From Chaos to Cosmos

Reality has shown itself to ultimately present as chaos in a way that is not immediately useful to humans, but the humble species Homo Sapiens has somehow forged their own ways to derive meaning out of that reality. This reality can come in the form of raw data, typically found in the sciences and then “deciphered” by scientists; and chaos, a state in which events and objects are illegible to ourselves and have no clear hierarchy or pattern. Here, meaning is defined as the intangible value that provides some amount of understanding or purpose to us; i.e., providing this jumble of black and white letters both a purpose to educate one in some amount and also the ability to be understood. Order is a frame of seeing reality in which timelines or objects are in what appears to be harmony, and it will be shown how humans use order to serve their own purposes. In this essay, I will argue that humans are not just existing and interpreting reality to survive, but rather actively imposing structures — temporal sequences, pattern recognition, and explanatory systems — on the indifferent data, thus transforming it out of necessity from the overwhelming chaos into a cosmos fit for human use, comfort, and understanding. First I look at how order manifests in the human perception of time via Le Poidevin’s account, highlighting first Rovelli’s notion of time and second what would become of society without any timeline. Second I outline how meaning can be artificially generated through the human quest and hope for knowledge, focusing on Borges’ demonstration in the Library of Babel. Third, I consider the effect of generating explanations or definitions of meaning, arguing that humanity requires a sufficient explanation to make sense of reality. Finally, I synthesize the patterns across each argument, and conclude that humans generate meaning through applying structures and that the purpose of such is to provide a more convenient and sensible life.

Does time really flow, or is it just flowing to us because we said so? Le Poidevin attempts to answer that with his account of temporal sequences. Our own distinctions of past, present, and future aren’t necessarily built into the frame of the cosmos; humans structure time to make sense of change, rather than discovering a pre-made order of godly or ultimate time. Even if time isn’t fundamentally real, humans must construct it; without these artificial perceptions, the human experience would lack a defining sequence. Similarly, Rovelli argues that time “does not exist,” and instead emerges from a conglomeration of interconnecting relations. In fact, he says, time does not even pass the same amount at different altitudes – albeit by barely fractions of a second over a compiled lifetime, but it is enough to question the reality of time as an overarching divine order. Clearly, if time isn’t the same everywhere, then it isn’t a singular sequence of events nor completely preordained. For human purposes, however, the relations are enough to stitch together an effective system of measurement. Together, these accounts argue that time is not discovered as an inherent structure of reality but instead imposed as a relational framework that allows the sequence to become intelligible.

Consider a short thought experiment in which we didn’t have a sequence of time. Are we in 2026 CE or 26 CE? What’s a CE, and why should I care? How do I know when I should meet you, and do I go to this meeting before this one, and when is this due? Just a simple conversation would inevitably fall back on “when,” “how soon.” A society would effectively crumble without any system or measurement of time, not to mention a civilization of the global scale. Now perhaps we can bring the time back, so there is a 3pm and a 2026 – but let go of any notion of the past, present, or future. The same issues arise, because there is no need for the flow of time without a sequence of events and actions taken. There would be no standard causation and, following, no explanation for why things occur in the sequence they do. We draw that it is necessary for humans to impose the structure of time onto the cosmos if we have any hope of convenience or communicating with one another. Thus, meaning in this case can be seen as what humans believe provides the best way to better society, which here is applying a structural framework.

We’ve now seen the benefit of time as an ordered sequence and why that definition of meaning is helpful for human coherence; let us now consider another case of when there is a disorderly collection of information in which meaning is drawn. In the Library of Babel, there is an infinity of books, organized neatly in hexagons of perfect symmetry. Each text consists of some combination of characters, perhaps meaningful, but the vast majority of the books are gibberish. We may attempt to define meaning in this sense as what denotes a book, letter, or phrase as having a purpose or education. Perhaps, in some obscure language or culture, there is someone who can read a phrase that we see as gibberish and pronounce it to be the word of God. In that sense of meaning, the Library of Babel is already murky, and it is rumored that there is an ultimate book of fate, the book that tells you what your future is and exactly how it will occur. There might also be a complete catalogue of all of the books within the Library – priceless information. Of course, humans flock to this Library in search of this book, since those meaningful texts are certainly among the infinite catalogue – or so the humans believe. There is no evidence that the meaning, the ultimate book of fate or catalogue, really exists. Since there is no concrete proof, the existence and meaning of such is essentially made up by desperate men. Overwhelmed by the vast amount of nonsense, the humans find a sanctuary in believing that their true meaning lies somewhere among the chaos.

The Library shows again that mankind’s minds struggle with initially tolerating pure randomness or disorder. Since the humans rashly assume that their meaning must exist, they proceed to drive themselves crazy searching for something that just plainly may not be real. In this space where all the possible combinations available exist, Borges shows that meaning is not inherent in data but arises from selective interpretation; when all possible combinations exist, meaning collapses unless imposed by human expectation. Selective interpretation can be defined as the meaning that one takes to be true or the best fit for their own purposes, which can be a dangerous or liberating practice. Imagine if one only takes their own perception of something to be the truth – that can lead easily to closemindedness and madness. On the other hand, selective interpretation can be liberating in the sense of deriving one’s meaning that they find to be fulfilling, like the notion of enlightenment. If the men of the Library find it liberating to reach for something that just might be real, then that can be a positive application of meaning. Accounting for the dangerous utilization of applying meaning, it is a byproduct of free will – after all, meaning might not even be conceptualized or debated without the human ability to use such free will. Regardless of the advantages and downsides of meaning applied this way, the Library shows how the mind can enact structures when presented with chaos, which thus generates meaning.

So, meaning is found by applying patterns or hopes to chaos, but it can also be originated by the act of explaining meaning itself. Holt shows that meaning is generated through attempting explanation, even if the explanation isn’t “true” or complete. Holt’s surface role in finding meaning is to compile incongruous reasonings for popular questions like “What is existence?”. His numerous explanations for reality and the various outcomes of what might’ve been showcase the human want for a cohesive solution — which forces us to realize that our own artificial systems of meaning aren't universal.  Even within the philosophers, no one agrees on the overarching meaning, even on deceivingly simple questions like “Why is there Something rather than Nothing?” Through the act of going through the numerous debates, a reader can generate their own meaning about God or the existence of the world. This ties back to the Library – the men chose their own definitions about the true knowledge or meaning. So although structures can be imposed universally like through global time zones or sequences, humans also generate meaning of their own that serves themselves the best.

We can see the throughline – the concept of time organizes sequences, interpretation organizes information, and explanation attempts to organize reality itself. Thus, it is easy to see how humanity constructs order out of the chaos, but why do we really feel the need to do so? It would be hard but not impossible to live without completely scaffolded structures – we can assume that’s how the universe functioned for billions of years. But returning to the Library and the thought experiment of time, it is evident that it is easier for humans to coexist with structures that strive to make sense of disorder. Considering the counterargument, of whether humans really need structures to exist – they do not. There are plenty of humans over many years who have lived without languages or societies, and we can assume they lived fulfilling lives. It’s simply more comfortable and convenient for the majority of society to function under frameworks, especially in the modern world. Holt’s compiled thinkers show that humans have been pondering and nitpicking over the details of meaning for thousands of years, simply because that is how humans function – with curiosity and a lust for knowledge. Even if there is no real prize like in the Library, we will continue to fight for it anyways. If it weren’t for our artificial structures, the human mind would likely malfunction with the amount of information presented to it – which is why we find that it is necessary for us to impose order upon the chaos.

We have seen that reality presents itself to us as unordered and confusing, and via the Library it is evident that we cannot sufficiently absorb all of the data and cosmos without some framework. Thus, we impose the structures of consistent patterns, categories, narratives – anything that will allow us to make sense of the overwhelming world. These structures, though human-imposed and thus non-inherent, are what we refer to as meaning and provide an overarching cause or guidance for us busy and confused souls. We can accept the larger frameworks of time, or our own interpretations of knowledge or enlightenment. Whether these constructions are merely effective fictions or revealing as to how humans necessarily encounter reality is another question.