Sure, makes sense to me. I can see your imagination is starting to fire up. :)

That question cuts both ways: How do you know that the laws of the universe were put into place by a creator? — TheMadFool

You see. Rather than answering the question it is a redirection.

As for science, it's not on any side of the debate. — TheMadFool

I agree, that is why I specified scientists, not science.

Atheists don't have to prove anything. — TheMadFool

Oh, they must love debates then.

the design argument is based on the order/patterns that exist in the universe. Atheists think this argument from design is flawed. — TheMadFool

Yes, you are right, they do. But with nothing to prove, I guess they just have to say theists are wrong to win the argument, which is pretty much what they do.

One specific area where science actually disagrees with relgion is on the matter of creation - the Bible says the Earth is 6000 years or so old and Geology says its 4 billion years old. So, who is right? Evolution too is considered anti-religious in a similar fashion. What do you think? Is science anti-theism? — TheMadFool

I am always careful not to conflate religion and the belief in a god. A believer doesn't have to tether themselves to the Old Testament just because they sense a higher power. What do I think about the 6000 year old story? Yeah, most probably wrong, but when under attack ants will defend every grain of dirt on their anthill.

Having said that, geological dating, it is all based on fossil records and geological strata and carbon dating. I don't know the field but I have an inkling that if I did I could show you the weaknesses in that system of measurement which at least would open the possibility that it could be 6000 years old.

Is science anti-theist? No, but a hell of a lot of vocal scientists are. Even Hoffman seems to have an air of it about him in his writing, but at least he's putting his money where his mouth is, and you've got a respect a person for that.

As to evolution, is it anti-theist? Nah, not really, it's just a very cold description of nature. I'm sure there's better ones. I guess though it depends on where you want to place God in the equation.

If they make the demand on you, demand it back from them.— MikeL

Well, it seems that we have to slide the viewing window back to the origin of the issue. We can then see that the first move in this game was made by theists. Theists argued for the presence of a creator based on design. The atheistic position is the refutation, the second move, so to speak. The ball is in the theists' court I'm afraid. — TheMadFool

This is a very weak position to take in an argument. You might as well just give up before you begin. The belief in God far outdates science. Scientists are the new kids on the block claiming its all crap. Demand them to prove it. They will respond thus:
1. It is not science's job to prove, only disprove.
2. Well at least we're trying to prove it, which is more than we can say for you.
3. Here are some fragments that might be evidence of something, which is more than you have.
4. How can you believe Noah fitted all those animals into an ark. Are you that stupid?

This is all shorthand for - we've got basically nothin' to back up our attacks on the idea of God.

Trust me, if they did, they would argue the hell out of it. They are paper tigers.

Well, I understand the scientific position as that of remaining within the bounds of the observable and measurable. Science is descriptive - it studies phenomena and looks for patterns. — TheMadFool

That's fine. Science is a very worthwhile endeavor and I for one find the study of it fascinating and am thankful for a lot of the technological outcomes such as medicine etc. But, by the same token if the scientists (not science) that claim that God is not real haven't got the firepower to take on believers after making their claims, they should stay out of the ring and not hide behind the rules of science when we fire back. They should stick to science, don't you think?

This information is used by theists to claim God's existence but, as I said above, atheists think this analogy is like comparing apples to oranges and they're right. We don't have a collection of universes governed by laws made by a creator. If this were the case then the analogy would be a good one but it isn't so it fails. — TheMadFool

Theists try to get in the ring with scientists to defend their faith. The only language they can use to present the case is science, no other logic works on scientists. Unfortunately they often get outmatched because they simply haven't got the knowledge or understanding to draw on.

How do you know that the laws of the universe are not governed by a creator? Atoms forming into machines that run around building things doesn't seem a little fishy to you?

Also the analogy of the brick house has nothing to do with theism. It stands on its own merits as a critique.

Hoffman's book gives an overview of where biology is nowadays on what life actually is, how it works. Cells, it turns out, are nothing at all like what I learned in AP Biology a hundred years ago! That means we're only now beginning to see the shape of what a theory of abiogenesis would look like. It's helpful to know what you're explaining the origin of, don't you think? — Srap Tasmaner

I'm enjoying the read Srap Tasmaner. I can't wait to see how close he can get to bridging the gap.

I just don't see how you get from the "haven't" we could all agree on to the "can't" you insist on. — Srap Tasmaner

Ok then, let me ask you directly. Can you?

Things in the past are fixed, determined. With respect to the future we can work to avoid unpleasant things, and create pleasant ones. So clearly there is a substantial difference between things of the past, and things of the future. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is no difference at all. Do you think that the people of the past didn't work to avoid unpleasant things and create pleasant ones? It is the story of much of mankind.

Do you accept that space and time are inseparable entities?— MikeL

No, I do not accept this. What "time" refers to, and what "space" refers to are completely distinct. I do not believe that it is possible that the future contains space, I think that this idea is a misunderstanding of the relationship between space and time. I believe that spatial existence comes into being at the present. The fact that the human being is capable of changing things in the physical world, annihilating thing setc., at any moment, at will, is evidence that there is no spatial existence on the other side of the present (future). — Metaphysician Undercover

Dr. Sten Odenwald (Raytheon STX) of the NASA Education and Public Outreach program, as quoted by Standford University disagrees with you on this point. He [url=http:// https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q411.html]says[/url]:
"Space-time does not evolve, it simply exists. When we examine a particular object from the stand point of its space-time representation, every particle is located along its world-line. This is a spaghetti-like line that stretches from the past to the future showing the spatial location of the particle at every instant in time."

That fact that human beings can change their world is not in dispute. The tortured serpentine paths of the determined past are a reflection of the choices people made. Then, as now, as in the future we may choose to change or annihilate things. It is what gave the past is unique determined shape and gives the future its unique determined shape.

Don't you agree that the argument that future space time doesn't exist because we can't see it yet in the present is a little akin to sailing a boat down a river claiming that the waterfall at the end of it doesn't exist because we can't see it? Or that it is also a bit like saying a tree falling in a forest doesn't make a sound because we can't hear it?

If, for arguments sake, we say that space is materialising at the present, from which realm is it manifesting itself? How did it get to the present? How come it has all the properties of space, but is not space? How does the present tether it to time (If I bend space I slow time)? What is it about the present that causes it to become space? Why can't we see the interface of this cosmic cloud with the present? Does it change to space at the outer interface of the present (I have never seen a cloud from the future in my present existence)? If it is does form space at the outer interface of the present does that mean the present is also determined and not just the past?

Yes, I believe it is necessary to assume two dimensions of time. I would say that the present has breadth. This is what you call the duration of the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, no, you misunderstand me. I do not say the breadth of the present is duration. I am saying the breadth of the present must encompass the entire timeline. The duration would be the sideways bump that allows the instantaneous traversal of the entire timeline by the present. If it is not the case that it happens this way, then the duration of the present is of insufficient interval to span the entire timeline. It would move through an instant and run out of steam. No future or past, just a frozen moment.

This is why it becomes totally deterministic. The entire timeline occurs at once.

Oh I believe there is something on the other side of the present (future), this is necessary to account for the continued existence which we observe at the present. However, the fact that we can interfere with that continued existence, at any moment, at will, indicates that the continued existence is not necessary. If it is not necessary, thenwe cannot hold it as a fundamental principle. — Metaphysician Undercover

There are a few sweeping statements in here I need you to clarify. The first highlighted part is suggesting that because I can manipulate space in the present, the present is not necessary? That doesn't make sense to me, but if it did, then my next question would be necessary to what?

The second highlighted part builds on from the first. What can't we hold as a fundamental principle? And a fundamental principle of what?

And the fact that anything can be destroyed at any moment indicates that there is no spatial existence on that side of the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

Can we destroy space? I had no idea. What happens when we do?

It makes sense to us assuming God exists and that's what we want to prove isn't it? — TheMadFool

Precisely. It is because we are aware of ourselves, can stare in awe at nature, and understand we are more than the sum of our parts that drives us to seek out the places where the creator may have left his fingerprint. We feel unique and transcendent above simple cause and effect relationships.

I take your point Mad Fool, but do you see how the argument shifts focus immediately when they demand you to explain the creator? You have to hold your ground. You are no longer defining the evidence for creation, you are being asked to describe the thing that made it. How can you do that? In the meantime the other side doesn't have to do any work at all to justify their assertion that life arises spontaneously through chemical interaction. They have no solid case, which is why they turn the argument back on you rather than outlining their own proofs. If they make the demand on you, demand it back from them.

That the universe is designed and that's where the creator has made his mark does make a lot of sense. It is a totally mechanistic approach to life and the universe allowing life to spontaneously arise and allowing God to intervene only once, rather than twice. I have no problem with that, so long as the other side is able to explain how life originated naturally: but they can't.

I think it must be remembered that there is a huge gap - HUGE gap between the order we see inside a nucleus and the rest of the body of complex organisms and the few fragments of nucelotides and amino acids we are able to generate in a test tube trying to simulate early Earth conditions. The only arguments they can use to bridge the enormous gap is to say it was selected for - which is rubbish because simultaneous selection of two or more spontaneously arising traits is required for many systems to function. It also doesn't solve the chicken and egg paradox of DNA encoding the proteins that regulate it as well as encoding the other proteins that are needed to keep the cell cycles going. How did that happen?

I'm reading Hoffman's Life Ratchets at the moment and he's making a stab at explaining molecular formation - which is still a billion miles from the generation of specific molecules for specific tasks.

At best, scientists can recreate some of the base components used in the construction of something incredibly complex - and why wouldn't they be able to - after all it is no secret that the continuation of life requires the storehouse of these chemicals of nature. But saying that we know life arose naturally because we can form some of these base chemicals is an argument comparable to saying that we know a house arises naturally because we can get clay out of the ground and in certain conditions heat it and shape it into bricks.

Clearly the future is completely distinct from the past. Our living experience demonstrates that the two are not the same at all. — Metaphysician Undercover

How so? Only in a relational sense surely. One is in front behind the wall, the other is behind in memory. The content though is a continuation of the story, I just need to turn the page to find out what the words written there say.

Do you accept that space and time are inseparable entities? Thus if a past exists a present exists and a future exists, all must contain space, as space is inseparable from it. We know that the past did indeed contain space- we have memories and books about it, and we know that the present does also contain space, therefore a future must also contain space.

The space that the future contains will have items in it arranged in specific positions, just as it did in the past, just as it does now. Thus it is determined.

I agree that the past is determined, But I do not agree with your conclusion, that the future must be also, because they are both parts of the same thing. Two parts of the same thing may be very different in nature, so long as there is a proper separation, or boundary, between the two parts, and this is what we find with the present. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your argument might become that time is feeding through the present like cloth through a sewing machine, at the rate a second per second stitching reality together behind it, but that still assumes the materiality of the future and thus a spatial component which implies a determined relationship between the objects in that future. There can be no stitching of the cloth.

When you talk about "continuous time" I assume you refer to the present. The present appears to be continuous, but it is neither the future nor the past, it is some sort of division between the two. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you choose to make the present the only meaningful description of time, and relegate the future and past to concept, then the premise becomes that all that exists is the present. Zeno's paradox seems to want to come into play at this point and ask exactly what instant of this instant is the present. Surely time is infinitely divisible. Surely time cannot move unless it is continuous.

The workaround in this situation would be to invoke a duration of time of random quantity and assign that as the present. Thus we have two measures of time - the duration of the present and the timeline of history and the future. But the duration of the present cannot make the trip from the past to the future - it is not of sufficient duration to make the trip.

The workaround for this workaround would be to suggest that rather than time being linear in the direction of duration, it is in fact perpendicular to the axis of duration. The present itself stretches across time from left to right (past to future), but moves forward the length of one duration. Thus all present moments are simultaneous - all time is occurring simultaneously. It is right now that the Colosseum is being built and it is right now that Apokrisis is in his spaceship staring out the window at the eternal heat death wishing he'd been wrong.

Invoking the present as the only true time becomes totally deterministic.

The present is like a massive wall, and behind that wall is nothing, in relation to your experience. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, but just because I can't see past the wall does not mean there is nothing past it. In fact my experience tells me that there is something past it. I can go to bed and close my eyes confident that tomorrow will come.

It appears that we have to justify that if there's design then there's a designer (a conscious agency) since we make that claim and arguments such as your depend on this premise being true. — TheMadFool

But that's crazy. It's like looking at a rocket ship parked on the side of the road and refusing to believe it was intelligently designed because you can't locate a designer.

If conscious agency arises in the way that all hierarchical states have arisen: from atoms to cycles to cells to tissues to systems then consciousness as an emergent hierarchical state fits right in, wouldn't you agree?
— MikeL

I'm not sure how this helps your argument for God. — TheMadFool

Well, wouldn't it make sense that if God had designed us, he would want us to have an emergent consciousness so we could sense his presence?

So is seeing believing or not? You can't have it both ways. Either we see the graininess and believe it, or we do what you do and still seek to deny it. — apokrisis

Ha, there is no denying going on. What is it about the graininess that suggests that its the end of the road? Why must the fact that energy is dispensed in quanta from fields spell the end of the regress?

My argument is that while it is a layer - the smallest one we are currently aware of, it isn't the lowest layer, due to the indivisibility of space and time. The energy or fabric of the universe didn't change when we moved from atomic to subatomic measurements so why should it if we move beyond the quantum level?

I have heard of the idea of quantum foam where time and space both bubble around together and have seen images of quantum vacuums, but there is nothing in the idea that suggests to me that there is not an underlying 'something' that is causing the quantum layer to manifest itself.

The fact that electrons have no definite value feeds right into the assertion that no two objects will be identical - to suggest they are identical is to suggest that the forming agents of those objects acted identically in the formation, each and every single time. That the fluctuating field through off exactly the same quanta of energy at exactly the same point of the wave with exactly the same variable acting on it is hard to imagine.

The idea of interminable decimals which is what we appear to have feeds back into the assertion of a continuous universe. When the decimals stop coming in and a flashing cursor blinks patiently at the screen waiting for the next one, I may be convinced of a pure quanta.

Until then, my imagination will still roam. :)

So let me ask, how do they know that a radiating body actually does stop radiating heat?
— MikeL
Just turn on your light. Did it vaporise the planet with an instant blast of infinite heat? — apokrisis

I'm not sure how the eternal bleeding out of energy when the stimulus has been removed equivocates with the other end where an infinite amount of energy is emitted instantaneously from the system when it is switched on.

And all bodies indeed radiate some heat as they will have some relative temperature. — apokrisis

Hmm, I sense a contradiction here. So a radiating body, doesn't stop radiating heat after all because all bodies are radiating heat? But this was the conclusive statement against the continuity of space and time. More interminable decimals in the measurement?

It seems like what we have here is a counter to my argument I stumbled onto when writing the OP - range. It would be how you might counter the problem of interminable decimals without rounding - by assigning a range value - in effect stepping over the decimal infinity. For example pi 3.147 and forever will never reach 3.148. The measurement of the radiating body would have fallen within acceptable parameters for what was expected. It never stopped radiating though.

Ahh, this fills me with hope yet.

any radiating body would radiate an infinite amount of heat (there being no smallest contribution if the underlying reality doing the radiating were continuous). — apokrisis

This is the problem with measuring the English coastline. So let me ask, how do they know that a radiating body actually does stop radiating heat? It could scale down quite quickly into the immeasurable where the sensors can detect nothing. It would just be an exponential curve. Dropping from something to nothing is a mathematical barrier where rate of fall off is being measured.

every electron - has been checked out to a greater number of decimal places than any other scientific fact. — apokrisis

But still no end in sight? Then that supports the idea. I see a crack in the door way.

And we happen to be 35 orders of magnitude distant from the Planck (distance) scale. That is 1 followed by 35 zeroes. — apokrisis

Yeah, but we are already using microscopes that exploit quantum effects. That didn't take us long to dig down to the lowest layer.

Hi Mad Fool, how do they justify the assertion that if design then conscious agency isn't true?

If conscious agency arises in the way that all hierarchical states have arisen: from atoms to cycles to cells to tissues to systems then consciousness as an emergent hierarchical state fits right in, wouldn't you agree?

Your maths is stronger than mine t0m. It sounds like you've got a pretty good handle on it now. A strong maths base is just what is needed for this type of thinking. :)

Are you sure? What about all that stuff about Zeno's paradox with the ball breaking the window? I thought the consensus at the time was the continuous nature of reality. What about quantum field theory? Is the quantum level really as far as it goes? That's not very far at all when you think about it. We are only a couple of levels above it.

Hierarchy ideas in nature are always interesting. I like the description of the lower boundary being a blur and the upper being a change so big it's edges can't be seen (there is a circular geometry that would be interesting to explore in that in terms of a system where the inner turns faster than the outer - some type of winding up effect - which could negate a heat death if a critical spring limit is reached), but doesn't it seem like the blurs and the slow changes are simply a measurement problem?

Can we confidently say there is nothing below the quantum realm? I have gleaned that electrons and the other fundamental particles are energy knots, created through vibrations of energy fields so that it spits out the particles as a fixed quantum value, but again how confident are we of this energy value? Surely the decimals in the measurement don't close out. Surely no two electrons are the same.

Hi t0m, yes you are on a similar track of thought to mine. The interminable nature of real numbers certainly fits in. Eventually to get a reportable value we have to round out the number. So too with other measurements. We could measure in kilograms, grams, milligrams and so on depending on how precise we want our measurement to be, but because the scale keeps getting smaller for infinity we never truly know exact value because there is no exact value, there is always another decimal. Thus when comparing two identical objects we can claim that the identical nature is in fact an illusion based on an inability to measure sufficiently - how can you claim an identical nature when the decimals in your number have not stopped rolling out?

Thanks for your input SophistiCat. I do understand the importance of using a standard unit to obtain consistent measurements, and I have no problem with decimals. The point was suggesting there was no way to get a perfectly accurate measurement of anything due to there always being another decimal about to pop up in the measurement itself, making it that bit more exact.

the bare semiotic relation that is the ultimate cause of "mindfulness" of any kind. — apokrisis

Semiotics it seems is becoming an explanation for the mind as well as our understanding of the world.

I really don't have any problem with the assertions if we relegate the interpretant to a backseat in the mind and work forward with subject and object. It all seems very causal and easy to follow, but I will clarify some things with you and point a couple out.

An interpretant is an established habit. — apokrisis

Is the interpretant in your definition now describing the response of the subject to the object or signifying element?

There is as little thought or interpretance going on as possible ... yet also the first definite evidence of thought or interpretance. — apokrisis

So is a "hardwired" evolutionary habit evidence of a choice having been made, but there then being also only the one choice? Is it an example of sentience manifest, or instead an example of the ground state in which sentience is first beginning to arise? — apokrisis

So you're arguing that thought becomes the selection of a single response from many choices? This position seems justified enough at a base level - assigning different weightings to choices so that one will always trump the other in a totally mechanistic way seems ok.

Higher order thinking becomes more of a problem. Analysis, planning, tricking, understanding and reflecting would all involve deliberately invoking imaginary semiotic relationship pathways in the mind to determine the most likely response in reality. In this case the signifiers are being generated by the interpretant and then interpreted by him. Despite an enormous evolutionary selection that must exist for the property of prediction, I think that imagination has great difficulty arising through cause and effect coupling or any other mechanical definition.

Semiotics also has the problem of resolving dual conflicts. Lets give our bacterium some more flagella. What happens when the left and right chemoreceptor light up at the same time? The only reasonable argument I can see would be the claim that there is never simultaneity in effector-response nor ever an exact equal weighting of two things, as simultaneous as they may appear. A see-saw with a 100kg weight placed on both sides at the same time will not move.

Which is then what you did in saying chemoreception is "just signal transduction".

In material terms, that might be true. In informational terms, it is missing the point. — apokrisis

I'm not sure what you're driving at, so can you explain or give an explanation of a semiotic relationship in terms of information?

Hi Jupiter Jess, I agree that invoking even a pre-sentient awareness is panpsychic. It would be the only concievable workaround for the Piercean interpretant that I can think of.

Hi fdrake, I have to admit I find this kind of language tough going so a lot of this response will be clarification and assumed meaning.

IE, the triadic nature of sign, interpretant and object does not necessarily occur solely between humans or in a derived virtual plane from the activity of humans — fdrake

While I think that it's a true statement to say that it does not necessarily occur solely with humans, it does require a sentience rather than a cause and effect mechanism. I can think of no instance where sentience would not be involved as interpretation is a cognitive process.

This levelling of the playing field facilitates a flat ontology, in the sense that there are no privileged stratum of interpretant required for semiogenesis; there is no subject held monopoly on meaning; we objects can be said to play amongst ourselves. — fdrake

Is the assertion that the interpretant is being removed so we are left with a cause and effect relationship? Is that what you mean when you say us objects can play amongst ourselves? 'Meaning' by definition would seem to possess a subject held monopoly. It is the subject that ascribes meaning to the world through the semiotic pattern interactions they observe. Different subjects may observe different patterns or the same pattern, but the meaning is theirs alone.

Since thoughts of things are not the things that are thought, it is necessary to explain how thoughts are related to things while distinguishing their causal connection from their justificatory relation. This is the Kantian problem. It cannot be dismissed by simply levelling the distinction between thoughts and things, which is what flat ontology seems to require. — Ray Brassier, Delevelling, Against Flat Ontologies

I think this is the point I'm arguing. The Piercian model, by invoking an interpretant becomes a mind model of the universe. For it not to be this would require the definitions of object, interpretant and object signifier to specifically state such a thing.

I think somewhere that Apokrisis described an object becoming semiotic when its material properties were not what was causal. This definition really struck a cord with me. It makes a lot of sense.

It is in the abstract that signs become representational packets without physical substance, however I find such representations as a heuristic for understanding complex patterns much more useful. This idea though is completely different to the description of an interaction between an object and a subject.

Thus personally I prefer to diverge from Piercean semiotics and adopt the method of looking at objects in terms of their contributions to a system and having established that relationship, assigning it a semiotic value (eg this is a pipe) to it. Some confusion amongst readers has arisen over this approach.

Future and past, being parts of this immaterial thing, time, do not need to have material existence. — Metaphysician Undercover

Future and past are immaterial, but what of the present? It must also be immaterial, and yet it contains materiality -- space-time.

Is the future not part of a continuous time? Is it a separate entity to the past and present? If we do accept the continuous nature of time, then the materiality of space- time of the present must extend into the future as it does into the past. The only other option is for time to abandon space and race off on its own.

Would you agree that the past is determined? That we can read of the history of the world and it does not change every time we pick up the book? Again, arguing the continuous nature of time, we can deduce that if the past is determined, so too is the future as they are all parts of this same 'immaterial thing'. If the past existed and the present exists then the future will exist. This means it will be written into the past and assume the determined form.

When we review the continuous nature of the past we see no discontinuity between what was a civilization's future and their past. It is one continuous path that we can clearly identify. A determined path. When Julius Caesar walks into the senate on the day of his assassination, his future is determined. It would therefore seem that to hold the contention that the future is not determined would suggest the need to ascribe different properties to the future of the past then to the future of the present. How can one be determined and the other not?

Rather than interpretation you have signal transduction,
— MikeL

You could say that about the brain too. — apokrisis

You could, but you would be then annihilating the whole premise of signalling and interpretation and replacing it with cause and effect.

Or maybe a count of food fragments is a sign that points meaningfully towards a food source? — apokrisis

But where is the interpretation? What interprets the count?

Just off the top of my head, it is more likely that an array of chemoreceptors all connected mechanically to the flagella cause an angular change in the propulsive tail relative to the greatest concentration of activation. The angular change would have to happen either way to give directionality right?

There is a reason for the whole chemoreceptor set-up? — apokrisis

The reason is to get food. Are you suggesting the interpretant is a sentient entity that decided to make one, or that evolution is sentient?

I think what you have with Pierce is a mind model of the universe. The need for an interpretant makes its so.

When we look at the bacteria you mentioned in the previous OP which had a chemoreceptor and flagella, I can't see that as a semiotic definition, at least not one that would satisfy Pierce's definition. It's a straight cause and effect relationship. Rather than interpretation you have signal transduction, which is just a fancy see-saw.

If the inference of semiotics as a mind model is correct, the implication would be that there is no distinction between reality and non-reality so long as the three conditions of object, signifying element, and interpretant can be met.

I don't think that saying that Pierce stresses this or that is a strong position. It is a bit like saying he said don't use it when it doesn't work. It is either one thing or it isn't. I don't have access to his original definitions of signifying element, object and interpretant, but maybe you do and can shed some light on it.

I'm not denying free will but I am saying there are rules to the entire process (laws of nature, social interaction, etc) and so, even if there is free will, it's restricted for the most part. — TheMadFool

I agree, all types of free will are constrained. It's a relative term. I have the free will to fly, but not really.

"It does happen" isn't plucked randomly from the air Rich. It is based on reflection that cellular aging theories involve the accumulation of cellular garbage that can't be rid and telomeric shortening. At least that's what it used to be.

Do you have a purpose in your comments, Rich, or are you just trying to stir everyone one up? What's going on with you?

There is no real need to tear down the Kantian wall between mind and world — apokrisis

Hmmm, I think their might be, although I find the mind a little boring.

Firstly and most obviously the perception and assignment of meaning occurs in the mind - a kind of deductive reasoning. We often have to show other people the signs before they also can see it with their mind.

Secondly though is inductive reasoning - aposteriori reasoning. When we create a hypothesis about the world we assign different variables in it semiotic values. We then ping the ball off them to see if the hypothesis holds. Does Pierce say anything about pinging the ball, testing the system?

Getting off the mind though, I know that butterflies have UV colorations on their wings that we cannot see with our naked eyes. By turning UV lights on the world we know, we see a whole different bunch of semiotics light up that before had no relationship to our reality. As we keep shining different lights on different things or on the same things we see different semiotic relationships and the familiar ones become obscure.

Mathematics is semiotic. One again we are back in the realm of mind and perception as well as the nature of nature. I don't know how to keep them apart using semiotics.

Is your assertion that the future does not exist? If it does then it must be determined. If it does not, then we open up a new direction in the discussion.

I think the solution to the question of why life having drifted into order doesn't drift into disorder is simple. It does happen. The pattern can't hold, and when it starts to drift we call it old age and then death. That's why we reproduce.

touching on something critical Mikel did mention — apokrisis

Mention? It's the entire OP minus some implications, although you did do a good job at rewording it. Personally I've tried to present my writing to be simple and easy to understand rather than technical and hard to access, however perhaps I should ramp it up a bit. It seems sometimes like rather than pitting idea against ideas, some people prefer to pit their words against your words - using the most highly sophisticated words they can find, regardless of whether their sentences actually makes sense anymore. Anyway, to each their own.

I'm reading Hoffman and should have some comments for you in the not to distant future.

So the future does not exist?

It's a pity you can't understand what my OP is saying. You're arguing semantics with me and can't abandon Pierce for love or money. There is more than one way that something can be a symbol TimeLine. Once you get that, you might get the OP.

I like the idea that we are a small cloud putting through a fog of unknown or dissipating past and future, but I can still insist on determinism even in that scenario, so I have to ask how you would define determinism.

There are a lot of claims here but a lot of interesting ideas too. I like the idea of critical instability. I will need a good while to turn it over before I get back to you.

In the meantime you say:

You are missing that the conversation in biology has gone way beyond this stage now. The organism is neither a random assemblage nor a deterministic machine.It is already starts its story with the irreducible complexity of a semiotic relation. — apokrisis

What level are you talking about here?

In just the same way as we naively imagine there must be objects independent of our experience, and yet just as we experience them; so it is with the idea that "a path was walked" independent of our experience and understanding. This cannot be anything more than a groundless assumption. — Janus

I quite enjoy your outlook Janus. Let's see though, would it be fair to extrapolate from what you've said that time does not exist in the linear sense? If it did we could track through it, creating a path.

That fact that it exists is proof of its determination. It was formed through choices, sure, but is was formed one specific way and the timeline has recorded that.

Can we agree that the past is determined?

I don't see how it could be naive realism. We agree that a single path was walked. Looking back, that path took a very specific route, whether we know what it was or not. Therefore the path was determined. I could not happen any other way for the timeline we are on.

I am saying two things.
Firstly atoms forming biological machines is an absurd notion, but one that does occur, suggesting that even at this level some weird shit is happening that breaks the bounds of a dumb physical world.

Secondly, that the specificity of the machines found in the nucleus must be encoded in the DNA. I list a whole bunch of enzymes in my OP and their specific function, and Wayfarer has a good link above too about irreducible design: http://www.iep.utm.edu/design/#SH2a

In terms of encoding a massive paradox opens up. I know its a bit long and dry, but see try and read my OP.

Ultimately I guess its an engineering problem. Randomness cannot account for it in any sensible way. It may lay the materials all over the ground, but they will not assemble randomly into a racecar. And the degree of regulation inside the nucleus is staggering.

But yet path there was and it was only the single path.
— MikeL

So we do assume. — Janus

Even if we invoke a Multiple Worlds interpretation of paths. For each timeline, a single path was walked and can therefore be said to be determined.

I think I see your argument. That things are essentially unknowable and therefore cannot be said to be determined (known).

The counter though would be to argue that you don't need to know the complexity to see the path that results. Even if the path is ultimately immeasurable at the quantum level, it is only immeasurable to you.

Ultimately a path was walked, knowable or not, and that path was walked only once and was therefore determined.

I wouldn't say that. I'd say "a person watching from the future" constructs a story of events that he posits as the path. — Janus

That's a good point. I guess he would have to be watching from the beginning to know all the path. But yet path there was and it was only the single path.

I think we've already covered the vent scenario. It was good up to a point, but it does not bridge the gap.

Definitely there must be a connection between not having read the book and failing to see. That's true, I am an awful reader of late. I always feel I'm getting cheated out of my ideas to read other peoples ideas. That's why I like the forum where we can discuss and formalise our own ideas- sure we can use other people's concepts but I would prefer them only as a springboard into the imagination.

And I can't run out and read every book you recommend, Apokrisis, that's why it would be helpful if you could boil down the points so we can discuss them in some detail. As it stands there is no substance to the points being made in favour of abiogenesis- as you saw I used the same points of molecular machines to argue against abiogenesis..