Problem:
Is it rational to suppose that disorder generates order?
Before I answer, I should explain what do I understand by “order” and “disorder”.
Definition 1:
I call a real unity to that which has an individual movement.
Demonstration of the implicit proposition:
The disparity of movements proves that real unities exist. Otherwise, the same thing could be moved in opposite directions, which is nonsensical.
Corollary:
Someone could object that two different things can move in the same direction. Nevertheless, their direction won’t be exactly alike or they will be the same thing. Thus, there are as many “things” as directions.
Definition 2:
Movement is the self-succession of a real unity.
Axiom:
It is obvious that order implies multiplicity. A real unity alone can’t be ordered or disordered, because it lacks a relative place. Same could be stated of movement, which bears multiplicity too.
Then, order would be the property which gives a consistency to the movement. A real unity, as it has been said, isn’t ordered or disordered. However, when it moves it presupposes a place among multiplicity, since there is no possible movement in the void.
Proposition 1:
Movement is an accident.
Demonstration:
Let’s say that a real unity moves (or it is moved) in a multiple environment. So, as far as the real unity is identical to itself in every different state of its movement, we can affirm it is the same real thing which is moving. That is to say, change affects it accidentally, not substantially.
Proposition 2:
Order can be understood as the characteristic of some kind of movement.
Demonstration:
If a real unity lost its identity with movement, it wouldn’t exist movement at all, but a succession of multiple different things. I call it a disordered movement.
Proposition 3:
Order appears to be the actual possibility of any real unity to move in the whole set of things without being confused with it. That possibility is only given by the movement (as an individuation principle) and particularly by the ordered movement.
Demonstration:
By Propositions 1 and 2.
Proposition 4:
Every notion of order implies the notion of real unity.
Demonstration:
By Proposition 3.
Proposition 5:
It is impossible that order can be generated by disorder.
Demonstration:
If that “generation” forces us to think of movement, it isn’t conceivable that a disordered movement generate an ordered movement (by Proposition 3). Even though, every notion of order presupposes a real unity (by Proposition 4), therefore it implies necessarily something which is previous to movement, and which isn’t itself ordered or disordered, but orderer. I’m speaking of God.
Greetings.
Daniel.
Is it rational to suppose that disorder generates order?
Before I answer, I should explain what do I understand by “order” and “disorder”.
Definition 1:
I call a real unity to that which has an individual movement.
Demonstration of the implicit proposition:
The disparity of movements proves that real unities exist. Otherwise, the same thing could be moved in opposite directions, which is nonsensical.
Corollary:
Someone could object that two different things can move in the same direction. Nevertheless, their direction won’t be exactly alike or they will be the same thing. Thus, there are as many “things” as directions.
Definition 2:
Movement is the self-succession of a real unity.
Axiom:
It is obvious that order implies multiplicity. A real unity alone can’t be ordered or disordered, because it lacks a relative place. Same could be stated of movement, which bears multiplicity too.
Then, order would be the property which gives a consistency to the movement. A real unity, as it has been said, isn’t ordered or disordered. However, when it moves it presupposes a place among multiplicity, since there is no possible movement in the void.
Proposition 1:
Movement is an accident.
Demonstration:
Let’s say that a real unity moves (or it is moved) in a multiple environment. So, as far as the real unity is identical to itself in every different state of its movement, we can affirm it is the same real thing which is moving. That is to say, change affects it accidentally, not substantially.
Proposition 2:
Order can be understood as the characteristic of some kind of movement.
Demonstration:
If a real unity lost its identity with movement, it wouldn’t exist movement at all, but a succession of multiple different things. I call it a disordered movement.
Proposition 3:
Order appears to be the actual possibility of any real unity to move in the whole set of things without being confused with it. That possibility is only given by the movement (as an individuation principle) and particularly by the ordered movement.
Demonstration:
By Propositions 1 and 2.
Proposition 4:
Every notion of order implies the notion of real unity.
Demonstration:
By Proposition 3.
Proposition 5:
It is impossible that order can be generated by disorder.
Demonstration:
If that “generation” forces us to think of movement, it isn’t conceivable that a disordered movement generate an ordered movement (by Proposition 3). Even though, every notion of order presupposes a real unity (by Proposition 4), therefore it implies necessarily something which is previous to movement, and which isn’t itself ordered or disordered, but orderer. I’m speaking of God.
Greetings.
Daniel.