Entropy, life and teleology

[Neithan]

Materialists accept both entropy and evolution, but they deny teleology — any end or purpose in the universe of space, time, energy, and matter.

So how do we account for life? If everything is random chance, there is an evident distinction: Life is basically an ordered process to negative entropy. Evolution, in toto, is a constant demonstration of natural teleology: an organizing principle that continues to operate despite entropy.

Can this be metaphysically reconciled? Or does it force the materialist to be eliminativist about the theory of evolution? Or even “life” as a distinction generally? In other words, is evolution a “useful fiction” — or is life truly distinct from non-life — or is it evidence of teleology in the universe?

 

[ConstantineTheGreat]

I’m sorry, I think I know what your saying, but if I’m wrong please put it in to Layman’ terms. Are you asking if science and theology can co-exist? Like I believe Pope John Paul II said, " Science should prove our faith not destroy it" (roughly)

 

[rossum]

So how do we account for life? If everything is random chance, there is an evident distinction: Life is basically an ordered process to negative entropy.

Everything is not “random chance”. For example, gravity is not random chance, we can calculate the orbits of planets, they do not move at random. Chemistry is not “random chance”, there is a lot more H2O than HO2 in the universe. That is not chance.

Yes, life is a process which, given an energy (name removed by moderator)ut, can reduce entropy locally while increasing entropy elsewhere. Overall in the universe entropy will increase, as it has to, while locally it decreases. The decrease is always less then the increase.

Evolution, in toto , is a constant demonstration of natural teleology: an organizing principle that continues to operate despite entropy.

The laws of Thermodynamics apply all the time. Entropy does not have to increase everywhere; it is just that any local decrease must be balanced by a larger increase somewhere else.

Whenever ice forms from water the ice has less entropy (i.e. disorder) then the water from which it was formed. The heat that left the water to cool it causes a larger increase in entropy elsewhere. Ice forming gives a temporary local decrease in entropy. Life also gives a temporary local decrease in entropy. Temporary local decreases in entropy are neither strange nor difficult.

 

[Neithan]

This is more of a critique of a materialist view of the universe, rather than comparing science and theology.

Teleology is the classical idea of “final causes” or purpose in nature, which modern science ignores, and most people who think we can reduce everything to physical things that science can study are committed to belief that everything is ultimately a product of blind chance.

 

[Neithan]

Everything is not “random chance”.

I agree, but materialism ultimately appeals to this, and there is no final cause.

Life also gives a temporary local decrease in entropy. Temporary local decreases in entropy are neither strange nor difficult.

It seems that it’s more than a decrease, but actually negative entropy. If you can define life from a temporary local decrease in entropy, then you can see the distinction, and the deficiency in explanatory power for random materialism.

Otherwise you’re explaining away life as “neither strange nor difficult” —?

 

[Freddy]

This is more of a critique of a materialist view of the universe, rather than comparing science and theology.

Teleology is the classical idea of “final causes” or purpose in nature, which modern science ignores, and most people who think we can reduce everything to physical things that science can study are committed to belief that everything is ultimately a product of blind chance.

I think you’ll find that some people class teleology as simple purpose as opposed to ultimate or final purpose. I’ve had some claim that walking to the fidge to get a beer is an example of teleology. Go figure.

I guess if the ultimate purpose in life is to drink beer, they may have a point. But this is one area where, as opposed to evolution perhaps whereby you could be religious or atheist and still hold the same views, teleology appears to me to be based on a belief in God. That is, if you believe in God then there must be a purpose. Why else create us?

And the flip side being - if there is no God, what sense does it even make to ask what purpose there may be.

We all have individual purpose; look after our family, educate ourselves, try to reduce suffering in the world perhaps. Get another beer. But ultimate purpose?

I’m just reminded of Sagan’s words: that we are all just star stuff. Just bits of the universe that have gained the ability to realise that we are…just bits of the universe. And that we shall return to it. Just a part of the natural cycle.

 

[Neithan]

And the flip side being - if there is no God, what sense does it even make to ask what purpose there may be.

If it comes down to it: because I want to know. If anyone else is interested, then there are two people who want to know. So on and so forth.

Sagan was a true pagan. But entropy suggests there is no cycle. Just emptiness eventually.

If there is evidence of teleology, it is interesting to explore that and would also be an inherent counterweight to nihilism at least for our self-contained individual lives.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And the flip side being - if there is no God, what sense does it even make to ask what purpose there may be.

If it comes down to it: because I want to know. If anyone else is interested, then there are two people who want to know. So on and so forth.

Sagan was a true pagan. But entropy suggests there is no cycle. Just emptiness eventually.

If there is evidence of teleology, it is interesting to explore that and would also be an inherent counterweight to nihilism at least for our self-contained individual lives.

A true pagan. I think he’d like that. Maybe I should have ‘Here Lies A True Pagan’ on my headstone. I’ll run it past my wife.

But yes, I agree with you up to a point. I’m not sure that the opposite of teleology is nihilism. Nihilism suggests that life has no meaning. Which is not the same as it having no purpose. My life has meaning to me (and to those close to me). But it has no ultimate purpose. I see no contradiction in holding those two views.

But if it was shown that there was an ultimate purpose then for the life of me I cannot see how that could be arrived at without concluding that there was indeed a God. The two appear to me to be irroconcilably intertwined.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The two appear to me to be irroconcilably intertwined.

Why don’t you see reproduction as an ultimate purpose?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The two appear to me to be irroconcilably intertwined.

Why don’t you see reproduction as an ultimate purpose?

It’s an immediate purpose. None of us have kids to fullfill some ultimate destiny. It’s no more than a means to continue the genetic information we each posses. Which I sincerely hope you are not going to turn into a depressingly familiar ‘So that’s all your children mean to you?’

 

[1Lord1Faith]

It’s an immediate purpose.

It is for the individual. But I can certainly see beyond my initial shortsightedness regarding reproduction. Without it there is no continuation of life. So why wouldn’t reproduction be considered an, or the, ultimate purpose of life?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

It’s an immediate purpose.

It is for the individual. But I can certainly see beyond my initial shortsightedness regarding reproduction. Without it there is no continuation of life. So why wouldn’t reproduction be considered an, or the, ultimate purpose of life?

It can’t be ‘an ultimate purpose’. There can only be one. And if you want to class reproduction as the ultimate purpose then you have an answer. One with which I tend to agree as per my last post.

I didn’t expect agreement so soon…

 

[1Lord1Faith]

And if you want to class reproduction as the ultimate purpose then you have an answer.

That would depend on what we mean by ‘life’. If it’s purely physical life I might entertain that as the ultimate purpose, but it would be difficult to say the intellect is purely physical. It would also be difficult to ignore all of the worldwide religions across millennia that have believed in life after death. And if I believe that people have an immortal soul, and that is also life, then the ultimate purpose of life being reproduction wouldn’t work. So, is life after death considered life? Is an immortal soul a different kind of life, one that isn’t subject to entropy?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And if you want to class reproduction as the ultimate purpose then you have an answer.

That would depend on what we mean by ‘life’. If it’s purely physical life I might entertain that as the ultimate purpose, but it would be difficult to say the intellect is purely physical. It would also be difficult to ignore all of the worldwide religions across millennia that have believed in life after death. And if I believe that people have an immortal soul, and that is also life, then the ultimate purpose of life being reproduction wouldn’t work. So, is life after death considered life? Is an immortal soul a different kind of life, one that isn’t subject to entropy?

If there were to be life after death then I’d assume you’d consider that as part of the concept for there being a God. And if there was a God, then He would have created us and therefore there must be an ulimate purpose.

So if you believe in an afterlife then you would consequently believe there to be a purpose.

There’s something of the chicken and egg paradox inherrent in that as well. Does one come to the conclusion that there is purpose and then realise there must be a God? Or does one accept that there must be a purpose if one believes in God? And vica versa in my case.

 

[Beryllos]

But entropy suggests there is no cycle. Just emptiness eventually.

Entropy more than suggests it. Did you think that the universe would go on forever?

Let’s assume that there is no cycle. The stars do not shine forever. Someday matter will cease to live, reproduce, and evolve.

Therefore the ultimate purpose cannot be life, reproduction, or evolution. We must look elsewhere for that purpose.

 

[GEddie]

Life does not contradict entropy.

Life provides islands of reduced entropy (such as our bodies,) but these are maintained but exuding a greater amount of entropy from them (carbonic acid, metabolic wastes, dead skin cells.). And when life has failed, the former low-entropy island (dead body) i s itself a source of entropy.

The increase of entropy is maintained, not negated, by life.

ICXC NIKA

 

[rossum]

This is more of a critique of a materialist view of the universe, rather than comparing science and theology.

Teleology is the classical idea of “final causes” or purpose in nature, which modern science ignores, and most people who think we can reduce everything to physical things that science can study are committed to belief that everything is ultimately a product of blind chance.

In that case you are more in the realm of philosophy than of science. Science defines the universe as the material universe that started at the Big Bang. For philosophy I use a different definition, “All that exists” (ATE). Using that philosophical definition then the universe cannot have an external cause. Anything external to the ATE universe does not exist, by definition. For example, any existing God is part of the ATE universe and so cannot be an external cause of that universe.

If any component of the ATE universe is eternal, then that universe must be eternal. If it is eternal than it has neither beginning nor cause and all teleology is moot at that level. Individual parts of the ATE universe might be caused and there may be some teleology applicable to those individual parts: a bottle opener is for opening bottles, but that only applies to specific parts.

 

[Neithan]

Not the effect of life, but life itself, and the process of perpetuating itself in increasing complexity, is distinct from entropy.

 

[Neithan]

Individual parts of the ATE universe might be caused and there may be some teleology applicable to those individual parts: a bottle opener is for opening bottles, but that only applies to specific parts.

Aside from begging the question about God, I’m guessing you’re not a materialist anyway, are you? If you don’t insist on reducing everything to random space, time, energy, and matter then this critique will fall flat for you.

 

[rossum]

Aside from begging the question about God, I’m guessing you’re not a materialist anyway, are you?

You are right, I am Buddhist.