Thread: The Big Slurp Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030662
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
At the current measured values for the Higgs, the best theoretical calculations suggest that the Standard Model vacuum is meta-stable. Say what? Well, this is what it means:
quote:
NBC news:
"If you use all the physics that we know now, and we do what we think is a straightforward calculation, it's bad news," Lykken said. "It may be that the universe we live in is inherently unstable. At some point, billions of years from now, it's all going to be wiped out." ... Back in 1982, physicists Michael Turner and Frank Wilczek wrote in Nature that "without warning, a bubble of true vacuum could nucleate somewhere in the universe and move outwards at the speed of light, and before we realized what swept by us our protons would decay away." Lykken put it slightly differently: "The universe wants to be in a different state, so eventually to realize that, a little bubble of what you might think of as an alternate universe will appear somewhere, and it will spread out and destroy us."
So, the universe wants to be in a different state, a little bubble will appear somewhere, explosively expand at the speed of light, wipe out this universe, and form a new one? Did someone get a sneak peak, perhaps?
quote:

Rom 8:19-23
For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.

Matt 24:27-31
For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of man. Wherever the body is, there the eagles will be gathered together. "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken; then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory; and he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

2 Pt 7-12
But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist have been stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up. Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire! But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
Well, I don't know. It's just a next-to-leading order calculation in the Standard Model, based on some data mainly from the LHC. But if the Big Slurp is indeed the Second Coming, then you heard it here first. [Biased]
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
Interesting. But it doesn't take anything as momentous as that to bring the curtain down on life, or at least human life, as we know it.

If I understand the news correctly, a meteor merely the size of a bus caused havoc in a Russian city by just whizzing by, not even landing on the ground. Meanwhile, a much larger asteroid narrowly missed hitting the earth.

Eighteenth-century deism was inspired by the concept of a clockwork universe, according to which the orbits of planets were stable and nothing would disrupt them for eons. God created them that way, rested, and then went on a long vacation. We know now that this orderliness so hospitable to us is more of a happy accident-- or, better, the grace of God, still intimately involved, for whom the show's not over yet.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
NBC news, quoted by IngoB:
without warning, a bubble of true vacuum could nucleate somewhere in the universe and move outwards at the speed of light
Even if it moved at the speed of light, it'd still need a lot of time to cover the Universe. We only have to worry if it starts somewhere near us. (Hmm, maybe better switch off the LHC? [Biased] )
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I'm not sure why the little bubble would be filled with righteousness? It's a nice fantasy.
 
Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
NBC news, quoted by IngoB:
without warning, a bubble of true vacuum could nucleate somewhere in the universe and move outwards at the speed of light
Even if it moved at the speed of light, it'd still need a lot of time to cover the Universe. We only have to worry if it starts somewhere near us. (Hmm, maybe better switch off the LHC? [Biased] )
It's moving at the speed of light. You won't see it until it hits you.
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
NBC news, quoted by IngoB:
without warning, a bubble of true vacuum could nucleate somewhere in the universe and move outwards at the speed of light
Even if it moved at the speed of light, it'd still need a lot of time to cover the Universe. We only have to worry if it starts somewhere near us. (Hmm, maybe better switch off the LHC? [Biased] )
It's moving at the speed of light. You won't see it until it hits you.
Oh, I don't know. It could be on it's way - try googling "Eridanus supervoid". [Biased]
 
Posted by Alf Wiedersehen (# 17421) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Oh, I don't know. It could be on it's way - try googling "Eridanus supervoid". [Biased]
"There is some speculation that the void may be due to quantum entanglement between our universe and another."

"Quantum entaglement"! That sounds nice. I imagine that to be like two soap bubbles bumping into one another.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So, the universe wants to be in a different state, a little bubble will appear somewhere, explosively expand at the speed of light, wipe out this universe, and form a new one? Did someone get a sneak peak, perhaps?
Perhaps several someones.
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
We'll most likely be long, long gone before it happens anyway.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
What are the implications of a 'cyclical' model of the universe for the theology that posits divine creation?
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
What are the implications of a 'cyclical' model of the universe for the theology that posits divine creation?
Who said God could only create one universe?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
What are the implications of a 'cyclical' model of the universe for the theology that posits divine creation?
Who said God could only create one universe?
Not the Hindus.
 
Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
NBC news, quoted by IngoB:
without warning, a bubble of true vacuum could nucleate somewhere in the universe and move outwards at the speed of light
Even if it moved at the speed of light, it'd still need a lot of time to cover the Universe. We only have to worry if it starts somewhere near us. (Hmm, maybe better switch off the LHC? [Biased] )
It's moving at the speed of light. You won't see it until it hits you.
Oh, I don't know. It could be on it's way - try googling "Eridanus supervoid". [Biased]
If we can see it, then it is not expanding at the speed of light.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
What are the implications of a 'cyclical' model of the universe for the theology that posits divine creation?
I should think pantheistic beliefs allow for it, panentheistic beliefs may not. "Universe" is a kind of slippery world in this context. An eternal "universe" as an expression of the creative nature of an eternal God doesn't strike me as inconsistent.

Traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs posit that God made the heavens and the earth. "In the beginning God made", but that "in the beginning" (Hebrew ראשית) has this (to me at least) inference of "flowing out from the eternal). But I may be mixing up "begotten" and "made".

Yorick, I think we're compelled to struggle to make sense of these things. An eternal self-creating universe doesn't make any kind of intuitive sense to me because "there's no such thing as a free lunch". But there's more than enough evidence of the truth of the counter-intuitive in the universe we can observe to make me suspicious of that intuition!
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Yorick, I think we're compelled to struggle to make sense of these things.
Isn't it the case that the struggle here is simply to reconcile current scientific understanding with a primitive 'explanation' of things? Surely, it must be very hard to make recent discoveries about the universe 'fit' models of understanding held by our ancestors who were ignorant of scientific fact and perhaps more inclined to mystical and supernatural explanations.

I know this is a tired old discussion, and largely tangential here (I apologise for that), but each time we hear of new scientific knowledge it strikes me that the gulf between what we currently know and what our ancients thought they knew seems to widen. Unless you're good at forcing things straight by strenuous contortion.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
The instability won’t matter to us unless we have moved off the Earth sometime in the next 5 billion years or so. I think that is when the sun will become a red giant, and it’s diameter will encompass the Earth.

So ideally we will have moved to another planet, preferably another solar system. If not, we’ll be long gone before any instability vacuum bothers us. Our atoms will be swirling around inside a red giant, so having the protons in those atoms slapped around won’t matter a jot.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
What are the implications of a 'cyclical' model of the universe for the theology that posits divine creation?
In principle, none, as you really should have learned by now. The ultimate causality of God does not require a spacetime beginning. In practice, the "Big Bang" certainly is more congenial to Christian theology, i.e., another layer of abstraction is required if there is not literal beginning.

But this thread is not about that, but about the end of this universe in the Second Coming. And about the fact that the talk about the Big Slurp sounds a lot like it (which is a bit of a whimsical point, but fun). I would have to think a bit about it, but I think the typical mechanisms proposed for cyclical universes would be wiped out by the Big Slurp as well. Then it would destroy such cyclical universes just as much as Big Bang ones, and for the purposes of the topic of this thread the only impact would be that it is a cycle (rather than an expansion) which is ended.

I also want to point out that while it sure was fun that the very first icon I saw of the Second Coming was showing something suggestive of an expanding vacuum bubble, it is not my claim that icon writers were inspired with a true picture of the Big Slurp. I was instead pointing to the talk about the Second Coming in the NT. So showing Buddhas in discs really is neither here nor there. Whereas Buddhist cosmology might be of interest. (Frankly, Buddhist cosmology gives me headaches. If you think Revelations is trippy, try reading some Mahayana sutras.)
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The instability won’t matter to us unless we have moved off the Earth sometime in the next 5 billion years or so. I think that is when the sun will become a red giant, and it’s diameter will encompass the Earth.

So ideally we will have moved to another planet, preferably another solar system. If not, we’ll be long gone before any instability vacuum bothers us. Our atoms will be swirling around inside a red giant, so having the protons in those atoms slapped around won’t matter a jot.
There's a very big problem with moving to another solar system. Well, actually two big problems, one physical - we don't have the time to get there - and one moral.

If there is a habitable (by us) planet out there, the speed with which our Earth became inhabited (by any life) suggests that it will already be inhabited by others. We have, perhaps, developed our understanding beyond what was held when the Europeans moved into Africa, America, and Australia, that we are entitled to take others' living space. When I was reading SF back in the 60's, this issue had already raised its head, but it bears repetition.

This place is what we've got. God alone knows what we'll be by the time of the red giant Sun.
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Yorick, I think we're compelled to struggle to make sense of these things.
Isn't it the case that the struggle here is simply to reconcile current scientific understanding with a primitive 'explanation' of things? Surely, it must be very hard to make recent discoveries about the universe 'fit' models of understanding held by our ancestors who were ignorant of scientific fact and perhaps more inclined to mystical and supernatural explanations.

I know this is a tired old discussion, and largely tangential here (I apologise for that), but each time we hear of new scientific knowledge it strikes me that the gulf between what we currently know and what our ancients thought they knew seems to widen. Unless you're good at forcing things straight by strenuous contortion.
It is called the hermeneutical gap. It is something we have to be aware of when reading ancient texts. It is best to understand them in their own terms rather than trying to impose modernist or even post modern paradigms on the authors.

I don’t think it is all that helpful to try and support or interpret apocalyptic prophecy through or with this kind of science either. The contortion might produce an intellectual hernia.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But this thread is not about that, but about the end of this universe in the Second Coming.
Fair enough, yes. Very interesting, too!

Apologies again for tangent.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick
I know this is a tired old discussion, and largely tangential here (I apologise for that), but each time we hear of new scientific knowledge it strikes me that the gulf between what we currently know and what our ancients thought they knew seems to widen. Unless you're good at forcing things straight by strenuous contortion.
For "new scientific knowledge" read: "new scientific speculation"

For "what we currently know" read: "what we currently think we know" or "what we think we have managed to successfully fit into our preconceived philosophy"

'Knowledge', of course, is not defined as "successfully making data fit a preconceived model". We see an example of this presumption in the Wikipedia article about the CMB Cold Spot:

quote:
A controversial claim by Laura Mersini-Houghton is that it could be the imprint of another universe beyond our own, caused by quantum entanglement between universes before they were separated by cosmic inflation.[14] Laura Mersini-Houghton said, "Standard cosmology cannot explain such a giant cosmic hole" and made the remarkable hypothesis that the WMAP cold spot is "… the unmistakable imprint of another universe beyond the edge of our own." If true this provides the first empirical evidence for a parallel universe (though theoretical models of parallel universes existed previously).
So let me get this straight... someone comes up with a highly speculative theory, for which there is no direct empirical evidence. IF TRUE (in other words, if we take a leap of faith and just resort to sheer naked belief in the truth of this hypothesis) then the Cold Spot qualifies as "the first empirical evidence for a parallel universe". So, hey, we now have empirical evidence for a parallel universe!

Sorry to break it to whomever, but this 'logic' only works if all other conceivable* explanations have been irrefutably falsified. A rather tall order, I would suggest, from our little vantage point in the universe.


*And not just conceivable to the limited, finite human mind!
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The ultimate causality of God does not require a spacetime beginning. In practice, the "Big Bang" certainly is more congenial to Christian theology, i.e., another layer of abstraction is required if there is not literal beginning.
Although an eternal universe does avoid the question: 'What did God do before he created the world?'
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
Etymological Evangelical, I do not quite see what you're getting at. Are you claiming that the truth validity of a Bronze Age understanding of the mechanisms of the universe is equal to that of modern science? Or are you suggesting that modern scientific understanding is just as shit as that of the ancients?
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick
Etymological Evangelical, I do not quite see what you're getting at. Are you claiming that the truth validity of a Bronze Age understanding of the mechanisms of the universe is equal to that of modern science?
Not necessarily. But any truth claim - whatever the source - should be supported by facts, not speculation.

quote:
Or are you suggesting that modern scientific understanding is just as shit as that of the ancients?
It depends what you mean by "modern scientific understanding". Is there such a homogeneous thing? (If so, then I never realised that every single qualified scientist agrees with every other scientist on every single truth claim!!)

It all comes down to evidence, and the way that evidence is handled.

"Just as shit as that of the ancients" of course implies that everything the ancients said was wrong. Which is a pretty shitty analysis, I would suggest.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
Nonsense! It implies nothing of the sort.

You appear to be upholding the suggestion that the evidence of pre-scientific understanding is somehow equal in principle to that of current understanding derived from the scientific method. Is that a fair interpretation of your position?
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick
You appear to be upholding the suggestion that the evidence of pre-scientific understanding is somehow equal in principle to that of current understanding derived from the scientific method. Is that a fair interpretation of your position?
No.

I am simply drawing a distinction between 'knowledge' and 'speculation'. Much of what science delivers (especially concerning the deep past and future) is speculative. In fact, how much of it is actually the result of the application of the empirical scientific method, strictly speaking (without any role for philosophical special pleading)?

I am not interested in carving up intellectual history into periods divided by the advent of modern science. This is the delusion of those with a certain dogmatic (and, I would say, quasi-religious) view of progress, in which history ineluctably moves in one direction, namely, towards naturalism (ironic, considering that naturalism has no room for teleology). I am interested in evidence and sound methodology, irrespective of whether the word 'science' is hung on it, or not. The example I gave is not sound methodology, but it would be considered part of "modern science".
 
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
NBC news, quoted by IngoB:
without warning, a bubble of true vacuum could nucleate somewhere in the universe and move outwards at the speed of light
Even if it moved at the speed of light, it'd still need a lot of time to cover the Universe. We only have to worry if it starts somewhere near us. (Hmm, maybe better switch off the LHC? [Biased] )
It's moving at the speed of light. You won't see it until it hits you.
Oh, I don't know. It could be on it's way - try googling "Eridanus supervoid". [Biased]
If we can see it, then it is not expanding at the speed of light.
Actually that was a joke. But in fact if the effect involves quantum entanglement then the speed of light is irrelevant.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
I think the Big Slurp is already happening in my house. It has taken one sock of at least a couple of pairs. And possibly my car keys.

Within the budget of my country, there's probably a Big Slurp going on as well.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
While I have the utmost repect for Laura Mersini-Houghton, and her ability to conceptualise, we are presently saturated with unproveable theories about the origins of space-time. Perhaps we are in a small bubble among infinite bubbles as Laura suggests, or the big bang was the beginning, before which time didn't exist. Or perhaps we are part of a big bounce, of a universe which perpetually expands, contracts, crunches and expands again.

We may never know, because there's a limit to what is observable. The idea that an expanding vacuum may engulf us is just as likely as the rest. As interesting as I find such speculation, and I do, I'm quite happy to trust that the origins of the universe, our place in it and its ultimate destination are part of the Creator's plan, and are thus governed by Divine Providence. I sleep quite easy in that knowledge.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
There's a very big problem with moving to another solar system. Well, actually two big problems, one physical - we don't have the time to get there - and one moral.

If there is a habitable (by us) planet out there, the speed with which our Earth became inhabited (by any life) suggests that it will already be inhabited by others. We have, perhaps, developed our understanding beyond what was held when the Europeans moved into Africa, America, and Australia, that we are entitled to take others' living space. When I was reading SF back in the 60's, this issue had already raised its head, but it bears repetition.

This place is what we've got. God alone knows what we'll be by the time of the red giant Sun.
I accept the technical challenges. It may be that we need to start our paths on multigenerational ships, to get between solar systems.

But I have no truck with the morality issue. It will boil down to stay-here-and-die or move-elsewhere-and-survive. Evolution has built surviving into us, regardless of cost. It’s what we do.

I suspect the prevailing attitude of the people on the ships will be that if others are already there when we arrive then they had better make room for us. Of course those who don’t have this attitude, or want humanity to die out, won’t have boarded the ships in the first place, so they will already be dead.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I suspect the prevailing attitude of the people on the ships will be that if others are already there when we arrive then they had better make room for us.
We could always devote our energies to trying to figure out how to terraform lifeless planets so that they are capable of sustaining us...
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
I suspect the prevailing attitude of the people on the ships will be that if others are already there when we arrive then they had better make room for us.
We could always devote our energies to trying to figure out how to terraform lifeless planets so that they are capable of sustaining us...
Yes, that is a definite alternative, and I suspect that there may be multiple ships, some to lifeless planets to terraform, some to planets suspected of harbouring life, on the basis that if life is already there we can also survive there.

But by definition those with a moral objection to leaving Earth will not get on the ships in the first place, so everyone on the ships will not have those objections. Humanity will proceed on the next stage of its journey without the morality to say “we should not do this”. Only with the morality that “we should do something with minimum impact” or with the morality that “we should do something as expediently as possible”.

I guess for further reference you should consult the Science Fiction section of your local library!
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I know this is a tired old discussion, and largely tangential here (I apologise for that), but each time we hear of new scientific knowledge it strikes me that the gulf between what we currently know and what our ancients thought they knew seems to widen. Unless you're good at forcing things straight by strenuous contortion.
We live in an age where every bit of cosmology that has actual support in real observations and experimental data accords smoothly with traditional Christian views, whereas alternate hypothesis (like the "multiverse") are so incredibly anti-parsimonious as to lead to an Ockhamian splatter-fest as soon as the protective layer of pure ideology is removed.

We live in an age where the physical theory with the undoubtedly best experimental confirmation, quantum theory, has relied for many decades and fundamentally on an complete ad hoc mechanism ("the collapse of the wavefunction") that nobody really understands, but which seems to be tied annoyingly to the presence of very special entities, "observers", us. This, and the general structure of quantum theory, provides ample room for speculations, including religiously motivated ones.

We live in an age where biology is taking over as the lead science from physics. Biologists still can't write a paper without invoking some kind of teleology somewhere, and that's not going to change either. It is hence just a question of time until the ideology of rejecting final causality, which was tied to the mechanistic views from physics, is overcome. Once final causality is back, intellectual atheism will be deprived of its oxygen.

We live in an age where the rapid advances of neuroscience increasingly make Descartes' points about doubting evidence relevant. While Cartesian dualism is dubious (though not proven wrong, as many assume), the gap between the measurements of brain function and the core experiential truth of mental life is if at all growing wider and deeper. Already a honest materialist must declare himself to be an illusion, at which point really only two reactions are possible: point at him and ROTFL, or throw him into a lunatic asylum. Unsurprisingly, the hylemorphic dualism of traditional Christianity fits perfectly fine with all available evidence.

We live in an age where the original Darwinism has died a death of thousand cuts, and the current theory of evolution (if there is anything deserving the name) is some hodgepodge of punctuated equilibria, cross-species genetic vectors, group evolution and distinctly Lamarckian noises about epigenetics. Anyway, whatever the fate of "evolution", it does not actually threaten classical theism. Whether Christianity will get more support from this than the Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve remains to be seen.

We live in an age where Thomism has made a comeback through analytical philosophy and essentialism is becoming increasingly popular again. Furthermore, it has been centuries since proofs of God have been last so vigorously and competently defended. Not only has there been a new lease of life for classical arguments, new ones have emerged as well (probabilistic, grammar based, ...). Finally, post-modernism, where not busy eating itself, has made some valid points about knowledge and interpretation that make it difficult to keep a straight face when listening to scientism-ists. It is to be expected that we will progress beyond Popperian and even Kuhninan simplifications in describing what real scientists actually do.

This is going to be a golden age for Christians, intellectually at least. Atheism is so 20thC.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
I really enjoyed that, IngoB. Bravo!
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Good stuff, IngoB.

I would say that postmodernism can help theism, as it challenges any hegemonic narrative. Now, of course, you can argue that theism was that narrative, but today, it might be seen as naturalism, materialism, and so on.

Thus, pm can help us to say, OK, naturalism and science are instrumentally useful, but who is to say that they are therefore 'true narratives'?

I suppose there is a riposte - who is to say that theism is?

But at any rate, the presumed hegemony of naturalism is looking wobbly.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Whether Christianity will get more support from this than the Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve remains to be seen.
Because it's only tangential to this particular thread (and a DH), I've addressed some of the common creationist misconceptions about those terms in another thread.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
Atheism is so 20thC.
[Overused]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would say that postmodernism can help theism, as it challenges any hegemonic narrative. Now, of course, you can argue that theism was that narrative, but today, it might be seen as naturalism, materialism, and so on.
It's a knife designed to turn in the hand of any claimant to objective truth (or indeed objective reality), no matter how much fun it is to stab other such claimants.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Because it's only tangential to this particular thread (and a DH), I've addressed some of the common creationist misconceptions about those terms in another thread.
Too late mate, the cat's out of the bag now! [Smile]

[Overused] [Overused] [Overused] @IngoB
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Biologists still can't write a paper without invoking some kind of teleology somewhere, and that's not going to change either.
[Confused] [Confused] [Confused]

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
Biologists still can't write a paper without invoking some kind of teleology somewhere, and that's not going to change either.
[Confused] [Confused] [Confused]
The survival agenda, perhaps?

Why would a mere configuration of molecules want to or need to remain or replicate in that particular configuration? To pass on their genes? But why would a totally mindless bunch of molecules give a damn about passing on information?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The survival agenda, perhaps?

Why would a mere configuration of molecules want to or need to remain or replicate in that particular configuration? To pass on their genes? But why would a totally mindless bunch of molecules give a damn about passing on information?
Of course, that could be said of any chemical interaction. Why would methane and oxygen want to recombine to form water and carbon dioxide? The fact that they consistently seem to do so, according to your "reasoning", is evidence that these simple particles are making an active decision to be flammable.

[ 20. February 2013, 20:25: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Of course, that could be said of any chemical interaction. Why would methane and oxygen want to recombine to form water and carbon dioxide? The fact that they consistently seem to do so, according to your "reasoning", is evidence that these simple particles are making an active decision to be flammable.
I suppose that argument would have some merit if the construction of life was somehow inherently imprinted on the laws of physics and chemistry, such that the mere application of those laws would inevitably produce little Croesoses and EEs.

I am sure that even you realise that this is not the case.

We are, of course, straying into Findus Lasagne territory now...
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Of course, that could be said of any chemical interaction. Why would methane and oxygen want to recombine to form water and carbon dioxide? The fact that they consistently seem to do so, according to your "reasoning", is evidence that these simple particles are making an active decision to be flammable.
I suppose that argument would have some merit if the construction of life was somehow inherently imprinted on the laws of physics and chemistry, such that the mere application of those laws would inevitably produce little Croesoses and EEs.
In what ways do the chemical processes involved in life violate the laws of physics and chemistry? You seem to be arguing that photosynthesis or mitosis, to pick two examples, are impossible without resorting to "magic" as an explanation.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
In what ways do the chemical processes involved in life violate the laws of physics and chemistry?
I didn't say that, and you know it!

There is a world of difference between saying that living systems are not the inevitable consequence of the laws of physics and chemistry and saying that processes within living systems violate those laws.

You have distorted many of my comments over the last few years, and this is a prime example.

As for magic... I don't know what the hell you are talking about!

[ 20. February 2013, 21:09: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
In what ways do the chemical processes involved in life violate the laws of physics and chemistry? You seem to be arguing that photosynthesis or mitosis, to pick two examples, are impossible without resorting to "magic" as an explanation.
I didn't say that, and you know it!
Ahem.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Why would a mere configuration of molecules want to or need to remain or replicate in that particular configuration? To pass on their genes? But why would a totally mindless bunch of molecules give a damn about passing on information?
Your very first sentence there sounds like a very clear description of mitosis. So why does a bacterium "want to or need to remain or replicate in that particular configuration"? This implies a lot more cognition than most would grant an E. coli. And how does that violate "the laws of physics and chemistry", as you claim?
 
Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
We live in an age where every bit of cosmology that has actual support in real observations and experimental data accords smoothly with traditional Christian views,

Traditional Christian views like geocentrism?
There are many Christian groups in the US that are completely opposed to the Big Bang.
There are even self professed catholic faithful that don't even like heliocentrism.
"Scripture Catholic"

Relevant quote:

quote:
I am a faithful Catholic, not a scientist. I am obedient to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. When presented with a question of faith (such as how God created the universe), I look to the Scriptures, the Tradition and the teachings of the Catholic Church for the answer. I do not rely upon modern scientists who have been unable to prove heliocentrism and disprove geocentrism, especially those who deny the inerrancy of Scripture and generally abhor the Catholic faith.
I'm not claiming that you are one of those of course. Just questioning how "traditional" the acceptance of modern cosmology is for Christians.
And what (if any) scriptural basis it has.

And about those modern teleologic biologists I seriously doubt it. A relevant quote would be good. And it should be them really being teleologic instead of them making sloppy use of
language.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Your very first sentence there sounds like a very clear description of mitosis. So why does a bacterium "want to or need to remain or replicate in that particular configuration"? This implies a lot more cognition than most would grant an E. coli. And how does that violate "the laws of physics and chemistry", as you claim?
I repeat: I did NOT say - or even imply - that this violates the laws of physics and chemistry. So why are you claiming that I said this?

The question under discussion is teleology, and how biologists (philosophical naturalists or otherwise) read teleology into their discipline. You are looking at a bacterium and observing its processes and thereby assuming that the appearance of purpose is merely that: appearance. You observe that there are various laws at work in mitosis, for example, and since these laws are part of nature, and they appear to work perfectly adequately, there is no need to assume any purpose in their operation.

But this is not what I am talking about. I am not looking at life as a kind of biological fait accompli, but rather looking at the laws which are claimed to be the sole creator of life, and I see that there is nothing in those laws which determine or cause any kind of survival instinct, such that any organism would have any drive to reproduce. But this teleological factor is constantly assumed to be intrinsic to the natural world. To suggest that, because it exists, and because the processes of reproduction and replication can be studied and observed, it must be something entirely material, is begging the question.

We see purpose in nature, although nature is purposeless. Therefore logic tells us that some other factor has ordered matter - according to its laws (and not in violation of its laws) - to provide this purpose. Unfortunately you call this 'magic', which is just a typical "New Atheist" cheap shot, that contributes nothing sensible to the discussion. Intelligence is not magic; in fact, it's the very antithesis of magic! Achieving complex operations without the role and process of intelligence is what magic is all about. The naturalistic explanation for the emergence of life is certainly 'magic', for this reason.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would say that postmodernism can help theism, as it challenges any hegemonic narrative. Now, of course, you can argue that theism was that narrative, but today, it might be seen as naturalism, materialism, and so on.
It's a knife designed to turn in the hand of any claimant to objective truth (or indeed objective reality), no matter how much fun it is to stab other such claimants.
Objective truth? Wow, do people still talk about that? That's so 20th century, dude.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Your very first sentence there sounds like a very clear description of mitosis. So why does a bacterium "want to or need to remain or replicate in that particular configuration"? This implies a lot more cognition than most would grant an E. coli. And how does that violate "the laws of physics and chemistry", as you claim?
I repeat: I did NOT say - or even imply - that this violates the laws of physics and chemistry. So why are you claiming that I said this?
1) I made the point that your assertion that chemical reactions require some act of volition on the part of the molecules to take place is equally applicable to inorganic chemistry.

2) You then responded that life was some kind of exception to "the laws of physics and chemistry". You were rather vague about what principles were involved if those don't apply.

So, once again, if molecules can interact without having wants or needs, why do you imply otherwise? Contrariwise, if they're conscious actors then why do they always seem to make the same decision? Aren't there any rogue oxygen atoms out there who simply decide one day "No, I don't think I'll engage in electron exchange after all"?

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I am not looking at life as a kind of biological fait accompli, but rather looking at the laws which are claimed to be the sole creator of life, and I see that there is nothing in those laws which determine or cause any kind of survival instinct, such that any organism would have any drive to reproduce.
So are you or aren't you arguing that mitosis is an unnatural act that couldn't be accomplished within the bounds of physics and chemistry? You seem to be arguing that there's no way a prokaryote could possibly reproduce by binary fission ("I see that there is nothing in those laws which determine or cause any kind of survival instinct, such that any organism would have any drive to reproduce"). And yet bacteria reproduce, apparently without any particular "drive" (or any other underlying thought process). Yet when I point this out you get all huffy. Which is it?

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But this teleological factor is constantly assumed to be intrinsic to the natural world. To suggest that, because it exists, and because the processes of reproduction and replication can be studied and observed, it must be something entirely material, is begging the question.
Not question begging, a question that doesn't need to be asked. Yes, you can postulate that there are unseen intellects manipulating all physical interactions, but if they're consistent and never vary why bother with the hypothesis? I'm not sure there's a way to distinguish between water flowing downhill because of gravitational attraction, water choosing to flow downhill because it's a conscious entity, or water flowing downhill because Mighty Poseidon is gathering it to his bosom. If there's no way to convince Poseidon or the water entity to behave differently, it's essentially irrelevant.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Achieving complex operations without the role and process of intelligence is what magic is all about. The naturalistic explanation for the emergence of life is certainly 'magic', for this reason.
Which only begs the question of what counts as "complex operations"? For example, taking a scattered drift of atoms in space, compressing them into a single body, and sorting them by density would seem to be a somewhat "complex" operation, but gravity and buoyancy working together will do that.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Biologists still can't write a paper without invoking some kind of teleology somewhere, and that's not going to change either.
[Confused] [Confused] [Confused]
What are you confused about? Biological matter is all about function and purpose - thus teleology, final causality. You breathe to get oxygen into your body. You mate to have offspring. The astrocytes in your brain recycle glutamate so that your synapses can fire again. Etc. I don't mean anything specific or special, really. It's just that biology is the biggest reverse-engineering operation ever. All sciences have a descriptive part, the listing up of evidence in support. But then in physics you ask "What are the laws that govern this?" whereas in biology you ask "What is that good for?" You can viably forget about final causality in physics, for a while at least, but in biology it dogs your every step. Perhaps that is as good a definition of "life" as any: matter that has intrinsic purpose.

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Traditional Christian views like geocentrism?
There are many Christian groups in the US that are completely opposed to the Big Bang.
There are even self professed catholic faithful that don't even like heliocentrism.
But you are simply reversing what I said. I did not say that all "traditional" (better: historical) Christian beliefs are compatible with modern, evidence-based cosmology. I said that all modern, evidence-based cosmology is compatible with traditional (not every historical) Christian belief. That's quite a different statement. Already St Augustine famously complained about some Catholic brethren whose literalistic interpretation of scripture exposed the faith to ridicule. Why should that be otherwise these days? And I've no particular intention to defend random American Protestants. I'm willing to believe that they got their baptismal formula right, beyond that I would have to judge on a case-by-case basis - and I have better things to do than to bother with that.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Traditional Christian views like geocentrism?
There are many Christian groups in the US that are completely opposed to the Big Bang.
There are even self professed catholic faithful that don't even like heliocentrism.
But you are simply reversing what I said. I did not say that all "traditional" (better: historical) Christian beliefs are compatible with modern, evidence-based cosmology. I said that all modern, evidence-based cosmology is compatible with traditional (not every historical) Christian belief.
Hey if heliocentrism was heretical enough to automatically get any book advocating it placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum for several centuries, that seems like a pretty strong tradition of geocentrism. This seems to be one of those cases where you're using a non-traditional definition of "traditional".

Very "meta" of you!
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Hey if heliocentrism was heretical enough to automatically get any book advocating it placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum for several centuries, that seems like a pretty strong tradition of geocentrism. This seems to be one of those cases where you're using a non-traditional definition of "traditional". Very "meta" of you!
Simplistic hagiographies of Gallilei's scientific martyrdom do not really get us any further... Anyway, indeed, Catholic tradition is rather "meta". Because it is very much a living tradition, it is not simply an accumulation of history. You probably did some things as teenager that you are not proud of now. And then you grew up. How very "meta" of you.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Hey if heliocentrism was heretical enough to automatically get any book advocating it placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum for several centuries, that seems like a pretty strong tradition of geocentrism.
Simplistic hagiographies of Gallilei's scientific martyrdom do not really get us any further...
I wasn't talking about just Galileo. Copernicus, Kepler, and anyone else who advocated heliocentrism prior to 1758 was put on the Index. A single instance can be explained away as a quirk. A blanket prohibition lasting centuries is a tradition.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Anyway, indeed, Catholic tradition is rather "meta". Because it is very much a living tradition, it is not simply an accumulation of history. You probably did some things as teenager that you are not proud of now. And then you grew up. How very "meta" of you.
Which just goes to show how malleable and useless a descriptor like "traditional" can be.

[ 21. February 2013, 02:04: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Already St Augustine famously complained about some Catholic brethren whose literalistic interpretation of scripture exposed the faith to ridicule.
It could be argued that ignoring St. Augustine's fairly sound advice against using scripture as a model of the physical world is itself a Christian tradition.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I wasn't talking about just Galileo. Copernicus, Kepler, and anyone else who advocated heliocentrism prior to 1758 was put on the Index. A single instance can be explained away as a quirk. A blanket prohibition lasting centuries is a tradition.
If you are an arrogant Italian scientist with zero social skills but a deep hunger for fame, then majorly pissing off a Renaissance pope through personal insult may backfire not only on you. Should a Renaissance pope know and do better than taking time of his military conquests to launch an academic vendetta? Sure. Let's just agree that Renaissance popes are not generally known for their prudent, much less inspired, use of the office of St Peter. But beyond that it is just one of those ironies of history that this gets all the bad press hundreds of years later. Renaissance popes honestly did a lot worse than that, but since those misdeeds are neither useful in current culture wars nor for canonizing a secular saint, nobody really gives a damn...

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Which just goes to show how malleable and useless a descriptor like "traditional" can be.
I'll remind you of this claim the next time you complain about unbending Catholic tradition. As I've said, the best analogy is to a living being. You are quite malleable in many ways, but not so much in others. For example, it will take some doing to free you from the atheism that clouds your mind. And in other ways you are not malleable at all. For example, ripping out your spine is not a change that you would survive. (Well, literally speaking...) So it is with the Church. There is a very differentiated spectrum of traditions, from basically arbitrary and highly changeable to very specific and solid for the ages.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
What are you confused about? Biological matter is all about function and purpose - thus teleology, final causality. You breathe to get oxygen into your body. You mate to have offspring.
But that's not what teleology means. Doing something for a reason isn't teleological. For example, I may strive to have a President among my descendants. That may be my purpose. However, teleology is a very odd thing, in which the future President strives to get born. The goal itself is directing events. Natural selection simply made the whole notion of teleology outmoded. Confusing teleology with purpose is just bizarrely ignorant, and completely unexpected from you.

--Tom Clune

[ 21. February 2013, 11:18: Message edited by: tclune ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
NBC news, quoted by IngoB:
without warning, a bubble of true vacuum could nucleate somewhere in the universe and move outwards at the speed of light
Even if it moved at the speed of light, it'd still need a lot of time to cover the Universe. We only have to worry if it starts somewhere near us. (Hmm, maybe better switch off the LHC? [Biased] )
It's moving at the speed of light. You won't see it until it hits you.
The Xi Effect by Philip Latham, in Analog magzine in 1950. (or was it still called Astounding then?)
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
We see purpose in nature, although nature is purposeless.
Says who? When a cat hunts a mouse it wants to catch the muse. In what way is that not a purpose?

quote:

Therefore logic tells us that some other factor has ordered matter - according to its laws (and not in violation of its laws) - to provide this purpose.
No, it really doesn't.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
But that's not what teleology means. Doing something for a reason isn't teleological. For example, I may strive to have a President among my descendants. That may be my purpose. However, teleology is a very odd thing, in which the future President strives to get born.
This is incorrect. A telos is a purpose. Teleology is explanation by purpose.
It may be that people invoking teleology infrequently or frequently make the mistake of thinking of teleology as excluding efficient causation or as efficient causation backwards in time, i.e. the future President's birth causing his ancestors' behaviour. But that mistake isn't inherent in the concept.
The concept may be problematic. But if the concept is problematic at all, then the problems arise even with respect to IngoB's examples of mating or breathing. (None of the cells in the diaphragm are thinking about the need to breathe.) (The claim that the purpose of mating is having offspring is fundamental to the more controversial parts of Catholic sexual ethics.)

[ 21. February 2013, 12:50: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Confusing teleology with purpose is just bizarrely ignorant, and completely unexpected from you.
This definition from the Encyclopædia Britannica will do in response:
quote:
teleology, (from Greek telos, “end”; logos, “reason”), explanation by reference to some purpose or end; also described as final causality, in contrast with explanation by efficient causes only. Human conduct, insofar as it is rational, is generally explained with reference to ends pursued or alleged to be pursued; and human thought tends to explain the behaviour of other things in nature on this analogy, either as of themselves pursuing ends, or as designed to fulfill a purpose devised by a mind transcending nature. The most celebrated account of teleology was that given by Aristotle when he declared that a full explanation of anything must consider not only the material, the formal, and the efficient causes, but also the final cause — the purpose for which the thing exists or was produced.

 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Confusing teleology with purpose is just bizarrely ignorant, and completely unexpected from you.
This definition from the Encyclopædia Britannica will do in response:
quote:
teleology, (from Greek telos, “end”; logos, “reason”), explanation by reference to some purpose or end; also described as final causality, in contrast with explanation by efficient causes only. Human conduct, insofar as it is rational, is generally explained with reference to ends pursued or alleged to be pursued; and human thought tends to explain the behaviour of other things in nature on this analogy, either as of themselves pursuing ends, or as designed to fulfill a purpose devised by a mind transcending nature. The most celebrated account of teleology was that given by Aristotle when he declared that a full explanation of anything must consider not only the material, the formal, and the efficient causes, but also the final cause — the purpose for which the thing exists or was produced.
That certainly wasn't the notion when I was a grad student studying metaphysics. But, if we assume that the encyclopedia has it right, we are left with the odd notion that you were claiming that biology was doing something anti-scientific in saying that animate beings act for a purpose. Why is that some kind of terrible flaw in biology?

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you are an arrogant Italian scientist with zero social skills but a deep hunger for fame, then majorly pissing off a Renaissance pope through personal insult may backfire not only on you.
Or an ambitious German scientist, or a Polish polymath, or just anyone who wanted to work in cutting-edge astronomy. Banning a whole field of study for centuries seems like a lot more than a fit of pique by a single pope. Carrying on an active policy of widespread censorship for that long takes dedication at an institutional level.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But beyond that it is just one of those ironies of history that this gets all the bad press hundreds of years later. Renaissance popes honestly did a lot worse than that, but since those misdeeds are neither useful in current culture wars nor for canonizing a secular saint, nobody really gives a damn...
I've never been a big fan of the "Y is a bigger problem than X, so shut up about X" argument. It's usually an attempt to silence any discussion of X rather than an effort to truly examine Y. In the current context, going off on a long discussion about the various misdeeds of Renaissance popes would be breaking Purg rule #3, but if you feel the need to discuss the particulars of papal misdeeds of the mid-second-millennium outside those relevant to science, feel free to start a thread doing so.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
That certainly wasn't the notion when I was a grad student studying metaphysics.
Frankly, either you misunderstood badly or your course was shit. My usage really is bog standard, as a quick google will show you; and I have no idea how one can possibly teach metaphysics without at least touching on Aristotle, and how one can touch on Aristotelian metaphysics without discussing his Four Causes, which famously include final causality.

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
But, if we assume that the encyclopedia has it right, we are left with the odd notion that you were claiming that biology was doing something anti-scientific in saying that animate beings act for a purpose. Why is that some kind of terrible flaw in biology?
Say what? [Confused]

Biology without teleology simply does not work well, or at all. It is good and proper for biology to talk about the functions, goals, ends, purposes of living matter. Thus even though biologists sometimes pay lip service to the lead of physics, which largely ignores final causes currently, they themselves have never really been able to do it in practice. Now that biology is rapidly becoming the lead science itself, they will become more confident in asserting what is natural to their science. Then the wider scientific enterprise will finally start to heal from the conceptual castration of chopping off final causes, by following the lead of biology. This is in my opinion entirely pro-science, indeed potentially even a good thing for physics. And if we do need final causality for viable descriptions of nature, as I believe we do, then atheism faces severe conceptual challenges, whereas theism is sitting pretty. That was my actual point.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Biology without teleology simply does not work well, or at all. It is good and proper for biology to talk about the functions, goals, ends, purposes of living matter. Thus even though biologists sometimes pay lip service to the lead of physics, which largely ignores final causes currently, they themselves have never really been able to do it in practice.
I'm not sure you can equate function and purpose in the way you're doing. I'm also not sure your distinction between biology and physics is valid. If the "goal" of a prokaryote is subdivide, why isn't this also a "goal" for a uranium atom? I'd argue both entities have about the same level of decision-making ability.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm also not sure your distinction between biology and physics is valid. If the "goal" of a prokaryote is subdivide, why isn't this also a "goal" for a uranium atom? I'd argue both entities have about the same level of decision-making ability.
The distinction I've drawn is one of fact, this is simply how matters stand. Physics usually is not argued in a teleological way, biology rarely manages to avoid that. But I totally agree with your comments attacking this status quo, and about the way it must be resolved. Indeed, it is not biology which must yield, but physics. While it may not particularly contribute to physical understanding in most instances, intellectual coherence across disciplines requires that we at least accept as a valid the statement that it is an end of the uranium nucleus to split. And you are also correct to point out that the sort of goals, purposes and ends we are talking about here do not generally flow from any kind of conscious "decision", at least not from a decision made by the entities in question themselves.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
We see purpose in nature, although nature is purposeless.
Says who? When a cat hunts a mouse it wants to catch the muse. In what way is that not a purpose?
It is indeed a purpose, but it would not be the case within an entirely materialistic paradigm. A configuration of molecules (the cat) interacting with (hunting) another configuration of molecules (the mouse), according to deterministic laws, is simply that. An observer could impute purpose to this activity by saying that the cat needed to eat the mouse, in order to stay alive, but that says more about the observer than the observed. But why would a totally blind and mindless configuration of molecules (the cat) have any desire or purpose to remain in that particular configuration (i.e. remain alive)?

The cat's survival instinct may not involve any 'desire' or 'will' on its part, but that instinct has come from somewhere. We assume that it is better for the cat to survive than not to survive. But why? If all life can be reduced to mere chemical reactions, then why would life be preferable to death? Why would one particular blind and mindless configuration of molecules (life) be considered 'preferable' to another configuration (death)? Within the naturalistic paradigm, I can't see how one configuration of molecules is any better than any other. It just is. Period.

It's a bit like the argument about passing on your genes, as if genes were little sentient creatures with will and consciousness. It's just information. It makes no difference to that blind information whether it is passed on or not. It's a bit like expecting a book to have some desire or instinct to be reprinted.

quote:
quote:
Therefore logic tells us that some other factor has ordered matter - according to its laws (and not in violation of its laws) - to provide this purpose.
No, it really doesn't.
Therefore the survival instinct is a delusion, because it makes no sense within a paradigm that lacks purpose. In fact, this survival instinct can't even be justified with reference to utility, because for many creatures life is brutal. Death is a release from brutality. The only logical explanation for this instinct is that it was deliberately built into living systems by some agent transcending matter, because it cannot be found in the laws of physics and chemistry.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Erm - no. Individuals with a strong survival instinct are likely to live longer. Therefore have more offspring. Therefore they will be favoured by natural selection. The mouse that looks around and says "What's the point? Life is meangingless!" gets eaten before it makes little mice.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
While it may not particularly contribute to physical understanding in most instances, intellectual coherence across disciplines requires that we at least accept as a valid the statement that it is an end of the uranium nucleus to split.
I'm not sure that taking every physical action as part of some predetermined plan can really tell us anything. For example, if a comet follows an elliptical orbit around the sun, then we conclude that its "purpose" is to follow an elliptical orbit around the sun. If at some point it passes too close to Jupiter and gets ejected from the solar system (or absorbed by Jupiter) then its "purpose" is redefined as either "traveling the interstellar void" or "being part of Jupiter". Making a post facto equation of observed behavior with pre-planned goal tells us nothing.

[Edited to delete superfluous apostrophe]

[ 21. February 2013, 15:42: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
Erm - no. Individuals with a strong survival instinct are likely to live longer. Therefore have more offspring. Therefore they will be favoured by natural selection. The mouse that looks around and says "What's the point? Life is meangingless!" gets eaten before it makes little mice.
I can't quite see the point of the "Erm - no". What you have said doesn't refute my points, because I was questioning the naturalistic (materialistic) basis of the survival instinct. You have just assumed that it can exist within an entirely materialistic paradigm. Why would the mouse want to make little mice? Why would it have any instinct to make little mice? It and its offspring are just bundles of atoms. Why would one inherently blind and mindless bundle of atoms feel any need to cause other atoms to be 'bundled' in a certain way?

What you have written is just a prime example of the point IngoB made: biologists (professional or amateur) cannot help speaking in teleological terms. One could almost say that biologists have a "teleological instinct"!
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
The mouse doesn't have to want to. It doesn't need any reason to do so. In fact, I doubt greatly if the mouse knows what it's doing when it does the necessary to make little mice. The simple fact is that if it does, then it will have descendants who also have the urge to make little mice.

By "survival instinct", we mean nothing more than "an inherited set of behaviours which favour survival". Nothing more. No yearning on the part of the organism.

[ 21. February 2013, 15:52: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
The mouse doesn't have to want to. It doesn't need any reason to do so. The simple fact is that if it does, then it will have descendants who also have the urge to make little mice.
And I am trying to explain where this urge comes from, because materialism doesn't explain it.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Why would it have any instinct to make little mice?
Because millenia of natural selection have killed off all the mice that DIDN'T have the instinct to make lots of little mice, leaving only the ones that do. This is Evolution 101 and going to get us booted downstairs.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And I am trying to explain where this urge comes from, because materialism doesn't explain it.
And "God made us that way" does? Can you suggest anything that this kind of "explanation" couldn't explain equally well?

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
The mouse doesn't have to want to. It doesn't need any reason to do so. The simple fact is that if it does, then it will have descendants who also have the urge to make little mice.
And I am trying to explain where this urge comes from, because materialism doesn't explain it.
Well, the urge in mice comes from whatever their ancestors were, because if they'd lacked that urge, then there wouldn't be any descendants.

The organisms that exist today are those whose ancestors' behaviour patterns most favoured survival and procreation. And that's all these urges and instincts are - sets of behaviours. As rational beings, we humans add meaning to it, but the behaviours existed long before we had the mental furniture to add meaning. Don't be confused by the term "urge"; it's not like mice sit wondering about their place in history and the furtherance of their line. Nor are they thinking "better run or I'll get ate and that'd be bad". They are programmed by their evolution to run away from cats and do the appropriate jiggy things with mice of the opposite sex.

So ask not "where does the urge come from?", but rather "where do these sets of behaviours come from?" and of course the answer is that they have evolved over millions of years along with sexual reproduction.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
As rational beings, we humans add meaning to it, but the behaviours existed long before we had the mental furniture to add meaning.
Actually what you mean is: "as beings preprogrammed by evolution with a certain set of instincts that we think are rational, we - ultimately mindless configurations of molecules known as humans - add delusion to it."

Which actually, of course, means that neither of us is right or wrong, because we are each just behaving as our instincts dictate.

So why are we even having this discussion?

This teleological meaning which we bundles of atoms give to certain observations in the natural world, is just a delusion, according to the philosophy of naturalism. So why do we do it? Why do we act in ways which contravene the source of our entire being (namely, nature)?

I would suggest that the answer has something to do with the fact that we are not just "of nature".

The one consistent fact about sane human thought is that it is in unrelenting rebellion against the stark implications of naturalism.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Why would the mouse want to make little mice? Why would it have any instinct to make little mice? It and its offspring are just bundles of atoms. Why would one inherently blind and mindless bundle of atoms feel any need to cause other atoms to be 'bundled' in a certain way?
Are we back to your claim that mitosis is impossible without the interference of a conscious entity? Why, indeed, would a prokaryote want to split into two prokaryotes? You seem to take this lack of decision-making capability on the part of a single-celled organism to be proof positive that there's no possible way it could reproduce itself (or do anything else, for that matter) without a divine puppetmaster pulling it's microscopic strings.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Are we back to your claim that mitosis is impossible without the interference of a conscious entity?
Interference?

Yeah, and I can't drive my Fiat without the 'interference' of its manufacturers!

Good one, Croesos.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It is indeed a purpose, but it would not be the case within an entirely materialistic paradigm. A configuration of molecules (the cat) interacting with (hunting) another configuration of molecules (the mouse), according to deterministic laws, is simply that. .
I'm sorry but this does not make sense. Its like some weird kind of anti-materialist Gnosticism. Why do you think that being made of molecules stop you having purposes?

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Why would the mouse want to make little mice? Why would it have any instinct to make little mice?
What Karl and Mousethief said. Its kind of obvious. You have not yet explained what you don't understand about what seems to me to be a very simple set of ideas.

quote:
It and its offspring are just bundles of atoms. Why would one inherently blind and mindless bundle of atoms feel any need to cause other atoms to be 'bundled' in a certain way?
What have you got against atoms?

And a mouse is not a "blind and mindless bundle of atoms". Outside the well-known song they mostly aren't blind. And they have minds. Even if not very big ones. Their minds, like yours, are made of things. Made of electrochemical things in nerves which are made of cells which are made of all sorts of complicated gubbins which are made of molecules which are made of atoms. Just like you and me.

Why do you think that its impossible to make things that think and have purpose out atoms? What would you rather God had made us out of instead?
 
Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :
 
There seems to be an argument that “scientimists” start by assuming there is no God. And explain everything from that point of view. That is very far from the truth. If you look at the history of science, most fields especially Biology started with the total opposite assumption. God was taken for granted.
It was long exposure with the actual facts on the ground that made teleological non-Naturalist accounts less and less useful as an explanation. But it takes longer to change our language than the main drift of our ideas.
quote:
From: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Teleology in Biology
Teleological notions were commonly associated with the pre-Darwinian view that the biological realm provides evidence of conscious design by a supernatural creator. Even after creationist viewpoints were rejected by most biologists there remained various grounds for concern about the role of teleology in biology, including whether such terms are:
1. vitalistic (positing some special "life-force");
2. requiring backwards causation (because future outcomes explain present traits);
3. incompatible with mechanistic explanation (because of 1 and 2);
4. mentalistic (attributing the action of mind where there is none);
5. empirically untestable (for all the above reasons).
Opinions divide over whether Darwin's theory of evolution provides a means of eliminating teleology from biology, or whether it provides a naturalistic account of the role of teleological notions in the science. Many contemporary biologists and philosophers of biology believe that teleological notions are a distinctive and ineliminable feature of biological explanations but that it is possible to provide a naturalistic account of their role that avoids the concerns above. Terminological issues sometimes serve to obscure some widely-accepted distinctions
Life was really simple for the first 3 billion years or so. The Biomass of Archaea and Bacteria is estimated to still exceed that of all other living creatures put together. More complex life arose only around 500 million years ago and Humans have been around only a fraction of that.
If there is a “purpose” to life on Earth the development of beings like us does not seem to have been a top priority. Facts like these are not going away anytime soon. Biology is not about to bring back Lamarck either.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken
What would you rather God had made us out of instead?
I was, of course, criticising the materialistic (reductionist) view of reality, which you have denied with the last sentence of your post.

So, I'm not quite sure how to answer you.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It is indeed a purpose, but it would not be the case within an entirely materialistic paradigm. A configuration of molecules (the cat) interacting with (hunting) another configuration of molecules (the mouse), according to deterministic laws, is simply that. .
I'm sorry but this does not make sense. Its like some weird kind of anti-materialist Gnosticism. Why do you think that being made of molecules stop you having purposes?
It's more like a molecular-level animism. The position seems to be that methane and oxygen recombine into water and carbon monoxide because that's what the parent molecules want, not due the material nature of the molecules involved. Or in the words of EE, "[w]hy would one inherently blind and mindless bundle of atoms feel any need to cause other atoms to be 'bundled' in a certain way?"
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure that taking every physical action as part of some predetermined plan can really tell us anything. For example, if a comet follows an elliptical orbit around the sun, then we conclude that its "purpose" is to follow an elliptical orbit around the sun. If at some point it passes too close to Jupiter and gets ejected from the solar system (or absorbed by Jupiter) then its "purpose" is redefined as either "traveling the interstellar void" or "being part of Jupiter". Making a post facto equation of observed behavior with pre-planned goal tells us nothing.
Except that's not really how it works. There purpose of the comet in these cases is more something like minimizing its action, from which one can reconstruct the theory of gravity in general and the comet's actual flight path in particular. There are of course good reasons why physics is not talking ends, goals and purposes much. Given the sort of things physicists usually study, these ends, goals and purposes tend to be stereotypical and conveniently described by mathematical relationships. Natural laws are in that sense a kind of meta-description of the particularly simple ends, goals and purposes of inanimate matter. And it is unsurprising that at some point it is these "practical" results that became the exclusive focus of interest.

The difference between biology and physics is more or less that it is usually not simpler but much harder or practically impossible to step beyond the first human cognitive evaluation in biology. If I say "(part of) the purpose of the comet is to draw as near to massive objects as its speed allows" then I have a kind of cognitive first evaluation of my observations. But then I can make that highly precise and end up with either a gravitational Lagrangian (see above) or with a law of gravity, and with a flight path prediction. And in the process I sort of get away from the comet (even though I may be computing its flight path), because it's not just the comet that does this sort of thing. But if I say "(part of) the purpose of lungs is to bring oxygen into the bloodstream while removing carbon dioxide from it", then that is about as good as it gets. Of course I can go into considerable more detail, but there is not this sudden simplification which somehow can reduce my initial evaluation to a general mathematical formula. The purpose of lungs is basically that. Furthermore, I cannot really shake the specificity. OK, "lungs" is a pretty general term, but its not like this is also the purpose of "livers", or for that matter "cows".
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
It's more like a molecular-level animism. The position seems to be that methane and oxygen recombine into water and carbon monoxide because that's what the parent molecules want, not due the material nature of the molecules involved. Or in the words of EE, "[w]hy would one inherently blind and mindless bundle of atoms feel any need to cause other atoms to be 'bundled' in a certain way?"
*sigh*

I've already explained my position, but you have a track record of distorting my words, to the point where all I can say is: carry on twisting my comments to your heart's content, because there is nothing I can do to stop you.

You are utterly determined to confuse intelligence and magic, manufacture and interference and you insist on conflating effects, which flow naturally from the inherent information within the laws of physics and chemistry, with the operation of complex systems which cannot result from those laws alone.

What can I say? Carry on sticking your bayonet into your straw man.
 
Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :
 
cross-posted with EE.
Can General Relativity be derived from the principle of least action?
But that is beside the point.
The "laws" of Physics are a mathematical description
of patterns in nature. And as such they are good
until they no longer match our ever more precise observations.
But already by calling them laws we are imposing
our human ideas on what is observed.
Just because our brains are very good at assigning purpose and stories to things. That does not mean that the "purpose" is there in nature.

[ 21. February 2013, 17:51: Message edited by: Ikkyu ]
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
It was long exposure with the actual facts on the ground that made teleological non-Naturalist accounts less and less useful as an explanation.
The operative weasel word in your statement is "non-naturalist". The simple fact is that teleological accounts remain the bread and butter of biology, as the article you quote points out correctly:
quote:
Many contemporary biologists and philosophers of biology believe that teleological notions are a distinctive and ineliminable feature of biological explanations but that it is possible to provide a naturalistic account of their role that avoids the concerns above.
I have the impression that such naturalistic accounts, if attempted at all, usually consist in vague hand-waving in the general direction of evolution. So they say that we have lungs because our ancestors who developed them somehow ended up having more offspring (presumably by escaping the competition in water, or something). That's probably right, of course, but annoyingly postdictive. Evolution tends to be used as this "hindsight is 20/20" theory which explains everything and hence nothing. What does evolution predict as the next large mammalian species to emerge in the wild? What does evolution predict as the key characteristics that will set the next species of human - our descendants - apart from us?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
I think there is a bit of confusion here between different levels of explanation.

The kind of teleology that evolutionary biologists say they don't do is explanation from ultimate purposes, or explaining past events from future ones. So we don't say that green plants moved on to land in order that trees might one day evolve. Put that bluntly it seems obvious, but there has been an awful lot of fluffy handwaving language used about onward and upward thrusting tendencies, especially in human evolution. It was a special feature of 19th century German evolutionary biology - people like Haeckel and many lesser biologists went overboard with it. Leading others too go to far the other way - Virchow was so concerned to get rid of mysticism and race theory he couldn't quite bring himself the believe in a lot of quite sensible stuff.


quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So they say that we have lungs because our ancestors who developed them somehow ended up having more offspring (presumably by escaping the competition in water, or something). That's probably right, of course, but annoyingly postdictive.
Why annoying? Its pretty obviously true. This is Natural Hoistory, not Natural Philosophy. A scientific account of contingent events that might have turned out differently.

quote:

What does evolution predict as the next large mammalian species to emerge in the wild?
A good example of a kind of question biology isn't about answering! And of course a question that is almost certainly impossible to answer.

There are other questions that might be answerable. In some ways the fundamental quesiton of biology - at least the fundamental quesiton of ecology and evolution - is: "Why are there so many kinds of living things?" There are vast numbers of answers and we're nowhere near agreement, Another good one is "Why do most species have sex?". No one clear answer - and of course the truth might be that there is no one clear answer, events have multiple and complex causes, and the history of how we got here is very very long and very very winding.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Evolution tends to be used as this "hindsight is 20/20" theory which explains everything and hence nothing. What does evolution predict as the next large mammalian species to emerge in the wild? What does evolution predict as the key characteristics that will set the next species of human - our descendants - apart from us?
How long before pigweed adapts to this pesticide? The only folks who acted surprised when this happened worked for Monsanto, and it's not entirely clear that their official position wasn't dictated by marketing. Why doesn't this count as a prediction?
 
Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :
 
A brief look at Talk Origins yields:
Darwin predicted that human ancestors arose in Africa due to our similarities with African Apes
among several other examples.
Evolution has been used to make predictions
and passed such tests many times. For example
our modern understanding of genetics could have easily disproven Evolution but is now one of the best arguments for it.
But instead of continuing on the DH path lets go back to Teleology. To agree with Ken. Fish did not leave water and become land dwelling animals with the purpose of making humans. Giraffes did not decide one day that their neck would grow long because they wanted to reach higher branches.
Any "purpose" we see in those things is man made.

[ 21. February 2013, 19:46: Message edited by: Ikkyu ]
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
After some backstage discussion, we think the turn towards a debate about evolution and creation merits this thread's move to a place with more pasture. Hold onto your bridles !

Doublethink
Purgatory Host
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Why would it have any instinct to make little mice?
Because millenia of natural selection have killed off all the mice that DIDN'T have the instinct to make lots of little mice, leaving only the ones that do.
I think your post unwittingly reveals where so much misunderstanding about evolution arises, when you say that millennia of NS have killed off all the unsuccessful mice. Life has been evolving on this planet for about 3.6 billion years. Milennia hardly even register on this scale of time, proportionately speaking. 3.6 millennia are only one millionth of this total period. If you live for seventy years, a millionth of your life amounts to just over half an hour.

It is the sheer staggering power of so much time that drives evolutionary process, and I reckon it is their failure to appreciate this that makes some people struggle intuitively to understand evolution, and imagine instead that complex biology must therefore have design purpose.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Sadly there's no single word that means "millions and millions of years" the way "millenia" means "thousands and thousands of years" -- let alone one as mellifluous as "millenia."
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
It is the sheer staggering power of so much time that drives evolutionary process, and I reckon it is their failure to appreciate this that makes some people struggle intuitively to understand evolution, and imagine instead that complex biology must therefore have design purpose.
While your point is well-taken, it is worth mentioning the concept of punctuated equilibrium. Opening up an ecological niche seems to do wonders to the speed of the process, which is a rather remarkable fact.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
A brief look at Talk Origins yields:
Darwin predicted that human ancestors arose in Africa due to our similarities with African Apes
among several other examples.
Evolution has been used to make predictions
and passed such tests many times. For example
our modern understanding of genetics could have easily disproven Evolution but is now one of the best arguments for it. .
Yes! Those are exactly the kind of predictions ewvolutionary biology can make. What happens next is not one of them!
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It is indeed a purpose, but it would not be the case within an entirely materialistic paradigm. A configuration of molecules (the cat) interacting with (hunting) another configuration of molecules (the mouse), according to deterministic laws, is simply that. .
I'm sorry but this does not make sense. Its like some weird kind of anti-materialist Gnosticism. Why do you think that being made of molecules stop you having purposes?
It's more like a molecular-level animism. The position seems to be that methane and oxygen recombine into water and carbon monoxide because that's what the parent molecules want, not due the material nature of the molecules involved. Or in the words of EE, "[w]hy would one inherently blind and mindless bundle of atoms feel any need to cause other atoms to be 'bundled' in a certain way?"
Nothing so exotic--it's really just the fallacy of composition. Since molecules are not conscious, things made of molecules cannot be conscious (unless consciousness is mystically infused from some other source).
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
As in "silicon and copper can't add up, therefore something made from silicon and copper can't add up."

Which means I should use my computer as a doorstop.
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
I used to have a computer like that....
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0