You said entropy is 'applied to' negentropy. That's what I said makes no grammatical sense. As for this:

"Sure it does. Negentropy is a temporary state of order (like life), where organization is increasing, but these clumps of orderliness are following principles of entropy and eventually contribute to universal disorder. And we are living out the principles of this temporary state of orderliness and thermodynamics. All the principles from biochemical/cellular development, evolution, to the complex minds of animals, are working on this general principle. But, as a thinking, feeling, self-aware human, it is seen in our experiences of life, and specifically in the WORK we do in survival/maintenance/entertainment- what one might call the phenomenological aspect of being a normally enculturated human being."

This seems fine to me, given that's it's more or less a mere description of things, although the significance you seem to want to impute to this 'it is seen in' and 'work' is lost on me.

Edit: Ah right, there it is, the balderdash about suffering.

Thanks. I'm not too familiar with Schopenhauer, so tell me, do you understand him as having thought that Will did not require intent?

However, true enough, if I am making connections with Schop's Will, that has no hint of purposefulness, then using that word draws too much attention to the idea that there is an end goal to strive for. — schopenhauer1

I have a hard time making that work; how can you divorce will from intent?

And if you cannot, isn't @StreetlightX right?

Edit: Ah right, there it is, the balderdash about suffering. — StreetlightX

This is the most important part though :grin:. Let me ask you this then, what counts to you as a "legitimate" (streetlightx approved) way to prove a value?

I gather this is a continuation of a discussion of which I have previously been unaware....?

Thanks. I'm not too familiar with Schopenhauer, so tell me, do you understand him as having thought that Will did not require intent? — Banno

I have a hard time making that work; how can you divorce will from intent? — Banno

Yeah, it is confusing because Schop used the word "Will" for his underlying metaphysical principle and you would think that implied intent, but it doesn't regarding his idea of the overarching Will. According to him, the world is really will- a striving force that has no aim or purpose. The world of appearance makes us think that there is time/space/causality and creates for us a little umwelt where we think that attaining goals will give peace, but are maniacally designed to trick us into continuing the goal-seeking process. At bottom all is aimless striving of will, and thus nothing in the world of appearance will ever truly satisfy. The goal then of the enlightened individual is to turn the will against itself, live an ascetic life where will becomes gradually diminished, until it loses its grip completely thus somehow diminishing the reign of will's supremacy in some fashion.

I gather this is a continuation of a discussion of which I have previously been unaware....? — Banno

Not this particular topic, but a common theme of my posts is the structural suffering, and antinatalism (not procreating more people that will suffer), something that is often scorned and then relegated as psychological disorder/disposition rather than a legitimate claim of the structural suffering of existence.

The implications aren't very great. Entropy is almost a metaphysical notion. Knowing we are (a part) of a system that moves towards an end tells us exactly nothing about who we are or how we live.

A world without suffering, for example, would still have entropy. Humans would be doing what was an absence of their entire lives. They would always be this "work." Thinking about entropy this way leaves out our own lives and how they are distinct. We are more complex than being of a system that moves.

According to him, the world is really will- a striving force that has no aim or purpose — schopenhauer1

BUT - large 'but' - Schopenhauer at least recognized that what he described as asceticism provided a way of transcending the will.

Schopenhauer says that the more intense the willing, the more intense the suffering. So the problem is how to diminish the intensity of one's willing. The answer is actually a very simple one (though not, by any means, easy to accomplish): The answer is: practice denying the will what it wants. It's that simple. This practice is called asceticism (Greek = askesis) or self-denial and, according to Schopenhauer, is the one adequate solution to the central life problem.

The scholastic Latin term for this practice is "agere contra," to act against. It means the practice of deliberating acting against what the will wants. When the will wants something, you deny it what it wants. And, in addition, when the will fears or is repelled by something, you give it what it fears. Schopenhauer says

By the expression asceticism, which I have already used so often, I understand in the narrower sense this deliberate breaking of the will by refusing the agreeable and looking for the disagreeable, the voluntarily chosen way of life of penance and self-chastisement for the constant mortification of the will. (p 392) ¹

Granted, the way he conceptualised it, it wasn't a practical solution short of literally becoming a renunciate monastic or anchorite, but at least it was real. Nothing like that in the thermodynamically-driven processes of the physical universe.

(It has also provided the basis for comparison between Schopenhauer and Buddhism and Vedanta, which is a fair comparison, albeit Schopenhauer didn't have any contact with actual exemplars of those traditions, even though he frequently wrote highly of them, and regarded himself as having a similar kind of philosophy.)

A world without suffering, for example, would still have entropy. Humans would be doing what was an absence of their entire lives. They would always be this "work." Thinking about entropy this way leaves out our own lives and how they are distinct. We are more complex than being of a system that moves. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But the striving part of Schopenhauer's will.. thinking of it in terms that, psychologically, the striving described by Schop can be "rooted" in the general striving of a negentropic system of organization that needs to maintain its order. Our goals, survival/maintenance/entertainment are all part of this. Human behavior/cognition is part of its survival- it is not epiphenomenal or other to it.

Granted, the way he conceptualised it, it wasn't a practical solution short of literally becoming a renunciate monastic or anchorite, but at least it was real. Nothing like that in the thermodynamically-driven processes of the physical universe. — Wayfarer

Not sure what you mean though by at least it was real.

(It has also provided the basis for comparison between Schopenhauer and Buddhism and Vedanta, which is a fair comparison, albeit Schopenhauer didn't have any contact with actual exemplars of those traditions, even though he frequently wrote highly of them, and regarded himself as having a similar kind of philosophy.) — Wayfarer

Yes, he saw the parallels even in his time. His form of asceticism was definitely a strict one. I don't think there is a way out of the human predicament once in- asceticism is just a very focused behavioral practice. There cannot be a denying of one's own will while alive. Herman Hesse's Siddhartha comes to mind for what you are probably thinking of though. It is just a sort of disciplined practice, but I don't see it as a metaphysical escape hatch.

Not sure what you mean though by at least it was real. — schopenhauer1

You know - 'real'. There is something beyond the will.

It is just a sort of disciplined practice, but I don't see it as a metaphysical escape hatch. — schopenhauer1

There's your problem right there.:wink:

I've seen all this discussion about living things being basically a heat sink - the quickest route to entropic stability. I think it's a lousy metaphysics - and that is what it must be, as there's no way to falsify such a suggestion.

I think you are missing my point of the analogy. The "work" of entropy doesn't depend on humans undergoing suffering of striving. If we accept that suffering is a contingent state, then activity in a life without suffering doesn't cease.

The happy, contented and sufferless to move in their ways of living. Such a life would always be engaged in its maintenance, people doing whatever amounted to a life without burden

If this entropic movement does not fit with Schopenhauer's Will, so much worse for Schopenhauer. Entropy clearly doesn't reflect the Will on account of the latter being only a specific experimental results reaction.

what counts to you as a "legitimate" (streetlightx approved) way to prove a value? — schopenhauer1

I'm not sure what it means to 'prove a value'. This strikes me as bad grammar.

We are the universe's self-reflecting strivers. Pursuing due to the unrecognized underlying principle of entropy. We must work, work, work.. — schopenhauer1

The concept of entropy was invented back in the days of the original steam engines. When developing the steam engine, it was noticed that one could not complete an energy balance. There was always unaccounted for energy loss. This unaccounted for energy was lumped in the term entropy. It was measurable, but not exactly explainable.

The concept of entropy is similar to the modern concept of dark energy. We infer both from affect, but we have never seen either directly in the lab. However, both are needed to close an energy balance in line with observations and measurements. They are probably the same thing.

Describing entropy gets nebulous. However, measuring entropy is routine. Entropy was found to be a state variable, meaning for any given state of matter, there is a fixed amount of entropy. Water at 25C and one atmosphere of pressure has an entropy of 6.6177 J ˣ mol-1 ˣ K-1. This is a standard that is measured the same in all labs. If we change state to 30C, there is an entropy difference, that influences the energy balance.

If we took a glass of water at 25C and 1 atmosphere, we often describe the molecular environment in random terms with various degrees of freedom. However, the sum of all this state, always adds to a fixed number. Entropy demonstrates that random is a subset of order.

In a work cycle, such as a steam engine, entropy does not change when there is work. The entropy remains constant during a work cycle. The second law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase, which means work alone is not enough. It has to be productive work that alters the states of matter into higher entropy states. Humans build things of increasing complexity. This is driven by the second law. We now make computers to help add even more complexity of our work.

I'm not sure what it means to 'prove a value'. This strikes me as bad grammar. — StreetlightX

A theory of value.Value theory. Axiology. The branch of philosophy dealing with aesthetics/ethics/value.

You think axiology largely deals with proving values?

You think axiology deals with proving values? — StreetlightX

ax·i·ol·o·gy
ˌaksēˈäləjē/Submit
nounPHILOSOPHY
the study of the nature of value and valuation, and of the kinds of things that are valuable.
a particular theory of axiology.

Axiology (from Greek ἀξία, axia, "value, worth"; and -λογία, -logia) is the philosophical study of value. It is either the collective term for ethics and aesthetics[1], philosophical fields that depend crucially on notions of worth, or the foundation for these fields, and thus similar to value theory and meta-ethics. The term was first used by Paul Lapie, in 1902,[2][3] and Eduard von Hartmann, in 1908.[4][5]

Axiology studies mainly two kinds of values: ethics and aesthetics. Ethics investigates the concepts of "right" and "good" in individual and social conduct. Aesthetics studies the concepts of "beauty" and "harmony." Formal axiology, the attempt to lay out principles regarding value with mathematical rigor, is exemplified by Robert S. Hartman's science of value.

And no mention of this curious idea of 'proving values'.

The term “value theory” is used in at least three different ways in philosophy. In its broadest sense, “value theory” is a catch-all label used to encompass all branches of moral philosophy, social and political philosophy, aesthetics, and sometimes feminist philosophy and the philosophy of religion — whatever areas of philosophy are deemed to encompass some “evaluative” aspect. In its narrowest sense, “value theory” is used for a relatively narrow area of normative ethical theory particularly, but not exclusively, of concern to consequentialists. In this narrow sense, “value theory” is roughly synonymous with “axiology”. Axiology can be thought of as primarily concerned with classifying what things are good, and how good they are. For instance, a traditional question of axiology concerns whether the objects of value are subjective psychological states, or objective states of the world.

And yet no mention...

I meant proving a theory of value, a theory of things that don't have to deal with simply "what exists" (metaphysics) and "how do I know something" (epistemology).. That is to say, the realm of ethics/aesthetics. Axiology is a branch that covers both those topics as far as I've seen it used. And thus, how something is ethical or aesthetic would be the question I am asking when I say "prove" here.

The happy, contented and sufferless to move in their ways of living. Such a life would always be engaged in its maintenance, people doing whatever amounted to a life without burden

If this entropic movement does not fit with Schopenhauer's Will, so much worse for Schopenhauer. Entropy clearly doesn't reflect the Will on account of the latter being only a specific experimental results reaction. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But desire in itself is framed as always negative. Sure, it is what we do, but it is also characterized by a restless pain of unfulfilment. It is the anxious animal trying to get by. A quote from Schop:

All willing springs from lack, from deficiency, and thus from suffering. Fulfillment brings this to an end; yet for one wish that is fulfilled there remain at least ten that are denied. Further, desiring lasts a long time, demands and requests go on to infinity, fulfillment is short and meted out sparingly. But even the final satisfaction itself is only apparent; the wish fulfilled at once makes way for a new one; the former is a known delusion, the latter a delusion not as yet known. No attained object of willing can give a satisfaction that lasts and no longer declines; but it is always like the alms thrown to a beggar, which reprieves him today so that his misery may be prolonged till tomorrow. Therefore, so long as our consciousness is filled by our will [which is as long as we are will-filled living beings], so long as we are given up to the throng of desires with its constant hopes and fears, so long as we are the subject of willing, we never obtain lasting happiness or peace. Essentially, it is all the same whether we pursue or flee, fear harm or aspire to enjoyment; care for the constantly demanding will, no matter in what form, continually fills and moves consciousness; but without peace and calm, true well-being is absolutely impossible. (Die Welt, vol I, p 196)

So your thought-experiment of a possible world with no Schopenhauerean striving, if you will, would be like a world with p-zombies. Is it possible that p-zombies could exist? Perhaps, but the way we are designed, in this actual world, the internal nature of consciousness goes with entropy. According to some theories, the internal nature of the animal is an impossibility in how animals operate and complexity ensues given enough time.

And yet no mention... — StreetlightX

No mention of what, each article I pasted had to do with value/valuation/ethics/aesthetics.. and "proving" I explained further meant some sort of logic/reasoning/justification for a theory of value that you might claim whereby a value statement can be made without it be dismissed as merely a value statement out of hand. I mean, I guess I can surmise a theory of ethics and aesthetics from your dismissal of a value statement itself, but that would just be conjecture on your stance.

Well gee you could have just said that instead of asking how one might go about 'proving a value' as though that made any sense at all.

Well gee you could have just said that instead of asking how one might go about 'proving a value' as though that made any sense at all. — StreetlightX

Okay, sorry for any lack of clarity on my part then. Proving a value, would in this case make sense though. If you are proving an ethical stance (that is a value judgement), you are proving that qualitative value, or set of values.

So your claim that entropy has no bearing on the human condition, I think is misguided. We are bound by the conditions of our physical existence. The maintenance of the individual animal, a principle directly related to the conditions of energy transfer, and the self-organizing nature of the organism, is something that puts us in an unconditional restraint of work. This can be felt in a multitude of ways on a sociological level and an individual psychological level by the way of stress, desires, pains, goals, and the like.

We are bound by the conditions of our physical existence. — schopenhauer1

But this is simply an analytic statement - which is to say, a tautology: "bachelors are bound by the condition of being unmarried". Well no shit. But from this triviality you want to draw some kind of overwrought profundity by playing on the laden poetics of 'boundedness'. "Woe is the bachelor!". But this is wordplay, nothing more.

"We are conditioned by the conditions of our condition". Please.

@schopenhauer1 Not sure if someone has brought this up already - the thread grew quickly, so I've only skimmed the conversation so far - but I think there's one very significant difference between Schop's system and Entropy as (necessary, but purposeless) telos. With Entropy and heat death, you have something akin to the will cancelling itself out globally, long-run, by amping up locally (negentropy). The self-defeat of the will, in the entropy/heat death model, is baked into the very existence of something like a will. Poetically: the will wills so that it may not longer will. The million masks of the one thing, are work the one thing does to stop being that that thing.

Whereas, with Schop (correct me if I'm wrong here, it's been a long time since I read WWR) but the will is kind of a constant ontological source, eternally self-renewing. It's only through the (non?)heroic attempts of individuals to snuff out the will that it can quiet itself.

If this is a fair characterization, I think these two ways-of-looking-at-things are deeply different.

But this is simply an analytic statement - which is to say, a tautology: "bachelors are bound by the condition of being unmarried". Well no shit. But from this triviality you want to draw some kind of overwrought profundity by playing on the laden poetics of 'boundedness'. "Woe is the bachelor!". But this is wordplay, nothing more.

"We are conditioned by the conditions of our condition". Please. — StreetlightX

How are the Schopenhauerean conclusions overwrought though? As I quoted in a previous post, the main Schopenhaurean point is the endless will which has no reprieve. We are endless work, and it is not overwrought to see this on reflection.

Relative freedom as to where we focus our strivings does not negate the principle here either if you were going to make that point. Thus, social conditions are accidental to this very thought (if you want to do the whole rebuttal with the poor people in Africa thing).

With Entropy and heat death, you have something akin to the will cancelling itself out globally, long-run, by amping up locally (negentropy). The self-defeat of the will, in the entropy/heat death model, is baked into the very existence of something like a will. Poetically: the will wills so that it may not longer will. The million masks of the one thing, are work the one thing does to stop being that that thing. — csalisbury

Yes! This is very much along the lines I was trying to convey.

Whereas, with Schop (correct me if I'm wrong here, it's been a long time since I read WWR) but the will is kind of a constant ontological source, eternally self-renewing. It's only through the (non?)heroic attempts of individuals to snuff out the will that it can quiet itself.

If this is a fair characterization, I think these two ways-of-looking-at-things are deeply different. — csalisbury

So it looks like you are saying that Schop's conception is eternal and self-renewing, and can end in some individualistic way, through individual practices of asceticism. Entropy on the other hand, is inescapable for the individual but will end in some far off way at the universal level, at a point where it will not affect individual humans. I’d agree with this characterization of the two differences.

Also to add, Schops has a noumenal principle that is beyond space/time/causality and thus beyond principles mediated by the world of appearances. Entropy is squarely in the world of the phenomenon, to use his metaphysics.

The big picture is that we are working out the negentropic energy that is the main principle work in the universe. The internal striving, desires, and stresses, our very goals are underlying for
This principle. More people, more work that needs to be done and carried out by that individual. The principles of the universe, like entropy, does not care about the individual’s suffering, pains, and stress. As long as work is being done.