"Chaos" vs "Order"

[little_monkey]

Thanks, LM. I think you offered a pretty reasonable explanation. It would seem, then, based upon what you have said, that you would agree that galaxies are pretty much orderly and organized. While nebula gasses and clouds are more chaotic (or at least they are less orderly).

As far as a galaxy evolving from chaos (disorder) to order, would we both agree that in order for this to be, there would need to be some sort of outside influence bringing it about?

We can easily explain the formation of galaxies and stars within the present theories. The only two players are gravity and Dark Matter.

Or do you believe that native quantum fluctuations within a closed system are sufficient to bring it from chaos to order?

We know that quantum fluctuations are unstable, but predictable in the sense that the only outcome of their instability is to create matter. Now if I bringing in the concept of entropy, it would mean that the universe started out with no or very little entropy, and ever since its entropy has been on the increase (2^nd law of thermodynamics).

[OtherCheek]

We can easily explain the formation of galaxies and stars within the present theories. The only two players are gravity and Dark Matter.

According to NASA scientists, only 20% of all matter is "dark matter", while 70% is what they call "dark energy". The rest is the stuff we can see with our telescopes, the stars, and planets and other such bodies. Possibly this is responsible for the universe expanding faster and faster.

We know that quantum fluctuations are unstable, but predictable in the sense that the only outcome of their instability is to create matter. Now if I bringing in the concept of entropy, it would mean that the universe started out with no or very little entropy, and ever since its entropy has been on the increase (2^nd law of thermodynamics).

If matter 'is' created, then it would come from already existing energy. And according to the law of entropy, it does not seem that organization and order can come from chaos- in a closed system--without being acted upon by an outside element.

[little_monkey]

According to NASA scientists, only 20% of all matter is "dark matter", while 70% is what they call "dark energy". The rest is the stuff we can see with our telescopes, the stars, and planets and other such bodies. Possibly this is responsible for the universe expanding faster and faster.

Dark Energy did not play any major role in the early stages of the universe. In fact you can think of Dark energy as being a repulsive force, rather than being attractive -- although this picture is very simplistic. In the very early stage, it was radiation that determined the expansion, for about 400,000 yrs. The temperature was too high for matter to stay in any equilibrium. So atoms never materialized. Then as the universe cooled down, it became matter dominated. It was during that stage that atoms and molecules were formed, and on a larger scale, galaxies and stars were formed. This lasted for about 5 billion years, when Dark energy became the dominant player. Now even Dark energy makes up 70% of the universe, it is so thinly spread that you would need to collect it the size of the galaxy to light up a 100-watt lightbulb. Regardless, it is the dominant force, and we expect that the universe will continue to accelerate for a while.

If matter 'is' created, then it would come from already existing energy. And according to the law of entropy, it does not seem that organization and order can come from chaos- in a closed system--without being acted upon by an outside element.

You have to be careful with entropy and order. If you look at systems in which gravity plays no part -- examples, freezing water or boiling water -- then you can say that order is equivalent to low entropy -- the ice is high order and low entropy, water vapor is low order and high entropy. However, when there is gravity, the opposite is true. For example, the sun, very high temperature and low order, you would expect high entropy, but in fact it has low entropy. As it gives off energy, it is increasing its entropy. So when you hear that entropy is a measure of disorder, that is only true for system in which gravity plays no role.

Now, in regard to the initial chaos, we would have to conclude that in the the initial stage, which was governed by gravity, that chaos was at high temperature, low order and low entropy. And ever since then, entropy has been increasing.

[shunyadragon]

The question of "HOW" can also be adapted to infinite regression. So let's set aside "first cause" for a moment. Regarding our universe, do you think that over time, physical and natural order evolved from physical and natural chaos, or do you think physical and natural order has always been?

We can observe order consistently for over 13 billion years, we have no evidence of a chaotic disorder. There is no reason to believe that at any time a disorderly chaos existed.

[YourMaster]

He didn't say anything about physics. Philosophically, his definition of chaos is pretty spot on.

The OP question involved the state of nature and the universe .... so the laws of physics are perfectly relevant. Chaos theory is scientific (not metaphysical).

[shunyadragon]

The question of "HOW" can also be adapted to infinite regression. So let's set aside "first cause" for a moment.

I missed this point before. Infinite regression does not apply to potentially infinite physical existence in time and space where there are no starting or ending points.

[aspirnietzche]

Well, if we can see light that is 13 or so billion years old from out in the universe, then in a way we are observing the past.

we can't see anything beyond or before our universe