I was in joke-mode, so don't take what I said as an argument. — Bitter Crank

That's OK. I don't take the smoke-without-fire too seriously. It's par for the course, for philosophers who explore the outer limits of human knowledge, where angels fear to post their unpopular opinions.

Both Progressive Evolution and Digressive Devolution are opinions based partly on prior attitudes and partly on partial evidence. So, while my non-expert opinion is more sweetly optimistic than your bitter pessimism, I'm encouraged by the pioneering sober scientists, who take the risk to row against the tide of stuffy academic authority. :joke:

Weak deflections. :yawn:

your bitter pessimism — Gnomon

Wait wait. On the topic of evolution I'm not at all bitter or pessimistic. After all, our esteemed selves, the paragon of animals and the crowns of creation, are the result of evolution. You know, we are pretty smart. It just when we start playing God, as we often do--one way or another--we land in deep shit pretty quick.

God, being all omniscient about everything, knew in advance how plan A, Plan B, Plan C, on down to Plan ZZZ, would turn out. So, whatever he chose to do, he knew how it would turn out through to the end of time. We, on the other hand, can't start frying an egg with certain knowledge of how it will turn out. Genetic engineering with the attention span and predictive capacity that results in burnt fried eggs? God help us all.

But there is a strong trend, especially in the fields of Complexity & Cosmology to present (non-divine) scientific models of Teleology. — Gnomon

I believe this is not true. Do you have some references?

As the articles below illustrate, it's not just little ole me that sees signs of directionality in the world's development, from a simple Singularity to the cosmic complexity we see today. — Gnomon

I never said that there aren't people who believe that evolution is teleological. I only responded to the following comments:

Philosophers, through the ages have mostly agreed that our world appears to be designed, and tried to guess the intentions of the designer. Their conjectures may prove wrong in the details, but agree on the general direction : upward. — Gnomon

That evolution is progressive is hard to deny. — Gnomon

As I noted, I believe these statements are incorrect.

The Stanford entry below provides names & opinions. :smile:

Teleological Notions in Biology :
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/ — Gnomon

The SEP article you referenced includes the following statement:

Nevertheless, biologists and philosophers have continued to question the legitimacy of teleological notions in biology. For instance, Ernst Mayr (1988), identified four reasons why teleological notions remain controversial in biology, namely that they are:

• vitalistic (positing some special ‘life-force’);
• requiring backwards causation (because goal-directed explanations seem to use future outcomes to explain present traits);
• incompatible with mechanistic explanation (because of 1 and 2);
• mentalistic (attributing the action of mind where there is none).

A fifth complaint is that they are not empirically testable (Allen & Bekoff 1995)...

This demonstrates my point - there is widespread belief among appropriately qualified scientists and philosophers that evolution is not teleological. It is not hard to deny that evolution is progressive. Qualified people do it all the time.

That's OK. I don't take the smoke-without-fire too seriously. It's par for the course, for philosophers who explore the outer limits of human knowledge, where angels fear to post their unpopular opinions. — Gnomon

Yes....well...ahem.

Wait wait. On the topic of evolution I'm not at all bitter or pessimistic. — Bitter Crank

Great! I was just playing with your screenname. :smile:

I too, am cautiously optimistic that evolution is moving toward an improved version of the paradoxical world we now inhabit. That's because I tend to focus on the sensible stuff, instead of the absurdities, At least, I don't have to worry about sabre-tooth tigers sniffing around my cave. I don't expect to be around to evaluate the next incremental upgrade --- maybe beating our bombs into plowshares. But the history of progression from next-to-nothingness to awesome everythingness (97 light-years across), is evident. And we now expect to see more of our cosmic history with the new James Webb way-back-machine.

Also, it's the undeniable progression in organization that I refer to as "Teleology", moving toward an improved future for all of us passengers on the Blue Marble. Of course, progress in inter-personal morality seems to be much slower than in impersonal technology. However, I do agree with Steven Pinker that human societies have improved in many ways, even as over-population and ecological devolution present newer & bigger problems for each generation to deal with. Together, we can work it out.

Human Culture hasn't yet created an artificial Garden of Eden. But we're getting there, with two steps forward and one step back. That's all you can expect from the heuristic (trial & error) mechanism of random variation and natural selection. Buzz Lightyear defined Teleology as "to the future, and beyond". :nerd:

I believe this is not true. Do you have some references? — T Clark

Yes. I provide links to expert opinions in all of my posts, to provide support for my layman's opinions. As you noted, the experts are not unanimous in their assessment. Positive progression is a matter of interpretation, and the scope of your worldview.

You can check-out my other threads if you are interested in references. And my blog goes into even deeper detail, with links & details. But then, you are entitled to your own opinion. So, I won't argue with you.

References won't convince you, if you are not looking at them from an open-minded perspective. For example, reverse the timeline in the image below --- is the athletic ape better than the couch potato? Now substitute the image below for the blob, and do you see any progress? :joke:


Why Evolution is Progressive :
One of the outstanding recent scandals of biology has been the notion that evolution is not progressive, a concept that flaunts the evidence of our eyes.
https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/9789814350501_0011

POSITIVE PROGRESSION ?

As you noted, the experts are not unanimous in their assessment. Positive progression is a matter of interpretation, and the scope of your worldview. — Gnomon

If we are agreed on that, then we agree on the claim this:

Philosophers, through the ages have mostly agreed that our world appears to be designed, and tried to guess the intentions of the designer. Their conjectures may prove wrong in the details, but agree on the general direction : upward.
— Gnomon

That evolution is progressive is hard to deny.
— Gnomon

As I noted, I believe these statements are incorrect. — T Clark

That's all I claimed. You have not responded to that claim. Many people like to claim that their positions are unquestionable, self-evident, when they are not. That's what you have done.

References won't convince you, if you are not looking at them from an open-minded perspective. — Gnomon

Again - you're not responding to the claim I made.

For example, reverse the timeline in the image below --- is the athletic ape better than the couch potato? Now substitute the image below for the blob, and do you see any progress? :joke: — Gnomon

I think the illustration you have provided is enlightening. It shows evolutionary "progress" from chimpanzee to human, but humans are not ancestors of chimpanzees. I think that shows the oversimplicity of the argument you are trying to make.

That's all I claimed. You have not responded to that claim. Many people like to claim that their positions are unquestionable, self-evident, when they are not. That's what you have done. — T Clark

I hope you will pardon me if I don't respond directly to your categorical claim that my expressed opinions are incorrect. They are not scientific factual assertions, but personal philosophical perspectives. My opinions may sound confident, because I have given them a lot of thought, and presented my thesis on a webpage. Besides, I have replied to similar "claims" repeatedly ad infinitum on this forum. For example, the post linked below in the FreeWill thread treats the Teleological argument without specifically mentioning it.

If you need more than that, my blog has several posts on the topic of Teleology : Post 7 -- Enformation : Process of Creation (teleological tendencies) : Post 15 -- Cosmopsychism vs Enformationism (teleological implications) ; Post 33 -- What is EnFormAction? (teleological direction) ; Post 60 -- Teleological Evolution (phase changes, emergences, speciations). If you will PM me, I can give you links to to these and many other detailed essays on similar topics, each with lots of explanatory sidenotes & links to other information. My opinions are definitely not expressed as "unquestionable". There is a blog forum where you can post your criticism in more specific terms. :cool:

Evolutionary Emergence of Freewill :
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/654052

I hope you will pardon me if I don't respond directly to your categorical claim that my expressed opinions are incorrect. — Gnomon

I don't believe evolution is progressive, but that's not what I argued. All I argued is that the position that evolution is progressive is not obvious or self-evident. It's not hard to deny.

You have argued that as God is uncreated and better than the universe, the universe does not need a creator. I do not see how you're getting to that conclusion - there seem to be some missing steps.

We can all agree that there must exist some uncreated things. That's not evidence that everything is uncreated.

Complex things need creators. Simple things do not. Indeed, to ask what created a simple thing is simply to manifest a failure to understand the nature of a simple thing. For a simple thing has nothing from which it can be created.

So, if there exist complex things, then there must exist some simple things. And the ultimate creators of complex things are simple things.

Clearly, then, one cannot get from "simple things are uncreated" to "complex things are uncreated". And the universe is a complex thing, and God is a simple thing.

So your case must rest entirely upon the claim that God is 'better' than the universe. But I don't understand how you get from the claim that God is better than the universe, to "therefore the universe does not need a creator".

I don't believe evolution is progressive, but that's not what I argued. All I argued is that the position that evolution is progressive is not obvious or self-evident. It's not hard to deny. — T Clark

Denial is easy; understanding is hard.

Obviously, if you doubt that evolution is progressive, then it's not "obvious or self-evident" to you. But, if you compare the present state of the universe to its original state, the cosmic scale of change is undeniable. It is even quite apparent in biology, as "progressive speciation" is well documented, despite the occasional extinction events.

If you are thinking in terms of Moral progress though, then that's an ethical question, which is always up for debate, because there is no objective empirical evidence, just subjective personal beliefs. Philosophical questions are seldom "obvious", even though some axioms are considered to be "self evident" --- progress is not axiomatic or factual. So, we argue analogies & metaphors.

Whether you call the apparent increase in complexity & organization "progressive" depends on your personal perspective. As you can see from the excerpts below there are plenty of experts to whom biological progression is obvious. Of course "teleological" or "logical" or "ethical" progression is another story. What kind of evolutionary change would you look for to determine whether evolution is "progressive" or "digressive" or "static"? You'll need to define your terms. :smile:

Evolutionary Progress? :
That the history of life on Earth manifests some sort of progress has seemed obvious to many biologists.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/50/5/451/264248

FWIW, If you Google "progressive speciation", you can make your own list of expert opinions.
"Speciation results from the progressive accumulation of mutations . . ."
"species represent progressive stages . . ."
"Progressive levels of trait divergence . . . "

"Adams suggests that there is such a thing as moral progress, ..."
https://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2019/03/is-there-such-thing-as-moral-progress.html

The Anthropic Cosmological Principle implies that the evolution of the cosmos is teleological.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle


Barrow and Tipler didn’t invent the notion of an Anthropic (human oriented) Principle in Nature. They merely digested many different cosmological theories over centuries into a form that is amenable to the technical and mathematical format of modern science. They “traced the history of the underlying world-view in which it has germinated”. . . . However, the authors prefer the term “eutaxiological”, which means that the end state is unknown (i.e. no prophecy), and implies that the Process may be the Purpose. But first, they address the Copernican assumption (rule of thumb), underlying most of modern cosmology. Which asserts as a “principle” – based on 17th century observations – that “we [humans] do not occupy a privileged position in the Universe”. To which, the authors reply that “our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers”.
excerpt from BothAnd Blog, post 116

Denial is easy; understanding is hard.

Obviously, if you doubt that evolution is progressive, then it's not "obvious or self-evident" to you. — Gnomon

If a significant number of qualified people don't think something is self-evident, it's not self-evident at all. Calling something self-evident requires a consensus among the parties to the discussion. There's no consensus here. And it's not just between you and me, I'm talking about people who understand the specifics of evolution better than we do.

It is even quite apparent in biology, as "progressive speciation" is well documented, despite the occasional extinction events. — Gnomon

Whether you call the apparent increase in complexity & organization "progressive" depends on your personal perspective. As you can see from the excerpts below there are plenty of experts to whom biological progression is obvious. — Gnomon

I will acknowledge that the complexity of life has increased over the last 500 million years since the the Cambrian Explosion, but that's because it started out with bacteria, the simplest organisms possible. There was nowhere to go but more complex. But that's not progress or purpose. That doesn't show that evolution is directed. It's just probabilities. If you start with 100 black marbles in a box and then start exchanging one marble at a time at random, black marbles for white ones and white marbles for black; eventually you will end up with 50 black marbles and 50 white. That doesn't show progress toward diversity of marble color.

Whether you call the apparent increase in complexity & organization "progressive" depends on your personal perspective. — Gnomon

No. It doesn't depend on personal perspective. Somebody's right and somebody's wrong. I think I'm right. Am I 100% positive? No, but I'm certain enough to make the claim I have made.

As you can see from the excerpts below there are plenty of experts to whom biological progression is obvious. — Gnomon

I never said there weren't a lot of people who think evolution is progressive. But as I said, if there is not a consensus, it is not obvious.

The Anthropic Cosmological Principle implies that the evolution of the cosmos is teleological. — Gnomon

My skepticism for the strong anthropic principle is as strong as my skepticism about progressive evolution. It's not science it's.... I don't know what it is.

I changed the first sentence of my first paragraph to read "If a significant number of qualified people don't think something is self-evident, it's not self-evident at all," because I think the way it was originally was ambiguous.

:up:

And it's not just between you and me, I'm talking about people who understand the specifics of evolution better than we do. — T Clark

You put your finger on the difference between my general philosophical worldview and your specific scientific paradigm. I suspect that you think I'm making a scientific claim, when I say that "evolution is qualitatively progressive". But, since I'm not a scientist, I don't make authoritarian statements about the quantitative mechanics of physics. I do however cite those "soft" scientists, such as Einstein, who are more theoretical & philosophical than empirical & technological. Someone once asked him where his laboratory was, and he simply held up a pencil.

Most "hard" scientists, in their dissection of nature, take a reductive & analytical approach to their work. But philosophers are dealing with imaginary metaphysical Ideas, not carving reality at its physical joints. So, you might expect that their methods should be adapted to their invisible & intangible subject (non-)matter. Ironically, some philosophers, perhaps goaded by physics envy, attempt to apply the same methods that work on the whats of material objects, to their study of the whys of mental concepts.

Aristotle distinguished between hard & soft science by dividing his treatise into two books. He considered both to be relevant to Phusis (Greek for Nature). But recognized that objective nature and subjective human culture required different approaches. That's why the book we now know as The Meta-Physics is not based on direct observation & physical dissection, but on conversation & rational analysis.

What I'm saying here is that we are talking past each other. When I present concepts of "soft" science, you interpret them as-if they are assertions of "hard" science. That's why you still don't understand what I mean by "progressive" evolution. You may interpret that to mean Quantitative improvement, while I'm talking about Qualitative advancement. But, there is no natural empirical evidence for Qualia. So, all we have to go on is human opinions. Are you better-off than a cave-man? Your opinion (or belief) is just as true as mine : it's a no-win tug-of-war, because the rope is stretchy.

That's why hard science makes rapid physical progress in controlling Nature, while soft philosophy keeps rehashing the same old questions about Human Nature & Culture. Beliefs & Opinions, even those of experts, are always debatable. And Philosophy is not progressive in any empirical sense. Hence, the threads on this forum that go in circles for months without reaching a consensus. The only intellectual progress is within the individual mind. My personal worldview is sharpened by grinding against the rough edges of hard science. :smile:


Hard vs Soft Sciences :
Hard sciences use math explicitly, they have more control over the variables and conclusions. They include physics, chemistry and astronomy. Soft sciences use the process of collecting empirical data then use the best methods possible to analyze the information. ... They include economics, political science and sociology.
https://www.usu.edu/today/story/whats-the-gripe-between-hard-and-soft-sciences-the-debate-rages-on

Teleonomy :
Although evolution is obviously progressing in the direction of Time's Arrow, it is treated by Science as if it is wandering aimlessly in a field of possibilities limited only by natural laws and initial conditions. But philosophical observers over the centuries have inferred that evolution shows signs of rational design, purpose, and intention. Traditionally, that programmed progression has been called "Teleology" (future + reason), and was attributed to a divine agent.
Teleonomy (purpose + law) is another way of describing the appearance of goal-directed progress in nature, but it is imagined to be more like the step-by-step computations of a computer than the capricious interventions of a deity. Since the Enformationism thesis portrays the Creator more like a computer programmer than the Genesis wizard who creates with magic words (creatio via fiat), "Teleonomy" may be the more appropriate term to describe the creative process of a non-intervening deity.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

Teleonomy and Evolution :
Mayr suggested that we can use the term teleonomy to represent something that operates according to a purpose because of a program.
https://evolutionnews.org/2017/12/teleonomy-and-evolution/

Darwin's greatest discovery: Design without designer :
"Darwin accepted that organisms are “designed” for certain purposes, that is, they are functionally organized."
https://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8567

I suspect that you think I'm making a scientific claim, when I say that "evolution is qualitatively progressive". But, since I'm not a scientist, I don't make authoritarian statements about the quantitative mechanics of physics. I do however cite those "soft" scientists, such as Einstein, who are more theoretical & philosophical than empirical & technological. — Gnomon

My problem with this is that the question of whether or not evolution is progressive is not a qualitative soft science or metaphysical question. As I said - it's either right or it's wrong, and I believe it's wrong.

And calling Albert Einstein a "soft scientist" is about as inaccurate a description as I can think of.

The Anthropic Cosmological Principle implies that the evolution of the cosmos is teleological.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle — Gnomon

No, not really. The anthropic principle merely tells us that there is a selection effect on any observations we can make, in virtue of the fact that we exist in the first place to make those observations.

No, not really. The anthropic principle merely tells us that there is a selection effect on any observations we can make, in virtue of the fact that we exist in the first place to make those observations. — Seppo

Yes, really. :smile:

The authors of the ACP book I quoted go beyond the mere evidence of a "selection effect" to imply that Darwin's aimless "Natural Selection" was found, on a cosmic scale, to be -- lawfully and seemingly intentionally -- directed toward the emergence of animated Life, and eventually of intentional Mind. This then-novel notion was not quite as outrageous as some made it out to be. Darwin based his own term on the future-oriented intentions of human breeders, who deliberately set-out to produce sheep with more wool, and dogs with specialized sizes, shapes, and temperaments. Of course, Darwin was reluctant to express the obvious religious implication of design in nature. Yet, ACP is still technically Natural selection, because it predates human Cultural Selection

However, those theoretical physicists, a century later, were aware of Darwin's dilemma : both theists and atheists were outraged at his unorthodox theory. So, they were hesitant to use the touchy term "Teleology", and substituted the less familiar words "Teleonomy" or "Eutaxiology". That minor distinction only meant that they didn't claim to "know" (e.g. by revelation) the ultimate goal of the progressive process. They merely interpreted the evidence to-date as Anthropological or Anthropogenic in direction.

Since then, some have looked even further into the future, envisioning "trans-human" cybernetic successors to the homo sapiens species. Anyway, the fierce ferment among theorists has resulted in a hierarchy of interpretations of the abstract numerical evidence presented. The Weak AP was merely a current status report, as you noted. But the Strong AP says that "Our existence is the end goal of a plan". And the authors of the book go on to propose an even more radical "Final AP".

So, if this 21st century version of Teleology sounds un-orthodox to you, it's in good company with Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and Schrodinger et al, who introduced disruptive novel paradigms into the philosophical conversation, and in the expanding scientific understanding of the ever-surprising underlying actuality of apparent Reality.. But. don't blame me --- if your settled worldview is threatened by positive Evolution. I'm just the reporter of good news for the future of the living & thinking Cosmos. :wink:

Teleonomy is the quality of apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms brought about by natural processes ...
___Wikipedia
Note -- How could human purposefulness arise from a random confluence of atoms?

Eutaxiology (from the Greek eu – good, and tax – order) is the philosophical study of order and design. It is distinguished from teleology in that it does not focus on the purpose or goal of a given structure or process, merely the degree and complexity of the structure or process
___Wikipedia

The Anthropic Cosmological Principle :
"But, Barrow and Tipler go much farther than that modest assertion. “There is one interesting approach we can take which employs an Anthropic Principle in a more adventurous and speculative manner . . .” In fact, they extrapolate beyond Carter’s limited WAP to speculate on the ultimate destiny of the universe, taking not only a Strong interpretation (SAP), but going so far as to present a Final Anthropic Principle (FAP). They express their confidence in no uncertain terms : “mathematical physics possesses many unique properties that are necessary prerequisites for the existence of rational information-processing and observers similar to ourselves”. ___Barrow & Tipler, physicists,
BothAnd Blog, post 116

"prominent physicist John Archibald Wheeler summarized the philosophical meaning of this scientific data : “It is not only that man is adapted to the universe . . .”, as implied by Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, but that, “the universe is adapted to man.” He goes on to assert the “central point of the anthropic principle”, that “a life-giving factor lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world.” ___J.A. Wheeler, theoretical physicist.
BothAnd Blog, post 116

The Anthropic Cosmological Principle :
Ever since Copernicus, scientists have continually adjusted their view of human nature, moving it further and further from its ancient position at the center of Creation. But in recent years, a startling new concept has evolved that places it more firmly than ever in a special position. Known as the Anthropic Cosmological Principle, this collection of ideas holds that the existence of intelligent observers determines the fundamental structure of the Universe. ____John D. Barrow
https://philpapers.org/rec/BARTAC-2

And calling Albert Einstein a "soft scientist" is about as inaccurate a description as I can think of. — T Clark

I'm sorry if I blasphemed your idol by calling him "soft". I meant no disrespect. Instead, I was just making a relevant distinction between Empirical scientists, who get their hands dirty, and Theoretical scientists, who get callouses on their pencil fingers. Albert did no physical experiments, and he used mathematics only to translate his qualitative subjective scenarios into the universal language of logical relationships. For those not conversant with the arcane conventions of mathematics, he described his thought experiments in metaphorical imagery, such as trains & elevators. Would you like to suggest a less offensive way to denote the difference between pragmatic demonstrative science and theoretical speculative philosophy? :nerd:

Albert did no physical experiments, and he used mathematics only to translate his qualitative subjective scenarios into the universal language of logical relationships. — Gnomon

:ok: The ignorance manifest by this statement is stunning. Good job, G! :sparkle:

Yes, really. — Gnomon

No, not really. The anthropic principle, at least in the form that is respectable/generally accepted, is basically just a tautology, stating the selection effect the fact that we exist has on our possible observations. It doesn't involve any purpose or intention on the part of the universe. And the "strong" anthropic principle proposed by people like Tipler is completely speculative (as they themselves admit) and not generally accepted or based on any actual empirical results.

The authors of the ACP book I quoted go beyond the mere evidence of a "selection effect" to imply that Darwin's aimless "Natural Selection" was found, on a cosmic scale, to be -- lawfully and seemingly intentionally -- directed toward the emergence of animated Life, and eventually of intentional Mind. — Gnomon

I'm hoping that you're misrepresenting them, because this is a mess. "Natural selection" was not found "on a cosmic scale" because natural selection in Darwin's sense, and in the sense that is actually well-established, pertains to a selection effect on biological organisms. Its not applicable to cosmology or the cosmos, except as an analogy or metaphor (as in Smolin's "Cosmological Natural Selection").

And the stuff about "seemingly intentionally" and "directed towards the emergence of.. life and eventually intentional mind" is also completely baseless and speculative. I don't doubt that some scientists hold such beliefs as a personal matter of faith, but that's all it is- a personal belief about theology or metaphysics, not an established scientific result or model. More theology than science.

But. don't blame me --- if your settled worldview is threatened by positive Evolution. I'm just the reporter of good news for the future of the living & thinking Cosmos. — Gnomon

Ah yes, I reel in terror from the daring and heroic Internet Truth-Speaker, wreaking havok on our "settled worldviews" with his speculative religious philosophy and pseudoscience... :lol:

No, not really. The anthropic principle merely tells us that there is a selection effect on any observations we can make, in virtue of the fact that we exist in the first place to make those observations. — Seppo

There are two principles. The weak anthropic principle is as you say - it's a restatement of the obvious, i.e. we live in a universe where conditions suitable for human life exist. The strong anthropic principle is different. It states that the improbability of the conditions we find ourselves in here means that the universe must have been set up to promote the evolution of humans or someone like us. It's the fine tuning argument.

I was just making a relevant distinction between Empirical scientists, who get their hands dirty, and Theoretical scientists, who get callouses on their pencil fingers. Albert did no physical experiments, and he used mathematics only to translate his qualitative subjective scenarios into the universal language of logical relationships. — Gnomon

This is baloney. Read some of his papers. They are rigorous and heavily mathematical. Even though he did not do experiments himself, this work has been tested over and over and found to be correct. His work is not "qualitative" although he worked hard to explain his findings to non-technical readers in a non-mathematical way. Much of modern physics is based on the work he did.

But the inference of Purpose is a debatable opinion. Simple erratic causation, like billiard balls bouncing around due to an earthquake is clearly accidental. But when those balls go straight into pockets, we may reasonably look around to see where the impetus came from. In the game of pool, the Prime Cause of that progression is obvious : the man with a stick, and a smile or frown on his face. — Gnomon

And what does this mundane pool analogy tell of the eternal? It tells us God is of limited intellect, he too was created, and he engages in meaningless play, doing those things he chooses to pass the day away.

The telological argument can at best tell us that those complex events around us were created by something, but it says nothing about the origins of existence, omniscient creators, or of the purpose of our existence.

Our creator could just be an average dude hitting balls into pockets for no deeper reason than he's bored, passing the time waiting for his father to pick him up for soccer practice.

Upward? Upward? Surely you must be joking, Mr. Gnomon — Bitter Crank

I agree 100%! :100:
While information on computers may blow towards infinity at the "Omega" point in the future, the world we put information about on computers deteriorates exponentially just the same. Flora and fauna has become extinct on a global scale and the surface of the Earth has been redesigned to unprecedented level. We are born like strangers in a strange lost world, and when we look out of the classroom window to look at the butterfly outside hopping from flower to flower, instead of keeping our attention to a teacher writing out strange symbolic problems to be solved on a green school board with white squeaky chalk we're labeled ADD. As if life is about solving symbolic problems. Math is nice. Application to real life disastrous.

The strong anthropic principle is different. It states that the improbability of the conditions we find ourselves in here means that the universe must have been set up to promote the evolution of humans or someone like us. It's the fine tuning argument. — T Clark

Right, and as already noted its completely speculative and baseless, and the fine-tuning argument in particular rests on a claim about probability that can't be sustained. The only form of the anthropic principle that is credible is the so-called "weak" anthropic principle, which is more or less just a tautology.

Attributing purpose or intentionality to the universe is a personal matter of faith concerning theology and metaphysics, it has nothing to do with any established or accepted science.

Right, and as already noted its completely speculative and baseless, and the fine-tuning argument in particular rests on a claim about probability that can't be sustained. The only form of the anthropic principle that is credible is the so-called "weak" anthropic principle, which is more or less just a tautology. — Seppo

People who believe in the quantum multiverse or the anthropic principle are like people who think that if you flip a coin four times and get four heads you are more likely to get a tail than a head on the fifth flip.

No, not really. The anthropic principle, at least in the form that is respectable/generally accepted, is basically just a tautology, — Seppo

Oh really? The book I reviewed is indeed not "generally accepted". And the authors were aware that they were going beyond the conservative interpretation of WAP, to propose a more radical perspective. So, they support their conclusion with a lot of technical data that was way over my head. If you are more into the math, maybe you can critique them on scientific facts instead of their unpopular interpretation. Obviously, their proposed new paradigm of cosmology is not accepted by the old guard who defend a more traditional reductive worldview. :smile:

Weak, Strong, and Final Cosmologies :
But this book is mostly concerned with the anthropogenic implications of current scientific knowledge. Which, they claim, reveals a “series of mysterious coincidences between the numerical values of the fundamental constants of Nature”. And they also contend that “our picture of the universe and its laws are influenced by an unavoidable selection effect . . . this self-selection principle . . . is usually called the Weak Anthropic Principle”(WAP). Since the WAP is essentially a tautology, it only implies that those coincidental values and laws are consistent with the emergence of Life, but doesn’t imply design or specify the humanoid species.
BothAnd Blog, post 116

I'm hoping that you're misrepresenting them, because this is a mess. "Natural selection" was not found "on a cosmic scale" because natural selection in Darwin's sense, and in the sense that is actually well-established, pertains to a selection effect on biological organisms — Seppo

I agree that your emotional response to a brief overview of a complex scientific proposal is "a mess". But, until you read the book itself you have no grounds for concluding that I'm misrepresenting the meaning of a book on cutting-edge Cosmology. The authors were physicists, and expanding Darwin's notion beyond its limited biological application up to a universal & cosmic scale. What you say is "well-established" is what they intended to dis-establish. Theirs is a Cosmological Argument based on 20th century science instead of medieval theology. Their rationale is an attempt to scientifically explain the emergence of homo sapiens, instead of dismissing such an improbable event as a mere random accident of impersonal Fate. :cool:

Cosmological Principle :
"But, Barrow and Tipler go much farther than that modest assertion [WAP}. “There is one interesting approach we can take which employs an Anthropic Principle in a more adventurous and speculative manner . . .”
BothAnd Blog, post 116

Anthropocentric vs Cosmocentric :
"Voltaire’s contemporary, skeptical philosopher David Hume, following the new deductive & reductive scientific methodology, reasoned that “the Design Argument is unscientific”. Which is true, because it is an inductive & holistic form of reasoning, which allows inference to leap over gaps in knowledge. But then, Inference, from known to unknown, is always based on incomplete information."
BothAnd Blog, post 116

Ah yes, I reel in terror from the daring and heroic Internet Truth-Speaker, wreaking havok on our "settled worldviews" with his speculative religious philosophy and pseudoscience.. — Seppo

Your emotional reaction to blasphemy of revered Scientific Truth sounds similar to Muslim's outrage at any criticism of the Holy Koran. Science is not "settled" or static. Like sharks & evolution, Science must progress or die. I don't agree with all of the authors' speculations. But theirs is not a "religious" or "pseudoscience" notion. It is not presented as an argument from authority, but from evidence. And is always open to counter-evidence. In any case, your scandalized outburst is not a philosophical critique. It sounds more like a religious defense of divinely revealed Truth. :nerd:

SCIENCE IS NEVER SETTLED
The purpose of this non-profit organization Science Is Never Settled is to remind people of what all good scientists know, science is never settled.
https://scienceisneversettled.com/

Is the science settled? No science is ever “settled”; science deals in probabilities, not certainties.
https://skepticalscience.com/settled-science.htm