Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Fanman]

I'm going to keep this question as short as possible, as I don’t want to imprint it with too much of my own opinion or thinking. Considering concepts like Yin and Yang and Jesus' famous phrase, "the sun shines on the just and the unjust," it is important to note that no matter how many people have tried or how hard they have tried, balance cannot be removed from the universe. Why is that the case?

[Pattern-chaser]

I'm going to keep this question as short as possible, as I don’t want to imprint it with too much of my own opinion or thinking. Considering concepts like Yin and Yang and Jesus' famous phrase, "the sun shines on the just and the unjust," it is important to note that no matter how many people have tried or how hard they have tried, balance cannot be removed from the universe. Why is that the case?

Because the Universe is not static. It seems to exhibit a dynamic equilibrium between most or all extremes. If it was naught but extremes, it would not be the Universe we observe, and seem to live within, would it? Hence there is balance in/of (pretty much) all things.

[Fanman]

I'm going to keep this question as short as possible, as I don’t want to imprint it with too much of my own opinion or thinking. Considering concepts like Yin and Yang and Jesus' famous phrase, "the sun shines on the just and the unjust," it is important to note that no matter how many people have tried or how hard they have tried, balance cannot be removed from the universe. Why is that the case?

Because the Universe is not static. It seems to exhibit a dynamic equilibrium between most or all extremes. If it was naught but extremes, it would not be the Universe we observe, and seem to live within, would it? Hence there is balance in/of (pretty much) all things.

I'm inclined to agree with you. I think there is a dynamic equilibrium between most, or even all, extremes, where at some point, or due to some catalyst or interaction, balance restores itself, or perhaps 'occurs' is a better word. It's almost like an intangible 'is' rather than 'ought,' even when issues of human affairs are concerned. If it involved only extremes, it wouldn't be the universe we observe. The image that conjures in my mind is of a chaotic universe without laws and structures. I am of the opinion that the cause of this balance we observe is inherent in the nature of how the laws of physics work, and perhaps even moral laws operate.

[Gertie]

I dunno, it's a very broad question - you'd have to be more specific?

The 'laws of nature', apparently emerged from a very different pre-Big Bang scenario - that change is seriously extreme. And these laws continue to cause change which will probably result in the entirety of the universe fizzling out. The lawlike predictability of change doesn't equate to stability or balance in the big picture.

As for ecological stability on earth, again in the long term it's changed dramatically, but not usually day to day, as we humans observe it.

And as regards living things, evolution is all about change and adaptation. It maintains sustainability via the brutal mechanism of survival of the fittest, rather than harmony.

So I guess it depends on how you look at these things.

Re morality being an an expression of some sort of inherent natural balance - you'd need to elucidate on that more. It strikes me as a different type of category of 'balance' you must be talking about?

[Fanman]

Gertie,

You're right. The question is broad. My reason for that is to encompass balance as a whole and the diverse ways it applies to different aspects of the universe. I understand the possibility that the universe may fizzle out, even in the face of what is currently predictable and law-like. The bigger picture doesn’t equate to balance, but in present space-time and for perhaps a very long time ahead of us, what has the appearance of balance will exist in the universe. It's not a perfect balance, but one that seems to keep things going towards a state of chaos from order and order from chaos.

Ecology and evolution appear to me to be different systems on Earth, both geared towards progression and renewal. They are achieved through different mechanisms, and survival of the fittest does appear to be brutal from a human standpoint, but from a purely evolutionary perspective, it is necessary. I wouldn’t call it harmony either. As you say, it depends on how people look at these things. I am sure that with enough mental gymnastics, there would be a way to perceive that there is some kind of balance. So, is balance a purely human perspective projected onto the universe by our faculties, or is it a fundamental aspect of it? Essentially, is it objective or subjective?

With regard to moral balance, what keeps propping up in my mind is the Holocaust. The Jews were very affluent people. But the atrocity occurred when everything they earned was unfairly taken from them, and many were murdered, resulting in great suffering. However, in the present time, they have been restored to their position of affluence and wealth. They are powerful and influential people. So, despite the Holocaust, things were restored. In my mind, that conjures images of some kind of giant scale (please excuse me if my historical account is incorrect). I am sure there are many circumstances in human history where the proverbial pendulum appears to be stuck on one side but then comes back to rest in the middle.

[Pattern-chaser]

If it involved only extremes, it wouldn't be the universe we observe. The image that conjures in my mind is of a chaotic universe without laws and structures.

That's only half of it. The other half is an ordered universe, rigid, inflexible, ... and static. Change is connected to the chaotic side of the balance. Order and chaos, in a dynamic equilibrium. It seems to me that this is how the universe has evolved, toward a balance in most/all things.

I am of the opinion that the cause of this balance we observe is inherent in the nature of how the laws of physics work, and perhaps even moral laws operate.

Never mind our human-created "laws of physics", the real world shows us this same lesson as well. As for "moral laws", they are wholly in human hands. The universe has nothing to do with them (except that we humans are part of the universe, and morality is our invention).

IMO

[Pattern-chaser]

Gertie,

You're right. The question is broad. My reason for that is to encompass balance as a whole and the diverse ways it applies to different aspects of the universe. I understand the possibility that the universe may fizzle out, even in the face of what is currently predictable and law-like. The bigger picture doesn’t equate to balance, but in present space-time and for perhaps a very long time ahead of us, what has the appearance of balance will exist in the universe. It's not a perfect balance, but one that seems to keep things going towards a state of chaos from order and order from chaos.

Ecology and evolution appear to me to be different systems on Earth, both geared towards progression and renewal. They are achieved through different mechanisms, and survival of the fittest does appear to be brutal from a human standpoint, but from a purely evolutionary perspective, it is necessary. I wouldn’t call it harmony either. As you say, it depends on how people look at these things. I am sure that with enough mental gymnastics, there would be a way to perceive that there is some kind of balance. So, is balance a purely human perspective projected onto the universe by our faculties, or is it a fundamental aspect of it? Essentially, is it objective or subjective?

With regard to moral balance, what keeps propping up in my mind is the Holocaust. The Jews were very affluent people. But the atrocity occurred when everything they earned was unfairly taken from them, and many were murdered, resulting in great suffering. However, in the present time, they have been restored to their position of affluence and wealth. They are powerful and influential people. So, despite the Holocaust, things were restored. In my mind, that conjures images of some kind of giant scale (please excuse me if my historical account is incorrect). I am sure there are many circumstances in human history where the proverbial pendulum appears to be stuck on one side but then comes back to rest in the middle.

Be careful, unless you want your thread to degenerate into yet another angry and emotional series of exchanges concerning the current conflict in the Middle East. This is an interesting topic, so let's stick to it?

[Fanman]

Pattern-chaser,

That's only half of it. The other half is an ordered universe, rigid, inflexible, ... and static. Change is connected to the chaotic side of the balance. Order and chaos, in a dynamic equilibrium. It seems to me that this is how the universe has evolved, toward a balance in most/all things.

Brilliant! I agree.

Never mind our human-created "laws of physics", the real world shows us this same lesson as well. As for "moral laws", they are wholly in human hands. The universe has nothing to do with them (except that we humans are part of the universe, and morality is our invention).

IMO

Excellent again. Possibly, this is very much the case. I would say that humans are part of the universe and so necessarily subject to any (perhaps every) "law" that is fundamental to how it operates. Even within our lives, the key to solving many issues in our spheres can be balancing things appropriately - Not in all cases, but in some of them, like issues where habits are detrimental.

Be careful, unless you want your thread to degenerate into yet another angry and emotional series of exchanges concerning the current conflict in the Middle East. This is an interesting topic, so let's stick to it?

Acknowledged.

[Good_Egg]

Without a sense of balance we fall over...

Literal physical balancing is what a person does if they walk along a tightrope, or a narrow plank that's high up in the air. What that balancing consists of is leaning to one side or the other so as to stay in the middle. (We only have to think about it in such situations where our default method of shifting our feet slightly to one side or the other is no longer available).

So metaphorical balance, by analogy, is any situation where different factors operate so as to push some variable back to the middle, back towards its long-term average value. What the systems analysis types call a negative feedback loop.

We see this in nature, where the populations of different species can vary from year to year. Why is the world not knee-deep in rodents ? Because there are balancing factors. In a year where rodents increase in number, two things will happen. Their food supply will go down, because more of it will be eaten than usual. And their predators will do well, with more than usual surviving until the next year. So that next year's rodents have to face a world with less food and more predators, which will tend to reduce their numbers back towards the average level.

That's balance. It's not some sort of mystic principle.

The opposite - positive feedback loops - can also occur, when success breeds more success.

[Fanman]

Without a sense of balance we fall over...

Literal physical balancing is what a person does if they walk along a tightrope, or a narrow plank that's high up in the air. What that balancing consists of is leaning to one side or the other so as to stay in the middle. (We only have to think about it in such situations where our default method of shifting our feet slightly to one side or the other is no longer available).

So metaphorical balance, by analogy, is any situation where different factors operate so as to push some variable back to the middle, back towards its long-term average value. What the systems analysis types call a negative feedback loop.

We see this in nature, where the populations of different species can vary from year to year. Why is the world not knee-deep in rodents ? Because there are balancing factors. In a year where rodents increase in number, two things will happen. Their food supply will go down, because more of it will be eaten than usual. And their predators will do well, with more than usual surviving until the next year. So that next year's rodents have to face a world with less food and more predators, which will tend to reduce their numbers back towards the average level.

That's balance. It's not some sort of mystic principle.

The opposite - positive feedback loops - can also occur, when success breeds more success.

I agree with what you say. There is nothing to suggest that a mystical system is at play, but rather that it is one of the processes that occur in life to keep things going. I think Pattern-chaser has elucidated that point well. One point that strikes me is that the tool we have to measure balance is our minds. We don’t have any direct tools that can be used for that sort of inquiry (that I am aware of). So, we have to rely on sound reasoning and logical deduction. Where human affairs are concerned, historical events and statistics can serve as a guide to whether the concept of universal balance holds true in our human spheres as well as in the natural world.

[Pattern-chaser]

I would say that humans are part of the universe and so necessarily subject to any (perhaps every) "law" that is fundamental to how it operates.

It operates entirely without "laws". Laws are our inventions, that describe not the universe, but our human understanding of it. Laws can be a great help to us, and to our understanding, but the universe has no need of them. It does as it needs to do without our intervention, or that of our 'laws'.

Without a sense of balance we fall over...

Literal physical balancing is what a person does if they walk along a tightrope, or a narrow plank that's high up in the air. What that balancing consists of is leaning to one side or the other so as to stay in the middle. (We only have to think about it in such situations where our default method of shifting our feet slightly to one side or the other is no longer available).

So metaphorical balance, by analogy, is any situation where different factors operate so as to push some variable back to the middle, back towards its long-term average value. What the systems analysis types call a negative feedback loop.

We see this in nature, where the populations of different species can vary from year to year. Why is the world not knee-deep in rodents ? Because there are balancing factors. In a year where rodents increase in number, two things will happen. Their food supply will go down, because more of it will be eaten than usual. And their predators will do well, with more than usual surviving until the next year. So that next year's rodents have to face a world with less food and more predators, which will tend to reduce their numbers back towards the average level.

That's balance. It's not some sort of mystic principle.

The opposite - positive feedback loops - can also occur, when success breeds more success.

There are some good points raised here. In many ways, as you say, the universe is configured to maintain or restore balance. Not an *exact* balance, but a rough balance. If the balance were exact, and retained as such, the universe would be static; unchanging and incapable of change. And our observations demonstrate clearly that this is not so. Change happens, and can be observed to happen.



I think this is also informed by my long-held (and oft-mentioned ) notion that there are, in general, no such things as opposites, but only of complements. Our emphasis on opposites leads us to see the world in terms of extremes, as though those extremes are all there is. On the contrary, empirical observation shows that most things, most decisions, and so forth, do not take place at the extremes, but somewhere closer to the middle, to the balance-point. Which brings me back on-topic again.

The real world is about balance, finding the middle path, and the action nearly always takes place here. Our perception, led by binary thinking, that "this is a black-and-white decision", is just plain wrong, and badly misleading too. Almost none of our decisions are so. Most of them belong in the grey area, far from the extremes, the fence-posts, or boundaries. And it's not just decisions, of course, it's all the other stuff you mention above, too.

Once we adopt systems thinking on this topic, things do get a little easier to see, and to navigate too, I think. We need the Law of the Included Middle here, desperately. We need to look at things, understanding that there are usually a myriad of options, not just two. A sort of balance, perhaps?



P.S. I wonder if positive feedback loops can also occur, whereby failure 'breeds' more failure?

[Pattern-chaser]

One point that strikes me is that the tool we have to measure balance is our minds. We don’t have any direct tools that can be used for that sort of inquiry (that I am aware of). So, we have to rely on sound reasoning and logical deduction.

"Sound reasoning and logical deduction" are valuable thinking-tools that we would find it difficult to manage without. But it is also reasonable, and, I hope, helpful, to observe that we have more tools than these that we can bring to bear, if necessary and appropriate. I always think it's a mistake to seemingly rely on just one tool. Or, in this case, a very closely-linked pair of tools.

[Gertie]

Gertie,

You're right. The question is broad. My reason for that is to encompass balance as a whole and the diverse ways it applies to different aspects of the universe. I understand the possibility that the universe may fizzle out, even in the face of what is currently predictable and law-like. The bigger picture doesn’t equate to balance, but in present space-time and for perhaps a very long time ahead of us, what has the appearance of balance will exist in the universe. It's not a perfect balance, but one that seems to keep things going towards a state of chaos from order and order from chaos.

Ecology and evolution appear to me to be different systems on Earth, both geared towards progression and renewal. They are achieved through different mechanisms, and survival of the fittest does appear to be brutal from a human standpoint, but from a purely evolutionary perspective, it is necessary. I wouldn’t call it harmony either. As you say, it depends on how people look at these things. I am sure that with enough mental gymnastics, there would be a way to perceive that there is some kind of balance. So, is balance a purely human perspective projected onto the universe by our faculties, or is it a fundamental aspect of it? Essentially, is it objective or subjective?

With regard to moral balance, what keeps propping up in my mind is the Holocaust. The Jews were very affluent people. But the atrocity occurred when everything they earned was unfairly taken from them, and many were murdered, resulting in great suffering. However, in the present time, they have been restored to their position of affluence and wealth. They are powerful and influential people. So, despite the Holocaust, things were restored. In my mind, that conjures images of some kind of giant scale (please excuse me if my historical account is incorrect). I am sure there are many circumstances in human history where the proverbial pendulum appears to be stuck on one side but then comes back to rest in the middle.

As I say, for me the question is just too broad to answer. If you pick a particular scenario or time frame you can get the opposite answer to if you pick another.

The bottom line I think is that things change.

Sometimes abruptly and paradigmatically, on local and universal scales, and sometimes so gradually we mortal humans barely notice.

But there is a predictability (patterns/'laws') at least at our human level of resolution, which enable us to form a coherent model of the universe and how it works. Which I think gives us more of sense that things are within our grasp to order, categorise and somewhat manage. (As opposed to our primeval ancestors who had to adapt to environmental change more severely than us, or perish).

We have the luxury of at least partially being able to control our environment, rather than it control us. We balance our homes to be hospitable to us, our work/life balance, our social interactions and relationships, our diets, etc. And have had to learn to create systems which by-and-large help us to live collaboratively at even a global level. We're not so vulnerable to more change as our ancestors who had to follow their sources of shelter, food and other resouces, and fight competitors for them. Which perhaps gives us today more of a sense of balance as being inherent to the universe...

I dunno, really I think it depends on the specifics, and how we opt to frame it.

[Fanman]

One point that strikes me is that the tool we have to measure balance is our minds. We don’t have any direct tools that can be used for that sort of inquiry (that I am aware of). So, we have to rely on sound reasoning and logical deduction.

"Sound reasoning and logical deduction" are valuable thinking-tools that we would find it difficult to manage without. But it is also reasonable, and, I hope, helpful, to observe that we have more tools than these that we can bring to bear, if necessary and appropriate. I always think it's a mistake to seemingly rely on just one tool. Or, in this case, a very closely-linked pair of tools.

An interesting and thought-provoking point of view. I just have a couple of questions in that respect. What would you posit as the weaknesses of the tools that I suggested? And what tools do you think would better enable us to deal with, or perhaps even offer viable resolutions to the idea of universal balance?

[Pattern-chaser]

What would you posit as the weaknesses of the tools that I suggested?

I wouldn't. Why is this kind of thinking so common? If I needed to hammer a nail, would I be reasonable to decry the weaknesses of a screwdriver? It works great for screws, but not so great with nails. A hammer's the same, but in reverse. Horses for courses. For some jobs, a particular tool just isn't helpful.

And what tools do you think would better enable us to deal with, or perhaps even offer viable resolutions to the idea of universal balance?

In this case, you have posed an interesting question that has not often been asked, AFAIK. And my immediate impression is that logic and reason alone won't answer this question for us. So perhaps we might deploy imagination and intuition? They might help? [Not "will" or "would"; might.] I'm sure there are many other approaches we might try...