Thermodynamic vs Teleodynamic View of the Evolution of the Universe
Discussion
Cadell Last:
"The Thermodynamics view of the cosmos: from primordial order to final disorder:
The thermodynamics view of the cosmos gives the picture of a universe with particular low-entropy, highly ordered or supersymmetrical initial state of being (non-random motion). This initial state drifts towards higher-entropy, global disorder (random motion) over time via symmetry breaking events (divisions) and feedback loops (unities) which generates a motion that we understand as an arrow of time. Consequently, in the context of the universe as a whole (considering the whole of space and the whole of time) the most common state space for matter is general disorganization (thermal equilibrium) due to low material interaction rates, which suggests that the currently observed state of the universe is ultimately unstable. The multi-local material order that does self-organize into persistent temporal form (galaxies, stars, life, mind) occurs due to gravitational attraction acting on heterogeneous distributions of organization which enables higher material interaction rates. In our current understanding of the universe there is no complete theory that explains the fundamental consequence of the emergence of such multi-local order, and reductionist perspectives tend to regard such phenomena as epiphenomenal. In other words, reductionist perspectives identify a fundamental objectivity (unity) framed a priori by a subjectivity (division), but cannot think a framed a priori subjectivity (division) that constitutes an emergent fundamental objectivity (unity).
The Teleodynamic view of the (local) cosmos: from primordial disorder to final order:
The above representation attempts to capture the cosmic evolutionary worldview that is characterized by far-from-equilibrium or non-equilibrium systems that operate on self-organizing principles dynamically balanced between chaos and order. In the teleodynamic conception we get an image of the world that presents us with an immanent ‘immortal heat’ where highly ordered far-from equilibrium systems curve their being to a state of supersymmetrical unity (a cosmic-transcendental monism). Such a state would likely annihilate the dualistic distinctions between subject-object, concept-world, observer-observed, material-ideal without resorting to a pre-linguistic ‘biophysical grounding’ that ignores the emergence and consequences of conceptual distinctions (i.e., ‘distinction-division dynamics’). In this representation the totality of process is conceived of as starting with the emergence of a field composed of ideationally constituted social unites (bands/tribes) whose ground is self-consciousness developing in language. Throughout the historical process bands/tribes become progressively ‘synthesized’ into higher level social unities which has the effect of reducing the number of different unified groups (i.e., fewer unities) but increasing the spatial scale of the unified groups (i.e., the difference between Europe pre-and-post Roman Empire, or the Asia pre-and-post Chinese Empire, etc.). In this progressive trend to unification the level of individuation also progressively increases meaning that there are emergent degrees of freedom for the particular elements of the higher level social unities. This paradox between higher social unity and higher individuation continues to the present day where we see the dominance of a ‘multiplicity of ideals’ which are nonetheless all expressing ideality within one universal technological medium. The combination of these two trends make it difficult for philosophy to make sense of totality. In this view in order to approach totality we must include the radical divisions characteristic of individuation into the higher unity of totality, thus creating a unity inclusive of division."