Belief in balance
Is balance the invisible hand guiding the universe?
Here's some evidence of the power of balance in the natural world:
Newton's laws of motion: every action has an equal and opposite reaction; matter cannot be created or destroyed
Osmosis: a solute spreading equally out in a solution (I know there is a more technical definition of that)
The cosmological principle: matter is spread relatively evenly out in all directions as far as our telescopes can see
In the ethical world:
Karma - good things happen to good people, and vice versa
Aristotle's mean of virtues - virtue is a balance, or an average, between extremes
Jesus's golden rule - treat your neighbor as yourself; in other words, your neighbor is equal to you
In art:
Symmetry is beautiful
In infinity and eternity:
This can't be proven, but say that the universe is infinite and eternal. (The size of the universe is monstrous, and we have not seen it all. We also know the Big Bang probably occurred, but common sense says that there was something before that. An infinite, eternal universe seems more probable than a finite universe; but can't prove it.) Let's roll with an infinite and eternal universe, or infinite spacetime, in physic's language. In infinite spacetime, every point in the universe is in the middle of universe, meaning every point is perfectly balanced. Also, if we are in eternity, then every moment of "now" is in the perfect middle, or balance, between infinite past and infinite future.
So if balance seems like the guiding hand in the universe, is it something to believe in?
Here's some evidence of the power of balance in the natural world:
Newton's laws of motion: every action has an equal and opposite reaction; matter cannot be created or destroyed
Osmosis: a solute spreading equally out in a solution (I know there is a more technical definition of that)
The cosmological principle: matter is spread relatively evenly out in all directions as far as our telescopes can see
In the ethical world:
Karma - good things happen to good people, and vice versa
Aristotle's mean of virtues - virtue is a balance, or an average, between extremes
Jesus's golden rule - treat your neighbor as yourself; in other words, your neighbor is equal to you
In art:
Symmetry is beautiful
In infinity and eternity:
This can't be proven, but say that the universe is infinite and eternal. (The size of the universe is monstrous, and we have not seen it all. We also know the Big Bang probably occurred, but common sense says that there was something before that. An infinite, eternal universe seems more probable than a finite universe; but can't prove it.) Let's roll with an infinite and eternal universe, or infinite spacetime, in physic's language. In infinite spacetime, every point in the universe is in the middle of universe, meaning every point is perfectly balanced. Also, if we are in eternity, then every moment of "now" is in the perfect middle, or balance, between infinite past and infinite future.
So if balance seems like the guiding hand in the universe, is it something to believe in?
Comments (65)
Very inspiring and insightful post(s).
I'll add one to Poetic's listing:
27. Consciousness/subconsciousness
Questions; much like the numerous examples of balance, for example, good bacteria v. bad bacteria, what if we only had good and no bad? What if we only had bad but no good? And finally, and maybe more mysterious, what if we just had consciousness and no subconsciousness, and are they truly opposite's?
No more multitasking LoL
Interesting question on consciousness and subconsciousness, I haven't thought much about them. What's your perspective on them?
On the good vs bad bacteria, I think with such a big universe balancing out, I think there are many bacteria that are many different shades of good and bad to us, depending on the situation, and also depending on how they interact with our environment. We have more bacterial cells in our intestines than total cells in our human bodies usually, so we could almost view the bacteria as using us as hosts to propagate themselves on planet earth.
Did you reach any conclusion or conclusions from your post on balance and opposites?
If, as it wobbles around, the system finds a state in which it is stable, it will stop and stay there.
We see balance because it lasts longer than imbalance.
It's not because of some magic had by balance.
Not anything is stable, for everything leaks, I guess, or else a perfect zero-sum would have put existence out of business.
Consciousness is irrational or illogical or otherwise beyond rational explanation... . It's like saying red and not red at the same time (LEM).
I always use the typical example of driving a car while daydreaming and risking an accident. Part of your brain is consciously working out details of navigation, while the other part has you thinking about work or a relationship or solving a math problem or whatever else you're preoccupied with... .
Cognitive science says your consciousness is driving and your subconsciousness is daydreaming. Or is it the other way around?
So we have an unresolved paradox of sorts...or brute mystery. Our conscious existence appears beyond explaination. But so is cosmology, metaphysics, phenomenology, and the concept of God.
Could it be plausible that in another world, our logic would be totally different? For example, would the metaphysical a priori language of mathematics be totally different (ToE)?
In any case we're apparently barred from ultimate knowledge about our existence. Yet as you suggest, there appears to be a metaphysical will in nature. Self-aware Beings who realize through abstract thinking, which in itself transcends Darwinion survival value, that there exists balance-homeostasis in our world.
Buzzkill.
Very nice. Do you think one reason that consciousness appears to be irrational is that the universe cannot be defined solely by logic, and requires or other tools to describe it?
Like the quote. Maybe the cosmos is on a sliding scale between imbalance and balance. Do you think it is? And if so, where on the sliding scale would the whole cosmos appear to be?
I think that's a great question. Sort of an all inclusive type of question that could lead one into many areas or directions. Gee, where to start.
1. My first thought is two-fold: the Kantian thing-in-themselves viz the nature of conscious existence. Then the a priori metaphysical language of mathematics having its limitations in describing the natural world-albeit pretty amazing thus far in theoretical physics.
2. The parallel is that both concepts are a priori.
3. As far as other tools, it would be worth looking into the technical aspects of our ability to discover truly novel ideas in propositional logic via Kant's Modalities: Possibility / Impossibility Existence / Non-existence Necessity / Contingency.
"Kant's Categories are a list of that which can be said of every object, they are related only to human language. In making a verbal statement about an object, a speaker makes a judgment. A general object, that is, every object, has attributes that are contained in Kant's list of Categories. In a judgment, or verbal statement, the Categories are the predicates that can be asserted of every object and all objects."
A good read here would be The Mind of God by theoretical physicist Paul Davies.
In short, I believe we have a problem with knowing objects themselves, as well as a problem with knowing the nature of our consciousness and how it works. So we have a problem with the perceiver us, along with the object in question. In other words, we can't escape the metaphysical components that rear their philosophical head's in the phenomenological world of perception/existence.
Can experience itself, be the tool that discovers and uncovers existential mystery? Or are we back to intuitional/metaphysical theories about our existence...can we use both to infer possibility?
Right now, in words, the closest we come to that answer is the synthetic a priori. That would be one answer to your question about intellectual tools... .
Your above quote is yet again another direction or discipline one could explore. In ethics [how to live a life of happiness], I think it's important.
Real quick, politically and religiously, and in a general sense, I'm what you would call a moderate. I make a conscious effort not to dichotomize life's experience. Easier said than done I know, but as you suggest, balance has its virtues. Aristotle, Maslow and many other's have advocated such. The new term is generally called hybrid. Whether it is social norms, laws, politics, food consumption, music, vehicles, computer devices, on and on, striking a magical balance indeed has its virtues. Many things in life that work well are combining the virtues of two opposites into a hybrid. Obviously, in some ways, that is nothing new under the sun.
Are there exceptions to some of this of course... .
Once again, in short, I too believe in Balance. PoeticU and other's here have suggested same. Thank you for the reminder.
Yeah. Entropy. :point:
[quote=DanielP]And if so, where on the sliding scale would the whole cosmos appear to be?[/quote]
:chin: ummm ... c13.8 billion years on from the cosmos @ planck radius & Minmum entropy (or X-hundreds of billions(?) of years away from Maximum entropy (i.e. thermodynamic equilibrium) aka "balance" - or so 21st century theoretical cosmologists extrapolate / speculate).
Is there no balancing point between perfect stability and extreme instability? Low Entropy Abstract and physical structures for example?
If not, it should be for philosophers. My personal philosophy is based on the BothAnd Principle. Which is : My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
What is synthetic a priori?
What are the major tenets of Daoism/Taoism and how does balance fit in there?
I agree, I view the world as an infinite version of Yin/Yang, with infinite faces all bound together by balancing with each other.
How did you come up with your BothAnd principle?
So long as you avoid and reject the gender role stuff, Taoism has aged pretty well. The core of Taoism is to reject hatred and intolerance of human differences and live with balance, harmony, perspective, and compassion.
In western philosophy, you might say this is recognising the need for balance and diversity within our moral ecology.
I don't hold with everything Taoism has to offer but it is a core part of my practice of adaptive pragmatism and adaptive ethical pragmatism. Simply in that I define the good as that which is in balance. I suppose where I split with Taoism is that I'd pursue power if it meant I could provide more balance than others who currently hold power however I have to be very careful that this is in service to life and not my own ego. However, I shall not worry if I never attain it as it probably means it isnt part of the flow of the universe. I shall only seek it if the opportunites for seeking it, flow my way.
The first law of thermodynamics doesn't actually specify that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but instead that the total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed (though it can be changed from one form to another).
Within its environmental range, matter will resist falling apart. If you manage to push it outside its stability range, matter does effectively disintegrate (and will change its energy form).
In the context of the Big Bang, this invariant is a problem because the idea that all matter-energy was contained in the initial singularity leads to postulating an impossibly high density of matter-energy:
In 1989 Hans Dehmelt attempted to modernize the idea of the primeval atom. In this hypothesis, Cosmonium would have been the heaviest form of matter at the beginning of the big bang.
That kind of incredible density cannot be observed anywhere in the universe. Where can such "Cosmonium" be observed?
Therefore, I rather believe that there was no such high-density primeval atom, while matter-energy is somehow -- still to be discovered -- a side effect of the expansion of the universe. The alternative simply does not add up.
The Buddha and Aristotle, both thinkers far ahead of their times, agree on the necessity of balance as a central feature in living. The former preached the now-famous middle path and the latter mentioned the golden mean. I hope I haven't strayed too far from the truth here.
The advice for moderation and balance in life makes a whole lot of sense. After all, science has discovered that life can thrive only within a certain range of physical and chemical parameters. Too hot or too cold, no life. Too acidic or to alkaline, no life. This motif seems to be quite universal despite some life-forms thriving in extreme conditions.
One wouldn't think it an error to then extrapolate the idea of balance to the universe itself. However, consider the generally accepted belief that the universe exploded into existence 13.8 billion years ago. I'm no astrophysicist but am I wrong to say that there had to be an imbalance for the Big Bang to occur? There must've been a force that made the scales tip in favor of the universe's birth.
Also, notice that scientists say entropy is [/i]always[/i] increasing. This is clearly not balance. Of course an open system like the earth being energized by the sun has managed to produce life that can, for a limited amount of time, only delay the inevitable progression to greater disorder - death and decay.
We could say that it's the difference, ergo imbalance not balance, in entropy between two states that provides an environment conducive to life - the intermediate stages (balance/Goldilocks zone) being favorable to life. It may seem that I've contradicted myself but the point is the so-called balance is only possible because of, what looks to me, an imbalance. At a fundamental level it's all about the flow of energy and that would be impossible without there being an imbalance.
What now of Buddha's middle path and Aristotle's golden mean[/I]? What about how earth sits in the Goldilocks zone of our sun and allows life to evolve? Are these not indubitable evidence that [i]balance is the a fundamental law of the universe? Yet we see that without disequilibrium there's no energy transfer and without energy transfer, no chemistry. No chemistry, no life.
We can view this "contradiction" through the lens of rationality and human nature. Our rationality informs us that both balance and imbalance are necessary for life but our nature has a preference for balance.
Daniel, we have an a priori (innate/fixed) metaphysical sense of wonder that helps us discover stuff. It emanates from our consciousness; we can't control it. It's a fixed feature of our consciousness (conscious existence). And it's a priori, because it's unrelated to experience; it's existential in that it just is.
In the context of your question about discovering secrets of the universe, when we speak logic in words only, we can utter judgements about that sense of wonderment through making assumptions about our existence here.
Hence the judgement: every event must have a cause. That's an example of logic that physicists use to test theories that they might have about possible discoveries (hypothesis). To answer your question, technically that's also a Kantian synthetic a priori judgement that occurs naturally with our so-called sense of wonder that we have. You can research that if you will.
It's synthetic because it's not of a pure logical nature, unlike mathematics ( a priori- an objective truth that doesn't change) or, likewise in the case of making judgments/statements about something different: all bachelor's are unmarried men. That's true because it's truth is derived from the meaning of the words themselves, not experience. It's objectively true, no matter what anyone says about it.
The synthetic a priori judgement is then a 'synthesis' of innate a priori intuition, and a posteriori perceptions/sense experience that we have. Some people just call them synthetic judgements.
In summary, you have a priori objective truths/judgements: 2+2=4, or 'all bachelor's are unmarried men', which again are both a priori truth's. And then you also have a metaphysical sense of wonderment/intuition from consciousness that just is. When you combine the two ( a synthesis) you get something that's not of a pure logical nature (all events must have a cause).
Back to your OP, one could argue then that in this context, 'belief in balance' in the form of words and logic, represents the synthetic a priori phenomenon.
The BothAnd Principle emerged from my development of the Enformationism worldview. And that unconventional understanding of how the world as-a-whole works grew out of the 20th century revelations of Relativity and Quantum and Information Theories indicating that Mass (matter) is a form of Energy, and that Energy is a form of Information. Basically, metaphysical Information is both causative Energy and substantive Matter.
Analogies to Taoism and YinYang came later, as a way to express the counter-intuitive concept of dualism within holism in simple symbols. The principle is also useful for making sense of the mystery of Subjective experience within an Objective world. As a matter of fact, the concept of Complementarity makes sense of a whole range of philosophical and scientific puzzles, that are usually approached in Either/Or terms.
In the definitions linked below, a popup article about the BothAnd Philosophy is linked in red at bottom,
BothAnd Principle : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
From anthropomorphic point of view? I thought quantum mechanics had not used balance as a premise. The uncertainty principle certainly does not rely on balance.
What do you think?
Thank you for the explanation. I know of Kant but haven't read a lot of his work. When you say our sense of wonder is a priori, innate, and unrelated to experience, do you ever question that? Do you think that when we discover and explore things, two things are going on - we are curious and filled with wonder, and the universe is wanting us to discover things about it? If light did not bring us information about stars and galaxies far beyond us, we would not be asking questions about those stars and galaxies.
Mark, I agree that the implications of balance in Western philosophy might lead to greater balance between us and other life on earth. If ever we needed more balance in the public sphere, now is the time. When you mention the flow of the universe, how would you describe it? I haven't read the Tao te Ching, what does that chapter say about Yin and Yang?
Thank you for correcting me on the law of thermodynamics. I'm clearly not a physicist, but I enjoy trying to learn about that subject. Some physicists are trying to find a way around the infinitely dense point of the universe starting. So do you think the observable universe started with an infinitely dense point? What about before that, do you think there was something like the Big Bounce, or the membranes in a higher dimension that hit each other and cause Big Bangs every several billions of years?
Thank you for the reply, very informative answer. That makes two of us non-astrophysicists talking about astrophysics.
Perhaps a better way to think about balance than my earlier phrasing of believing in balance - is to say everything tends towards balance. So yes the Big Bang seems like a very imbalanced event. And there being no cause and nothing before it would be very imbalanced. Then I would agree, this is an imbalanced universe. But many people have come up with theories that posit causes for Big Bangs, and precedents. Take quantum loop theory (again, i'm not a astrophysicist, so bear with me) - basically space is filled with seething quantum energy that has local positives and negatives, and one gigantic negative could have set off a Big Bang. Another is the Big Bounce before a Big Bang - basically the universe is expanding until it starts to contract into an infinitely dense point, until another Big Bang occurs. Another is multiple membranes in a higher dimension oscillating and hitting each other causing a Big Bang. None of these are proven, but all seem to reflect a good degree a balance.
With your good example of disequilibrium causing energy transfer, you make a good point that imbalances always exist. Possibly one way to view balance's role in this, is that things tend towards balance. When lightning strikes, it balances out electron imbalances between the ground and the cloud. Chemistry I know nothing about, but do chemical reactions tend towards balance?
So you may ask, why if balance is the force guiding the universe towards equilibrium, then why do obvious disequilibriums exist? I think the universe is infinite, and different parts are always moving towards balance. Its infinite nature means it cannot stand still, and as different parts of this infinite spacetime co-mingle with each other, they create local imbalances, but are eventually overcome by the force of balance.
Caldwell, it seems that uncertainty would be imbalanced. But is it possible that an uncertain world is more balanced than a certain world? A certain world has the deck stacked in favor of certain things, whereas the probabilistic, uncertain world of quantum mechanics means that the world is not skewed in a certain direction - all directions are possible, thus a balanced world.
An infinitely dense starting point for the universe is indeed clearly an issue. Either they figure out how all the matter of the universe could be contained in something the size of a tennis ball or else they discover how the expansion of the universe leads to an expansion in matter-energy, because the current approach really doesn't add up.
Quoting DanielP
Well, no. Without some good explanation as to why that kind of matter-energy densities would be possible, and why exactly it is no longer possible, I have a problem with the current approach. In my opinion, the infinitely-dense story simply does not add up. So, I am still waiting for an explanation from theoretical physicists as to why and how it would all add up, because at the moment, it doesn't.
Quoting DanielP
I really have no clue about that. It sounds very speculative, though.
Furthermore, it doesn't sound like there would be anything to experimentally test or at least observe in that story. In that sense, the story may even be epistemically unsound.
I see. A tendency towards balance. :chin:
What about the initial imbalance that drives the entire process? I'll give you an example. Take a battery/cell. It has a positive and a negative. The voltage (imbalance) between the positive and negative lights a bulb. The moment balance/equilibrium between the negative and positive is attained the bulb goes off.
In this case we must remember that the current must be within a certain range - too much and the bulb will burn out, too less and the bulb doesn't shine. This is the balance you're talking about.
This is something I wanted to write earlier but it wasn't clear enough for me. Now it is. So, let me explain the situation as I understand it.
To initiate or begin something, anything, we need an imbalance. However, to maintain/continue whatever that thing is we need balance. In my battery-bulb analogy, an imbalance (voltage) is necessary for the bulb to glow but to maintain the the glow for as long as possible we need balance (a specific value of current, temperature, etc.).
Interestingly, we need to maintain the imbalance (voltage) to keep the bulb glowing.
We could look at it as imbalance having a range and different phenomena finding an existence, through balance, at different points along that range. The driving force which begins the entire process of all existence is imbalance but to maintain existence at any point on the imbalance-range we need balance.
Sure. One could say it's Existential, in that, it just is. There is no explanation. Certainly, one could speculate and theorize that this innate sense of wonder, as a feature of our conscious existence, could be a Metaphysical component of Being. Just as other metaphysical components of our consciousness; love, colors, ineffable experiences, the will, intuition and/or to some extent other unexplained phenomena that lack complete physical properties to adequately describe same.
Kant gave it a name, in the realm of Noumenon - unknowable through the senses. The nature of a thing; nature of Being, nature of consciousness, nature of existence. It's all beyond logical explanation. It is partially derived from the question: why is there something and not nothing. Or, some call it the question of creation ex-nihilo.
-Quoting DanielP
Interesting...reminds me of Einstein's and Spinoza's various forms of Pantheism.
Homeostasis, Emergence, Taoism/Yin Yang and other related concepts, suggest your notion of 'Balance' remains alive and well. Thus one should not dichotomize their thinking; but instead try to integrate, where possible.
A system is necessarily stable. That's what being a system is, a whole with temporal extension, and to exist as a whole requires stability in the relations of the parts. That is a balance. A "system" is an ideal, a model by which we judge the relations between things.
The fact that we can describe the degree to which the balance is not perfect (eternal temporal extension) in terms of instability does not mean that the balance is not there. Balance is implied by the descriptive term "system" and "unstable" refers to the imperfections of that balance.. .
You have to find your equilibrium point in life.
There would be an equal number of bridges that would collapse in rush our to the number of bridges that don't collapse.
There would be an equal number of starving children to the number of well-fed children.
There would be an equal number of people in prison as out.
There would be an equal number of volcanic actions to non-volcanic actions.
There would be an equal number of burnt cookies to well-baked cookies.
There would be an equal number of good Hollywood movies to the number of bad Hollywood movies.
There would be an equal number of bad judgments in criminal courts, that is, an equal number of innocent people would be incarcerated or electrocuted as the number of people who are actually guilty of crimes.
I would say everything could be viewed as a pocket-pussy, not as a vibrator. Everything is fair game to go after sexually, as long as it moves. This I think is a useful philosophy. The first of its kind!
Thank you, sister, @ovdtogt! You opened my eyes and philosophically paved the way to creating an ideology for my behaviour!
Love the analogy about the battery. Yes, it shows a starting point of imbalance, and a movement towards balance. I think, and can't prove it, but with the examples in my first entry - the tendency for balance across the universe is far stronger than the tendency for imbalance - i.e. a relatively even spread of matter across the universe, the even applicability of the fundamental laws of nature across all positions in the universe, etc. What do you think of that point?
Here's also another thought on the imbalanced battery starting point. A battery with a negative and positive side is very balanced in the sense that it has two different sides to it, one that has lots of electrons and one that doesn't. A hallmark of balance is diversity, this battery has lots of balance because it contains differences.
But if everything moves to balance, shouldn't everything have balanced out by now, all imbalances have ceased to exist, and our universe come to standstill? I think that might be one of your next points, so let me answer.
The universe is either finite in regards to spacetime, or infinite. Let's assume it is infinite. Now imagine an infinite universe filled with an infinite variety and quantity of "things" operating within an infinite time frame. Let's say this infinite spacetime tends towards balance like our universe appears to. This universe will always have local imbalances, because once a certain system has balanced out, then something from outside that system from the broader infinity comes in, a local imbalance is created, and then balance is re-established, only to have it happen over and over again. So that's the theory on why imbalances still occur in an infinite, eternal universe, but still the arrow of balance irons things out.
Thanks for the comments. Perhaps we can talk about a definition of balance. What about balance containing stability, moderation, and diversity?
In that case, a balanced distribution of people in the same population above - types of bridges, differently-fed children, and movies - tend to show a standard bell curve - in other moderation - in distributions. In other words, most bridges perform the way they are designed, to last x number of years, and some outliers last way longer and way shorter. Same with how well children are fed - most are fed decently well and the outliers are too well fed and too little fed.
Here's a question. If this is not a balanced world, then why is a fundamental force of nature such as gravity always seem to be so constant and stable? Have you experienced random zones of non-gravity on earth where the stable laws of nature break down?
Similar to string theory. That the building blocks of the universe are strings.
Do you think the universe, just like us, is always moving towards and seeking equilibrium?
I think that many times, the movement is from instability to stability, such as the Big Bang explosion, where little to none of our current laws of physics work, to our current more stable universe.
But I think you have a point. In some instances, things devolve into instability. A country's politics, a person's health, etc. But I think those instabilities, or imbalances, are wrapped up in a higher, broader picture of a movement towards balance. Take someone getting sick and dying. I think the fact that every living creature dies someone is amazing display of balance. All humans - all known life in fact - have the same fate - death. What an equalizer, a balancer. So if a single person dies, it is imbalanced for them, but for the broader picture of the cosmos, it is a movement towards balance towards all life.
neg-entropy to entropy. Everything in the Universe is an oscillation. Instead of a battery consider a spring that you have pressed together or pulled apart. When you let it loose it starts to vibrate. However you can also use it to apply a force (energy) to another system. Because the Universe is expanding the amount of energy is slowly being spread out over a larger and larger volume (in effect the energy is dissipating). Life is also a kind of battery able to absorb energy from its surroundings.
All things decay from a high energy (high degree of imbalance) level to the complete dissipation of energy.(flat-lining, energy death). I look at the Universe as a kind of 'wind-up clock' slowly losing its energy potential.
Eventually all energy is so spread out the process ends.
No it isn't.
Then what do you think a system is? I think a system is a whole, which is composed of parts. And, for the parts to exist as a whole it is necessary that there is some sort of balance. Otherwise you'd have a random collection of objects and not a whole nor a "system". To speak of a system without any balance is contradictory nonsense. For a system to have any temporal extension (therefore existence), there must be balance in the internal forces.
You do believe that there are internal forces within a complex whole don't you?
Only closed systems (objects) are internally balanced and motionless and only the input of energy causes imbalance (motion). Open systems leak energy and require the input of energy to retain it's balance (life).
Yep.
I know the difference between an open system and a closed system. This makes no difference to whether or not a system, as "a system" has an internal balance. A system is a coherent whole, and without a balance between internal forces, there is no coherency. An open system is still inherently balanced or else it could not be called a system, it would just be objects interacting in a random way, no coherent whole.
Perhaps you are referencing a different understanding of "balance" from me. It is not necessary that a system's parts be motionless for that system to be balanced, only that the motions be balanced.
Quoting Banno
From Wikipedia on "system":
What I am trying to explain to you is that for interrelated entities to form a unified whole there is necessarily a balance in the interactions between these entities. It's very obvious, and common sense really. If there is no balance, there is no unified whole, just interacting entities. You may insist on denying this fact, without any support for your denial, that's your prerogative.
Be my guest. But don't expect me to follow you.
No "balance" as it appears to be used in this thread means equal proportions, or in the case of a system, equilibrium. In order that a group of entities may exist as a unified whole, there must be equilibrium in their interactions. Without that equilibrium there is no reason why the group of entities can be called a unified whole.
Quoting ovdtogt
You're not addressing what I am saying. An eternal system is an "ideal" balance, but a state of equilibrium need not last forever to have existence for a period of time. That a state of equilibrium must last forever to be balanced is pure nonsense.
Quoting ovdtogt
Who said anything about a "permanent balance"?
That's just wrong. Systems that are not in a state of equilibrium are a commonplace.
Unstable systems exist. But are much less likely to last than stable systems.
Help me understand entropy better. If it is a movement from order to disorder, then how does a seemingly disorderly event like the Big Bang turn into the order around us. In that case, the universe goes from high entropy to lower entropy now.
Also, on the quantum level, it seems like entropy is defined as the number of possible states matter can take. The higher energy, the more potential states, and the higher entropy. So also in that case, the universe moving towards less entropy.
I like your definition of a system, Metaphysician Undercover. And maybe what I was going for was once a systems loses stability or balance, it might lose its status as a system.
Here's another question, guys. Take an infinite, eternal system. Basically infinite spacetime. If that exists and we are part of it, is it necessarily perfectly balanced? Remember, with all the examples of seeming imbalance in the world around us, we are looking at short time frames in small spaces. Imagine expanding our view to maximum time and space. Does the universe become perfectly balanced?
Let me get this straight. You come here directing talk about open and closed systems in my direction, and now you say that you have no interest in understanding what a system is. How precious is your naïve mind?
Quoting Banno
That a system does not have a particular form of equilibrium does not mean that it doesn't have another form of equilibrium. If a system is not in some form of equilibrium then it is not a system. But there may be numerous types of equilibrium which a particular system doesn't partake in. Something completely without any form of equilibrium whatsoever, might be a transitional condition, intermediate between systems, accounting for the corruption and generation of systems, but this is not a system itself.
Quoting DanielP
A system must "last" for a period of time or else it does not exist. If it lasts for a minute, a second, or an hour, it has the equilibrium required to qualify as that specified system, for that amount of time. "Last" is a relative term, so we might be able to measure degrees of instability in relation to temporal extension. However, as I explained already, there is a fundamental balance implied by the concept of "system" and to the extent that the balance will not last forever, we say that the system (balance) is unstable.
Quoting DanielP
Thanks Daniel, I'm glad that someone here can understand reason.
Well, let me join you in believing everything is about balance. Would it be fair then to say that there has to be imbalance as a counterweight to balance?
Which is prior, imbalance or balance? In my opinion imbalance precedes balance, providing the motive force that moves a system towards balance. Balance can't cause imbalance because the opposing forces are equal and no net change can occur.
You say a battery is balanced because it has a positive and negative but then what causes the electrons to flow and generate a current? It can't be balance because balance simply lacks an unopposed force to do anything. Ergo, there has to be an imbalance that results in a current.
You asked two questions. I numbered them in the quote above. My replies are correspondingly numbered.
[1] I don't know.
[2] No I have not.
Are you trying to prove with these two answers that there is balance in nature as a guiding force? I would like to see the proof.
Something stably pervasive in existence does not mean it's a sign of balancedness.
You might as well try to prove that god exists with the fact that gravity is pervasive and consistent.
Banno seemed to think that a system could exist without balance, so I thought it might be a good idea to clear up this misunderstanding. You chose to defend the erroneous principle. Now Banno nor you, appear interested in clearing up the misunderstanding.
Quoting ovdtogt
Banno already took this approach, and I produced the one off Wikipedia
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The interaction between entities spoken of here can be described in terms of force, and the force of these interactions must be in some way balanced in order that we can speak of the group of interacting entities as a unified whole. The boundary of the system is a description of the limits of the unity, which is the parameter of balance, equilibrium. An interaction of entities outside this description, have not the described unity because they have not got the prescribed equilibrium of that system.
Quoting ovdtogt
That's a bold statement. I think "systems theory" does exactly that, uses systems as an analogy to natural processes. Do you believe that systems theory has no premise to support what it is doing?
I too have lost interest in this line of thought.