Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Is 'genetic determinism' empirically valid, and is it essential to the "Modern Synth
Elmer
Member (Idle past 5904 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 42 of 49 (445392)
01-02-2008 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Modulous
01-01-2008 12:08 PM


Re: Trying to get some coherency
So yes, you are right that quantum physics may show that total determinism is not entirely correct at the scale of very small - but it is also the case that it might be that determinism is still in play at this level.
If you insist that Laplacian determinism be accepted as a given, then there is no point in further discussing the subject of this thread, or in fact any other idea or any other matter, since, thanks to determinism, there is nothing that any discussion can do about anything. Even though, ironically, we cannot stop uselessly discussing things because, like everything else we do, determinism forces us to do it anyway.
So here we are. I accept what quantum physicists say about quantum indeterminacy, i.e.; that it is a real, not an abstract, phenomenon. That it is an ontological fact, not just an epistemological, mathematical, notional construct. You, OTH, want to claim that the jury is still out on that one, and that until these scientists pile up sufficient 'proof' to satisfy your demands, quantum indeterminacy will remain speculative. Meanwhile, until quantum physics meets with your satisfaction, you, I, and all the world together, must stick with the mechanist determinism of pre-quantum mechanics,i.e. 17th-18th century materialist determinist mechanics. I must deny the postulate that is the basis for my thread--that reality, including biology, is not mechanically determined.
Now - since we are both unqualified to talk about quantum physics we should probably leave it well alone unless we don't mind the risk of looking like idiots.
We do not have to go into it far enough to make ourselves look like idiots. All we have to do is agree that, as per my citation in my previous post, quantum physics has disproven materialist determinism , and replaced that postulate with quantum indeterminacy.
Since you refuse to do that, rightly or wrongly, we have reached an impasse, an irreconcilable difference, and have nothing further to say to each other wrt evolution's proposed mechanism/s.
[qs] Whether or not some events occur with no prior cause is not relevant to the question at hand in this thread no matter how many exclamation marks you use:
quote:
It isn't simply "relevent", it is the very essence of the matter!!!!
Funny, now you are trying on some of your own sophistry. You quote me where I refer to quantum indeterminacy, at the end of my post, but try to make it appear that by "it" I am referring to the 'ex nihilo', which occupied the early part of my post. The 'ex nihilo' being a logical argument I challenged you to rebut, but which you do not even mention until this point, where it is falsely dragged in where it does not belong. 'QI' and the 'ex nihilo' are two separate arguments, as I'm sure you know.
The quotation marks are not offered as proof of relevency, but rather, my reaction to your absurd assertion that the validity of 19th century determinism, given QI, is irrelevent to the issue of whether or not genetic/biological determinism is valid , and still supports the RMNS hypothesis. No matter many exclamation marks come with my reaction to it, your assertion of irrelevency is still just as absurd as ever.
You assert that genetic determinism (the exclusive variety) is necessary for certain variants of evolutionary theory.
No, I do not assert that at all. I assert that 'determinism', [specifically gene-centric genetic/biological determinism], is necessary _to_ 'RMNS',--that is, the 'sine qua non', foundational causal mechanism that supposedly explains biological evolution in darwinian, i.e., materialist, terms.
I hope it is clear that this is evidently false
In my own terms, as above, it is true.
since it is simple enough to demonstrate that genetic determinism isn't essential to the simple theory of evolution.
If by "the simple theory of evolution [?!?]", you mean "RMNS" then provide this 'simple demonstration' that "RM" can be the 'mechanism' generates productive novel traits, but without relying upon/entailing mechanical determinism.
You go on to say that this is somehow affected by the fact that it might be impossible to determine the future from the present - but this part of your idea seems many steps ahead of the argument at this stage. So let's take things one step at a time.
Well, since 'this' proposition, {QI},is not "somehow affected by" determinism, but rather, itself affects whether or not it _is_ possible "to determine the future from the present" [determinism _ meaning, 'fix', 'establish', I assume?], is not "ahead of the argument at this stage", but rather, is the heart of the matter now, and at all stages, I suggest that we either deal with this step now, or, as above, simply agree to disagree and abandon our exchange.
Edited by Elmer, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Modulous, posted 01-01-2008 12:08 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Modulous, posted 01-02-2008 3:51 AM Elmer has not replied
 Message 44 by randman, posted 01-27-2008 8:48 PM Elmer has replied

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 5904 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 45 of 49 (451536)
01-27-2008 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by randman
01-27-2008 8:48 PM


Re: Trying to get some coherency
Hi randman. thanks. But unless quantum field theory and alocality are understood to confound Materialism's determinist realty/ontology, and that understanding is taken as a given--[and modulous refuses to do this], then determinism is indeterminate. Modulous wanted to continue the debate from the perspective that mechanical determinism could be assumed as a given. But this thread was begun on the understanding that it the "Aspect" experiments were irrefutable proof that space and time, and thus matter itself, were not what Materialism, and its determinism, had always held them to be. There is no way to debate this gainsaying of physics, since I have no real understanding of the science involved.
I had hoped that someone with an informed opinion on alocality might pick it up, but you are the first to respond since modulous assumed his metaphysical position If you have more and better knowledge of the phenomenon, perhaps you could expand on it for him and others who insist upon a determinist universe.
I would love to get a better grasp of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by randman, posted 01-27-2008 8:48 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by randman, posted 01-28-2008 12:03 AM Elmer has replied

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 5904 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 47 of 49 (451616)
01-28-2008 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by randman
01-28-2008 12:03 AM


Re: Trying to get some coherency
Hi randman;
Thanks for the link. What follows are merely my rambling speculations, made up 'ex tempore', just for fun. You can stop right here, or read as much of this daydreaming as suits you.
I would take from it [rightly or wrongly] that an original particle does not exist in space and time until some element of 'observation/perception' brings it into a meaningless, tentative, existence by bestowing temporal 'properties' upon it, [that is, creates a 'datum']. Same for another [gazillion?] particles/data brouight into existence in the same manner. Each distinct from any other, and hence meaningless, information free.
Vacuous, that is,until a simultaneous observation/perception of two or more such 'data bits' enables property/identity comparison, and that comparison,
a/creates meaning, significance, information, and b/ instills 'entanglement', that is instills a linkage/melding of properties/identities, that, as 'information/meaning/significance', lasts forever, i,e. for as long as it is, or can be, observed/perceived; anywhere, anytime, by any observer/perceiver. That is, data/property measurement is bounded and limited by time and space, but information [the property of entangled data], is not.
That means that the entire issue rest on the question of whether or not particles, hence atoms, hence molecules, hence systems, possess, 'in se', the ability to observe/perceive themselves endogenously, or is some other 'something' required that does the 'observing' that they cannot. That is, do these entities direct themselves, or does some 'third party'/element/power have to observe them, exogenously? The answer, IMO, depends upon whether 'particles' are uncreated and eternal, or not. Because if a particle is created, if it has a beginning, then it must either be its own creation, or the creation of something else.
Now it would seem to me to be irrational to claim that anything can create itself, 'ex nihilo, ab nihilo', i.e., out of nothingness, unassisted. Futher it would seem to me that anything built of and dependent upon such self-generating entities would be equally magical and random/indeterminate. From particles all the way along to ourselves and our own minds. That is, existence entire, reality per se, would have to be be irrational if every particle could perceive and be aware, for itself, of itself, by itself.
But we see a rational, at least partially predictable universe. Which suggest to me that particles are not that which observes particles. And the same for atoms and molecules and inanimate systems composed of them. But at some point systems of 'entangled' particles and interrelated molecules form observant, aware systems--biosystems, organisms. Perhaps these have become capable of 'channeling perception', i.e., observing data and creating new information by,through,and for the information already generated by the original incorporeal 'observer'. Like I say, just speculating, and not meaning to suggest that this uncreated, eternal, self-obsering observer, is 'god' in the standard religious understanding for that word.
Anyway, its only speculation, if you bothered to read this far.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by randman, posted 01-28-2008 12:03 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-28-2008 8:30 AM Elmer has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024