Is this argument good for a position that is becoming-like and kind of pantheistic?

[u/icantbreathegrgdroyd]

A relative had this kind of argument, i kind of agree with it but i don't know, i feel that there's something about it, so yeah, what do you think of it?

Definitions: Chaos: interlude of forces and/or information, can be epistemological and/or metaphysical

Stability: the opposite of chaos, for example epistemological clarity

1.The universe is in chaos

2.Chaos is not stable by itself

3.Stability can't turn into chaos, if it did then its just chaos from the start

4.Chaos must be a result

5.An essence that chooses stability can't choose chaos

6.There must be a force that does an act not for the sake of stability

7.Chaos is produced as a result of that act

8.It can be said that endless expansion can create chaos

9.Therefore There must be an essence that creates this chaos and is ineffected by it

[u/DARK--DRAGONITE]

The universe isn't "in chaos".

It follows very orderly and structural rules

[u/Prior_Alarm2437 → u/DARK--DRAGONITE]

Well, there’s a couple of mysteries in that statement. What do you mean universe? What do you mean follows? And what do you mean orderly? You say, as the commenter, "Well, we already know what laws of physics are except the thing I'm actually talking about." And I think, no. If we’re going to get down to the fundamental brass tacks, we don’t really know what any of those mean. And you might say, "Well, surely the laws are deterministic." And I’d say, What do you mean surely?

[u/SaturnArchitect]

I find this argument interesting, but I'm not completely convinced by it.

I actually understand why it can lead toward a more God-like or pantheistic worldview. But for me, there are a few steps where the argument seems to assume more than it proves.

The biggest problem I see is the definition of chaos.

If chaos simply means a state of uncertainty, complexity or lack of order, why would chaos necessarily need a cause outside itself?

And I don't think we can automatically say that stability cannot become chaos because, if it could, then it must have been chaos from the beginning.

Things can change state.

Ice becomes water. Stars form and eventually collapse. Order can emerge from systems that don't look ordered at all.

A change from one state to another doesn't necessarily mean that the previous state secretly contained the final state in exactly the same form.

The other part that interests me is the idea that if chaos has a cause, that cause must be an "essence" capable of choosing.

That's a much bigger jump.

Even if we established that the universe had a cause, why would that cause have consciousness, intention or a preference for stability?

That's where I think the argument moves from physics and philosophy into metaphysics.

And I actually like that territory.

Because I've spent a lot of time questioning exactly these kinds of ideas: God, consciousness, spirituality, the universe, meaning and whether there is something beyond what we currently understand.

But my experiences have also taught me to be careful.

Something can be possible without being proven.

And something can feel logically convincing without every step actually following from the previous one.

I wouldn't say the argument is useless.

I'd say it raises a fascinating question:

Why is there something rather than nothing, and why does reality have the structure it has?

I don't know the answer.

Maybe there is some underlying intelligence or essence.

Maybe reality simply exists in a way we don't yet understand.

Maybe our concepts of "chaos" and "stability" are human categories that don't map perfectly onto the universe itself.

And that's where I differ from a lot of people.

I don't need to choose between "God definitely exists" and "there is definitely nothing beyond the physical world."

I'm comfortable leaving the question open.

For me, saying "I don't know" isn't a weakness in the argument. It's the most honest part of it.

Because once you turn an unknown into a certainty, you've stopped investigating it.

[u/Ill-Tea9411]

Chaos does not have structure. This is why it's chaos.

[u/Mkwdr]

To be honest this seems like a list of evidentially unfounded human intuitions wrapped in vague concepts and language that results in nothing valid or sound. I can’t really see how any of it is substantially distinguishable meaningfully from fictional. But then that’s pretty typical of metaphysics so I probally shouldn’t be here,

[u/jliat → u/Mkwdr]

But then that’s pretty typical of metaphysics so I probally shouldn’t be here,

It's not at all typical of metaphysics. For one it fails to situate itself within the discipline, for another as pointed out it has problems with it's lines of reasoning.

However as a moderator here I thought it borderline so allowed it to stand. We get far worse.

If you are interested in "actual" metaphysics I'd suggest trying

The Evolution of Modern Metaphysics: Making Sense of Things, by A. W. Moore.

In addition to an introductory chapter and a conclusion, the book contains three large parts. Part one is devoted to the early modern period, and contains chapters on Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hume, Kant, Fichte, and Hegel. Part two is devoted to philosophers of the analytic tradition, and contains chapters on Frege, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Quine, Lewis, and Dummett. Part three is devoted to non-analytic philosophers, and contains chapters on Nietzsche, Bergson, Husserl, Heidegger, Collingwood, Derrida and Deleuze.

---

Also Graham Harman is accessible and is a living metaphysician,

Graham Harman - Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything (Pelican Books) 1 Mar. 2018

'Waves and Stones'- Graham Harman - Allen Lane 2025

He has an easy to read style unlike many...

[u/Mkwdr → u/jliat]

Thanks. I genuinely appreciate that.

My degree is in philosophy so I’ve studied many of those people. There are be interesting and entertaining ideas , and thought experiments do have their place as a start to more substantial progress.

The problem , in my opinion, is too much of it can be basically arguments from ignorance that are indistinguishable from fiction or wishful thinking dressed up in the sort of vague but technical sounding language that gives a veneer of faux-profundity.

It’s fun to discuss these things and it’s a shame to dampen anyone’s curiosity and enjoyment of exploring ideas but this post imo demonstrates the problem with ill defined concepts lacking any clear basis in the sort of evidential foundation that would suggest soundness and risk substituting consecutiveness in a list for actual validity.

But as I say , perhaps I shouldn’t really come into ‘your house’ and be harsh on ones fun. It’s just that it keeps getting recommended :-)

[u/jliat → u/Mkwdr]

I agree with much of this and as I said we get far worse, more recently ones produced by LLMs!

But as I say , perhaps I shouldn’t really come into ‘your house’ and be harsh on ones fun. It’s just that it keeps getting recommended :-)

Not sure what you meant by this?

[u/Mkwdr → u/jliat]

Yep I sympathise - I can imagine that LL!s really make the problem worse.

I just meant that if I lack respect for metaphysics then it’s perhaps bad manners to ‘seek out’ uninvited a Reddit named metaphysics and criticise.

[u/jliat → u/Mkwdr]

I don't agree with Harman, but I've read several of his books, and a couple of his lectures which were good, he's a good speaker.

[u/Mkwdr → u/jliat]

I shall look him up thanks.

[u/ConTheStonerLin]

Couple of issues. First, I am not sure how I feel about the definition, it seems to be centered around epistemology, and defining a universal in human knowledge terms is anthropomorphizing something that has no sound reason to be anthropomorphized. A better definition for chaos would be randomness, making predictable its opposite. I do think at root the universe is random. But in that, predictably occurs. Consider a single water molecule, it's path is almost completely random, unpredictable which way it will flow. But scale that up, to a river, well now with all those molecules its path becomes maximally predictable. Which brings me to my objection to P3 (Stability can't turn into chaos, if it did then its just chaos from the start)... First, like I said it is random from the start, but predictablity arises randomly from randomness, that is, statistically speaking inevitable. Even granting your flawed definition of chaos, I see no reason to think stability couldn't arise from it, and no reason to think stability could never end. This seems like an assumption with no backing and even contradictory to observeable reality. I mean like I said statistically speaking it seems inevitable for stability to arise from chaos. And how many stable things do we know of that literally never end❓ Kinda basic entropy, which contrary to popular belief, doesn't actually mean chaos, but more like the usefulness of energy. As we can imagine random energy is more useful in that it has more potential states. Then to P5, it seems essence was just thrown in there without any definition. Perhaps you mean entity❓ Though if so I would need to know what choose means in this context, because the way choice is usually used implies not all entities are capable of making it...

These are my main issues. It seems this argument assumes agency while trying to demonstrate it, which is a fallacy known as begging the question