The connection between self-organization and decreasing entropy – which 
I’ve considered dozens of times before, today gave me an interesting 
insight which connects self-organization and sense, which I hope could 
contribute to a mathematical appreciation of sense.

It goes like this:* If you can discern increased entropy from decreased 
entropy, then there is a greater probability that eventually that 
sensitivity will inspire some effect resulting in decreased entropy,*compared 
with a system in which absolutely no sensitivity is possible. This 
would only be true, however, if said inspiration by sensory affect had a 
potential for motive effect.

If we wanted to derive an anthropic principle for sense, we could say that 
only the universe in which sense and motive happen to exist and relate to 
each other in a sensible, motivating way*  will allow the possibility of 
any decreasing entropy at all. Without that statistical probability shaking 
out to at least one physical actuality, every universe would maximize its 
entropy instantaneously (if we assume that a universe without sense could 
even exist, which I do not).

What I’m trying to say is that a sensory-motor capacity is the minimum 
possible ingredient for any realizable universe – not just because 
intuitively the idea of an unsensed universe cannot withstand serious 
inspection, but now, with this equivalence of sense-motive and the 
possibility of negentropy, it can be understood from a stochastic 
perspective. Sense is the only capacity which can shift the odds of 
absolute instant entropy from 100% to 100%-ae, where ae is the qualitative 
depth of the private sensitivity (a) times the magnitude of its public 
effectiveness, (e). The more sensitive a system is to the difference 
between increasing and decreasing entropy, the more its efforts will end up 
decreasing entropy, even if some sensitivities lead to pathologically 
pursue entropy increase. An entity which selectively destroys order is 
still more orderly on balance than a non-entity, since its very selectivity 
leaves an unintentional trail of coherence.

   1. Universes with no sense
   2. Universes with impotent sense (affect without effect)
   3. Universes with sense but unrelated affect and effect (effect orphaned 
   from affect is no better than chance, so causes no entropy decrease).
   4. Universes with minimally sensible sense (affect overlaps effect, but 
   only under rare conditions)
   5. Universes where strong sensory-motivation (nested consciousness) is 

It seems like there is a cutoff between 3 and below and 4 and above, where 
the former has no chance to lead to the universe we find ourselves living 
in, and the latter has no chance of not leading to 5 eventually.

*i.e., a universe in which care and significance are married to intention 
and physical power

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to