Stumble upon a photo zoomed in way too far, and all you see is an incomprehensible pixelated blur that has no meaning.
This is the metaphor I am using today for my message, as I’ve noticed others rarely consider that they might have to take many steps back to see something for what it truly is.
I consider myself to be a realist, dangerously bordering pessimist at times, but if there is anything that keeps me from losing trust in life, it is this sentiment.
Nothing makes any sense, and it is inaccurate to think that one day it will for anyone. Life doesn’t have to make sense in order to exist the way that it does. What holds my head above water is the only reliable piece of knowledge: that my perspective is limited, and it just might well be that of a photo zoomed in 500%.
So what is this idea of symmetrical entropy? It is disorder occurring in a way that when given enough time and space, it begins to take shape. A slew of seemingly random acts happen collectively, forming something that has symmetry. Simply put, symmetrical entropy is a paradox. It is order being birthed from disorder.
I can never be certain, but I suspect that symmetrical entropy is a real thing in our world. Scientists talk about how all matter strives to be in a state of randomness, but who are we to label it nonsensical?
I’m not saying there is a reason for everything. I’m not saying everything is predetermined. Above all, I am not an advocate of intelligent design. All I am asking is for others to question how we can have completely accurate notions, ideas, and measurements when we are merely on the inside, looking out of something unfathomably larger than ourselves.
You’ve heard it before, the only certainty is uncertainty. Well, perhaps the disorder has uniformity as well.
One thought on “Symmetrical Entropy: The Order Within The Chaos”
I like your post. Only recently has science delved in to the field of emergence, which is essentially what your saying, I think.
The natural order that can emerge out of chaos, is currently way beyond the grasp of science but they have at least acknowledge it. Now they have to acknowledge that reductionism is inherently incomplete, and to understand something, most things, you have to look at the whole.
LikeLiked by 1 person