Universal Motivation: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » Universal Motivation » Universal Motivation

Page: 1 2

Universal Motivation

Ghost_Saint
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 23, 2004
Location: UMD College Park
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 70

Posted 02/23/04 - 09:42 PM:	#1
Hallo, I'm new here. I've come up with this interesting concept that none of the people I currently know have told me they knew about it before hand, but it is such a simple and obvious concept that I don't see how exactly this could be. I was hoping that someone here might be familiar with such an obvious concept. The concept is that everything has a omni-basic motivation that is the movement to a state of equilibrium as dictated by the enviroment. Now you see how it is so obvious?
fades to darkness

Mijin
Registered Offender

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 05, 2003
Location: Birmingham, England
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 357

Posted 02/24/04 - 07:26 AM:	#2
Welcome to the philosophy forums! When I read your post my immediate instinct was that it was demonstrably wrong. However, I can't think of a solid argument against it. The Universe doesn't appear to be heading towards a state of equilibrium (it seems the expansion will continue forever, but at an ever-slowing rate), but then your theory doesn't predict anything about the Universe as a whole. Then I thought about chaotic systems, but chaotic systems could be said to be in equilibrium. For example, a system which follows a fractal attractor has an infinitely complicated pattern of states. However, it follows that pattern as predictably as a swinging pendulum. It will never exactly repeat a state, but it could still be said to be in equilibrium...depending on your definition. So I can't really object to it on logical grounds. I'd just say from a scientific point of view there is no difference between your theory and the generally accepted laws of physics. It's just that using the word 'motivation' is misleading because it encourages people to imagine the Universe possessing sentience in some sense, or imagine an ultimate purpose. But there is no evidence for either. Correct me if I'm wrong

Ghost_Saint
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 23, 2004
Location: UMD College Park
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 70

Posted 02/24/04 - 09:28 AM:	#3
Actually there are many theories about how the universe is moving. None of the these theories are proven to any solid extent though. Interestingly enough, the theory to which Stephen Hawkings subscribes to is that the expansion and contraction of the universe are simiple harmonic motion (like a pendulum), which would lead to belive that at one point the universe would stay still in a state of equilibrium. But really if you want to think of the scientific side of this theory math and science only scream it out. Just the fact that you can balance equations is a no-brainer. But also things like conservation of energy and matter, and how momentum works. On a universal scale you can look at how gravity works and the fact that things that don't have stable orbits will eventually come to a stable orbit, get destroyed, or get flung out of the universe. You can also look at the life cycles of stars, though I just woke up and it's a tad to complicated for me to explain in all throughness now. But you really have to look at this as a completely universal law. For me it's not at all complicated how you can see it in science because it is also present in social interaction, and that is much less defined and therefor more complexe, but I'm more concerned about it anyway. You have to look at how defussion of wealth works, and how much must biuld up before rebelions start, how civil rights movements acomplish their goals. A good example I can think up personally is that if a society is vacent of an ultimate leadership position, someone will inevitably move to take up that position. However if that position is already taken by someone, unless other forces not cited here are present, the same person that stood up to fill the vacency in the first case will not.
fades to darkness

Mijin
Registered Offender

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 05, 2003
Location: Birmingham, England
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 357

Posted 02/24/04 - 10:52 AM:	#4
Oh sorry, I assumed you were talking about physical equilibrium. ------ OK, I'll try an on-topic reply this time then. No, I don't agree that everything works towards an equilibrium. Consider this example: self-confidence. If you possess self-confidence you are more likely to try to start your own business, talk to a pretty woman etc, and you're more likely to get a successful outcome on those occasions that you do, than someone with a great deal of self-doubt. Over time this leads to more success and your confidence builds. The reverse is true of someone with little self-confidence. Sure, you could argue that some people with too much self-confidence take too many risks or are too arrogant etc. and the whole thing will balance out over time. But I would argue that statistically there is a positive feedback mechanism for this particular characteristic. Also, I wonder about your justification for saying that the distribution of wealth supports equilibrium. Certainly the very lowest paid in society have many times striked/rioted/protested successfully. But generally it is a rule of capitalism that money flows towards people who've already got money. That's just what capitalism is about; the more money you have, the more investment opportunities present themselves. Society prefers a spread of wealth so our laws/taxes try to make it easier for those with little capital. It used to be "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer" but now it's more like "the rich get much richer while the poor get a little richer" but that's still not equilibrium.

Ghost_Saint
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 23, 2004
Location: UMD College Park
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 70

Posted 02/24/04 - 01:56 PM:	#5
I am talking about physical equilibrium somewhat. It's just that I am far more interested in the social aspects of the theory because the scientific aspects are relatively obvious. ------- Well the fact that some people have self-confidence and others don't doesn't refute my arguement, in fact it supports it because self-confidence is a result of reaction with the enviroment. Think about it. If a guy asks girls out repeatedly and repeatedly gets refused, yet others succed where he failed, he will have less faith in his abilities aka less self-confidence(in this case the enviorment is the girls and the guy, and other guys who ask the girls out and succed). My theory states that the enviorment plays an essential role in determining what is equilibrium. Distribution of wealth does support my theory because our soceity says that the richer you are the better off you are, therefor everyone wants to be as rich as is possible. This is why the rich want to be more rich because they think that the more money they have the happier they will be because this is what the enviorment is telling them. On the other hand because these people are so rich, there have to be poor people to balance and maintain equilibrium. You also have to think about what the enviorment is of the topic you are applying. In the case of economy, the enviorment isn't the US, but the world as a whole. There are 7 countries that are significantly developed (US, Japan, France, Italy, Germany, Canada, UK) where the majority of the wealth lies, and the largest amount of wealth is in the US. Since the majority of the wealth lies in a minority of population/carrying compassity, then the rest of the world has to be in relative poverty, which is exactly what it is in.
fades to darkness

thubbard00
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 15, 2003
Location: London
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 14

Posted 02/24/04 - 03:00 PM:	#6
I think the social side of this equilibrium is totally invalid because it's very easy to say that one thing is in equlibrium to something else without justification. It's like saying "these two pennies are in equilibrium to these six pennies because somewhere there are another four pennies that will balance it out". This argument seems to me to be a case of Ochum's Razor in that you are adding entities that do not explain what the previous entity failed to explain. I think perhaps I need clarification of your point. Could you perhaps present it in a Premise 1, Premise 2 ... Conclusion format?
"Never, even if the fool lives with the wise man all his life, will he know the truth; just as the soup never knows the taste of the spoon." - Dhammapada

Ghost_Saint
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 23, 2004
Location: UMD College Park
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 70

Posted 02/24/04 - 04:37 PM:	#7
It's fact that there is only so much money on the earth at one point. If someone has more money that they need, then someone somewhere has to have less money than they need. And to clarify it's not a case of "Occam's Razor". Occam's Razor states that "plurality should not be posited without necessity." What it is saying is that overly complexe solutions shouldn't not be the accepted ones. Clearly my theory is not an overly complexe solution. The theory has but one stipulation to clarify and no more ("as dictated by the enviroment"). What's being discussed here is wether or not it's a correct solution. observation 1. Okay if a group of plants suddenly dies out and leaves the earth bare, then something else will move in to take up where that plant was. observation 2. If a job is vacant and a person needs the job to survive, and the person wants to survive, then they'll take the job. observation 3. If someone argues over something, and both of them are unable to surrender their side of the arguement, then they will continue argueing untill at one point they compromise, working on the assumption that no outside forces act on these two and their arguement. In mathematical terms this would be -1, and 1, then the compromise would be 0. The arguements are opposed so one is negitive and one positive, but each person is equally devoted to their side, so the aboslute value must be equal. Conclusion: Since this applies for everything it's way to much for me to explain every facet of it. It's like saying all stars are similar, and then having to describe all stars. That doesn't mean it's untrue though. According to the modern scientific model, everything's a theory. Theories can only be disproven, never proven without a hint of a doubt. If a theory is more likely to be true though, the same results can be replicated in the same conditions. I think I've proven enough that I can come to the same result, equlibrium, from the conditions stated in the theory, which is anything. Though if you find something that truely does disprove my theory I'd really like to hear about it. Keep in mind though, if you run about trying to disprove my theory, then you're going to get a bias that my theory isn't true, which you might already have.
fades to darkness

mezz
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 22, 2004
Location: UK.
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 7

Posted 02/25/04 - 06:17 AM:	#8
Sorry, I'm compleyely confused by your definition of equilibrium, I'll use the example of self-confidence: The person who trys and fails loses self-confidence and is therefore more likely to fail in the future, and the opposite happens for the person who suceeds - they will have more sucess. Arn't these two moving away from equilibrium - they are getting more and more different, would equilibrium make them more the same? Or do you mean by equilibrium that what happens will then be more likly to happen more and more?
No man earns punishment, no man earns reward. Free your mind of the idea of deserving, the idea of earning, and you will begin to be able to think. Ursula LeGuin, The Dispossessed.

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 5417

Posted 02/25/04 - 07:45 AM:	#9
Equilibrium refers to two opposing tendencies balancing out. When one refers to equilibrium between two objects, the tendencies are obscured. If there are n tendencies in n/2 different directions, you may find two balancing out and n-2 still in opposition. I suggest that it is necessary to make more precise the argument that there is a universal motivation before we are convinced this isn't just a selection effect.
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

Mijin
Registered Offender

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 05, 2003
Location: Birmingham, England
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 357

Posted 02/25/04 - 10:41 AM:	#10
I think this theory is based around describing whatever is as being equilibrium. ----------- Ghost_Saint wrote: Distribution of wealth does support my theory because our soceity says that the richer you are the better off you are, therefor everyone wants to be as rich as is possible. This is why the rich want to be more rich because they think that the more money they have the happier they will be because this is what the enviorment is telling them. On the other hand because these people are so rich, there have to be poor people to balance and maintain equilibrium. Contrary to popular belief, not only is it possible in theory for everyone to be rich, in a sense this is already the case. Even allowing for inflation, most people in most countries of the world are better off than a generation ago. However, the balance of wealth is quite different and is still changing. I don't see how this supports equilibrium. Also this reminds me of another good example of where this philosophy fails: human progress (science, technology etc). What kind of equilibrium is human progress?

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.