Is order a subset of randomness?

Question

Here's an example:

Suppose that you have an MP3 playlist alphabetically ordered, but you prefer to listen to it in a random order. You turn on the shuffle but the songs still play in a perfectly alphabetical order.

Unlikely? Yes, but definitely possible. Would that indicate that order is just a subset of chaos?

While I agree that there's an element of subjectivity when using the terms "order" and "random", the actual rules for very well defined. An alphabetical order is quite precise and isn't a matter of one's whim. Anything which isn't in alphabetical order, isn't ordered, so chaos cannot be a subset of order.

Answer 1

It is consistency that differentiates order from chaos. As the above answer says, any sequence could be some order if we choose to define it that way..... but it won't be order unless it can be repetitively consistent...... repetition is an essential part of judging consistency. Which therefore means strength of probability differentiates between random and order. To put into order is to enhance probability of the desired consistency.

Does that make order a subset of chaos... in my view no..... it is chaos put into a bind to lose its randomness in order to tilt probability towards a defined consistency.

What an awesome thought provoking question!!!!!!!!

Answer 2

If you take it just a hair farther than that, try to think about the algorithm that your MP3 player uses to generate random numbers. That randomness you've noticed, is a complicated subset of order!

Actually the only difference between chaos and order, is one of perception. An unexpected effect only appears chaotic, until you find it's corresponding cause. Newtons law binds the two concepts. "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." Once you understand the cause, you can find the pattern with which it brings forth the effect in question. Theoretically you could trace back the causes of everything all the way back to their original origins (be it a big band, or a spoken word from a deity), perhaps even before.

Maybe there's no such thing as chaos, just patterns that we don't comprehend.

Answer 3

Order is an interpretation. So is randomness. Neither are subsets because they're descriptions, like 'red' or 'heavy'.

Consider: The non-alphabetical playlist may SEEM random, but it might just as easily be the order in which I happen to enjoy the songs, from most to least. Unless you know my preferences, you will not percieve the order which is there.

If you take this to a logical extreme, you can see that ANY possible sequence of songs could be SOME kind of order. And if every possible sequence is ordered, the only thing 'random' is WHICH sequence gets used. But again we can look at any group of sequence choices and percieve order there too, if we try hard enough.

Perhaps 'random' is just another way of saying 'an order that I don't percieve yet'...

Answer 4

It indicates probability. If you call probability order, then there you have it.

OR, it indicates possibility. Let's not go into possibilia talk. There are the metaphysical implications of possible worlds vs. the actual world, and those regarding our possible counterparts, at stake. Simply this, your argument, as it stands, involves a possible outcome. Have you determined the cardinality with respect to WHEN that possible outcome would happen? If not, then your example does not support your question. For unless qualified otherwise, I take it that randomness is a temporally grounded term.

Regardless, is order a subset of randomness? I have no answer, because I am not clear whether you are begging the question about the existence of randomness in the first place. Or I could go the nihilist way and say I'm not convinced there is anything called order, but I don't swing that way. On my assessment of my own experience, I haven't seen a random event yet. It could easily be the case that randomness is an appearance. On this one, I go with Wittegenstein's idea about certain questions; it's not the right question to produce a sound answer. The actual state of affairs dissolves the question, not answers it.

Answer 5

the two terms are contradictory from the start tho i see what you are saying, but the order you use an analogy is a subjective and down to ones own defintion of what order is; say i then listen to your mp3 and i have all the same songs as you do on my own personal mp3 but in a different order. If the mp3 plays them as i have them arranged that would be order for me but you would say that it is random. When it played for both of us it was playing random but we both had a preconceived notion of what the order was. Conclusion: Chaos is chaos and any order that falls into place happens because it has to happen eventually. Order is only a perception. U perceive ur mp3 playing in order because u know the order but it is still being random. Order can only be perceived as a subset of chaos from notions of what order is.

Answer 6

Chaos and order are subjective. While you may see chaos in a mess, it is another persons perfect order. To give you the yes/no answer though, you need to ask yourself, if the list is ordered and I can play them in a random fashion, would that indicate that chaos is just a subset of order? Once you realize both questions are just as feasible, you'll know that neither can be a subset of the other.

Answer 7

That depends on your concept of time.

Which came first, randomness or order? Or is it the other way around? You decide.

Furthermore, is it not possible to go random then order then random then order then random...so on? When should it stop? Is there any reason for it to stop?

What if the alternate sequence of the two is just the breathing in and breathing out of the universe? What do you think will happen if the sequence stops?

Answer 8

If that did in fact occur, that would not be considered order since it was an effect of randomness, it just has the appearance of order.

Answer 9

order is the result of a universe and people being able to be seperated