Notices
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: Equilibriums forming in society (peace)

  1. #1 Equilibriums forming in society (peace) 
    Forum Sophomore Schizo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    164
    Is it possible for an equilibrium to form in humans, society, and/or civilization considering all of its complexity. If so can it be maintained, and what are the basic rules governing the formation of those equilibriums within our existence.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,229
    Between what? Man and nature? Life and death? Good and bad?


    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 All encompassing 
    Forum Sophomore Schizo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    164
    It is a fundamentally simple question; with profound answers. If we are to see matter as a system of equations, and humans are a complex form of matter, than can equilibriums form in those systems. The question applies to all form of human consciousness and interaction. Given the enormous complexity of it, yet over a course of unimaginable time would an equilibrium ever form.

    It is an amazing premise to ponder.

    The implications of it could mean that intelligent systems may never be at rest.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    I'm glad you think it's profound. Everybody needs something to think about. Of course equilibrium could exist - it's called the heat death of the universe.

    If you wish to talk about ongoing civilisations then you are talking about dissipative systems (because of entropy and the laws of thermodynamics) which, by definition, are not really in equilibrium. In that case, you need to change the definition of equilibrium and explain to us what equilibrium means to you. It may be profound, or it may be mistaken - only an explanation from you will help clarify this matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore Schizo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    164
    I would suppose equilibrium has many applications within the vast area of human existence; I am going to, right now, assume that I am thinking about what equilibriums mean to humans themselves; a balance. The other post wanted me to define what I meant by equilibrium by stating whether it was between life and death, man and nature, and/or good/bad. However these are all fundamentally part of the mind or the psyche.

    I bring forward this; if we are to be in equilibrium with the environment (man and nature) would not our intelligence or consciousness have progressed to a state which allowed it to be such. Hence it is more or less all interconnected.

    As such an equilibrium within society is not some yin yang notion.

    In essence could it be said that humans (as a complex formation of life or matter) will either, as a whole, be in a state of motion which seeks to change variations of its own self (e.g. other societies and over time itself) through the action of an aggravated state(e.g. war-as an example)

    O.k. will life always be in the process of war with intermittent states of relative peace and/or a non-aggravated state.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore Schizo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    164
    Also why would you insult me by stating that what I was pondering was not truly worth pondering; that is the only thing I could conclude after reading what you had posted.

    If I am misguided in what I think about... I can adapt to new ideas; I am not lost to the realm of science.

    May I ask you what is truly more profound than trying to figure out civilizations future in the cosmos.


    You have insulted me... = (
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    13
    As long as there is love there shall never be peace.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 CHAOS 
    Forum Masters Degree SuperNatendo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nashville, TN USA
    Posts
    505
    The unpredictability of items within larger complex systems causes equillibrium to be impossible in this type of situation!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Schizo
    Also why would you insult me by stating that what I was pondering was not truly worth pondering; that is the only thing I could conclude after reading what you had posted.

    If I am misguided in what I think about... I can adapt to new ideas; I am not lost to the realm of science.

    May I ask you what is truly more profound than trying to figure out civilizations future in the cosmos.


    You have insulted me... = (
    I'm sorry if you feel so sensitive about this.

    1. You claimed that what you posted was profound. In England we have a phrase for people who claim they or their thoughts are profound: "Up himself". It's just not good form to boast about the profundity of your own ideas. Worse, you could be wrong.

    2. If you are trying to speak of some sort of ESS (Evolutionarily Stable Strategy), then chaos theory demonstrates that this is not going to happen. Whether humans will it or not, lifestyles will change.

    3. Trying to figure out civilisation's future in the cosmos is a fine activity but I am not going to get into list-making regarding the possible topics that could be more profound. More importantly, "civilisation's future in the cosmos" is not the same thing as "civilisation achieving equilibrium, considered as matter in motion".

    Again, apologies if you feel insulted but, if you bring your ideas to a science forum, prepare for them to be questioned and, yes, even attacked.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Dear sunshinewarrio 
    Forum Sophomore Schizo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    164
    1. There is nothing wrong about professing ones ideas as being profound; it is not arrogant in any sense... it shows in interest in the workings of nature and existence that is to be encouraged despite the fact that certain people (you) consider their egos (your intelligence in this matter) above other people's, and feel threatened when a person exhibits intelligence around them. Not because you feel I am more intelligent (which I very well might not be) but because you feel only certain people should pursue intelligence. What this stems from is more than likely fear... is it safe to say that on a conscious or unconscious level you see threats to either you or your societies existence with people who pursue intelligence yet are incapable of yielding such intelligence. I believe you have a name for those people... from what I remember hearing... at least in America they are called cranks...

    2. You are telling me that just because we do not know something that it is not possible... that is basically what you are telling me; in essence you think that our current level of knowledge concerning the workings of nature are complete and it is folly to pursue any different.

    3. You might be ignorant concerning our activities in science; the nature of organisms is to do things for themselves; all our attempts to discover laws of nature are to benefit our own existence. Prove me wrong in that; I beg you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Shaderwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    OPSEC, baby. Sorry.
    Posts
    425
    how old are you...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Shaderwolf 
    Forum Sophomore Schizo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    164
    This is a delicate question there are only several possible reactions I could have to your response about my age.

    I going to assume that you meant it in an offensive way; indicating that I am acting immature... in some aspect you might be right; but it is in peoples nature to defend themselves

    In the case you were not insulting me (which is highly unlikely) I would ask with an authentic interest what the relevance was.

    In the likely event you respond with sarcasm I will respond appropriately

    You may not even respond at all... in which case I attain victory over your attempts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    Schizo, I think you're honest about your intentions and ideas, but please also have understanding for what other members are saying.

    Your question is very big and ambitious, and the way you formulate it now it seems unanswerable. Try to break it up into smaller questions with smaller answers, make a thread about one such smaller question and present us with some observations or concrete ideas. Then you can gradually build towards the synthesis you have in mind. That way there will be more discussion and you'll get more useful feedback. Maybe you can eventually present us your more complex idea in a more concrete way, after recieving feedback in the way I described.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •