Cosmology: Latest theories of everything (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, July 27, 2017, 10:59 (2676 days ago) @ John Kalber

Thank you, reblak, for your detailed response. I am going to cherrypick and juxtapose a few quotes in order to explain the problem that I have with your theory. I appreciate how time-consuming this is. I also spend far more time than I should on these discussions, but I also learn a great deal from them, and so perhaps you will contribute to the hoped-for enlightenment, and perhaps the rest of us might even give you something new to think about as well.

reblak: 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.

So all that we see is the product of Nature, which is impersonal, unconscious, and acts automatically. No problem with the definition of Nature.

reblak: 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.

You believe that your ideology is correct. So does a theist. Your irreligious faith is that life is the product of an impersonal, unconscious force. Again no problem of definition.

Reblak: 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.

This is where the alarm bells ring for me, because I do have a problem with “amazing acts of creativity”. While adhering to my agnosticism for very different reasons, I am acutely aware of and mystified by the complexities of living things. However, I also accept the following:

reblak: 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?

The fact that all organisms are composed of tiny pieces added to and interacting with one another does not help me to understand how they are able to reproduce, to evolve, to acquire consciousness or, in our case, an extreme form of self-awareness. Even we, with our extraordinary intelligence, have so far been unable to put atoms together and create a living being that combines all these attributes. If we do one day succeed, that will hardly prove that an intelligent mind is not needed! And this leads to your next point:

reblak: 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.

Absolutely right. If Nature is unconscious and automatic and Nature produced life, then the complexities of life have been produced unconsciously and automatically. But that is your faith. And if someone rejects your faith, he must believe in some kind of God. And that will be his faith. See my summary below.

reblak: 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.

Yes, the process entails the addition of atoms/molecules, but the fact that you believe the process is unconscious and automatic is totally separate from the fact that complexity arises out of additions.

reblak: I don’t see any rational alternative.

To sum it up: there are two possibilities (I’ll ignore my own panpsychist alternative). 1. The complexities of life came about through an unconscious (natural) process of combining atoms. But even we highly intelligent humans are not yet able to understand or reproduce this process, and if we could, that would be the result of genius-scale intelligence and not of unconscious natural processes. Belief in the creative genius of unconsciousness requires faith. 2. The complexities of life came about through a conscious mind combining atoms. But belief in an unseen, sourceless conscious mind so vast and powerful that it can create a universe etc. etc. (I needn’t preach to an atheist) requires faith.

I see both possibilities as requiring irrational faith. That is why I remain an agnostic.