I suppose) than we could ever travel and thus we could never reach an 'end' to it as it were.

[Acriku]

Sure it is subjective, but repeated experiments give a better idea than dropping a ball. We also have ways of limiting the subjection, such as the scientific method.

Can we trust our senses? Perhaps not, but it's the best we have right now. We must assume basic things (e.g. we are not in a pink unicorn's intestine, that we are in a universe that we see and experience) to start determining reality. So far, no evidence has been to the contrary of these basic things. The very definition of fact is a piece of information so very proven that to deny it would be denying reality. Denying reality of course falls into the denying the senses, denying that we truly are what we see and experience, etc. So, in determining reality, evidence using the scientific method and repeated experiments is the best we have. No ideas lacking evidence about unicorns, just evidence.

Also, the universe expanding at all (from the red shift observations and other key clues) gives us the good idea that it is not infinite.

[TMA_1]

acriku, I see what you are saying, but every sort of argument starts with a preconcieved idea, every argument. It cannot be stopped. Science starts with the idea of trying to search for evidance. But as plato said, our senses can be decieved, so everything can be questioned.

I agree though, scrinlord your idea is so fatalistic that there would be no point in arguing anything.lol

Just think about this for a second, wait and then you can talk (well, you can talk any time, but you know waht I mean.lol)

Using words of accomidation, lets say we have nothingness, that nothingnmess extends infinitely. Now say I put a speck in that nothingness, I have put boundaries in nothingness, and now the nothingness contains something that is numerical in value. Because of this time is put into place in the whole matter, and now since one little thing is contained, there is a limit to that thing because it is tangable. It is finite. This is hard for me to explain.

Thanks for the comments guys, and acriku, even though I never agree with you!!! lol you do have some points, IF we take into account your preconcieved ideas that all evidance can be trusted.

I agree that plutonian ideals sometimes seem to go to far, but they seem logical. I heard from somebody that what I said isnt new, and I knew that, that it is one of the larger logical arguments against chaos.

[Sneakgab]

It is true that our senses can be deceived, but using the probabilities mentioned in the true universe (Eg: a Pink unicorn while we all are in the false universe of a wet dream:D) will eventually effect our ''illusion'' (assuming such illusion an exists). This creates an effect on our illusion, because all illusion must be generated and thusly an effect on the generator of an illusion in the true universe affects the illusion universe. With the scientific method and evidence we would inevitably pick up on such an illusion if were to become super-perfect God type people who understand their universe, an illusion of the senses or otherwise.

The problem though is that the laws of our perhaps false universe may not apply in such a ''true'' universe. However, their must be some laws that the ''true'' universe are bound to, even if their are no laws of physics,e.t.c, their is thusly the law of randomness where random things are affected randomly. Whatever the laws of the ''true'' universe, the ''generator'' of the proposed illusion universe would eventually be affected unless the ''true'' universe is an infinte void of nothingness. But in that case, our ''false'' universe could not exist in the first place.

I might not have phrased my words in a very understandable way, but hey, oh well ;D

[Acriku]

acriku, I see what you are saying, but every sort of argument starts with a preconcieved idea, every argument. It cannot be stopped. Science starts with the idea of trying to search for evidance. But as plato said, our senses can be decieved, so everything can be questioned.

And I have no quarrel with these statements. As I have mentioned before, we must assume basic things in order to start anywhere. Otherwise, we would never be able to begin. Waiting at the starting line, with a million starting guns going off at once, not one louder than the other. Which one should we start from? If one is no louder than the other, how will we have any idea which gun leads us astray at the false starting time? No level of certainty to weed out the bogus and foolery, from the otherwise more founded "gunshots" fired at the same time.

Using words of accomidation, lets say we have nothingness, that nothingnmess extends infinitely. Now say I put a speck in that nothingness, I have put boundaries in nothingness, and now the nothingness contains something that is numerical in value. Because of this time is put into place in the whole matter, and now since one little thing is contained, there is a limit to that thing because it is tangable. It is finite. This is hard for me to explain.

Is infinity a measurement, a characteristic of the unknown, or a concept playing in our minds? You speak of nothingness, and infinity, yet what is to call its infinite character? With nothing to use, how does one gain infinity? A play on words I'm sure!

Thanks for the comments guys, and acriku, even though I never agree with you!!! lol you do have some points, IF we take into account your preconcieved ideas that all evidance can be trusted.

It is not the mere trust in evidence that I practice, but the necessity of trust of certain evidences that I do practice. For it is the necessity of such evidences that we can branch off into more evidences. Is it not all the more convincing that our assumed evidences, and branched evidences, have been practiced and applied to the real world - and found successfully working? If that is not convincing to any self-acclaimed reasonable person, then they lack the very reason they profess.

I agree that plutonian ideals sometimes seem to go to far, but they seem logical. I heard from somebody that what I said isnt new, and I knew that, that it is one of the larger logical arguments against chaos.

Have you yet gathered a proper definition of chaos?