Exactly one point in time is a low probability event!

Was the Big Bang a low probability event?

How would we go about calculating the probability of the BB?

If I say something and you hear it. And then you respond to what I said and I hear it as logically following the order that I started. And then I say something else in response to your response and you hear it. And you hear it as logically following the orderliness you were following/building - haven’t we both found orderliness in the world in our eyes that read words and ears that hear sounds? — Fire Ologist

Possibly, but not necessarily.

A favorite example of mine is astrology. People who take astrology seriously are able to do all the things you just said: Hear and respond and understand one another in a perceived orderly manner.

But I'd be hesitant to draw the conclusion that the astrologists have found order in the world. I think they've ordered their thoughts in a manner that they are able to communicate, and that their names refer to various objects in the world, and all their explanations are entirely false.

Basically we want to believe if we are coherent that what we believe is true, but that's not enough because sometimes we can build whole ways of talking together in an orderly way -- such as astrology or numerology -- which has nothing to do with the world and everything to do with what satisfies us to hear.

My point is just this:

Whether 1) there is the world and its order as it presents itself to me, (which is my position), or 2) there is the world as I present myself to it (as map that I make, which is your position), but either way, 3) there is still always you or me and the ordered world (every position includes ordered descriptions and worlds); So therefore, no matter how you slice it, 4) there is the order of the world.

That itself is order in the world. 1 or 2 through 4 are not true ‘in a sense’ - they are true in all senses, because of the world.

I am not merely making up “there is you and me, and we are in the world.” The world itself has dictated this, has ordered this be a coherent statement and valid and true, to us both.

It is all we ever speak of, and can ever speak of, if we are to make sense of what each other says.

pragmatically deliver some results — Tom Storm

See, you speak of order in the world . Results (things in the world, that we point to), that are pragmatic (according to some reasoning, some ordering, some practical relationship to them). So you are speaking of a world and speaking of order (pragmatic) in the world (results are in the world, not merely an agreement). Maybe you said it for nothing more than to conjecture, but that small, pregnant quote assumes the existence of a lot that you are trying to say is not there.

this would be true in a sense. — Tom Storm

Senses of truth, and therefore senses with no truth. In these few words. Whole worlds between us, to observe and which serve as judge for what senses can be said are “true” and what senses are not.

But we are only able to make “sense of your metaphorical sense of “center” because of the way the world is, and the possibilities that we can see in it. For instance, we have to now say that this sense of center is metaphorical only:

the Earth is the center of the universe…in all our priorities and values. And this would be true in a sense. — Tom Storm

True, but only in a metaphorical sense of “center” because, the earth as a ball of mass does not relate to the sun and planets and stars as a “center”, or there is no physics to speak of. If you want results in a practical sense, place the sun as more central, not the earth. And if there is a math that holds earth as “center” and completes a description of the “earth in the world” for practical purposes not just metaphorical ones, we still have to look to order in the world to show how the map of new math maps to it.

There is a reason it makes sense to use the word “sense” when talking about “true in a sense”. It is true in a sense of the world you are pointing to by the ordering of your words. In other words, your words will only make sense when you “senses of truth” because we can both also point to something in the world that is ordered to your words (or that you can order to your words).

I guess my point is more basically, whether we put the order in the world or it is just there, we can’t escape finding order in the world. So why bother resisting “order in the world”? Look for it. Make your words make sense as descriptions I would also make because we are in the same world. (Which you do, but don’t seem to see the ordered world in it.)

Another way to ask the question the OP is trying to pose:
Do we impose order on the world only (because we surely do that), or does the world impose its own order on us as well? Does the world educate us as we observe it? Or do we inform the world or simply overlay an invented map that magically functions to be readable by other map makers? (Loaded question but you know where I stand. I say that means you know something about the world, with me in it.)

People who take astrology seriously are able to do all the things you just said: Hear and respond and understand one another in a perceived orderly manner.

But I'd be hesitant to draw the conclusion that the astrologists have found order in the world. — Moliere

That actually also demonstrates my point. I agree astrologists are kidding themselves, both or all of them that can create logical chains of astrological reasoning. I believe this because of the world and the evidence I can show you from this world; we can show how astrologers are kidding themselves. Without the order in the world, we can’t do this. Without order in the world, why would you be hesitant to accept what they think they are saying provided a reasonable, coherent, functioning, map? Astrologers made some map applicable to the world and that keeps “order” as you would have it, out of the world and only in the words and descriptions we fabricate? They are a better example of where you think order only resides - in our descriptions (like astrology).

That actually also demonstrates my point. I agree astrologists are kidding themselves, both or all of them that can create logical chains of astrological reasoning. I believe this because of the world and the evidence I can show you from this world; we can show how astrologers are kidding themselves. — Fire Ologist

Can we? Have you tried?

What I've noticed is that I'm showing myself why I don't believe them, and they are dismissive of what I say.

Without the order in the world, we can’t do this. Without order in the world, why would you be hesitant to accept what they think they are saying provided a reasonable, coherent, functioning, map? Astrologers made some map applicable to the world and that keeps “order” as you would have it, out of the world and only in the words and descriptions we fabricate? They are a better example of where you think order only resides - in our descriptions (like astrology). — Fire Ologist

Notice how I said "of course there are regularities" -- I'm not trying to maintain an idealist thesis here. I'm a materialist and a realist. My doubt so far has been with respect to the notion of laws of nature.

A regularity can be as simple as "The sun rose yesterday morning and this morning" -- two observations grouped together. The observations are of something, of course -- but I don't think it's so general as to be able to claim something like "All of Nature is Ordered" or "There are Laws of Physics"

Rather, just like the astrologist, we go out to look for evidence for our beliefs while usually avoiding evidence that counts against our beliefs.

And lo and behold, upon seeing a stone drop twice I knew there was an eternal order in nature! :D

All of Nature is Ordered" or "There are Laws of Physics" — Moliere

I take out the “all of” and the “laws of”.

My end result is, order I observe. I am educated to make maps from two teachers: the world AND people who use maps with me. Not just people who use maps (otherwise they couldn’t be “with me”, like I cannot be with astrologers because that stuff makes no sense at all to me and Incould show you why all day.).

So...


"Nature is ordered"

and

"There are Physics"

?

maybe there are lawless universes. And if there are, interesting stuff doesn't happen there and there aren't conscious beings there to wonder why it's so lawless.

I don't think there are lawless universes though, I think a universe is fundamentally defined by its laws.

and

You said “co-created”. That implies two sources of creation. I think that is accurate. — Fire Ologist

Irrespective of the self-and-other distinction (or divide), would you not say that these are all parts of the same world?

"Nature is ordered"

and

"There are Physics" — Moliere

Yeah.

I don’t just make order up. I learn how to make order up from nature because, there is a physics to things, because nature has an ordering to it. It has other things as well, like disorder, and I don’t always see the physics…

I don’t just make order up. — Fire Ologist

As long as I emphasize your statement thus: "I don't just make order up"

Sure.

Taking that out though I think "I don't make order up" is false.

We do!

Why else place the fork on the left?

As long as I emphasize your statement thus: "I don't just make order up"

Sure. — Moliere

Ok good. We are coming together. We are forming the much celebrated consensus.

I would say, we are forming this consensus both because we each know how to make things up really well, AND because they reflect something true and ordered in the world.

So if we have consensus that we don’t “just” make order up, we have consensus that there is “order in the world”. We draw on observations that we can point to, each of us separately and both of us together, in the world, and from those, fashion an ordered description.

Why else place the fork on the left? — Moliere

Maybe because the person is left-handed. Not “just” because I looks pretty to someone.

I would say, we are forming this consensus both because we each know how to make things up really well, AND because they reflect something true and ordered in the world. — Fire Ologist

You would, but I wouldn't. ;)

So if we have consensus that we don’t “just” make order up, we have consensus that there is “order in the world”. We draw on observations that we can point to, each of us separately and both of us together, in the world, and from those, fashion an ordered description. — Fire Ologist

We have consensus on the first point, but no the implication.

Just because I see the stone drop 20 times every time I drop it that does not then mean that "there is order in the world" -- most specifically thinking here with respect to "the world".

There's order in the world could mean something small, which I agree with, and something large, which I disagree with.

The "large" thing I disagree with is the notion that nature behaves according to law.

In the most literal sense -- there is no government which passes laws that make our universe. This is to interpret the universe in terms of our governments. While useful sometimes, it's not true.

Maybe because the person is left-handed. Not “just” because I looks pretty to someone. — Fire Ologist

Maybe.

But in the "usual" table manners:

If all the place settings were different from each other, I think we would all agree the table setting was disordered. But if they were all the same way, we would see some order on the table. But there is no absolute law that says “forks on the left”.

The middle part here is, order on the table has a component dictated by the world (if each place setting is however/random them the table will show no order), but if we put all of the forks on the right and build repeatable settings, we can show an ordered, pleasing table.

The laws of nature are the observable regularities in natural phenomena that happen and can therefore be formulated.

See, you speak of order in the world . Results (things in the world, that we point to), that are pragmatic (according to some reasoning, some ordering, some practical relationship to them). So you are speaking of a world and speaking of order (pragmatic) in the world (results are in the world, not merely an agreement). Maybe you said it for nothing more than to conjecture, but that small, pregnant quote assumes the existence of a lot that you are trying to say is not there. — Fire Ologist

No. I'm speaking of a 'world' to which we ascribe order by virtue of all the factors I've described several times.

My basic (and speculative) thesis is this: we find ourselves somewhere, though we don't really know what somewhere is, even though we give it names (like world or reality) and we go about using our cognitive faculties and languages to give order to it. We invent names and concepts and theories, many of which seem to match what we appear to be involved in. This is something we do to help us predict and act. But this process doesn't necessarily map onto any external reality independent of us; rather, it helps us cope with whatever it is we inhabit. Our theories and models eventually fade and are replaced by new ones and they in turn fade and on it goes...

I guess my point is more basically, whether we put the order in the world or it is just there, we can’t escape finding order in the world. So why bother resisting “order in the world”? Look for it. Make your words make sense as descriptions I would also make because we are in the same world. (Which you do, but don’t seem to see the ordered world in it.) — Fire Ologist

Yes, and this is the question I’m attempting to address. My intuition tells me that what we call “order” is a superimposition upon our situation, not something intrinsic to the world or external to us in any absolute sense. Humans live by abstractions. We generate patterns, names, systems, all of which help us navigate what would otherwise be an overwhelming flux. But that doesn’t mean those patterns are in the world in a mind-independent way. They’re ways we cope, predict, and make meaning. So it’s not that I deny the experience of order or its usefulness to us — I’m simply cautious about mistaking our interpretive frameworks for the nature of reality itself. Something doesn’t need to be true to be useful.

If it was lawless there’d probably be no life and no one to ask these questions… — kindred

If there are many universes, some lawless and others not, this answers the question. Structure like ours can only arise in a lawful universe, lawlessness might look like a soup of random micro events.

How does it help if these connections are only in our head and have nothing to do with the environment in which we live? How could we even exist in and of a world that lacks any order? For that matter, how do you come to any conclusions about the world, even such skeptical conclusions as you make? — SophistiCat

I am suggesting a constructivist view. Even the notion of "order" itself is a contingent human artifact. My instinct is that our knowledge, meaning, and order are contingent products of human interpretation, language, and culture. The world exists independently but is indeterminate or (as Hilary Lawson would argue) "open in itself"; order and meaning don’t exist “out there” waiting to be discovered but arise through our way's of engaging with the world. — Tom Storm

I understand that this is your view, and this is what prompted my questions above (and likewise, @Patterner's questions). Do you have any thoughts on that?

So, in this view (which I think has some merit), we never arrive at absolute truth or reality; everything we hold is contingent and constantly changing. We don’t really have knowledge that maps onto some kind of eternal, unchanging foundational truth. — Tom Storm

Well, this is all lovely and banal even, but one does need to be a constructivist in your sense to hold such views.

A model can be useful even if it isn't true. For instance, the miasma theory of disease turned out to be false — Tom Storm

Did it now? How? I mean, if we apply your outlook consistently, then all our beliefs are almost certainly and irredeemably false, being that the world is independent of them, and they are independent of the world. But how then do we prove or disprove anything? What meaning can such words have?

How can we make sense of the indeterminate, beyond knowing it is indeterminate? — Patterner

And how can we even know that it is indeterminate? This, too, would be a construction that has no purchase on anything outside our cultural practices.

A favorite example of mine is astrology. People who take astrology seriously are able to do all the things you just said: Hear and respond and understand one another in a perceived orderly manner.

But I'd be hesitant to draw the conclusion that the astrologists have found order in the world. I think they've ordered their thoughts in a manner that they are able to communicate, and that their names refer to various objects in the world, and all their explanations are entirely false. — Moliere

I wonder why you picked astrology as an example, rather than astronomy? Would you consider them more-or-less on the same footing, and if not, why not?

Did it now? How? I mean, if we apply your outlook consistently, then all our beliefs are almost certainly and irredeemably false, being that the world is independent of them, and they are independent of the world. But how then do we prove or disprove anything? What meaning can such words have? — SophistiCat

I don't think this is all that challenging. I'd prefer to say things are useful, not true or false. This is my thesis. I'm not claiming to be inerrant about this matter, it's simply my tentative model for understanding things, and it relates to the original post.

Some things work well for us in certain circumstances, and some things don't. It's always evolving and changing. I suspect you're right. We never really get to truth, at least not if by truth we mean something external to our contingent factors like language and culture.

The next obvious criticism is: if nothing is true, then neither is what you said, Tom.

To that, I would agree. Saying “we never get to truth” expresses skepticism about objective or foundational truth claims, but it is not itself a universal truth, rather, I'd see it more as a useful framework for managing ideas and guiding actions. I think Richard Rorty may have settled on this frame too, but I am not a philosopher.

Of course, there are intersubjective communities that share views and models, and many of those are useful. Those communities may even see their frames as 'how the world is'. But they soon are found wanting and they change. Just look at the history of medicine. In 200 years, it's likely we'll look back on many of our current practices as a mix of ignorance and barbarism, just as we how view much of what was done 200 years ago.

Things don't have to be true to be of use.

This one comes from Hilary Lawson. A good example of how something doesn't need to be true to be useful is Aristotle’s geocentric model of the universe. Although we now know it was completely wrong (the Earth isn’t at the center, and there are no crystal spheres) the model was used successfully for over a thousand years, especially in navigation. Sailors relied on tools and star charts based on that system to cross oceans and navigate by the stars. It worked, even though it wasn’t true. As Lawson points out, this shows that conceptual frameworks can be effective 'closures' that help us act, even if they don’t reflect reality as it actually is.

Back to laws and patterns. Perceived patterns in the external world emerge through our embodied interaction with the environment. I am wondering if they reflect what human cognition projects onto experience and that they can function provisionally to produce what we call useful outcomes.

I’d guess that humans are pattern seeking, meaning making machines. We see connections everywhere and this often helps us manage our environment.
— Tom Storm

How does it help if these connections are only in our head and have nothing to do with the environment in which we live? How could we even exist in and of a world that lacks any order? For that matter, how do you come to any conclusions about the world, even such skeptical conclusions as you — SophistiCat

The question for me is: are the patterns external, or are they the product of our cognitive apparatus?
— Tom Storm
I think this brings me back to my original question. If the patterns are not external, why would our cognitive apparatus produce them? — Patterner

These patterns are neither external to us, nor are they merely internal to us. The order emerges out of our discursive and material interactions with our environment. It is not discovered but produced , enacted as patterns of activity.

The order emerges out of our discursive and material interactions with our environment. It is not discovered but produced , enacted as patterns of activity. — Joshs

Cool. I can get behind that. The how interests me.

Thinking along this line kind of led me to writing -

Perceived patterns in the external world emerge through our embodied interaction with the environment. — Tom Storm

But this is more properly your area of expertise, not mine.

To be recognised, there must be a pattern...

Duck-rabbits and frog-horses - is it really a duck, really a frog? No, it's a Duck-rabbits and it's a frog-horse. It makes no sense to ask which came first, which is it really.

Discovering and producing as the very same thing.

I agree we see and use patterns. I’m mildly curious about their origin and the process that makes them so useful to us. But I agree what is it probably doesn’t matter.

I wonder why you picked astrology as an example, rather than astronomy? Would you consider them more-or-less on the same footing, and if not, why not? — SophistiCat

I don't think they're on the same footing. I think that's because astrology's purpose isn't to describe, but it's in the language of description. It "works" at a descriptive level because it's complicated and vague enough that any example can be explained. But then that's just why it's a degenerative research program: they're not trying to figure out which part is wrong, but rather it's a constant quest to demonstrate what's right about it.

The reason I use astrology is because it's an example of a coherent language game that people claim has descriptive power, but I interpret it as a language game which people play to talk about themselves and others and their interpersonal lives that only has the appearance of describing people.

Basically it's possible, even if something is useful and coherent, for it to be entirely false even though we see a pattern there and we think it's due to features of the world.

Oh, sorry -- I should add an answer to your question directly @SophistiCat -- astronomy would not serve the purpose I'm intending for the example. It's something that does have predictive power, that does look for where it's wrong, and continues to generate new questions and answers and observations and knowledge.