Have philosophers speculated on how chaotic forces meeting together can result in order?

Question

Have philosophers speculated on how chaotic forces meeting together can result in order? This isn't something that can be proven scientifically, and seems to be in the realm of metaphysics. I am wondering if this particular inquiry or a similar one about chaos and order has been made.

Answer 1

"In common usage, 'chaos' means 'a state of disorder'. However, in chaos theory, a commonly used definition, it must have these properties: sensitive to initial conditions; topological transitivity/mixing, dense periodic orbits" -Wikipedia on Chaos Theory

The second condition excludes simply very different stable final states, and the third is about how close different states are (it's a refinement of sensitivity to initial conditions).

Complex systems have additional properties, by which systems are understood to reach and maintain order within a region of chaotic behaviour (region, within phase-space or the imagined space of probabilities). Complexity Theory is a well developed understanding of systems that can lead to chaotic and emergent behaviours, but it is limited in it's scope by our computing power.

Since at least Schroedinger's book 'What Is Life?' it has been discussed that life may be defined in relation to entropy. The Gibbs Free Energy is more useful in this context than entropy, as it focuses on 'harvestable' order rather just avoiding disorder. It must be noted that physicists have generally stuck to analysing closed systems close to equilibrium, but computing power is allowing far-from-equilibrium thermodynamics to be considered.

Emergence is a mode of explanation, in terms of group or system properties. So it's opposite to the Reductionist mode of explanation. They both concern bulk properties of systems where there there are groups of similar constituents, ie physical science. A lot of ink is spilled over the difference between Weak & Strong Emergence, with the latter generally reserved for qualia and aspects of consciousness. I'd look to the issue of Intelligible-Intelligence in AI, as a more significant challenge to Reductionism, because it can involve a feedback process of a system reacting to itself as a whole, and so coming to supervene on the world as a causal unit (a Strange Loop).

Deutsch & Marletto have been developing a model of physics that is expected to account for emergent order in a more fundamental way:

"Constructor Theory is a new approach to formulating fundamental laws in physics. Instead of describing the world in terms of trajectories, initial conditions and dynamical laws, in constructor theory laws are about which physical transformations are possible and which are impossible, and why." -from their Constructor Theory website

You can see their papers there including on the origins of life, and talks by a range of researchers working on the theory.

In philosophy, the Tao of Taoism would have to count, as a fundamental ordering principle of simplicity, from which things arise and return.

In mythology and psychology the chaoskampf is thought to be the oldest and most cross-cultural mythological idea, with a primeval state of potentiality being overcome for creation and history to begin.

Answer 2

Generally, philosophers have considered it as an order that is imposed on an unordered world. An example of this is in Plato's Timeaus where the demiurge imposed order and necessity on unformed matter. It is also theological, compare the opening of Hesiod's Theogony and of Genesis in The Bible as well as the more philosophical Dao De Ching.

Now, unordered is suggestive of chaos. But whilst the modern understanding of this is of random co fusion, the etymology of the word chaos shows that it is derived from the Greek khaos, meaning:

abyss, that which gapes open, that which is vast and empty

And this is closer to the philosophical understanding alluded to above rather than some mere mathematical description.

Answer 3

This is a very good question.

Thermodynamics, second law, describes how energy is dispersed in a closed system.

This means that we know the opposite: how order turns into chaos. But the opposite, how does chaos become order, not yet.

Although the energy behavior of an open system cannot be described using the second law of thermodynamics, the behavior of its parts will be similar. This implies, by logic, that an open system with low entropy will tend to keep integrity, and a system with a high entropy will tend to lose integrity. This is not something new. Most descriptions of life are based on such principle. Living entities (and perhaps ALL non-living systems, like rocks) would "disperse entropy" in order to keep a low internal entropy. For example, if we compare the energy of a rock against the energy of such rock converted in sand, it is clear that the rock has low entropy, because it keeps a lot of internal boundaries that make energy "concentrated".

So, according to the previous idea, all systems should tend to disintegration, and the universe should tend to a maximum entropy: the big freeze, which is also an old idea.

But nature does not seem to follow such path, but moreover the opposite. Life is an example of how plain sand got a lot of emergent features when complex entities raised from it. The "theory of complex systems" [1] would precisely try to describe living mechanisms. The universe do not seem to tend to a maximal entropy.

What is missing in the philosophical/scientific panorama is an idea that simply helps describing how parts become organized in systems; in simple words, how systems with low entropy are produced from dispersed energy. This is the missing idea you are searching for. Thermodynamics can describe energy dispersal. But how do we describe natural energy concentration, from a systemic point of view? No answers so far.

This is from personal experience and conclusions: Probably knowing the basics of general interaction would help us understanding how systems are formed in nature: either grains of sand or human beings. You might not believe it, but there's NO theory about general interaction, that is, how do systems interact. Von Bertalanffy (one of the Systems Theory leading figures) wrote: "Dynamic interaction appears to be a central problem in all fields of reality".

Perhaps, if we would be able to describe general the process of systemic interaction that ends up producing new systems, then, we would perhaps be able to describe the process of natural entities interaction that ends up producing new non-living and living beings: so, we would be describing how do low-entropy things are formed. Of course, this just is an speculation.

[1] I consider the "theory of complex systems" absurd, for multiple reasons. To start, it has not a precise concept. I do systems research, and in many years, I didn't found a concept that fits better than this: "complexity is what we can't understand", so, the theory of complex systems is "a theory of systems that we don't understand", something that the classical systems theory already covers, that precisely being the point: we don't study a problem because we understand it; we use the systems theory to understand problems that we don't understand, or complex problems. Other concepts tend to figures like "complex parts" (the same fallacy), "systems that have a large complexity" (pleonasm), "many systems interacting within each other" (exactly the definition of the systems theory), etc. You don't believe me? Just Google for the concept. For me, it might be called "theory of life", but even that is unnecessary, for in such case it would just be biology, or more precisely, biological system dynamics. This is an example of academic corruption, the promotion of an idea which has the only goal of getting more students on universities. Of course, not promoted by administrators of academic organizations, but by the very lecturers.