“We only know in its full light one single law: that of constancy and uniformity. We try to reduce all the others to this simple idea, and science consists for us only in this reduction”. –Poinsot. Elements de Statique. Paris, 1861, p. 235.
Versión en Español (The Spanish version is more complete while this English version is condensed)
The principle of stability, inertia and recurrence is as follows: We can only observe things that have stability, inertia or recurrence. Therefore, Evolution is a particular case of a manifestation that we could describe as the tendency of things towards stability, inertia or recurrence, which in turn responds to our way of observing and conceptualizing reality.
That is, we observe in reality a certain tendency towards stability, inertia or recurrence, but this is surely not due to how reality is objectively, intrinsically, but to how we perceive it subjectively.
Why? Because we can only perceibe objects, and objects, obviously, have to be identifiable, and to be identifiable they must have some stability, inertia or recurrence.
In this sense, evolution (and its fundamental elements, like individuals and species) exist because of the way in which we perceive reality. The way we perceive reality makes us appreciate individuals and species, and the evolution of species. But if we had another way of perceiving, we could find a totally different reality (with or without evolution). The role of the observer is so relevant that the objective world could become irrelevant, and the authentic objective world could well be pure randomness, being everything we perceive the result of the configuration of us, the interpreters.
Another way of explaining the principle is this: Talking about stability, inertia and recurrence is equivalent to talking about simple mathematical functions. If we say that stability, inertia and recurrence occur frequently in the universe, this is equivalent to saying that in the universe there are frequently events that can be represented by simple mathematical functions.
But this does not mean that the universe is simple. What happens is that we, beings with limited cognitive ability, happen to us that, the more complex a phenomenon is, the more difficult it is for us to identify and perceive. Objects that are not simple are hidden from us by the streetlight principle.
Due to this phenomenon, our moral consideration is unjustly limited, not only to objects that in one way or another are similar to us, but also unjustly limited to the objects we are able to identify.
Life as a result of evolution seems a force opposed to entropy, as (maybe, wrongly) is sometimes described by the second law of thermodynamics. It could well be that the force of life was weaker than it seems to us, since according to the principle of stability, inertia and recurrence, we fix much more attention on what has stability, inertia or recurrence.
The principle of stability, inertia or recurrence has its origin in our way of perceiving and reasoning: all things are stable, recurrent, or have inertia (at least to some degree) because all the things we are able to perceive or imagine are stable , recurring, or with inertia. We are not able to handle a concept that does not have stability, inertia or recurrence because the fact of “managing a concept” forces us to identify that concept by contrast (opposition) with the rest of the real or imaginary universe, and this contrast must be defined by some criteria.
***
Origin of the idea
The “principle of stability, inertia and recurrence” was first published in 2002 in the journal REDcientífica in this direction (now inaccessible):
www.redcientifica.com/doc/doc200205200001
then available in this new direction, I fear now inaccessible again:
http://www.redcientifica.org/evolucion_estabilidad_inercia_y_recurrencia.php
and in the book “Arena Sensible”, published in 2005, where it is mentioned several times.
The principle has been cited in:
- https://iatea.org/foro/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=7174
- http://www.alasbarricadas.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=11473&start=105
- http://gandia.nueva-acropolis.es/articulos-gandia/127-curiosidades/25632-asi-sera
- https://sites.google.com/site/balancesorg/la
- http://www.proz.com/kudoz/english_to_spanish/it_information_technology/3654536-math_intensive.html
The principle of stability, inertia and recurrence could be considered another argument against Occam’s razor.
High level descriptions
Metaphorically, there is a first force, on the lowest level, which is entropy (laws of physics), that attempts to create disorder (global uniformity, randomness); against a second force, on a higher level, paradoxically consequence of the previous level, which is life (local uniformity, evolution, replication), which aims to create order (differences, structures). In the middle of this battle another third force joins, which may be result of the previous level, which is sentience, which intends to create enjoyment avoiding suffering.
We can see these three metaphorical forces in action in ourselves and in our universe, fighting each other. The first one seeks uniformity, at the expense of death. The second seeks to maintain uniqueness, at the expense of suffering. The third seeks happiness. How is the game going? Who will win?
Every force is improving at its own level. The first force started very bad, maybe in the worst possible situation (Big-bang), but it improves quickly. The second force is trying to convert all matter into living matter, and just started but it is doing very well. We, sentient beings, are maybe, in our own Big-bang of sentience, still full of suffering, but hopefully towards absolute happiness.
The first and second forces are actually the same: the laws of physics. And there is a situation in which both win, when all matter is living matter. The next thing, so that the three forces win at the same time, is that all matter be happy living matter.
4 Comments