Cosmology: Latest theories of everything (Introduction)

by John Kalber, Wednesday, August 16, 2017, 12:45 (2655 days ago) @ dhw

2-8-17 Dhw said: “You have now moved to the mechanics of evolution itself and abandoned the problem of the origin of life and its mechanisms as if it’s enough to say we don’t know what it is and that proves it must be automatic. I agree that evolution proceeds by additions (increased complexity, as in totally new organs) and I would add rearrangements (as in adaptations, and in existing structures changing their function: e.g. fins to legs), but I see all these as requiring intelligence, perhaps seated in the cell itself, which combines – as you say – with other living cells to create the vast variety. (Intelligence is not synonymous with success, of course. Hence extinctions.) However, even this hypothesis would not solve the mystery of the origin of the intelligent cell.”
I have ‘abandoned’ no enquiry, nor any field we have discussed. The necessarily limited space is still a problem for me. So I will cherry pick!
1) “...as if it’s enough to say we don’t know what it is and that proves it must be automatic...
For so long as the secret of life remains undiscovered, we can only surmise. No help is presently gained by appealing to logic (atheism), praying to a God or sitting (like Humpty Dumpty), precariously balanced on a wall (fence).
You call upon me to accept that my atheism is an irrational faith and therefore carries no greater authority than pretty well any other faith, in that all ‘faith’ is irrational. I am at a loss trying to make sense of this. It has hitherto been my understanding that any belief that results entirely logically from known facts is a rational belief, while beliefs not so founded may well be irrational.
I have no difficulty in viewing both my adoption of atheism and my belief in the absolute perfection of the universe as prime examples of rational belief (yes, yes, belief!) Both views employ only known facts in support of their proven efficacy in understanding and solving problems. To define them as irrational, simply because they cannot (yet) explain how life has appeared, or to disparage them as vehicles for rational thought seems itself irrational – In Spades!
Challenging me by asking me to show how life can be created, as if my inability to do so were some criterion of the value of my thoughts, of atheism, or some sort of proof that logical explanation is not possible, does not advance my understanding. This ‘failure’ has bedevilled all thinkers since time immemorial. Does that mean that the thoughts of many great and original minds are all irrational?
Atheism, by definition, proposes that in seeking to understand the workings of nature conclusions should be drawn on the basis of known fact. Religion relies entirely on some superpower whose behaviour cannot be properly understood by man. This mythology, lacking any physical explanation, endows the putative God with magical powers (ad nauseam) but excludes any questioning or proof. The Agnostic sees merit on both sides but is convinced by neither.
Dhw suggests that a degree of awareness may exist in cells. My view is similar, but I propose that all the cells inherit awareness from much earlier – i.e. day one!
In parallel with my realisation that evolution has progressed by the automatic process of accumulating only atoms that were compatible, came my understanding that this action of itself constituted subatomic awareness. Eventually, with an advancing biology, came chemical awareness. All organisms are chemically aware, but it seems only mobile life has conscious awareness.
David says that biology “Does not work by adding atoms.”
Sorry, David – nothing can form without this process. I respect your authority in explaining the complexities of cellular evolution, but in creating complex parts, previously formed bits and pieces (I am no biologist!) are required. I cover this by pointing out that the initial process becomes infinitely more complex over time. Even in highly advanced life forms, gradual change applies, refining additions.
A point is reached when DNA etc. has almost total control but can be influenced by external forces which can rearrange things so that a new species may be formed or cause dreadful damage. However, this is highly controversial and not being discussed here.
I entirely agree that the successful advances in biology require some measure of intelligent direction. This is provided, right from the outset by the nature of physics. As I have made so plain, there are a lot of things that can, or cannot happen when Mother Nature gets to work.
I do not attempt correct scientific wording in my posts. I don’t think it makes a jot of difference in understanding the logic that I suggest as a reasonable and rational way to understand that nature can, really and actually ‘do the business’ without the aid of some mysterious ‘supervisor’ poking his invisible, frankly unbelievable, nose in!
Mother Nature didn’t need it, so - just how does having ‘directed intelligence’ magically solve this problem? It doesn’t!