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

[Fanman]

I don’t really understand how an equilibrium can be dynamic.

Consider the Sun. An equilibrium between the outward force of nuclear reactions in its core and the inward push of gravity has been present for about 4.6 billion years.

Yet it is dynamic, there are all manner of instability within the confines of general balance. The equilibrium is akin to another example I gave - the equilibrium between people on a see-saw. They can remain in equilibrium for a long time but, in truth, the board is wobbling up and down, regularly passing through the point of true balance, but not far enough to move out of equilibrium.

The issue is scale. You can have apparent balance in larger entities, but you will always find activity if you zoom in enough.

Thank you. I'll need to think about this more. I asked my AI a similar question, and it provided a similar scenario to the one you describe here, but with different variables. I had some reservations and different ideas about the information it gave me, but I'm not sure if they are valid. Speak later.

[Fanman]

Sy,

I think that nothing in the universe is ever truly static. As you insightfully allude to, there are always fluctuations occurring within physical systems. Since this dynamism (or state of flux) is occurring on a macro and micro scale and balance exists, we can logically say that, as you have surmised, equilibrium (or balance) is dynamic.

[Pattern-chaser]

This is where our paths diverge. In my view, balance is only one thing. The systems in which the principle operates may, as a result of balance, become static for a myriad of reasons. However, the principle itself appears to be constant or in constant operation. Even in death, change is occurring, and change is subject to the principle of balance. I don’t really understand how an equilibrium can be dynamic. There can be a balance of dynamic states within a system, but equilibrium is necessarily stable (if that makes sense). Stability leans more towards being static than dynamic – just my thoughts. I can talk about real-world life balance for a long time, as I believe it leads to a high-quality lifestyle. However, until our understanding converges, our discussion of the subject would be at odds, as we don’t see completely eye to eye regarding balance.

Yes, I'm afraid we diverge on this bit. Unfortunately, it's a foundational bit of the whole discussion.

The "balances" you describe, and seemingly yearn for, are static, fixed, and unchanging. And yes, yours is probably the dictionary-compatible use of the term, which is why I have carefully used the phrase "dynamic equilibrium" in this topic. But a dynamic equilibrium is easily understood by the layman and the philosopher too — it refers to an approximate balance. Even then, it's "balance" in the everyday sense of 'lying somewhere roughly in the middle'.

This sort of everyday balance can be easily seen throughout the universe, from supergalaxies to microscopic soil-life. Your sort of balance, the exact and unchanging sort, is quite rare in the real world, I think?

[Pattern-chaser]

Sy,

I think that nothing in the universe is ever truly static. As you insightfully allude to, there are always fluctuations occurring within physical systems. Since this dynamism (or state of flux) is occurring on a macro and micro scale and balance exists, we can logically say that, as you have surmised, equilibrium (or balance) is dynamic.

Yes! Balance is dynamic.

[Fanman]

Sy,

I think that nothing in the universe is ever truly static. As you insightfully allude to, there are always fluctuations occurring within physical systems. Since this dynamism (or state of flux) is occurring on a macro and micro scale and balance exists, we can logically say that, as you have surmised, equilibrium (or balance) is dynamic.

Yes! Balance is dynamic.

It is, justifiably! Sy's analogies were the tipping point. From there, it was comprehensive.

[Count Lucanor]

Definitions are the expression of concepts, and concepts are abstractions. You just simply cannot evade abstractions and pretend to stay with definitions.
Secondly, the concept of balance and its definition is not at stake here. There’s no issue with it. The problem is your claim
that balance is some Platonic ideal form existing in a separate realm from the world, operating over it, but with independent existence.

I strongly reiterate what I have already said in our discussion. I ask that you substantiate your wild claims with verbatim evidence that I have done what you claim.

Not “wild” at all:

Balance is more than an abstraction because it clearly exists outside of human perception and can be measured

What you’re saying there is that ideas have real existence. That is Platonic realism. I give you that your stance derives more from confusion than from embracing a consistent doctrine. It seems you cannot make a distinction from the whole and its parts.

It is important to note that your quotation of my words was taken out of context. Therefore, while it is verbatim, it was concisely cherry-picked for your purposes, which is clear given my overall contributions to the topic. Still, I stand by my view that, even though this is evidently the case, my statement has a strong degree of validity. To support my claim on this issue, I refer you to the following.

Supporting my statement:

“While the precision with which an observer can determine the exact point of balance might have slight variations (due to eyesight, parallax error, etc.), these are limitations of measurement, not indications that the state itself is subjective. The physical condition of equal opposing torques is an objective reality."

See, friend, subjective and objective.

You may have claimed a lot of things, but the only one I’m concerned with is anything related to my own claim, which is not to question what balance means or the existence of objective reality. My claim is pretty straightforward and simple to understand, but I’ll ellaborate more so not to leave any stone unturned. Balance may refer to observable states of a local system with any level of complexity, that is, made from different elements and their relations. Every system shows an order of things, a given state in the relationship of its elements, its “laws and structure”. Most if not all local systems are dynamic, they tend to move from states that we call unstable, with increasing entropy, to states that we call stable, so entropy (disorder) remains constant. To a given state or relationship of elements in a system we call it balance, which is not to say that those relationships are not real. I’m not discussing that. Nor it is to say that local (isolated) dynamic systems do not show a measure of disorder. We simply call it balanced because there is “law and structure”.

The biggest system of all is the universe, there’s nothing we can imagine beyond it. The entropy of the universe as a whole is constantly increasing, and so it’s its measure of disorder. To say that the universe is balanced is to say only that it shows an order of things which explains everything that happens in that universe, an order of “law and structure”, but since it is the ultimate order of things in which we participate as observers, we cannot observe any other. No matter how it actually is, it is what actually is, and we will call it balanced anyway, either with constant entropy or not. There’s not an absolute balance outside the universe for it to comply with.
Now, if by balance you mean that the universe has constant entropy, then you’re simply wrong in the physics.

[Count Lucanor]

Definitions are the expression of concepts, and concepts are abstractions. You just simply cannot evade abstractions and pretend to stay with definitions.
Secondly, the concept of balance and its definition is not at stake here. There’s no issue with it. The problem is your claim
that balance is some Platonic ideal form existing in a separate realm from the world, operating over it, but with independent existence.

I strongly reiterate what I have already said in our discussion. I ask that you substantiate your wild claims with verbatim evidence that I have done what you claim.

Not “wild” at all:

Balance is more than an abstraction because it clearly exists outside of human perception and can be measured

What you’re saying there is that ideas have real existence. That is Platonic realism. I give you that your stance derives more from confusion than from embracing a consistent doctrine. It seems you cannot make a distinction from the whole and its parts.

It is important to note that your quotation of my words was taken out of context. Therefore, while it is verbatim, it was concisely cherry-picked for your purposes, which is clear given my overall contributions to the topic. Still, I stand by my view that, even though this is evidently the case, my statement has a strong degree of validity. To support my claim on this issue, I refer you to the following.

Supporting my statement:

“While the precision with which an observer can determine the exact point of balance might have slight variations (due to eyesight, parallax error, etc.), these are limitations of measurement, not indications that the state itself is subjective. The physical condition of equal opposing torques is an objective reality."

See, friend, subjective and objective.

You may have claimed a lot of things, but the only one I’m concerned with is anything related to my own claim, which is not to question what balance means or the existence of objective reality. My claim is pretty straightforward and simple to understand, but I’ll ellaborate more so not to leave any stone unturned. Balance may refer to observable states of a local system with any level of complexity, that is, made from different elements and their relations. Every system shows an order of things, a given state in the relationship of its elements, its “laws and structure”. Most if not all local systems are dynamic, they tend to move from states that we call unstable, with increasing entropy, to states that we call stable, so entropy (disorder) remains constant. To a given state or relationship of elements in a system we call it balance, which is not to say that those relationships are not real. I’m not discussing that. Nor it is to say that local (isolated) dynamic systems do not show a measure of disorder. We simply call it balanced because there is “law and structure”.

The biggest system of all is the universe, there’s nothing we can imagine beyond it. The entropy of the universe as a whole is constantly increasing, and so it’s its measure of disorder. To say that the universe is balanced is to say only that it shows an order of things which explains everything that happens in that universe, an order of “law and structure”, but since it is the ultimate order of things in which we participate as observers, we cannot observe any other. No matter how it actually is, it is what actually is, and we will call it balanced anyway, either with constant entropy or not. There’s not an absolute balance outside the universe for it to comply with.
Now, if by balance you mean that the universe has constant entropy, then you’re simply wrong in the physics.

[Fanman]

I strongly reiterate what I have already said in our discussion. I ask that you substantiate your wild claims with verbatim evidence that I have done what you claim.

Not “wild” at all:

Balance is more than an abstraction because it clearly exists outside of human perception and can be measured

What you’re saying there is that ideas have real existence. That is Platonic realism. I give you that your stance derives more from confusion than from embracing a consistent doctrine. It seems you cannot make a distinction from the whole and its parts.

It is important to note that your quotation of my words was taken out of context. Therefore, while it is verbatim, it was concisely cherry-picked for your purposes, which is clear given my overall contributions to the topic. Still, I stand by my view that, even though this is evidently the case, my statement has a strong degree of validity. To support my claim on this issue, I refer you to the following.

Supporting my statement:

“While the precision with which an observer can determine the exact point of balance might have slight variations (due to eyesight, parallax error, etc.), these are limitations of measurement, not indications that the state itself is subjective. The physical condition of equal opposing torques is an objective reality."

See, friend, subjective and objective.

You may have claimed a lot of things, but the only one I’m concerned with is anything related to my own claim, which is not to question what balance means or the existence of objective reality. My claim is pretty straightforward and simple to understand, but I’ll ellaborate more so not to leave any stone unturned. Balance may refer to observable states of a local system with any level of complexity, that is, made from different elements and their relations. Every system shows an order of things, a given state in the relationship of its elements, its “laws and structure”. Most if not all local systems are dynamic, they tend to move from states that we call unstable, with increasing entropy, to states that we call stable, so entropy (disorder) remains constant. To a given state or relationship of elements in a system we call it balance, which is not to say that those relationships are not real. I’m not discussing that. Nor it is to say that local (isolated) dynamic systems do not show a measure of disorder. We simply call it balanced because there is “law and structure”.

The biggest system of all is the universe, there’s nothing we can imagine beyond it. The entropy of the universe as a whole is constantly increasing, and so it’s its measure of disorder. To say that the universe is balanced is to say only that it shows an order of things which explains everything that happens in that universe, an order of “law and structure”, but since it is the ultimate order of things in which we participate as observers, we cannot observe any other. No matter how it actually is, it is what actually is, and we will call it balanced anyway, either with constant entropy or not. There’s not an absolute balance outside the universe for it to comply with.
Now, if by balance you mean that the universe has constant entropy, then you’re simply wrong in the physics.

With due respect, for reasons I will not disclose. I will no longer engage with you in this discussion. Although, I cannot speak for the other interlocutors. Maybe they will engage with your posts. Thank you for your participation.

[Sy Borg]

Sy,

I think that nothing in the universe is ever truly static. As you insightfully allude to, there are always fluctuations occurring within physical systems. Since this dynamism (or state of flux) is occurring on a macro and micro scale and balance exists, we can logically say that, as you have surmised, equilibrium (or balance) is dynamic.

Agreed, noting that balance exists either as an apparent truth (wobbling around equilibrium) or as a transition point that is passed through.

[Fanman]

Sy,

I think that nothing in the universe is ever truly static. As you insightfully allude to, there are always fluctuations occurring within physical systems. Since this dynamism (or state of flux) is occurring on a macro and micro scale and balance exists, we can logically say that, as you have surmised, equilibrium (or balance) is dynamic.

Agreed, noting that balance exists either as an apparent truth (wobbling around equilibrium) or as a transition point that is passed through.

Agreed (wow, mind blown, you’re clever)!

[Count Lucanor]

With due respect, for reasons I will not disclose. I will no longer engage with you in this discussion. Although, I cannot speak for the other interlocutors. Maybe they will engage with your posts. Thank you for your participation.

You’re welcome!! Don’t worry, I understand exactly why

[Count Lucanor]

With due respect, for reasons I will not disclose. I will no longer engage with you in this discussion. Although, I cannot speak for the other interlocutors. Maybe they will engage with your posts. Thank you for your participation.

You’re welcome!! Thank you for the brief exchange… and don’t worry, I understand exactly why

[Pattern-chaser]

Yes! Balance is dynamic.

It is, justifiably! Sy's analogies were the tipping point. From there, it was comprehensive.

Then what about all that scientific-looking stuff that you posted? The stuff about making precise and accurate measurements of physical/material things that are in a state of static balance? For it seems to me that these two, er, styles of balance — static and dynamic — describe very different things. The difference between unchanging and changing is ... significant, especially in this topic.

So are we talking about the heat-death of the universe, where absolute zero rules, and change is actually impossible? Or are we talking about the dynamic and approximate balance that describes our understanding that most stuff happens near the norm, not near the extremes; the yin-yang message?

[Fanman]

Pattern-chaser,

Then what about all that scientific-looking stuff that you posted? The stuff about making precise and accurate measurements of physical/material things that are in a state of static balance? For it seems to me that these two, er, styles of balance — static and dynamic — describe very different things. The difference between unchanging and changing is ... significant, especially in this topic.

There are two reasons for that. I was using the principle of balance as applied to a scale to demonstrate the objective nature of balance. That said, even when that perfect point of transitional interaction in a system is met, even if only for an instant, balance is still operating dynamically for it to occur. So, my point was not to show that balance is static, just that it exists as a principle (possibly a dynamic property of the universe) outside of human perception. The second reason is that, as the discussion has progressed, my understanding of balance has evolved as well. So, whereas I initially saw balance as a more rigid principle, I now see how dynamic it is and can be.

So are we talking about the heat-death of the universe, where absolute zero rules, and change is actually impossible? Or are we talking about the dynamic and approximate balance that describes our understanding that most stuff happens near the norm, not near the extremes; the yin-yang message?

I do not draw a line of demarcation. From my perspective, balance is one thing. It may operate differently within different systems because the variables are different, but it is, according to my understanding, the same principle.

[Pattern-chaser]

Pattern-chaser,

Then what about all that scientific-looking stuff that you posted? The stuff about making precise and accurate measurements of physical/material things that are in a state of static balance? For it seems to me that these two, er, styles of balance — static and dynamic — describe very different things. The difference between unchanging and changing is ... significant, especially in this topic.

There are two reasons for that. I was using the principle of balance as applied to a scale to demonstrate the objective nature of balance. That said, even when that perfect point of transitional interaction in a system is met, even if only for an instant, balance is still operating dynamically for it to occur. So, my point was not to show that balance is static, just that it exists as a principle (possibly a dynamic property of the universe) outside of human perception. The second reason is that, as the discussion has progressed, my understanding of balance has evolved as well. So, whereas I initially saw balance as a more rigid principle, I now see how dynamic it is and can be.

For myself, I have realised that "balance" embraces at least two meanings — static and dynamic, as we have discussed — and maybe more. And that our everyday use of "balance" often mixes the two up, and uses them simultaneously.

So are we talking about the heat-death of the universe, where absolute zero rules, and change is actually impossible? Or are we talking about the dynamic and approximate balance that describes our understanding that most stuff happens near the norm, not near the extremes; the yin-yang message?

I do not draw a line of demarcation. From my perspective, balance is one thing. It may operate differently within different systems because the variables are different, but it is, according to my understanding, the same principle.

Yeah, balance is a significant part of our understanding of the universe. To us, it's a 'principle', and a useful one too. Just as long as we remember that the universe determines the 'principle', it's not governed by it. Our understanding depends on such principles, to the extent that we sometimes forget that all these principles are dependent on a reference, which is the universe itself. I wonder why we feel the need to formulate laws, rules, and principles, when the universe is there always, to act as a guide and reference whenever we need one? ... But that's just me, musing.