Home Forums The Science The OPTOMISTIC Arrow

This topic contains 6 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  Parsimony 1 week, 6 days ago.

  • Author
    Posts

  • Finegan80
    Participant

    Years ago I heard the physicist Paul Davies give a series of talks on the universe. He’s brilliant. Brilliant in mind and also in explaining science to the general public. In one talk he explained the Second Law of Thermodynamics (there are Four Laws) and how that “law” indicates the universe is always breaking down and the inevitable conclusion is a complete break down. As such, many on hearing/ learning of such a fate think ‘why bother then, there’s no point to all this [living]’. Davies however was brilliant in describing this as the OPTOMISTIC Arrow, and most importantly that there is a POSITIVE Arrow. There was much in his talks I found interesting and much I didn’t understand but it was this idea that stayed with me most clearly and it wasn’t until I read Jeremy Griffith’s very coherent explanation of Integrated Meaning and read him introduce Negative Entropy did I learn that there is fact “A Second Path to The Second Law”!! I nearly fell off my chair! You can’t deny that. That was the beginning of my journey with this theory on the human condition which has completely changed my way of viewing the world and myself. I’m making slow progress, my mind is much more theoretical and analytical so it takes me a long while to think each part through and turn it on it’s head. Remarkably I haven’t been able to fault it yet, despite some very very high eye-brow-raising to begin with. His theory on denial of the human condition, particularly directed at mechanistic science interested me greatly and intriguingly it was the Paul Davies interviewer (referred to at the beginning of this diatribe) that insisted that Davies focus on The Negative Arrow, and now I know why.

  • Stefan
    Stefan
    Participant

    Hah! My journey didn’t start with the second law of thermodynamics, but that’s kind of when things were taking off for me. I was researching a lot of science in the past and I watched many talks on quantum mechanics and physics. And I have probably exposed myself to a lot of pseudo science too, I have to admit. But now with the explanation of integrated meaning and the ability to read and understand it (because I know about the human condition and why we couldn’t know the true explanation before had solved our own psychological problem), everything makes perfect sense. And as you say, there is an optimistic arrow.

    Right now I’m baffled by how simple the explanation really is. And despite its simplicity, we were not able to find (or admit) it, because it would have been too exposing for us. Just imagine what else we will discover once the human condition starts disappearing from this planet. I know it’s not the primary focus right now, but thinking about a world without the human condition always makes me so euphoric and I’m getting excited and have to tell it to someone. Thanks for reading it!


  • Parsimony
    Participant

    I totally agree Stefan, it is baffling that humanity and scientists were able to deny Negative Entropy because it is too confronting. It is SO obvious now that we have been told about it, that it is hard to believe that everyone could just deny it. But the facts are that we weren’t taught it in school. I remember reading about Prigogine and he said that he was totally persecuted after coming up with Negative Entropy or contributing to the idea or whatever exactly it was that he did. Anyway, to be able to look at the world around us with the intellectual knowledge that it is all a manifestation of negative entropy is very exciting. And understanding evolution within that context too!


  • U-man
    Participant

    enjoying the discussion


  • twilight
    Participant

    I don’t know that most scientists are actively denying negative entropy—although it is interesting to hear about Paul Davies experience, and also Prigogines. Its more an act of omission I would say.

    • Stefan
      Stefan
      Participant

      That’s right. I don’t know of any scientists actively denying negative entropy either. It’s more like we didn’t really know what to think of it and we needed Jeremy’s explanation of the human condition and integrative meaning to realise its significance. That said, I really hope to see more science shows, talks and publications about all of this in the future because it’s really an exciting topic and I want to know more about it.


  • Parsimony
    Participant

    I thought I had posted this a couple of weeks ago, but it doesnt seem to have appeared so here it is again. This is a quote from Prigogine on the treatment he got from the scientific community:
    “It is difficult today to give an account of the hostility that such an approach was to meet,” Prigogine wrote in his autobiography. “Towards the end of 1946, at the Brussels IUPAP meeting, after a presentation of the thermodynamics of irreversible processes, a specialist of great repute said to me, in substance: ‘I am surprised that you give more attention to irreversible phenomena, which are essentially transitory, than to the final result of their evolution, equilibrium.’ Fortunately, some eminent scientists derogated this negative attitude.”