RE: Is Beauty the Flip-Side of Entropy?
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Hello to you,
long time no see. How are you?
I very much liked how you handle the topic. And also pleased that you talk about systems :)
Since disorder cannot be understood without order, they are mutually dependent. When a blob of ink falls into the water, we see a random arrangement of streaks in the water (which look beautiful), we see a certain order (or arrangement of molecules that are still separated), in other words, we can make a distinction between the coloured ink molecules and the clear water. The disorder is "perfect" when water and ink have mixed into a single colour and we cannot make a distinction.
We would have a beautiful mess if all the pages of all the books in a library were mixed together. Or all the letters of the pages of a book would be mixed up.
As I have understood order (may be wrong), it lies in distinguishing things from each other.
I suppose we live in a universe where there is order and disorder, and concede the possibility that we could be heading towards order on the one hand as well as disorder on the other, depending on how much we increase or decrease the space we want to look at (like I understand, you already have said in other words?).
Greetings!
Doing okay I guess! Fighting to try and satisfy all my varied interests and hobbies while also doing what's necessary for life! You?
:P
That's an interesting way of looking at it. Indeed, without order, everything would kinda be the same.
I think everything that life does is an attempt to bring order to chaos. Jordan Peterson is one of the few popular intellectuals who appreciates the role of chaos and order in our life and often talks about it.
Maybe. I do not know for sure how life works :) though it is a fascinating topic.
Any video you can recommend with Peterson?
Ah, that's a hard question, cos a lot of what he says is often bullshit, but also a lot of gems, so it's hit or miss with him. I'd recommend: think of any topic you're interested in, and search for that along with his name on youtube. But one I remember right now that will perhaps give you a taste is this:
In this case, I would say Peterson hit some nails on the head. Thank you for the video, I listened to it with great interest.
It's true that divorces are extremely difficult processes and everyone involved loses out. He is also right about it being a lengthy process that takes many years. Those who do not manage to separate from their children as parents in such a way that the least possible damage is done will probably regret it at some point in their lives. Those who are capable of reflection and who have matured and learned from the conflict caused by the divorce will come away relatively free of ill wishes for the other. Since there are always two to a full-blown quarrel, it's sensible to ask oneself how much blood is to be spilled.
From the point of view of society as a whole, divorces are indeed a loss if nothing good comes out of them.
Do you personally see marriage as sacred?
I want to see relationships as sacred. But I can't, cos I'm realistic, and experienced. I don't necessarily agree with the stuff he says (he's very conservative), I just like the way he says things, very understandable, clear, forceful, he says things I don't know and even when I know them he says them in a new way that makes me appreciate them more.
He was interviewing an economist once on his podcast, and I hardly understood anything the economist was saying, and then Peterson repeated what the economist said in his own words, and it not only was perfectly clear and understandable, but also profound! From that one interview, I got 100% convinced that it's not possible for money to not exist! Nothing complicated can happen without money! That's a great piece of knowledge to add to one's arsenal! And it's not often that I get 100% convinced of something so important in so short a time. But I would never get it from the economist. So Peterson is great at taking things others said and making them understandable for the people. This is one reason I don't understand one of his opponents' main complaints about him: that he uses complex incomprehensible confusing language, that he makes everything more complicated than it needs to be. To me, it seems he does the very opposite.