Sy Borg wrote: ↑June 10th, 2022, 5:19 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 10th, 2022, 10:05 am
Sy Borg wrote: ↑June 7th, 2022, 5:06 pm
3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 7th, 2022, 8:48 am
With evolution, you have limitations to that theory (it's only a theory, and in the sense that it excludes the first species it only refers to an ensemble of creatures 'already' existing). And, if I remember correctly, even Darwin acquiesced to its limitations. Nevertheless, (you didn't respond to my query which in-turn may provide for more insight) I think you have a few concepts that we are working with here:
1. Emergence
2. Self-awareness
3. Volition
4. Intellect
5. Evolution of the will and sentience
6. The world as Will (propagation of the species through DNA/genetically coded design and other physical/metaphysical phenomena)
We've briefly touched on 1-5 ( and I welcome more discussion as it relates to the contrasting limitations of evolution), but 6 , I think, is the most glaring discrepancy. Essentially, 6 is that which Stephen Hawkins so infamously enunciated to the world of physics: :
"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? "
First, my interpretation to that metaphorical fire as it were, is the thing-in-itself called the metaphysical Will. Agree/disagree?
The points to consider of course, are consciousness, cosmology and a bit of Kantian/Schopenhauer metaphysics... . But, we can certainly exhaust those things that may relate to inert matter and evolution and whether things like feelings have evolved... .
The only weakness I see in evolutionary theory is that it starts with abiogenesis. I would have it start with the molecular clouds that form stars. That's when the organisation started that, in time, resulted in abiogenesis and subsequent life. The problem IMO is too much scientific siloing, although new fields like geobiology are emerging, which recognises the links between biology and geology, and the chemical changes that needed to occur to create conditions where abiogenesis can happen.
I think it's rather a jump to take Hawking's "fire in the equations" as being a metaphysical will. The equations did not exist in the pre-big bang universe, just waiting to be actualised. Matter and information being inextricably linked. If the matter is gone, then so is the information. Meanwhile, matter cannot avoid having a configuration.
Maybe your will is dark energy? Life's constant drive towards growth does rather echo dark energy's relentless expansion. We all tend to radiate outwards, physically and informationally.
SB!
You said that 'equations' didn't exist pre-BB right? In theory, what are you thinking existed pre-BB?
It does not matter what I think. I am just one more online random.
The most recent information is that before the big bang was space, replete with virtual particles appearing and immediately annihilating. Then one of them didn't annihilate. My guess is that this is far from the first, but it's just a guess.
Could you describe to me what you think equations are?
3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 10th, 2022, 10:05 amWhy is it, as you say, 'a jump' , to interpret Hawking's metaphor as basically the 'world as will'?
It's a jump because no one actually knows, including the late man from Kent with the American accent.
Theists have always inserted the God of the Gaps into the universe's mysteries and, as ever more mysteries have been determined to have natural causes, theists would shift the goalposts.
It appears that you have inserted a "Will of the Gaps" into what would rightly be seen as a black box problem. It's jumping to conclusions (a conclusion that one likes) where there is still only mystery and clues that physicists and cosmologists are trying to understand.
3017Metaphysician wrote: ↑June 10th, 2022, 10:05 amI think one distinction between a dark energy analogy to the metaphysical Will, is that we understand the will to be non-physical is its ability to cause physical things to happen. The simple example of thinking that I want to move my arm, then it moves, starts with the thought itself, the purpose and the desire to do so. The only similarity I can compare dark energy to would be the Will's unknown origins. Both do have a mysterious quality to them... .
I won't defend the idea that the expansiveness of dark energy being is behind the expansiveness of life. It's just intuition.
What about when your arm moves without your will? Most of what happens in our bodies is only tangentially connected to the will via food energy. Numerous cellular and microbial communities within us are simply leading their microbe-style lives and this drives so much of what our body (and mind) does.
SB!
Thanks for the questions. I think:
1. God of gaps takes on many forms of course (cosmological argument, ontological argument, and so on). But hey, that's just logic. What we are discussing here is something beyond simple a priori logic. In the biological world of things-in-themselves, we also have a naturally automated process of propagation at work. In our discussion, we have this sense of Will, that involves the design and construction of genetically coded existence, which, includes consciousness. One common theme there would be metaphysics.
To answer your question, one subjective-truth relative to Will is that it seems to be the cause of all human behavior. In that context, the feelings that create needs for purpose, happiness and the like in order to maintain one's life and make it worth living (otherwise one could choose to end their life if they are miserable enough...). That said, the Hawking's metaphor relates to something that not only causes the aforementioned things to occur, but causes the genetically coded information to come alive (consciousness from inert matter to animate energy forms that feel). That breath of fire, as he postulated, could be things like self-awareness, sentience and the Will. What else could it be? In other words, what causes things to continue to exist both objectively and subjectively?
2. Sure , one's arm can move involuntarily. One could certainly analogize to dream states where you have an uncontrolled stream of consciousness at work. Or, driving while daydreaming....otherwise just simply Being (Being associated with dynamic existence, not static).
3. Your math question is intriguing. You asked about the description of "equations", as you may also be intrigued about the nature of same. Well, there's much to unpack. "Equation's" themselves or mathematics seem paradoxical and logically impossible (how can math be both objective and metaphysical at the same time/an unchanging truth that describes a world of change, etc. etc.):
1. Math is objective
2. Math doesn't care what people thing about it (necessarily)
3. Math is metaphysical
4. Math is an unchanging truth
5. Math describes the universe
6. Math has no Darwinian survival advantages
7. Analytic propositions are the same (process of deduction/a priori) as the nature of Math.
