Cosmology: Latest theories of everything (Introduction)

by John Kalber, Thursday, July 27, 2017, 00:12 (2676 days ago) @ dhw

reblak: [...] it is the separate coming into being of the living, self-reproducing primeval organisms, the hitherto unthought-of even if the primaeval eye, ear, nose, lung, heart, penis, vagina, etc., that presents the problem. Darwin himself understood this, and so refrained from discussing such origins.” [...]
I (at least) am confidently aware of the natural and automatic way that Mother Nature performs these amazing acts of creativity. The simple proof of my explanation is the total absence of any other natural alternative! Chance – a mathematical concept – has little bearing on the works of Mother Nature.

“I have selected this particular statement as I think it epitomises the problem I have with your approach. As an agnostic, I cannot find a satisfactory explanation for the “amazing acts of creativity”. David attributes them to a sourceless supernatural being who consciously designs them. Most atheists I know attribute the original spark of creativity to unconscious chance. You attribute it to Mother Nature. But if Mother Nature is neither a conscious being nor chance, what is she? What do you mean by “natural and automatic”? Are you saying that life, consciousness, and the eye, ear, nose, lung etc. were the inevitable consequence of the existence of matter in which atoms combine, so they don’t need explaining? I would regard this theory as requiring just as much faith as belief in a god or in chance.”

Well now! Are you pulling my leg? Here I was thinking how well I had made my point. OK – OK. I’ll give it another go.

The laws of nature are spoken of as such simply to describe how all that we see around us came into being. Some see it as an act of God – others, like myself, believe that it is solely what I think of as nature. To describe this as being the work of nature is a virtually universal practice. All I am doing is giving the workings of the natural world a very common name, a euphemism – Mother Nature. For me this is a desirable ‘humanising’ of the abstract idea of nature, making for ease of expression when conveying abstract ideas.

It has absolutely nothing to do with faith – in the religious sense. For an atheist, faith means that, in the absence of absolute proof, we believe that the ideologies we accept, will indeed eventually lead to that absolute confirmation. This is the logical acceptance of rational expectation.

Many heroic people have endured years of unjust conviction and cruelty while imprisoned, sustained by faith in their ability to survive. That is not some mystic belief, simply real belief in their power to survive. So, when I say ‘Mother Nature’ did this or did that, or works like this (or that!), I refer to purely physical actions. The term Mother Nature (which I am quite certain you fully understood!) is a long term favourite of mine.

Chief among those actions is how Mother Nature deals with evolution. As I do not see any problem with “amazing acts of creativity”, I must assume that some extra degree of explanation will help.

Forgive me if I prove repetitious.

First off, Mother Nature has, of course, no ‘awareness. ‘She’ is simply the (euphemistic) character I have described.

So, the laws of physics determine the outcome of atomic activities. Let’s me be clear on this. ALL physical actions are the result of the engagement of atomic activity. Molecules, cells etc are complex structures and are themselves affected and altered either by the acquisition of atoms or other biological ‘structures’ created by simple atomic conjunction. Unless you favour some God or other, what other possible manner of creation can there be?

Mother Nature is not subject to any other kind of influence.Therefore, (surely ) any actions these forces of nature engage in must be automatic. If you don’t accept this you are obliged to call on some magical power or some enormously powerful natural intelligence. I have previously, at length, described how it simply must work, using a simple analogy such as the unquestionably automatic formation of water as base point example.

It is of no extra importance whether a single celled ‘being’ or the final addition to the most complex structure in a human brain is being formed, only the simplest possible (at this stage) atomic/molecular ‘addition’ can be made.

I don't see any rational alternative.

I quite expect that my theory will soon see the ‘scientific’ light of day, just explained in more accurate, more biologically correct scientific terms.

There’s faith for you!

As I may have already suggested, these ‘write ups’ take hours of typing, revising, struggling to be unambiguous, leaving me going to bed at insanely late hours (00.10 now), but I will find some web stuff you asked for.