Philosophy Now Forum

In a universe that is contracting, would human philosophers experience the 'problem of analysis' rather than the 'problem of induction?'

The universe begins with complex systems bunched together and spreads out more and more until all that is left is a cold, even distribution of simple objects; this is entropy. Some physicists think that this process gives the direction to events that we call time. Other universes may be going in the opposite direction.

Analysis is analogous to entropy, induction is the opposite. Analysis is the egg hitting the floor and breaking, induction is the egg putting itself back together. Analysis breaks apart complex concepts into parts and seems natural and easy for us, and often somewhat boring. Induction creates new concepts out of the old and seems somewhat mysterious or unnatural to us and requires things such as 'creativity,' 'inspiration,' 'genius.'

Life itself defies entropy in a way. While in total, the universe is expanding and breaking apart, we are pocket systems which defy this trend. We heat ourselves internally, we build things, we procreate and our most basic instinct is for survival, or keeping ourselves from 'dispersing' our atoms out into the cold universe.

Could our way of thinking be in some way patterned after the physical laws that govern our universe? Is our creativity a rebellion against those laws? And how could a universe undergoing entropy produce systems (life) which run counter to it?

Seems you like to confuse yourself with beautiful rhetorical babble and nonsense, fortunaly there's loads of other cozy chatters like you that would like nothing better to endulge it.

HexHammer wrote:Seems you like to confuse yourself with beautiful rhetorical babble and nonsense, fortunaly there's loads of other cozy chatters like you that would like nothing better to endulge it.

Hex, you're losing your touch. You called my rhetorical babble 'beautiful.'

Even us dull, logical types get to daydream once in a while.

Wyman wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Seems you like to confuse yourself with beautiful rhetorical babble and nonsense, fortunaly there's loads of other cozy chatters like you that would like nothing better to endulge it.

Hex, you're losing your touch. You called my rhetorical babble 'beautiful.'

Even us dull, logical types get to daydream once in a while.

So what do you base your OP on? It seems to defy any scientific understanding that I know of.

HexHammer wrote:

Wyman wrote:

HexHammer wrote:Seems you like to confuse yourself with beautiful rhetorical babble and nonsense, fortunaly there's loads of other cozy chatters like you that would like nothing better to endulge it.

Hex, you're losing your touch. You called my rhetorical babble 'beautiful.'

Even us dull, logical types get to daydream once in a while.

So what do you base your OP on? It seems to defy any scientific understanding that I know of.

Pure speculation - or, as you like to call it, cozy chatter. But don't you think it odd that life popped into existence as it did in a kind of backwater of an expanding universe?

I see, thanks for elaborating.

Wyman wrote:Even us dull, logical types get to daydream once in a while.

It's a blessing and a curse.

Wyman wrote:In a universe that is contracting, would human philosophers experience the 'problem of analysis' rather than the 'problem of induction?'

This tells us everything we need to know about a contracting universe. http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=red ... 1A8EBF153D

Wyman wrote:The universe begins with complex systems bunched together and spreads out more and more until all that is left is a cold, even distribution of simple objects; this is entropy. Some physicists think that this process gives the direction to events that we call time. Other universes may be going in the opposite direction.

It is a bit odd that two of our most profound theories, entropy and evolution, on the face of it, are going in opposite directions. It looks as if the more sophisticated we become, the better we are at making things simple.

Wyman wrote:In a universe that is contracting, would human philosophers experience the 'problem of analysis' rather than the 'problem of induction?'

The universe begins with complex systems bunched together and spreads out more and more until all that is left is a cold, even distribution of simple objects; this is entropy. Some physicists think that this process gives the direction to events that we call time. Other universes may be going in the opposite direction.

Analysis is analogous to entropy, induction is the opposite. Analysis is the egg hitting the floor and breaking, induction is the egg putting itself back together. Analysis breaks apart complex concepts into parts and seems natural and easy for us, and often somewhat boring. Induction creates new concepts out of the old and seems somewhat mysterious or unnatural to us and requires things such as 'creativity,' 'inspiration,' 'genius.'

Life itself defies entropy in a way. While in total, the universe is expanding and breaking apart, we are pocket systems which defy this trend. We heat ourselves internally, we build things, we procreate and our most basic instinct is for survival, or keeping ourselves from 'dispersing' our atoms out into the cold universe.

Could our way of thinking be in some way patterned after the physical laws that govern our universe? Is our creativity a rebellion against those laws? And how could a universe undergoing entropy produce systems (life) which run counter to it?

I can follow this to a point. The universe stated out in a highly ordered state and has been under going a process of gradual disorder (higher entropy). No doubt this plays an important part in the explanation for the arrow of time pointing in one direction.

I am happy to go along with this in terms of general statements, but I don't see how this relates to induction.

Ginkgo wrote:

Wyman wrote:In a universe that is contracting, would human philosophers experience the 'problem of analysis' rather than the 'problem of induction?'

The universe begins with complex systems bunched together and spreads out more and more until all that is left is a cold, even distribution of simple objects; this is entropy. Some physicists think that this process gives the direction to events that we call time. Other universes may be going in the opposite direction.

Analysis is analogous to entropy, induction is the opposite. Analysis is the egg hitting the floor and breaking, induction is the egg putting itself back together. Analysis breaks apart complex concepts into parts and seems natural and easy for us, and often somewhat boring. Induction creates new concepts out of the old and seems somewhat mysterious or unnatural to us and requires things such as 'creativity,' 'inspiration,' 'genius.'

Life itself defies entropy in a way. While in total, the universe is expanding and breaking apart, we are pocket systems which defy this trend. We heat ourselves internally, we build things, we procreate and our most basic instinct is for survival, or keeping ourselves from 'dispersing' our atoms out into the cold universe.

Could our way of thinking be in some way patterned after the physical laws that govern our universe? Is our creativity a rebellion against those laws? And how could a universe undergoing entropy produce systems (life) which run counter to it?

I can follow this to a point. The universe stated out in a highly ordered state and has been under going a process of gradual disorder (higher entropy). No doubt this plays an important part in the explanation for the arrow of time pointing in one direction.

I am happy to go along with this in terms of general statements, but I don't see how this relates to induction.

With the caveat that this is complete speculation and daydreaming, as I told Hexhammer, I was thinking of induction as a synthesis and analysis as the opposite. Specifically, I was thinking of analytic geometry, where all of geometry is broken down into simple axioms with undefined simple terms. This is analogous to entropy. Induction I think of as comping up with new equivalences, concepts, theorems and other useful complexes. I analogized this as to contrary to entropy.

I was taking the analogy a step (or two) further and wondering if our methods of thought were somehow tied to these two opposite patterns of the physical universe. And, in a universe with different laws, could there be thinkers who exhibit different patterns. And, as induction is running in the opposite direction as entropy (the overall state of things), is that why we see it as problematic; and to get really existential, perhaps induction is a rebellion against those laws.

Wyman wrote:
With the caveat that this is complete speculation and daydreaming, as I told Hexhammer, I was thinking of induction as a synthesis and analysis as the opposite. Specifically, I was thinking of analytic geometry, where all of geometry is broken down into simple axioms with undefined simple terms. This is analogous to entropy. Induction I think of as comping up with new equivalences, concepts, theorems and other useful complexes. I analogized this as to contrary to entropy.

I think I see what you are getting at. If you are saying that entropy can be explained in terms of contingency, then I guess we could say this is analogous to the problem of induction. On the other hand, Iwould of thought that entropy in relation to contingency was more of a 'breaking down' of ordered states rather a re-synthesis back into an ordered state. But, then again I am not really sure.

Wyman wrote:
I was taking the analogy a step (or two) further and wondering if our methods of thought were somehow tied to these two opposite patterns of the physical universe. And, in a universe with different laws, could there be thinkers who exhibit different patterns. And, as induction is running in the opposite direction as entropy (the overall state of things), is that why we see it as problematic; and to get really existential, perhaps induction is a rebellion against those laws.

As far as I am aware there is nothing in the laws of physics that prevents backwards causation, even though we never experience it. So I guess you are asking in term of a thought experiment if it is metaphysically possible- but not actually possible -for people to live and experience a world of backwards causation?

Wyman wrote:... And how could a universe undergoing entropy produce systems (life) which run counter to it?

Because life doesn't run counter to entropy. Does entropy mean disorder? I thought it just meant even energy distribution which is an ordered state. In a closed-system entropy loses no energy, it just evenly distributes it. Whether the universe is a closed or open entropic system is still an open question I guess but you'd have to ask a physicist.

Arising_uk wrote:

Wyman wrote:... And how could a universe undergoing entropy produce systems (life) which run counter to it?

Because life doesn't run counter to entropy. Does entropy mean disorder? I thought it just meant even energy distribution which is an ordered state. In a closed-system entropy loses no energy, it just evenly distributes it. Whether the universe is a closed or open entropic system is still an open question I guess but you'd have to ask a physicist.

No, entropy would be the ultimate 'order.' It is stagnation, or even distribution throughout. Life is a different kind of order, contrary to 'even distribution throughout'; almost the opposite of it in fact, which is the paradox.

Wyman wrote:No, entropy would be the ultimate 'order.' ...

My point?

It is stagnation, ...

From whose point of view?

... Life is a different kind of order, contrary to 'even distribution throughout'; almost the opposite of it in fact, which is the paradox.

Life obeys the Laws of Thermodynamics, we are open entropic systems hence we die in the end.

Arising_uk wrote:

Wyman wrote:No, entropy would be the ultimate 'order.' ...

My point?

It is stagnation, ...

From whose point of view?

... Life is a different kind of order, contrary to 'even distribution throughout'; almost the opposite of it in fact, which is the paradox.

Life obeys the Laws of Thermodynamics, we are open entropic systems hence we die in the end.

So we die of entropy. I can see phrasing it that way. I still think it's an open question as to whether life (consciousness, for instance) follows these rules.

A more interesting question is how the laws of thermodynamics allowed life itself to begin and thrive all these years.

Wyman wrote:
No, entropy would be the ultimate 'order.' It is stagnation, or even distribution throughout. Life is a different kind of order, contrary to 'even distribution throughout'; almost the opposite of it in fact, which is the paradox.

Perhaps you could say it is both order and disorder, but I wouldn't see this as a paradox.