Talk:Spontaneous order

"It should also be noted that although spontaneous order may arise in some chaotic systems, it will by no means arise in any chaotic system. Order rising out of chaos is the exception rather than the rule."

Why "should this be noted"? Is it just a clumsy way of restating the 2d law of thermodynamics? That's already been stated. What more does it mean, and is that 'more' NPOV?

As for the 2d law, I don't question it in a cosmic sense. But its truth on the level of the cosmos is consistent with the hypothesis that the surface of the earth is a place where local decreases of entropy take place quite commonly. It is consistent with the hypothesis that spontaneous order is, on certain favored planet surfaces, the rule rather than the exception. So on what authority is an encyclopedia dogmatically asserting the impossibility of precisely that? --Christofurio 02:56, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

Impossibility? Who said anything about impossibility? The comment was only asserting that spontaneous order is very, very unlikely - not impossible. Even on Earth, spontaneous order is a rare event. For example, keep in mind that it took some 2 billion years for life to arise. And if you throw some random objects into a cooking pot, the chances of ending up with any sort of spontaneous order are extremely remote (even if the cooking pot is receiving huge amounts of energy from the exterior). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:04, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What I objected to was your "exception rather than the rule" comment. If it is meant to refer to the cosmos as a whole, it is redundant of material already covered. If it is meant to refer to this planet, it is wrong, or at least highly confusing in a POV direction. And, yes, the ingrediants in the pot will sort themselves out into some sort of equilibrium. Whether you will find it tasty is another matter. To say anything about what kind of equilibrium we'd have to know more about the initial factors. For example, if we presume that the pot is strong enough to survive the temperature to which it is being subjected, but that the ingrediants are all subject to evaporation at that temperature, than the spontaneous equilibrium will be -- an empty pot. --Christofurio 19:34, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Equilibrium does not mean order. The cooking pot, for example, illustrates spontaneous chaos - or whatever name you wish to give to a final state in which the entropy of the system is higher than in the initial state.

At any rate, I've agreed to the removal of the disputed paragraph, in case you were still having doubts about that issue. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:56, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad you've agreed. Still, I'm not clear on your point with this pot. First, why is a hot but empty cooking pot less orderly than a cool pot with liquid in it? We can get from one to the other without any chef in the kitchen -- why isn't that a case of spontaneous equilibrium and increase of order> Second, suppose a chef WERE in the kitchen. The chef wants to be sure that various ingrediants get into the pot, and that they meld together into a stew. From the thermodynamic point of view, is the stew a higher-entropy system than the original collection of separate ingrediants, or lower-entropy? It seems to me its more tasty but less orderly. So is this planned (and desired) chaos?--Christofurio 15:16, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Accounting and the State

If you're wondering why I removed a paragraph about anarcho-capitalism that you recently inserted, Christofurio, the reason is that it provided no information that wasn't already covered by the larger paragraph on anarchism. Issues regarding the state are one of the few things on which there is agreement between anarchists and the seriously misnamed "anarcho-capitalists". -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 18:48, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You removed the explanation of why the dispute over an accounting issue is relevant to the broader subject of the article. If you thought it irrelevant, you would have been better off deleting the whole new section. Since you appear to think it relevant, you should allow for a specific statement of why. As to the state, I don't think we do agree. If you are a Trotskyite, as you say, then you believe in seizing the state and turning it to your own purposes. I don't believe in that, because as a real anarchist, I disbelieve in the legitimacy of the state, given its inherently coercive nature, even in my own enlightened hands. None of which has anything to do with your deletion of the final graf of this article. --Christofurio 18:54, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Anarchy and Vanguards

I said you agree with anarchists in matters regarding the state. I'm not an anarchist, so of course you don't agree with me. Regarding what I am, I have been meaning to clarify this matter in my reply to your essay in Talk:Human nature (yes, you're not the only one around here with a good memory), but seeing how I've had to postpone that indefinitely (due to the time-consuming business of keeping up with changes on my watchlist), I will clarify the matter right here: I sometimes call myself a Trotskyist, because, of all established ideologies, that is the one closest to my own views. But I do not fully agree with Trotskyism (to be more exact, I do not fully agree with Leninism, which is included in Trotskyism). Specifically, I do not believe the "vanguard of the proletariat" should play any role in a socialist system (i.e. after the revolution). I am an uncompromising supporter of democracy in all fields. Philosophically, I am a strict utilitarian. The term I prefer to use in describing myself is "communist", and I would appreciate it if you did the same.

Now, as far as the article is concerned, I mostly agree with your objections. It is necessary to state why the example we mention is relevant. But it is also necessary to state that in a NPOV manner. I'll go do some editing. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:09, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not interested in "calling" you anything, whether appreciatively or otherwise! I merely noted what you had called yourself. As to the vanguard issue, I'm curious about when and how you expect this vanguard to disappear. It will exist before the revolution, but not after, is that it? So it has to dissolve during the revolution, a term that could apply to a process of any length. Or would you rather have the vanguard disappear as soon as the revolution begins, in the expectation that things will proceed spontaneously once the match is lit? As soon as someone throws the first stone at some future Bastille, the revolution is underway, and the vanguard that brought about the situation that led to the toss of that stone is obliged to dissolve. Is that it? Labels interest me much less than do the ideas that so often cripple. --Christofurio 15:16, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)