Michael, I'm really tired of your childishness. You have an off-handed way of defining words for whatever suits your intention, with total disregard for accepted dictionary definitions. This only demonstrates that you are not well educated on the subject.

There is no definition of "regard" in my dictionary, which mentions "to think", or "consider" as you claim regard means. There are definitions which refer to "see", "give heed to", "look upon", "have relation to", etc., but why do you insist on "think"? — Metaphysician Undercover

From here:

1. Consider or think of in a specified way

There are definitions which refer to "see", "give heed to", "look upon", "have relation to", etc., but why do you insist on "think"?

So you're saying that plants see, give heed to, or look upon the future?

I agree that foresight may be an indication of intention, in the sense that foresight might be an essential aspect of intention, as unenlightened implied.

Yes, and consciousness is an essential aspect of foresight (foresight being "the ability to predict what will happen or be needed in the future"). Therefore consciousness is an essential aspect of intention.

So you're saying that plants see, give heed to, or look upon the future? — Michael

They definitely have a relation to the future, but my favourite would be "let one's course be affected by" the future. That's exactly what I've been describing. From the day it starts growing, the plant intends to produce seed. It has as a purpose for growing, and that is to produce seed.

We disagree, so what? We each understand "intend" in a different way. I think you're wrong, and you misunderstand intention. You seem to think the same way about me. Now we can each go home and realize that someone else understands "intend" in a different way. I already know this though, because I've already been exposed to this type of narrow-minded thinking.

I think entropy is the tendency of things to go from higher to lower energy states. High energy states are sometimes pretty disorderly (like plasma). But when things cool down, all sorts of amazing things can start happening (like the earth's electromagnetic dynamo.)

And that just tapped out my physics knowledge. :) — Mongrel

Yeah, I'm not real big on physics either; but taking a stab, I would say that the global tendency to go from higher to lower energy states, although apparently contravened by local self-organization (which is seems on the face of it to consist in accumulation, rather than dissipation, of energy) would be considered by thinkers of entropy to be the ultimate driver of efficient causation, despite any appearances to the contrary. So local accumulations or slowings of energy dissipation would inevitably cause faster dissipations of energy elsewhere, and this whole process could be modeled in terms of efficient causation if only we had all the facts. I think the problem for final or formal cause is that they cannot be modeled in terms of the physical, without resorting to mechanism; and mechanistic thinking is inescapably reductive.

As I said.. efficient and final causes are the answers to two different kinds of question. If you know what a sinus node is, you must have studied enough A&P to be impressed by exactly how dense the lines of final causation are with even relatively simple organisms. It's all about the questions we're asking.

Yes, I certainly agree with you that the ideas of efficient, formal and final causation represent different ways of looking at things and asking questions about them.

I haven't studied that much A&P, I know about the sinus node because I have a condition called 'Inappropriate Sinus Tachycardia'. Luckily it is mild, these days virtually nonexistent, if I don't overindulge in stimulants such as THC, LSD, alcohol, nicotine and caffeine and my heart is very fit according to all the tests, and I get plenty of exercise, eat very well, and so on. Apparently it is a condition most commonly found in adolescent females :-}, and it was much more extreme in my own adolescence (which made the racing heart that occurred during my copious psychotropic experiences pretty alarming and even terrifying, at times).

I agree with you that we elaborate "dense lines of final causation", but I don't think they can be effectively modeled in truly physicalist terms; and that is precisely the nub of the issue, as I see it.

Also if one wanted to posit the fundamental nature of semiosis, as apo does, then the fundamental relationship between semiosis and physical stuff seems to remains inevitably forever elusive, just as dualism's posited relation between mind and matter does. We model things in terms of the physical, but the modeling itself is semantic or semiotic. How can it be reduced to 'common terms'? I don't think we have a shadow of a clue, discursively speaking at least, as to what such 'common terms' might be. I have no doubt that, despite this apparently insurmountable difficulty for empirically based reason, we will continue to be issued with promissory notes by those of a scientistic bent, though.

They definitely have a relation to the future, but my favourite would be "let one's course be affected by" the future. — Metaphysician Undercover

How can the future effect a plant's present course (or anything, for that matter)? You're arguing for retrocausality (not that I know how such a thing would be relevant)?

From the day it starts growing, the plant intends to produce seed. It has as a purpose for growing, and that is to produce seed.

What's the difference between saying that the plant intends to produce seed and saying that the plant will produce seed?

Perhaps MU is using 'intend' to mean something like 'inward tendency'. The inward tendency of plants to produce seed could be said to be a function of the earlier instantiations of plants' relationships (in terms of viability) to the later instantiations of those plants, as it affected past (to us) but future (to the earlier plants) instantiations of those plants.

All apparent order is really the result of entropy... — John

This is not quite it. Think of entropy as a very general - perhaps the most general - imperative: "things need to get from here (inhomogeneous distribution of energy) to there (homogenous distribution of energy)". I refer to it as 'general' however, but 'it' is indifferent to the question of how things get from 'here' to 'there'. This is why Salthe refers to it simply as 'propensity'. So order is not, strictly speaking, the 'result' of entropy. If you take two boxes, fill one with gas, then connect them up, the gas will simply redistribute equally between the two boxes without any kind of 'ordering' happening. So there's no sense in which entropy can be called the 'efficient cause' of organization.

As I said, what you need, in addition to an entropic drive, are material asymmetries, chiral structures, which allow for the general entropic process to get 'stuck', so as to need to organize in order to disperse more easily. Again, my favorite example are Benard cells in boiling water - 'upward' rolling hexagonal structures - which form once the energy in a heated beaker passes a certain threshold; the cells form as a means to more efficiently dissipate the energy through the boiling water, and they do so spontaneously (they self-organize) thanks to a) the bonding qualities of water (it's specific material qualities) and b) the asymmetry of heat and weight distribution in the water (the heated water rises, which makes the top of the beaker more dense, which shifts the centre of gravity, which in turn causes the water to 'fall' again). Entropy alone doesn't drive this process: the specific material asymmetries of the beaker/heat/gravity set-up themselves 'force' entropy to expend itself in the particular self-organizing manner that it does.

Recall that this whole discussion began in order to make sense of what we were calling a 'third type' of telos: one neither purely immanent nor purely transcendent, but one embodying qualities of both. The point was to put forth entropy as naturalist candidate to satisfy this condition: It's clear that entropy isn't 'external' to the system (whatever that would even mean), nor does it necessarily 'arise'; entropy exists as soon as there are energetic inhomogeneities.

Entropy alone doesn't drive this process: the specific material asymmetries of the beaker/heat/gravity set-up themselves 'force' entropy to expend itself in the particular self-organizing manner that it does. — StreetlightX

But isn't it the case that the material asymmetries of the set up, like all asymmetries, are the result of entropy, or even better, isn't it the case that they just are entropy? The more I think about it, it seems to me that asymmetry and entropy are the same. Also, as I said, if entropy is asymmetrical (and hence directional and temporal) energy flow, then all efficient causation (being directional energy flow) would seem to be simply entropy at work.

And in fact this last, that the regularities due to efficient causation we witness everywhere and interpret as 'order', is really just entropy at work is just what I had thought you and apo have been arguing.

It seems to me that entropy just is symmetry-breaking, which just is energy flow, which just is efficient causation. — John

If you are talking about a "state of maximum entropy", then you are talking about a state of final equilibrium symmetry - where things can't get messier even as things continue to freely mess around.

So "entropy" is a macroscopic quality - a formal description of final goal - in this sense. And then an entropy gradient is what you have when some system starts with the kind of asymmetry which represents some more ordered state - a state that could be far more messed up if allowed to evolve in time.

But entropy becomes a confusing word because we have got so use to counting systems in terms of information - local degrees of freedom or microstates. So it can also come to sound like we are talking about the constitutional events - the material and efficient causes - rather that the qualitative macrostate which is a state of global symmetry.

Also consider a model of an entropic potential - a ball resting on top of a dome. Under classical mechanics, the puzzle is the ball is at rest and so should never have reason to roll off the dome. So there is an entropic gradient - a different position for the ball that would lower its potential energy (and release waste heat and noise in the process). But the ball seems stuck forever.

Models of spontaneous symmetry breaking have to introduce a material efficient cause to break the symmetry. There must be "a fluctuation" that disturbs the ball enough that slope and gravity take over.
Then the ball rolls until it falls off the dome and reestablishes a state of symmetry - sitting still with all forces in equilibrium.

So the formal and final causes of the ball and dome describe the shape of the situation which creates a potential asymmetry, and then the desire for the second law to be fulfilled in a way that a more stable state of symmetry is achieved. And to get the ball rolling takes this rather ill-defined idea of "the inevitability of some tiny triggering push".

Of course quantum mechanics now says noisy fluctuations are an irreducible aspect of reality, so this is not such a metaphysical problem. But it does also say that material/efficient cause - the initiating event - is the least remarkable aspect of a story of symmetry-breaking processes. The fluctuation that seems to determine everything, is really just noise that can't in the end be completely suppressed.

And in fact this last, that the regularities due to efficient causation we witness everywhere and interpret as 'order', is really just entropy at work is just what I had thought you and apo have been arguing. — John

No. In thermodynamics, work is work, not entropy. It is that part of an energy flow which does get used in materially efficient causal fashion. Then the part that gets lost as heat and waste is lost potential - the entropy. It is the part of the flow that doesn't do work towards whatever purpose you had in mind.

So "entropy" is a macroscopic quality - a formal description of final goal - in this sense. — apokrisis

You seem to be talking about entropy as a formal principle here. The question this raises for me is whether you think of formal principles as being anything more than human formulations or judgements. If you say they are more then it would seem you are suggesting some kind of platonism. If you say they are not anything more than human formulations; then entropy would have no ontological reality beyond the conceptual.

If entropy is a property of material process, then what it is, ontologically speaking, would seem to be just the actual asymmetries and energy flows. But again, I see no reason to see, from a purely material perspective, the asymmetries as anything other than the conditions for potential, and the energy flows as anything other than the actual, causally efficient processes.

But wouldn't the energy that gets wasted in any specific causally efficient process we might be focused on, always be the efficient cause of other processes?

You are simply speaking of the world as if Newtonian atomism was the truth and not simply a working model.

So we are both dealing in theoretical constructs. You just don't seem to realise it.

But wouldn't the energy that gets wasted in any specific causally efficient process we might be focused on, always be the efficient cause of other processes? — John

Well given some other formal and final cause setting up a different design to achieve this other goal. The crumbs that fall off the table could feed the sparrows and ants.

But every such level of dissipative structure must be wasteful in its extraction of work. That is what the second law captures.

I don't for a moment believe that Newtonian atomism is the truth; but I do see an inherent problem with the inevitably mechanical nature of human modeling. So, I'm just taking the nature of the modeling for what it appears to me to be, and trying to work out what is logically entailed in terms of conceptual commitments, by this nature of our modeling. This, since our modeling of what we observe, at least discursively speaking in the empirical mode, is all we have to go on. I am very aware that we are both dealing in theoretical constructs, but what else could we be dealing in?

I agree, but it is only wasteful (or not) from some perspective, no?

But isn't it the case that the material asymmetries of the set up, like all asymmetries, are the result of entropy, or even better, isn't it the case that they just are entropy? The more I think about it, it seems to me that asymmetry and entropy are the same. Also, as I said, if entropy is asymmetrical (and hence directional and temporal) energy flow, then all efficient causation (being directional energy flow) would seem to be simply entropy at work. — John

I confess, I don't know what it would even mean to say that 'asymmerty and entropy are the same'. Asymmetry is a characteristic of material states (a DNA helix, a particle distribution) or a process (like entropy, or Bennard cell formation), but to say that 'asymmerty and entropy are the same' makes about as much sense as saying 'blue' and 'cow' are the same; blue may be a property of cows, but blue is not cow!

I agree, but it is only wasteful (or not) from some perspective, no? — John

Great. You agree there is always the telos that is what makes for a point of view then. Observerless physics can make no sense.

What I am trying to get at is that it seems to me that without asymmetry there is no entropy and without entropy there is no asymmetry. Asymmetry seems to be the frozen image of entropy and entropy the moving image of asymmetry.

Now, there are no blue cows, and even if there were there seems to be no reason to suppose that they must all be blue, so I confess I fail to see the analogy.

Yep, I certainly agree with that! :)

What I am trying to get at is that it seems to me that without asymmetry there is no entropy and without entropy there is no asymmetry. Asymmetry seems to be the frozen image of entropy and entropy the moving image of asymmetry. — John

Symmetry and symmetry breaking do have to be flip sides of the same coin. That is basic metaphysical logic. Each has to be each other's other. That is why we talk about entropy and negentropy, or constraints and degrees of freedom. You need two opposites to tango.

Again, SX and I aren't just talking about entropy but the larger thermodynamical story of dissipative structure. And this ties together the two aspects of being that result in a world of structured dynamics.

So the asymmetry here speaks to another fundamental physical principle - the least action principle. When anything energetic happens, it must take the most direct route possible. It must in fact employ the path that results in the least overall effort. And so - as in the convection currents that form in a heated fluid - you have the apparently paradoxical situation of order erupting to further the production of disorder.

But rather than being a contradiction, this simply reflects the fact that nature must first divide itself into two for there to be anything systematic about existence at all. You have to have the yin and yang of the order that maximised the disordering.

For there to be a state of higher entropy, this must be revealed by the matching fact of there being the asymmetry of the path to access that more wasted state of global symmetry. To arrive at the bottom of the hill, there had to be the slope which was the hillside that was the path of least action.

What I am trying to get at is that it seems to me that without asymmetry there is no entropy and without entropy there is no asymmetry. — John

Yes, this is what we discussed, remember? Entropy plays necessity to the contingencies of asymmetries. You were asking after what could account for negentropic eddies, and I said it was precisely the play of necessity and chance, each given 'body' by entropy and material asymmetries, respectively.

What I am trying to get at is that it seems to me that without asymmetry there is no entropy and without entropy there is no asymmetry. Asymmetry seems to be the frozen image of entropy and entropy the moving image of asymmetry. — John

Then why do the most symmetrical objects in the universe have the highest entropy i.e. black-holes?

The most basic answer is that asymmetry means that things will clump together in ways that will accelerate more clumping - hence the formation of local negentropic eddies. — StreetlightX

But in reality when "things clump together" e.g. a gas cloud forms a star or planet due to mutual gravitation, the entropy goes up not down.

They are the exceptions that prove the rule?
:s

Yes, this makes sense to me. But now I want to make a distinction between asymmetry (necessity) and asymmetries (contingency) and between entropy (necessity) and efficient causation (contingency). Perhaps along the lines of Heidegger's 'ontological/ ontic' or 'being/ beings' distinction or Spinoza's natura naturans/ natural naturata.

They are the exceptions that prove the rule? — John

No, black-holes are not an exception. Black-holes have vastly more entropy than the matter that created them, be that a perfectly spherically distributed ideal gas or a solar system. Every state on the way to creating a black hole has greater entropy than the previous state.

Again, SX and I aren't just talking about entropy but the larger thermodynamical story of dissipative structure. — apokrisis

Would you say that dissipative structure is the actual playing out of entropy? I think of dissipative structure as dynamic process, as the temporal flow of energy or force, but my thinking is very much intuitive 'lay' thinking, not at all illuminated by mathematical or thermodynamic understanding. Also, must we think of efficient causation as being really mechanical just like our models are?

When anything energetic happens, it must take the most direct route possible. — apokrisis

This seems intuitively right to me; earlier in a response to Mongrel I wrote this:

See, I would say that entropy is precisely "the line of least resistance". — John

Although I really enjoy it, I do feel a bit out of my depth trying to discuss this stuff with you and SX, since you are both obviously much better read than I am in the field.

I don't know, you've stumped me there, I don't have the math or the physics background: I'm just kicking a few ideas around...

Edit: Maybe in the case of black holes the energy, instead of flowing from one region to another is being extracted out of the system altogether; being taken out of play, so to speak?

I don't know, you've stumped me there, I don't have the math or the physics background: I'm just kicking a few ideas around... — John

I suggest you are therefore sceptical of terms such as "negentropic eddies".

If you mean to say that I still don't really grasp how order necessarily evolves out of chaos, and am therefore somewhat skeptical of the idea, then yeah...

On the other hand I acknowledge that this skepticism may be due to lack of understanding.