Posted on 06/15/2003 10:36:08 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
Indeed, at first I thought your post injured me. In reality, I injured myself. If my calling is questioned for whatever reason, the failure is in me and it is my task - not yours - to locate and cure the fault. Likewise, if my quoting secular authorities in a debate offends, it is my task to resolve it.
I apologize for laying it at your feet.
Hello A-G! I think this is often what happens; in which case, it's easy enough to straighten out any prevailing misconceptions by giving clear definitions.
But often enough it seems debates get stalemated, not over definitions, but over intransigent, irreconcilable world views. And this is an intractible problem, from the standpoint of meaningful communication (ooops! we can't use that adjective! -- there is no meaning!!! "What is" just is; so don't go looking for it to mean anything).
For instance, I think some of us here would endlessly disagree about this observation of Einstein's: "If there were not this inner illumination [i.e., the human mind], the universe would be merely a rubbish heap."
Some folks here have a world view that holds the universe, being utterly devoid of consciousness, is simply a gigantic machine that came about by pure random happenstance; or if it should contain consciousness, this really doesn't matter at all: It's still just a gigantic machine that somehow orders itself by means of random chance; and life itself is pointless. Or at least not something that need concern the scientist. He ought to stop at mechanism; for to stress the purpose of this mechanism might skew the science...and get one into philosophy (heaven forfend!). I suppose for some people, even cosmology is suspect.
Other folks have the view that life and consciousness are the entire point of the universe. But in the opinion of "the other side," this is mawkish anthropocentrism pure and simple, and teleological to boot -- and they regard both as disreputable.
One side says the universe is basically just a gigantic "accident," but one which can be approached and explained through, say, information theory, which reduces everything to bits and the lengths of digit sequences, and denies that "information" has anything to do with "meaning." (I'm not saying that information theory is useless to our present questions; just that it is most likely not the whole answer.)
But the "life and consciousness crowd" will think this view ridiculous; for everything in life appears to them to display orderly patterns that cannot be reasonably explained by random accidents just piling up over the eons. Even at the quantum level, beautiful symmetries are being discovered. There is obviously design; and where there is design, there must be a designer.
I note with a certain amusement (bemusement?) that those who say the universe is purposeless seem to have a burning purpose themselves, which makes their theory of the lack of universal purposiveness quite unintelligible and inexplicable, for it makes them the exception to their own general rule.
One assumes such folks object to the "designer" because they know the only name for such a designer is God -- eternally unseen and thus eternally suspect in their view.
So what do they do? Among other things, they posit an infinity of completely unseen and unseeable things in refutation -- for instance, infinite inflation, or the multiple-universes theory. Even if these theories were true, there'd be no way for us to know it, let alone prove it; for such lie beyond our observational horizon (as far as we know). Thus a multiplicity of unseens is preferred to one Unseen.
Finally, our knowing or not knowing something depends on consciousness -- which is not a property of any machine any of us has ever encountered. To which "the other side" will reply: Well, we haven't seen a conscious machine -- YET. But just give science a little more time, and we'll show you one....
I would like to know in what way this expectation is in any way qualitatively different than the believer's faith in an afterlife.
FWIW. Thanks for a great thread, Alamo-Girl.
I hear ya, Brother A!!! (You so funny!)
Indeed. I think I read in the WSJ recently (yesterday?) that Roche is rolling out a gene test for drug tailoring purposes.
Hmm, maybe it was a bit mechanical. The proof is in my children.
A scientific understanding of fundamental phenomena may or may not translate into an explanation of higher level concepts. A Theory of Everything will not give us a working model for investing in the stock market.
I am aware that that is the point of Wolfram's book and I disagree with it very strongly. His book shows a lot of kaleidoscopic pictures, but I have not seen or heard how this all applies specifically to living things and what we know about them. The variety of life is tremendous and the modes by which it has been achieved, are also very varied. On post# 518 I gave the example of a gene which uses dna which is not part of the protein as a 'timer' to properly regulate its production. In other posts I pointed out the similarities between mice and bats but asked what rules could possibly have created the information for the bat to lower the weight of its bones, make them more fit for flight, give it wings, and create a fantastic sonar. The bat would not be a viable creature without all of them together and no stochastic method or simple rules could have achieved that.
In short, now set of simple rules could have written Macbeth, nor could they have written the human DNA code which is more complex, far longer and more full of surprises than any novel.
A very good point (in a post full of many good points!). Materialist theories tend to deny the concept of quality and insist that everything can be defined in terms of quantity. Darwin sought to make man a little better in quantity than apes for example. While quality cannot be measured with a ruler, we certainly do perceive it. Don Quixote is a book of higher quality than Hunt for Red October, the Mona Lisa is a picture of higher quality than a VanGogh. We can see differences in quality and appreciate them in many things even though they cannot be measured and sometimes they cannot even be explained. For this reason alone I must agree with you that theories which seek to explain all in a mathematical way are only dealing with a part, not the whole of what life is about and thus cannot in any way be 'true' in the context of explaining the whole of life.
Well, maybe I'm not understanding you perfectly here, Nebullis; but it seems to me the "proof" to be had in your children has nothing to do with the "mechanical." I have to maintain that position, until such time as "mechanical" considerations and operations can be shown -- unilaterally -- to produce the life of your offspring; which I imagine you had a little "closer-in" help to get (or "beget") in the first place. (That should be fun!)
Without that "closer-in help," your beautiful kids would not have been born.
A Theory of Everything will not give us a working model for investing in the stock market.
It seems to me that, to the extent that successful investing in the stock market is dependent in some way on public perceptions -- that is, on "mass perceptions and feelings" -- then there will unavoidably be an element of chance involved. But IMO this is a different "scale" of the problem we've been discussing. To say as much does not necessarily impugn -- it seems to me -- the fundamental order of the Universe, which does not appear to be ruled by pure chance in its main outline (so to speak).
But I do agree with you: Conceivably, a "theory of Everything" would have to take this sort of thing (e.g., stock market behavior) into account. Which is to say: It must account for what is susceptible to random changes, as well as what is not subject to random changes. JMHO FWIW.
The debate may stall over these views. (It's usually irretrievable in the form of "my view plus the select few who "get it" and all the others".) Science at most levels doesn't concern itself with these views because it is performed at a very specific or local level. Constant claims of world-views and skewing of interpretation of scientific data notwithstanding, research is not concerned with metaphysical world views. That is, the questions in science are not of the kind whether there's a God or greater meaning to all of this. In fact, most of the questions in research are not about the large theories but about very specific local questions. The interpretation of results at that level is rarely dependent on big theories and even less so on world-views. For instance, a typical question in biology concerns protein function. The design and interpretation of the study is independent of world view.
Research is not even overwhelmingly theory driven, but, among others, a combination of method, instrumentation, and theory.
The impact of world-view on science is most profound at the funding level.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.