Exploring Hydrocarbon Depletion
NEW! Members Only Forums!
Access more articles, news & discussion by becoming a PeakOil.com Member.
MrBean wrote:Can you define order and disorder objectively? Nope, they are subjective, context dependent notions.
skateari wrote:One word: GREED
but takes things much further towards an "order" of orders
Can you define order and disorder objectively? Nope, they are subjective, context dependent notions.
MonteQuest wrote:The only definition there is to consider is the one defined by the second law of thermodynamics. This is the new world view we must embrace.
MonteQuest wrote:We will be moving from a world of quantities and stocks to one of cycles and flows. The current world view must and will shift just as radically.
MrBean wrote:MonteQuest wrote:The only definition there is to consider is the one defined by the second law of thermodynamics. This is the new world view we must embrace.
But isn't defining (dis)order by entropy tautological?
You really should read what David Bohm says about various orders (deterministic, indeterministic, chaotic, generative, implicate etc) and how they interact dynamically. I recommend 'Science, Order and Creativity' by Bohm and Peat, it contains among other things look at the historical development of our notions of order, along the same lines as in your post, but takes things much further towards an "order" of orders.
We have become a scientific society. This society has produced all sorts of discoveries and technology, but if it leads to destruction, either through war or through devastation of natural resources, then it will have been the least successful society that ever existed. We are now in danger of that.
Where we are going depends on the programs of four thousand five hundred million people, all somewhat different, most of them opposed to one another. Every moment these programs are changing in detail. Who can say where they are going to lead us? All we can do is start a movement among those few people who are interested in changing the meaning.
gg3 wrote:Much hinges on one's view of the place of living organisms in the universe at-large. Various flavors of materialist monism and atheism attempt to argue that life is an epiphenomenon of an otherwise lifeless universe; this, largely in reaction against theists' claims that life is of directly divine origin. Yet the fact remains that all of the matter, energy, and interactions among them that we observe in this universe, are both necessary and inevitable; and one can't make an exception for living organisms. That is, organisms are a necessary outgrowth of other physical processes, and as such, despite being an infinitesimal minority of the universe in terms of mass, they are not irrelevant.
bentstrider wrote:One word/name
greed and ignorance
Users browsing this forum: pstarr and 22 guests