Entropy, life and teleology

[Neithan]

… but those winning numbers were not inevitable.

This or that life; there is something in common that makes it life; if it was inevitable then it was not random. That is a profound implication of teleology.

 

[Freddy]

… both those winning numbers were not inevitable.

This or that life; there is something in common that makes it life; if it was inevitable then it was not random. That is a profound implication of teleology.

We could be a planet of vaguely intelligent lizards. The fact that life arose somewhere at sometime is inevitable. So there we’d be as living proof of that. The fact that we would be rather stupid cold blooded reptillians as opposed to intelligent warm blooded mamals was an entirely random outcome.

But I appreciate that your beliefs cannot allow such a contention. I’m in the position of accepting that there may be a god so I can change my mind on teleology based on evidence produced. But I’m not sure that you have that luxury.

 

[Neithan]

The fact that life arose somewhere at sometime is inevitable

It’s not about this or that kind of life, this or that part of the universe. Life. Whatever it is essentially. That’s why I tried to use the most basic definition of life that astronomers go on to look for extraterrestrial life.

But I’m not sure that you have that luxury.

Sure, I do. I’m no less capable of allowing any contention than you are. Of changing my mind. Your commitment to materialism is rather stubborn as well, from where I stand. I am not basing anything on dogmas of faith. I am not assuming anything. The mind of the believer is capable of separating what is believed on faith from what is reasoned knowledge.

But, you keep bringing it up. Yes this is a Catholic forum but I do enjoy philosophical discussions, not only dogmatic ones. [If there is an assumption then I’m assuming our reasoning actually pertains to something real that we both experience: something that @lelinator does not believe (solipsism).]

 

[AlNg]

If everything is random chance

Natural selection is not random chance.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The fact that life arose somewhere at sometime is inevitable

It’s not about this or that kind of life, this or that part of the universe. Life. Whatever it is essentially. That’s why I tried to use the most basic definition of life that astronomers go on to look for extraterrestrial life.

I have no problem with that. The most basic of life is fine with me. I think it’s inevitable. Generally because of the size of the universe. If it can happen here then it must be able to happen anywhere where similar conditions occur. And the size of the universe, even discounting the fact that it’s probably infinite, means it’s inevitable. But what type of life is entirely a random outcome.

If it wasn’t then there’d be versions of us scattered throughout the cosmos.

We are one of the winners of the celestial lottery. A random event in the vastness of the cosmos. Nothing more than that. Which doesn’t make our existence meaningless and doesn’t mean each of us cannot find purpose in our lives. That it’s such a huge stroke of luck, we should ensure that we treat it with the utmost reverence. We should take advantage of it.

It’s like the guy that through an amazing sequences of random occurences escapes a tragedy with his life. Quite often people like that treat life as more important to them than they did prior to their lucky escape.

We got lucky as well. We should treat life a lot more importantly that we usually do because of that.

 

[Freddy]

But, you keep bringing it up. Yes this is a Catholic forum but I do enjoy philosophical discussions, not only dogmatic ones.

And I am enjoying this as well. But please believe me, this should not be taken as ‘I’m right therefore your faith is wrong’. Heaven forbid that I should argue against your religious beliefs let alone doubt them.

 

[lelinator]

I’m saying that order is not inevitable from disorder,

but the converse is true based on observable facts about physical laws: disorder is inevitable from order.

What may not be apparent at first, is that your second statement directly contradicts your first statement.

Saying that "Disorder is inevitable from order" directly contradicts the statement that "Order is not inevitable from disorder"

I know, this seems patently absurd, but let’s think about it a bit.

Your first statement, “Disorder is inevitable from order” is the equivalent to the second law of thermodynamics…“entropy always increases”.

Everything that you see around you…plants, and cars, and people, and stars…and well…everything, is the direct product of increasing entropy. What metaphysics, and teleology refer to as order is actually the product of increasing entropy, which you yourself refer to as inevitable.

According to physics, the universe immediately following the Big Bang was extremely ordered. It had very low entropy. And yet it contained no trees, and no stars, and not even any atoms. It was simply a quark soup. It was entropy, with it’s increasing disorder that actually brought everything else into existence.

And according to your own statement such increasing entropy is inevitable. Therefore, order, as the metaphysicist understands it, is inevitable. And thus it would seem that teleology mistakenly attributes a naturally occurring order to a supernatural cause, where no such cause is necessary.

 

[lelinator]

[If there is an assumption then I’m assuming our reasoning actually pertains to something real that we both experience: something that @lelinator does not believe (solipsism).]

You’ve slightly misrepresented my position. It’s not that I believe that reality isn’t objectively real, it’s just that I don’t simply assume that it’s objectively real. Other possibilities can’t simply be dismissed out of hand.

It seems as though I’m going to have to include a disclaimer every time I mention the fact that I’m a solipsist. Because it seems as though I’m constantly having to clarify that I’m an epistemological solipsist, not a metaphysical solipsist.

But then again, it’s always interesting to see what people will assume.

 

[Hume]

There is something rather than nothing, so entropy is not absolute, therefore life? That doesn’t engage or I’m missing your point.

The latter.

As to the original point, I was stating that entropy seems to be a rule of the universe. Energy and matter are distributing outward, we are steadily making our way to a universal energy level of just above 0 Kelvin.

But in the meantime, while energy persists, we find that other laws govern it aside from just entropy. Ergo we KNOW, indubitably, that entropy is not absolute. It is not mutually exclusive of other physical phenomena. Gravity exists, which gathers things together. Electromagnetism still exists, which sticks things together in various ways (don’t think magnets, think ionic and covalent chemical bonds).

“Because entropy exists, we can conclude…” …nothing other than entropy exists.

Energy exists, and the four fundamental forces describe how in basic ways; if there was no energy there would be no entropy.

Entropy is what eventually robs us of energy. It diffuses. When substances eventually cool to near 0 Kelvin, their electrons are practically sitting on their nuclei. The bonds holding complex matter together ceases.

There would be nothing physical.

Absent energy, all would be dark. But a super-cooled element still exists.

Granted, I didn’t finish a degree in it, but I’ve had the freshman and sophomore tiers of chem, bio and phys in my days at university. Is there some newish development I’m unaware of? Super-cooled matter vanishes?

We’re looking at this interaction of physical laws and asking how something like life, which is not a fundamental force, but something actually proceeding on free energy that increases in complexity over time.

Because, like everything else in the universe that preceded it for 10 billion years, the fundamental forces put it together. Life’s no different.

---

To the start, “there is something rather than nothing” -
First, we don’t know what “nothing” means. Not really. We’ve literally no frame of reference for it.
Second, we don’t know that “nothing” was an option. In a deterministic universe with physical laws, it’s not. What happened in the beginning happened. We don’t know how. We don’t really know much about it. Ergo saying that “it could have not happened” is just a guess with no base other than imagination. Even if the first recorded guess was in the 5th century BC, that guy was demonstrably wrong about a lot of stuff, smart as he indubitably was.

 

[Neithan]

We should treat life a lot more importantly that we usually do because of that.

Absolutely agree with this.

 

[Neithan]

Given the physical laws — the four fundamental forces — there is no necessary leap to life and evolution. It’s obviously possible, but immensely improbable. We can only say it was inevitable because it actually happened.

 

[Neithan]

Absent energy, all would be dark. But a super-cooled element still exists .

I meant there would be nothing physical for entropy to do: nothing would exist for the laws of thermodynamics to be measurable.

Life’s no different.

OK, that’s interesting. It’s one way of explaining it away: our perception of things is not true. Biology appears to be very different from simpler physics but if you believe there really is no distinction then that is an extremely reductionist position, but I can’t really argue against it. Some things are intuitive and accepted or not. Our present epistemology cannot explain it though. Or there would not be a paradox.

The latter.

Then again it still looks like you’re saying the former.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Given the physical laws — the four fundamental forces — there is no necessary leap to life and evolution. It’s obviously possible, but immensely improbable. We can only say it was inevitable because it actually happened.

Given the known mass for the W-boson (roughly 80 billion eV/c^2)it is very improbable to find a W-boson having a mass of, roughly, 150.000 eV/c^2. Yet the creation of a W-boson having a mass of roughly 150.000 eV/c2 is exactly what is needed for the process we call beta decay. For example when carbon-14 decays to nitrogen-14. A process I assume most people interested in this topic is somewhat familiar with.

 

[Neithan]

Beta decay is a consequence of the weak force.

While we’re on the subject, the materialist also does not explain the weak force. They just assume it as a brute fact. If you mean to do that with life, I see a pattern here.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Beta decay is a consequence of the weak force.

You are absolutely right. But I just wrote that.

While we’re on the subject, the materialist also does not explain the weak force. They just assume it as a brute fact. If you mean to do that with life, I see a pattern here.

What do you mean “does not explain the weak force”?
I just did.

 

[Neithan]

Does not account for how it exists. It just… does. Even though it could be otherwise, it is not. So I’m assuming that rather than trying to question it (because then that really does get into how there is anything rather than nothing).

What life shows us is that even with something there that works in fundamental ways as brute facts, there is still a missing explanation for the immense improbability of life, unless we also somehow assume that it was a necessary consequence and therefore not improbable. Eventually everything that materialism cannot explain is “brute.” Just there. That’s otherwise known as begging the question.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Does not account for how it exists. It just… does. Even though it could be otherwise, it is not. So I’m assuming that rather than trying to question it (because then that really does get into how there is anything rather than nothing).

Fundamental quantum physics explains the weak force pretty well. Why the quantum fields exist on the other hand, we have no idea.

What life shows us is that even with something there that works in fundamental ways as brute facts, there is still a missing explanation for the immense improbability of life, unless we also somehow assume that it was a necessary consequence and therefore not improbable. Eventually everything that materialism cannot explain is “brute.” Just there. That’s otherwise known as begging the question.

I just gave you an example from our immediate surroundings where something very, very improbable happens all the time. Looking at a single neutron in a atomic nuclei it is ridiculously improbable that it will decay through beta decay. But with the immense number of neutrons existing the improbale is quite common. Now, why would not other improbable things happen in the universe as well? Life being very improbable when looking a planet at a time. But there are a lot of planets.

 

[Neithan]

Fundamental quantum physics explains the weak force pretty well. Why the quantum fields exist on the other hand, we have no idea.

Interesting, I don’t know much about that. In any case, teleology is not limited to life, I just thought that was a good example of evidence where materialism does not account for improbability — given certain laws in place, which condition that improbability; quantum physics may be an even better example.

But with the immense number of neutrons existing the improbale is quite common. Now, why would not other improbable things happen in the universe as well? Life being very improbable when looking a planet at a time. But there are a lot of planets.

The question about teleology here is not avoided because something unlikely happened or how often it happens: in fact it’s exactly about how that immense improbability consistently works in order. Materialism has no explanation other than, that’s just what happens. Fine, for the fundamental forces, I thought, for the sake of argument. I’m glad you see that’s not satisfactory for them, either.

 

[EndTimes]

So how do we account for life?

We’re living and we see living organisms all around.

Darwinists cannot account for how Life came to Form from Non-Life.

DNA, for instance - has had them totally stumped.

Best to keep one’s Faith in Jesus

 

[Freddy]

Neithan:

So how do we account for life?

We’re living and we see living organisms all around.

Darwinists cannot account for how Life came to Form from Non-Life.

DNA, for instance - has had them totally stumped.

Best to keep one’s Faith in Jesus

[random caps lock on]

That’s abiogenesis You are Talking about, Not evolution. What has people Stumped is that so many People confuse the Two.

[/random caps lock off]