[HPsquared]

See also, Le Chatelier's principle.

It kind of makes sense, if a complex system has found some kind of steady state there must be some "restoring forces" at work to hold it there.

[kryogen1c]

> if a complex system has found some kind of steady state there must be some "restoring forces"

I think this is one of those things that is True with a capital T.

If you start with the premise that life is valuable, it is eventually derivable. Life tries to exist, and since existence is path-dependent making a change is likelier to be wrong than right.

[empthought]

I think you and the parent commenter are talking about the anthropic principle. It might be "derivable" but only in the particular situation in which we have found ourselves—and then it becomes less remarkable.

[kryogen1c]

> the anthropic principle

How interesting. Can't exactly run a placebo controlled double blind experiment against the full state of the universe, hm?

I've never thought about the universal preconditions that must be true for me to be thinking about them. This is shifting my whole worldview, thanks!

[empthought]

Glad to have spurred some thought... thanks for telling me!

[photochemsyn]

Complex systems can have multiple different 'steady' states (many valleys in a complex mountain range of energy minima and maxima, in that sense), so while there may be local restoring forces, climbing out of one steady state and into another is extremely common.

[karrot-kake]

> making a change is likelier to be wrong than right.

This agrees with the slightly-neutral theory of evolution. A given mutation is more likely to break something a little bit than improve that something a little bit.

[voldacar]

It is strictly true, in the sense that a stable equilibrium state is a potential well in a system's phase space.