So... I've been re-evaluating my world view lately...

[AnarchoJesse]

I have been re-evaluating some of my positions lately (I'm kind of going back to my leftist roots and have been considering a mix of Mutual-Market Anarchism to be the more preferable outcome in a free society, questioning my atheism, etc.), and last night I had a discussion with a friend of mine that kind of helped me put it all together. I'm going to lay out my ideas in the most concise way possible, and I would appreciate constructive criticism and any off-topic comments at a minimum.

I cannot stress how important this is for me as a person, and I would hope you all understand that I only accept views after a rigorous breakdown and examination of them.

So... now...

Let me begin with chaos.

Chaos, does not exist, as a definitive quality of chaos is "not-orderly". However, when concepts such as chaos have qualities which can be observed or defined, there is no more chaos-- the very quality of "not-orderly" in itself presents a pattern of order. Now, the key to a pattern is that a pattern must have context. Without context to the components of the pattern of what lies beyond the pattern, it is ultimately meaningless. Moreover, context can only be identified if there is an "observer". If we're to accept that there is a pattern, we must be able to use context to establish there is a pattern when held against the universe and other patterns.

Now, I'm going to attempt to break it down a bit, but I want you to understand that what I'm going to explain is simply a microsm of a huge pattern. It is in itself a pattern, and is a primitive attempt to separate a link of the pattern from the pattern itself. This is of course, impossible, for the link has no context without the wider pattern or the other links that form its pattern, so I must rely on abstractions to best put my ideas forward.

We'll start with A.

So standing alone, a unpatterned-pattern would look like this:

A

Now lets expand upon this singular strand of the unpatterned-pattern and expand it to the overlying pattern that it is connected to:

AXAXAX

Now, right here we can see the obvious pattern in this string. What we can't see, however, (1) is the end of this string and (2) the overlying the pattern that this pattern helps establish. We cannot possible observe the entirety of this pattern, and thus, we cannot not know the actual form of this pattern. I would acknowledge that it is conceivable to discover this pattern, but that it would take generations to do so. However, because we can see the pattern, we can establish that this pattern exists within context to other patterns.

Now, if we take AXAXAX and condense it to where we can observe it is a singular concept representing a collection of concepts linked to form patterns, we come up with n. From here, the process repeats itself ad infinitum, both forwards into the larger pattern, and backwards into the smaller patterns. From here, we can soundly conclude that the universe is patterned, and this leads us to an even more complex condition-- the universe itself cannot be the end of the pattern, but is in fact a part of an even larger meta-pattern. Indeed, the universe is without context if there is nothing to distinguish it from, and this absence of universe is precisely the context by which we can define a universe.

In short, I think that the observation of patterns would lead us to conclude that there is in fact a "meta-observer", if you will. I'm going to stop short of saying that this meta-observer is/is a "god" here for a few reasons. The first, is that "god" is too narrow of a concept to try and pigeon-hole this meta-observer. We're faced with the prospect of trying to define and classify what we are not intellectually or linguistically equipped to understand in any complete sense. Ultimately, it is a guessing game, and there is no way of telling who is guessing right or wrong because the pattern is just too damn complex.

The second reason is because this meta-observer would be beholden to the same governing concept of patterns. That there is a universe to observe means that there is context to the universe from an "outside" perspective, and that this extra-universal vantage point is likely to indicate an "outside perspective" to this extra-universal point. Admittedly, it's an ad reductio issue, but it doesn't deny the plausibility of it.

Now, I'm going to use this talk of a conceptually irrelevant meta-observer within our own pattern and briefly segue into ethics and point out that a patterned universe is indicative of an objective universe-- simply because you may see a pattern differently or interpret it differently does not render the pattern a non-pattern. If we're to accept that there is a patterned and ordered universe, we must also accept that there is a patterned and ordered means to validating our rights. Because we still live within and are confined to our specific pattern, we're still beholden to the patterns that exist, and this would be an indicator for natural rights (although at this point "patterned" rights would make more sense, because nature is just a more ambiguous part of the pattern of our universe).

Now, there is one aspect that I'm still unsure of-- Determinism, Compatibilism, and Free Will. I am personally inclined to think that because the pattern of the universe that an underlying order does exist, but this order is sort of "open-ended". That is, there may be an aspect to the pattern that allows you to influence other patterns, but they must be strictly within the confines of the pattern. This said, it doesn't eliminate the possibility of infinite outcomes because of infinite possibilities of patterns.

So to draw it out on a tiny scale, it'd look like this--

/----ABABAB
A
\----AFAFAF

You have A, which is a generally singular point in the pattern of time, from which you can opt into a myriad of patterns, all of which connects A into other patterns, and would even go so far as to say that creates infinite patterns in itself by simply connecting to any one pattern. To understand what I'm trying to understand what I'm speaking of with this infinite pattern, take A and put it in a "sphere" of possible patterns (which is infinite). Now, while it may seem that the A is connected to AFAFAF on a primary observation (that it is, it seems linear and exclusive to it), the >? may also extend in another linear direction in the sphere, so to look on a simplistic level like this--

A
G
A
G
AFAFAF
G
A
G
A

... and keeps going in every direction, in every manner in infinite succession, some patterns being more mutual to some than others.

I have no way of proving this aspect of being able to influence the patterns, and I feel the case I am making is a bit weak, so this would definitely be worth considering in greater detail.

So in summary, I have made a case by which we can say the universe is objective in that it contains an underlying order to all of it, that the universe exists in context to the non-universe which must be separate and paradoxically connected, and that the context of the Universe-Non-universe paradox can only exist on any meaningful level if there is a meta-observer (which is not to be confused with most common conceptions of god). I'm just now putting this in words on paper (kinda), and my thinking and writing might be a bit sloppy... but... yeah. Feed back is appreciated.

[AnarchoJesse]

I just realized that the Greek letters didn't come through..... Hmm.

[K. Darien Freeheart]

We're faced with the prospect of trying to define and classify what we are not intellectually or linguistically equipped to understand in any complete sense. Ultimately, it is a guessing game, and there is no way of telling who is guessing right or wrong because the pattern is just too damn complex.

This is what moved me from "rabid atheist" to just "atheist". Bees can't see violet, but they can see infrared. I've always held that humanity may not have the sensory capacity to "make sense" of it. I reject the idea of "chaos" just as you do but for me it's actually a lot more emotional than logical. It's the same reason why Ian's "Law of Attraction" tirrades on FTL annoy me so much. I like my universe having "cause" and "reaction". Knowing there is both, even if I don't understand the implications of all of the shifts, makes me feel "real". If suddenly "things that are" weren't formed by "things that were", I would feel greatly disempowered.

Anyway, I've "come to terms" with the fact that there aren't answers or perhaps that the answers are so complex that they might as well not exists. It's why I no longer really care, but also why I feel it doesn't matter. If there was a "god" that created this complex, unknowable pattern, then "getting it" won't have a reward (i.e. heaven) because it was made unknowable. If there's no god then knowing or nor knowing also carries no reward. It's almost the polar opposite of Pascal's Wager.

The second reason is because this meta-observer would be beholden to the same governing concept of patterns.

Most people assign the title "God" to mean this statement would be false. That rather than being "subect" to the rules, it would be creator of it.

Let us presuppose that neither "there is a god" nor "there is no god" are 100% valid answers. There may be a logical flaw in your arguement there. Science is showing that the rules we understand about physics (i.e. gravity) don't apply when the scale is changed dramatically. Quarks, for instance, are held "together" by "strong" and "weak" forces, not by gravity. They serve the same function, but have different specifics. It might make sense to suppose that this meta-observer would be on a macroscale that created entirely different properties. Perhaps one of these properties is that "time" doesn't exist - that all possibilities at all possible "times" occur at once and in view. Perhaps even more than that, perhaps the very cause-effect relationship is suspended on this level of existance. Of course, quarks will never "get big enough" to start to experience gravity rather than weak, and we'll never get big enough to experience that plane. One might hold that if it is indeed a different level of existance (as opposed the the judeoislamachristian idea of "everywhere at once") it may be incapable of affecting things on ours, which once again makes it all moot anyway. When discussing godstuff, it is not illogical to assume that the burrito can be both too hot to eat AND edible at the same time.

[FTL_Ian]

The letters were a little confusing, but I like what you have to say, Jesse.

I agree that "god" is poor term due to its association with a vindictive, paternalistic, and judgmental entity.  "All that is", the "unmoved mover", and other terms are far more descriptive of the universal concept you are describing.

I've been enjoying listening to "Conversations with God" and recommend books one and three.
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3935652/Conversations_With_God_Neale_Donald_Walsch_Audio_book_1-3

In short, we are the universe (all-that-is, or god) experiencing itself.  We have free will and can choose what serves us, or what does not.  Our thoughts, words, and actions create our reality.  (Laws of Attraction and Deliberate Creation) 

You describe in different terms (non-universe and universe) above the concept of the absolute and the relative.  The absolute created the relative (our reality) in order to know itself.  You came here to remember who you really are - part of all that is - with the same universal forces at your disposal.  You experience the contrast, then choose how you feel about it, and what you will say and do about it.   From the perspective of absolute, there is no right and wrong. No one is judged by the absolute for their choices. From our perspective, in the realm of the relative, we get to choose what is right and wrong for us.  Most choose based on what they are told by others, like organized religion and government.  As we well know, this is the easy way as it does not require thinking, and inevitably results in those individuals being controlled by those who would manipulate them for their own purposes.  For those of us who have moved beyond such mental strictures, we understand that the best definition of what is right and wrong is the one that we create for ourselves based on our own experiences and observations.

Based on my experience and observations I believe these to be true:

In order to be free I must allow others to be free.
In order to get what I want I must give others what they want.

We are on the leading edge of thought and evolution.  It's why the FSP is so important.  We were scattered before in a sea of ignorance, now we are coming together.  Our consciousness will affect the experience of the followers, and many of them will come to the same truths that we have.  Those who reject them will likely leave.  The voluntary society (the next great step in the evolution of mankind) is inevitable, because that is the focus of our intentions, words, and actions.

Sorry if that wasn't the commentary you were looking for, but that was what I was inspired to say.  Check out Conversations with God - don't let the title scare you away.

[FTL_Ian]

I don't think time exists.  It's just a concept we came up with to help us define our experience.  All possibilities exist in the now.  The next moment we all experience is determined by the thoughts and actions of everyone.

[FTL_Ian]

Kevin, LoA doesn't strip the universe of cause and effect.  Not sure why you think it does.  Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

Also, I'm pretty sure there has never been a "tirade" from anyone on FTL about LoA.  We have discussions about it occasionally.

[BillKauffman]

I don't get what chaos has to do with mutualism (free market, anti-capitalism).

I am interested more on how you are synthesizing mutualism and anarcho-capitalism from a practical perspective.

[John Edward Mercier]

Mutualism is the underlying free market economic base...

[K. Darien Freeheart]

Also, I'm pretty sure there has never been a "tirade" from anyone on FTL about LoA.  We have discussions about it occasionally.

In fairness, you're right. I apologize for claiming you do it. I can speak of a specific series of shows where I do feel it became a tirade and patronizing and it annoyed me to the point I was about to actually stop listening to an episode because it ceased to be enjoyable. Luckily, Mark pointed it out at that time and redeemed it. But the tirades come from Sam, not you, and so I do apologize for the way I worded that.

Kevin, LoA doesn't strip the universe of cause and effect.  Not sure why you think it does.

I'm really not interested in discussing it either here nor now. I was merely expressing my opinion in relation to AnarchoJessie's post. There'll be plenty of time later to hash my opinions out in person soon enough.

[BillKauffman]

Mutualism is the underlying free market economic base...

Mutualism the economic or biological theory?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism

[Keyser Soce]

Highly recommended.

http://www.amazon.com/Fooled-Randomness-Hidden-Chance-Markets/dp/1587990717

Although the discourse is centered around the markets, I think you'll find some interesting (if disheartening) bits that might reshape your view of chaos and patterns.