Cosmology: Latest theories of everything (Introduction)

by John Kalber, Tuesday, August 01, 2017, 17:31 (2670 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: 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. I see both possibilities as requiring irrational faith.<<

Well now – and there I was thinking my ‘explanation’ could hardly be clearer nor more factually supported! Like it or not, awareness - of some sort - comes with the package!
A faith - relying upon established fact may well be wrong - it cannot possibly be ‘irrational’!
To exist at all, life must be a composite of several elements. These must include reproduction and a measure of ‘contact’ control ('rules of engagement') that itself probably constitutes the most primitive possible level of awareness. There is nothing we know of that can explain how life came about. This ‘absence’ gives no credence to engaging some sort of magic (God) as being the solution. Magic simply begs the question.
By a process of simple atomic acquisition, much as in my H2O example – (evolution is an inherent feature of nature and includes inorganic materials), these basic facilities mark life as a survivor. That is, to me an ‘unarguable’ fact, though the actual process I have suggested is not! The fact is – however you choose to describe it - that this process is and must be an automatic function created either by Mother Nature – or maybe, like atomic energy, is a fundamental physical reality. I do not believe life fits in this idea (first mooted by Sir Fred Hoyle).
Here is where the formative processes of sensation began. I ‘know’ this because there’s simply no other rational conclusion. They must have a start and this was it. To create an offspring demands extra energy and materials, so whatever passes as food (probably sunlight) must be absorbed. These functions must also be part and parcel of initial life or it could not survive.
It seems certain that the first organisms were botanical sea-life. Initially a very simple floating being, individuals began, by making slightly different ‘additions’ to follow paths that each led to a different outcome.
Mobility, albeit limited to floating on currents, opened wide many doors and presented possibilities that had huge potential and happened to make sense of acquired ‘additions’. Many of these would lead nowhere, but eventually ...
These developments were entirely automatic at each and every stage. A false step was actually as likely as a progressive one and led nowhere. A false step results in death or stagnation. Along the way, an organism becomes complex and its different parts become partially independent in their property of acquisition, but only if their actions are acceptable under the 'rules of engagement'. Thus may be acquired some useless but ‘tolerable’ extra something. In this instance the useless ‘part’, simply by its presence in the scheme of things closes down or diverts energy away from a useful direction.
It is well established that observation can lead to conclusions that are later verified. Mendel’s work is a prime example. He conducted experiments to prove already formulated intellectual conclusions as well as improving his ability to correctly forecast actual complex results.
I maintain that in acts of comprehension, the final absolute certainty of the truth of a matter may not need (and may never get) a total confirmation. Analogy again: a nut on a thread can travel only in a circular motion and – automatically – cause either up or down movement along the thread. Unless a correct thread is available the function of the nut is restricted by its nature in pursuit of any other function.
It may not find one: it will atrophy or be discarded. We can know for certain only that at the end of the thread the nut will cease to turn, fall off, return or stop. If we can discover the reason for the existence of the nut and bolt, a correct conclusion may be drawn. Without positive information concerning the purpose of this mechanism, no useful conclusion can be drawn.
This example typifies the case. You may ask what prompted the existence of the nut and thread in the first place and which came first, etc. The answer is – neither!
First came a nebulous need by a newly acquired ‘addition’. Here may I remind you that atoms automatically attract others. This attraction is itself a basic lead to awareness! In attracting other atoms a foundation is created. This will attract any additions that are acceptable under the 'rules of engagement'. Each such addition will amend these rules and determine the limits of possible outcomes.
Almost certainly, ‘awareness’ at this level is an atomic/chemical effect. In my H2O example, this form of atomic awareness changes the individual structures to operate favourably with each other. Such engagement, entailing this new effect, is a form of awareness of their attachment. This is a new ‘state’ of being and this ‘effect’ is what will, eventually, allow a development into conscious awareness.
More follows.