Is Romanticism the cause of world wars and dreams of Utopia leading to mass murder and tyranny? — Athena

It takes two to tangle. So idealistic liberal poetic Romantics might build their Utopias & cloud castles, if not for the obstruction of pragmatic conservative prosaic Realists, who prefer to build on a solid foundation. Pain & War result, not from Romanticism or Realism, but from the inability to compromise on a blend of poetry & prose. :smile:

The term “moderate” will have to do. As much as I love Aristotle I think his political thought isn’t practical for the world today. — Dermot Griffin

I suspect that Aristotle's motto of "moderation in all things" was adopted by the Stoics as the best path to happiness. Like the Buddha, they saw that striving for the top is more likely to result in Strife than Harmony.

Ironically, those who are motivated to radically change society, typically end-up flipping the poles, while continuing the polarization. Example, Communism in Russia toppled the upper class, but did little for the lowest classes. They merely replaced the Czarists with party chiefs, who eventually became Oligarchs. And the bottom class remains stuck in serfdom. The same pattern holds for Democratic revolutions, as in France & America, where hereditary aristocracy was replaced -- in theory -- with a meritocracy. So Ari & Siddhartha (both aristocrats) would advise that we be content with the status quo. On the other hand, world history of moderation would be boring without all the striving & strife, heroes & villains. :cool:

Meritocracy : a ruling or influential class of educated or skilled people.

One author put it this way: "white people mind getting poorer less than they mind black people getting richer". — Bitter Crank

That reminds me of a quip my non-racist mother made during the racial tensions of the 60s. In the early 20th century, she grew up in the Black Belt where white people were a tiny minority (maybe 10%), but owned about 90% of the property. (My mother's family was "land poor", and her father was the mule-wagon equivalent of a truck driver). Her remark was probably a common sentiment during post-civil-war reconstruction, when "carpet baggers" (northerners) made sure that black people got a larger share of political power. To former top or middle rail whites, it seemed that "bottom rail's on top", referring to the horizontal rails of a wooden fence.

Of course, blacks never made it to the top in any large numbers, during reconstruction or during the Black Power movement. But, they were becoming more visible in positions of power and wealth. So middle-class whites seemed to feel that they were in danger of becoming the "bottom rail". Ironically. black politicians & money-makers, while doing much better, remain only a token percentage of the wealth & power distribution. At the same time, the middle class of whites & blacks are sliding downward, due to the concentration of wealth at the very top. So, both the "middle rail" and "bottom rail" are far from the "top rail".

Ironically, a billionaire like Trump seems to appeal to middle & lower class whites, because he implies that he will "make America white again". Some people feel that a top vs bottom racial polarization is more natural than an egalitarian society. :cool:

Wealth inequality in the United States :
The gap between the wealth of the top 10% and that of the middle class is over 1,000%; that increases another 1,000% for the top 1%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States

Land Poor :
: In a condition of poverty as a result of inability to meet tax payments or other financial requirements for one's land holdings.

RAIL FENCE

I try not to identify as a progressive or conservative and am not registered as a Democrat or Republican; — Dermot Griffin

Sounds like you are a political moderate, seeking Aristotle's proportionally balanced Golden Mean. But there are always a few people in any group that feel politically marginalized, and may be susceptible to being radicalized by grievance-pandering leaders. Their aim may be to upset the fragile balance of democratic politics in favor of dominance by "our kind of people". Which could result in the oppression of "your kind of people".

I just read an article from NPR (national public radio; which usually tries to maintain a moderate position). The title is : Americans are fleeing to places where political views match. That's one downside of the US interstate & internet mobility,. It allows those on the margins locally to congregate with others of like mind. In some ways this is good. But it could tend to result in pockets of immoderate citizens, who may be motivated to use non-democratic (demagogue) methods to change the whole nation to their way of thinking & feeling.

The recent "insurrection" in Washington is a sign of retro-leaders pointing back to a serene Golden Age (1950s) as a model to "Make America Gibbous Again" (MAGA). Ironically, the original insurrection of 1776 was led primarily by radicalized Liberals, rebelling against colonial Fascism. :chin: :

Gibbous : asymmetrical ; unbalanced :joke:

Americans are fleeing :
https://www.npr.org/2022/02/18/1081295373/the-big-sort-americans-move-to-areas-political-alignment?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Are we here in the United States more polarized now then we were in the 1960’s? — Dermot Griffin

Probably not. But the poles may be temporarily reversed. In the 60s Liberalism became radicalized, partly in response to the Communist crack-down of the 50s (McCarthyism), and the Black vs White tensions following WWII (Racism). Today, Conservatism has been radicalized largely due to the Fascist ascendancy of the 00s (Trumpism), yet bi-polar racism has been widened & watered-down into a multi-sided array of off-setting -isms. So, we are long overdue for a third or fourth party to dilute our divisions into a less incendiary mixture.

Overall, this bi-polar (Thesis vs Antithesis) push-pull is just a continuation of the political swings that have been going-on since Tribalism became civilized into party Politics. Hegel summarized the dynamics of political discourse as an on-going shouting-match he called "The Dialectic". Just as the Lords vs Commons & Left vs Right polarization of early British parliaments was an over-simplification of a convoluted internal struggle for narrow political interests, the Dialectic diagram is an easy-to-understand model of a complex fermentation of varying opinions on small-scale local issues. Current UK parties : Alliance Party · Conservative Party · Co-operative Party · Democratic Unionist Party · Green Party · Labour Party · Liberal Democrats . . . .

Fortunately for humanity as a whole, this back & forth tug-of-war is usually more-or-less evenly balanced. The Lords have more economic power, but the Commons have more voting numbers. So the overall historical path is a blotchy blend of Black & White into some shade of gray. Unfortunately, it doesn't take much of a spark to push a single-fulcrum balance toward one extreme or the other. For example, the accidental continental conflict we call World War One, set the stage for an even more radically polarized struggle for supremacy of WWII : Right-wing NAZIs on one side, and left-wing Commies on the other.

So, what we see today, especially in the US, is a shifting dialectic balance that could easily be triggered into civil war, as in the 1800s. Meanwhile, internationally, just as the trigger event for WWI was a minor local assassination of a powerful symbolic emperor, the localized attempt by Russia to reunite the Soviet empire (to annex Ukraine bit-by-bit) could again ignite a wider conflict. Yet again, radical nationalism will compete with conservative economic interests and plebeian passions for dominance

Fortunately, the world today is a globalized economy with instant world-wide communication. Therefore, the left/right struggle for power could be fought between Oligarchs vs Oil Companies, or Hackers vs CyberPunks instead of real-world armies. Likewise, the US is no longer easily divided into North & South (industrial & agricultural). Maybe, the US, and the rest of the world, will succeed in holding the historical course, by muddling down the Synthetic middle. Stay tuned. :cool:

DYNAMIC BALANCE ( moderation from competition)

MULTI-PARTY BALANCE (moderation from homogenization)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel-dialectics/

why should I try to answer a question that doesn't need an answer? — T Clark

If cosmic questions don't tickle your impractical inquisitiveness, I'm sure you can find more practical & proximate problems to philosophize about. However, my childhood religion instilled an interest in eternity, destiny, and other quixotic quests, Ironically my intellectual curiosity was not abated, when I reasoned myself out of my puerile pre-packaged paradigm. The itch may have even increased, as I looked for a replacement frame-of-reference, from which to view the macrocosm as a whole integrated system, instead of disparate dots in the sky. The 60s opened-up many exotic possibilities, but none passed the skeptical test of plausibility. So, I passed my life with no clear worldview.

It was only after forced retirement, by the Great Recession, that I had time to really pull together all the threads I'd been gathering, into a unified science & philosophy-based understanding of how & why the world exists & evolves as it does. That is, obviously progressive, but not yet perfected. My unifying concept is the merger of a universal role for shape-shifting Information (energy, matter, mind) and the formless foundation (quantum substructure) of the sensible physical world . Together, they suggest reasonable answers to ancient cosmic questions of how and why.

Ironically, that 21st century Cosmology turned-out to be essentially the same as the allegorical guesses of those pre-scientific sages. There is something invisible-yet-essential in the world : the power to enform something from nothing, and something new from something old. Today, we call it mundane Energy, but a more cosmic term is "Enformy", which reductive scientists dismissively labelled as "Negentropy". Exploring the manifestations & implications of that generative power, brings out the detective in me.

And I'm still looking for clues at the scene of the Cosmic Creation crime : a self-aware world with a mysterious miraculous beginning, that physics has not yet explained. Perhaps, even you or I could be the humble hero to finally fill the pot-holes in this puzzle with our super-powers of Reasoning from Perception to Principle. Sorry, I'm sounding evangelical again, but that's just due to my raising. Can I get an amen? :nerd:

The invisible structure of mathematical relationships :
Did you know that mathematical reality applies in our body and in the universe? . . . What is the invisible secret of this visible structure?
https://fountainmagazine.com/2003/issue-44-october-december-2003/the-invisible-script-on-the-visible-mathematics

Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be preter-natural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang.
BotAnd Blog Glossary

My point from the beginning has been, given the information we have about life and the universe, there is no need to hypothesize teleology, the anthropic principle, the multiverse, fine-tuning, or any other similar phenomenon. — T Clark

OK. But that sounds like philosophical Apatheia gone awry. I appreciate the Stoic state of mind, but not to the point of complete indifference to the dynamic system we humans are vital components of. Even the godless Existentialists retained some involvement in the wider world around them --- something bigger than Self. Philosophy must be motivated by some mystery to be solved.

I suspect that a Reductionist focus on tiny details, may result in a "can't-see-the-forest-for-the-trees" myopia. Of course carrying Holism to an extreme could have the opposite effect of not noticing the ground under your feet. Yet, a happy medium perspective is a best-of-both-worlds compromise. You can "get-real" about the here & now, while also dabbling in probable future scenarios, such as the ultimate destination of the mostly deterministic world.

I'm not a very passionate person, but I find the possibility that the world is progressing toward some kind of meaningful resolution to be fascinating. At the least, it provides a little positivity for those who are dismayed by the the current end-of-world doom & gloom outlook ; to wit, at least half the recent output from Hollywood has been dystopian-Post-Apocalyptic-wallowing-in-misery movies. Although they usually feature lone Greek heroes fighting against Fate, I try to avoid them because they are depressing for us non-super-heroes. Anyway, I grew up in the post-Depression & post-War-to-end-all-wars 1950s, when optimism was re-blooming. Besides, my personal BothAnd worldview allows me to take the bumps gracefully, while looking at the road beyond the headlights.

Sorry! Sounds like I'm preaching. But I can't help it. My life is almost over, but LIFE in the universe is just beginning. :smile:


20 Best Post-Apocalyptic Movies on Netflix Right Now :
https://thecinemaholic.com/best-post-apocalyptic-movies-on-netflix/

"Philosophy is important because it's the leading edge of human inquiry. Maths, physics, biology, chemistry, psychology, economics, ..."
https://dailynous.com/2018/08/08/why-is-philosophy-important/

"One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery each day.” ___Albert Einstein, one of my favorite philosophers

I don't think there is a downward trend. I don't think there is any trend. — T Clark

Maybe we could refocus the topic from speculativeTeleological Ends to retrospective Evolutionary Trends. Would that be less polarizing and more productive? Perhaps a discussion of "orthogenesis" or "orthoselection". I don't know much about them, but Orthoselection seems to be what Darwin had in mind as Natural Selection. That might provide the means for progression or digression toward some short-term or ultimate state -- that we could evaluate as positive or negative relative to our current status. We can only speculate about the future, but the past is subject to some empirical evidence. Then, if there is some sign of a non-random pattern, we can project it into the near future, and see what happens. :smile:

What are the major evolutionary trends? :
For example, McShea (1998) listed eight potential large-scale trends, including overall directional changes in “entropy, energy intensiveness, evolutionary versatility, developmental depth, structural depth, adaptedness, size, and complexity.”
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-008-0055-6

evolutionary trend A steady change in a given adaptive direction, either in an evolutionary lineage or in a particular attribute (e.g. height of shoot). Such trends are often apparent in unrelated taxa. Formerly they were attributed to orthogenesis; now orthoselection or the contending theory of species selection are invoked.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/science-and-technology/biology-and-genetics/biology-general/evolutionary-trend

Ortho is a Greek prefix meaning “straight”, “upright”, “right” or “correct”.

I don't see any reason to continue with this discussion. We're not getting anywhere. — T Clark

OK. I understand that you believe evolution is "not getting anywhere". But I was hoping you would at least offer some relevant evidence or argument in favor of a downward trend in evolution. I have lots of stuff to indicate the contrary : that Natural Selection weeds-out non-progressive options from Random changes. We've only scratched the surface of such evidence for upward evolution, apparently programmed to produce better & better adaptations for life in a universe where LIFE is rare & precious. Each step upward costs many individual lives, but overall the progressive beat goes on, after millions of lifetimes.

I get the impression that those-who-see-only-digression-in-evolution like to think that (cautious) optimists are not seeing the obvious. Yet what you see does depend in part on where you look. If you watch TV news, you'll see Russia threatening WWIII, and Covid pestilence killing millions of innocent people around the world. But, if you look out the window, you'll see healthy happy people going about their business, as-if the end of the world is not nigh. However, evolution is a collective holistic process, not a reductive individual Horatio-Alger-rags-to-riches story. Evolution is about Time & Chance, not about me : I could be run over by a truck tomorrow for no apparent reason, but the evolving world will still get somewhere --- onward & upward. :up: :up: :up: :grin:

PS___Long ago, a wise man said, "Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all."

And its pretty sad to see someone presumably over the age of 10 resorting to the good old "I know you are but what am I" anyways. — Seppo

You said that you were not going to "waste anymore time" on this thread. But you continue to take boo -hiss pot-shots from the bleachers. Unless you have something positive to contribute, you are wasting everybody's time. But, hey! I'm retired, so I've got plenty of time to waste on the winding road to wisdom. What's your excuse? :joke:

PS___At least TClark is trying to contribute something more than childish retorts & recriminations.

They aren't "quibbles." And they aren't arcane, sophisticated mathematics. — T Clark

OK. But what does the marble analogy have to do with cosmic coincidences and Teleological inferences? As noted in the quote below from 20th century astrophysicists ; after a century of searching for a "physical explanation" they still don't know what causes those lucky streaks that 21st century physicist Paul Davies called the "Cosmic Jackpot".

The difference between an Accidental Coincidence and an Intentional Pattern is in the continuing consistency. When life-favoring cosmic coincidences piled up in the early 20th century, astronomers and cosmologists said "whoa . . . what's going on here?" Short "streaks" of luck do occur in random sequences, but longer chains imply non-random causation.

The science of statistical Pattern Recognition has methods to distinguish between the gambler's "illusion" of patterns -- that allow Las Vegas casinos to be consistently Lucky, in order to make a reliable non-random profit -- and the statistician's meaningful measurements. But to me, those algorithmic methods are "arcane" & "sophisticated". Presumably, those who "quibble" about those causal chains tell themselves "it's better to be lucky than smart". :nerd:


The Illusion of Randomness :
humans tend to see patterns when, in fact, the results are completely random.
https://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics10/old%20physics%2010/chapters%20(old)/4-Randomness.htm

Anthropic Coincidences :
The critical point was well expressed by the noted astrophysicists Bernard Carr and Martin Rees:
"One day we may have a more physical explanation for some of the relationships . . . that now seem genuine coincidences. For example, [some of them] may eventually be subsumed as a consequence of some presently unformulated unified theory. However, even if all apparently anthropic coincidences could be explained in this way, it would still be remarkable that the relationships dictated by physical theory happened also to be those propitious for life" .
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/06/anthropic-coincidences

Cosmic Jackpot :
The Goldilocks Enigma: Why is the Universe Just Right for Life?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Jackpot

In other words, you're going to ignore the things people actually say to you, and continue to lie/misconstrue about those responses- good to know... so that I don't waste any further time on you. — Seppo

That's OK. I may have found someone I can dialog with. See above. You can sit on the sidelines and watch as the grownups have a mature conversation. :cool:

As Gnomon just admitted, he doesn't care what is true, he's going to represent the things people have said to him as he sees fit, even if that involves deceit/gross misrepresentation. — Seppo

Now, now. Accusing others of doing exactly what you are doing (Tu quoque) is unfair. :nerd:

"It is not possible for us to know each other except as we manifest ourselves in distorted shadows to the eyes of others."
___Seneca

I think calling my contribution "outraged" is a sign of your lack of perspective on this subject. — T Clark

OK. What about the "believer" vs "apostate" part?
Back when I posted on another forum, various atheist vs theist arguments usually began with something approximating calm rational arguments, but quickly descended into a name-calling game. And that's what this thread reminded me of. I apologize, if my broad characterization lumped you in with the scandalized rock throwers. :joke:

This is not true. If you look back at the beginning of this thread, I made a very simple argument based on probability and statistics why the anthropic principle and fine tuning argument are not needed to explain conditions in the universe we happen to find ourselves in. — T Clark

Yes. I'll give you credit for being one of the few to attempt a rational discussion of a multi-millennial debate. A quick Google search revealed that the most popular arguments against Teleology are statistical quibbles. It's true that the modern ACP theories did rely a lot on the statistical improbability of a long list of implausible mathematical "coincidences" in dimensionless ratios. But statistics are just abstract numbers that must be interpreted into meanings. And the translation into words typically falls into binary categories, with little overlap.

The author of the ACP book spent a whole chapter on the pros & cons -- and the real world consequences -- of those cosmic coincidences. As a non-mathematician, I'm not equipped to make statistical arguments one way or the other. But, if you are more numerically inclined, you can check their numbers for yourself in the book. Frank Tipler is a mathematical physicist, well-versed in statistics. However, I was better able to follow the logical philosophical arguments, which again presented both pro & con positions. They also had chapters on Information, Entropy, Randomness, and Computability. And I am only well-informed on the first two.

Obviously, the conclusion -- that those dozens of highly improbable numerical coincidences and initial conditions result from "fine-tuning" -- is an inference that depends on how much creative organizing power you perceive in Randomness. As noted in the Wiki quote below, the Reason or Cause for such improbably fortuitous serendipity is "unknown". But the only reasonable options I know of are Fortuitousness or Prescience. Do you have a better alternative instead of Infinite Odds vs Goal-Directed Intention? If not, we can go on to the next item on a long list : e.g. Cosmological Constant, Inhomogeneity, Isotropy, Inflation, Boundary Conditions, etc. Yet again, I'll have to refer to the experts on the topics that are over my head.

See. We can have a philosophical dialog if we stick to well-defined terms instead of cartoon characters. :wink:

PS___FWIW. As mentioned in the beginning, I have my own objections to traditional Teleological arguments. So, my position is closer to Teleonomy or Eutaxiology.

Fine Tuning Argument :
The characterization of the universe as finely tuned suggests that the occurrence of life in the universe is very sensitive to the values of certain fundamental physical constants and that the observed values are, for some reason, improbable. ___Wikipedia

Fine Tuning Odds :
In The Road to Reality, physicist Roger Penrose estimates that the odds of the initial low entropy state of our universe occurring by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 10 10(123) . This ratio is vastly
beyond our powers of comprehension
https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2018/12/List-of-Fine-Tuning-Parameters-Jay-Richards.pdf

Fortuitousness : random accident ; Chance ; Lady Luck

Prescience : the fact of knowing something before it takes place; foreknowledge. A selection effect

But like I said, sometimes we don't get what we want, and so you should probably adjust your rhetoric to the reactions you actually are getting. — Seppo

Seppo ; this is not addressed to you personally. Because you've made it clear that you are not listening. I'm just mulling over the possible reasons for our failure to communicate. I prefer not to adjust my philosophical argumentation, to "react" with political feuds, as you suggest.

My blog has gone into great detail regarding the pros & cons of the long-running Teleological debate. However, the arguments I presented in favor of a non-theistic Teleonomy are not my own, but those of professional scientists with unorthodox views. Which I assumed would be at least given the benefit of the doubt. But the disbelief & denial were categorical, and I'm not even sure what category that is. So, I don't take the ad hominems and accusations of apostasy personally. They are directed at a some kind of faceless barbarian horde that I may not personally identify with. I expected some science-based arguments against the notion of progress in evolution. Instead, all I get are absolute denials, and two word arguments : " . . . . . because science" , with no evidence or logic.

The retorts don't even respond to anything specific I present, but to a general ideological category such as Atheism vs Theism. So, the nay-sayers have nothing positive to add to the conversation. They just cover their ears and say thru clenched teeth : "wrong, wrong, wrong . . .:" Obviously, I expected at least some minimal philosophical argumentation. But all I get in response is Ideological proclamations. Unfortunately, I'm not up to date on the latest political divisions in philosophy & science. Maybe you can clue me in, to which outcast class you think I belong in. Perhaps a pigeonhole for either the intrinsic functions of Darwinism, or the extrinsic purposes of Theism. Or neither. :cool:


Teleology (from τέλος, telos, 'end', 'aim', or 'goal,' and λόγος, logos, 'explanation' or 'reason') or finality is a reason or explanation for something as a function of its end, purpose, or goal, as opposed to as a function of its cause.[4] A purpose that is imposed by a human use, such as the purpose of a fork to hold food, is called extrinsic.

Apostasy : the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology

I'm sorry you're not provoking the reaction you want, but sometimes we don't get what we want. You really should adjust your rhetorical strategy to the reaction you are getting (whining about imagined outrage from fictional "believers" makes you look the one who is feeling threatened here). You would do well to take some of your own advice. — Seppo

Your apology is mis-directed. My intention was not to be provocative, but the affronted reactions to an alternative explanation for cosmic evolution inadvertently steered the dialog away from philosophical argumentation toward polarized altercation. Someone less experienced might have caved under the negativity. But I'm used to it, since my personal worldview is not mainstream in either a Scientific or Religious sense. Ironically, I get the impression that you think I'm proposing an Anti-Science position, even though the book I referenced was written by professional scientists.

My first post was actually intended to present a scientific alternative to the usual Theistic arguments. So I didn't expect the disgusted "reaction" I got, as-if a skunk had walked into the gentleman's club. The fact that I offered non-scriptural evidence for direction in evolution was dismissed out of hand. So it was not me who resorted to "rhetorical strategy", And I don't feel threatened at all. Just disappointed that a Philosophy Forum can so quickly descend into Sophistry, and finger-pointing. I was hoping for an open-minded dialog, not a debate or diatribe. :cool:
Note -- the smiley means "I'm cool"

Excerpt from original post :
"The teleological argument is an argument in favor of theism". — SwampMan

My reply ended with a quote from a prominent scientist :
"But, on the other hand, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.” ___Albert Einstein

John Archibald Wheeler (proponent of Anthropic Cosmological Principle):
Over a long, productive scientific life, he was known for his drive to address big, overarching questions in physics, ..
https://phy.princeton.edu/department/history/faculty-history/john-wheeler

IRONIC RACISM

First, notice what I said in the first sentence: "before God created time and space." It is undoubtedly absurd to talk about 'before," or to use any temporal language to describe the period (another temporal term) before God created time and space. — Raymond Rider

The word "before" in this phrase is probably a metaphor drawn from our experience with space-time, and our lack of experience with infinity & eternity. Some scientists also use the same analogy of "before" the Big Bang in their speculations on Multiverses, Many Worlds, and Instant Inflation. We also have no experience with Zero, but we find the notion of nothingness (null) to be useful in Logic and Mathematics.

If time has always existed, then why did God create everything else when He did? Why did He choose that specific point in time to create the universe? — Raymond Rider

The "time before time" problem is also caused by taking metaphors literally. The God of the Torah was sometimes portrayed as a humanoid deity in a parallel universe above the clouds. But other models insist that God is omnipresent & eternal, hence outside the limits of space & time.

So, in order to resolve your language problem, you'll just need to adjust your framing of the issue. But that still doesn't have anything to do with the "existence" problem. Obviously, the Ideal idea of God exists in the minds of most human on Earth. But there the only space-time evidence of God is the creation itself. The logically necessary existence of a Creator is the philosophical argument for a First Cause. And that reasoning remains moot after 2500 years of ideological debate.

Therefore, these paradoxes simply mean that the god of philosophers is a matter of personal opinion, and can't be proven in any objective manner. So, there's no sense in getting riled-up about it one way or the other. Just accept that it's a question for faith, either in scriptures or in your own reasoning. :smile:

No, the responses you're getting in this thread are people distinguishing between pure speculation and things that are actually rooted in evidence. You seem to have a lot invested in this whole image of yourself as the bold truth-teller battling against the dogmatic traditionists... when that's simply not what's happening. — Seppo

No, the reactionary responses on this thread are defending a belief system that is threatened by investigation of its underlying values (e.g. Existentialism) and assumptions (e.g. Materialism). You are the one who is creating a false image of myself, in order to avoid grappling with the ancient philosophical controversies of Teleology and Determinism. I haven't even expressed my personal opinion on the topic, except indirectly, by referring to a book of scientific speculation with a tentative un-traditional interpretation of cosmic evolution..

I'm sure the scandalized rabbis hurled similar dismissive labels against Spinoza as he modestly but resolutely pursued the truth behind their "dogmatic traditions". No, I'm not comparing myself with Spinoza, I'm not a genius or a martyr. But, I do see a resemblance of the "dogmatic traditionalists" on this thread with the defenders of the Faith who anathematized him, while avoiding his calm rational philosophical arguments. It's a good thing you can't hurl rocks over the internet. :joke:


"By the decrees of the Angels and the proclamation of the Saints, we hereby excommunicate, ban, and anathematize Baruch d’Espinoza,"



Excerpts from posts by outraged believers in random rather than regulated Determinism :
"information on beliefs"
"I believe this is not true."
"do not believe"
"I don't believe"
"I reel in terror"

I've already pointed out that the attribution of intentionality or purpose to the universe is not supported by any established empirical results or models- that it is a speculative proposal that some scientists evidently hold as a matter of personal theology or metaphysics. — Seppo

And you know this absolute scientific fact how? Have you ever looked into models of reality that go beyond "established" (settled) opinion? Of course, not all hypothetical speculations are correct, but some may be the heralds of a new paradigm in science. That's why the first rule of both Science and Philosophy is to keep an open mind. And the second rule is to be skeptical of your own settled beliefs.

The responses that I'm getting on this thread, referring to "established" or "settled" Science, fall into the category that Thomas Kuhn called "conservative resistance" to a new worldview. We are indeed in a revolutionary era, that perhaps began with Big Bang & Relativity & Quantum & Information theories. They were stubbornly resisted by believers in the Classical Materialism of 17th & 18th century worldviews. But the aftershocks & implications of those matter-melting revolutions are still unfolding in the 21st century.

For example, Neuroscience and Information science are expanding the boundaries of the establishment belief system of earlier paradigms to include the observer in the observation. We are no longer able to ignore the effects of the observer's beliefs & intentions on the statistical foundations of Reality. That's why hypothetical (speculative) proposals --- to make sense of quantum nonsense and cosmic mysteries --- abound. For instance, Cosmic Inflation was an unproveable hypothesis, intended to avoid the implication of Big Bang as a creation event. Do you want to forbid any questioning of settled opinions, as the Amsterdam Rabbis reacted to Spinoza's "heretical" critique of the Torah? :cool:


The Structure of Scientific Revolutions :
His account of the development of science held that science enjoys periods of stable growth punctuated by revisionary revolutions. . . . According to Kuhn the development of a science is not uniform but has alternating ‘normal’ and ‘revolutionary’ (or ‘extraordinary’) phases. . . . This conservative resistance to the attempted refutation of key theories means that revolutions are not sought except under extreme circumstances.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/

The power of intention has the ability to literally change the shape of our brains. This process is known as neuroplasticity - the brain's soft and interchangeable potential, stimulated through repetition of a particular behaviour.
https://www.balance-festival.com/Journal/February-2019/The-Powerful-Science-Behind-Setting-Intentions

Why is speculation forbidden in science? :
Speculation is not completely forbidden in science. In fact, used at the proper stage of science (hypothesis-forming), clever speculation can be quite useful.
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2014/01/27/why-is-speculation-forbidden-in-science/

Cosmic Inflation? :
A final question lies at the very borderline of science, but has recently become a subject of scientific speculation and even detailed model-building: How and why did the big bang occur? Is it possible to understand, in scientific terms, the creation of a universe ex nihilo (from nothing)?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/cosmic-inflation

And what does this mundane pool analogy tell of the eternal? — Hanover

The analogy points to how we distinguish intentional patterns from random activity : by rational inference from physical evidence. If you imagine the unknown Intender as the Bible-god, that's your prerogative. But. I don't.

The authors of the book I reviewed went into great detail to show how they arrived at the conclusion of premeditated creation behind the mathematical patterns of physical reality. A court of law uses the same reasoning to decide between an accidental death and intentional murder. But such inference cannot identify the one who did the planning, unless there is circumstantial evidence, such as blood stains or powder burns on the accused.

That's why the authors provide a trail of evidence pointing to an unknown perpetrator that is not in the courtroom, hence outside the system of space-time. They didn't pretend to know the unknowable. They just projected the trail of evidence into the future, to imply that the full intention has not yet been achieved. So the Cause of the creative pattern is still at large. :nerd:


legal definition of intent :
A determination to perform a particular act or to act in a particular manner for a specific reason; an aim or design;
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com › intent

This is baloney. Read some of his papers. They are rigorous and heavily mathematical. Even though he did not do experiments himself, this work has been tested over and over and found to be correct. — T Clark

I didn't say that Einstein was "incorrect", I merely noted that he was a theoretical scientist instead of an empirical researcher. So, I agree with the second part of your reply. But, the first part completely missed my point. Smells like raw sausage. Yum! :joke:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, really. :smile:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Denial is easy; understanding is hard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

↪Gnomon
:zip: — 180 Proof

Thanks for your articulate criticism of my post. It demonstrates the depth of your understanding. :joke:

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

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

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

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

"Speaking of "Emergence" and other mysterious appearances". — 180 Proof

Speaking of evolutionary emergence, Charles Darwin touched on the notion of FreeWill in his The Descent of Man. In a Philosophy Now article, Samuel Grove, author of Retrieving Darwin's Revolutionary Idea, said that "Darwin was fascinated by the problem of free will". Then, he mused, "What does this mean in practical terms? . . . . Darwin's hunch was that it was intimately related to the variation in nature". But I would suggest that the freethought of upright apes is a function of both Random Variation to produce novel forms, and of Positive Selection criteria to allow only the best models to proceed into the next generation. This results in complexification and organization, which some of us view as progression.

Grove noted that "Darwin also faced a couple of philosophical paradoxes in applying natural selection to man" The first conundrum was, "how natural selection -- which was a history of errors, faults, failures, and fallacies -- could give rise to a person capable of self-knowledge and truth". We now see that a product of that heuristic (trial & error) process is the self-aware descendant of those knuckle-walking nit-picking apes. But Darwin already had the right idea; he just failed to see how the combination of randomness and selectiveness could be creative and progressive.

Ironically, these imaginative sky-walkers have just placed their own technological creation into a stable orbit a million miles from its origin. Although a product of intentional algorithms, it was also the end result of many trials & errors. This golden-eye-in-the-sky should be able to look back into cosmic history to see what the universe looked like billions of years before animated creatures emerged from that seemingly wasteful procedure of making zillions of mistakes, but selecting only a few of the best to make newer & better errors. This illustrates how fecundity and selectivity can result in a means for the meandering cosmos to become self-aware.

Therefore we have evidence to show that a combination of variation & selection can solve the first paradox of free will : by inadvertently producing self-conscious creatures. But that leads to the second paradox : how could blind groping Nature create the global organism of self-directed Culture? Darwin admitted that "nature's productions . . . . plainly bear the stamp of far higher workmanship". Grove noted that we could define human Culture & Civilization as "consciously-directed evolution". He said, "ironically, the very fact that natural selection does apply to us means we can't apply it to us, or it would cease to be Natural . . . . This is the paradox. This was the essence of Darwin's dilemma." Somehow, conscious Artificial selection & evolution has emerged from a program of unconscious Natural reproduction & progression. :nerd:

Shhhhh! DON'T TELL ANYONE I COULDN'T EXPLAIN
THE EMERGENCE OF FREEWILL

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

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

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

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


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

POSITIVE PROGRESSION ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And as you'll notice from the article, teleology in biology remains controversial, and even its proponents are quite explicit that they're talking about something different from teleology as e.g. Aristotle would have understood it (chiefly, in jettisoning the theological/metaphysical elements in favor of a naturalistic approach). — Seppo

Oh yes. I notice on this forum that "Teleology" is a hackle-raising four-letter-word for some people. For them, it implies an obsolete anti-science ideology. But my personal philosophical worldview is compatible with the ambiguity & uncertainty of post-quantum cutting-edge science, if not with the black & white certainty of 19th century Classical Physics.

From my peripheral perspective, the Metaphysics of Aristotle seem quite prescient. However, when challenged by the physics-is-Truth disciples, I rely on modern scientific specialists instead of a pre-scientific generalist. But, I still insist on calling the uncharted uncertainties of Quantum Queerness "Meta-Physics" (i.e. grudgingly accepted, but not yet explained by physics). And that medieval term raises the hackles even more. Still, I enjoy the philosophical exercise of chewing on controversial questions. :cool:

From quantum non-locality entanglement,
We know that information’s primary
Over distance, that objects don’t have to
Be near each other to have relation. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. A statistical relationship is not spatial, or quantitative, but informative & qualitative. For example, a mathematical Ratio compares abstract values to determine how far they are from equality. Even Gravity is not spooky action at a distance, as Newton assumed. It's a relative & proportional Ratio between physical objects. Ratios are not real and physical. They are ideal and mental. However, abstract Ratios can be causal in the sense of Constructive Absence. :smile:

PS__A statistical state is not a place in physical space, but in abstract possibility Space.

Many evolutionary biologists do not believe evolution is progressive. I looked on the web for information about the distribution of biologists' opinions on the subject, but I couldn't find any. — T Clark

If you only look at the top lines of a Google search, you'll only see the most popular ideas, not the most perceptive. The Stanford entry below provides names & opinions. :smile:

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

"Teleology" is method of invalid "inference" consisting of ex post facto rationalizing (e.g. F. Bacon, Descartes, Spinoza, Hume, Peirce, Popper ...). — 180 Proof

Name-dropping is not a philosophical argument. :smile:

Only for Aristotlean pre-moderns (pseudo-science peddlers like e.g. Lamarckians, Chardinites, Sheldrakeans) who fail to understand neo-Darwinian evolution. — 180 Proof

Name-calling is not a philosophical argument. :joke:

IF our world was designed, then it wasn't designed very well. — Bitter Crank

You seem to be using the term "designed" in the religious sense of the creator of a perfect Garden of Eden. But, even the storytellers of that myth were aware that the world they inhabited was far from perfection. So, they imagined that the world began in a perfect state, and had nowhere to go but downhill.

However, those who propose secular Teleology today are not the blind buffoons you make them out to be. Instead, they understand that perfection is the end of an evolutionary process, not the beginning or middle. The path to perfection is an uphill climb. So, your criticism is aimed at the wrong target. Open both eyes, and you'll focus better. :smile:

PS__Evolution is a heuristic (trial & error) process. But you are focusing on the errors instead of the marvelous advances that instill feelings of awe in unromantic scientists..

"One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery each day.” ___Albert Einstein

I don't know that his is true. It certainly isn't true for today's philosophers and scientists. Do you have specific information on beliefs over time? — T Clark

Teleological explanations for the evolution of "endless forms most beautiful" are certainly not mainstream today, in secular science. But there is a strong trend, especially in the fields of Complexity & Cosmology to present (non-divine) scientific models of Teleology. Randomness is inherently non-directional and patternless. So, it must be the unknown, but implicit, standard-setter of "Natural Selection" that mandated the fitness criteria for propagating the next generation of natural forms. Moreover, the 'natural laws" that regulate all causes in the world, must either be taken-for-granted, without explanation, or attributed to some logical organizer.

I won't take the time to produce a history of teleology in philosophy. But, I will point-out that, until Darwin & Wallace proposed their theory of Natural Selection, nobody had any better explanation for the orderly & constructive progression of Nature than an intentional First Cause. Some deep thinkers, who pondered the process we now call "evolution", imagined a super-human Lawmaker, while others proposed a more abstract principle, such as LOGOS. As the articles below illustrate, it's not just little ole me that sees signs of directionality in the world's development, from a simple Singularity to the cosmic complexity we see today. And, sitting atop the pyramid of progress is the human brain, often described as "the most complex object in the universe. :nerd:


Natural Selection, Teleology, and the Logos: From Darwin to the Oxford Neo-Darwinists, 1859-1909 :
https://www.jstor.org/stable/301989

Why Teleology Isn't Dead :
Yet, as a recent spate of books by scientists suggests, science itself may have room for a new form of teleology, a new way to quantify and grasp a goal-driven directionality in nature, one more robust than the Aristotelian version, but one unafraid to acknowledge a progressive movement in the evolution of life toward consciousness.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfarrell/2016/06/08/why-teleology-isnt-dead/?sh=79f3c3a06d69

Teleological Notions in Biology :
The manifest appearance of function and purpose in living systems is responsible for the prevalence of apparently teleological explanations of organismic structure and behavior in biology.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/

The Santa Fe Institute is an independent, nonprofit theoretical research institute located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, United States and dedicated to the multidisciplinary study of the fundamental principles of complex adaptive systems, including physical, computational, biological, and social systems.

"There are few places in natural sciences where asking teleological questions is allowed: one is biology," writes SFI Professor Michael Lachmann."
https://www.santafe.edu/news-center/news/evolution-evolving-darwin-day-2021

that it is "absurd" to claim to know what cannot be known here and now. — 180 Proof

I agree that apocalyptic Prophets and commercial Crystal Ball Readers sometimes make absurd claims. But economic analysts and weather forecasters are more scientific in their methods. They don't claim to "know what can't be known". So, you shouldn't tar them with the same brush, as the psychics, whose predictions are all over the map. Philosophers, through the ages have mostly agreed that our world appears to be designed, and tried to guess the intentions of the designer. Their conjectures may prove wrong in the details, but agree on the general direction : upward. We now know that evolution began as a Planck-scale speck of Potential, and has produced an immeasurable Cosmos with billions of galaxies, and at least one planet with living & thinking organism. Is it absurd to conclude that something important is going on?

Anyway, the philosophical concept of Teleology is not about personal prospects or divine retribution, but about the rational inference of progression & purpose in evolution. That evolution is progressive is hard to deny. But the inference of Purpose is a debatable opinion. Simple erratic causation, like billiard balls bouncing around due to an earthquake is clearly accidental. But when those balls go straight into pockets, we may reasonably look around to see where the impetus came from. In the game of pool, the Prime Cause of that progression is obvious : the man with a stick, and a smile or frown on his face.

But in evolution, the stick-wielder is hidden behind a zillion solar cycles of misty Time. So the original imparter of momentum must be rationally inferred from our experience with causation-in-general. It's not absurd to assume that every chain of causation has an initial link (the Causal Agent), and a terminal link (The End). Aristotle labelled the Prime Mover as the "First Cause". But, he also noted that motion in a non-random direction must have an intentional impetus, which he defined as the "Final Cause". And if the chain makes upward progress from simple to complex, or from seed to tree, we can logically infer that the Prime Cause was not an accident, but intentional.

Hence, even if the future End State is unknown & possibly unknowable, we can deduce the general future trajectory of the causal chain, and logically label its final state the "Purpose" of the unknown Originator. That's the function of Reasoning : a> to fill gaps in knowledge ; b> to predict the future from past experience. Yet, such Prognostication is not an exact science -- it's merely an exercise in rational philosophical speculation. :cool:

Psychic Predictions :
Super Bowl LVI will be played on February 13th 2022, at SoFi Stadium (Cal. Predictions diverged, there was no unanimity amongst our psychics, mediums and ...

A philosophy of teleology sees purpose in ends rather than stated causes, making the outcome the actual, or "final" cause.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/teleology

The teleological argument is an argument in favor of theism. — SwampMan

It's true that in Mesopotamian & Mediterranean traditions, teleological arguments were produced by theologians to defend their belief in the invisible deity (Theism) variously defined by the Abrahamic lineage, of Hebrews, Jews, Christians, and Muslims. But other cultures have different definitions & arguments for their preferred imaginary Author of Reality. Most, if not all, of them assume some kind of creation event (First Cause), and some subsequent progression (evolution) of the creation toward some final resolution (teleology), for some divine reason that may be specified, or left to your imagination. However, there are a few minority belief systems that leave the definition of deity obscure, for lack of direct revelation.

One of those alternative models of reality is Deism, which is not a religion, but a philosophical worldview that observes order (non-randomness) & meaning (logic) in the world, then infers the necessity for a logical organizer of some kind (e.g. LOGOS) to impose order on chaos, and to create meaningful patterns in randomness. Although they observe a positive direction in evolution (complexity & self-organization), they have only limited scientific knowledge and imperfect human reasoning, from which to predict the future course of evolution. Since the Purpose and Final Goal of our contingent & temporary world is unknown, any speculation on destination would not technically be teleo- (end) logical, but mesia- (middle) logical : the view from the middle of the process. :smile:


Note -- for those who see no lawful order or meaningful direction in the physical world, attributions of intention & purpose would be literally Absurd. But such an illogical world would also make Science and Philosophy absurd.

"But, on the other hand, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.” ___Albert Einstein