From Deterministic Models to Entropic Realities: Rethinking Our Understanding of the World

On the Concept of the World and Determinism as the “Default” Worldview

In the world, there would always be events and things that challenge our established worldview. Sometimes when these unexpected occurrences arise we adjust our thinking to accommodate them, to take them into account. But, if there is no way to adjust our thinking, we just ignore the things that don’t fit into our worldview as if they do not exist. If there is an event (or even a whole aspect of reality) that does not uphold to our worldview we would not be merely unable to make sense of that event or aspect (as seeing an event without being able to make sense of it would indicate that we can theoretically comprehend it by merely adjusting our thinking), we would not be able to perceive it in any way, even if it happens before our very eyes.

1. Mental images of the particular shape the mental images of the general e.g. having the image of A ⇒ B in our head, when we search for a new image, we will search for it only in the space which is not occupied by A-s and B-s so the new image would be supplementary to A-s and B-s, like a jigsaw puzzle and hence our whole worldview.

The only way to prevent this narrowness of perception is to assume that the world is fundamentally unknowable or chaotic—that it is unlawful by its nature. However, this assumption is a cognitive dead end — it halts our ability to perceive and process information. This is why we typically operate under the opposite assumption: that the world is orderly and knowable.

When applied to broader thinking, this assumption of an orderly world establishes determinism as the “default” worldview. It compels us to interpret even non-deterministic phenomena within a deterministic framework: the mental image that represents “the world.”

The mental image of the world (let’s call it M) functions as a central dogma, controlling this world and making correct predictions about it is the central goal.

In this context, the goal of “controlling the world” is encoded in the defining characteristic of this mental image — determinism.

In deterministic systems, non-deterministic events can only be explained by “hidden variables” theories. These theories posit that any failure to predict an outcome is due to a lack of knowledge or understanding. While it is good stance to adopt for evolutionary reasons, as it drives us to analyze and systematize our surroundings, it becomes problematic when we take it too seriously.

If we think about it, it would be quite strange if the world were truly deterministic.

1. We perceive the world through mental images.
2. These mental images are subjective representations, evolved primarily for the survival of our species.
3. Therefore, the idea that we could model the objective world deterministically using our subjective mental images seems implausible.

Indeed, while we can model certain aspects of the world with some degree of accuracy, the notion that we could perfectly model the entire world suggests that it was designed specifically for us — a proposition that I find highly unlikely. The resemblance between our mental images and the world is, in my view, an illusion. These mental images, including M, exist solely to satisfy our urges. If we ever reached a state where our urges were fully satisfied, time would freeze for us, and our mental image of the world (M) would cease to exist. However, such perfection is unattainable—not due to physical limitations, but because of the inherent limitations of our inner world, of ourselves as “non-gods.”

This is actually where the belief in God comes from: one could define God as a being who possesses what Kant calls “active intuition”—a being whose thoughts directly create reality. Unlike ordinary beings, whose thoughts do not alter reality, God is singular, unique, and immortal by definition. For God, the mental image (M) is the real world (W). In contrast, for humans, M and W may seem similar but are fundamentally different.

Simply put, God’s mental image (M) is the real world (W), while our mental images only bear some resemblance to W, reflecting the idea that humans are created in God’s image.

In the many ways we differ from God, we can say that M is not the same as W, although they are often observed as similar. While M is deterministic and orderly, W is not.

Conflating M with W, not recognizing that they are different things, can lead us to the mistaken belief that the world (W) is deterministic (i.e. everything we see that is not lawful is an illusion), when in reality, unpredictability is the defining characteristic of the world. When we fail to observe anything unpredictable, it means we are perceiving the world dogmatically, through a pre-established set of images. In contrast, perceiving the world empirically means engaging with its unpredictable nature. This illustrates that M and W are not only slightly different but do not overlap at all. This is not because they lack any similarity but because they operate according to two different, even opposing, principles.

1. The real world (let’s call it W) is our source of empirical knowledge.

Physics offers a perfect example of this difference. Although physics began as a discipline rooted in determinism, it has gradually shifted towards probabilistic models, such as those found in quantum mechanics.

The principle behind M is, of course, the same principle that is behind all other mental images i.e. causality. To understand the principle governing W, let’s revisit the concept of a mental image. Mental images don’t describe specific substances or materials, rather, they describe arrangements of these substances. Causality explains how these arrangements change over time. However, given a set of arrangements, some will fit into our mental images and follow the principle of causality, while others will not. The latter type of arrangements are much more probable. So, over time, ordered arrangements tend to become disordered — a paraphrase of the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy increases over time. Unless, we (the ones who make up all those mental images) don’t put effort to preserve and develop these images, they won’t follow the principles of causality, but will follow the second law of thermodynamics and would shift to entropy.

1. If M is based on information governed by the principle of causality, then we might say that W’s defining characteristic is the somewhat opposite concept of entropy.

Why? Each mental image describes a specific arrangement of elements, e.g. the mental image (concept) of a bicycle represents a specific way in which a given set of parts (tires, diamond frame, chain pedals etc.) are assembled, and agents for whom this mental image is a goal, (e.g. ones who ride bikes) may, due of their bias, perceive this arrangement as natural or logical, and other arrangements (e.g. the wheels mounted to the steering) as illogical. So, this in the M world, having the parts results in having a bike.

However, from the standpoint of the real, objective world (W), mental images are just arrangements of elements. And improbable ones at that. That’s because in W the “lawful” arrangement (the one that corresponds to a mental image) would be only one of the countless other arrangements, (i.e. there, is only one way in which wheels, frame, steering etc. form a bicycle and an infinite ways in which they don’t). For this reason, in W, the bike parts will most likely never form a bike (and a bike would sooner or later be disassembled to its parts). This is why we say, that the entropy of the world (W) increases. And as it increases, our ability to predict its development decreases. Over time, fewer events occur, and all mental images become obsolete – W naturally resists mental appropriation and the principle of causality.

In contrast, the entropy of our mental world (M) rarely increases. M is ordered and predictable, but only because we actively make it so. Our actions create order and make causality work.

This brings us back to our central proposition:

1. “Causality is in the eye of the beholder; A ⇒ B is not a fact about the world, but a mental image.” It may seem that we use cause and effect to understand order, but in reality, we use it to act, and through our actions, create order.

The principle of causality is ultimately irrelevant to W, because causality can only be defined in contexts where we are in control. Asserting that A causes B simply means that removing A will eliminate B. Thus, causality is a tool for control, not an inherent characteristic of the world.

Evolutionary Perspective

The second law of thermodynamics has baffled many people. Why is it this principle, which has no theoretical explanation, valid: Why does entropy always increases with time i.e. why is the world always shifting from order to chaos.

But making the distinction between W and M provides a very adequate answer: the principle isn’t valid everywhere, it is valid just in W, and physicists are under the impression that it is valid everywhere because they only study non-living phenomena, such as gasses and not living beings, and the reality around them. If examined, the living reality (M) provides many examples in which entropy decreases with time — a human city, for example is one big exception of the second law.

We don’t have to think much of the fact about how living beings reverse the second law. Can think of them as a mere coincidences/exceptions, as physicists probably do. But if we consolidate all the ideas presented here, we move a step further, and come to realize that the second law is nothing more than the definition of what living beings are: processes that do follow it, that go from order to chaos, are what we call non-living (or “inanimate”, as per Sidis), while processes that go from chaos to order constitute the living (“animate”), i.e. we, humans, as all other lifeforms, are also one of those “improbable arrangements” that, decrease the entropy, when we reproduce ourselves.

The bike analogy make it more approachable, but the proto-example of the process in which entropy is decreased is you, as “the person reading this sentence right now”: just as a bike is just an arrangement of parts, we can view a human being (as any other lifeform) as an arrangement (actually a set of different arrangements) of molecules that meet certain criteria when viwed macroscopically, i.e. that correspond to a given mental image. So, living beings decrease entropy, both by reproducing themselves, thus occupying more and more of their environment, and by manipulating the inanimate environment around them. The latter is, of course, a recent development (only humans and a handful of other species do it).

Up till now, we presented the distinction between W and M in a pretty abstract manner, but we now see that it also constitutes a material border — a human city, for example, or a thriving ecosystem, is an M territory, while a dessert, or space is a realm of W.

References

• The concept of the world as an idea is central to Arthur Schopenhauer’s work.

• The dichotomy between causality (or information) and entropy is inspired by Hans Reichenbach’s book The Direction of Time, particularly Chapter 4, “The Time Direction of Macrostatics.”

• For more on the connection between the second law of thermodynamics and living beings, check for example “The Animate and the Inanimate” by Sidis

Buy book