No, the responses you're getting in this thread are people distinguishing between pure speculation and things that are actually rooted in evidence. You seem to have a lot invested in this whole image of yourself as the bold truth-teller battling against the dogmatic traditionists... when that's simply not what's happening. — Seppo
No, the reactionary responses on this thread are defending a belief system that is threatened by investigation of its underlying values (e.g. Existentialism) and assumptions (e.g. Materialism). You are the one who is creating a false image of myself, in order to avoid grappling with the ancient philosophical controversies of Teleology and Determinism. I haven't even expressed my personal opinion on the topic, except indirectly, by referring to a book of scientific speculation with a tentative un-traditional interpretation of cosmic evolution..
I'm sure the scandalized rabbis hurled similar dismissive labels against Spinoza as he modestly but resolutely pursued the truth behind their "dogmatic traditions". No, I'm not comparing myself with Spinoza, I'm not a genius or a martyr. But, I do see a resemblance of the "dogmatic traditionalists" on this thread with the defenders of the Faith who anathematized him, while avoiding his calm rational philosophical arguments. It's a good thing you can't hurl rocks over the internet. :joke:
"By the decrees of the Angels and the proclamation of the Saints, we hereby excommunicate, ban, and anathematize Baruch d’Espinoza,"
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... C_1907.jpg
Excerpts from posts by outraged believers in random rather than regulated Determinism :
"information on beliefs"
"I believe this is not true."
"do not believe"
"I don't believe"
"I reel in terror"
TPF : Objection to Teleology
Re: TPF : Objection to Teleology
I'm sorry you're not provoking the reaction you want, but sometimes we don't get what we want. You really should adjust your rhetorical strategy to the reaction you are getting (whining about imagined outrage from fictional "believers" makes you look the one who is feeling threatened here). You would do well to take some of your own advice. — Seppo
Your apology is mis-directed. My intention was not to be provocative, but the affronted reactions to an alternative explanation for cosmic evolution inadvertently steered the dialog away from philosophical argumentation toward polarized altercation. Someone less experienced might have caved under the negativity. But I'm used to it, since my personal worldview is not mainstream in either a Scientific or Religious sense. Ironically, I get the impression that you think I'm proposing an Anti-Science position, even though the book I referenced was written by professional scientists.
My first post was actually intended to present a scientific alternative to the usual Theistic arguments. So I didn't expect the disgusted "reaction" I got, as-if a skunk had walked into a gentleman's club. The fact that I offered non-scriptural evidence for direction in evolution was dismissed out of hand. So it was not me who resorted to "rhetorical strategy", And I don't feel threatened at all. Just disappointed that a Philosophy Forum can so quickly descend into Sophistry, and finger-pointing. I was hoping for an open-minded dialog, not a debate or diatribe.
Note -- the smiley means "I'm cool"
Excerpt from original post :
"The teleological argument is an argument in favor of theism". — SwampMan
My reply ended with a quote from a prominent scientist :
"But, on the other hand, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.” ___Albert Einstein
John Archibald Wheeler (proponent of Anthropic Cosmological Principle):
Over a long, productive scientific life, he was known for his drive to address big, overarching questions in physics, ..
https://phy.princeton.edu/department/hi ... hn-wheeler
IRONIC RACISM
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c0/05/e5 ... 1401d8.jpg
Your apology is mis-directed. My intention was not to be provocative, but the affronted reactions to an alternative explanation for cosmic evolution inadvertently steered the dialog away from philosophical argumentation toward polarized altercation. Someone less experienced might have caved under the negativity. But I'm used to it, since my personal worldview is not mainstream in either a Scientific or Religious sense. Ironically, I get the impression that you think I'm proposing an Anti-Science position, even though the book I referenced was written by professional scientists.
My first post was actually intended to present a scientific alternative to the usual Theistic arguments. So I didn't expect the disgusted "reaction" I got, as-if a skunk had walked into a gentleman's club. The fact that I offered non-scriptural evidence for direction in evolution was dismissed out of hand. So it was not me who resorted to "rhetorical strategy", And I don't feel threatened at all. Just disappointed that a Philosophy Forum can so quickly descend into Sophistry, and finger-pointing. I was hoping for an open-minded dialog, not a debate or diatribe.
Note -- the smiley means "I'm cool"
Excerpt from original post :
"The teleological argument is an argument in favor of theism". — SwampMan
My reply ended with a quote from a prominent scientist :
"But, on the other hand, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.” ___Albert Einstein
John Archibald Wheeler (proponent of Anthropic Cosmological Principle):
Over a long, productive scientific life, he was known for his drive to address big, overarching questions in physics, ..
https://phy.princeton.edu/department/hi ... hn-wheeler
IRONIC RACISM
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c0/05/e5 ... 1401d8.jpg
Re: TPF : Objection to Teleology
I think calling my contribution "outraged" is a sign of your lack of perspective on this subject. — T Clark
OK. What about the "believer" vs "apostate" part?
Back when I posted on another forum, various atheist vs theist arguments usually began with something approximating calm rational arguments, but quickly descended into a name-calling game. And that's what this thread reminded me of. I apologize, if my broad characterization lumped you in with the scandalized rock throwers. :joke:
This is not true. If you look back at the beginning of this thread, I made a very simple argument based on probability and statistics why the anthropic principle and fine tuning argument are not needed to explain conditions in the universe we happen to find ourselves in. — T Clark
Yes. I'll give you credit for being one of the few to attempt a rational discussion of a multi-millennial debate. A quick Google search revealed that the most popular arguments against Teleology are statistical quibbles. It's true that the modern ACP theories did rely a lot on the statistical improbability of a long list of implausible mathematical "coincidences" in dimensionless ratios. But statistics are just abstract numbers that must be interpreted into meanings. And the translation into words typically falls into binary categories, with little overlap.
The author of the ACP book spent a whole chapter on the pros & cons -- and the real world consequences -- of those cosmic coincidences. As a non-mathematician, I'm not equipped to make statistical arguments one way or the other. But, if you are more numerically inclined, you can check their numbers for yourself in the book. Frank Tipler is a mathematical physicist, well-versed in statistics. However, I was better able to follow the logical philosophical arguments, which again presented both pro & con positions. They also had chapters on Information, Entropy, Randomness, and Computability. And I am only well-informed on the first two.
Obviously, the conclusion -- that those dozens of highly improbable numerical coincidences and initial conditions result from "fine-tuning" -- is an inference that depends on how much creative organizing power you perceive in Randomness. As noted in the Wiki quote below, the Reason or Cause for such improbably fortuitous serendipity is "unknown". But the only reasonable options I know of are Fortuitousness or Prescience. Do you have a better alternative instead of Infinite Odds vs Goal-Directed Intention? If not, we can go on to the next item on a long list : e.g. Cosmological Constant, Inhomogeneity, Isotropy, Inflation, Boundary Conditions, etc. Yet again, I'll have to refer to the experts on the topics that are over my head.
See. We can have a philosophical dialog if we stick to well-defined terms instead of cartoon characters.
PS___FWIW. As mentioned in the beginning, I have my own objections to traditional Teleological arguments. So, my position is closer to Teleonomy or Eutaxiology.
Fine Tuning Argument :
The characterization of the universe as finely tuned suggests that the occurrence of life in the universe is very sensitive to the values of certain fundamental physical constants and that the observed values are, for some reason, improbable. ___Wikipedia
Fine Tuning Odds :
In The Road to Reality, physicist Roger Penrose estimates that the odds of the initial low entropy state of our universe occurring by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 10 10(123) . This ratio is vastly
beyond our powers of comprehension
https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/ ... chards.pdf
Fortuitousness : random accident ; Chance ; Lady Luck
Prescience : the fact of knowing something before it takes place; foreknowledge. A selection effect
OK. What about the "believer" vs "apostate" part?
Back when I posted on another forum, various atheist vs theist arguments usually began with something approximating calm rational arguments, but quickly descended into a name-calling game. And that's what this thread reminded me of. I apologize, if my broad characterization lumped you in with the scandalized rock throwers. :joke:
This is not true. If you look back at the beginning of this thread, I made a very simple argument based on probability and statistics why the anthropic principle and fine tuning argument are not needed to explain conditions in the universe we happen to find ourselves in. — T Clark
Yes. I'll give you credit for being one of the few to attempt a rational discussion of a multi-millennial debate. A quick Google search revealed that the most popular arguments against Teleology are statistical quibbles. It's true that the modern ACP theories did rely a lot on the statistical improbability of a long list of implausible mathematical "coincidences" in dimensionless ratios. But statistics are just abstract numbers that must be interpreted into meanings. And the translation into words typically falls into binary categories, with little overlap.
The author of the ACP book spent a whole chapter on the pros & cons -- and the real world consequences -- of those cosmic coincidences. As a non-mathematician, I'm not equipped to make statistical arguments one way or the other. But, if you are more numerically inclined, you can check their numbers for yourself in the book. Frank Tipler is a mathematical physicist, well-versed in statistics. However, I was better able to follow the logical philosophical arguments, which again presented both pro & con positions. They also had chapters on Information, Entropy, Randomness, and Computability. And I am only well-informed on the first two.
Obviously, the conclusion -- that those dozens of highly improbable numerical coincidences and initial conditions result from "fine-tuning" -- is an inference that depends on how much creative organizing power you perceive in Randomness. As noted in the Wiki quote below, the Reason or Cause for such improbably fortuitous serendipity is "unknown". But the only reasonable options I know of are Fortuitousness or Prescience. Do you have a better alternative instead of Infinite Odds vs Goal-Directed Intention? If not, we can go on to the next item on a long list : e.g. Cosmological Constant, Inhomogeneity, Isotropy, Inflation, Boundary Conditions, etc. Yet again, I'll have to refer to the experts on the topics that are over my head.
See. We can have a philosophical dialog if we stick to well-defined terms instead of cartoon characters.
PS___FWIW. As mentioned in the beginning, I have my own objections to traditional Teleological arguments. So, my position is closer to Teleonomy or Eutaxiology.
Fine Tuning Argument :
The characterization of the universe as finely tuned suggests that the occurrence of life in the universe is very sensitive to the values of certain fundamental physical constants and that the observed values are, for some reason, improbable. ___Wikipedia
Fine Tuning Odds :
In The Road to Reality, physicist Roger Penrose estimates that the odds of the initial low entropy state of our universe occurring by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 10 10(123) . This ratio is vastly
beyond our powers of comprehension
https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/ ... chards.pdf
Fortuitousness : random accident ; Chance ; Lady Luck
Prescience : the fact of knowing something before it takes place; foreknowledge. A selection effect
Re: TPF : Objection to Teleology
In other words, you're going to ignore the things people actually say to you, and continue to lie/misconstrue about those responses- good to know... so that I don't waste any further time on you. — Seppo
That's OK. I may have found someone I can dialog with. See above. You can sit on the sidelines and watch as the grownups have a mature conversation.
As Gnomon just admitted, he doesn't care what is true, he's going to represent the things people have said to him as he sees fit, even if that involves deceit/gross misrepresentation. — Seppo
Now, now. Accusing others of doing exactly what you are doing (Tu quoque) is unfair.
"It is not possible for us to know each other except as we manifest ourselves in distorted shadows to the eyes of others."
___Sene
That's OK. I may have found someone I can dialog with. See above. You can sit on the sidelines and watch as the grownups have a mature conversation.
As Gnomon just admitted, he doesn't care what is true, he's going to represent the things people have said to him as he sees fit, even if that involves deceit/gross misrepresentation. — Seppo
Now, now. Accusing others of doing exactly what you are doing (Tu quoque) is unfair.
"It is not possible for us to know each other except as we manifest ourselves in distorted shadows to the eyes of others."
___Sene
Re: TPF : Objection to Teleology
They aren't "quibbles." And they aren't arcane, sophisticated mathematics. — T Clark
OK. But what does the marble analogy have to do with cosmic coincidences and Teleological inferences? As noted in the quote below from 20th century astrophysicists ; after a century of searching for a "physical explanation" they still don't know what causes those lucky streaks, that 21st century physicist Paul Davies called the "Cosmic Jackpot".
The difference between an Accidental Coincidence and an Intentional Pattern is in the continuing consistency. When life-favoring cosmic coincidences piled up in the early 20th century, astronomers and cosmologists said "whoa . . . what's going on here?" Short "streaks" of luck do occur in random sequences, but longer chains imply non-random causation.
The science of statistical Pattern Recognition has methods to distinguish between the gambler's "illusion" of patterns -- that allow Las Vegas casinos to be consistently Lucky, in order to make a reliable non-random profit -- and the statistician's meaningful measurements. But to me, those algorithmic methods are "arcane" & "sophisticated". Presumably, those who "quibble" about those causal chains tell themselves "it's better to be lucky than smart".
The Illusion of Randomness :
humans tend to see patterns when, in fact, the results are completely random.
https://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics ... omness.htm
Anthropic Coincidences :
The critical point was well expressed by the noted astrophysicists Bernard Carr and Martin Rees:
"One day we may have a more physical explanation for some of the relationships . . . that now seem genuine coincidences. For example, [some of them] may eventually be subsumed as a consequence of some presently unformulated unified theory. However, even if all apparently anthropic coincidences could be explained in this way, it would still be remarkable that the relationships dictated by physical theory happened also to be those propitious for life" .
https://www.firstthings.com/article/200 ... incidences
Cosmic Jackpot :
The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life?
https://en.wikiped
OK. But what does the marble analogy have to do with cosmic coincidences and Teleological inferences? As noted in the quote below from 20th century astrophysicists ; after a century of searching for a "physical explanation" they still don't know what causes those lucky streaks, that 21st century physicist Paul Davies called the "Cosmic Jackpot".
The difference between an Accidental Coincidence and an Intentional Pattern is in the continuing consistency. When life-favoring cosmic coincidences piled up in the early 20th century, astronomers and cosmologists said "whoa . . . what's going on here?" Short "streaks" of luck do occur in random sequences, but longer chains imply non-random causation.
The science of statistical Pattern Recognition has methods to distinguish between the gambler's "illusion" of patterns -- that allow Las Vegas casinos to be consistently Lucky, in order to make a reliable non-random profit -- and the statistician's meaningful measurements. But to me, those algorithmic methods are "arcane" & "sophisticated". Presumably, those who "quibble" about those causal chains tell themselves "it's better to be lucky than smart".
The Illusion of Randomness :
humans tend to see patterns when, in fact, the results are completely random.
https://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics ... omness.htm
Anthropic Coincidences :
The critical point was well expressed by the noted astrophysicists Bernard Carr and Martin Rees:
"One day we may have a more physical explanation for some of the relationships . . . that now seem genuine coincidences. For example, [some of them] may eventually be subsumed as a consequence of some presently unformulated unified theory. However, even if all apparently anthropic coincidences could be explained in this way, it would still be remarkable that the relationships dictated by physical theory happened also to be those propitious for life" .
https://www.firstthings.com/article/200 ... incidences
Cosmic Jackpot :
The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life?
https://en.wikiped
Re: TPF : Objection to Teleology
And its pretty sad to see someone presumably over the age of 10 resorting to the good old "I know you are but what am I" anyways. — Seppo
You said that you were not going to "waste anymore time" on this thread. But you continue to take boo -hiss pot-shots from the bleachers. Unless you have something positive to contribute, you are wasting everybody's time. But, hey! I'm retired, so I've got plenty of time to waste on the winding road to wisdom. What's your excuse?
PS___At least TClark is trying to contribute something more than childish retorts & recriminations.
You said that you were not going to "waste anymore time" on this thread. But you continue to take boo -hiss pot-shots from the bleachers. Unless you have something positive to contribute, you are wasting everybody's time. But, hey! I'm retired, so I've got plenty of time to waste on the winding road to wisdom. What's your excuse?
PS___At least TClark is trying to contribute something more than childish retorts & recriminations.
Re: TPF : Objection to Teleology
I don't see any reason to continue with this discussion. We're not getting anywhere. — T Clark
OK. I understand that you believe evolution is "not getting anywhere". But I was hoping you would at least offer some relevant evidence or argument in favor of a downward trend in evolution. I have lots of stuff to indicate the contrary : that Natural Selection weeds-out non-progressive options from Random changes. We've only scratched the surface of such evidence for upward evolution, apparently programmed to produce better & better adaptations for life in a universe where LIFE is rare & precious. Each step upward costs many individual lives, but overall the progressive beat goes on, after millions of lifetimes.
I get the impression that those-who-see-only-digression-in-evolution like to think that (cautious) optimists are not seeing the obvious. Yet what you see does depend in part on where you look. If you watch TV news, you'll see Russia threatening WWIII, and Covid pestilence killing millions of innocent people around the world. But, if you look out the window, you'll see healthy happy people going about their business, as-if the end of the world is not nigh. However, evolution is a collective holistic process, not a reductive individual Horatio-Alger-rags-to-riches story. Evolution is about Time & Chance, not about me : I could be run over by a truck tomorrow for no apparent reason, but the evolving world will still get somewhere --- onward & upward.
PS___Long ago, a wise man said, "Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all."
https://cdn.wealthygorilla.com/wp-conte ... otes-1.jpg
https://www.quotemaster.org/images/e7/e ... 7c8850.jpg
https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes ... -83-72.jpg
https://quotes.thefamouspeople.com/imag ... -66574.jpg
https://quotlr.com/images/quotes/102493 ... 3519_n.jpg
OK. I understand that you believe evolution is "not getting anywhere". But I was hoping you would at least offer some relevant evidence or argument in favor of a downward trend in evolution. I have lots of stuff to indicate the contrary : that Natural Selection weeds-out non-progressive options from Random changes. We've only scratched the surface of such evidence for upward evolution, apparently programmed to produce better & better adaptations for life in a universe where LIFE is rare & precious. Each step upward costs many individual lives, but overall the progressive beat goes on, after millions of lifetimes.
I get the impression that those-who-see-only-digression-in-evolution like to think that (cautious) optimists are not seeing the obvious. Yet what you see does depend in part on where you look. If you watch TV news, you'll see Russia threatening WWIII, and Covid pestilence killing millions of innocent people around the world. But, if you look out the window, you'll see healthy happy people going about their business, as-if the end of the world is not nigh. However, evolution is a collective holistic process, not a reductive individual Horatio-Alger-rags-to-riches story. Evolution is about Time & Chance, not about me : I could be run over by a truck tomorrow for no apparent reason, but the evolving world will still get somewhere --- onward & upward.
PS___Long ago, a wise man said, "Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all."
https://cdn.wealthygorilla.com/wp-conte ... otes-1.jpg
https://www.quotemaster.org/images/e7/e ... 7c8850.jpg
https://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes ... -83-72.jpg
https://quotes.thefamouspeople.com/imag ... -66574.jpg
https://quotlr.com/images/quotes/102493 ... 3519_n.jpg
Re: TPF : Objection to Teleology
I don't think there is a downward trend. I don't think there is any trend. — T Clark
Maybe we could refocus the topic from speculativeTeleological Ends to retrospective Evolutionary Trends. Would that be less polarizing and more productive? Perhaps a discussion of "orthogenesis" or "orthoselection". I don't know much about them, but Orthoselection seems to be what Darwin had in mind as Natural Selection. That might provide the means for progression or digression toward some short-term or ultimate state -- that we could evaluate as positive or negative relative to our current status. We can only speculate about the future, but the past is subject to some empirical evidence. Then, if there is some sign of a non-random pattern, we can project it into the near future, and see what happens.
What are the major evolutionary trends? :
For example, McShea (1998) listed eight potential large-scale trends, including overall directional changes in “entropy, energy intensiveness, evolutionary versatility, developmental depth, structural depth, adaptedness, size, and complexity.”
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentra ... 008-0055-6
evolutionary trend A steady change in a given adaptive direction, either in an evolutionary lineage or in a particular attribute (e.g. height of shoot). Such trends are often apparent in unrelated taxa. Formerly they were attributed to orthogenesis; now orthoselection or the contending theory of species selection are invoked.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-an ... nary-trend
Ortho is a Greek prefix meaning “straight”, “upright”, “right” or “correct”.
Maybe we could refocus the topic from speculativeTeleological Ends to retrospective Evolutionary Trends. Would that be less polarizing and more productive? Perhaps a discussion of "orthogenesis" or "orthoselection". I don't know much about them, but Orthoselection seems to be what Darwin had in mind as Natural Selection. That might provide the means for progression or digression toward some short-term or ultimate state -- that we could evaluate as positive or negative relative to our current status. We can only speculate about the future, but the past is subject to some empirical evidence. Then, if there is some sign of a non-random pattern, we can project it into the near future, and see what happens.
What are the major evolutionary trends? :
For example, McShea (1998) listed eight potential large-scale trends, including overall directional changes in “entropy, energy intensiveness, evolutionary versatility, developmental depth, structural depth, adaptedness, size, and complexity.”
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentra ... 008-0055-6
evolutionary trend A steady change in a given adaptive direction, either in an evolutionary lineage or in a particular attribute (e.g. height of shoot). Such trends are often apparent in unrelated taxa. Formerly they were attributed to orthogenesis; now orthoselection or the contending theory of species selection are invoked.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-an ... nary-trend
Ortho is a Greek prefix meaning “straight”, “upright”, “right” or “correct”.
Re: TPF : Objection to Teleology
My point from the beginning has been, given the information we have about life and the universe, there is no need to hypothesize teleology, the anthropic principle, the multiverse, fine-tuning, or any other similar phenomenon. — T Clark
OK. But that sounds like philosophical Apatheia gone awry. I appreciate the Stoic state of mind, but not to the point of complete indifference to the dynamic system we humans are vital components of. Even the godless Existentialists retained some involvement in the wider world around them --- something bigger than Self. Philosophy must be motivated by some mystery to be solved.
I suspect that a Reductionist focus on tiny details, may result in a "can't-see-the-forest-for-the-trees" myopia. Of course carrying Holism to an extreme could have the opposite effect of not noticing the ground under your feet. Yet, a happy medium perspective is a best-of-both-worlds compromise. You can "get-real" about the here & now, while also dabbling in probable future scenarios, such as the ultimate destination of the mostly deterministic world.
I'm not a very passionate person, but I find the possibility that the world is progressing toward some kind of meaningful resolution to be fascinating. At the least, it provides a little positivity for those who are dismayed by the the current end-of-world doom & gloom outlook ; to wit, at least half the recent output from Hollywood has been dystopian-Post-Apocalyptic-wallowing-in-misery movies. Although they usually feature lone Greek heroes fighting against Fate, I try to avoid them because they are depressing for us non-super-heroes. Anyway, I grew up in the post-Depression & post-War-to-end-all-wars 1950s, when optimism was re-blooming. Besides, my personal BothAnd worldview allows me to take the bumps gracefully, while looking at the road beyond the headlights.
Sorry! Sounds like I'm preaching. But I can't help it. My life is almost over, but LIFE in the universe is just beginning.
20 Best Post-Apocalyptic Movies on Netflix Right Now :
https://thecinemaholic.com/best-post-ap ... n-netflix/
"Philosophy is important because it's the leading edge of human inquiry. Maths, physics, biology, chemistry, psychology, economics, ..."
https://dailynous.com/2018/08/08/why-is ... important/
"One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery each day.” ___Albert Einstein, one of my favorite philosophers
OK. But that sounds like philosophical Apatheia gone awry. I appreciate the Stoic state of mind, but not to the point of complete indifference to the dynamic system we humans are vital components of. Even the godless Existentialists retained some involvement in the wider world around them --- something bigger than Self. Philosophy must be motivated by some mystery to be solved.
I suspect that a Reductionist focus on tiny details, may result in a "can't-see-the-forest-for-the-trees" myopia. Of course carrying Holism to an extreme could have the opposite effect of not noticing the ground under your feet. Yet, a happy medium perspective is a best-of-both-worlds compromise. You can "get-real" about the here & now, while also dabbling in probable future scenarios, such as the ultimate destination of the mostly deterministic world.
I'm not a very passionate person, but I find the possibility that the world is progressing toward some kind of meaningful resolution to be fascinating. At the least, it provides a little positivity for those who are dismayed by the the current end-of-world doom & gloom outlook ; to wit, at least half the recent output from Hollywood has been dystopian-Post-Apocalyptic-wallowing-in-misery movies. Although they usually feature lone Greek heroes fighting against Fate, I try to avoid them because they are depressing for us non-super-heroes. Anyway, I grew up in the post-Depression & post-War-to-end-all-wars 1950s, when optimism was re-blooming. Besides, my personal BothAnd worldview allows me to take the bumps gracefully, while looking at the road beyond the headlights.
Sorry! Sounds like I'm preaching. But I can't help it. My life is almost over, but LIFE in the universe is just beginning.
20 Best Post-Apocalyptic Movies on Netflix Right Now :
https://thecinemaholic.com/best-post-ap ... n-netflix/
"Philosophy is important because it's the leading edge of human inquiry. Maths, physics, biology, chemistry, psychology, economics, ..."
https://dailynous.com/2018/08/08/why-is ... important/
"One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery each day.” ___Albert Einstein, one of my favorite philosophers
Re: TPF : Objection to Teleology
why should I try to answer a question that doesn't need an answer? — T Clark
If cosmic questions don't tickle your impractical inquisitiveness, I'm sure you can find more practical & proximate problems to philosophize about. However, my childhood religion instilled an interest in eternity, destiny, and other quixotic quests, Ironically my intellectual curiosity was not abated, when I reasoned myself out of my puerile pre-packaged paradigm. The itch may have even increased, as I looked for a replacement frame-of-reference, from which to view the macrocosm as a whole integrated system, instead of disparate dots in the sky. The 60s opened-up many exotic possibilities, but none passed the skeptical test of plausibility. So, I passed my life with no clear worldview.
It was only after forced retirement, by the Great Recession, that I had time to really pull together all the threads I'd been gathering, into a unified science & philosophy-based understanding of how & why the world exists & evolves as it does. That is, obviously progressive, but not yet perfected. My unifying concept is the merger of a universal role for shape-shifting Information (energy, matter, mind) and the formless foundation (quantum substructure) of the sensible physical world . Together, they suggest reasonable answers to ancient cosmic questions of how and why.
Ironically, that 21st century Cosmology turned-out to be essentially the same as the allegorical guesses of those pre-scientific sages. There is something invisible-yet-essential in the world : the power to enform something from nothing, and something new from something old. Today, we call it mundane Energy, but a more cosmic term is "Enformy", which reductive scientists dismissively labelled as "Negentropy". Exploring the manifestations & implications of that generative power, brings out the detective in me.
And I'm still looking for clues at the scene of the Cosmic Creation crime : a self-aware world with a mysterious miraculous beginning, that physics has not yet explained. Perhaps, even you or I could be the humble hero to finally fill the pot-holes in this puzzle with our super-powers of Reasoning from Perception to Principle. Sorry, I'm sounding evangelical again, but that's just due to my raising. Can I get an amen?
The invisible structure of mathematical relationships :
Did you know that mathematical reality applies in our body and in the universe? . . . What is the invisible secret of this visible structure?
https://fountainmagazine.com/2003/issue ... athematics
Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be preter-natural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang.
BotAnd Blog Glossary
If cosmic questions don't tickle your impractical inquisitiveness, I'm sure you can find more practical & proximate problems to philosophize about. However, my childhood religion instilled an interest in eternity, destiny, and other quixotic quests, Ironically my intellectual curiosity was not abated, when I reasoned myself out of my puerile pre-packaged paradigm. The itch may have even increased, as I looked for a replacement frame-of-reference, from which to view the macrocosm as a whole integrated system, instead of disparate dots in the sky. The 60s opened-up many exotic possibilities, but none passed the skeptical test of plausibility. So, I passed my life with no clear worldview.
It was only after forced retirement, by the Great Recession, that I had time to really pull together all the threads I'd been gathering, into a unified science & philosophy-based understanding of how & why the world exists & evolves as it does. That is, obviously progressive, but not yet perfected. My unifying concept is the merger of a universal role for shape-shifting Information (energy, matter, mind) and the formless foundation (quantum substructure) of the sensible physical world . Together, they suggest reasonable answers to ancient cosmic questions of how and why.
Ironically, that 21st century Cosmology turned-out to be essentially the same as the allegorical guesses of those pre-scientific sages. There is something invisible-yet-essential in the world : the power to enform something from nothing, and something new from something old. Today, we call it mundane Energy, but a more cosmic term is "Enformy", which reductive scientists dismissively labelled as "Negentropy". Exploring the manifestations & implications of that generative power, brings out the detective in me.
And I'm still looking for clues at the scene of the Cosmic Creation crime : a self-aware world with a mysterious miraculous beginning, that physics has not yet explained. Perhaps, even you or I could be the humble hero to finally fill the pot-holes in this puzzle with our super-powers of Reasoning from Perception to Principle. Sorry, I'm sounding evangelical again, but that's just due to my raising. Can I get an amen?
The invisible structure of mathematical relationships :
Did you know that mathematical reality applies in our body and in the universe? . . . What is the invisible secret of this visible structure?
https://fountainmagazine.com/2003/issue ... athematics
Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be preter-natural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang.
BotAnd Blog Glossary
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests