Are randomness and free-will compatible concepts?

[fdesilva]

I think relativity took care of squashing the concept of absolute time. As for choices, Libet and more modern researchers are shedding light on the myth of libertarian free-will.

Consider this. Relativity gives a view of a 4 Dimensional universe. Now this 4D structure will have a shape. Consider the possibility that this shape is flexible. Then changing this shape, (locally or universally) will correspond to free will. Such shape changing will alter the future by altering the past in a consistent manner. Have a read of this. Its is not impossible to do this
http://www.physorg.com/news170586562.html

 

[Anticitizen]

Even if a truly random element exists in the makeup of the human brain, it doesn't guarantee 'free will'. It just means you wouldn't be able to predict what happens next.

Let's say the universe was completely deterministic and that you knew the motion and location of every particle and force in the universe. You use this remarkable ability to predict, with success, that I will say the word 'platypus' at 8:58 pm by extrapolating how the motion of these particles and these interactions will follow, right down to how the neurons will fire in my brain.

Now, let's say the universe was not completely deterministic, and random subatomic motions of particles (or 'probability fields' or something) cause some of the neurons in my head to fire in a way you can't predict. You're knocked off your feet with surprise when I open my mouth and say 'anteater' instead.

Does this mean I have free will? No, it simply means that the operation of my brain, and the firing of my neurons, were influenced in part by random factors instead of preceding causes.

Let's compare to video games. I'm a fan of playing first-person shooters, like Half-Life, where you engage in firefights with bad guys. Let's say you're a programmer designing how the computer-generated villains act when they attack you. It would be a very poor game if the villain took two steps to the right, fired three shots at you, and took three steps to the left, and shot at you four times... every single time you encountered them.

So, you cook up an algorithm to plug in some random behavior, using random data variables as a seed - the temperature of the video card's CPU, the time in milliseconds, whatever.

Success! You, as a player, cannot reliably predict the behavior of the enemies! The game is fun again!

However, you wouldn't, not for a second, consider those computer-generated baddies to possesses 'free will'.

 

[baywax]

Even if a truly random element exists in the makeup of the human brain, it doesn't guarantee 'free will'. It just means you wouldn't be able to predict what happens next.

Let's say the universe was completely deterministic and that you knew the motion and location of every particle and force in the universe. You use this remarkable ability to predict, with success, that I will say the word 'platypus' at 8:58 pm by extrapolating how the motion of these particles and these interactions will follow, right down to how the neurons will fire in my brain.

Now, let's say the universe was not completely deterministic, and random subatomic motions of particles (or 'probability fields' or something) cause some of the neurons in my head to fire in a way you can't predict. You're knocked off your feet with surprise when I open my mouth and say 'anteater' instead.

Does this mean I have free will? No, it simply means that the operation of my brain, and the firing of my neurons, were influenced in part by random factors instead of preceding causes.

Let's compare to video games. I'm a fan of playing first-person shooters, like Half-Life, where you engage in firefights with bad guys. Let's say you're a programmer designing how the computer-generated villains act when they attack you. It would be a very poor game if the villain took two steps to the right, fired three shots at you, and took three steps to the left, and shot at you four times... every single time you encountered them.

So, you cook up an algorithm to plug in some random behavior, using random data variables as a seed - the temperature of the video card's CPU, the time in milliseconds, whatever.

Success! You, as a player, cannot reliably predict the behavior of the enemies! The game is fun again!

However, you wouldn't, not for a second, consider those computer-generated baddies to possesses 'free will'.

What you call "random factors" also play a part as "preceding cause(s)".

Is it so far fetched to think that our neuronet is capable of predicting every phenomenon in the universe? I tend to think its true. But, what is also true is that our neuronet relies entirely on our stomach and our ability to function in filling that belly, every day... sometimes twice or more. So, there is some built in shut off valve that stops us from accessing the information being calculated by our neuronet because that would detract from our foraging for food and fulfilling the other requirements of the "survival of the species". But, again, its silly because if we were able to listen to the predictions our brains come up with through calculated calculations... we'd be better off, no doubt.

 

[skippy1729]

Even if a truly random element exists in the makeup of the human brain, it doesn't guarantee 'free will'. It just means you wouldn't be able to predict what happens next.

Let's say the universe was completely deterministic and that you knew the motion and location of every particle and force in the universe. You use this remarkable ability to predict, with success, that I will say the word 'platypus' at 8:58 pm by extrapolating how the motion of these particles and these interactions will follow, right down to how the neurons will fire in my brain.

Now, let's say the universe was not completely deterministic, and random subatomic motions of particles (or 'probability fields' or something) cause some of the neurons in my head to fire in a way you can't predict. You're knocked off your feet with surprise when I open my mouth and say 'anteater' instead.

Does this mean I have free will? No, it simply means that the operation of my brain, and the firing of my neurons, were influenced in part by random factors instead of preceding causes.

Let's compare to video games. I'm a fan of playing first-person shooters, like Half-Life, where you engage in firefights with bad guys. Let's say you're a programmer designing how the computer-generated villains act when they attack you. It would be a very poor game if the villain took two steps to the right, fired three shots at you, and took three steps to the left, and shot at you four times... every single time you encountered them.

So, you cook up an algorithm to plug in some random behavior, using random data variables as a seed - the temperature of the video card's CPU, the time in milliseconds, whatever.

Success! You, as a player, cannot reliably predict the behavior of the enemies! The game is fun again!

However, you wouldn't, not for a second, consider those computer-generated baddies to possesses 'free will'.

In 25 words or less, what you are saying is:

"The existence of fundamental randomness is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for 'free will'".

Skippy

 

[Anticitizen]

Actually, I don't believe in 'free will' at all in the sense that most people mean when they use the term. I don't believe in a mind-body duality, that there's a component of the mind independent of physicality; other than a notion that a mind is what the brain 'does', not what the brain 'is' (that is, it's a process, not a thing).

 

[baywax]

Actually, I don't believe in 'free will' at all in the sense that most people mean when they use the term. I don't believe in a mind-body duality, that there's a component of the mind independent of physicality; other than a notion that a mind is what the brain 'does', not what the brain 'is' (that is, it's a process, not a thing).

I think what people believe is that their entire body is separate from the rest of the universe and therefore they are able to make independent decisions based on this "island's" separateness and independence. Of course... that is completely ridiculous. This is why I imagine that free will is really for "amateurs" and that the "professionals" are aware of the interconnectedness of their own physicalness and that of the rest of the universe. Thus, rather than attempting free will.. they work with what they can perceive is affecting them and that which they are affecting.

 

[Anticitizen]

I think we're probably on the same wavelength, for the most part, but I must ask for clarification on your last sentence.

 

[Descartz2000]

Actually, I don't believe in 'free will' at all in the sense that most people mean when they use the term. I don't believe in a mind-body duality, that there's a component of the mind independent of physicality; other than a notion that a mind is what the brain 'does', not what the brain 'is' (that is, it's a process, not a thing).

Good point. I like the idea of seeing the mind in terms of what the brain does, rather than an entity of some form that is distinct and separate from sufficient causes.

 

[baywax]

I think we're probably on the same wavelength, for the most part, but I must ask for clarification on your last sentence.

Sorry... I mean that someone who isn't fooling their self with the idea that they are separate from the rest of the universe (and acting out of free will) will take the effects they have and the effects the rest of the universe has on them and use this knowledge to try and make a better way in life. This does not mean they're using free will.. it simply means they are following the grain rather than going against it. The fact that they have the capacity to see the interconnectedness of all things is something that is attained not through free will but by the grace of nature's ways.

 

[baywax]

Good point. I like the idea of seeing the mind in terms of what the brain does, rather than an entity of some form that is distinct and separate from sufficient causes.

Yes, I don't see the advantage in calling the functions of the brain "mind". Its like using the word "soul" and pretending everyone knows what you're talking about.

 

[apeiron]

Yes, I don't see the advantage in calling the functions of the brain "mind". Its like using the word "soul" and pretending everyone knows what you're talking about.

The way we use words is always significant. It is a key fact that we seem to need two words to capture the two essential aspects of the brain/mind.

Brain is talking about the local substances out of which the brain/mind is made. Mind is talking about the global form, the specific kind of organisation that shapes that collection of substance between our ears.

To think you can do away with one view or term, and just make do with the other, is what creates so much confusion. Instead, we need terminology that does full justice to both aspects.

Again, this is why I say freewill is a bad and misleading term (capable only of spawning endless debate about the paradoxes it creates). If you talked instead about anticipation or autonomy, then you can get on with actually understanding something interesting about the brain/mind as a system.

Randomness vs determinism is a debate about the properties of un-organised substances. Collections of stuff, ensembles of materials, that have only the simplest kinds of form or globally coherent behaviours.

Complex systems have complex behaviours and you have to find the right ways to talk scientifically about them.

It is a mistake repeated so often. Is the development of a human about nature or nurture, genes or society? Clearly it is how two kinds of thing interact that is the interesting story.

 

[Anticitizen]

The way we use words is always significant. It is a key fact that we seem to need two words to capture the two essential aspects of the brain/mind.

Brain is talking about the local substances out of which the brain/mind is made. Mind is talking about the global form, the specific kind of organisation that shapes that collection of substance between our ears.

Like how a disc made of vinyl is what a record is, but music or a song is what it does.

Or various chemicals or physical structures is what pigments are, but color is what they do...

Is there a specific word that exists to describe such 'intangibles' that are irrefutably 'real'? If not, someone should coin one.

 

[JoeDawg]

Like how a disc made of vinyl is what a record is, but music or a song is what it does.

Or various chemicals or physical structures is what pigments are, but color is what they do...

Is there a specific word that exists to describe such 'intangibles' that are irrefutably 'real'? If not, someone should coin one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

 

[Anticitizen]

Thanks :)

 

[baywax]

Is the development of a human about nature or nurture, genes or society? Clearly it is how two kinds of thing interact that is the interesting story.

Like the chicken or the egg debate.

Except that without "nature" there is no "nurture" or society. This should provide a clue with regard to what the fundamental material is in human development.

 

[apeiron]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

Qualia is definitely the wrong word to capture what I was talking about. They are the local particulars of subjective experience. I was talking about the globally general, and objective, forms or constraints.

So a failure on a number of counts. Too local, too particular and too subjective.

 

[JoeDawg]

Qualia is definitely the wrong word to capture what I was talking about.

And yet, it seems to be what someone else was referring to...

 

[baywax]

The way we use words is always significant. It is a key fact that we seem to need two words to capture the two essential aspects of the brain/mind.

Brain is talking about the local substances out of which the brain/mind is made. Mind is talking about the global form, the specific kind of organisation that shapes that collection of substance between our ears.

To think you can do away with one view or term, and just make do with the other, is what creates so much confusion. Instead, we need terminology that does full justice to both aspects.

Again, this is why I say freewill is a bad and misleading term (capable only of spawning endless debate about the paradoxes it creates). If you talked instead about anticipation or autonomy, then you can get on with actually understanding something interesting about the brain/mind as a system.

Randomness vs determinism is a debate about the properties of un-organised substances. Collections of stuff, ensembles of materials, that have only the simplest kinds of form or globally coherent behaviours.

Complex systems have complex behaviours and you have to find the right ways to talk scientifically about them.

It is a mistake repeated so often. Is the development of a human about nature or nurture, genes or society? Clearly it is how two kinds of thing interact that is the interesting story.

Sorry, didn't mean to disregard the rest of this post. I agree that the more words we have to describe conditions and events the better. Its just that there has to be mutual agreement amongst the those discussing a matter as to the definition of the terms. Like I said earlier... the word "soul" is often bandied about yet the word as you say is far to subjectively rooted to be of any use in a conversation. Similarly "love" can be a stumbling block on the road to mutual understanding.

"Mind" is not used in neuroscience because it is, again, interpreted in many different ways by just as many people... as is "consciousness" (which must be joined to "awareness" when used in neuroscience discussions).

These are difficult items because... like i said again... everyone pretends to know what the other is saying when the definition is left up to the observer. We don't have to eliminate the words... each person needs to express how they are utilizing the word when its being used in a discussion... and even then the listener's definition will always automatically kick in when they hear the word. What to do?!

 

[apeiron]

Like I said earlier... the word "soul" is often bandied about yet the word as you say is far to subjectively rooted to be of any use in a conversation. Similarly "love" can be a stumbling block on the road to mutual understanding.

My view is that ancient greek metaphysics did a good job on establishing the maximally robust, objective and invariant terms for discussing things. They are so strong as to be mathematical. And they came for good reason as dichotomous pairs - asymmetric terms that exactly complement each other as A and not-A.

So you have "good" dichotomies such as stasis~flux, discrete~continuous, chance~necessity, substance~form. And in more modern times we have added local~global, event~context, signal~noise, and a few more.

There are also some "bad" dichotomies that have persisted, such as matter~mind, love~hate, evil~good, etc.

Good dichotomies all share the property of strong asymmetry - in scale terms especially. While weaker pairings are simpler "same scale" symmetry breakings. So for instance, love and hate, or good and evil, are the same size metaphysically. But the robust dichotomies have a breaking of symmetry across scales. Local~global is explicitly a breaking across scale and so is "very good" !

Event and context also are maximally asymmetric in this way. Discrete (the local part) and continuous (the global whole) again fit the bill. As does stasis (what stays located) and flux (the whole that is in movement).

So we are not completely helpless so far as finding good terminology for discussing meta-physical issues. Part of the job of philosophy really has always been about reducing the discussion to the most fundamental concepts, the words that really mean the most.

Soul and mind and consciousness and qualia and freewill - those are all a historical baggage of terminology that just aren't that helpful. But metaphysics already established the most robust language back in ancient greece.

And if we follow the path of maximum asymmetry - dividing our ignorance or vagueness as strongly as possible in opposing directions, not forgetting to go in different directions in terms of scale as well - then this has actually proved itself the best way to produce the necessary language.

There is a method for making the words.

 

[baywax]

My view is that ancient greek metaphysics did a good job on establishing the maximally robust, objective and invariant terms for discussing things. They are so strong as to be mathematical. And they came for good reason as dichotomous pairs - asymmetric terms that exactly complement each other as A and not-A.

So you have "good" dichotomies such as stasis~flux, discrete~continuous, chance~necessity, substance~form. And in more modern times we have added local~global, event~context, signal~noise, and a few more.

There are also some "bad" dichotomies that have persisted, such as matter~mind, love~hate, evil~good, etc.

Good dichotomies all share the property of strong asymmetry - in scale terms especially. While weaker pairings are simpler "same scale" symmetry breakings. So for instance, love and hate, or good and evil, are the same size metaphysically. But the robust dichotomies have a breaking of symmetry across scales. Local~global is explicitly a breaking across scale and so is "very good" !

Event and context also are maximally asymmetric in this way. Discrete (the local part) and continuous (the global whole) again fit the bill. As does stasis (what stays located) and flux (the whole that is in movement).

So we are not completely helpless so far as finding good terminology for discussing meta-physical issues. Part of the job of philosophy really has always been about reducing the discussion to the most fundamental concepts, the words that really mean the most.

Soul and mind and consciousness and qualia and freewill - those are all a historical baggage of terminology that just aren't that helpful. But metaphysics already established the most robust language back in ancient greece.

And if we follow the path of maximum asymmetry - dividing our ignorance or vagueness as strongly as possible in opposing directions, not forgetting to go in different directions in terms of scale as well - then this has actually proved itself the best way to produce the necessary language.

There is a method for making the words.

This is great news. Thanks apeiron!. I'm going to have to distill this concrete info and let it simmer before solidifying enough to comment further in this locale...

 

[baywax]

For the moment, let me just express my confusion about the validity of the word "meta-physics". It appears to me to be a contradiction of terms or at least of root terms.

Metaphysics means to be above or outside the physical world. Yet, we discuss it using physical terms... we contemplate it using our physical and biological bodies, including our brains. And if someone told me an idea is not physical I'd tell them they are wrong because an idea is, in its most fundimental form, an electromagnetic pulse. Metaphysicists claim that energy is evidence of metaphysical reality yet energy is in fact electromagnetic pulses and/or radiation.

How is it that a concept, completely conceived by physical means, and claimed to be above and beyond all physical realms, exist in the first place? And how do does one go about proving the existence of the metaphysical using nothing but the clumsy butterfingers of a physical frame of reference?

 

[JoeDawg]

Metaphysics means to be above or outside the physical world.

Actually, it means, this is what Aristotle wrote about, after he was done writing about physics. :)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
The word derives from the Greek words μετά (metá) (meaning "beyond" or "after") and φυσικά (physiká) (meaning "physical"), "physical" referring to those works on matter by Aristotle in antiquity. The prefix meta- ("beyond") was attached to the chapters in Aristotle's work that followed after the chapters on "physics," in posthumously edited collections. Aristotle himself did not call these works Metaphysics. Aristotle called some of the subjects treated there "first philosophy."

 

[apeiron]

Meta makes sense if you take it as a more general level of discussion. So if physics is concerned with what is, then meta-physics could be a step up to a more general view about what could even be.

 

[baywax]

Meta makes sense if you take it as a more general level of discussion. So if physics is concerned with what is, then meta-physics could be a step up to a more general view about what could even be.

That's usually called a hypothesis isn't it?... not metaphysics..

 

[magpies]

Invsible forces like magnetism would be considered a part of metaphysics by ancient greeks I am sure.

 

[apeiron]

That's usually called a hypothesis isn't it?... not metaphysics..

No...

 

[baywax]

No...

Surely, you jest... what else do you call the imaginings and over-reaching of physical entities such as humans?

Of course many say that physicalness is a manifestation of the "spectrum" of some other something or other... but that's as hypothetical as imagining a form of "life" that is not carbon-based.

 

[apeiron]

Surely, you jest... what else do you call the imaginings and over-reaching of physical entities such as humans?

I was talking about the process of generalisation - the development of universals or general principles from particular or local experiences and observations.

A hypothesis is something else - a particular guess about how some particular thing could be explained. (Although that something could be very large - like a particular universe).

 

[baywax]

I was talking about the process of generalisation - the development of universals or general principles from particular or local experiences and observations.

A hypothesis is something else - a particular guess about how some particular thing could be explained. (Although that something could be very large - like a particular universe).

Ah... I see. So, when Lao Tsu hits upon a sort of axiom that appears to be true in many situations and on many scales... that would be a metaphysical constant. Such as when he points out that being supple like the grass is a better way to survive than being brittle like old wood...?

There are more observations by many philosophers that seem to apply as axioms yet are not nor never could be construed as theories or as physics. Yet they are truths in as far as metaphor or analogy can be truth. This is a very interesting take on metaphysics. Thank you!

 

[apeiron]

There are more observations by many philosophers that seem to apply as axioms yet are not nor never could be construed as theories or as physics. Yet they are truths in as far as metaphor or analogy can be truth. This is a very interesting take on metaphysics. Thank you!

I was thinking more of concepts which really are taken as "truths". So ancient greek philosophy came up with a whole bunch of meta-physical ideas that underpin our physical models.

There also all happen to be derived as dichotomies.

So we have fundamental distinctions like discrete~continuous, stasis~flux, atom~void, one~many, substance~form, chance~necessity, etc, etc.

This is more than just analogy or metaphor. It is a greater level of abstraction about what is believed to be "true". Or at least logically possible in some limit case exhaustive fashion.

Of course, since you mention Eastern philosophical traditions, this was also the essence of Taoist I Ching. But not so completely developed.

 

[baywax]

I was thinking more of concepts which really are taken as "truths". So ancient greek philosophy came up with a whole bunch of meta-physical ideas that underpin our physical models.

There also all happen to be derived as dichotomies.

So we have fundamental distinctions like discrete~continuous, stasis~flux, atom~void, one~many, substance~form, chance~necessity, etc, etc.

This is more than just analogy or metaphor. It is a greater level of abstraction about what is believed to be "true". Or at least logically possible in some limit case exhaustive fashion.

Of course, since you mention Eastern philosophical traditions, this was also the essence of Taoist I Ching. But not so completely developed.

Yes and I am more conversant about the tao than I am about greek philosophy. The eastern philosophies really do tend to use metaphor to explain their observations. Although this was perhaps to extend their understanding and truths to the general public and the more dense of the dynasties. So that, when they saw the grass bend in the wind and the stiff and hard tree be blown to the ground by it, they remembered that being rigid of spirit and action is not an enduring way to behave when compared to the "flex" of the grasses.

So, perhaps the poetry of Lao Tsu is a description of his more metaphysical and observed truths and is meant to convey these truths in the simplest format. Confucius often paraphrased the tao but his verbose use of the imagery shows how reliant he was upon the simpler form of tao's truths.

(is this off-shoot going to resolve in an understanding of randomness and free will?)

 

[apeiron]

(is this off-shoot going to resolve in an understanding of randomness and free will?)

It might if we return to the metaphysical origin of the perceived conflict.

Ancient greeks dichotomised action into chance and necessity. What we today call the random and the determined. And these are indeed the two extreme possible states for simple systems.

The question for simple systems then is whether this means all such systems are either of one kind, or the other kind? So either completely deterministic (eg: GR) or completely probablistic (eg: QM).

Or instead, we could recognise that the dichotomy crisply defines two kinds of limits that can be approached (so all actual systems exist in the spectrum of possibility that lies in-between). So some systems are as random as possible (like a coin-tossing process), or as determined as possible (like a coin placing process).

Then having got a good fix on simple systems, we can ask what is different about complex systems. Do the same dichotomies actually apply once reality has this further dimension?

If you are of the "more is different" camp, then yes, new dichotomies, new metaphysical-level distinctions, are required to capture this different dimension of truth.

But the ancient greeks did not really develop any. And modern science has not done too well at popularising any either.

There is the concept of autonomy to stand for what is special about a complex system's choice making abilities - creative action within bounding constraints. But what do we call the simple system's abilities in this context? What is the right word (non-autonomous not adding much to the discussion)?

One quite good dichotomy coined by Stewart and Cohen is complicity~simplexity.

This would be an example of modern metaphysics - attempting to create new unifying concepts that generalise from scientific understanding.

 

[baywax]

It might if we return to the metaphysical origin of the perceived conflict.

Ancient greeks dichotomised action into chance and necessity. What we today call the random and the determined. And these are indeed the two extreme possible states for simple systems.

The question for simple systems then is whether this means all such systems are either of one kind, or the other kind? So either completely deterministic (eg: GR) or completely probablistic (eg: QM).

Or instead, we could recognise that the dichotomy crisply defines two kinds of limits that can be approached (so all actual systems exist in the spectrum of possibility that lies in-between). So some systems are as random as possible (like a coin-tossing process), or as determined as possible (like a coin placing process).

Then having got a good fix on simple systems, we can ask what is different about complex systems. Do the same dichotomies actually apply once reality has this further dimension?

If you are of the "more is different" camp, then yes, new dichotomies, new metaphysical-level distinctions, are required to capture this different dimension of truth.

But the ancient greeks did not really develop any. And modern science has not done too well at popularising any either.

There is the concept of autonomy to stand for what is special about a complex system's choice making abilities - creative action within bounding constraints. But what do we call the simple system's abilities in this context? What is the right word (non-autonomous not adding much to the discussion)?

One quite good dichotomy coined by Stewart and Cohen is complicity~simplexity.

This would be an example of modern metaphysics - attempting to create new unifying concepts that generalise from scientific understanding.

The "complicity and simpexity" dichotomy reminds me of a sort of consilience between the two concepts. Especially the way the words are a hybrid of one another.

In the tao there is a unification theory described by the way water flows, fills voids and continues on after conquering the deepest abyss while all the while providing the sustenance of life. The dichotomy described in the tao is between the multitude (all living and non-living things) and the "unnamed way". Some people think the "way" is chi or energy but after reading the i ching and the tao te ching for many years I have not determined this to be true. In fact, I would suggest that energy is one of the multitude and the manifold.

But, of course you're right and there is always a dichotomy and there has to be in order for anything to be perceived. As Doris Day has pointed out "you can't have one without the other". But, the tao's "unnamed way" seems to be the determining factor with regard to the survival of the multitude. And the actions, behavior and "swaying back and forth" of all things appears to be determined by the nature of the unnamed way.

What would a physicist or a greek philosopher call the "unnamed way"?

 

[apeiron]

What would a physicist or a greek philosopher call the "unnamed way"?

Why, the Apeiron of course! The boundless, the unlimited. A state of pure plenipotential. Or in modern philosoohy, ontic vagueness.

All ancient philosophies share this same basic notion of organic creation as a division, a symmetry breaking, of a state of pure potential. As crisp divisions develop and mix, this creates the multitude that is.

In Indian Buddhism, you have dependent co-arising, for example.

The basic idea may be shared either because it was such an obvious idea, everyone arrived at it. Or there could have been a transmission of the concepts from west to east, or east to west.

 

[baywax]

Why, the Apeiron of course! The boundless, the unlimited. A state of pure plenipotential. Or in modern philosoohy, ontic vagueness.

All ancient philosophies share this same basic notion of organic creation as a division, a symmetry breaking, of a state of pure potential. As crisp divisions develop and mix, this creates the multitude that is.

In Indian Buddhism, you have dependent co-arising, for example.

The basic idea may be shared either because it was such an obvious idea, everyone arrived at it. Or there could have been a transmission of the concepts from west to east, or east to west.

So far all I've got on "apeiron" is that its a computer game on the macintosh and that its a

"a cosmological theory created by Anaximander in the 6th century BC"

and

"Apeiron is a Greek word meaning unlimited, infinite or indefinite from the Greek a (without) and peiras (end or limit in Ionic dialect)."

While the unnamed way is the continuous ebb and flow of all that is and its propensity to strike a balance of same.

Interestingly enough these two ideas were both recorded around the same time, in the 6th cent. BC.