Okay, I guess my previous understanding is correct. Namely that academic Metaphysics does NOT necessarily (even with a ten foot pole apparantly) address the actions of "metaphysical" entities. That second use of the word perhaps being a "colloquial" use of the term.

So we're addressing two different uses of the term.

I don't think so, but the question is obviously pressing. And why is it pressing? — Wayfarer

Yeah, the issue of misinformation is a pressing one.

It wouldn't be because those despised 'Intelligent Design' advocates, Michael Behe and others, have actually hit a nerve? Heaven forbid! — Wayfarer

It sounds like you are a cdesign-proponetsist. Perhaps you are fooling yourself about being on the side of the angels here?

Okay, I guess my previous understanding is correct. Namely that academic Metaphysics does NOT necessarily (even with a ten foot pole apparantly) address the actions of "metaphysical" entities. That second use of the word perhaps being a "colloquial" use of the term.

So we're addressing two different uses of the term. — LuckyR

Yes, two different usages of the term, but I for whatever reason feel that I've not been quite understood. So I'll write a bit more.

I’m assuming you were referring to this statement:

My point was why look at the issue solely "logically" when the hallmark of the metaphysical is the "magical"? After all, that was the whole reason humans invented the metaphysical, namely to explain the (currently) unexplainable. — LuckyR

In the context of philosophy, metaphysics is neither an atheistic nor a spiritual discipline; it’s indicative of neither. Its hallmark is, pure and simple, the study of reality’s fundamental principles. As such, its hallmark is not magic but reasoning, logic as you say.

Whereas the terminology of a “metaphysical entity”—by which I interpret you meaning a god, ghost, or the like—to me lucidly illustrates the prejudice against tampering with physicalist metaphysical principles which I previously mentioned. This as though physicalism is not of itself a metaphysical doctrine through and through.

To better illustrate this point: The claim what we as conscious beings transcend into a state of absolute nonbeing (of nothingness) upon our corporeal death is not commonly considered metaphysical but rather factual (this by the typical atheist at least), though it is an inferred conclusion that is usually derived in full from the purely metaphysical principles of physicalism/materialism (again, its interpretations of causation, substance, and the like)—and is thereby a metaphysical conclusion.

If you want to use “metaphysical” to address divinations, ESP, house fairies and the like, so be it. But, as I previously argued, that meaning seems to stem from a derogatory and reactionary interpretation of any academic metaphysics, else of metaphysics as a philosophical study, that questions the physicalist/materialist metaphysical worldview. And that meaning is certainly not what “metaphysical” means within philosophical contexts, such as the one we’re presently in.

Certainly one can find synonyms such as "supernatural", "spiritual", or "supernal", this while on a philosophy forum, rather than claiming that metaphysics is founded upon, or else is about, magic. Or at least qualify what type of metaphysics one is referring to. Or not. At the end of the day, just sharing perspectives here.

Whereas, to me the purported beyond physical actions of metaphysical entities also qualifies. — LuckyR

The reality of "metaphysical entities" beyond physical actions is necessitated by logic. That is, sound logic demonstrates the reality of "metaphysical entities" beyond physical actions. This is why metaphysics is, and has always been an important discipline. It is not magic though.

The simple fact is that there are limits, boundaries to how far "physical actions" can take us in explaining what is real. Logic demonstrates that we must turn to something beyond physical actions to understand these aspects of reality which are beyond those boundaries (intentional design, and free will for example), and this is metaphysics. Insisting that these aspects (like free will) are not real, would simply be denial of the evidence.

Hey thanks for the more thorough discussion. I agree with using the term supernatural (to separate from the field of philosophical metaphysics). So at least for the purposes of this conversation let's call philosophical metaphysics "metaphysical" and divination, ESP, ghosts etc "supernatural", okay?

So, this part of the thread started with theorizing on possible actions and explanations of actions of gods. In your understanding are the purported behaviors and actions of gods (as described by religions), "supernatural", examples of the "metaphysical", or both?

So, this part of the thread started with theorizing on possible actions and explanations of actions of gods. In your understanding are the purported behaviors and actions of gods (as described by religions), "supernatural", examples of the "metaphysical", or both? — LuckyR

One can find variations. For example, if one’s belief is that lightning is caused by Zeus because that’s what everybody else says, or because so it was somewhere written, but one does not hold a coherent and consistent explanation of why this is the case, then one will be holding supernatural beliefs without engaging in the philosophy of metaphysics. If, on the other hand, one for example hypothesizes that a god Zeus holds the properties of being all-powerful and all-benevolent as a premise and then processed to conclude that such a Zeus is existentially impossible on grounds of contradictions (lack of consistency)—e.g., that of Zeus not being able to create an object that is too heavy for him to lift, and that of evil occurring in the world—then one would here be engaging in the philosophy of metaphysics without upholding supernatural beliefs. And then there might be instances where the two converge. Here, Heraclitus philosophy comes to mind: he’s well enough known as a forefather of process philosophy (which is metaphysics) but, for example (from about 2/3 into §4):

There is, however, a guiding force in the world:

Thunderbolt steers all things. (B64)

The fiery shaft of lightning is a symbol of the direction of the world. Anaximander may have already used the image of the shipmaster of the universe (Kahn 1960: 238). Heraclitus identifies it with the thunderbolt, itself an attribute of Zeus the storm god. The changes wrought by and symbolized by fire govern the world. The ruling power of the universe can be identified with Zeus, but not in a straightforward way: “One being, the only wise one, would and would not be called by the name of Zeus” (B32). And here the word used for ‘Zeus’ can be rendered “Life.” Like the Milesians, Heraclitus identifies the ruling power of the world with deity, but (like them also) his conception is not a conventional one. — Heraclitus - SEP

---------

In the context of this thread, I so far take the issue of god/s to have been addressed with the intent of addressing philosophical metaphysics in the absence of supernatural beliefs.

I’ve often made the point that there is a well-known meme from Norbert Weiner, founder of cybernetics, often quoted on the internet, to wit ‘information is information, not matter or energy.’ This has been seized on in such a way that information is regarded as a kind of updated or more sophisticated form of matter-energy, or that by substituting the concept of information for that of matter, a more adequate metaphysics can be developed. The problem is that information is not a metaphysical primitive in the sense that matter or energy were thought to be. There is no such thing as information per se, it something that is always output or derived. Hence treating information as a metaphysical ground of being, akin to how materialism regards matter, is complex and controversial. — Wayfarer

That is an important distinction for understanding the multipurpose roles of Information (EnFormAction) in the world. Some TPF posters like to think of Information as-if it's an objective (physical) thing, such as a bit of Matter, or a unit of Energy. Instead, it's a (functional) relationship and a dynamic (meta-physical) process, that unites disparate parts into meaningful patterns of wholeness. I often refer to Information as a "shape-shifter" that can't be pinned-down to a single Particle or Shape. Instead, it's the Platonic Principle of Form. :smile:


Quote from OP :
"In essence, the new ‘law of increasing functional information’ states that complex natural systems evolve to states of greater patterning, diversity, and complexity "

Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, and natural trend, force, or principle, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Note --- You won't find this term in science books, because it's a custom-made coinage to describe a novel concept, that has not yet been recognized in the context of reductive & materialistic Science. Yet, it may serve as a shorter name for the "Law of Functional Information" referred-to in the OP. I doubt that it qualifies as a (reductive) Scientific "Law", but more like a (holistic) Philosophical Principle.

Forms :
Platonic Forms are Archetypes : the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies. Eternal metaphysical Forms are distinguished from temporal physical Things. These perfect models are like imaginary designs from which Things can be built.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html
Note --- Archetypes are not real implemented objects, but ideal design concepts --- universal potential, not actual instances.

Certainly one can find synonyms such as "supernatural", "spiritual", or "supernal", this while on a philosophy forum, rather than claiming that metaphysics is founded upon, or else is about, magic. Or at least qualify what type of metaphysics one is referring to. Or not. At the end of the day, just sharing perspectives here. — javra

Off-topic :
I like to use "Meta-Physics" as a synonym for Philosophical issues. And the referent - antecedent-denotation is to Aristotle's ancient writings, not to medieval Catholic scholarship, or modern academic arguments. So, I use the term primarily to distinguish mental-rational-holistic topics from material-scientific-reductive studies. Unfortunately, some on this forum seems to insist that it's a synonym for "anti-science".

On TPF, it seems impossible to work around the hard prejudice attached to that taboo term ; even when I specify "what type of metaphysics" I'm referring to. I could just say "philosophy", but for Materialists & Physicalists, even that well-known category seems to be limited to objective sense-based themes, and excludes any subjective concepts known only via Reason, such as the possibility of Kantian transcendence. That anti-philosophy bias strictly limits the range of topics we can discuss calmly & rationally to those certified by pragmatic Science. Are you aware of any common synonyms of Metaphysics that are not associated with "supernatural" or "spiritual" or "religion" or "magic"? :smile:

This is a bit like preaching to the choir, here. :smile: I’ll only add that any new metaphysical postulations (e.g. as to the nature of causality) will need to remain conformant to established data obtained via the scientific method. But maybe this goes without saying.

This is a bit like preaching to the choir, here. :smile: I’ll only add that any new metaphysical postulations (e.g. as to the nature of causality) will need to remain conformant to established data obtained via the scientific method. But maybe this goes without saying. — javra

Unfortunately, although most of the authors of the original paper --- On the roles of function and selection in evolving systems --- are professional scientists, their collective conclusion (postulation) seems to be based on speculative philosophical reasoning instead of firmly "established" scientific data.

So, your cautionary note made me question the scientific criteria for Causality*1. And it seems that scientists typically depend on philosophical reasoning for such immaterial & non-sensory connections between a physical input (cause) and a material output (effect). Moreover, Kant & Hume*2 cast doubt on our ability to firmly "establish" scientific criteria to prove physical causation. And any attempt to define Causation metaphysically gets befogged in the murk of philosophical jargon and denial of its provability*3.

Even Darwin's presumption --- of a causal connection between one generation of a species and a later different form --- seems to be little more than a personal opinion. Was Selection the Cause of evolutionary novelty? If so, determined by whom? The lack of a defined beginning of the series, and the missing links between stages, seem to imply that the phenomenon of "Causation" itself is a subjective logical inference (belief), instead of an objective sensory observation (fact). Such open questions suggest that, without a specified First Cause, any postulation of Causation, and Evolution, becomes circular*4. Hence, the necessity for a conjectured "Law" to fill the causal gap. :smile:


*1. What is scientific definition of causation?
Causality (also called causation, or cause and effect) is influence by which one event, process, state, or object (a cause) contributes to the production of another event, process, state, or object (an effect) where the cause is partly responsible for the effect, and the effect is partly dependent on the cause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
Note --- No mention of a causal Agency to initiate a sequence of events. Hence, either infinite or circular.

*2. Kant and Hume on Causality :
Kant agrees with Hume that neither the relation of cause and effect nor the idea of necessary connection is given in our sensory perceptions; ...
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-hume-causality/
Note --- The relation between Cause & Effect is an Induction, not a Deduction ; a theory not a fact.

*3. The Metaphysics of Causation :
For each of these putative causal relations, we can raise metaphysical questions: What are their relata? What is their arity? In virtue of what do those relata stand in the relevant causal relation? And how does this kind of causal relation relate to the others? Of course, there is disagreement about whether each—or any—of these relations exists. Russell (1912: 1) famously denied that there are any causal relations at all, quipping that causation is “a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm” (see also Norton 2003). Others may deny that there is a relation of general causation or influence at all, contending that claims like 2 and 3 are simply generalizations about token causal relations (see §2.1 below). There will also be disagreement about whether these relations are reducible, and, if so, what they can be reduced to—probabilities, regularities, counterfactuals, processes, dispositions, mechanisms, agency, or what-have-you.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-metaphysics/

*4. Evolutionary Causation :
Most scientific explanations are causal. This is certainly the case in evolutionary biology, which seeks to explain the diversity of life and the adaptive fit between organisms and their surroundings. The nature of causation in evolutionary biology, however, is contentious. How causation is understood shapes the structure of evolutionary theory, and historical and contemporary debates in evolutionary biology have revolved around the nature of causation. Despite its centrality, and differing views on the subject, the major conceptual issues regarding the nature of causation in evolutionary biology are rarely addressed. This volume fills the gap, bringing together biologists and philosophers to offer a comprehensive, interdisciplinary treatment of evolutionary causation.
https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262039925/evolutionary-causation/

It seems I might have been too terse in my reply. Certainly: science is thoroughly founded upon philosophy and in no way the other way around. By “science” I am here strictly referring to the scientific method regardless of domain—which is fully fallibilistic in both theory and practice (this as per fallibilism …. aka, a newly coined term for the academic skepticism of ancients such as Cicero)—and in no way things such as technology, scientism, or the like. So understood, science is strictly in the business of gathering dependable data, which is equally available to all in principle (overlooking its sometimes corporatized aspects, e.g. typical pharmaceutical research), via which to validate our best suppositions and to falsify our erroneous beliefs. In so being, it is strictly limited to those observables that are observable by all in principle (this leading to the somewhat different issue of things such as consciousness not being scientifically evidenced, this in the strict sense of science just expressed). The theory or evolution and that of relativity were not in and of themselves in any way developed through the scientific method—but are very well supported by data that has been thus obtained while providing best explanatory power for the said data to date, and are thereby scientific only in this latter sense. These two examples of scientific theories illustrate how science is founded upon philosophy, but things in fact get more complex, for all science (be it today’s, yesterday's, or tomorrow's) is founded upon metaphysical postulates, such as that of causality as we currently interpret the term.

In large part due to Descartes, we now largely consider two out of Aristotle’s four causes to lack ontic reality (this contra the reality of someone’s mind and belief structures therein): formal causation and teleological causation. Moderners thus do not believe that there are teleological causes in the world, but answering the question of “What caused you to rob the bank?” with “I needed money” is in no way outdated, being deemed a rational (if in no way reasonable) answer to give. Here, then, is teleological causation: “the want to have money in the future” will, as telos/goal/aim, significantly determine what one presently does or formerly did.

At any rate, science cannot establish via its data acquisition whether teleological causation is real or only imaginary, for example. Were there to be an ontology proposed which incorporates teleological causation, it would nevertheless need to not contradict the established data obtained via the scientific method (say, like insisting that dinosaurs and humans once coexisted so as to fit data into a Young Earth Creationism account of things—which would contradict the established data of fossil records in layers of earth; else, were free will to be real, it could not contradict the established data regarding our central nervous system’s operations). Again, the occurrence or absence of teleological causation is not something that science can establish. Current science operates upon the philosophical position that teleology does not occur. Yet an ontology of teleology, in order to be coherent and consistent, would a) need to hold a greater explanatory power than the established philosophically metaphysical position that teleology is nonexistent and b) be conformant to all data (rather than theory) we hold regarding the world and ourselves. Were at least (b) to occur, then one could then uphold a new metaphysical postulate (relative to current day postulates) in coherent and consistent manners. And the scientific method as practice would continue just as before.

I hope this better presents my position regarding science and causation (as just one example of science and metaphysics in general).

It seems I might have been too terse in my reply. Certainly: science is thoroughly founded upon philosophy and in no way the other way around. . . . . I hope this better presents my position regarding science and causation (as just one example of science and metaphysics in general). — javra

No worries mate. :wink:

Sorry, if I gave the wrong impression. I was not criticizing your post. But, I was prompted to do some Googling on the Science vs Philosophy, and Causation vs Randomness, questions. I happen to agree with your position on the primacy of Philosophy, not only in history, but also in generality. However, some posters on TPF seem to feel that Philosophy is little brother to its dominant younger sibling in terms of economic importance. Yet that top 10 rating depends on where you place your values : material vs mental, or instrumental (means) vs terminal (ends).

Regarding Causation, the origin & direction of causation (First Cause ; Teleology) is not important for materialists. What matters to them is tangible results. Modern science is unsurpassed in producing predictable products and marketable merchandise*1. The quantum genie is now out of the bottle, and granting all kinds of pragmatic wishes. But few are asking philosophical questions about Wisdom, Ethics, & Proportion.

I suppose the postulated New Law of Evolution will be judged, not by its abstract universal Truth, but by its concrete lab Results. :smile:



*1. The Manhattan Project grew rapidly and employed nearly 130,000 people at its peak and cost nearly US$2 billion (equivalent to about $24 billion in 2021). Over 90 percent of the cost was for building factories and to produce fissile material, with less than 10 percent for development and production of the weapons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project
Apparently the cost to produce two bombs was "worth it" in terms of the existential threat of German & Japanese political, economic & military dominance. For more philosophical considerations, some would disagree. Especially, since one psychologically expensive product of that technology is the mushroom cloud hanging over mankind. Perhaps, some of that psychic cost is offset by the income from almost a century of high-grossing apocalyptic movies. :wink:

No worries mate. :wink: — Gnomon

:grin: :up:

Regarding Causation, the origin & direction of causation (First Cause ; Teleology) is not important for materialists. What matters to them is tangible results. — Gnomon

Hm. I rather think that explanatory power is the principle issue, and that this is the "tangible result" that most are interested in. For instance, between things such as "getting what is the point of this life/existence" and things such as "having a gadget that technologically surpasses all gizmos previously owned", I'm wagering that most would choose the former (granting that it manages to make any coherent sense)

But in the absence of the former, as most of us happen to be, the latter serves as a very good means of distraction and, thereby, amusement. With a little bit of functionality thrown in.

I suppose the postulated New Law of Evolution will be judged, not by its abstract universal Truth, but by its concrete lab Results. :smile: — Gnomon

This gets back to its explanatory power, I think.

BTW, used to contemplate the notion of universal evolution a lot in collage days. Given a) some ready established forms and b) a force placed upon them, they will most often naturally develop into a new structure whose form as such was selected by (a) and (b). For instance, take ten randomly placed coins in one's palm or in a cup, randomly shake them, and they will naturally organize into one or more columns. Same can be said for most anything, with no life required for this selection of form. But the philosophical underpinnings here get complex. At any rate, a universal evolution would help explain how life evolved out of nonlife, but its mechanisms would need to be ironed out properly in order to be taken seriously, or at least so I find.

There's an interesting entry in Wikipedia, on the biological term (a neologism), teleonomy. It was coined in 1958 by a biologist to describe the 'apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms' (my bolds). Teleonomy was introduced because it was found impossible to avoid the concept of goal-directedness in discussions of biology (as all kinds of organisms engage in purposeful, goal-directed actions). But Aristotle's 'teleology' had been generally rejected by science since the publication of Francis Bacon's 'Novum Organum' in the early 17th century (per the Wikipedia entry on teleology.) This was reinforced by the advent of Galilean science and the rejection of Aristotelian physics which was shot through with teleological concepts (indeed, Aristotle's scientific reasoning is teleological in presuming that things generally happen for a reason). Not surprisingly, the article on teleonomy is replete with hair-splitting distinctions between 'apparent' and 'actual' purposes, so as to allow scientific biologists to avoid the cardinal sin of attributing purpose to nature.

But this all becomes, in my view, the ultimate case of the baby being thrown out with the bathwater. The antagonism (which becomes a prohibition) against the idea of telos as final cause, is baked in to the modern scientific outlook as a consequence of these developments. And more than science - it spills over into culture generally, and is behind the anguished expressions of the 'purposeless universe' that are found everywhere in today's society.




Edward Feser gives an in-depth analysis of this in his book Aristotle's Revenge. The key feature of the modern worldview is the mechanistic model which, because it has rejected the Aristotelian principles of final causation and substantial form, also looses sight of the distinction between the artificial and the natural. This is because in natural beings - organisms - have an intrinsic nature ('substantial form') by which all of their separate functions are ordered, whereas artificial devices (machines) have extrinsic form, imposed on them by their artificers (humans) and no purpose other than to perform the functions assigned to them by their designers. Here in one fell swoop, any idea of purpose in nature - hence, I would argue, purpose in any sense other than the instrumental - is laid waste. (See this recent thread for examples.)

The key feature of the modern worldview is the mechanistic model which, because it has rejected the Aristotelian principles of final causation and substantial form... — Wayfarer

I'm inclined to see evolution of scientific understanding as having resulted in recognition of "system structure" as playing a role analogous to that of "form" for Aristotle.

In the case of final causation, it is more a matter of 'having no need of that hypothesis', and Ockham's razor, than it is a matter of rejection.

In the case of final causation, it is more a matter of 'having no need of that hypothesis', and Ockham's razor, than it is a matter of rejection. — wonderer1

In reality, something of momentous importance was rejected. And it's a matter in intellectual history that Ockham has a lot to do with this, as his principle was grounded in a misunderstanding of the nature of teleological explanation. But it's beyond the scope of a forum post to spell out the details of that momentous event.

Like Macbeth, Western man made an evil decision, which has become the efficient and final cause of other evil decisions. Have we forgotten our encounter with the witches on the heath? It occurred in the late fourteenth century, and what the witches said to the protagonist of this drama was that man could realize himself more fully if he would only abandon his belief in the existence of transcendentals. The powers of darkness were working subtly, as always, and they couched this proposition in the seemingly innocent form of an attack upon universals. The defeat of logical realism in the great medieval debate was the crucial event in the history of Western culture; from this flowed those acts which issue now in modern decadence. — Richard Weaver, Ideas have Consequences

Demonizing those who understand things differently than you. Nice.

I suppose ‘demonizing’ is a fair criticism of that passage, but that is not the main point. If you’d like a ref to the article which it was taken from, which provides more context. let me know. And it’s not a criticism of any individual but a broad cultural theme.

BTW, used to contemplate the notion of universal evolution a lot in collage days. . . . . At any rate, a universal evolution would help explain how life evolved out of nonlife, but its mechanisms would need to be ironed out properly in order to be taken seriously, or at least so I find. — javra

By "universal evolution" are you referring to the theory of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin*1? As I understand it, such a teleological process is directed by divine Will (intention ; orthogenesis ; programming ; elan vital)*2. If so, the theory's "explanatory power" would interpret the Effects in terms of the Cause --- and vice-versa. Also, the final Form could be predicted based on the original Information (program ; design). Can we do anything more than speculate on the First Cause? Would such religio-philosophical guessing be "taken seriously" by pragmatic scientists?

Since we find ourselves in the middle of a single instance of Universal Evolution, how could we verify that our understanding of the "mechanism" is correct, without knowledge of the design intent? Is there a Final Form toward which the world is enforming? Could this OP's information-based "new law" shed any light on the "mechanisms" of evolution? :smile:

*1. Universal evolution :
Universal evolution is a theory of evolution formulated by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Julian Huxley that describes the gradual development of the Universe from subatomic particles to human society, considered by Teilhard as the last stage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_evolution

*2. Teilhard inspired by Bergson's Creative Evolution???
Creative Evolution (French: L'Évolution créatrice) is a 1907 book by French philosopher Henri Bergson. Its English translation appeared in 1911. The book proposed a version of orthogenesis in place of Darwin's mechanism of natural selection, suggesting that evolution is motivated by the élan vital, a "vital impetus" that can also be understood as humanity's natural creative impulse. The book was very popular in the early decades of the twentieth century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Evolution_(book)

As I understand it, such a teleological process is directed by divine Will — Gnomon

It doesn't say anything like that in the wiki you linked. Where are you getting that from?

↪javra
↪Gnomon
There's an interesting entry in Wikipedia, on the biological term (a neologism), teleonomy. — Wayfarer

Yes. My own EnFormAction hypothesis, based on a philosophical mash-up of Quantum & Information theories, is essentially a Teleonomy. But I didn't know that term before devising the hypothesis of information-based intentional (programmed) progression, as an alternative to the common notion of pointless random evolution. Darwin's use of the term "to evolve" meant simply "to change", but we can now see a trend toward complexity & consciousness. Whether that trend will end in Nirvana or Armageddon remains to be seen. :nerd:

The EnFormAction Hypothesis
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page23.html

Edward Feser gives an in-depth analysis of this in his book Aristotle's Revenge. — Wayfarer

I entered a review of Feser's book in my blog, comparing the worldviews of Aristotle and Einstein. :smile:

Teleonomy & Emergence :
https://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page76.html

BTW, used to contemplate the notion of universal evolution a lot in collage days. . . . . At any rate, a universal evolution would help explain how life evolved out of nonlife, but its mechanisms would need to be ironed out properly in order to be taken seriously, or at least so I find. — javra

By "universal evolution" are you referring to the theory of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin*1? — Gnomon

In relation to what I said, most definitely not.

As I understand it, such a teleological process is directed by divine Will (intention ; orthogenesis ; programming ; elan vital)*2 — Gnomon

I'm in agreement with here.

Is there a Final Form toward which the world is enforming? — Gnomon

Most all cosmologies speculate on what the "final form" of being might be. Here fully including those cosmologies of eternal return that postulate no final form whatsoever. As to the commonly accepted variants that can be currently found, there's a big freeze, a big crunch, a big rip, etc. And then you have the big bounce which fits an eternal return model.

Teilhard's final form, what he termed the omega point, is most certainly non-materialist in nature. As can also be said for notions such as those of Moksha or Nirvana. But that doesn't mean that materialists uniformly reject there being a final form of the world.

So the question is not as esoteric as some might make it out to be, this even from a materialist's pov.

As I understand it, such a teleological process is directed by divine Will — Gnomon
It doesn't say anything like that in the wiki you linked. Where are you getting that from? — flannel jesus

That's my remembrance from Chardin's Phenomenon of Man essay, which I read many years ago. :smile:

The Phenomenon of Man :
Teilhard argues that just as living organisms sprung from inorganic matter and evolved into ever more complex thinking beings, humans are evolving toward an "omega point"—defined by Teilhard as a convergence with the Divine.
https://www.amazon.com/Phenomenon-Harper-Perennial-Modern-Thought/dp/0061632651

It occurred to me the other day that one of the difficulties with Aristotle's other causes is that they don't make sense without the concept of potentiality. Yet, since potentiality can't be observed, we've ditched it with essences (only to work it back in through a variety of metrics). It's a problem for empiricism in general. You only observe the things you observe and only what actually happens happens. Even if potentials are needed to explain the world, they remain tricky.

This seems definitional/tautological, or else plain false. But an example can give the sense of it, I think:

Experiment: take an uncapped bottle of water and invert it, creating an analogue of the temperature inversion of the atmosphere; the water wants to fall out and the air has to get in. The result is a chaotic series of "glugs" as first some water comes out an then some air gets in. Time how long it takes to reach the stable lower energy of the water all in the sink and the bottle full of air. Now repeat the experiment but this time as the bottle is inverted, give it a swirling shake to initiate a whirlpool effect. The bottle will empty smoothly and much faster. The dynamic system of the whirlpool increases the entropic energy flow, by introducing a dynamic system of order. the whirlpool once initiated is self sustaining as long as the potential energy of water in the bottle persists.

Terrance Deacon's Incomplete Nature gives some good examples of these sorts of phenomena, building off less complex examples to more complex ones like the auto-catalyses that must have been involved in the formation of early life. One of the simple ones he gives is how boiling oil will form hexagonal convection cells. The hexagonal form is a constraint, but it exists because of a thermodynamic gradient that this form discharges more efficiently. You see the same thing with frost heaves in the arctic, or cracking dry soil, although the arctic version is more impressive because you can end up with almost perfect hexagons stacked across an area.

Anyhow, I like his terminology for this:

Orthograde changes are caused internally. They are spontaneous changes. That is, orthograde changes are generated by the spontaneous elimination of asymmetries in a thermodynamic system in disequilibrium. Because orthograde changes are driven by the internal geometry of a changing system, orthograde causes can be seen as analogous to Aristotle's formal cause. More loosely, Aristotle's final cause can also be considered orthograde, because goal oriented actions are caused from within.

Contragrade changes are imposed from the outside. They are non-spontaneous changes. Contragrade change is induced when one thermodynamic system interacts with the orthograde changes of another thermodynamic system. The interaction drives the first system into a higher energy, more asymmetrical state. Contragrade changes do work. Because contragrade changes are driven by external interactions with another changing system, contragrade causes can be seen as analogous to Aristotle's efficient cause.

This is largely speculative, if not mere wishful thinking. This is as good as it seems to get:

IDK, while less "hard science," I can certainly think of evidence to support this in the political science, military science, and business literature. The idea that open endedness and innovation are adaptive are extremely strong there, and there is definitely a case to be made for selection-like effects on the "evolution" of states, businesses, languages, programming languages, etc.

Re the problem of "self destruction," I would think this represents an equilibrium trap, a valley is the landscape so to speak. But chaotic systems exhibit that sort of reversal all the time.

There is also to consider the fact that a "tendency to x" doesn't mean that a system necessarily achieves x. Contingencies still exist.

# In essence, the new ‘law of increasing functional information’ states that complex natural systems evolve to states of greater patterning, diversity, and complexity. . . . . # The law could help to explain the emergence of complex systems around us . . . .# This new law identifies "universal concepts of selection" that drive systems to evolve, whether they're living or not. — Gnomon

I recently read two essays relevant to philosophical questions about the hows & whys of the Emergence of Life and Mind from a material world. The first is a neuroscience article by philosopher Phillip Goff, on why Consciousness is not the kind of phenomenon to be studied by scientific methods. Which seems to be an argument for a non-reductionist (Holistic) approach to understanding such immaterial features of the world.

Goff begins with a note about the Integrated Information Theory, which tries to tightrope the line between Reductionism and Holism*1. Next, he argues in favor of the opposite perspective, although he avoids using the fraught term "Holism"*2. Then he mentions the "proposed new law of evolution" that we are discussing in this thread*3. And finally, he tentatively proposes that there must be an alternative yet-to-be-discovered process to derive Mind from Matter. He concludes with a suggestion pertinent to this Science-dominated forum: "We need to let the philosophers do the philosophy and the scientists study the brain". :smile:


*1. Consciousness can't be explained by brain chemistry alone :
" In September, over 100 consciousness researchers signed a public letter condemning one of the most popular theories of consciousness— the integrated information theory — as pseudoscience. This in turn prompted strong responses from other researchers in the field. Despite decades of research, there's little sign of consensus on consciousness, with several rival theories still in contention."
https://www.livescience.com/health/neuroscience/consciousness-cant-be-explained-by-brain-chemistry-alone-one-philosopher-argues

*2. I argue that we can account for the evolution of consciousness only if we reject reductionism about consciousness.

*3. And the assembly theory of chemist Lee Cronin and physicist Sara Walker decisively rejects reduction to microscopic-level equations, arguing for a kind of memory inherent in nature that guides the construction of complex molecules.

*4. For any adaptive behaviour associated with consciousness, there could be a nonconscious mechanism that instigates the same behaviour.
Note --- I interpret the information-based "New Law" of evolution to postulate something more like a goal-directed "Program" --- with memory & rules --- than a mere chain-of-events "Mechanism".


The second article is a Mind Matters review of Goff's forthcoming book How Life Works*5. Denyse O'Leary's article*6 begins with "Science writer Philip Ball, facing cancer surgery, struggles to find meaning and purpose in a wholly material world. He is looking in the wrong place". She notes that Goff is an Atheist, and implies that he is blind to the "true" solution to the Life & Mind problem, substituting philosophical metaphors --- "self-organized knots of energy and matter" --- in place of a traditional story of creation.

She quotes from the book : "To risk an anthropomorphism, evolution chose to work this way". Then, "Either all that order arose from some random drift of the universe as Ball, an atheist, seems to think or an intelligent agent chose it". Finally, she concludes : "Sorry but no. The biologists who want to banish meaning and purpose from science do so because they are materialists. They know perfectly well that only an immaterial mind can recognize meaning in anything. That’s in the nature of what meaning is."

It's probably too early to see whether the New Law of Evolution will shed any light on the perennial questions that leave philosophers floundering in the muddled middle between Materialistic Science and Spiritualistic Religion. :cool:

*5. How Life Works / A User’s Guide to the New Biology.
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/H/bo207403562.html

*6. Only An Immaterial Mind Can Ask “How Does Life Work?”
https://mindmatters.ai/2023/11/only-an-immaterial-mind-can-ask-how-does-life-work/

Yet, since potentiality can't be observed…., — Count Timothy von Icarus

You think? Read this. The wave function describes potentialities, according to Heisenberg. The wave function is not ‘in’ space time - that’s why the rate of electron discharge doesn’t affect the distribution pattern.

The key feature of the modern worldview is the mechanistic model which, because it has rejected the Aristotelian principles of final causation and substantial form... — Wayfarer
I'm inclined to see evolution of scientific understanding as having resulted in recognition of "system structure" as playing a role analogous to that of "form" for Aristotle.
In the case of final causation, it is more a matter of 'having no need of that hypothesis', and Ockham's razor, than it is a matter of rejection. — wonderer1

Please elaborate on the "system structure" relative to Aristotelian "form"*1. Is it your own insight, or do you have links to sites that explore that relationship? I too see a similarity between a functional system of things and the collective Form (interrelationships ; patterns) of multiple entities*2.

I agree that pragmatic scientists "have no need" of non-mechanistic models of causation. Classical physics works fine for manipulating macro scale mechanical systems. But not so well for quantum-scale systems. Therefore, theoretical scientists and philosophers tend to look at the gap between Cause & Effect, and ask "What's the connection"*3. For example, how is mathematical momentum (a property or qualia) of one mass transmitted to another material mass? So, this forum should be an appropriate venue for exploring such impractical open questions.

Pertinent to the OP, the universe seems to work as an evolving system, bound together by Gravity --- formerly imagined as spooky action at a distance. But now we are told that Gravity is merely Geometry, a mathematical inter-relationship. So, what's the connection? Is Gravity Aristotelian? :smile:

*1. Form vs. Matter :
Aristotle famously contends that every physical object is a compound of matter and form. This doctrine has been dubbed “hylomorphism”,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/form-matter/

*2. What is a system? :
A system is a group of interacting or interrelated elements that act according to a set of rules to form a unified whole. ___ Wikipedia

*3. Cause and Effect :
'Cause and Effect' considers Hume's view that the relation of cause and effect supplies the basis for our factual beliefs. Observation leads us to believe in connections between physical objects and events. The power and force of these connections are not observable, only the changes in spatio-temporal relations.
https://academic.oup.com/book/400/chapter-abstract/135206122?redirectedFrom=fulltext

BTW, used to contemplate the notion of universal evolution a lot in collage days. . . . . At any rate, a universal evolution would help explain how life evolved out of nonlife, but its mechanisms would need to be ironed out properly in order to be taken seriously, or at least so I find. — javra
By "universal evolution" are you referring to the theory of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin*1? — Gnomon
In relation to what I said, most definitely not. — javra

To make sure I understand what you meant by "universal evolution" I googled the term and found the Chardin site. If you were not referring to that particular theory, is there another reference I can look at? Or were you just implying that Darwin's "evolution" was not "universal"? Is there more than one general theory of evolution that the "new law" might apply to? :smile:

Maybe "cosmic evolution" would have been a more appropriate term to use? The concept itself is that every "thing" within the universe/cosmos evolves via some form of selection that is fully natural. Back in my twenties, I upheld physicalism and causal determinism with a "naturalistic pantheism" worldview - held for ontological reasons. Things have since then changed for me. But the concept I've just outlined intrigued me back then - as it still does, though now within a different ontological frame of mind (one of non-physicalism and of a partially determinate indeterminism).

I'm currently not antagonistic to to Chardin. But, back then, I couldn't have cared less.

Hope that clarifies things.

I suppose the postulated New Law of Evolution will be judged, not by its abstract universal Truth, but by its concrete lab Results. :smile: — Gnomon
This gets back to its explanatory power, I think. — javra

Yes, but. By "universal truth" I was referring to "explanatory power". But both of those idioms may be judged critically on the basis of physical evidence, not just logical consistency. Philosophy may be distinguished from Science in that it is not content to observe a repetitive series of events (C-D-E)), but stubbornly strives toward the possible original input or Cause and the probable ultimate end or Consequence (A . . . Z).

As Hume noted, causation is not a physical observation, but a metaphysical inference : putting 2 & 2 together to get to 4, or connecting C to E by imagining an invisible link between them. For simple mechanical systems, the link is obvious. But for complex and on-going universe-wide processes, that can only be observed locally & incrementally, the causal relationship is more of a leap of imagination.

Pragmatic Scientists may be content to infer that C predicts E, even though D may also be part of the explanation. Yet, idealistic Philosophers tend to look beyond those local physical steps toward universal metaphysical origins & codas. You will never observe those extreme causes --- First & Final --- in a laboratory. Which is why we debate their reality & applicability in our forums.

At this moment, the New Law of Evolution seems to be more philosophical than scientific ; more metaphysical than physical. So, it won't be accepted as an actual empirical law of Nature, until the C-D-E steps, and their information links, can be demonstrated, either in a lab, or mathematically. I guess we'll have to stay tuned for further developments. But, due to my information-centric personal worldview, I'm inclined to provisionally accept the causal role of invisible EnFormAction in universal Evolution. :smile:


EnFormAction :
The concept of a river of causation running through the world in various streams has been interpreted in materialistic terms as Momentum, Impetus, Force, Energy, etc, and in spiritualistic idioms as Will, Love, Conatus, and so forth. EnFormAction is all of those.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html