Why are we so fascinated with randomness? If you disagree, let's look at advertisements. Advertisers look at current trends to see how they can market a product, spending a lot of money on research. If we look to most commercials nowadays they are the most arbitrary things ever (e.g. Old Spice, Keystone, etc.) Why is this?
I posit that whatever scientific theory of the time is most prominent, a society/culture will act accordingly. When we thought the Earth was the center of the Universe, we thought we were the sole purpose of creation. That changed when the heliocentric model put the sun in the center. Even more so when we saw how big the Universe is. Science humbled a planet.
Currently, science states that we live in a disconnected, random, and reductionist Universe headed toward entropy - total chaos. If that's so, then society will act accordingly. But what if we shifted toward believing everything is interconnected, interdependent, and headed toward "centropy" (a state of balanced flux)?
Euclidean geometry provides answers for 2D events. Great, but the Universe isn't flat. Everything has a 3rd dimension. To say the Universe is flat means all of the things within are flat. Last time I checked, I'm not.
Similarly, current scientific models of reality are based upon the assumption that closed and finite systems exist. Of course the laws derived from these systems will work because they're derived from the closed or finite system themselves! The issue them comes when we ask, "where do we ever see a closed or finite system in Nature?" Nature is always connected, always infinite, always open, and always interdependent.
So if art reflects the times, what does that say about us now? It says we live believing everything is random and has no purpose. However if we took a moment to actually be in Nature again, to observe the details of Nature, we'd see the opposite. Now imagine what sort of art and technology we'd develop them. Think of how we'd interact with each other if we were aware of our true connected and interdependent Nature.
Statistically speaking, we're not. The human mind is exquisitely evolved to see patterns in randomness to the point that we see them when they legitimately aren't there. “The thing I hate the most about advertising is that it attracts all the bright, creative and ambitious young people, leaving us mainly with the slow and self-obsessed to become our artists.. Modern art is a disaster area. Never in the field of human history has so much been used by so many to say so little.”
― Banksy So here's the thing - for every ad you've ever seen, there was an artist (or artists) with an idea. That idea may have started out with how to sell that thing, or it may have started out with a pretty vision. Lots of people in advertising have lots of pretty visions, and they often try out their pretty visions on any product that it might work for. This is one way ad agencies build brand: TBWA/Chiat-Day stuff doesn't look much like Ogilvy & Mather stuff. It may seem "random" to you, but the truth is they're simply using different parameters than you are. The problem with your position is that scientific theories aren't even complimentary, let alone hierarchical and societies and cultures rarely act with homogeneity. "Randomness" isn't a theory, for example - if I were to list "prominent" scientific theories today, I'd go with "anthropocentric global warming" "evolution" and "special relativity." The first two are kind of diametrically opposed and the third is irrelevant to either... and "culture" doesn't much give a damn the third while the arguments of the first two are not based in science, but in ideology. Actually, "science" states that an equation cannot be solved without selecting a reference frame. But we'll come back to that in a minute. As far as "entropy - total chaos" the end point of an open-ended universe is not chaos, but uniformity. Chaos is actually the opposite of entropy. Well, the first problem here is that your reference frame requires your system to be closed. The next problem is that if you're going to pick rules to defy, "thermodynamics" is a tough row to hoe. "A state of balanced flux" is actually a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics - the one that prohibits perpetual motion machines. And while you can believe what you want, the preponderance of evidence supports the applicability of this law to physics as we know it. Euclidean geometry started falling apart in the late 1500s. The shape of the universe is something debated by cosmologists, and generally not applicable to daily life. I know enough to know that the people who argue about the shape of the universe know more math than I do, and would readily admit that my day-to-day life is unaffected by their determinations. Could you elaborate on this? Because it's not so much an assumption as a verifiable axiom. See, what I"m seeing here is that you aren't really defining your system. And I think you're misreading a lot of science to come up with conclusions that aren't really supported by the facts on the ground. It's almost like you're saying "wishing will make it so" while denying things that are easily demonstrated. Absent a better hypothesis, regardless of "truth" or not, the working hypothesis wins, no?Why are we so fascinated with randomness?
If you disagree, let's look at advertisements. Advertisers look at current trends to see how they can market a product, spending a lot of money on research. If we look to most commercials nowadays they are the most arbitrary things ever (e.g. Old Spice, Keystone, etc.) Why is this?
I posit that whatever scientific theory of the time is most prominent, a society/culture will act accordingly.
Currently, science states that we live in a disconnected, random, and reductionist Universe headed toward entropy - total chaos.
But what if we shifted toward believing everything is interconnected, interdependent, and headed toward "centropy" (a state of balanced flux)?
Euclidean geometry provides answers for 2D events. Great, but the Universe isn't flat. Everything has a 3rd dimension.
Similarly, current scientific models of reality are based upon the assumption that closed and finite systems exist.
I'm beginning to get into the concept of Unified Physics, and only know so much (for now). I wouldn't say that I have enough knowledge (currently) to formulate a strong response.
However, that's merely from an objective perspective. The conclusion that we exist in a connected and interdependent Universe is something I know subjectively, experientialy. I believe that as we move forward in our evolution, we'll realize the value of subjective experience as much as objective. Can I defend my position with dates and links to when specific events happened? No. But I can go for a walk and see how everything works in complete harmony and know we function the same way because we are not separate from Nature. Also, this.
I think that you're letting your frustration with modernity color your logic. There's no reason to think that the world can only be understood as connected and interdependent as a subjective notion. The atoms I exhale today will become part of the plant that you consume tomorrow, and so on. This is as sound a fact as we can possibly know, and it also shows that all are one. It may not sound spiritual to some people, but I suppose that's where science ends and philosophy begins. The two, science and philosophy that is, should be informed by one another, but they aren't the same thing, as some naive science types would have you believe (science as religion, as befalls some people). There is plenty of room for beliefs even in a world that is driven by fact.The conclusion that we exist in a connected and interdependent Universe is something I know subjectively, experientialy. I believe that as we move forward in our evolution, we'll realize the value of subjective experience as much as objective.
Just so we're clear - you are arguing against current scientific maxims because you believe them to be lacking in some way - some way that you describe in personal terms. I have no problems with faith, and I have no problems with personal philosophy... but - as stated by you - you're convinced that we're missing something important through our dogged adherence to scientific method and we should therefore cast off our current understanding of the universe. Faith has its place, as does science - but did you mean to argue that scientific method is wrong because it feels wrong to you, even though (by your own admission) your understanding of the science you reject is rudimentary?The conclusion that we exist in a connected and interdependent Universe is something I know subjectively, experientialy. I believe that as we move forward in our evolution, we'll realize the value of subjective experience as much as objective.
Conflating the science and philosophy is an all too common mistake. I wish I knew where the failure lay. I think we can all agree that no one gets a good science education in school. This, I believe, has to do with politics, education policy, and the fact that very few people who know a lot about science become high school teachers. And this is to say nothing about the non-existent philosophy education that we all receive. Obviously "I don't like science" is a completely untenable stance--science is here to stay, whereas the individual is not. People who say that really should be asking themselves why they don't like what they think scientists say about the universe and how they can reconcile the current body of knowledge with their own worldview. READ MORE, kids!...you're convinced that we're missing something important through our dogged adherence to scientific method and we should therefore cast off our current understanding of the universe.
My suspicion is that we teach two important philosophies: 1) Scientific method is based on doubt 2) Self-confidence is a muscle to be exercised and developed with not enough emphasis on the fact that not all doubts are created equal. Scientific advancement is presented as a chain of identical links, from "fire" to "Large Hadron Collider" with the emphasis on exploration of the unknown as the cause of progress. However, nobody points out that a much larger body of expertise is necessary to snipe at String Theory in 2014 than was required to disprove the four humors in the Enlightenment. That, after all, might damage the fragile young egos into thinking that everything worth discovering has been discovered. It's become harder and harder to say "you're wrong" in a classroom, but sometimes ideas are wrong.Conflating the science and philosophy is an all too common mistake. I wish I knew where the failure lay.
I think the main flaw with this concept is the assumption that because there is a such thing as, let's say, the "scientific fad of the day," society as a whole will follow and be influenced by that fad. Unfortunately (perhaps), I think a large part of the U.S. population at least is both unaware of and unconcerned with the hottest scientific trend or movement or theory. However, hey, I ain't against the rest.
I think it works similar to the concept of "trickle down economy." It moves from one layer of society on down until it permeates everything.
I don't know that it's that apparent on a conscious level. I think as it moves down layers of society, it becomes more and more subliminal and unconscious.
Specifically, I do firmly believe that people who are devout followers of any religion that encourages eschewing science in favor of beliefs absolutely, consciously, choose not to believe in science, and as a result will be completely unaware of, and potentially un-impacted by, any given scientific fad. The simple fact of the matter is that some people choose not to believe in things. Whether that is science, or rational beliefs as opposed to conspiracy theories, not everyone is going to be impacted by any given normatively-held belief. In part this is because some members of society opt not to embrace, explore, believe, give credence to, consider, or entertain these concepts in any way, at all. So first, yes, these people are doing it consciously. Secondly, no, things aren't going to just "trickle down" to them. I don't see a whole lot trickling down to the Mennonites for example. I don't see a lot trickling down to Westboro Baptist, but honestly, the Amish and Mennonites are a much better example simply by dint of being a lot less inflammatory. You can make the argument that the Amish/Mennonite only avoid these theories by completely departing from society, if you want. However, somehow some of our high school students remain woefully ignorant of such ordinary things as how to effectively use birth control and how a girl becomes pregnant. If this knowledge isn't somehow trickled down through society and absorbed into every teenager's brains, I have little hope that scientific knowledge will. That brings us to another point. People willfully keep knowledge from other people. Parents who don't educate their children about sex ed, for instance. Those who adhere to a certain set of beliefs that encourage scientific ignorance are not only going to prevent themselves from gaining that knowledge, but are likely to prevent those around them from gaining that knowledge as well - to "protect" them, perhaps, or because such knowledge is a "sin." While I found your idea interesting at first, it did seem pretty apparent to me that you were speaking from one perspective which valued education and science, specifically, and also assumed that all other members of society did so. Maybe there was an assumption that the only people who are ignorant are people who simply haven't had the opportunity to learn a concept yet. There are also people who will stare a fact in the eye and deny it til sundown. There are people who have no interest in science. There are people who do not give a shit how big the Earth is, how fast we are ruining it with our excesses and our carbon emissions, and who are simply not humbled by concepts such as the universe. Basically, there are people who accidentally are ignorant, people who opt to be ignorant, and people who may not be ignorant at all but do not care, and I think your theory acts as if neither subset of the population exists. For instance, I'm pretty sure people who run the oil pipelines are aware of the pollution they cause, at least in part. If they aren't aware, they're willfully ignorant. If they are aware, they continue in their jobs anyway, and continue to try to downplay the negative impact of oil on our environment. tl;dr : You are assuming all people give a shit about peace, unity, and greater connectedness. They don't. For the record, I also don't think that nature is necessarily the be-all and end-all ideal to how we should live our lives or connect with others in the universe. It's great that Nature is interdependent and connected, but in general life in nature is also extremely brutal. You wanna be part of nature? Are you willing to be part of the herd that gets put down because there's an unsupportable population expansion that results in depletion of natural resources and herd starvation? Sure, it's all interconnected and balances out...but that doesn't mean it works out in your favor. I'd really just appreciate it if we can acknowledge that even assuming the majority of the U.S. population is not only aware of, but acknowledges and even believes, current scientific fads is kind of a couple hundred years ahead of where we are right now. Do you really believe that religious extremists have absorbed scientific theory just de facto? How does that make sense?
It is through science that we know (or at least, it's our best guess) that all living things are in fact related to each other in a direct way - we share a common ancestor (assuming life has arisen only once on our planet). That's a far cry from "disconnected and random".
Common misinterpretation of the scientific method, perpetrated by scientists and non-scientists alike. "Science" says nothing. Science is a systematic way of asking and answering questions. It is without judgement. People say things. People interpret data. People promote ideas. Ideas can be informed by science, just as ideas can be informed by belief and opinion.Currently, science states that we live in a disconnected, random, and reductionist Universe headed toward entropy - total chaos. If that's so, then society will act accordingly.
I appreciate the logic of this, but as an unrepentant subscriber to this ideology of the random that you've identified, I can't accept it. I guess my issue with your idea stems from the description of present science's worldview as "disconnected" as well as "random and reductionist." Nothing about the nature of modern science implies that the universe is necessarily detached from itself. That is to say, a system (even of the universal variety) can be totally random and reducible, the product of a couple instigating events and maybe an accident of Nature or two, and still carry with it a profound interconnectedness. In fact, I would say that not only is this possible, but it's probable that that's the way our universe really is. Anyway. Cool idea, though. Thanks for sharing!So if art reflects the times, what does that say about us now? It says we live believing everything is random and has no purpose. However if we took a moment to actually be in Nature again, to observe the details of Nature, we'd see the opposite. Now imagine what sort of art and technology we'd develop them. Think of how we'd interact with each other if we were aware of our true connected and interdependent Nature.
It certainly seems to be moving away from this, yes. With new insights into the holofractographic nature of reality, I'd say we're moving toward a more connected understanding.
I suppose to be more clear I should have said that previous standards supported disconnectedness.I guess my issue with your idea stems from the description of present science's worldview as "disconnected" as well as "random and reductionist." Nothing about the nature of modern science implies that the universe is necessarily detached from itself.