Is it possible to re-imagine the nature of chaos? It isn't very satisfying for me as a skeptic to simply accept that there are two completely distinct, incompatible forces at work (those of order and disorder). Recently I've been considering the possibility that it's not as simple as people would like it to be. I've found that, over time, one can map instances of chaos and, contrary to what one would assume, bring disorder into order. The beautifully harmonious part is that the ability for disorder to be mapped brings our prior conceptions of order into disarray, even if only for an instant. Balance, then, seems to be more of an ideal than anything else. It helps me to picture this conceptual notion as a planet orbiting a star. The star itself, or, more importantly, the space it inhabits, houses at it's center absolute equilibrium (represented by it's gravitational pull; once something reaches the center it lacks inclination). An object orbiting this star incessantly gravitates toward the source, occasionally coming relatively close to its goal but never quite reaching it. The pull of balance is so great that, in its attempt to reach harmony, it whips the planet right past the star, emblematic of the overcompensation of each force in pursuit of dominance, and the cycle repeats itself. The force of the pull in one direction is proportional to the extent to which the object travels in the other direction, again pointing to a sort of natural balance.
It is no coincidence, then, that the death of a star throws the entire system into disarray. The interaction of order and disorder must be an understood, ordered system. Without balance, what middle ground could exist between the two? What would moderate the cycle? The planet would be doomed to drift, seemingly endlessly, through interstellar space. Perhaps it could be assumed into another balanced system of order and disorder, mediated by a different sort of harmonious agent. Similarly, if either chaos or order found itself unchecked by the other, I feel that the nature of the prevailing side would change, allowing it to be balanced by some other form of the opposition. What do you think?
Mapping chaos does not necessarily entail putting any order to it, as it would not maintain a pattern, or would not be very chaotic if it did.
ReplyDeleteI don't know that they are completely incompatible, nor absolutes. There seem to be degrees of order and chaos.
Disorder into order probably happens fairly often. One must simply introduce rules and a means to enforce them, or a reason to follow them.
If order or chaos were to be removed, the nature of the other would indeed change. Are you saying that if one were suppressed, it would have to re-emerge to bring balance to the prevailing force whose nature has changed?
Certainly degrees of order and chaos previously unnoticed would emerge, and many people would likely be more willing to accept greater degrees of order or chaos since that would be the norm.
An agent of change would likely rebel against this and reintroduce the forgotten element. I wonder if change is chaos, because it would be interesting to see a state of chaos where order is introduced due to the nature of change/chaos.
Right from the beginning, I thought it was interesting how you identified order and chaos as forces. There exists an entropic force in some theories (entropy being the 'force' of disorder). I read a paper that claimed that this force is responsible for gravity. It is interesting to speculate the consequences of this.
ReplyDeleteBut what would this force of order be?