I don't think so, but the question is obviously pressing. And why is it pressing? — Wayfarer
It wouldn't be because those despised 'Intelligent Design' advocates, Michael Behe and others, have actually hit a nerve? Heaven forbid! — Wayfarer
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
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
Whereas, to me the purported beyond physical actions of metaphysical entities also qualifies. — LuckyR
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
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
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: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
Off-topic :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
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.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
No worries mate. :wink: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: — Gnomon
Regarding Causation, the origin & direction of causation (First Cause ; Teleology) is not important for materialists. What matters to them is tangible results. — Gnomon
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
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
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
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
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?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
As I understand it, such a teleological process is directed by divine Will — Gnomon
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:↪javra
↪Gnomon
There's an interesting entry in Wikipedia, on the biological term (a neologism), teleonomy. — Wayfarer
I entered a review of Feser's book in my blog, comparing the worldviews of Aristotle and Einstein. :smile:Edward Feser gives an in-depth analysis of this in his book Aristotle's Revenge. — Wayfarer
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
As I understand it, such a teleological process is directed by divine Will (intention ; orthogenesis ; programming ; elan vital)*2 — Gnomon
Is there a Final Form toward which the world is enforming? — Gnomon
That's my remembrance from Chardin's Phenomenon of Man essay, which I read many years ago. :smile: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
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.
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:
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.# 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
Yet, since potentiality can't be observed…., — Count Timothy von Icarus
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.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
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: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
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).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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.