[Biochemist]

Folks in the Naturalism camp argue that the existing state of nature arose from first cause by a series of random events. Somewhere in this process, we achieved a system that appears to be non-random. For example, many folks believe that natural selection is NOT random.

If this is the case, has anyone ever shown that a truly random system (e.g., the primordium) can generate a subsequent system (e.g., the existing natural selection system) that is organized? In this case not only is the resultant system organized, but it looks as if it tends toward increasing organization.

If our existing enviroment is truly organized (as it appears to be) then either:

1) It was initially random, and transitioned to a organized state at some point in the past
2) It was never random in the first place


Has anyone ever demonstrated (in any field) that a highly organized system (that actually tends toward increasing organization) can be generated from random presursors?

[Tormod]

I would suggest for example star formation. From the initial chaotic state of nebulous gas a star is formed through the force of gravity. A star is a very complex object with a high degree of organisation.

The same goes for planets and their orbits.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Tormod

I would suggest for example star formation. From the initial chaotic state of nebulous gas a star is formed through the force of gravity. A star is a very complex object with a high degree of organisation.

The same goes for planets and their orbits.

This is a good example, Tormod, but it is a little like the example that FishTeacher gave in another thread. FT suggested that crystallization is an example of creating order from randomness. In that case, however, the order in crystalization is exactly defined by the source inputs. Crystalization, whether by precipitation from solution or by cooling is essentially 100% likely in the correct conditions. Ergo, I have a hard time defining that product as a random event.

Star system formation (as I understand it) is a little like that, although not quite so simple. Source inputs (nebulous gas in this case) have a relatively small number of resultants. We can predict the maturation of nebulous gas cloud into new star system, and then into progressively older star types. Since this maturation from nebulous gas to dead star is predictable, I don't see that as an example of randomness, although it is certainly chaotic. (Incidentally, I am NOT a cosmologist, so if I say something really stupid, please say so).

Do you think the maturation of star systems is really random, or is this predictable maturation just an example of a resultant system reflecting a structured sequitur from an earlier organized system?

[Tormod]

A gas cannot be predicted, especially not a stellar gas. Consider the sizes of these things. Our computer models may show that we get this or that outcome given certain variables, but we cannot know the exact initial state of any system of that complexity.

[TeleMad]

Whether or not star formation can technically be labeled random, it is an example of a purely natural process that starts with a random/disordered system of particles and produces an ordered one from it.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Tormod

A gas cannot be predicted, especially not a stellar gas. Consider the sizes of these things. Our computer models may show that we get this or that outcome given certain variables, but we cannot know the exact initial state of any system of that complexity.

I think I was pretty inarticulate in my last post.

I did not mean to infer any level of predictability in star genesis, except in the macro sense. Certainly the level of chaos (that is, the number of non-linear processes running concurrently) in a formative star system would preclude specific prediction, even if we knew the starting state in good detail. That is the nature of chaotic behavior. We don't know the specifics of the non-linear proceses, and we can't solve multiple concurrent nonlinear equations. But even though we can't predict the end state (due to chaotic complexity), the end state is a natural resultant of the beginning state.

Contrast this with the notion of random dice rolls. Any initial state (e.g., a previous roll) has no bearing on the end state (e.g., the next roll). If we hypothesize that stars form through a deterministic process subsequent to a specific initial state, then the environment was never random in the first place.

As I begin to rethink my own initial question, I am wondering if we have examples of systems that are actually random. The biological environment on primordial earth may have been random, although my impression of that possibility my be a vestige of my limitied understanding of the extant chaotic complexity.

Do you think the source nebulous gasses were actually random?

[C1ay]

I would suggest the atomic structure of the elements themselves that developed from the quark-gluon plasma we call the primordial soup as order from randomness. Each is a stable system of protons, neutrons and electrons. The electron shells themselves are ordered, incremental energy levels.

[Fishteacher73]

As I brought up earlier, there is debate on whether the universe is deterministic (Due to the basic physics of it) or random..Check out this thread for a discussion on it Biochem., its pretty good. I started on the side of free will, but eventually conceded to the deterministic view.
http://www.hypography.com/sciencefor...ead.php?t=1783

While crystalization is a very basic model, i think it is an apt example. Given specific circumstances the outcome is prdectable and ordered. Even if the sample is contaminated, the results can be reproduced if all the external factors or repeated. Abiogenisis I feel is the same way. Gven the right situaton (such as primordial Earth), life is the outcome; just as a specific crystaline structure is expected under certain conditions.

One must rememer that even primordial Earth was a very complex system that as scientists we think we understand what the basics were like, but there is still great discussion on many aspects of what the early atmosphere was truly like, the chemistry of the oceans is still debatable, etc. And the early life did not just suddenly sprout. There were many aboitic precursors that arose that eventually were the basic inanimate parts. Proto-rna and amino acids were being formed abiotically.

This pathway is chaotic, but not random. Given the original inputs, I feel that a very similar outcome is likely.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

As I brought up earlier, there is debate on whether the universe is deterministic (Due to the basic physics of it) or random..Check out this thread for a discussion on it Biochem., its pretty good. I started on the side of free will, but eventually conceded to the deterministic view. ...http://www.hypography.com/sciencefor...ead.php?t=1783...
One must rememer that even primordial Earth was a very complex system ....This pathway is chaotic, but not random. Given the original inputs, I feel that a very similar outcome is likely.

Thanks for the reference to this thread, FT. I have to admit that I was making the same transition (initially thinking random, moving to deterministic.) I am frankly having a hard time getting my head around the notion of C1ay's quark-gluon plasma (above) being deterministic, but that is really only because the complexity is so high. We could have had a deterministic chaotic environment with extraordinary complexity. It suggests that the level of complexity at the instant of the Big Bang was highest, and all subsequent systems formed were of less complexity as they organized. We eventually arrived at some systems that are not even chaotic. FT- Was that your conclusion?

Since we are in the philosophy thread (i.e., not basic science thread) I feel obligated to point out that acceptance of determinism does not obligate one to assume absence of free will. (I am only bringing this up to clarify nomenclature.) We still have the "first casue" issue: If a Creator set the Big Bang in play, the Creator could have separated some elements from the determinism, notably free will. If you think the deterministic nature of the universe was established in the absence of a Creator, this is Naturalism. If you think a Creator set the Big Bang in play (presumably with some intent), you are one of several categories of theist.

One interesting corollary: If we think the universe was deterministic since the Big Bang, this means it is the source of all information load. This means the the information load in DNA is miniscule compared to the information load in the Big Bang initial state.

(You notice I had to sneak some biochemistry back into the discussion.)

[pgrmdave]

How do we define order, or organization? I have difficulty with those words because they seem to me to be too subjective.