Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

On Plato, the Early Church, and Modern Science: An Eclectic Meditation
November 30, 2004 | Jean F. Drew

Posted on 11/30/2004 6:21:11 PM PST by betty boop

On Plato, the Early Church, and Modern Science: An Eclectic Meditation
By Jean F. Drew

God, purposing to make the universe most nearly like the every way perfect and fairest of intelligible beings, created one visible living being, containing within itself all living beings of the same natural order.

Thus does Plato (d. 347 B.C.) succinctly describe how all that exists is ultimately a single, living organism. At Timaeus20, he goes on to say:

“There exists: first, the unchanging form, uncreated and indestructible, admitting no modification and entering no combination … second, that which bears the same name as the form and resembles it … and third, space which is eternal and indestructible, which provides a position for everything that comes to be.”

And thus we find a description of the universe in which Being and Existence (Becoming) — the one God and the multiplicity of things — are bound together as a single living reality whose extension is mediated by Space (which for us moderns implies Time).

Our aim in this essay is to define these ideas and their relationships, and trace their historical development from the ancient world to the present. Taking a page from the late Eric Voegelin (1901–1985, philosopher of history specializing in the evolution of symbolization), we will follow a history-of-ideas approach to these issues. Along the way we will find that not only philosophy and cosmology, but also theology and even modern science can illuminate these seminal conceptions of Platonic thought. We must begin at the beginning, that is, with God — who is absolute Being in Plato’s speculation, of whom the cosmos itself is but the image (eikon) or reflection.

When Plato speaks of God (or when Aristotle does for that matter, as in e.g., Nicomachean Ethics), he is not referring to the Olympian gods, to Zeus, Hera, Athena, Poseidon, and the rest of the gang of “immortals.” For the Olympians are like man in that they are creatures of a creating God. Not only that, but they are a second generation of gods, the first having reigned in the antediluvian Age of Chronos; which is to say that the Olympians’ rule or law is not everlasting, but contingent. Thus they are not self-subsistent, but dependent (contingent) on a principle outside of themselves. We might say that the central difference between Plato’s God and the Olympians consists in the fact that the latter are “intracosmic” gods, and the former is “extracosmic,” that is, transcending all categories and conditions of space-time reality. In contrast, the intracosmic gods are subject to change, to contingency; and so, though they may truly be said to exist in some fashion, cannot be said to possess true Being. (More on these distinctions in a minute.)

It is clear that for Plato, God is the “Beyond” of the universe, or in other words, utterly transcendent, perfectly self-subsistent Being, the “uncaused cause” of all the multiplicity of existents in the universe. In yet other words we can say that, for Plato, the cosmos is a theophany, a manifestation or “presence” of the divine Idea — in Christian parlance, the Logos if I might draw that association — in the natural world.

As Wolfgang Smith notes, “Christian teaching is based upon the doctrine of the Logos, the Word of God, a term which in itself clearly suggests the idea of theophany. Moreover, what is implicit in the famous Prologue of St. John [“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” (John 1:1–5)] is openly affirmed by St. Paul when he declares that “the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world have been clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His power and Godhead” (Rom. 1:20) … The indisputable fact is that at its deepest level Christianity perceives the cosmos as a self-revelation of God.” [Wolfgang Smith, Cosmos and Transcendence, 1984]

Being and Existence (Becoming)
Being is a concept so difficult that it comes close to eluding our grasp altogether. It is utterly beyond space and time; imperishable; entirely self-subsistent, needing nothing from outside itself in order to be complete; essential; immutable; and eternally perduring. Contrast this with the concept of existence, regarding which Plato asks “how can that which is never in the same state be anything?” And this is the clue to the profound difference between being and existence: The existing things of this world are mutable and transient.

We must in my opinion begin by distinguishing between that which always is and never becomes from that which is always becoming but never is. The one is apprehensible by intelligence with the aid of reasoning, being eternally the same, the other is the object of opinion and irrational sensation, coming to be and ceasing to be, but never fully real. In addition, everything that becomes or changes must do so owing to some cause; for nothing can come to be without a cause. [Timaeus, 3:28]

Smith writes of the existing or “becoming” things that

“… they come upon the scene, we know not from whence; they grow, change, and decay; and at last they disappear, to be seen no more. The physical cosmos itself, we are told, is a case in point: it, too, has made its appearance, perhaps some twenty billion years ago, and will eventually cease to exist [i.e., finally succumbing, we are told, to thermodynamic entropy or “heat death”]. What is more, even now, at this very moment, all things are passing away. ‘Dead is the man of yesterday,’ wrote Plutarch, ‘for he dies into the man of today: and the man of today is dying into the man of tomorrow.’ Indeed, ‘to be in time’ is a sure symptom of mortality. It is indicative, not of being, but of becoming, of ceaseless flux.”

All the multiplicity of existents in the universe are in a state of becoming and passing away. But Plato’s great insight is that all things in the state of becoming — that is, all existing things — are whatever they are because they are participations in Being. That is to say, “we perceive the trace of being in all that exists,” writes Smith, “and that is why we say, with reference to any particular thing, that it is.” Existence, in other words, is contingent on Being.

But we wonder: In what way is this possible? And if existents participate in being, what is that Being in which they participate?

In Exodus 3:14 Moses has experienced a theophany: While tending his flock on Mount Horeb, suddenly he hears the voice of God issuing from a burning bush: God is speaking to him! Reverentially, Moses inquires of God what is His name (meaning: what is His nature or character).

And God said unto Moses, I AM WHO AM: and He said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

God has told Moses: that He is Being (“I AM”). And the strong implication is that there is no “other” being: “I alone AM.” For “I” is plainly singular in form.

Smith draws the crucial point, “God alone IS. But how are we to understand this? ‘It seems to me,’ writes St. Gregory of Nyssa, ‘that at the time the great Moses was instructed in the theophany he came to know that none of those things which are apprehended by sense perception and contemplated by the understanding really subsist, but that the transcendent essence and cause of the universe, on which everything depends, alone subsists.’ But why? Does not the world exist? Are there not myriads of stars and galaxies and particles of dust, each existing in its own right? And yet we are told that the transcendent essence alone subsists. ‘For even if the understanding looks upon any other existing things,’ the great theologian goes on to say, ‘reason observes in absolutely none of them the self-sufficiency by which they could exist without participating in true Being. On the other hand, that which is always the same, neither increasing nor diminishing, immutable to all change whether to better or to worse (for it is far removed from the inferior and has no superior), standing in need of nothing else, alone desirable, participated in by all but not lessened by their participation — this is truly real Being.’”

Smith continues: “In the words of St. Gregory, ‘that which is always the same, neither increasing nor diminishing, immutable to all change … is truly real being.’ As concerns ‘existing things,’ on the other hand, the teaching implies that these entities are always changing, always in a state of flux, so that their very existence is in a way a process of becoming, in which however nothing is actually produced. This has been said time and again, beginning with Heraclitus and the Buddhist philosophers. And there can be little doubt that it is true: even modern physics, as we can see, points to the same conclusion. Only there is another side to the coin which is not always recognized. Existent things — the very flux itself — presuppose what Gregory and the Platonists have termed ‘a participation in Being.’ The point is that relative or contingent existences cannot stand alone. They have not an independent existence, a being of their own. ‘In Him we live, and move, and have our being,’ says St. Paul….”

St. Augustine confirms the Platonic insight this way:

I beheld these others beneath Thee, and saw that they neither altogether are, nor altogether are not. An existence they have, because they are from Thee; and yet no existence, because they are not what Thou art. For only that really is, that remains unchangeably.

Space
Space is the third essential term of the Platonic cosmology: It is the matrix in which living things and all other existents participate in Being. Plato’s creation myth — the Myth of the Demiurge in Timaeus — elucidates the Platonic conception of Space.

For Plato, the God of the Beyond is so “beyond” that, when it came time for creating the Cosmos, he didn’t even do it himself. He sent an agent: the Demiurge, a mythical being endued by God to be in divine likeness of God’s own perfect love, truth, beauty, justice, and goodness. The embodiment of divine perfections, the Demiurge wishes to create creatures just as good and beautiful as himself, according to the standard of the divine Idea — a direct analog, it seems to me, of the Logos theory of the ancient Church. Indeed, Eric Voegelin sees in the Demiurge the symbol of Incarnation [Order and History Vol. 3: Plato and Aristotle, 1957]:

“The Demiurge is the symbol of Incarnation, understood not as the result of the process but as the process itself, as the permanent tension in reality between the taxis of form or idea and the ataxia of formlessness.”

Similarly to the Christian account, the Demiurge in a certain way creates ex nihilo — that is, out of Nothing. At first glance, Plato is seen specifying, not a pre-existing “material” but a universal field of pure possibility called Chora, “Space.” Perhaps we may find in this concept a strong analogy to Isaac Newton’s concept of Absolute Space (see below).

Chora seems to indicate the idea of an eternal, universal field of pure stochastic potentiality that needs to become “activated” in order to bring actual beings into existence. In itself, it is No-thing, i.e., “nothing.” This “activation” the Demiurge may not effect by fiat: He does not, for instance, “command” to “Let there be Light!” The main tool at his disposal is Peitho, “persuasion.”

And if Chora is not so persuaded, it will remain in a state of “nothingness.” It will remain unformed, in the condition of ataxia. Of itself it is “Nothing”; by itself, it can do nothing. It cannot generate anything out of itself, not even matter in primaeval form.

And thus Plato introduces the figure of the Demiurge into his creation myth, symbolizing form or idea — the principle of (formative) taxia that draws (formless) ataxia into existence. We moderns might be tempted to describe the Demiurge as constituting an “information set” together with an “energy source,” who “persuades” the pure stochastic potentiality of formless, absolute, empty space into actualized form, and thus existence. From the cosmic standpoint, he makes unity out of multiplicity, in harmony and geometrical proportion:

“The best bond is the one that effects the closest unity between itself and the terms it is combining; and this is best done by a continued geometrical proportion.” [Timaeus, 4]

Thus the Demiurge is a kind of “divine geometer,” producing the forms (or mathematical ideas) that Chora can be persuaded to conform to, and thus come into existence.

But the Demiurge does more than just get things started: As bearer of the divine Idea — as pure love and beauty and goodness and truth — he continues always persuading Chora to generate creatures as like himself as possible (i.e., reflecting his own divine qualities at whatever generic stage), throughout all eternity. Thus creation is a continuous process in space-time. Moreover, it is the source and driver of evolution as a universal natural process.

Through the ongoing activity of the Demiurge, men and the world are constantly being informed and renewed by the divine Idea; and thus a unified cosmic whole, a “One Cosmos,” a universal order comes into being at the intersection of time and timelessness, of immanent and transcendent reality, in the medium of Space (and Time).

Compare the Platonic creation myth with the philosophy of Dionysius the [Pseudo-]Areopagite, said to be the Greek converted by St. Paul in Acts, 17:34. For Dionyius, the “names of God” — the divine qualities — are goodness, being, life, wisdom, power, and justice. Joseph Stiglmayr writes [Cath. Encycl. at the entry for Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite], that for Dionysius, God is

“… the One Being (to hen), transcending all quality and predication, all affirmation and negation, and all intellectual conception, [Who] by the very force of His love and goodness gives to beings outside Himself their countless gradations, unites them in the closest bonds (proodos), keeps each by His care and direction in its appointed sphere, and draws them again in an ascending order to Himself (epistrophe) … all created things [proceed] from God by the exuberance of being in the Godhead (to hyperpleres), its outpouring and overflowing … and as a flashing forth from the sun of the Deity. Exactly according to their physical nature created things absorb more or less the radiated light, which, however, grows weaker the farther it descends. As the mighty root sends forth a multitude of plants which it sustains and controls, so created things owe their origin and conservation to the All-Ruling Deity…. Patterned upon the original of Divine love, righteousness, and peace, is the harmony that pervades the universe…. All things tend to God, and in Him are merged and completed, just as the circle returns into itself, as the radii are joined at the centre, or as the numbers are contained in unity.”

The Platonic resonances seem unmistakeable in these lines. It appears that both Platonic speculation and the Logos doctrine of the ancient Church as articulated by Dionysius are in agreement that Creator must be “beyond” Creation in order to resonate with it — which resonance is what makes the universe to be alive — i.e., a living universe.

C. A. Dubrey points out [Cath. Encycl. at the entry “Teleology”], that the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas makes it clear that, “Intrinsic finality [we are to think of this as a blend or merger of efficient and final causes in the Aristotelian sense] consists in the fact that every being has within itself a natural tendency whereby its activity is directed towards the perfection of its own nature…. St. Thomas does not hesitate to speak of ‘natural appetite,’ ‘natural inclination,’ and even ‘intention of nature,’ [we moderns might be tempted to add ‘instinct’ to this list] to mean that every being has within itself a directive principle of activity. Accordingly, God does not direct creatures to their ends from outside, but through their own nature…. The Divine plan of creation is carried out by the various beings themselves acting in conformity with their nature.

When, however, this finality is called immanent, this expression must not be understood in a pantheistic sense, as if the intelligence which the world manifests were to be identified with the world itself, but in the sense that the immediate principle of finality is immanent in every being…. Thus the unconscious finality in the world leads to the conclusion that there must be an intelligent cause of the world.” [Emphasis added.]

Aquinas’ insight, and also Plato’s, evokes a reconsideration of Isaac Newton’s concept of Absolute Space. Possibly this may be understood in the following terms. First, Absolute Space is “empty” space. Second, it is not a property of God, but an effect of His Presence; i.e., we advert to theophany again. The question then arises, in what “where” or “when” does this theophany take place? Perhaps Newton’s answer would be: In the beginning, and continuously thereafter. Second, it has been suggested that Newton intends us to understand Absolute Space as the sensorium Dei: “God constitutes space and time through his eternity and omnipresence” [ existendo semper et ubique, durationem et spatium consitutit: Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, 3d ed., 1726]. Wolfhart Pannenberg writes,

“Now there are a number of good reasons — suggested by both philosophical and scientific thought — to consider time and space as inseparable. Einstein’s field concept comprises space, time, and energy. It takes the form of a geometrical description, and this seems to amount to a spatialization of time. The totality of space, time, and energy or force are all properties of a cosmic field.

“Long before our own age a theological interpretation of this subject matter had been proposed, and it was Isaac Newton who offered this proposal. It too referred everything to space or, more precisely, to the correlation of force as in the case of a force like gravitation acting at a distance. Newton’s well-known conception of space as sensory of God (sensorium Dei) did not intend to ascribe to God an organ of sense perception, the like of which God does not need, according to Newton, because of divine omnipresence. Rather, Newton took space as the medium of God’s creative presence at the finite place of his creatures in creating them.” [Wolfhart Pannenberg, Toward a Theology of Nature, 1993]

Thus the infinite takes priority over every finite experience, including intellectual experience — a position decisively argued by Descartes, as Pannenberg avers, “in his thesis that the idea of God is a prior condition in the human mind for the possibility of any other idea, even that of the ego itself.”

* * * * * *

The Influence of Platonic Speculation on the Early History of the Church
D. Edmund Joaquin, an insightful and gracious Christian friend, writes, “We understand that the universe is created and sustained by the Word [the Logos], and not only that, but by the Word sounding. God sustains the universe consciously and actively. He has not gone away and left us. In fact, He reveals Himself to us, and His final revelation is in the person of Christ [the Logos]. Christ is not an abstract aspect of God, like wisdom. He is God. He is God incarnating in the world that He himself has made.”

Joaquin further observes that “[the Gospel of] John is written to the Greeks and put into words that they could understand.” It seems there’s a mystery buried in here somewhere. Consider: Socrates was the teacher of Plato, who was the teacher of Aristotle, who was the teacher of Alexander — and Alexander spread Greek culture throughout Eurasia, the Middle East, and the Indian subcontinent. Add to this the fact that the great evangelist, St. Paul, had some difficulty converting the Jews to the Christian faith; but he converted the Greeks in droves. Not only St. John, but also St. Paul speaks in terms the Greek mind could readily grasp, as when he says God is He “in Whom we live and move and have our being.” These historical connections do not appear to be accidental, coincidental, nor incidental to the spread of the early Christian Church.

According to The Catholic Encyclopedia, the Greeks strongly responded to Christianity for its moral beauty as well as its truth. A case in point is St. Justin Martyr. He was a man of Greek culture, born in Palestinian Syria about the year 100 A.D, who converted to the faith around 130 A.D. Justin became one of Christianity’s earliest and most powerful apologists, and ended up condemned by the Roman authority for refusing to sacrifice to the pagan gods, for which offense he was summarily executed by the Imperium, along with several other of his “refusnik” co-religionists. The official record of their martyrdom is extant:

“The Prefect Rusticus says: Approach and sacrifice, all of you, to the gods. Justin says: No one in his right mind gives up piety for impiety. The Prefect Rusticus says: If you do not obey, you will be tortured without mercy. Justin replies: That is our desire, to be tortured for Our Lord Jesus, and so to be saved, for that will give us salvation and firm confidence at the more terrible universal tribunal of Our Lord and Saviour. And all the martyrs said: Do as you wish; for we are Christians, and we do not sacrifice to idols. The Prefect Rusticus read the sentence: Those who do not wish to sacrifice to the gods and to obey the emperor will be scourged and beheaded according to the laws. The holy martyrs glorifying God betook themselves to the customary place, where they were beheaded and consummated their martyrdom confessing their Saviour.”

Jules Lebreton writes (at the entry for St. Justin Martyr in Cath. Encycl.) “Justin tries to trace a real bond between philosophy and Christianity: according to him, both one and the other have a part in the Logos, partially disseminated among men and wholly manifest in Jesus Christ.”

Yet for all their apparent similarities and resemblances in many respects, there is a profound difference between Platonic insight and the Christian one: and this pertains to the relations between God and man.

Both Plato and Justin proclaim the transcendent God. Yet for Plato, God is so “beyond” as to be almost impossible of human grasp. Yet Plato felt the “divine pulls” in his own nature. These Plato thought could be accounted for and articulated by an act of pure unaided intellect, that is by nous, in a state of intense contemplation.

Contrast this position with Justin Martyr’s, who insisted that human wisdom was impossible without the testimony of the Prophets (whom God himself had informed and instructed) and the action of the Holy Spirit. For Plato, man’s relations with God consist of operations of the mind. For Justin, they are operations of the heart, of the Spirit. For Justin, God is not a mental abstraction: He is real Personality with whom one can have direct personal relations, in the Spirit.

A later writer, John Scotus Eriugina (ninth century) elaborates the Justinian position, in the process noting that there is a “downward tendency” of the soul towards the conditions of animal existence, and that this has only one remedy: Divine grace, the free gift of the Holy Spirit. “By means of this heavenly gift,” writes William Turner [at the entry for Scotus in the Catholic Encyclopedia], “man is enabled to rise superior to the needs of the sensuous body, to place the demands of reason above those of bodily appetite, and from reason to ascend through contemplation to ideas, and thence by intuition to God Himself.”

The pull of animal nature is an idea we also find in Plato, and also the countervailing pull from the divine Beyond. Man lives in the metaxy, in the “in-between reality” constituted by the two. Man’s task is to resolve this tension, and establish the proper balance that expresses the highest and best development of his human nature. But man must do this entirely by himself by means of nous or reason. There is no spiritual help “extra” to the human psyche available to facilitate this process.

In contrast, as Lebreton points out, Justin Martyr

“…admits that the soul can naturally comprehend what God is, just as it understands that virtue is beautiful … but he denies that the soul without the assistance of the Holy Ghost [Spirit] can see God or contemplate him directly through ecstasy, as the Platonic philosophers contended. And yet this knowledge of God is necessary for us: ‘We cannot know God as we know music, arithmetic, or astronomy’; it is necessary for us to know God not with an abstract knowledge but as we know any person with whom we have relations. The problem which it seems impossible to solve is settled by revelation; God has spoken directly to the Prophets, who in their turn have made Him known to us…. It is the first time in Christian theology that we find so concise an explanation of the difference that separates Christian revelation from human speculation.” [Emphasis added]

* * * * * *

Natural Law, Contingency, and the Scientific Method
The Platonic model encourages us to recognize that the universe is zoon empsychon ennoun, a living creature endowed with soul and intelligence. The myth of the Demiurge describes the world process as a type of incarnation, a dynamic relation of absolute being and contingent becoming evolving in space and time in a manner expressing a perduring taxia–ataxia relation. The Cosmos itself — the totality of all existing things — like its constituents, for example man and even the stars, is an eikon of being-in-becoming, a reflection or image of the divine Idea. Time itself is but a “moving image of eternity.” The life of the cosmos is wholly dependent, contingent on the Idea from which it manifests.

It is a lawful, orderly universe, yet one in which new occurrences are always arising. These new events are coming from, as it were, a “sea of contingency” analogous to Plato’s conception of Space, that is Chora — the infinite field of unformed, pure potentiality.

The immediately foregoing ideas, of course, are not scientific ones strictly speaking. Still, there are elements here that perhaps science would do well to consider, in order to maintain the integrity of its own method. For one thing, it seems science itself, in its disclosure of the regularities of nature, seems to have an in-built tendency to overlook contingency. We may define an event as contingent if a description of it is neither self-evident nor necessary, “if it could have happened differently,” as Ted Peters puts it in his Preface to Pannenberg’s Towards a Theology of Nature.

C. A. Dubray writes [“Teleology,” Cath. Encycl.], “The fact that the world is governed by laws, far from giving any support to the mechanistic conception, is rather opposed to it. A law is not a cause, but the expression of the constant manner in which causes produce their effects.” In other words, natural laws are expressions of observable regularities that occur in the world of existent phenomena in ordinary space-time reality. Thus, the laws themselves have no force as “causes”: they are descriptions.

Yet the focus on regularity inevitably masks the particularity and contingency of unique events. As Ted Peters notes, it is here that “we run into a problem of focus in the scientific community, because virtually all the theoretical attention is given to the regularity of nature’s laws, while the contingency of natural events slips into the nearly invisible background.” Peters continues:

“What researchers concentrate on are the uniformities that can be expressed in timeless equations. A dictionary of equations describing these uniformities allegedly constitutes scientific knowledge…. A closer examination, however, reveals that the applicability of these equations to concrete cases of natural processes requires certain initial and marginal conditions, conditions that in every case are contingent. Only when contingent conditions permit can we expect a natural law to operate as expected.”

To the extent that the scientific method of inquiry is premised on an “If/Then” logical construction — which seems ever to be the case — the method itself is an exercise in contingency, yet nonetheless one in which “Determinacy gets thematized, whereas contingency gets ignored.” Arguably this is a serious bias having epistemological implications; for e.g., “if the laws of classical dynamics are in principle temporally reversible, the actual course of natural events from which those laws have been abstracted is not. The reality of nature is first and foremost a historical reality.”

Pannenberg suggests a corrective for this “bias,” acknowledging: “That modern science so easily lends itself to abuse cannot be prevented in principle. It is one of the risks involved in the abstract study of regularities that either are inherent in nature itself or can be imposed on natural processes [e.g., as in ideological, technical, or engineering solutions]. This risk cannot be met on the level of scientific description itself but must be met first on the level of philosophical reflection on the work of science. It is on this level that the abstract form of scientific description must be considered with special attention to what it is “abstracted from” and what is methodically disregarded in the abstract formulas of science.”

And so contingent conditions — i.e, initial and boundary conditions — must be restored to their proper place in our deliberations, for they “are required for any formula of natural law to be applied. They are contingent at least in that they cannot be derived from the particular formula of law under consideration.… The mathematical formula of a natural law may be valid without regard to time. The physical regularity that is described by such a formula is not independent of time and temporal sequence. But it is only that physical regularity which makes the mathematical formula a law of nature. This suggests that the laws of nature are not eternal or atemporal because the fields of their application, the regularities of natural processes, originate in the course of time. Thus it also becomes understandable that new patterns of regularity emerging in the sequence of time constitute a field of application for a new set of natural laws….”

We may recognize that the total process of natural events presents itself to observation as a mesh of contingency and regularities. It is the task of science to pursue thematically the aspect of regularity. But, asks Pannenberg, can science “ever succeed in bringing into view the entirety of nature as determined in all details by a number of laws that are in any case not infinitely complex? This would mean at the same time that a stage of research is conceivable from which nothing more could be discovered. Many natural scientists have had this nightmare because of the successes of their own research. Fortunately it probably is not a truthful dream.”

For, says Pannenberg, “laws always uncover what is necessary superimposed on what is contingent. Given the undeniable contingency of occurrences in natural events, can we recognize in their special character as occurrences … [that] regularity as their own element in such a way that the presence of regularity can be thought together with the contingency of occurrences, not only under abstraction from the contingency of occurrences?” [Emphasis added]

Which is why Pannenberg advocates an opening up of new viewpoints in scientific research, “not because physical hypotheses or insights can be derived from them but because they open up and enlarge the intellectual space on which the formation of physical hypotheses depends…. In physics also, horizons of questioning have to be opened up first of all in order that hypotheses that arise in them can be examined by experiment and classified theoretically.”

Perhaps we need a greater appreciation of the “fitness” of the scientific method to engage the truly great questions of life, which ever seem to involve the relations of law and contingency. Leibniz propounds two great questions of perennial interest to the human mind: (1) Why are things the way they are and not some other way? (2) Why does anything exist at all?

Such questions, scientists will readily tell you, are beyond the purview of the scientific method. But does that mean such questions have no force or meaning such that they should not be asked at all?

Perhaps the incapability of the scientific method to answer such questions owes to the fact that all the great physical laws are acknowledged to be time-reversible; but we know that existence in space and time is not a time-reversible process. As Pannenberg states, it is a historical process. We might even say it is an evolutionary process.

Which suggests an analogy that might enlighten these questions, sharpen their meanings, and suggest additional questions: an analogy to direct human experience. Pannenberg writes of human beings, who do seem to live in a “time-irreversible,” that is “historical” process:

“Human beings never live only in the now. Rather, they experience their present as heirs of the past and as its active change. They anticipate the future in fear, hope, and planning; and in the light of such anticipation of the future they return to their present and the heritage of their past. The fact that we know of historical continuity is at least also conditioned by this peculiarity of human experience with time. If there is a new event, then it modifies the context of our consciousness of time which is already found present. It throws light back on earlier occurrences which have become a part of our experience already. In the same way, ideas that occur to us throw light on our previous expectations and plans in justifying, fulfilling, modifying, or disappointing and thwarting them. Thus the contingent event always enters already into a context of experience or tradition…. The future, beginning in the present happenings, is thus the origin of the perspective in which the past occurrences are put by every new experience.”

Worldviews and Paradigm Shifts
It is perhaps a truism that we tend to find what we’re looking for by screening out any and all potential elements which do not fit the pattern of our expectation. Arguably, the scientific method may be said inherently to suffer exposure to potential danger from this side, as suggested in the above remarks. Indeed, Schröedinger’s theory of wavefunction seems to predict this. Consider these remarks from Stephen M. Barr [Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, 2003]:

“In quantum theory, as traditionally formulated, there are ‘systems’ and ‘observers.’ Or rather, in any particular case, there is the system and the observer. The observer makes measurements of the system. As long as the system is undisturbed by external influences (that is, as long as it is ‘isolated’), its wavefunction — which is to say its probability amplitudes — will evolve in time by the Schröedinger equation…. However, when a measurement is made of the system the observer must obtain a definite outcome. Suddenly, the probability for the outcome that is actually obtained is no longer what the mathematics said it was just before the measurement, but jumps to 100 percent. And the probabilities for all the alternative outcomes, the ones that did not occur, fall to 0 percent.”

Thus we might say that the “reality” we humans experience ever involves “a moving goal-post.” And as the mover of this goal-post, the human agent is most indispensably involved in this process.

Faced with such “indeterminacy” regarding the foundations of experience, it is not surprising that people usually have recourse to mediating worldviews, or organized frames of ideational reality that constitute the conceptual space in which active experience is engaged and accordingly analyzed and interpreted. Certainly Plato has offered such a model. And so has Nobel laureate Jacques Monod [in Chance and Necessity, 1971]:

“Chance alone is the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, is at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution. The central concept of biology … is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one compatible with observed and tested fact. All forms of life are the product of chance….”

Needless to say, these two models are polar opposite conceptualizations. Yet having received each on “good authority,” which do we choose?

Such are not idle considerations; for as James Hannam points out [“The Development of Scientific and Religious Ideas,” 2003], “grand theories … often suffer death by detail where it is found that up close the situation is too complicated for the theory to handle…. [Yet] in the end, after it has changed the course of the river of enquiry, the theory can end up as a mortlake cut off from the general flow….”

Hannam cites historian Thomas Kuhn, who documents an historical process he terms “paradigm shift,” describing a situation in which the findings of authoritative science move “out of science and into practically every other field of human endeavor.” Once a given, albeit partial or even defective theory becomes “dominant,” writes Hannam, “far from being thrown out, a falsified theory is enhanced to deal with new information until such time as it finally collapses under the weight of anomalous results. Then, after a chaotic period, a new theory emerges that can deal with the anomalies and normal service resumes…. A paradigm refers to but one field, say classical mechanics or health policy whereas the ideology/worldview is the general background that underpins all the paradigms.”

The worldview (or ideology, if you prefer), for better or worse, implicitly shapes the background knowledge of thinking agents to which new experiences constantly are being conformed. Hannam says that worldview “is often so deeply embedded in the psyche that it is very rarely considered explicitly except by specialists,” but that nonetheless, “the worldview is seen as [a] self-confirming fact of life and hence it is not strictly rational…. The existence of a dominant worldview does not mean that a particular individual is unable to think outside the box but rather that his ideas are unlikely to fall on fertile ground. Unless new ideas can be stated in a language that makes them comprehensible to his peers, his intention in writing will not be met.”

Which is the not-too-subtle way to put the fact that every man has a worldview, without exception, whether articulate or inarticulate; and that somehow, for the “intention of writing to be met” — that is, for accurate and meaningful (i.e., successful) communication of ideas to take place — some deeper, common ground of shared truth must first be accessed, for the purpose of providing a more capacious intellectual space in which the human pursuit of knowledge and wisdom might unfold or evolve from its present point of attainment.

But where today in our modern world is such a common ground or field to be found? Hannam proposes the examination of the history of ideas as a possibly useful method in the search for common ground. He writes,

“To examine the history of ideas the only fair way to proceed would seem to place before ourselves the evidence and authority that the historical agents had before them and assume they acted rationally on that basis. Otherwise, there is no hope of ever tracing intellectual development because ‘cause and effect’ assumes some sort of logical causality that is impossible with non-rational agents. The best that could be hoped for would be a catalog of mental positions, with no way to say how one led to another except by being pushed by blind exterior forces. This might be precisely what determinists are advocating but they would have to give up any hope of finding causes and restrict themselves to explanations.”

Perhaps we moderns would do well to reconsider the common assumption that people living before our own time were somehow inferior in knowledge, experience, and observational powers as compared with our own status as enlightened individuals. Arguably, the ancient world produced some of the most powerful thinkers in the history of mankind, formulating ideas that were, in the words of Hannam, “the fruits of unfettered metaphysical speculation that inevitably hits on the right answer occasionally.”

Democritus, for example, proposed a theory predicting the atom as the ultimate constituent of matter, more than two-thousand years before the technical means existed to isolate atoms experimentally or, as Hannam notes, any “useful applications for them” could be found. Then it was discovered that the atom itself is an ordered constellation of even finer parts. There seems to be an historical progression of ideas here, the new building up on a framework originally laid up in the past, modifying it, improving on it in light of new insights and technical capabilities.

Hannam gives another example of more recent vintage: “Copernicus needed Nicole Oresme’s solution as to why we do not feel the movement of the Earth even though in Oresme’s time it was just a curiosity as no one thought the Earth actually was moving … each new idea, once accepted, shifts the boundaries of the worldview and makes it possible for further new ideas to be accepted into the pale.”

We can extend the examples even further. Reimann constructed a geometry, apparently because his mind could grasp the logic and beauty it revealed for its own sake. But at the time, it had no apparent “external referent” in the field of nature. It was a beautiful and glorious abstraction — until Einstein came along, and picked it up “off the shelf” as it were, to become the very language of relativity theory.

Thus it might be said that the evolution or “progress” of science depends on successive enlargements of the conceptual space it requires to do its work. In other words, science inherently is a participation in the historicity of the world.

Whatever our personal worldview, perhaps it would be well to recall that science is an historical process. Perhaps this understanding could open up additional, needed conceptual space that science itself requires in order to advance.


TOPICS: Philosophy
KEYWORDS: aquinas; augustine; christianity; churchhistory; contingency; cosmology; epistemology; justinmartyr; metaphysics; newton; ontology; plato; quantumfieldtheory; relativitytheory; schroedinger; spacetime; theology
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 921-935 next last
To: Alamo-Girl; Doctor Stochastic; tortoise; Physicist; PatrickHenry; marron; Matchett-PI; StJacques
In a nutshell, they observe a 13% CP violation (or difference in decay rates) between B-mesons and anti-B-mesons. They question whether this is adequate to explain the entire phenomenon. But whether it is or is not adequate, I wonder if this could be a manifestation of the fecundity principle at work from inception of space/time (i.e. a cosmic will to live)? Conversely, since this begins at the rapid expansion of space/time - whether these CP violations point to a dimensional (geometric) variation urging to cosmos to emerge?

Goodness you ask fascinating questions, A-G!!! Perhaps the matter-antimatter asymmetry apparently demonstrated in the recorded 13% CP violation might be an indication of an "in-built bias in favor of life" manifesting in the universe from the very beginning? We must ask Doc and tortoise and Physicist what they think....

521 posted on 01/07/2005 2:03:56 PM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 519 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; PatrickHenry; betty boop; tortoise; Doctor Stochastic; cornelis
This is a response to Alamo-Girl's post #491.

On Shannon Information -- it must be considered a "stateful" and "continuous" value. tortoise gave us the clearest insight when he described it as "a continuous measure of a discrete state." Since we can view the DNA and RNA sequences as existing, without examining their meaning (semantics), within that discrete state, we can trace the transfer and/or creation of nucleotides within the process. That is as much as we need to know to express the changes in biochemical terms because we are not going to go into the semantics of differing nucleotide sequences.

On the "Evolution of Biological Information" -- I think we should be careful with introducing Rfrequency and Rsequence terminology, which will distract us. I think the useful generalization we can draw, and which I see supported in what you posted, is that Biological Information does evolve. I believe that is all we need to know for our discussion.

I consider that we are in agreement that the existence of "Biological Information" distinguishes life from non-life and that the existence of and changes within Biological Information are what we must focus upon, without getting into the "meaning" of individual nucleotide sequences, with the single exception of a commonly-stated recognition that nucleotide sequences can be altered during and/or after transposition." This last point is important because it is part of the general body of knowledge about transposition and it does establish a basis for the creation of new nucleotide patters/sequences/structured chains (choose your own term). We don't need to know what these specific changes are (meaning) just that they do occur.

You wrote:

". . . There is so far no known origin for information (the successful communication) in space/time. . . ."

This is true. But two things must be added to this.

1. The true origin of biological information will not ever be "known" to any degree of scientific certainty.

I think there should be common agreement on this point. But I will add a more controversial second point, and upon which I do not expect common agreement:

2. There is so far no evidence or disprovable (scientific) theory advanced which states that biological information cannot arise as a result of the natural physical properties of matter acted upon within a plausible set of environmental constraints.

I expect we will be arguing point #2.

And finally; yes, we must discuss how "Autonomy," "Symbols," and "Complexity" arose. I do not think we can dismiss any of the types of complexity you referenced from our discussion, because that would be dishonest. But we should expect differences to arise when "Irreducible Complexity" is introduced as occurring within Biology and perhaps when "Specified Complexity" is discussed as well, though I don't know enough about the latter concept at this point to say more.
522 posted on 01/07/2005 2:30:56 PM PST by StJacques
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 491 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Perhaps the matter-antimatter asymmetry apparently demonstrated in the recorded 13% CP violation might be an indication of an "in-built bias in favor of life" manifesting in the universe from the very beginning? We must ask Doc and tortoise and Physicist what they think....

[Credibility check: I spent four years at Penn working on experimental issues of B-meson detection. Some of that work became the initial trigger design of the BTeV experiment at Fermilab, which has become much more sophisticated since.]

We really don't know the origin of CP violation. The question of "built-in bias" becomes one of whether the CP symmetry is spontaneously broken or dynamically broken.

Spontaneous symmetry breaking means that the symmetry had to break somehow, but there was no built-in bias to how it broke. For example, if you stand a knitting needle up on its point, it will fall because it's unstable. After it falls, it will point at some well-defined orientation, in contrast to the radial symmetry it enjoyed before it fell. There's nothing special about the orientation, however: it had to be something, and any orientation was as likely as any other. Anyone reading any significance into the orientation is fooling himself.

Dynamical symmetry breaking means that the way in which the symmetry breaks is forced. If someone pushed the standing needle in a particular direction, for example, or if the needle fell onto a slope, the radial symmetry would be dynamically broken. But while you can question the intentions of a pusher, the slope has none.

In the case of B mesons, we can't yet say how it happens, so the question of bias is premature.

523 posted on 01/07/2005 3:03:07 PM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: StJacques; PatrickHenry; Alamo-Girl; cornelis; betty boop
"It is the premise of your question that is flawed. You can scientifically prove that others besides yourself have minds. Take a very large number of people (sample), test them for rational behavior (observation), and you can conclude through this inductive, i.e. "scientific," method, that others have minds (conclusion)."

Thank you, but you'll have to try again when you get time. Your reply is flawed. You haven't explained how I would know that the "large number of people" aren't just pre-programmed robots.

Here again in context, is the complete question I had asked you. I'll continue to look forward to your answer:

"..... is the phrase "others beside myself have minds and aren't just preprogrammed robots" .... a postulate, i.e. "axiomatic", and not a scientific proposition that can be submitted to testing?"

Since I can't scientifically prove it, is it RATIONAL for me to believe that others beside myself have minds and aren't just pre-programmed robots? Post #437

524 posted on 01/07/2005 4:05:50 PM PST by Matchett-PI (Today's DemocRATS are either religious moral relativists, libertines or anarchists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
". . . You haven't explained how I would know that the "large number of people" aren't just pre-programmed robots. . . ."

Simple. You would test them for biological signs establishing them as living beings and, based upon your observations, you could draw conclusions as to whether they are alive or robotic machinery.

A "scientific proposition" is one that can be submitted to testing using and observing real-world experience. If you want to ask "how does one know that real-world experience is not illusion?" -- which I am guessing is what you really are trying to get at here -- the answer is that you do not know it from scientific testing, which can never establish "objective truth," it can only eliminate other explanations through rigorous application of inductive method. Inductive method arrives at knowledge in much the same way that Sherlock Holmes once explained -- and I am paraphrasing to the best of my memory -- "when you eliminate the impossible, all that remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
525 posted on 01/07/2005 5:36:17 PM PST by StJacques
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 524 | View Replies]

To: StJacques
Sherlock Holmes once explained -- and I am paraphrasing to the best of my memory -- "when you eliminate the impossible, all that remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

To which I might add PatrickHenry's corollary:
However, if one insists upon believing that which is impossible, he is free to do so ... but it cannot be the truth.

526 posted on 01/07/2005 5:48:42 PM PST by PatrickHenry (The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 525 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Physicist; tortoise; Doctor Stochastic; PatrickHenry; StJacques; cornelis; marron; ...
Thank you so much for your reply, betty boop, and for pinging tortoise, Doctor Stochastic and Physicist! And thank you so much, Physicist, for your ever insightful response!

For Lurkers, here's a recap:

We’ve been deep into research of Shannon-Weaver and information theory in molecular biology. At post 491 we have a recap of how far we got into the subject and some points of agreement – one of which is that there is no known source for information [Shannon, reduction of uncertainty in the receiver or as I like to paraphrase it, “successful communication”] in space/time albeit we did not explore string theory or geometric physics by agreement.

Within a few posts after that, betty boop introduced two major points and the thread is now redirected to a fascinating new, but related, line of inquiry. The points she raised are:

1. The fecundity principle - that life emerges at the earliest opportunity and takes advantage of environmental opportunities quickly. There is nothing in the physical laws known to me that would lead to such aggressiveness – in fact, the reverse would be true. As an example (from our previous research) – we have seen that each bit gained in biological information content must dissipate energy into the local surroundings.

2. Tunnel vision – that the ”theory of evolution” has a very narrow focus, the speciation of biological life on earth – while biological life is only some (arbitrary) sub-view of a larger “system”. The entire biosphere seems to “evolve” or aggressively pursue life – indeed, the cosmos seems aggressive.

She went further and raised a speculation that perhaps we are overlooking a field (universal vacuum field) – an inter-dimensional field like gravity perhaps – one which might be a host or origin to such communications (including aggression) - and form – and perhaps even be interactive where intention (consciousness) emerges.

I agree with betty boop that aggressiveness seems to be built into the larger “system” and we’ve discussed a number of examples.

With regard to the cosmos, I’ve raised the mysterious asymmetry of matter to anti-matter and wondered whether a geometric variation at inception (big bang) would be the first indicator of aggression – sort of a cosmic "will to live".

Admittedly, I was already interested in the possibility of unexplored geometric cause. On the one hand, there is the unexpected mirror symmetry in string theory and on the other, the speculation that geometry may give rise to strings.

Back to the subject of asymmetry in matter v anti-matter. As Physicist points out there is nothing to indicate whether the CP violation is caused by spontaneously broken or dynamically broken symmetry.

Certainly that is true - and to that I would add, not by itself.

However, if the asymmetry is indeed part of a greater “system” - as tortoise mentioned at post 475 noise in the Shannon model may not necessarily be random if it is part of a greater “system” - then perhaps the asymmetry ought to be recorded like a “pixel” on our screen of evidence?

In the end, if a picture emerges from all the evidence, we may have cause to suspect a bias causing the aggression (fecundity principle, I like to paraphrase as “will to live”) - right from the very beginning of space/time.

Such a bias could be physically caused by a field (inter-dimensional geometry) expressing higher dimensional mathematical structures (Tegmark).

Notwithstanding that, one cannot speak of such things without thinking of God - particularly if the picture indicates aggression overwhelmingly in one direction (intent) as the fecundity principle suggests.

Food for thought…

527 posted on 01/07/2005 10:05:50 PM PST by Alamo-Girl (Please donate monthly to Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: StJacques; betty boop; tortoise; Doctor Stochastic; cornelis; marron; Matchett-PI
Thank you for your reply!

As far as I know, there are no theories for the evolution of biological information substantively different from Schneider’s – and his theory is based on the evolving of Rsequence to Rfrequency and especially, that the “noise” in the channel is random. If the noise in the channel is not random in the larger “system” then evolution would stand with natural selection but not with the "random" part of the “random mutation” component.

2. There is so far no evidence or disprovable (scientific) theory advanced which states that biological information cannot arise as a result of the natural physical properties of matter acted upon within a plausible set of environmental constraints.

Indeed. There currently exists no plausible theory for the rise of information [Shannon, reduction of uncertainty in the receiver] in biological systems but it doesn’t mean it can’t happen.

And finally; yes, we must discuss how "Autonomy," "Symbols," and "Complexity" arose. I do not think we can dismiss any of the types of complexity you referenced from our discussion, because that would be dishonest. But we should expect differences to arise when "Irreducible Complexity" is introduced as occurring within Biology and perhaps when "Specified Complexity" is discussed as well, though I don't know enough about the latter concept at this point to say more.

I agree, but I’m hesitant to “go there” at the moment because the thread is redirected to a new but related subject. When we return to it here, or if we take it up on the other thread, I agree with you that those subjects ought to be “next”!

Between now and then, an interesting project might be to analyze the various types of complexity and attempt to organize them for the contributors and Lurkers (especially if it resumes on the other thread). Post 498 was my first attempt to group the types of complexity.

528 posted on 01/07/2005 10:34:37 PM PST by Alamo-Girl (Please donate monthly to Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 522 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl; PatrickHenry; cornelis
This is a reply to betty's post #500.

". . . I believe A-G is correct to say that Shannon information implies a dynamic action (e.g., a choice, a decision), not the passivity of a state function (which leaves a role for a passive observer, but not a deciding actor). . . ."

You are correct to say that Shannon Information requires a "choice" -- I usually say "selection" in what I have posted, no difference -- but there is nothing passive about viewing Shannon Information as stateful. Without recognizing state we will end up with the circular "chicken and egg" debate in which it becomes theoretically possible to argue that there can be no biological information without biological information. At some point in time the discrete state of random probability in a selection of nucleotide sequences, probably in RNA, precedes the continuous state of biological information where selected sequences are communicated.

As for the notion of "intentional dynamics," I can accept such a term as a function of "autonomy," but not as a solution to the Entropy vs. Evolution debate as a conflict between mutually contradictory and coexistent systems of disorder and order. I think this is why the "population of one" model is suggested, to try to develop a new framework to put forth the argument that Entropy, expressed as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, would mitigate against either evolution or abiogenesis, which failed because Entropy (within Thermodynamics) could only be handled within a "closed system," which the earth never was because it was a multitude of systems. Creating the new framework of the "population of one" postulates a new closed system in which the earlier failed argument can be revived.

". . . Contemporary Darwinists of whatever sect all agree that natural selection is the fundamental explanation or true cause of the progressively higher organization that we recognize as biological evolution. . . ."

Where does the use of the term sect come from? Are there people who actually believe that those who find the Theory of Evolution credible get together and recite verses from The Origin of Species? Lol! And I do not consider myself a "Darwinist," though I do believe that the evidence that higher-order life forms have evolved from lower-order life is overwhelming. I also am NOT prepared to accept Natural Selection as the sole explanation for evolutionary development, as I have stated repeatedly that other credible hypotheses, particularly those which look to the properties of matter and energy, must be treated on at least an equal basis. My problem with Natural Selection is that it is frequently treated as the sole basis for an engine of evolutionary change, I personally do not rule out that it can be a partial explanation, but what I find problematic is its reliance upon random mutations. I can accept the part about Natural Selection that argues that "the propensity for biological success is differentiated based upon a member of a species possessing the mutated character trait," but I have a problem with the way "randomness" figures into the origins of mutations. I will be waiting to read the Nature issue of this coming February that discusses the new evidence for Macroevolution I cited in the U-Cal San Diego research, which as I now understand it, and this could change, argues for an "environmental" influence in the mutation patterns of the Hox class of regulatory genes, which clearly would not be random.

One more comment on the earth as a "population of one," we're getting very close to the Gaia hypothesis here. I'm prepared to discuss that, but I thank God my hippie friends don't post on this board!

On Dawkins and the "accident" of life coming into existence -- I have already addressed at great length that I believe that matter acted upon in a manner consistent with the laws of Physics within a plausible set of constraints is neither random nor accidental. We ran a whole series of posts on that point.

And all of this comes together in this paragraph:

". . . Thus life is an 'opportunistic phenomenon': as soon as evolving conditions permit, or constraints removed, it will spontaneously take hold to occupy all possible, then-available niches. The hypothesis of abiogenesis isn’t compatible with this scheme. For although 'spontaneous,' the abiogenetic view seeks to avoid the problem of paradigmatic order altogether, leaving matter to bootstrap itself into life as a consequence of purely random processes – i.e., the inception of life is regarded more or less as an 'accident' which, once taking hold, thereafter spontaneously produces and reproduces biological order – notwithstanding that matter must 'obey' the physical laws, and is especially subject to the second law as generally understood (i.e., Boltzmann's view of it). In short, abiogenesis really doesn’t explain anything; for there is nothing in it that can account for the origin and action of the fecundity principle, which runs contrary, or in opposition, to the direction of thermodynamic equilibrium – 'heat death.'"

The processes are not "purely random" as stated, nor is life generated "spontaneously," unless one argues that because we did not observe it we have no model to explain it, which would extend the application of terms such as "random," "spontaneous," and "accidental" to a very wide range of real-world phenomena, especially in Geology, which would be nonsense. I see real difficulties with the "problem of paradigmatic order" as a construct that is relevant to a scientific discussion, as I believe it borders on the metaphysical.

I do believe it is quite logical to discuss "planetary evolution" and to admit that Darwinian theory does not offer a sound model, but treating the earth as "a single living global entity" -- am I the only one who thinks this sounds pagan? -- is not a useful starting point either.
529 posted on 01/07/2005 11:30:12 PM PST by StJacques
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 500 | View Replies]

To: Physicist; Alamo-Girl; marron; StJacques; tortoise; PatrickHenry; Matchett-PI
The question of "built-in bias" becomes one of whether the CP symmetry is spontaneously broken or dynamically broken.... In the case of B mesons, we can't yet say how it happens, so the question of bias is premature.

Of course I agree drawing any conclusions at this point in the research would be premature. The entire issue of a "bias towards life," or life as an "opportunistic phenomenon," is speculative in any case. Yet one does notice that instances of "fine-tuning" of universal physical constraints necessary for the emergence of life continue to come to notice, such that questions of "intent" seem not unreasonable to ask, although premature to answer on the basis of the scientific record to date.

Thank you ever so much, Physicist, for laying out the issues involved in CP violation for us as they pertain to the matter of "bias." It is so good to hear from you!

530 posted on 01/08/2005 7:56:19 AM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]

To: StJacques; betty boop; Doctor Stochastic; tortoise; cornelis; marron; Matchett-PI
Thank you for the ping to your reply to betty boop!

Your carving of the distinction between discrete and continuous states is reminiscent of Luis Rocha’s point that, for RNA molecules to be information carriers in abiogenesis hypotheses, it would require a separation between the two functions of RNA – on the one hand, non-reactive to carry information (content) and the other, reactive to perform the catalytic function. That expresses my primary objection to autonomy by natural causation and will no doubt be a key point when we resume the abiogenesis analysis. IOW, to me, Rocha's description is akin to a “finite state machine” which would point to either the Fecundity Principle generally ("will to live") or to Intelligent Design specifically. (betty boop, this may be another “pixel” in our investigation.)

Creating the new framework of the "population of one" postulates a new closed system in which the earlier failed argument can be revived.

It is most helpful in these discussions when motive is not questioned. Moreover, I believe your concern for the second law of thermodynamics argument creeping back into the discussion is misplaced. Nobody here seems to be arguing it as proof for or against a theory of origin of life. It is however a physical law and thus must be factored into all of our investigation of the fecundity principle as it was in our discussion of Shannon-Weaver and molecular biology.

IOW, we ought to question if there is an apparent asymmetry between the aggression towards life and the second law of thermodynamics – much like there is an asymmetry between matter and anti-matter. If there is, it might point to an inter-dimensional field (and be another pixel of evidence).

As an example, there exists a theory that gravity is such a small field in comparison to the others because it is inter-dimensional. Positive gravity to us as observers from our selection of 4 dimensions is an indent in space/time; conversely, negative gravity is an outdent in space/time. An object must achieve escape velocity to leave an indentation of space/time (positive gravity); conversely, an outdent would accelerate the expansion of the universe itself.

If we determine an asymmetry between the will to live and the second law of thermodynamics in the general "system", it may suggest another inter-dimensional field (like gravity) which only seems to be an asymmetry to us as observers because of the four dimension limitation of our vision and minds. If that were the case, the only way we would be able to describe it is through mathematics.

BTW, as a Platonist wrt mathematics, I would suggest that the math (geometry) exists and we only need to discover it - or perhaps, properly label what has already been discovered with regard to mirror symmetry and Calabi-Yau manifolds.

I do believe it is quite logical to discuss "planetary evolution" and to admit that Darwinian theory does not offer a sound model, but treating the earth as "a single living global entity" -- am I the only one who thinks this sounds pagan? -- is not a useful starting point either.

Jeepers, StJacques. I am honored to know betty boop as my sister in the Lord Jesus Christ. She would certainly never promote any anti-Christ worldview – and at the same time she would never ridicule a person who is atheist, agnostic, pagan, pantheistic or new age. She approaches every single subject on the forum with profound objectivity and respect for the other posters.

The fecundity principle is a scientific inquiry – but much like Darwin’s theory – it deals with origins and thus may provoke bias in both the contributors here and in the Lurkers. One who is a Buddhist might be convinced it supports his faith, while we Judeo/Christian believers might be convinced it supports our faith – much like an atheist might be convinced evolution supports his lack of faith. But all such condemnations are not just. We know evolutionists who are Christians and atheists who see a guiding hand in the form of cosmic ancestry.

I assert that prejudice in an inquiry is wrong across the board – Darwin’s theory is not theology neither is the Fecundity Principle. If an aggressive will to live exists in the “system” then it should be noted. The characterization of it is unavoidable, but ought to be labeled as such – which is asking no more of the evolutionists here who also atheistic - than they have asked of us over the years.

531 posted on 01/08/2005 9:57:33 AM PST by Alamo-Girl (Please donate monthly to Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; StJacques; betty boop; Doctor Stochastic; tortoise

I know this is BB's thread, and I also know from earlier threads that the question of the earth as "a single living global entity" is one that intrigues her -- indeed, I've seen her eloquently speculate about the entire cosmos as an intelligent entity -- but may I respectfully suggest that we temporarily lay such issues to one side? All these topics are fascinating, but it might be a more orderly procedure if we take our baby steps first. However, I'm just lurking around, so if the consensus is otherwise, then please ignore my suggestion.


532 posted on 01/08/2005 10:19:17 AM PST by PatrickHenry (The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Plato's Euthyphro is a great illustration. Socrates advances the argument to Euthyphro that, piety to the gods, who all want conflicting devotions and/or actions from humans, is impossible.

Likewise, morals are such a construction of idols used by the Left as a rationale for them to demand compliance to their wishes in politics, which most often are a skewed mess of fallacies in logic. Morals are a deceptive replacement for the avoidance of sin. If a person believes in a God, it is the conviction of the Holy Ghost by which they are guided and not by the idolatrous vanities of morals constructed by others.

Considering that 90% of people tend to be more influenced by the visual, television has become a new religion. It is analogous to Plato's cave allegory and the Oracle of Delphi. Television as a propaganda tool helps create visual phantasms (or as Thomas Hobbes called them, 'phantastical images') of the brain.

There are three ways people are influenced according to the school of behavioral psychology - - visual (sight), auditory (sound), kinesthetic (emotion). The kinesthetic or 'feeling' is also based on olfactory and tactile sense, much like Pavlov's salivating dogs.

Visual images and sound portrayed can be used to anchor emotional and/or conditioned responses desired by those that present them, which in the case of television, is the Leftist television media, actors who create phantastical images in film, and Leftist politicians who pander to symbolism over substance (like Rush always says about them).

The visual aspect of that phenomenon is also used by the print media to a degree. Interactive talk radio requires thought; television does not and relies on this as a means to influence viewers...

They worship for gods 'those appearances that remain in the brain from the impression of external bodies upon the organs of their senses, which are commonly called ideas, idols, phantasms, conceits, as being representations of those external bodies which cause them, and have nothing in them of reality, no more than there is in the things that seem to stand before us in a dream...'

Like the necromancy of the late Senator Wellstone's funeral rally, or "funerally" (see the Steven Plaut article, The Rise Of Tikkun Olam Paganism, in reference to the Wellstone brand of Judaism), the use of Martin Luther King Day, or constantly invoking the "spirit of the '60's," the Left attempts to raise spirits of the dead as a totem for worship. This was also done with respect to Diana, Princess of Wales, following her "tragic" death in 1997.

Consider the seemingly coincidental circumstance that Diana is also the name of a pagan Greek goddess, and idolatry. The figurative deification of Princess Diana and the massive outpouring of public grief are a form of civil worship. The heaping of flowers at Kensington Palace as if it were a shrine, melodramatic eulogizing and the political expressions of how the world should comply with her posthumous intent concerning certain issues is a modern use of idolatry. Royalty magazine, in a special edition, had a large drop quote spanning across two pages: "She needed no royal title…to generate her particular brand of magic." The whole magazine was dedicated to pet Leftist political causes mixed in with the pictures and soliloquy about her sainthood.

This idolatry also partly played into the modern conflict of pagan vs. Judaic concerning her billionaire playboy lover, Dodi Al Fayed. Although many consider Islamic belief to be of Judaic origin, it is pagan. The crescent symbolizing Islam was also used to symbolize the pagan goddesses (Diana, Isis, etc.) and is used by modern neo-pagan nut cases as an icon. The use of the bedrock at the Dome of the Rock and the meteorite at the Kaaba as an excuse to label it an Islamic holy site, is idolatry. This is contrary to the idea that Muslim faith is monotheistic.

There is a clear connection between modern neo-paganism and ancient paganism related to Islamic conflict with the Judaic roots of Christendom. A focus on how this is manifested in a modern sense only requires a look at pop-culture icons in entertainment, sports "heroes," and attempts by the Left to use a pseudo-Christian sense of pagan moralistic idolatry to demonize political opposition. (I present to you U.S. Senator Rick Santorum as a useful example.)

Astrology is another blatant example of pagan idolatry. What else is it? The planets have the names of pagan gods. The constellations are grouped as phantastical images of mythical legends. The astrologers are revered as prophets by psychotic, neurotic adherents in frequent fanatical devotion to any musings these charlatans utter. The proliferation of psychics, seers, soothsayers, healers, gurus, etc., etc., ad nauseum, is a social psychosis, an occulted (or masked) promotion of Leftist propaganda (see the Paglia lecture at Yale, Cults and Cosmic Consciousness: Religious Vision in the American 1960s).

Marxism and their forms of Cultural Marxism are a religion, a collection of cults. In many cases they worship a dead Karl Marx like some (and I stress some) Christians worship a dead Jesus, and not a living God. This is no more apparent than in the practice of enshrinement and regular grooming of Lenin's corpse in the former Soviet Union, the use of Princess Diana, Martin Luther King Jr. and others.

It is the religious fervor associated with the pro-abortion advocacy. The societal practice of abortion is ritual mass murder upon the altars dedicated to idolatrous vanities, a collective human sacrifice to pagan idols. It has a similitude to the Teutonic paganism of Adolph Hitler, whose idolatry was the idea of a "master race." In effect, this genocide was a mass human sacrifice to those pagan idols.

The idolatry of perversion is another totem of the Left. Homosexuality is an idolatry of perversion. Gay marriage advocacy is a cult of perversion. Pornography is an idolatry of perversion. Much of television, movies, and the literary culture of the Leftist elite in print, are nothing more than a cleverly masked promotion of their Marxist cult (that is to say, masked much like actors of ancient Greek drama).

The Left is properly identified with a 'confederacy of deceivers (and perverts) that, to obtain dominion over men in this present world, endeavor, by obscure and erroneous doctrines.'

The Left is obsessed with erecting idols, images and symbols to hide their agenda(s), as well as to expand their congregation in these cults of perversion...

Gay advocates of "domestic partnerships" are in effect saying to other homosexuals, that it is only acceptable to be "gay" as long as other homosexuals conform to their hypocritical standard of monogamy. The general public discussion about marriage, homosexuality and "domestic partners," does not address the central issue - - monogamy is a sectarian establishment of religion in the law and violates the First Amendment’s prohibition "regarding an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Various homosexual pressure groups that claim to support "equality" never address bisexuality and the idea that a bisexual is not allowed to benefit from relationships with persons of both sexes. Nor are they, the Left Wing Media, and Left Wing Educational Establishment willing to discuss polygyny or polyandry, which are, or have been traditions for Muslims, Mormons, Hebrews, Hindus, Buddhists and Africans, as well as other Pagan cultures. The two sides currently represented in the same-sex marriage debate both want special rights for monogamists. However, the proponents of heterosexual only marriages are willing to concede that a homosexual has just as much a right to marry a person of the opposite sex as any heterosexual does. [Incidentally, the desire to have children is a heterosexual desire.]

Nowhere in the religious texts of the above mentioned cultures is there a prohibition of polygamy and I challenge any scholar of theology, literature or history to refute it with proof from the Judeo-Christian Holy Bible, Holy Qur’an, Mahabharata, Rig Veda, or Dhammapada. The ignorance of these historical and cultural facts is evidence of the failed public education system and the fig leaf covering the personal bias of certain staff members in the Left Wing Press and Left Wing Educational Establishment concerning facts, reporting them and/or teaching them.

To allow an institution of homosexual marriage in a monogamous form requires some sort of moralistic meandering to justify it and prohibit any form of polygamy. Upon what basis, if we are to assume it is discriminatory to not allow homosexuals to "marry," can there be a prohibition of the varying forms of polygamy? Especially, since the First Amendment is specific in forbidding an establishment of religion in the law and is supposed to protect the people's right to assemble peaceably? The entire issue of "same-sex" marriage hinges upon the assumption that monogamy is the only form of marriage. I contend that it is based upon human biological reproduction and is outside of the government's authority to regulate in regard to the First Amendment...

To bolster some of my assertions:

What gay ideologues, inflated like pink balloons with poststructuralist hot air, can't admit, of course, is that heterosexuality is nature's norm, enforced by powerful hormonal cues at puberty. In the past decade, one shoddy book after another, rapturously applauded by p.c. reviewers, has exaggerated the incidence of homosexuality in the animal world and, without due regard for reproductive adaptations caused by environmental changes, toxins or population pressure, reductively interpreted bonding or hierarchical behavior as gay in the human sense.

About the writer: Camille Paglia is professor of humanities and media studies at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia.

The issue of polygamy is an Achilles' heel for both popular sides of the same-sex marriage issue. The religious cannot find a prohibition of it in their sacred texts. The advocates have to resort to a litany of moralistic meandering based upon the creationist philosophy they claim to oppose to justify it. Both want special rights for preferred groups and are not interested in the individual freedoms of free association. They both want an establishment of religion in the law no matter how much they will deny that.

Unless you like conforming to the religionist dictates, I suggest you and others re-examine the B.S. the guardians of political correctness on the Religious Left have been feeding you.

The idea that some people get a preferred status based upon their personal relationships goes against the idea of individual rights and the idea of equal protection before the law. What of the people's right peaceably to assemble? It does not take an advanced legal education to comprehend the very clear language of the First Amendment. I say the federal and state governments have no Constitutional authority to be in the marriage business at all, except where each individual has a biological responsibility for any offspring they produce. With "reproductive rights," there must be reproductive responsibilities.

In addition, prohibition of polygyny, polyandry and various forms of polygamy (which includes bisexuals) is not consistent with Roe v. Wade - - society has no right to intervene in private reproductive choices. The recent case of a polygynist being prosecuted in Utah is a great example. Do the women associated with the man who fathered those children have a "right to choose" who they want to mate and produce offspring with? Does the man have a right to choose concerning the production of his progeny? Roe v. Wade says societal intervention in private reproductive choices is a violation of individual liberties. What implication does this also have concerning welfare and public funding of abortions? The issue of polygamy tears down a lot of the sacred cows...

The so-called empowerment of women and rights of women have been appropriated by a few to mean rights of the few and no longer means an individual woman’s right to equal treatment. Some would emphasize the "inalienable right" of women to decide whether or not to bear a child. This has the effect of defining women as reproductive units rather than as human beings. Real women’s rights would emphasize greater opportunities for education and employment instead of emphasizing a cult of fertility which leads to economic dependency on men and the rest of society, including homosexual men and women who do not reproduce.

The inaccuracies concerning the political economy of sex as portrayed by pro-"choice" advocates deserve a thorough review: Reproductive "choice" is made when two heterosexual people decide to engage in adult relations, not after the fact. The desire to have children is a heterosexual desire.

Provided it is a consenting relationship, no woman is forced to become pregnant. Modern science and capitalism (see: Ayn Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and Camille Paglia’s Sexual Personae) have provided methods to give women pre-emptive power over the forces of nature. No woman has control over her body; only nature does. It is modern Western Civilization that gives women power over nature, not Roe v. Wade. [Incidentally, Roe v. Wade, if strictly interpreted, would prohibit public funding for abortion since public funding for abortion is a form of societal intervention in reproduction - - the very thing prohibited by Roe v. Wade.]

One may reply Roe v. Wade is part of a larger good called "women’s rights," but this is really a disguise, consigning other women (those who don’t reproduce or those who oppose abortion) to second class citizenship.

This topic is applicable to homosexuality, both the male and female variety, as well as to sexual crimes. The choice to engage in any type of sexual activity is an individual’s, provided of course, he or she is not victim of a sexual assault. It is absurd to claim the rapist has no control over his actions and it is equally ridiculous to say a homosexual does not have a choice not to involve him or herself with another. The same is true for heterosexual females - - being a woman is not an excuse for making poor choices. The idea that "the choice to have an abortion should be left up to a woman" does not take into account the lack of a choice to pay for such services rendered. The general public is forced to pay massive subsidies for other people sex lives. Emotive claims that the decision to have an abortion is a private one is refuted by the demands of those same people who want public funding for their private choices and/or mistakes.

An adult male or female can be sent to the penitentiary for engaging in carnal pleasures with a minor. One female schoolteacher had become the focus of national attention because she produced a child with her juvenile student. She went to prison while pregnant the second time from the very same child student. Courts allowing a minor female to have an abortion without parental consent or notification can destroy evidence of a felony (such as molestation, rape or incest). Those courts and judges therein have become complicit in the destruction of evidence and are possible accessories in the commission of a felony.

Another source of amazement is the concept of those who hold candlelight vigils (yet another example of religious ceremony) for heinous murderers about to be executed, a large number of whom think it is acceptable to murder an unborn child without the benefit of a trial. Is the "right to life" of one responsible for much murder and mayhem more important than that of a truly innocent unborn child?

Perhaps we should call capital punishment "post-natal abortion" and identify abortion as a "pre-natal death sentence" or "pre-natal summary execution." The idolatry of "reproductive freedom" is my economic and environmental tyranny.

But since we are all properly obeying the modern interpretation of the First Amendment… Good or bad isn’t the question. Good, bad, right wrong, evil, moral; all of these are purely religious concepts. Morality and all of its associated concepts are based on the belief that some higher power is defining the correctness of human behavior.

(SARCASM ON) The First Amendment says that Government must exorcise all traces of religion and theism from itself. Therefore, the Government should never consider issues of morality and of right and wrong. (SARCASM OFF)

So, it becomes a question of benefits versus costs, not a question of right and wrong. Fetus killing has its benefits to society, especially if you like to sleep late on Saturday. But, it also has its costs as well. Society (by which I mean whoever manages to seize power) needs to evaluate these costs and decide accordingly.

533 posted on 01/08/2005 10:19:18 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; betty boop; PatrickHenry
"Your carving of the distinction between discrete and continuous states is reminiscent of Luis Rocha’s point that, for RNA molecules to be information carriers in abiogenesis hypotheses, it would require a separation between the two functions of RNA – on the one hand, non-reactive to carry information (content) and the other, reactive to perform the catalytic function. That expresses my primary objection to autonomy by natural causation and will no doubt be a key point when we resume the abiogenesis analysis. . . ."

I was thinking of Pattee's discussion of "Semiotic Enclosures" in which he stated that there must be both a linear and circular model within which to work. I view the objection to "autonomy by natural causation" as rejection of a linear model.

". . . It is most helpful in these discussions when motive is not questioned. . . ."

I am not questioning betty's intentions as lacking "good faith." But the failure of the Entropy vs. Evolution argument has been long established and within the new construct of a "living global entity" or "population of one" it can be revived, since the "entity" can be treated as a "closed system"

". . . Jeepers, StJacques. I am honored to know betty boop as my sister in the Lord Jesus Christ. She would certainly never promote any anti-Christ worldview – and at the same time she would never ridicule a person who is atheist, agnostic, pagan, pantheistic or new age. . . ."

In no way did I intend to call betty a pagan. That remark was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, perhaps I should have followed it with a Lol! comment to make this clear. I posted that comment because I have had a number of discussions on the Gaia hypothesis with some very weird hippie friends who start talking about "Earth Mother" and "the living being that is the Earth" and "the spiritual essence of the living Earth" -- all in which they diverge from the Gaia hypothesis -- all of which sounds quite pagan to me. I found myself thinking about it as I addressed the "global entity" concept. I did make a remark about "my hippie friends" earlier in my post, perhaps I should have grouped that remark together with my final comment. I do NOT consider betty a pagan by any means.
534 posted on 01/08/2005 10:53:24 AM PST by StJacques
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 531 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; betty boop
Thank you so much for sharing your preferences for the direction of the inquiry!

My two cents: it is betty boop's thread and I'll happily go whichever way she points.

535 posted on 01/08/2005 11:25:40 AM PST by Alamo-Girl (Please donate monthly to Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 532 | View Replies]

To: StJacques; betty boop; tortoise; PatrickHenry; Doctor Stochastic; marron; cornelis; Matchett-PI
Thank you oh so very much for your clarifications!

I view the objection to "autonomy by natural causation" as rejection of a linear model.

I do not reject a linear model, I raised the objection to autonomy by natural causation because I see this as the first big hurdle for any theory of abiogenesis - namely, how RNA must toggle between hosting information content and being catalytic to accrue sufficient symbols to bootstrap self-organizing complexity (if that is the complexity of choice).

As I recall, Pattee suggested there may have been an extraordinary "one time only" (my paraphrase) set of events at the inception of biological life - which is kind of like an appeal to the anthropic principle for initial conditions (physical laws/constants) in the universe.

536 posted on 01/08/2005 11:34:11 AM PST by Alamo-Girl (Please donate monthly to Free Republic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
Since I can't scientifically prove it, is it RATIONAL for me to believe that others beside myself have minds and aren't just pre-programmed robots? Post #437

No, you are taking it on faith that they do. It's a need to buy into a rational world that will cause you to do so, but ultimately one has to accept the perceived or desired, reality based on faith

537 posted on 01/08/2005 12:08:39 PM PST by D Edmund Joaquin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 524 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
"I do not reject a linear model, I raised the objection to autonomy by natural causation because I see this as the first big hurdle for any theory of abiogenesis - namely, how RNA must toggle between hosting information content and being catalytic to accrue sufficient symbols to bootstrap self-organizing complexity (if that is the complexity of choice). . . ."

No one can deny that you have stated one of several hurdles that will have to be cleared before Abiogenesis can be demonstrated. It is still a work in progress. I stated much earlier that my best guess was that it would take thirty years or so to do it and I stand by that.
538 posted on 01/08/2005 12:09:21 PM PST by StJacques
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 536 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

so betty, are you a big fan then of Teilhard des Chardins


539 posted on 01/08/2005 12:10:37 PM PST by D Edmund Joaquin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 503 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; bondserv; Dataman; Dr. Eckleburg; kinsman redeemer; tx_eggman; AndrewC; JudyinCanada
the paradigmatic order that drives a system that has “an in-built bias” towards the manifestation and evolution of “Life, and Life more abundantly.” Down deep, I suspect this information is essentially geometrical: simple, clean, universal, elegant, beautiful, devoted to problems of “form.”

Exactly what I as a Creationist contend that the book of Genesis says and get such grief for

540 posted on 01/08/2005 12:18:30 PM PST by D Edmund Joaquin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 921-935 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson