Cosmology: Inflation theory under attack part 3 (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, November 03, 2017, 14:34 (2576 days ago) @ John Kalber

reblak: Surely, in the absence of proof, any claims made, whether religious or not, can be degraded as ‘sourceless’!

I presume you are referring to my comment on your “in-built instructions” and “rules of engagement”. Yes, if you cannot identify a source, then it is sourceless, and your response below that the source of these instructions and rules is “known physical laws” is pure tautology!

reblak: In point of fact my claims are sourced in the only knowable entity. My conclusions [possibly illusions – I am most certainly not infallible!] have the quality of obedience to known physical laws and not the wholly invented capacities of an unproven, completely imaginary God or superbeing. That alone makes my ideas credible by comparison.

My focus throughout has been on the complexities of life. What known physical law automatically leads to life? It is no defence of your claim to say that God is unproven when your own hypothesis is also unproven. I am not asking you to believe in God. I am challenging the assumptions underlying your own faith. You then quote my post. The first point is as above. You tell us “how atomic particles combine by entirely natural processes” and continue: “H2O becomes water, a qualitative change that reflects new 'rules of engagement' that not only rule that configuration but set conditions governing whether and what type of future acquisitions can be made. This latter condition will probably at some point, become capable of engaging with other [system compliant] tiny organisms that may introduce the prospect of advance in the same or yet another direction.” This is an astonishing leap from inanimate water to living organisms! So let me ask again: what known physical law automatically leads from inorganic matter to living cells endowed with the ability to reproduce themselves and to respond consciously and actively to their environment?

The second point concerned your calling the universe “perfect”. Your reply is:
"My [contradictory?] remarks about nature being perfect were simply a recognition that my views are not known to be correct. I of course, feel completely certain they are right on the money! The ‘point’ of my comment is to counter the baseless idea that it is not perfect."

There are no criteria for the perfection or imperfection of the universe.'Perfect' is just as baseless as ‘imperfect’. Where is this meant to lead? It certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with your claims that blind, unconscious Mother Nature created everything automatically according to known laws. I’ll be happy to drop this "perfection" subject, though, as I simply don't see the point.

The third subject was my panpsychist hypothesis, and I asked you if it fitted in with your own – though I found yours confusing, especially with its unexplained distinction between awareness and consciousness.

reblak:In substance I agree your synopsis. I cannot see why you have such difficulty in ‘allowing’ the interaction of inorganic materials to qualify as the precursor of ‘awareness’. Something must - it hasn’t sprung, fully formed out of thin air!

My hypothesis does not treat the interaction as a precursor - it suggests that inorganic materials already have a rudimentary awareness which becomes enhanced through their interaction until they reach a point where they produce the first rudimentary forms of life. As I tried to make clear, however, even this rudimentary awareness is pure speculation, and the idea that it might become “intelligent” enough to create living, self-reproducing organisms is equally speculative. I would reverse your comment: I cannot see why you have such difficulty in recognizing that belief in such speculations has no basis in science and requires a leap of faith akin to that of belief in a God or belief in the blind, unconscious creative genius of ‘Mother Nature’. However, you continue as follows (edited):

reblak: The border between organic and inorganic material is crossed when a purely atomic ‘sense’ becomes [probably first in plant life] a chemical awareness. Were I able to cogently prove this I would be the most scientifically advanced human on Mother Earth!

I don’t want to haggle over the terms you use, because broadly speaking this fits in with my panpsychist hypothesis. The point I am making is that it IS only a hypothesis. It’s no use talking of “known physical laws” and automatic processes when we know of none that can account for any sort of awareness, any sort of life, any sort of reproduction.

Reblak: Quite how these properties formed is unknown, but form they have!

Precisely. Nobody is denying that life, reproduction and consciousness formed. How they formed is the whole point of this discussion. I have suggested that your hypothesis is based on faith in certain sourceless, unproven, perhaps even unprovable assumptions. I have the same objection to faith in a God, and to faith in chance. I appreciate your earlier acknowledgement of your fallibility, but if you say you could be wrong, and if you cannot provide any evidence - apart from your personal assumptions - that your explanations are correct, perhaps the dismissal of other people’s beliefs as “palpable nonsense” might be seen as a case of pots and kettles. Personally, I would avoid such terms, but I speak of course as an agnostic!