philosophy of science: meaning and functions (Introduction)

by David Turell , Monday, September 03, 2018, 15:03 (2061 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: Furthermore, what does science have to say about the creators of function, such as humans? Since matter cannot create function, function creators cannot be reduced to matter.

dhw: What does “create function” mean? We humans are able to make materials function in a certain way, and we are able to analyse function in material things we have not created. We assume that matter cannot do its own analysing, but that does not mean matter doesn’t function independently of the human mind or of any other mind! There is a functioning balance between our planet and the rest of our solar system, and an atheist has as much right to believe that matter follows natural laws which do not require a creator as a theist has to believe in a mind that defies all scientific analysis.

The article discusses function and meaning from a medieval philosophic point of view:

"The core reason for the aimlessness is because the building blocks of science are inert. They are like Legos in a box. You cannot shake the box of Legos and expect a spaceship to fall out. In the same way, mathematical proof and physical evidence cannot explain their own reason for being. Science cannot explain meaning. At the same time, the very inability of science to speak for itself says something of interest.

"In medieval language this missing meaning is called function. Function cannot emerge from atoms in motion. It cannot emerge from shaking the Lego box. This claim can be proven mathematically. In information theory, function is a kind of mutual information. Mutual information is subject to the law of information non-increase, which means mutual information and thus function cannot be created by natural processes. Thus, without an organizing force, matter is functionless and void, and there is no meaning."

QUOTE: While it is true we cannot go from is to ought, intelligent design does provide a scientific basis for human ontological and pragmatic worth, as well as justify a natural law that must be followed in order for humanity to prosper.

dhw: It doesn’t and it doesn’t, unless you believe in a God who sets the universal criterion for “worth”, and says “humans are more valuable than x,y,z”. Science provides a basis for intelligent design, but intelligent design does not provide a basis for human arrogance. What does “prosper” mean? Get rich, destroy anything and everything that stands in the way of personal profit? There are different ways of “prospering”, and we know of no laws beyond those we make for ourselves.

Science sees laws laws of nature but does not recognize a source. Science finds the 'laws', not create them, and math principals that nature presents.

QUOTE: So, through the lens of intelligent design, science can indeed talk about the metaphysical realm of value and morals and explain the medieval worldview of function in the empirical language of modern science.

dhw: Value and morals are not the province of science, and woolly use of the word “function” provides no scientific basis for any scale of values or social codes.

DAVID’s comment: The material cannot create information. The information that runs the universe must have a mental source.

dhw: The material contains information which we humans analyse. Analysis requires a mental source. We can perhaps agree that the first cause is energy turning into materials, but it requires faith to believe that the energy knew what it was doing.

Ah, there is the difference in views. The presence of an organized universe with humans is highly suggestive that the energy was a mind that knew what it was doing.